The more I think of leadership at the Park City School District, the more I think of this:

Except, you have to give Seargent Shultz more credit. He actually knew what was going on. I can’t say the same for Park City Schools.

As many of you know, construction was paused on Jeremy Ranch Elementary School this week because the school district didn’t go through the correct process with Summit County Planning. This includes lack of a conditional use permit, lack of a stormwater pollution prevention permit, and other violations of county code.

Park City Superintendent Jill Gildea responded to the topic with KPCW, “the legal issue centers on the question of how much authority the County has over an addition to an existing public school and whether the statute that carves out school districts from most county land use ordinances and building codes in favor of state oversight means that PCSD can proceed.” According to KPCW, “she added it is further complicated by zoning changes in Summit County that occurred after these schools were originally built. Previous school construction projects both in Summit County and in other counties, she said managed by the same design-build teams being used by PCSD, have not been subject to similar county-imposed mandates.”

I’m not sure what she even means, but I assume that she somehow feels the school district is exempt. Here is a personal anecdote. A few years ago, I replaced a deck on my house. The contractor told me I probably didn’t need a permit. I figured it was my ass on the line, so I called the Summit County Planning office. They told me I needed a permit and what to do. So, I got one.

I know you are amazed. Yes, even a blogger in his basement, who couldn’t even win a primary election for school board, figured out he needed a building permit. It’s safe to say that the bar for competence is pretty low.

So back to Seargent Schultz.

A friend of mine commented on the situation by saying, “Gildea seems to exist in a perpetual state of confusion about what laws, policies, and codes apply to her and PCSD.” Indeed. Let’s count the ways.

• When Dr. Gildea thought a rock broke her window she called in the Summit County Sheriff. The Park City School Board then chastised the community for their treatment of the Superintendent — because I guess they assumed one of us through a rock. We all later found out that the screen on the outside of the window wasn’t broken, so a rock couldn’t have broken the glass. It probably broke on it’s own. Many of us have come to know this incident as the “Magic Rock.”
• Then we have the mask mandate at Parley’s. KPCW reported in February, “County Attorney Margaret Olson released her report [on mask mandate violations at Parley’s Park Elementary]. It concluded confusion, inconsistent messaging and disputes between lawyers delayed enforcement of the county mask mandate at Parley’s Park Elementary School (PPES) by seven days.” It took the Summit County Attorney threatening to close down the school to get Dr. Gildea to issue a letter directing PPES to comply with the mandate. Enforcement began the next day. This is where many people lost trust in Dr. Gildea.
• Now we have the Jeremy Ranch mess where the Superintendent thought she was above the law. That may be too harsh. She apparently thought she was above the law because someone either acted without her consent, told her that everything was OK, or she decided it was OK. It clearly wasn’t OK. That’s on her. No matter what she blamed it The buck stops there.

The Park City School District can’t get out of its own way. John Steinbeck would have been impressed.

A recent lawsuit was filed against the Park City School District, the school board, the superintendent, and ancillary people at the district regarding not reporting child abuse, sexual abuse, bullying, and generally treating students horribly.

There are those people in our community who are defending those individuals. They say, “You don’t know the whole story.” Yes. I believe we don’t know the whole story.

A Jeremy Ranch parent emailed me and asked a simple question. “If the Park City School District can’t do a simple thing like get building permits, how do we trust they can renovate every school in the district?” Good question. Here’s another one. If the head of the Summit County planning department says that Jeremy Ranch construction can’t restart until the end of August, how will the school open on August 17th?

KPCW reported that the Summit County Planning Department

For years, the cry around Park City has been for affordable housing. Then, some bright people came up with the idea of attainable housing. Evidently, in Park City, attainable means a wealthy person who is not that wealthy. We then are encouraged to worry about a 1,500-unit development where 100 units are “affordable,” 500 are “attainable,” and the rest are “market value.” So, some units go to the people who work hard jobs in Park City; five hundred units go to people making 120K; the rest cost a million plus.

