Boulder mayoral candidate Aquiles La Grave’s former campaign manager has filed a small claims lawsuit alleging unpaid work and a city election complaint alleging unreported campaign spending.
Sarah Glynn is seeking $7,500 for what she says were 60 hours of unpaid work. She also filed a complaint with the Boulder City Clerk’s Office alleging that La Grave’s campaign failed to report over $2,000 of campaign expenses.
La Grave called both claims meritless and said he rejects them “in the absolute strongest terms.” In his response to the campaign finance complaint, he acknowledged approximately $280 in previously unreported spending, which he said he has since disclosed.
Neither matter has been resolved. A trial on the payment dispute is scheduled for Dec. 7 in Boulder County Court. The clerk’s office is expected to issue a determination on the campaign finance complaint this week, according to a Sept. 9 email from Elections Administrator John Morse.
The disputes are unfolding as La Grave, a tech entrepreneur and first-time candidate for elected office, campaigns on a platform emphasizing public trust and stronger oversight of city spending.
La Grave has secured PLAN-Boulder County’s endorsement, while Open Boulder, a group with which La Grave has been closely aligned, did not endorse a mayoral candidate. The Boulder Progressives, Better Boulder and the local Sierra Club chapter have endorsed incumbent Mayor Aaron Brockett, and the Boulder County Democratic Socialist of America have endorsed Councilmember Taishya Adams. PLAN-Boulder County endorsed Adams for a second place vote.
A dispute over unpaid work
Glynn, a marketing consultant and member of Boulder’s Open Space Board of Trustees, joined La Grave’s campaign Aug. 1.
That day, she sent him a proposed contract calling for a $10,500 base fee. The first $6,000 would be due after the agreement was signed and the campaign established a bank account, with two additional payments due Sept. 1 and Oct. 1, according to the draft reviewed by Boulder Reporting Lab. La Grave told Glynn he would review it the next day and encouraged her to begin working in the meantime.
Glynn said La Grave told her the following day that he was ready to execute the agreement. La Grave said he told her the proposed amount was “directionally” correct. Neither ultimately signed the contract.
Glynn left the campaign on Aug. 19, after about three weeks. In an email reviewed by Boulder Reporting Lab, she told La Grave that her responsibilities and the campaign’s priorities were too unclear for her to work effectively, though she offered to remain involved in a more limited role.
She later told Boulder Reporting Lab that promised staff members and volunteers never materialized and that La Grave was frequently difficult to reach.
La Grave disputed those claims, saying the campaign had active volunteers and that his emails and text messages with Glynn demonstrated his responsiveness.
When Glynn left, she requested $5,400 for 60 hours of work, describing it as a compromise compared with the proposed $10,500 base fee and as equivalent to half her standard rate. La Grave declined her request, saying the two had never agreed to an hourly rate and that he had not approved the hours she claimed.
He later offered her $2,625, prorating the proposed $10,500 base fee to reflect the three weeks worked. Glynn rejected the offer.
Glynn subsequently sued for $7,500, the maximum amount recoverable in Colorado small claims court.
A campaign finance complaint
Glynn separately filed a complaint against La Grave’s official candidate committee with the City Clerk’s Office.
The complaint alleges that the campaign failed to report over $2,000 of expenses, including meeting room reservations, technology subscriptions and photography services.
In his written response, La Grave acknowledged about $280 in spending that had not initially been reported. He said he paid those expenses personally and has since submitted an additional disclosure.
The city’s election guidelines say accurate recordkeeping and financial controls are essential from the beginning of a campaign. Candidate committees must correct erroneous filings promptly after discovering an error.
The two sides dispute who was responsible for tracking and reporting the campaign’s spending. In his Sept. 8 response to the city clerk, La Grave said Glynn had been responsible for recording expenditures.
But in an Aug. 9 text reviewed by Boulder Reporting Lab, La Grave identified his wife, Megan La Grave, as the campaign’s treasurer and said her responsibilities included accounting and campaign finance filings. La Grave now says they had discussed giving her that role but that she never performed it. The committee’s current filing with the city lists Greg Ekrem as treasurer.
Glynn said she oversaw many of the campaign’s daily operations but that financial recordkeeping was outside her role and she had no access to its accounts. She said she filed the complaint because the disclosures covered her time with the campaign and she wanted to “make sure the record is straight” about what happened during that period.
La Grave’s political support
La Grave has cultivated ties to Open Boulder, a local political organization. He served on its board for about five months and left in July before entering the mayoral race. He also brought the organization’s chair, former Boulder City Councilmember Jan Burton, onto his campaign as an adviser. Burton and another Open Boulder board member, Andrea Meneghel, have endorsed him individually.
Open Boulder announced endorsements for five council candidates on Sept. 14, but none for mayor. Its four-person board, which includes Burton, Meneghel and two former Boulder mayors, could not reach a majority decision on a mayoral candidate, Burton said.
