When a TV series or movie is being resurrected from the dead like Battlestar Galactica or Dallas, there are generally two options. You can start it fresh with new ideas and out of the box thinking or you can simply tinker with the script. The cheap way out is the latter option, but the more successful path is usually to rethink the concept. From reading a recent Park Record article on the school board’s response to their bond defeat, it seems they may be only tinkering with the script.

The school board has stated it wants to understand why its $56 million bond proposal was defeated. According to board member Phil Kaplan, “The voters sent a message, and what that message is, isn’t clear.”

What’s clear is that the stunning defeat of the bond has left the board off balance.

The school board’s answer to trying to understand “the why” appears to be a voter survey. The problem with a survey is that they are notoriously hard to get right. First, the questions have to be crafted by professionals, in an unbiased way. Second, the survey has to be distributed in a representative way. Third, it’s not a quick process. I look at the “state of the county” survey that Summit County sends out to residents every couple of years. If I recall correctly, it is crafted by a university professor who has experience in asking the right questions in order to get valid results. Second it is mailed out to a couple thousand Summit County residents that have been deemed representative. Third, the process takes months and costs thousands of dollars.

If the school board decides to go down the survey route but doesn’t follow a similar process to the county, they are going to be using the same strategies that led them their disastrous bond outcome. If they make up the questions themselves, they will be subject to their own biases. If surveys aren’t distributed representatively, the data won’t be valid. If they demand an answer tomorrow, the answer they get will be wrong.

The other issue with a survey is that they will get lots of data points but probably miss the forest for the trees. One of the unexpected benefits of doing something like the Park Rag, is that I have learned to take criticism and hopefully become a better person because of it. I’ve been called an idiot. I’ve been laughed at. I’ve had my ideas torn part. People call some of my articles half baked. People say I don’t understand. People correct me all the time…. and I’ve learned to love the commentary and grow from it. Ultimately, it makes a better product. That is the same lesson that the school board needs to learn. Humility.

If I were the school board, and I decided to ask a survey on why the bond failed, I would include (among other questions) the following:

1. On a scale of 1 to 10, how much do you trust the school board?
2. If we engage in a $50 million bond effort to rebuild schools, do you trust the school board to spend your tax dollars wisely? Yes or No.
3. In 2015 bond election, do you think the school board solicited enough public input? Yes or No.

Only through asking questions that can lead to harsh realities do we typically understand how we are truly perceived. Only from truly understanding how we are perceived, can we begin to lead.

What would I recommend that the school board do?

Begin by going on a listening tour. Talk to the people you hate right now. Be more like Tip O’neil and Ronald Reagan than like John Boehner and Barack Obama. Understand why the Citizens for Better Education opposed your viewpoints (and truly listen this time). Talk to the teachers and see why many of them voted against you. Hold town halls where you let people talk in an open ended format. Sit there, listen, and take it. Be tablarasa. Become better because of it.

My fear is that the school board seems to hold a view that they are undoubtedly right on all accounts and anyone who opposes them just doesn’t understand. In many ways listening to the school board feels like I am listening to Rush Limbaugh. When school board member Phil Kaplan says, “Does anybody not believe Park City is going to keep growing?,” trying to explain why we need the board’s plan… I say “Actually enrollment dropped in the schools this year by 0.5%. A lot of Park City’s growth is from second home owners who don’t have kids. Most parents of school aged children can’t afford a $800,000 house. Why do you conflate population growth with enrollment growth?”

As stated before I would like the school board to begin by talking to those who opposed them in order to get historical context for why their ideas failed.I would then like to see our community (including the school board) agree on two or three core issues we would like to solve. After that, town hall discussions, with no preconceived notions, should be held where people could talk about solving those issues. I would then like the outcome of those town hall meetings to drive options. I would like those options then presented back to the community where further discussions took place. Then I would like the school board to ultimately weigh all the information and decide on a course of action.

The Park City School Board should be more a judge of ideas than advocates.

Instead, what we had was the school board Master Planning Committee, made up of school board members, school administrator, teachers, school district staff, and two members of the public, talk for months in an echo chamber before the public was even engaged. Then when the public was engaged, it was handled like a Choose Your Own Adventure book with the predetermined path highlighted.

We have a great opportunity ahead of us. We are in a community that both values education and generally has the means to achieve it. We have well educated and experienced people everywhere, from our local business persons, to our civil servants, to those retired, to the lifty who would rather be reading Voltaire. We just need to take advantage of that natural resource.

I truly hope the school board will take another step back, scrap the survey idea, take a few more weeks off to clear their heads, meet with those opposed to the bond over coffee and/or beer, and start afresh with the community.

I really hope they find it in their hearts to pull it apart and put it back together.

Sometimes you choose to write because you are excited about a topic and want to scream about it at the top of your lungs. This isn’t one of those times…

We are now a few days out from our School Bond Election. The public voted and the bond was rejected. Yet, what were we voting for? What were we voting against? Judging from the outcome, it appears most people were voting on the ideas inherent in the process. In this case, the ideas were struck down.

However, I think back to the days and weeks preceding the election, and many prominent people in our community told us that we weren’t voting on the idea, we were voting on HOW TO PAY FOR THE IDEA. “Do you want to pay for schools via bond or via tax?” was the cry. “Either way the school board is going forward with their plan.” Now three days on, I haven’t heard anyone in power (i.e., the school board) say they are going to go forward and levy a tax (perhaps it’s still coming). That lack of action just provides fodder for those who said a tax was just a threat designed to push people toward voting for the bond.

The problem is, that what seems now was just an idle threat, was propagated by some of the most prominent members of our community as fact. Some of these people were even elected officials.

