The Boise School District went public — and went on the offensive — with its responses on the sexual abuse settlements announced last week.

On Friday, the district took the unusual step of releasing all of its answers to media questions about the $7 million settlements. (You can read them all here, in full, below.)

Many responses go into deeper details on the effects on the district’s budget — and why Boise’s insurance company will pay only $2 million on the settlements and leave the district and taxpayers on the hook for the remaining $5 million. (Click here for our followup story from Thursday for a closer look.)

In the responses — co-signed by Superintendent Lisa Roberts and school board Chairman Dave Wagers — the district downplays the claims filed against the district.

“The claims filed are not indicative of a systemic problem,” Roberts and Wagers said. “Many of the tort claims appear to stem from coordinated efforts involving a small group of attorneys and a former employee.”

The mention of a “former employee” appears to be a reference to Laura Boulton, a former Timberline High School teacher who was suspended in 2023, reached a $400,000 settlement with the district in 2024, and filed a $500,000 tort claim against the district in May. Boulton says she was banned from Boise district public events after she attended a parents’ meeting regarding Gavin Snow, the former special education assistant at the epicenter of the sexual abuse tort claims and settlements. Snow died by suicide in January as Boise police attempted to arrest him on child sexual abuse charges.

The district also went on the offensive against Marianne Baker, a former employee who filed a tort claim against the district earlier this month. Baker, a former Valley View Elementary School teacher, says she was placed on leave and forced to resign after filing a report against Snow. The district denied Baker’s allegations — and in a public response, cited an Idaho News 6 report that says Baker faces a misdemeanor charge of failing to report abuse or neglect at Valley View.

Here, in full, are the district’s responses:

1. Funding & Budget Questions

Question: Is the Plant Facilities Fund the official name for the district’s facility maintenance fund?

Response: Yes. The Plant Facilities Fund is the district’s official fund used for facility maintenance. For example, routine facility upkeep, painting, etc.

Question: Why did the district decide to use funds from its maintenance budget to pay for the settlement agreements?

Response: The district is required to pay its portion of the settlement agreements. To meet that obligation without impacting classroom instruction, student programs, or staffing, we redirected a portion of the planned annual transfer from the General Fund to the Plant Facilities Fund.

Technically, the settlement payments are being made from General Fund resources that were originally budgeted for transfer to the Plant Facilities Fund. As a result, the district will transfer $3,000,000 this year instead of the originally planned $7,357,000. This approach allows us to fulfill the settlement requirements while preserving day-to-day educational operations.

Question: How much money is the district using from its facility maintenance fund (of the $5 million total the district is paying), and are there other funding sources the District is using to pay the settlement agreements?

Response: Of the district’s $5 million responsibility, we are reducing the FY26 budgeted transfer to the Plant Facilities Fund by $4,357,000. The remaining amount will be covered by available year-end fund balances. No instructional or personnel budgets are being reduced.

Question: How much money does the district direct to its maintenance fund each year? What projects would that money have gone toward, and how will the district adjust its facilities plans now?

Response: The amount directed to the Plant Facilities Fund varies each year depending on budget conditions and district priorities. These funds typically support routine upkeep and scheduled building improvements. With this year’s reduced transfer, the district will adjust by postponing select lower-priority projects — such as planned refresh work or non-urgent updates — while continuing to support regular school operations.

Question: Where does the money in the maintenance fund come from? Is any of it from the state facilities bill passed last year?

Response: None of the funding in the Plant Facilities Fund comes from the state facilities bill. The only current revenue source for the Plant Facilities Fund is the annual transfer from the General Fund. Each year, the board approves a $3,000,000 transfer tied to the voter-approved supplemental levy passed in 1988. Additional transfers from the General Fund may be authorized by the board depending on facility needs and available year-end fund balance.

Question: Has the district in the past used its facility maintenance funds to pay settlements like this?

Response: No. To the best of our knowledge, our district has not encountered a situation like this in the past. To clarify, we are not using existing facility maintenance funds to pay the settlements. The payments are being made from the General Fund, which in turn reduces the amount the district is able to transfer into the Plant Facilities Fund this year.

2. Insurance Coverage Questions

Question: Does the district’s insurance coverage explain why insurance is covering only $2 million in this case?

Response: The district’s insurer has determined that its liability for this matter is capped at $2 million. We can confirm that our insurance carrier’s maximum contribution for these claims is $2 million.

