In a somewhat surprising outcome, the Park City $56 million school bond was voted down by residents. Of the 4945 voters, 3001 voted against the bond and 1944 voted for it.

Schools are at capacity! Schools are at capacity! Schools are at capacity! We hear the cry from the Park City School District.

In fact, one of the first slides you’ll often see in school board presentations on the school bond is a slide showing schools at capacity. Yet, It’s an important enough topic that it deserves a little more scrutiny. When we do that, we find that our schools may not be as full as we think.

Let’s provide an example. It is often cited by the School District that Parley’s Park is at 99% capacity. What does this mean? As of October 1st, Parley’s Park had 551 students, according to school district documents. Is that too many? That’s a really good question. To answer that we first need to look at a concept called Open Enrollment. Open Enrollment means that students from other districts can attend Park City schools as long as the schools are not “closed” by the school board. Schools can only be closed if they are at the enrollment threshold of 90% of “capacity.” Capacity is determined by a formula provided by the state.

So, back to the question of whether 551 students at Parley’s Park is too many.

If you compare current enrollment to a 2014 PCSD Open enrollment document that lists the “enrollment threshold” at 549 students for Parley’s Park, you may conclude that the school is packed to the brim. However, according to Open Enrollment documents, the maximum capacity for students at Parley’s Park is 589 students and we have 551 students. So that is about a full classroom of space empty at Parley’s Park. Yet, you could say it is “full” by certain definitions, if you mean we are at the 90% threshold.

But the better question is whether the “Open Enrollment” number is the actual capacity?

It seems Open Enrollment Numbers are a bit of a political beast. That’s because pressure has been put upon Park City schools to limit the number of students from out of district that can attend our schools and open enrollment numbers are used to make those calculations. I view limiting out of district students as a good thing because every out of district student costs tax payers money. Yet, we shouldn’t let that desire for minimizing out of district students cloud our judgement of how full our schools really are.

So, let’s then examine a document from the School District’s Master Planning process, last updated in April 2015. It says Parley’s Park’s total capacity is 708 and it’s functional capacity is 673. Again, Parley’s Park had 551 students as of the beginning of this Ocotber. That would be 122 less students than the functional capacity listed in Master Planning documents. In fact, every elementary school was UNDER functional capacity by over 100 students. McPolin was under by 176 students, Trailside was under by 106 students, and Jeremy Ranch elementary was under by 133 students. That would be between 4 and 6 classrooms, of 25-30 students, at each school being empty.

Note, these are the same capacity numbers that the School District’s Master Planning Committee used to make their recommendations.

The problem is that we’ve already learned that the school district overestimated growth this year. In fact, they were forecasting 2.6% growth but actually saw a 0.5% decrease. Even worse, elementary schools like Parley’s Park dropped over 8% this year… which will likely push down enrollment numbers as those children progress through our schools.

To be fair, it’s important to note that “functional capacity” is not the end-all-and-be-all number, either. Other factors come into play, such as support facilities, shared spaces, design of classrooms, etc. Yet it does provide us an indication of whether our schools are really packed to the brim. And looking at the numbers below, that’s hard to believe.

While I understand why we play the political numbers game when we are attempting to limit out of district students…why are we fooling ourselves when we try to make important decisions like figuring out what to do with our schools.

Park City School District Superintendent, Dr Ember Conley, issued an update regarding The Summit County Attorney’s investigation into election code violations. It is good information and I would encourage you to read the statement below, if you are interested in this matter.

 
Park City School District is aware of the press release issued by the Summit County Attorney’s Office stating that it is investigating possible violations of the Election Code by both the District and opponents of the bond.

The District has been in contact with Summit County Attorney Hilder, and understands that complaints have been lodged regarding the presentation of bond information, including the showing of an informational video, to students during school time. Although his investigation is in its preliminary stages and we do not have sufficiently detailed information to form an opinion as to whether a violation in fact took place, we never would have allowed the information to be presented in this manner had we believed it was a violation of the Election Code.

Although school board members have an unrestricted right to campaign and advocate for a ballot proposition, we fully understand and appreciate that the District, as an entity, is prohibited from making an expenditure of public funds to influence the bond vote. We did not believe that the information presented to students involved any expenditure, and the presentation was not intended to cross the line into advocacy.

While we are hopeful that the District’s understanding of the law and facts will ultimately prevail, we nonetheless want to avoid any appearance of impropriety, and it is our intent to fully comply with the applicable election laws.

No additional presentations of this nature were scheduled to take place at any of our schools prior to Election Day; and therefore, we do not anticipate any problems complying with Mr. Hilder’s guidance regarding this issue.

Between now and Election Day we urge all eligible voters to carefully consider the information that has been presented by both sides and regardless of your position, to please vote and make your voice heard.

Ember Conley, EdD
Superintendent
Park City School District
2700 Kearns Boulevard
Park City, Utah 84060

The Park City School Bond election is drawing nearer. On November 3rd, voters will head to the polls to decide the fate of the $56 million bond. Yet, it appears the battle is still raging. Today, the Summit County Attorney’s office released a press release stating it was investigating both school board members and the bond opposition for violating election laws. In this two part series, the Parkrag wants to provide some context about allegations on both sides, present the laws, and let you make up your own mind.

