(The four suspension documents discussed below are attached in full so readers can review the language, chronology, and changes directly for themselves.)
One of the most difficult parts of reconstructing what happened at Tien Shan has been understanding how the school’s internal response evolved in real time during the first week of December 2024.
Not simply what conclusions were eventually reached.
But how the process itself began to destabilize.
How the language changed.
How investigative expectations shifted.
And how different groups inside the institution appeared to be moving in dramatically different directions almost simultaneously.
The four suspension documents attached below tell that story.
Taken together, they do not read like a stable investigative process.
They read like an institutional response rapidly escalating into conflict.
The chronology appears to unfold as follows:
- December 2 — An initial suspension framework is issued with the expectation that the investigation would proceed cooperatively over time.
- December 2 — TSIS Director Hans Fung significantly alters the suspension language and provides a revised version to Cecily, who then adds handwritten “expectations” of her own.
- December 3 — A substantially expanded suspension letter is drafted after the earlier process appears to have broken down.
- December 5 — A fourth version is prepared after further consultation with CRU leadership and CST members, but according to those involved, it was never ultimately issued pending outside investigator involvement.
And the evolution between these documents matters enormously.
Version One: December 2 — The Initial Suspension Framework
The earliest document appears to reflect an initial assumption that the investigation could proceed gradually and cooperatively.
At this stage, no specific investigative time frame was given.
According to those involved, the expectation was that the school would have several weeks (and possibly longer) to gather information, conduct interviews, and sort through the concerns carefully while maintaining cooperation from all parties involved.
Even in this earliest version, however, the allegations outlined were already serious:
- inappropriate physical contact,
- isolated one-on-one interactions with students,
- excessive unauthorized communication with minors,
- sharing sexual information with students,
- and differential treatment among students.
The letter also referenced possible reporting obligations connected to Washington State educator conduct standards, including:
- WAC 181-87-062,
- WAC 181-87-060,
- and WAC 181-87-080.
That detail matters.
Because it demonstrates that from the beginning, the concerns were already being viewed through the lens of potential professional misconduct standards — not merely interpersonal conflict or disagreements about teaching style.
At the same time, the overall tone of the document remained comparatively procedural.
There were:
- no references to multiple students,
- no discussion of corroborated evidence,
- no mention of grooming-associated behaviors,
- and no indication yet of the much broader investigative scope that would emerge later.
That escalation had not happened yet.
But it was coming quickly.
Version Two: December 2 — Hans Fung’s Altered Letter
Later that same day, TSIS Director Hans Fung appears to have substantially altered the suspension framework before reissuing it directly to Cecily.
And this is where the process begins to visibly shift.
Compared to the original framework, Hans’ version significantly narrows and softens aspects of the response.
Several allegations disappear entirely.
The revised document removes references to:
- differential treatment,
- failures of supervision,
- and inappropriate physical contact.
The overall tone also changes dramatically.
The language becomes more pastoral and relational:
- “leave of absence”
replaces - “suspension from employment.”
The revised version no longer frames the situation primarily as a broad safeguarding concern requiring major investigation.
Instead, it increasingly reads as a limited professional conduct matter intended to be resolved quickly and quietly.
But perhaps the most revealing part of the document is handwritten directly onto the letter itself.
Cecily added two “expectations”:
“The expectation is that I will have opportunity to speak to the investigation team.”
and:
“The expectation is that the investigation is complete in the next 48 hours.”
Those notes are extraordinary.
Because they suggest that within hours of the initial suspension process beginning, expectations surrounding the investigation had already shifted dramatically.
What had initially been understood as a process likely requiring weeks or longer now appears connected to expectations of near-immediate resolution.
That is not a minor procedural adjustment.
It reflects a fundamentally different understanding of what the investigation itself was supposed to be.
And it raises difficult questions:
- Who was controlling the process?
- Why were allegations being removed?
- Why was the anticipated timeline collapsing so quickly?
- Was the Child Safety Team losing authority over the response?
- Were institutional relationships beginning to outweigh safeguarding structures?
The process no longer appears stable.
It appears contested.
Version Three: December 3 — Escalation and Breakdown
The next day, the process escalates dramatically.
A new suspension letter is drafted.
And compared to Hans’ altered version, the difference is staggering.
The December 3 document reintroduces and expands much of the safeguarding-focused language that had previously been removed:
- inappropriate physical contact returns,
- differential treatment returns,
- failures of supervision return,
- and the document again centers student safety and investigative integrity.
But beyond that, the letter now reflects a major expansion of the investigative scope itself.
For the first time, the document references:
- “the number of students involved,”
- interviews with students and parents,
- review of years of digital communications,
- and a projected nine-month investigation.
The letter also states:
“This action is necessary in order to ensure the health and well-being of our students.”
This was no longer being framed as a short-term interpersonal conflict.
At least within portions of the CST process, the situation now appears to have escalated into what was being treated as a major safeguarding investigation.
But according to those involved, the process was already beginning to fracture internally.
Cecily reportedly shared this letter with Chris and Liza DeGarmo despite the letter itself explicitly instructing that the matter not be discussed within the TSIS community. According to those involved, this became a major point of conflict within the response process.
