Home Care In Alpine, UT

Utah state lawmakers strongly criticized Alpine School District’s handling of potential school closures in an Administrative Rules Review and General Oversight Committee during the Legislature’s May 18 interim session.

This discussion came after 33 parents filed a lawsuit in April accusing the district of not following state law and taking steps toward closing five schools before properly notifying the community.

The district’s school board voted in November 2022 to study potential boundary changes and school closures after voters rejected a proposed bond that would have partially been used to fix aging, unsafe schools. Parents were notified in December about the study, but the email did not name any specific schools that could be on the chopping block.

“It doesn’t get real for a parent until their school’s name is listed on the notification,” said Rep. Brady Brammer during the committee meeting, who represents Alpine. “The way that this is, it kind of lulls you into it. It’s like, ‘we’re going to study it, we’re going to come back, we’re going to talk to people.’”

Two parents, who represented a group of parents, gave a presentation on their complaints about Alpine’s process and what they’d like lawmakers to do. And several parents spoke negatively about the district’s actions during public comment.

The district was required to notify parents 120 days before approving a school closure or school boundary change and allow opportunities for public comment, according to state code.

On Feb. 28, less than three months after the December email, the school board approved a motion to direct staff to start the formal process of “closing Sharon, Windsor, Valley View, Lindon and Lehi elementaries” for the 2023-2024 school year, according to the minutes for that meeting.

The district told parents in an email after that meeting that the board had voted to “move various components of the General Boundary Study to a FORMAL STUDY” and that they were only looking at proposed closures, nothing had been decided.

After several open houses to hear public comment, the board voted to “continue the process” of potentially closing Sharon and Valley View elementaries after the current school year, and possibly close Lehi, Lindon and Windsor in 2024.

The allegation from parents and some lawmakers is that school board members had already made a decision of which schools to close during the Feb. 28 meeting, before parents were notified about which specific schools were on the table or given opportunities for comment.

Committee chair Sen. Curtis Bramble said it appeared as though the board had made a decision and then went through the motions of studying the issue.

“The overall arching concern is that everybody feels like the goose is cooked on these two schools prior to a final vote. And the teachers are acting as if it’s cooked, there’s no principal making plans for next year,” Brammer said.

Valley View Elementary parent Chad Hunsaker told the committee that his school’s PTA has not held any elections for the next school year since it could be closed by then.

Former Sen. Karen Mayne sponsored the 2019 law requiring 120 days notice before closing a school after the Granite School District school board voted to close a school less than a month after notifying the community.

“I can tell you she’s probably not happy if she’s listening to this committee because this was a very, very important bill for her that had to do [with] making sure parents feel empowered and not just be, you know, taken over by a district,” said Sen. Luz Escamilla. “There has to be that transparency.”

Escamilla said it feels like the district’s actions were just a cover-up after they had already made decisions and that she was disappointed, especially since Alpine is Utah’s largest school district.

“We will fix the statue and probably your school district will be the example of what not to do because clearly [you] did not follow the rule of the law as it was intended,” Escamilla said.

During the 2023 legislative session, Utah lawmakers shortened the notice period for a school closure from 120 days to 90 days. However, that law did not go into effect until May and would not have retroactively affected Alpine.

After the session ended, bill sponsor Sen. Jake Anderegg said he received two phone calls from Alpine school board members, who he would not name. To him, it appeared those board members were seeking “political cover.”

“Using the bill that I had passed to say, ‘Oh no, it wasn’t 120 days, it was 90.’ And it seems disingenuous to me,” Anderegg said. “It was never my intent in this legislation to provide political cover for Alpine School District for not following due process and what the law requires.”

Anderegg and some of the other committee members were irritated that none of the district’s school board members nor Superintendent Shane Farnsworth showed up for the hearing in person. Bramble said they were invited. One board member, Joylin Lincoln, was on Zoom.

The district was represented at the meeting by Executive Director of External Relations and Communications David Stephenson, Executive Director of Legal Services Kraig Brinkerhoff and Business Administrator Robert Smith.

The committee voted to subpoena the superintendent and school board to be in attendance and in person at the committee’s next meeting.

“The fact that they're not in the room answering these questions is going to lead to a series of legislation, several bills at least that will correct this and is bringing quite frankly, I hate to say this because I love you guys [Alpine School Board members], is going to bring the hammer,” Anderegg said.

The committee also voted to open a bill file relating to this issue and referred it to the Legislature’s education committee. Rep. Kera Birkeland said she wanted to make things absolutely clear so that “no other district can jump through these same loopholes.”