Burton said she did not know whether the disputes involving Glynn influenced other board members.
PLAN-Boulder County, which co-hosted a candidate forum with Open Boulder and Better Boulder this month, endorsed La Grave Sept. 15.
In a crowded field of six mayoral candidates and 13 candidates seeking five council seats, organizational endorsements can increase a campaign’s visibility through voter guides, volunteers and mailers.
Glynn said she believes the payment dispute and campaign finance complaint raise broader questions about La Grave’s promise to improve government management and accountability.
“Whether the amount is $300 or $3,000, if you control the accounts and the spending, you also have to own the responsibility for making sure it is reported accurately,” she said.
La Grave said the measure of leadership is how someone responds when claims are made against them. He said he acted quickly, corrected the acknowledged campaign finance omissions and made himself and his records available for review.
“Since these unfounded claims have come to light, I have acted in exactly the way I would hope any leader and any organization would, which is swiftly and with complete transparency,” he said.
Clarification, September 17, 2026 10:52 am: This story was updated to include more detail about the campaign expense complaint.
Clarification, September 16, 2026 11:47 am: This story was updated to include more information regarding endorsements of mayoral candidates.
La Grave has paid staff for this campaign? Perhaps I am mistaken, but observing city council elections for 20 years, its been my impression these are generally volunteer run operations. Don’t know the guy and haven’t spent any time, yet, vetting candidates but a paid campaign director for the mayoral race in Boulder makes me very, very uncomfortable.
I’m equally uncomfortable with volunteer campaign managers who run campaigns for candidates based on their own single issue agenda and the candidates willingness to fall in line. What’s the difference? Isn’t it all about trying to influence voters to elect a candidate?
Usually, its the other way around; the volunteer supports the candidate because of one issue.
People should be compensated for their time. Not everyone has the luxury of working for free as a volunteer. I have no problem with people being paid to work on campaigns. It is a lot of work.
Two takeaways for you kids:
1. Don’t do the work until you have the contract signed.
2. Get your fiscal s**t in a pile when running for public office.
The bigger issue: this entire class of council and mayor candidates are uninspiring and more of the same.
The only thing one should take from this article is a fair reminder that campaigns, especially new ones need clear written agreements from the start. A preventable staffing and payment dispute should be resolved seriously, respectfully, and through the appropriate legal process. It should not be exploited as a verdict on someone’s character or fitness for office before the matter even goes through the proper channels. I am equally disappointed that an unresolved private dispute was elevated into a public political story before the relevant facts have been fully reviewed. Responsible local journalism has an important role in informing voters, but headlines, framing, and word choice matter, especially so close to an election.
It seems fair to ask whether relevant context and “alleged” relationships have been sufficiently examined and disclosed, including connections between those involved and people aligned with opposing campaigns. That is not an accusation; it is a request for the same transparency and scrutiny that candidates are expected to meet. Voters deserve reporting that distinguishes verified facts, competing claims, and unanswered questions, not coverage that can be weaponized for political advantage.
Aquiles should have ensured the agreement was finalized in writing before work began. That is a reasonable criticism. But one operational mistake does not establish dishonesty, corruption, or an inability to lead. Sarah has every right to pursue what she believes she is owed, and Aquiles has every right to dispute the amount and present his evidence. The appropriate place to resolve that disagreement is through the legal process, not through a rush to publicly shame one party before the facts are settled.
Boulder should elect its next mayor based on leadership, policy, and a demonstrated commitment to the community, not on who can generate the loudest narrative or the most reaction online. Facts matter. The language used to describe those facts matters, too. We should all be careful not to mistake a popular opinion or a dramatic headline as proof of character.
Thank you for your feedback. I want to respond to a few points.
First, there is nothing factually inaccurate in this story. If any factual errors are brought to our attention, we will correct them immediately, in accordance with our corrections and ethics policy.
You may decide, as a voter, that questions related to a candidate’s conduct or legal allegations are not important to you. That is entirely your right. As journalists, however, we do not have the option of dismissing them. We believe that anyone who holds public office, seeks to hold public office or serves on an appointed board or commission opens themselves to journalistic scrutiny, particularly when a legal or formal complaint has been filed against them.
We have covered every legal complaint involving a Boulder City Councilmember, council candidate or appointed board or commission member in some form. We do not discriminate, nor do we litigate these matters ourselves. (For instance, this summmer: https://boulderreportinglab.org/2026/06/25/boulder-planning-board-chair-named-in-code-of-conduct-complaint-over-airport-advocacy/ and https://boulderreportinglab.org/2026/08/26/boulder-planning-board-chair-cleared-in-complaints-over-airport-advocacy/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=118844&relatedposts_position=0). We report the relevant facts and allow members of the community to decide how much weight to give them. You may not consider this information important. Others may consider it very important.
We report a complaint when it is filed, and then we follow up when a decision is reached. That is our standard practice, and it is what we will do in this case.