Question: Is the $1.2 million for property and liability insurance connected to these settlements? Did liability premiums go up as a result of the tort claims filed since March?

Response: The $1.2 million in property and liability insurance costs is not connected to the recent tort claims or settlements, and our premiums did not increase as a result of those specific claims. Property and liability insurance costs have been rising steadily since 2020 across Idaho and nationally due to factors such as increasing property values and significant increases in reinsurance costs for carriers.

This trend has impacted many school districts and public entities throughout the state.

I also want to clarify an important distinction that may be helpful to correct or update in your article. Moreton & Company is our insurance broker, not our insurance carrier. Their role is to represent the Boise School District and secure high-quality coverage at the most competitive rates.

At the time the recent claims were filed, our insurance carrier was ICRIMP (Idaho Counties Risk Management Program). As insurance costs continued to rise statewide, Moreton & Company determined it was appropriate to go out to bid for the entire group of districts they represent. They conducted a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) process, as required by law, and selected a new carrier — Obsidian Specialty Insurance.

This change in carriers and the cost increases associated with property and liability insurance were driven by market conditions and the group-wide RFP process, not by the specific tort claims filed since March.

3. Legal and Settlement Process Questions

Question: Does this settle all tort claims against the district involving Gavin Snow? Are any other cases still open?

Response: With the exception of the tort claim recently filed by Laura Bolton (sic) on behalf of Marianne Baker, all outstanding tort claims are covered under the conditions outlined in our statement.

Question: Does this close the lawsuit previously filed by Valley View parents?

Response: Yes, it does. According to our attorney, that case will be dismissed within the next few days.

Question: Is the tort claim from last week, from Marianne Baker, still open?

Response: Ms. Baker’s tort claim is separate and remains open. On a related note, according to media reports, Ms. Baker is facing criminal charges.

Question: Can you confirm the settlement amounts and what has been approved by the court?

Response: Yes. One agreement approved by the court is for $2,777,000.00. The combined total for the seven settlements is $7 million, leaving the remaining six agreements totaling approximately $4.22 million.

Each settlement must be approved by the court before funds are distributed. To date, one agreement has been approved. The district will release the settlement amounts only as the court approves the subsequent settlements.

Further, the settlement agreement documents and information contained within those documents are not public records. See Cowles Publ’g Co. v. Kootenai Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 144 Idaho 259, 265, 159 P.3d 896 (2007); see also Idaho Code § 74-107(11).

Question: Will the settlement affect what is available for maintenance or cause project delays?

Response: The Plant Facilities Fund ended FY2025 with a balance of $15,759,843. That balance — along with the $3 million transfer from the General Fund — is fully committed to ongoing and planned facilities and maintenance needs across the district.

We have prioritized projects that require immediate attention, and those projects will continue as scheduled. Because the remaining balance is fully allocated to existing commitments, the district will not add new projects during the 2025–26 school year. This approach ensures we can meet all current obligations without compromising essential maintenance or the safe operation of our buildings.

The settlement does not change the district’s commitment to maintaining its facilities; it simply means we will hold off on initiating additional projects until funding becomes available in a future budget cycle.

4. Board Role and District Communication

Question: What is the Board’s role in these tort claims, and how does it plan to address the issues moving forward?

Response: The Boise School Board’s role in tort claims is to receive general updates from the administration and legal counsel, who manage these matters in accordance with Idaho law and the Idaho Tort Claims Act. The Board is not involved in the investigation or adjudication of individual claims, nor does it comment on pending legal matters, as a general practice.

Regarding your question about whether this represents a systemic issue: The answer is no, the claims filed are not indicative of a systemic problem. Many of the tort claims appear to stem from coordinated efforts involving a small group of attorneys and a former employee.

As a large organization serving thousands of students and staff, the submission of tort claims is not unusual. We constantly work to maintain strong policies, review practices regularly, and ensure safe and healthy school environments.

We also communicate regularly and proactively with parents, staff, and community members on matters related to safety and district operations. This includes district-wide newsletters, statements, and updates on the District’s website — as well as school-level communications when incidents affect specific communities.

Since May, the district has responded to more than 50 public records requests related to tort claims and other matters.

We remain committed to open, transparent communication while protecting student and employee privacy and the integrity of ongoing investigations or legal processes.