This is a known issue, and I suppose when Vail, Alterra, Historic Park City Alliance, and The Park City Chamber of Commerce want to solve it, they will.

However, when I received a notice from Summit Water Distribution saying my rates were going up by 31% it gave me pause for another reason. This is on top of the school district raising taxes. This is on top of tax increases that could happen through Summit County. This is on top of tax increases due to valuations that impact certain areas.

What about the people who have lived here for a while? We aren’t really rich, although some would claim we are. We have homes that have somehow appreciated from $250,000 to two million. Yet, we wouldn’t sell because we don’t know where we would move. We wouldn’t want to move, even if we could, because we love Park City. We make the same amount of money –maybe a little bit more–as we always have and remember the two-for-ones when we got them at Butcher’s.

Yet, the cost of living here has risen exponentially. My overall tax rate has risen from $1,800 in 2011 to almost $6,000 in 2023. I get it. Inflation has risen. However, with official inflation data, my taxes should have risen from $1,800 to $2,600.

It seems everyone is resigned to our fate with Dakota Pacific. There is land that is supposed to be a Tech Park below UOP. Dakota Pacific bought it based on that designation. They can’t make enough money on that so they want to change it into commercial space and a bunch of homes.

Our local representatives have fought it but now seem ready to cave on Dakota Pacific’s demands because we can’t fight the Utah State legislature. They fear the Big Bad Legislature will destroy Park City to benefit their benefactors — the developers

It may be true.

It’s happened in the past. It’s why much of our school tax dollars go to West Valley. It isn’t because the legislature wants equality. It’s because they wanted to punish Park City for its past transgressions and keep us in line.

However, it’s getting old. Local reporter Michelle Deininger called things out about how the legislature interfered with the governing of Hideout, Park City Studios, and the aforementioned Dakota Pacific. The legislature gets what it wants. If you believe the 2034 Olympic bid is about the spirit of international cooperation and reusing the resources Utah has, I would encourage you to look at who owns the land around key transportation corridors.

We can’t beat them traditionally.

Yet the chief legislative proponent of Dakota Pacific appears to be a legislator from Cache Valley — Casey Snider. According to the Park Record, he’s the person who included language that “intended to force the Summit County Council to approve Dakota Pacific Real Estate’s request to amend a 2008 development agreement.”

It is interesting that our fate wasn’t chosen by a local representative but instead by someone from Logan.

Perhaps we in Summit County don’t have influence in the Republican Party, but many here do have money. It would be a shame if Casey Snider, from Logan, got primaried for someone who was more “friendly” to Summit County. Stop Dakota Pacific may have the influence and fundraising to do this.

Likewise, a recent Park Record Letter to the Editor from Larry and Susan Alleva suggested boycotting the Olympics. “Namely, the state is strongly in favor of the 2034 Olympic Bid. Park City would play a critical role. If DP[Dakota Pacific] and the state’s politicians do yet another “end around,” applying unfair pressure to our council, we should do likewise — convey in response to the state our possible unwillingness to host any portion of the Olympic Games.”

I love it. The Olympics needs Park City. Our support doesn’t come for free. Wayne Niederhauser knows this. The Olympics has enough issues with Snow Basin declining interest in he olympics

Do we care about antisemitism in our schools? Do we care about bullying? Do we care about harassment over how someone sexually identifies? What about harassment over religion or national origin?

I think we should care. But apparently, our school district hasn’t and maybe doesn’t.

;tldr The United Office of Civil Rights said the Park City School District likely allowed harassment with a number of groups.

*********************************************************************

Today, the US Department Office for Civil Rights (OCR) published a letter to the Park City School District informing them of the resolution to seven harassment complaints filed with the OCR. According to the letter, “The complainants alleged that the District was on notice of and failed to respond promptly or effectively to student-to-student harassment based on one or more prohibited bases at Ecker Hill Middle School (EHMS), Treasure Mountain Junior High School (TMJH), and Park City High School (PCHS) (the three Schools) in school year (SY) 2021-22 and SY 2022-23.”