Brammer said it’s important that they fix the closure process because districts statewide will be closing schools over the next decade due to Utah’s declining school-age population.

The Alpine School Board could vote on closing the schools at its June 30 meeting, which the district’s timeline says is 122 days after parents were emailed on March 1, 2023, about which specific schools could close. During the committee meeting, Stephenson declined to answer when, according to his interpretation or the district’s interpretation, the 120-day period actually started due to the lawsuit.

Estimated read time: 7-8 minutes

SALT LAKE CITY — Weeks before Alpine School District will vote to potentially close two elementary schools, Utah lawmakers and members of the district's board of education on Monday went back and forth over one question.

What constitutes notification and when did the district properly notify the parents of the schools that could be impacted by closures?

Last month, members of the Administrative Rules Review and General Oversight Committee decided to subpoena the board members to require them to attend Monday's committee meeting in person after their absence drew the ire of lawmakers at last month's committee meeting.

"The purpose of today's meeting, as it relates to Alpine School District, is to determine whether or not we need to amend the relevant statute regarding school closures," said Utah Sen. Curtis Bramble, R-Provo, who serves as the committee chairman.

According to Utah law, parents of students enrolled in any affected school must be notified 120 days before that school is closed or its boundaries are changed.

"We need to know when were the school or these schools, plural, identified and when was a 120-day period commenced for purposes of complying with this statute," Bramble said.

The interpretation of the district's following (or not) of this code has been the crux of the debate around the potential school closures for months.

Last month, 33 plaintiffs — mostly parents — filed a lawsuit against the district, alleging that it hasn't followed the law in its process of exploring the closure of Lehi, Valley View, Lindon, Windsor and Sharon elementary schools and associated boundary studies.

Timeline

During the district's Nov. 29 board meeting, after a proposed $595 million bond for the district failed, the board requested a districtwide boundary study to explore possibilities around restructuring or consolidating boundaries and evaluating school buildings for potential closure, Alpine School District spokesman David Stephenson said.

In early December, the district sent a letter to parents notifying them that since the proposed bond failed, the district would be initiating a boundary study that could result in potential closures.

On March 1, the district sent an email to parents and city mayors, councils and administrators, notifying them that the five elementary schools were being considered for closure and/or boundary adjustments and starting the 120-day notice period prior to the closure of any schools, as required by Utah law.

However, the lawsuit claims that at a Feb. 28 board meeting, the board "voted to close Sharon, Windsor, Valley View, Lindon and Lehi elementary schools and implement the associated boundary and program changes to be effective in the '23-24 school year."

Alpine School District board, superintendent subpoenaed by Utah lawmakers

Utah lawmakers criticized Alpine School District's process of studying potential closures of five elementary schools during a committee meeting held during the Legislature's interim session.

Seemingly, a bulk of the disagreement between the plaintiffs and the district can be traced to the Feb. 28 board meeting, when board member Joylin Lincoln made a motion "that the board of education direct staff to begin a formal process, in accordance with state statutory requirements, of closing Sharon, Windsor, Valley View, Lindon and Lehi elementary schools and implement the associated boundary and program changes to be effective in the '23-24 school year."

The motion passed, with board member Sarah Beeson casting the lone opposing vote.

The March 1 email sent out by the district the day after the Feb. 28 board meeting states that the motion passed was "to move various components of the General Boundary Study to a FORMAL STUDY."

Essentially, the district said that the vote wasn't a final nail in the coffin of the five schools but, instead, a vote to move into the formal study process — denoted by the March 1 email specifically notifying parents who could be impacted.

Communication issues

Monday's meeting revealed an apparent communication breakdown between committee members Bramble and Rep. Brady Brammer, R-Pleasant Grove, and the school district leading up to last month's meeting, during which the superintendent and board members were subpoenaed.

Board president Sara Hacken, vice president Julie King and Kraig Brinkerhoff, executive director of legal services for the district, were present for Monday's meeting. Superintendent Shane Farnsworth was traveling and unable to attend.

Hacken, reading a prepared statement from Farnsworth, said that "no request was made via email, text, letter or telephone call for the superintendent or board members to attend this scheduled committee meeting last month."

"Consequently, a subpoena to this meeting was unnecessary, given that an invitation to attend is sufficient," Hacken said.

"Issuing a subpoena is not necessarily popular, but it certainly eliminates any question about communication," Bramble said.