Part 2: Have Park City School Board Members Violated Election Law?

As far as we know, there have been two allegations against members of the school board, with regard to presenting information to students about the upcoming bond. The first allegation from some children was that during student assemblies, children were told to tell their parents to vote for the bond. This has been denied by the school board. We won’t cover that here.

The second allegation is that a video produced by the school district attempts to influence people to vote for the bond. We received a copy of the video from the school district and will show it below, so you can make up your own mind.

Why is this potentially illegal?

According to Utah Code: “Unless specifically required by law, and except as provided in Section 20A-11-1206, a public entity may not make an expenditure from public funds for political purposes or to influence a ballot proposition.”

In the video below, which appears to be filmed at the High School, was provided by a district personnel, and was shown to many classes throughout the district, it sounds like School Board President Tania Knauer says, “We are asking the voters to approve a $56 million bond.” It is legal for the School Board to provide matter of fact statements but they are not supposed to encourage people to vote one way or another. This statement could be construed, by some, as the school board attempting to influence voters.

Here is the beginning of the video, where introductions are made and then the part where Ms. Knauer makes her statement:

Why is this potentially not illegal?

It all comes down to “influence.” You may construe Ms Knauer’s words, “We are asking the voters to approve a $56 million bond” as pure statement of fact. Perhaps it is not trying to encourage or influence people to vote one way or another. Likewise, if you view the video in its entirety, you’ll see it is about 2 minutes of fact and 10 seconds of what sounds like Ms. Knauer’s statements.

Here is the video in its entirety:

Ultimate Answer

The County Attorney’s office knows what they are doing and has actual legal minds to back up their decisions. So, it will be interesting to see what they determine. Keep in mind, these acts are typically misdemeanors. So, even if they took place, were charged, and found guilty, it’s a couple hundred dollar fine. It does not validate or invalidate the election.

Still, it’s interesting to play Arm Chair Quarterback. If your child had to watch this video in class, would you construe it as the School Board trying to influence the election?

Note: We do not have any official information on whether the above issue is the item that the County Attorney is investigating. It is just one of the potential issues that has been brought to our attention by the community.

The Park City School Bond election is drawing nearer. On November 3rd, voters will head to the polls to decide the fate of the $56 million bond. Yet, it appears the battle is still raging. Today, the Summit County Attorney’s office released a press release stating it was investigating both school board members and the bond opposition for violating election laws. In this two part series, the Parkrag wants to provide some context about allegations on both sides, present the laws, and let you make up your own mind.

Part 1: Did the bond opposition violate election laws?

On the evening of October 21st, there was a community forum on the school bond at Ecker Hill Middle School. Members of the bond opposition group, Citizens for Better Education (CFBE), were handing out information outside the school. It is our understanding that a school administrator told CFBE representatives that they were violating election laws and asked them leave the Ecker Campus.

Why is this potentially illegal?

According to Utah Code: “A person may not, within a polling place or in any public area within 150 feet of the building where a polling place is located: (i) do any electioneering; (ii) circulate cards or handbills of any kind; (iii) solicit signatures to any kind of petition; or (iv) engage in any practice that interferes with the freedom of voters to vote or disrupts the administration of the polling place.”

Ecker Hill is a polling place and if people were disseminating information about the upcoming election within 150 feet of the building, this may violate election law.

Why is this potentially not illegal?

Is Ecker Hill a “polling place” year round? Or is it a polling place only on election day? Put another way, there are plenty of various types places across Utah where voting takes place: schools, churches, libraries, etc. Are all these locations considered “polling places” in the middle of Summer? On March 1st? Or just on election day. Common sense would argue that Ecker Hill Middle School is a school in the middle of October, and not a polling place.

Potential Twist

If you continue reading down the Utah Code in this section it says, “A county, municipality, school district, or local district may not prohibit electioneering that occurs more than 150 feet from the building where a polling place is located, but may regulate the place and manner of that electioneering to protect the public safety.” So, even if CFBE did violate the law, did school district personnel violate this law too by not letting CFBE persons stay on school property (as long as they were 150 feet from the outside of the building)?

Ultimate Answer

The County Attorney’s office knows what they are doing and has actual legal minds to back up their decisions. So, it will be interesting to see what they determine. Keep in mind, these type of acts are typically misdemeanors (if anything). So, even if they took place, were charged, and found guilty, it’s a couple hundred dollar fine. It does not validate or invalidate the election.

Still, it’s interesting to play Arm Chair Quarterback. IF CFBE was passing out material within 150 feet of the building, do you think this was illegal?

Summit County Attorney, Judge Robert Hilder, issued a press release stating that his office was investigating allegations of “inappropriate and possibly illegal conduct occurring by both proponents and opponents of the upcoming Park City School District bonding issue.”

The release says, “Reports state that officials representing the school district may have used public funds to campaign in favor of the bond in violation of the Political Activities of Public Entities Act.” It continues on to state, “Reports have also been received indicating that opponents of the bond issue may have also violated provisions of the Utah Election code by campaigning on school property.”

The County Attorney’s office is currently investigating these allegations and has not made any decisions on charges.