When looking at these OCR complaints, over the two school years, and three schools, the complaint identifies harassment related to children from Jewish ancestry, sexual orientation, race, and disability. The OCR documented over 180 cases of such harassment in Park City schools.

Let’s get specific from the letter from the OCR to Park City Superintendent Gildea:

“The seven complaints alleged that ongoing and various types of student-to-student harassment
based on race, national origin, disability, and sex created hostile environments for students at
EHMS, TMJH, and PCHS. Six of the seven complaints OCR investigated alleged race-based
harassment, three of the seven complaints alleged antisemitic harassment against students in
violation of Title VI’s prohibition of discrimination based on national origin (shared Jewish
ancestry), three of the complaints alleged sex-based harassment, and two of the complaints
alleged disability-based harassment. As detailed below, OCR found documentary and witness
evidence of over 180 reported incidents of students harassing other students at the three Schools
during SYs 2021-22 and 2022-23, and the vast majority were based on race (77), national origin
(27 involving antisemitism), or sex (at least 80), including slurs, threats, name-calling, jokes,
gestures, symbols, and assaults. For example, EHMS alone documented 58 incidents of students
engaging in race-based harassment, nine incidents involving antisemitic harassment, and 55
incidents of sex-based harassment, for a total of at least 122 documented incidents of harassment
in one school over just two school years. OCR also found four documented reports of disability
harassment – three at EHMS and one at TMJH – and a possible hostile environment for at least a
few students with disabilities.“

Hostile environment. Hostile environment. Hostile environment.

That’s how our most vulnerable are treated.

Later in the letter, the OCR SAYS,

“The information OCR has reviewed to date confirms that, at least in specific incidents (including as illustrated in 11 examples discussed below), these responses were insufficient to end the harassment or prevent its recurrence, as evidenced by ongoing harassment based on race, national origin, and sex at the three Schools. District employee responses during interviews with OCR underscored the inefficacy of the District’s responses. Most employees OCR interviewed said they were unaware of what the District had done in response to student-to-student harassment based on protected statuses, eight employees told OCR that the District had not done enough to address such harassment, and 10 employees told OCR that their school had not done enough.”

So, let’s talk about the findings. The OCR says:

“OCR received seven harassment complaints against the District in a span of less than five
months between January and June 2023 involving three of its seven schools. During school year
(SY) 2022-23, the District served 4,350 students in four elementary schools; one middle school
for grades six and seven (EHMS), with 705 students; one junior high school for grades eight and
nine (TMJH), with 772 students; and one high school for grades 10 to 12 (PCHS), with 1,221
students. The districtwide student population was 74.1% White, 18.8% Latino, 5.3% multi-racial,
1.2% Asian, 0.5% Black, 0.1% American Indian, and 0.04% Pacific Islander.

The seven complaints alleged that ongoing and various types of student-to-student harassment
based on race, national origin, disability, and sex created hostile environments for students at
EHMS, TMJH, and PCHS. Six of the seven complaints OCR investigated alleged race-based
harassment, three of the seven complaints alleged antisemitic harassment against students in
violation of Title VI’s prohibition of discrimination based on national origin (shared Jewish
ancestry), three of the complaints alleged sex-based harassment, and two of the complaints
alleged disability-based harassment. As detailed below, OCR found documentary and witness
evidence of over 180 reported incidents of students harassing other students at the three Schools
during SYs 2021-22 and 2022-23, and the vast majority were based on race (77), national origin
(27 involving antisemitism), or sex (at least 80), including slurs, threats, name-calling, jokes,
gestures, symbols, and assaults. For example, EHMS alone documented 58 incidents of students
engaging in race-based harassment, nine incidents involving antisemitic harassment, and 55
incidents of sex-based harassment, for a total of at least 122 documented incidents of harassment
in one school over just two school years. OCR also found four documented reports of disability
harassment – three at EHMS and one at TMJH – and a possible hostile environment for at least a
few students with disabilities.

