A man who is being sued for defamation by Montezuma-Cortez School District Superintendent Harry (Tom) Burris has filed a motion to have that lawsuit dismissed.
The lawsuit against Jonathan Lewis stems from his reporting allegations of possible abuse of a student in the district and from comments he reportedly has made about Burris.
On Aug. 15, Lewis, through his attorney, Steven Zansberg of Denver, filed a special motion in District Court to dismiss the case.
The legal wrangling began with a complicated series of events.
In July 2023, according to Zansberg’s motion and other sources, a woman came to Burris to say that she was worried about a possibly inappropriate relationship between her teenage son and a female teacher (who was later dismissed by the district).
The mother reportedly said that the teacher had had the boy, a minor, over to her house, where alcohol was consumed, and discussed personal matters with him. The mother said she was worried that the teacher and the boy might have sex.
Burris did not report the matter to social services or police, although, as a school official, he is a “mandatory reporter” who is required by law to report possible or suspected abuse.
In 2024, according to the motion to dismiss, the HR director surreptitiously recorded a conversation between her and Burris in which they talked about the possible abuse. Burris said that he had told the members of the school board in an executive session about the allegations while they were discussing why the teacher had been terminated.
In July 2024, Lewis was played the recording of the conversation. After hearing it, according to the motion to dismiss, Lewis believed that the mother thought the teacher had provided alcohol to the boy and that they could have sex.
Lewis, who according to the motion is also a mandated reporter because of his work as a therapist, then reported the possible abuse to the Colorado Child Abuse Hotline and said Burris had been told about it.
Cortez police then began an investigation.
According to a police report, the mother told police she did not believe her son and the teacher were in a sexual relationship yet but she wanted the inappropriate relationship to stop.
“She stated the relationship between the two was getting out of hand,” the police report says.
According to the police report, the HR director (who was later terminated by the district) told police that Burris called her late one night and mentioned the whole incident but said the mother had sworn him to secrecy. The HR director told police that she told Burris the alleged abuse should be reported but he said not to do it because he had been sworn to secrecy, according to the report.
Burris was charged in August 2024 with failure to report, a Class 2 misdemeanor.
In September 2024, according to the motion to dismiss, the District Attorney’s office filed a letter it had received from the mother in which she stated that Burris’s claim that she made him promise not to tell anyone about the alleged abuse “is so disgustingly disturbing that I still cannot wrap my mind around it.”
She continued in the letter, “WHY WOULD I GO TO THE HIGHEST POSITION IN THE DISTRICT AND TELL THEM SOMETHING SO TERRIBLE AND THEN ASK THEM NOT TO REPORT?”
In February of this year, according to the motion to dismiss, Burris reached a diversion agreement with the court. Among other things, he was required to pay a $33 fee, complete a mandated reporter training, and present proof of a written and approved child abuse and neglect reporting policy for the school district. In return, the charges would be dismissed.
At a hearing on Feb. 25, County Court Judge Ian MacLaren was highly critical of the agreement, although he accepted it. According to the motion to dismiss, he said, “Quite frankly, looking at what’s been ordered as part of this diversion agreement, the Court would note that this looks to me to be a slap on the wrist.”
In June, Burris filed suit. In his complaint, through Woodland Park attorney David Illingworth, he says that Lewis falsely alleged that Burris had committed a crime by failing to report the relationship between the teacher and boy “and his false statements have subjected Mr. Burris to outrage, scorn and contempt.”
The complaint states that Lewis “falsely and materially mischaracterized the contents” of the recording of the conversation between Burris and the HR director.
It emphasizes that there was no evidence of an actual sexual relationship between the teacher and boy.
“In the recording, at no point did Mr. Burris state or imply that he had received a report or any other evidence from any other source that Student and Teacher were or had been involved in a sexual relationship,” the complaint states.
“In the recording, at no point did Mr. Burris state or imply that he had promised anyone that he would cover up any sexual relationship between student and Teacher.”
The complaint also states that the teacher’s dismissal “had nothing to do with any alleged relationship with Student or any alleged inappropriate conduct with Student.”
According to the complaint, Lewis “has a documented history of public statements indicating bias” against Burris, posting critical comments on Facebook and stating at a school-board meeting in 2023 that Burris is “an embarrassment to yourselves and our great community” and is “grossly incompetent.”
The complaint asks that the court enjoin Lewis from “further defaming Mr. Burris” and that he should “immediately and publicly retract all defamatory statements regarding Mr. Burris.” It also asks for a jury trial and for damages and attorney’s fees.
But Zansberg’s motion states that Burris’s lawsuit is “a classic, textbook example of a ‘Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation’,” which is illegal under state law.
Colorado’s anti-SLAPP law declares, “it is in the public interest to encourage and safeguard the constitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in government to the maximum extent permitted by law,” the motion states.
It says, “all of Lewis’ statements to government officials at the Department of Social Services and the Cortez Police Department unquestionably constitute ‘petitioning’ activity” under the anti-SLAPP law, the motion states.
It also states that “it is completely irrelevant whether (a) the abuse of which Burris had been made aware was of a sexual nature, or (b) such abuse had actually occurred,” as opposed to being suspected, because mandatory reporters must report possible or suspected abuse.
A hearing on the motion to dismiss has been set for Sept. 8.