"You can always call me, Sen. Bramble," King responded.

District responds to lawmakers

When addressing the seemingly elusive question as to whether the district followed Utah law in notifying parents who could be impacted by potential closures, Hacken said that it had but that there was some confusion over when that notification began to start the 120-day period required by Utah code.

"One of those confusions that we had, or one of the questions, was that December meeting. The questions came up: Did we give enough notice? And we had several different opinions from several different sources and they didn't agree with each other," Hacken said.

At that point, she said the question was whether the district needed to individually list all the schools that could be impacted — something the district did in the March 1 email to parents.

"We took a very conservative view of that 120-day timeline, whereas we originally had hoped that it could start in December so we would have sufficient time to do all those emotional, important things that we need to do," Hacken said. "We were counseled that that would not be the case, so we had to make the difficult decision to go ahead and restart the process in February."

Hacken said that the schools being studied for potential closure for the 2023-2024 school year have been studied in the past, both formally and informally, and all of them have "significant structural, operational and seismic challenges."

All five of the schools being considered for closure made their way onto the Utah K-12 Public Schools Unreinforced Masonry Inventory, making the buildings seismically unsafe in the event of an earthquake.

"Newer facilities are proximate to the schools being studied for closure, have the capacity and are in better condition to support the learning needs and safety of our students, families and communities," Hacken said.

Hacken also pushed back against allegations made by parents and echoed by Brammer at last month's meeting that the district took actions to close the schools by reassigning school administrators and encouraging teachers to find employment elsewhere before a final vote was cast.

If you guys were to then make a motion to close certain schools on or after the 29th of June, you would still be within the scope of the law. Let's just make sure that's absolutely clear.

– Sen. Jake Anderegg, R-Lehi.

"While most administrative assignments are typically done in the spring, other changes may occur during the summer and, on rare occasions, during the school year," Hacken said. "Knowing the board was considering possible school closures, we thought it prudent to allow teachers of potentially affected schools the opportunity to transfer. We remind this committee and the public that administrators and teachers are contracted with the district and assigned to a school or work location. Assignments may be changed at any time to meet the needs of the organization or the individuals."

Hacken said that the board will not make a final decision until its June 30 meeting, which is after the 120-day time period required by law.

"If you guys were to then make a motion to close certain schools on or after the 29th of June, you would still be within the scope of the law. Let's just make sure that's absolutely clear," said Sen. Jake Anderegg, R-Lehi.

Despite this, Anderegg still questioned whether the timeline outlined by Utah code is fair to families who may be impacted by the potential closures. Lawmakers during last month's meeting, prompted by the parents' allegations, mentioned plans to propose legislation focused on school closures.

During Monday's meeting, multiple lawmakers teased the idea of establishing a set timeline and specific dates for when districts are able to explore school closures.

"Any sort of legislative act to remedy this is going to be postscriptive. It's not going to help our situation right now," Anderegg said. "How do we better navigate for parents to be able to have as much time as possible to make decisions?"

"We've learned some profoundly important lessons that we would love to be able to share and that we would love to be able to, maybe, inform future statute," Hacken said. "For us, we would love to work with you, and I think a timeline would be really helpful."

Play/Pause

Mute/Unmute

Embed video

Playback Speed

Video Quality

Embed video

Copy the code below to embed the video.

<div _="@=1375,dis=none"><div _="@=1376,dis=none"></div></div> Copy

Playback Speed

2

1.75

1.50

1.25

Normal

0.50

Video Quality

Play/Pause >>

Mute/Unmute

0:00 / 0:00

Settings Closed Captions Picture in Picture Cast Fullscreen

Play/Pause >>

Mute/Unmute

0:00 / 0:00

Settings Closed Captions Cast Fullscreen

ALPINE, Utah — On the Sunday before the start of The Masters, Alpine's Saydie Wagner teed it up in the Drive, Chip and Putt National Finals at the legendary Augusta National golf course.

"It was such an experience, it was crazy," said Wagner. "It was so pretty, and they were so strict, so it was different than any other golf course you would ever play on. You couldn't lay on the grass, I got in trouble for that one.:

Wagner nearly won the girls age 14-15 division as she battled her nerves and finished second, just one point out of first place.

"I was just kind of in shock because I didn't think that I was going to do as well as I did, but I did alright," she said.

Saydie has now transitioned from playing at one of the greatest golf courses in the world to the golf courses in Utah; focused on helping Lone Peak High School repeat at 6A state champions.