OCR’s investigation of these complaints consisted of reviewing the District’s harassment and
student discipline policies and procedures, the three Schools’ websites, student-parent
handbooks, employee training materials, and records related to specific incidents of harassment
(e.g., communications, witness statements, interview notes, and discipline records). Additionally,
OCR had the District run a search of all employees’ email accounts for messages that contained
any one of 58 keywords (e.g., “Nazi,” “swastika,” “racism,” “LGBTQ,” “sexual harassment,”
etc.) and were sent or received since July 1, 2021; then, OCR reviewed the voluminous emails
produced. Next, OCR asked all employees who work at the three Schools, via an emailed survey,
about incidents of students engaging in harassment based on protected statuses and the schools’
and District’s responses to such harassment. OCR received 121 survey responses, including from
52 employees at EHMS, 28 at TMJH, and 41 at PCHS.

Then, OCR interviewed 47 individuals employed by the District during SY 2022-23, including
18 who worked at EHMS, 12 who worked at TMJH, 14 who worked at PCHS, and three who
worked in the District’s Central Office. Interviewees at each school included, at a minimum, the
principal and assistant principals, at least one counselor, employees who were involved in
responding to specific incidents of harassment, and employees who provided information about
harassment in a response to OCR’s survey. OCR also interviewed seven former District
employees, 18 parents of current or former District students, seven current District students, and
five other local community members.

These interviews, OCR’s review of thousands of pages of District records, and employee survey
responses confirmed that student-to-student harassment based on race, national origin (shared
Jewish ancestry), and sex at TMJH, EHMS, and PCHS, of which the District had actual notice,
created a hostile environment for Black students, Asian students, Jewish students, and many
students based on sex, including LGBTQI+ students, during SYs 2021-22 and 2022-23. In
response to this harassment, the District and three Schools disciplined some of the harassers and
took some actions to prevent recurrence of harassment generally, such as providing additional
training for administrators, sending mass emails to parents of students at EHMS, producing
videos about harassment at TMJH, initiating a “standing together against hate” campaign at
PCHS, and conducting presentations or holding discussions about harassment at EHMS, TMJH,
and PCHS. The information OCR has reviewed to date confirms that, at least in specific
incidents (including as illustrated in 11 examples discussed below), these responses were
insufficient to end the harassment or prevent its recurrence, as evidenced by ongoing harassment
based on race, national origin, and sex at the three Schools. District employee responses during
interviews with OCR underscored the inefficacy of the District’s responses. Most employees
OCR interviewed said they were unaware of what the District had done in response to student-to-
student harassment based on protected statuses, eight employees told OCR that the District had
not done enough to address such harassment, and 10 employees told OCR that their school had
not done enough.

Additionally, OCR identified concerns regarding the District’s compliance with Title VI and
Section 504. Specifically, OCR identified concerns regarding the District’s responses to
harassment and possible hostile environments for Hispanic students and students with disabilities
at the three Schools (including as illustrated in the twelfth example discussed below). As
discussed near the end of this letter, OCR also found evidence of student-to-student harassment
based on race and sex at the District’s four elementary schools, which were not the focus of
OCR’s investigation, raising an additional concern about whether the District promptly and
effectively responded to this harassment as required by Title VI and Title IX.

District records produced to date do not reflect responses sufficient to redress and prevent
recurrence of hostile environments for students at the three Schools”

I remember a 2022 interview with Leslie Thatcher on KPCW while running for Park City School Board. Leslie asked whether I would vote to remove Superintendent Dr. Gildea. I emphatically said, “YES”.

Now, it seems so long ago.

That was a simpler time when my criticism was based on a magic rock, not allowing teachers’ kids to attend the same school where they taught, having the Health Department take over a school, not speaking with the local NPR station, lack of rape and abuse reporting, and building without permits. Little did I know we would then have swastikas carved into desks, rampant bullying, and a scathing Office of Civil Rights report that alleged there was “ongoing harassment based on race, national origin (including antisemitic harassment), disability, and sex.”