More importantly, if it turns out to have just been a threat, it seems like a tactic designed to, at best, mislead people and, at worst, coerce people.

Most importantly, for those who said that, how do we have trust in what you say going forward?

This bond was one of the defining moments of the next decade and those who said we were simply voting on “how to pay for it” appear to be have been wrong, duped themselves, or were flat-out lying. Regardless, we can’t let that action get shoved under the carpet, never to be heard again. One just can’t say those things and hope no one remembers it when the tide goes against him or her.

I almost wish the school board would go through with it and levy their $500 a household tax for the next three years. At least then they would be putting OUR money where THEIR mouth was. At least then I would know that they were going to do what they said they were going to do. At least then I could look at many of community leaders and think they actually knew what they were talking about.

Instead, it appears that it was just words. Words designed to try and influence the outcome of an election. Words designed to manipulate our residents. Words that ultimately may have backfired.

If the school board doesn’t ultimately carry through with those words, many of us will never look at some of the people who emphatically uttered that phrase the same ever again.

And that’s really unfortunate.

When the tale of the 2015 Park City School Bond is finally written, the conclusions may be different. However, sitting here on the morning after the stunning defeat of the Park City School Bond, there are at least four reasons why the bond failed.

1. School Board Plans Were Not Specific Enough

When the public is asked to spend $66 million on a plan, they generally like to know the details. In the case of the PCSD Bond, the specifics details were either yet to come or came very late. What would Ecker Hill look like with 1700 students? What would the design of the athletic facilities be on Kearns? How would traffic be mitigated? Was there going to be a field house? Would the field house be shared with Basin Rec or the city? This was even evident during an August 11th school board meeting (a week after the School Board took a straw poll stating they would likely vote for the bond) where members were debating what to include in the bond.

While no one expects every detail to be worked out beforehand, the lack of specifics on key points made it difficult for the public to get behind the bond.

2. Every Election is “Local”

They say every election is local, and in the case of the school bond, it was hyperlocal. The school bond had components that either angered or gave pause to many groups within the district. Some people in town didn’t like the idea of the middle school leaving the city limits. Some people in the Basin didn’t look forward to the traffic caused by 1700 students at Ecker. Some people didn’t like the idea of their little 5th graders mingling with 8th graders (despite the arguments that it would never happen). Some people thought their money was being wasted on athletics. There’s was something to dislike in the proposal for almost everyone.

The problem was that there wasn’t something for everyone to get passionately behind. Better athletic facilities? Bringing our schools up to date? Improving our dual immersion program? Better test scores for certain groups? Additional space for growth that either isn’t coming or seems to have paused?

The school board gave almost everyone a reason to vote against the bond but didn’t counter that by providing better reasons to vote for it.

3. Bad Messaging From the Pro-Bond People

George Bernard Shaw said, “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” I think that sums up the problem the pro bond group had. Even in defeat, Moe Hickey, one of the leaders of the pro bond group, said that he felt voters just didn’t understand. Yet, making voters understand was the job of the pro bond group and the school board, and they just didn’t do it.

Too often when someone would present an argument against the bond, the response would be, “you need to read the school board FAQ because you just don’t understand.” At 3,700 words the school board FAQ was probably more than most people wanted to consume. It would be like a student asking a teacher about Napoleon’s invasion of Russia and the teacher handing the kid War and Peace. Instead specific answers would have helped many people. In the end, I believe the school board tried but it was too little, too late.

Likewise, when Park Meadows residents were concerned with moving Dosier Field because of lights and sound impacts, they were demonized as NIMBY’S (Not in My Backyard) by some people who were for the bond. That’s not exactly the best way to endear a large segment of the voting population.

When people questioned anything about the bond, they were told that the decision had already been made and people were just voting on how to pay for it. Do people not realize how condescending that sounds? That combined with the “threat” of levying a tax if the bond failed made many people say ENOUGH!

Finally, the messaging seemed completely inauthentic and manufactured. I received so many emails and read so many posts, that were pro bond, that came from different people, that were almost identical. It must be like a politician receiving a thousand form letters on a topic. I think the citizens of the Park City area respect independent thought. The fact that their friend Sally is going to vote for something doesn’t matter as much as why Sally is personally going to vote for something. If what Sally offers up is identical to 5 other things a person has read, at best it becomes noise. At worst it becomes annoying. In many cases, that line was crossed.

4. The School Board Hung on Too Tightly

Hold on loosely
But don’t let go 
If you cling too tightly
You’re going to lose control

How often do you get to quote .38 Special in a political piece? However, I can’t think of any better words to describe the school board’s actions. I believe the school board wanted this bond too much. When opposition formed to idea, they pushed harder. When it didn’t go away, they dug in. When all they started hearing from the public was negativity, they squeezed it to death. The board never should have pulled students out of Ecker Hill Social Studies classes to talk about the bond. I know they told us it was in response to requests from teachers, but I think many people thought it was a veiled attempt to gain more support (regardless of whether someone said “tell your parents to vote yes”). They gave people another reason to vote no.

They never should have produced the bond video that was disseminated to students across the district. If the intention was purely educational, there was plenty of time to send that video out after they won. Instead, one bad phrase was uttered on the video, investigations started, and two school board members pictures from the video were splashed on the front of the Park Record, like a mug shot.

The only conclusion I can draw is that the school board wanted it too bad. If there is one thing most of us learned from high school is that you never get the girl by suffocating her and that the girl rarely gets the guy when she tries too hard.

I do believe the outcome for the bond could have been different with a little more time. It looks like they’ll get that time, now. Hopefully during the next go around they approach things a little differently… and won’t feel like they need to try as hard.

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.