"It's definitely a lot different," said Wagner. "It's not as nice, but I'm grateful that I get to play with my team because they are super fun."

Her teammates were watching her compete on national television.

"It was good, it was impressive," said Aadyn Long. "I was proud. She represented Utah. She did so good."

Long helped Lone Peak win the state title last year, finishing second individually as a freshman behind her sister Berlin, who's now playing at BYU. Aadyn is now a sophomore and Saydie is a freshman; together they are leading a young team that loves to compete against each other.

"I think me and Aadyn go at it pretty much every time," said Wagner.

"We play together all the time," said Long. "We've also grown up playing together. Me and Saydie are pretty close, but it's definitely fun, because I feel like both of our games have really gone to the next level."

Lone Peak has won every tournament they've played this season, with only the state championship left on the schedule May 8-9 at Riverbend Golf Course.

Copyright 2023 Scripps Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

ALPINE, Utah (ABC4) – A man from Alpine, Utah, has been accused of taking $1.5 million from a company and its businesses after he was hired to serve as the Chief Financial Officer.

Michael Eric Lee, 53, faces charges four second-degree felony charges of money laundering, five second-degree felony charges of theft, one second-degree felony charge of a pattern of unlawful activity, and a misdemeanor charge of theft.

According to charging documents, Lee was hired to be the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for several businesses owned by Richard Allred in January 2019. Under their agreement, Lee would work part-time until July of that year while he worked part-time for another company.

Lee reportedly agreed to a six-figure salary that would increase once he moved to the CFO position full-time. Allred alleges the hiring agreement did not include any additional forms of compensation including bonuses besides the base pay. Charging documents say Lee was also allowed to hire his family members as temporary contract employees to help with shipping and other jobs, under the same compensation agreement.

Subscribe Now

ABC4 Breaking News Alerts

With his position as CFO, Lee was reportedly given unlimited access to the company’s financial accounts as well as the accounts for all the accounts owned by the company. In total, Lee was allegedly given access to 47 financial accounts, including bank accounts, credit cards, PayPal and Venmo, among others.

Lee reportedly approached Allred in 2021 to purchase his businesses, saying they were losing money. The claim prompted Allred to hire a forensic accountant to determine why the businesses were losing money.

According to the court documents, the forensic accountant found the business was financially sound, but did report a “significant deficiency” in the company’s funds. The forensic accountant reported several unauthorized transactions done by Lee.

According to the report, Lee allegedly made nearly 2,000 purchases including movie tickets, gas, groceries, meals at restaurants, jewelry, airline tickets, hotels, and car rentals. Lee also allegedly used the money to fund vacations for himself and his family to Hawaii, California, Moab, New York, Wyoming and Idaho, as well as his daughter’s wedding and his own personal vehicle purchase. The forensic accountant also reported Lee had transferred a large amount of money into the accounts of family members that were not associated with payroll.

Allred claims that he, nor the company’s board approved of any of the alleged transactions or transfers and that Lee even agreed to a salary reduction in March 2020. Charging documents further allege that the funds used were not accounted for in Lee’s W2s for the tax years of 2019, 2020 and 2021.

In total, Lee allegedly took $1.5 million from Allred’s company and its related businesses.

Charges are allegations only. All arrested persons are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Alpine School District leaders attend this time, after skipping the last meeting and being subpoenaed.

During a tense meeting Monday, Utah lawmakers interrogated Alpine School District leaders over how they communicated with parents about potential school closures — and suggested changes to the statute that governs the process.

The discussion comes just weeks after the state’s Administrative Rules committee subpoenaed Alpine School District leaders Superintendent Shane Farnsworth and school board President Sara Hacken for not showing up at its previous meeting. This time, Hacken attended alongside school board Vice President Julie King and Kraig Brinkerhoff, the district’s executive director of legal services.

“The purpose of today’s meeting as relates to Alpine School District is to determine whether or not we need to amend the relevant statute regarding school closures,” said Sen. Curtis Bramble, R-Provo, who is also the co-chair of the committee. “In our last meeting, we did not get a clear response on how the statue was complied with, what the timing on the compliance was in terms of when was notification given.”

In April, Alpine School District’s school closure process came under scrutiny after a group of 33 parents sued the district, arguing it did not follow state law for getting public input. The district is potentially closing Sharon and Valley View elementaries, effective in the 2023-24 school year.

Farnsworth did not attend Monday’s committee meeting due to travel, but prepared a statement that Hacken read to members. Farnsworth wrote that “no request was made via email, text, letter or telephone call for the superintendent or board members to attend the scheduled committee meeting” in May.