That brings us up to today to a story written by Brock Marchant in the ParkRecord about Payton Bullet, who has been bullied since elementary school mainly because he is black.

We have an important election before us. That is for a seat on the Summit County Council. With all due respect to Ari Ioannides who is running on the Republican ticket, the winner of the Democratic Primary for Summit County Council will likely determine the Council Member. This decision is important.

On the Democratic party side, the primary election concludes on June 25. There are two choices: Megan McKenna and Thomas Cooke. By all accounts, they are both good people. I know Thomas, and he is a caring individual with years of planning experience. I don’t know Megan, but everyone I have spoken with about Megan indicates she is a wonderful teacher — inside our schools and out.

Why do you care?

Most things that impact our day-to-day life around Park City are about land use. What should happen with Dakota Pacific? What should happen with Cline Dahle? What should happen with the 810 Ranch (East Canyon dirt road)?

Those are all land use issues. How do we use the land? You think it would be easy, but it’s not. As we have seen over the last year, the Utah Legislature has become involved, and it has become more of a mafia event than you’d expect. Understanding planning is more important than ever when it comes to Dakota Pacific. If not done well, it could be a disaster for our entry corridor.

As a NIMBY, I am personally invested in the outcome of 810 Ranch and Cline Dahle. I live in Jeremy Ranch. If you are in Pinebrook or Jeremy Ranch, you should likely be concerned too. I want the best possible experience for the thousands of people who will be impacted by County Council decisions in our area.

What I know is I don’t want housing at Cline Dahle. I think it should be a park. There are no public parks within miles of thousands of our residents. We need Cline Dahle to be a park with fields, tennis, and pickleball. It won’t impact our schools.

Likewise, I want

That is a topic where Thomas Cooke excels.

Tomorrow, the Summit County Council will vote on implementing a 15 MPH speed limit on paved trails, which will affect both traditional and e-bikes. While the measure has the best intentions in mind, the law will make things worse.

I am likely one of the longest users of E-Bikes in Summit County. Since 2016, I have been riding my various Pedego E-Bikes across the county. The number one issue is interactions with others on the paved trails. How do those of us on E-Bikes ensure we interact positively with slower people on the trails? If we do it right, we slow down for pedestrians. We slow WAY down for little kids. We ring our bells when passing. We pay attention to the situation and try not to act like assholes.

If that happens, the 20 MPH top speed of most e-bikes is just fine. The problem is not the speed; it’s the asshole. That asshole could be on an e-bike or a Pinarello. Both can go fast. It’s how they interact and no speed limit will change the interaction.

You may say, but what’s the harm with a speed limit? The harm that this proposed law will generate is animosity. As I ride past people at 13.5 MPH, inevitably, someone will shout to slow down because they think I am going too fast. I’ll then shout back about how I am not breaking any laws. Regardless, it elevates anger.

You may say that’s a small price to pay for safety. Yet, when I was riding to the 4th of July parade from Jeremy to Main Street, I encountered several “pocket rocket” e-bikes, with young kids riding at least 30 MPH on the trails. Will a law like this impact that rider?

Oh, and I was nursing a low battery on the way back so I slowed to the pace of traditional road bikes. Many of those go over 15 MPH. Will this law change the behavior of e-bike or road bike riders?

Probably not, unless it’s enforced. And how will it be enforced? It won’t be. It can’t be. I don’t envision the Summit County Sheriff’s Department radaring bicycles on our trails unless it’s once for effect.

Where does that leave us? The assholes will be assholes and the rest of us will be agro. Safety will not improve. It will just lead to more anger and divisiveness.

This is something that sounds good but I challenge you to envision how it works out on our lovely trail system.

The answer is not well. I hope the County Council doesn’t go down this path.