Former Sweetwater County School District No. 1 Trustee Dr. Cole Seppie has publicly addressed the board’s recent censure, asserting that he was unfairly targeted and denied access to key investigative information.
His response follows growing tensions between him and district officials over alleged violations, professional conduct, and concerns related to the district’s SPED Program.
Dr. Seppie Rejects Censure and Claims Retaliation
Board Censure After Resignation
The school board issued a public censure shortly after Dr. Seppie’s October 28 resignation, claiming he breached the Family Education Protection and Rights Act (FERPA) and exceeded his authority as a trustee. Dr. Seppie, however, maintains that his actions were always in support of students, teachers, and district staff.
Claims of Withheld Information
According to Dr. Seppie, he first learned of a complaint on February 29, when he met with Board Chairman Cole Wright and Superintendent Joseph Libby. He said he apologized for any misunderstandings and even offered to speak directly with those who felt offended. However, he alleges officials refused to provide him with details of the complaint, citing “anonymous” and “confidential” restrictions.
He states he repeatedly asked for clarification so he could defend himself, but was denied access to any information about the accusations.
Concerns Over Investigative Process
Alleged Policy Violations During Investigation
Dr. Seppie argues the district did not follow its own board-member complaint policies. After consulting with legal counsel, he declined to participate in the investigation because he felt he lacked sufficient information to respond effectively.
He claims he was warned that if he refused the interview, the investigator would treat the accuser’s statements as fact.
Delayed and Disputed Findings
Five months later, Dr. Seppie received the investigation’s findings. He says the report included several inaccurate or unproven claims, including accusations of bullying, improper election motivations, and solicitation of negative feedback from SPED staff.
He noted that a claim about spending three hours in a school building was unsupported, particularly since the district said related security footage could not be retrieved.
Dr. Seppie Defends His Actions as Engagement, Not Micromanagement
Visits to Schools and Staff Interaction
Dr. Seppie emphasized that he regularly engaged with educators, support staff, and administrators across district campuses. He said his goal was to become a well-informed board member capable of making decisions that benefit students—not merely rely on information from central administration.
Advocacy for His Son and SPED Program Issues
Both Dr. Seppie and his wife filed a Wyoming Department of Education complaint concerning their son’s experience in the SPED program. He said he will never apologize for advocating for his child and believes that including this as “supporting evidence” in the investigation was clear retaliation.
He also stated that he filed only one retaliation complaint regarding the district’s special services director, contradicting the board’s claim that he had submitted three separate complaints.
Lack of Communication From the District
No Updates on His Retaliation Complaint
Dr. Seppie insists he has never been given any follow-up information about his retaliation complaint. Until the censure was issued on Monday night, he believed the matter was still under review.
He also pushed back against accusations of micromanagement, saying he simply asked questions that he and community members felt were important.
Dr. Seppie Stands by His Conduct
Closing Remarks
In his final comments, Dr. Seppie said he has no regrets about how he served on the board. He believes the majority of district employees are dedicated to students, but claims certain individuals in leadership are more focused on maintaining influence and benefiting financially from taxpayer dollars.
Dr. Cole Seppie’s sharp rebuttal to the Sweetwater County School District No. 1 censure highlights ongoing conflict between district leadership and a former trustee who claims he was denied transparency and targeted for raising concerns.
While the board accuses him of policy violations and overreach, Dr. Seppie maintains he acted solely in the interest of students and staff—and asserts that the investigation conducted against him was flawed, incomplete, and influenced by retaliation.