When the issue was later reported to Mike Rebholz (CRU HR), CST members were reportedly told that Cecily could not be held accountable for violating the document because she had never signed it.
According to those involved, this moment became one of the catalysts for what would later become a major internal board conflict.
And from this point forward, the process appears to become increasingly unstable.
Version Four: December 5 — The CST Re-Escalation
By December 5, the CST appears to have reached a dramatically heightened level of concern.
The fourth suspension document — which according to those involved was ultimately never issued — reflects perhaps the strongest safeguarding framing of the entire sequence.
The opening line itself is revealing:
“Upon further discussion with Mike Rebholz…”
This matters because it suggests that additional consultation had occurred following the escalating conflict surrounding the earlier versions.
Compared to prior drafts, the December 5 version not only restores earlier safeguarding language but intensifies it.
The document now explicitly references:
- “the number of students involved,”
- “corroborated evidence from multiple sources,”
- and behaviors “associated with grooming.”
The letter also shortens the projected investigative period from nine months to three months while maintaining the broader investigative posture.
Unlike the earlier versions, this document increasingly reflects not simply allegations under review, but a growing internal belief that a broader behavioral pattern may exist.
And that distinction matters enormously.
One Sentence That Changes the Entire Conversation
Buried within the proposed draft email accompanying the December 5 letter is a line that may ultimately be one of the most significant statements in all of the documentation surrounding this case.
In describing why the CST believed suspension had become necessary, the draft states:
“…openly acknowledging exhibiting behaviors associated with grooming but dismissing their applicability to yourself…”
That sentence matters enormously.
Because it does not say that outside critics later imposed the grooming framework onto the situation.
According to the document itself, the concern was that behaviors associated with grooming had already been acknowledged internally during the response process itself.
That is a profoundly important distinction.
For months, much of the public conversation surrounding TSIS revolved around definitional debates:
- Was this “really” grooming?
- Were concerns exaggerated?
- Were people overreacting to relational closeness or mentorship dynamics?
- Did behaviors technically “count”?
But this line reveals something far more significant:
At least internally, grooming-associated behaviors were serious enough to be explicitly discussed during the investigative process itself by the people directly involved in the response — not years later by outside critics, but during the response process itself.
And according to this draft, the issue was not simply whether such behaviors existed, but whether acknowledging the behaviors while rejecting the label itself had become part of the conflict.
That dynamic is critically important in many safeguarding situations.
Because institutional crises often become consumed by debates over terminology:
- whether conduct “meets the definition,”
- whether intent can be proven,
- whether the label feels too severe,
- whether behavior was “meant that way.”
Meanwhile, the underlying behaviors themselves may already be widely recognized as inappropriate, boundary-crossing, manipulative, isolating, or unsafe.
That appears to be part of what these documents are capturing in real time.
It is important to note that the December 5 email appears to have been a proposed internal draft and, according to those involved, was never ultimately sent in this form. According to those involved, board leadership was not prepared to sign and issue another suspension letter before outside investigator involvement through Marisa and Pioneers. However, the draft remains highly significant because it provides a contemporaneous window into how the CST itself was internally framing the concerns, investigative process, and behavioral patterns at the time. According to those involved, there was full agreement within the CST regarding the seriousness of the behavioral concerns being described in the document.
The proposed draft email also reveals internal tensions even more clearly.
One line stands out above almost everything else:
“I included what I want to express to Cecily in attempt to ‘restore’ her perception of the CST.”
That sentence alone says a great deal.
It suggests:
- the relationship between leadership and the CST had become strained,
- confidence in the CST process may have been deteriorating,
- and institutional management concerns were now intertwined with safeguarding decisions.
The draft email also reveals an extraordinary mixture of:
- disciplinary findings,
- pastoral language,
- institutional defense,
- member care,
- theological framing,
- and attempts at relational reconciliation.
At one point, the draft references:
- “corroborated evidence,”
- “behaviors associated with grooming,”
- and a “continued lack of compliance.”
Yet only paragraphs later, it discusses:
- prayer,
- emotional support,
- transition care,
- and even a proposed video message to students.
This combination reflects one of the deepest tensions often found inside insular institutional systems:
The desire to preserve both accountability and relational harmony simultaneously.
But those goals can become deeply incompatible during safeguarding investigations.
Four Letters, One Institutional Crisis
What makes these documents so important is not simply the allegations themselves.
It is the visible destabilization of the institutional response itself.
Within only four days, the process appears to move through four dramatically different phases:
- An initial suspension framework expecting cooperation.
- A narrowed and softened leadership revision.
- A major safeguarding escalation following breakdown of the earlier process.
- A final internal CST escalation that was ultimately paused pending outside investigator involvement.
That is not normal bureaucratic editing.
That is evidence of an institution struggling internally over:
- severity,
- process,
- authority,
- accountability,
- and institutional risk.
And this may ultimately explain why so many parents, staff, and students later felt confused by the gap between:
- what they initially heard privately,
- what leadership appeared to believe internally,
- and what was eventually communicated publicly.
Because these four documents do not reflect one unified institutional response.
They reflect an institutional response actively fragmenting in real time.
This post is also published on Substack:
tsisaccountability.substack.com/p/9-four-suspension-letters-four-days