Sen. Curtis Bramble, R-Provo, said that response was “a bit of a frustration,” adding that he personally spoke to Farnsworth at an event prior to last month’s meeting about having him and other board members there.

“That’s water under the bridge,” Bramble said. “Consider the subpoena a formal invitation.”

Committee members rebuked the district leaders at times Monday for interrupting lawmakers’ statements and attempting to speak without being acknowledged by the committee chair.

The lawmakers also discussed setting a statewide deadline for completing the school process each year, and opened a bill file for possible new legislation.

Committee members ask for clarification

Prior to May 3, state law required districts to give parents and students of schools targeted for closure at least 120 days’ notice prior to officially approving or implementing plans to change attendance boundaries or close. That requirement has since been changed to 90 days, with the passage of SB143 in the 2023 legislative session.

During the meeting, multiple committee members tried to get clarification on when exactly the 120 days began for the district to begin the process of closing its initial list of targeted schools, which were Sharon, Windsor, Valley View, Lindon and Lehi elementary schools.

Brinkerhoff reiterated to the committee that on Feb. 28, the board voted to move forward with a formal study that included a proposed closure, merger or boundary change of those schools. And on March 1, an email was sent to parents to officially inform them of the study, beginning the 120 days’ notice.

After several open houses, the board voted to remove three elementary schools from the study until 2024, but to “continue the process” of potentially closing Sharon and Valley View in 2023.

Farnsworth’s statement said that the board is anticipated to make a “final determination” on the school closures on June 30, though action is still “potential.”

Sen. Brady Brammer, R-Pleasant Grove, questioned the wording of the Feb. 28 motion by the school board, saying that it did not mention a study — and instead said the district would “begin the formal process of closing” the elementary schools.

“It actually says, ‘the process of closing,’” Brammer said. “That would be fine if everybody understood it and understood what you meant, as opposed to what you said.”

He also noted that after the Feb. 28 vote, teachers from those schools were reassigned within the district, citing a district spreadsheet showing that there were no teachers at Valley View and Sharon slated to teach next year.

Brinkerhoff responded by reiterating what Farnsworth said in his statement — that it’s “much easier to be prepared and reverse track than it is to try and make adjustments on the fly.”

Committee looks at potential changes to statute

Brammer said the Alpine School District has put itself “in a little bit of a conundrum” with the timing of reassigning teachers ahead of a school closure vote.

“If you wanted to close within the certain time periods, you’re basically in this scenario where you feel like, ‘Well, we can’t close then shift all these people around, but we can’t plan to close and then not move these people around before we actually vote to close,’” he said.

Brammer suggested a change to the statute — proposing having Oct. 31 be a statewide deadline for districts to complete the process of a closure and have the vote to close a school. That school would then close the next academic year, he said.

King suggested possibly moving that date even further back, to Jan. 31, since the later date may conflict with when charters conduct their lottery draws for admissions.

“October is tough because if you back up 120 days, we’re starting that process in July,” King said. “And if we want to be transparent with parents, who’s checking their email in July?”

Whatever date is set doesn’t really matter that much, said Sen. Jacob Anderegg, R-Lehi. He said what is most important is creating a timeline that would give parents enough time to make an informed decision, such as if they need to move.

“I will stand by what I said in the last meeting, which is the school board needs to be able to open and shut schools,” Anderegg said.

He added that even if there was a decision to change the law now, it would not go into effect until potentially May of next year, as it would need to go through and be approved by the House, Senate and the governor.

“That’s part of the reason why you’re here answering questions is, how do we better navigate for parents to be able to have as much time as possible to make decisions?” Anderegg said to the Alpine School District leaders, asking when they would recommend dates to be set for an appropriate timeline.

King said she would be happy to bring it back to the board members to discuss and later share their recommendation with the committee.

She added that closing schools is “the most emotionally charged thing” a district has to do, and that no one is happy about boundary changes, much less school closures.

“We have involved parents who love their schools, are committed to their communities, and we have phenomenal schools. And everyone’s saying, ‘Please keep us open, please stay open, we love our schools so much,’” King said. “That is a phenomenal problem to have, because if we had the reverse problem where people were saying, ‘That school is the worst, it’s about time,’ that would be a different dynamic.”

[email protected]Follow @leem386

Donate to the newsroom now. The Salt Lake Tribune, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) public charity and contributions are tax deductible

RELATED STORIES