Karl G Maeser Preparatory Academy is a great school with great teachers and great students. However, recent events reveal corruption in the Maeser Board (Cynthia Shumway, Steve Whitehouse, Sandra Russell, Joanna Larsen, Richard Dodge, and Samantha Stonely) and Executive Director (Robyn Ellis). Sunlight is the best disinfectant, so this website exposes this corruption with the Maeser Board's own records, which prove that Maeser Prep needs a new Board and a new Executive Director. The teachers and students do a great job of upholding Maeser Prep's motto - Truth Honor Virtue. Maeser Prep needs a new Board and new Executive Director who will do the same.
Note – All numbered records on this page can be found on the Sources page.
Just prior to the Maeser Board's secret firing of teacher Natalie Gerber for misconduct in April 2025, an internal Maeser investigation concluded, among other things, that Gerber had exhibited “unprofessional behavior and conduct” for “many years,” and that, notwithstanding “coaching and counseling” by “at least 3 administrators,” “continual instances continue to happen each year” and “several incidents each year seem to recur.” (See #3, p. 10).
As part of this internal Maeser investigation into Gerber, one or more Maeser administrators created an investigation report (see #3). The Maeser Board discussed this investigation report in an illegal closed meeting it held on April 2, 2025 (see #2, at 0:00-26:32; see also #1, meeting minutes). The Maeser Board fought long and hard in a court case, and in two related GRAMA cases, to keep secret the investigation report, and the video and minutes of its illegal closed meeting. But they lost those fights, and were ordered by a Judge in the Fourth District Court to publicly release the video and minutes (see #25 and #31), and were ordered by the Director of the Utah Government Records Office to release the investigation report (see #29). Further, in his oral ruling during the hearing, the Director explained his reasoning for ordering the Maeser Board to release the investigation report as follows:
"We're dealing with a public school teacher who’s engaged in many years of misconduct. The school failed to take proper action and continues, I think, to resist full disclosure regarding the matter. And I think there are potential harms ... that need to be explored further … The information that was disclosed in the hearing, in the meeting that was closed, doesn't go far enough, I would agree. I think that the details need to be provided." (See #27, audio recording, at 1:25:08-1:25:43 (emphasis added)).
Specific examples of Gerber's "many years of misconduct," as alleged in the investigation report (see #3), are listed below. Also listed below are potentially relevant sections of Utah Administrative Code §§ R277-217-2 and R277-217-3, which list the “Educator Standards” that all licensed educators in Utah are required to uphold (see #32).
Allegation 1 - Gerber engaged in a road rage incident while driving a school bus full of students (see R277-217-3(4))
The investigation report (see #3) includes an allegation that Gerber engaged in a road rage incident while driving a school bus full of students on a field trip. In particular, the investigation report (see #3) alleges that:
See #9 and #10, 1st page, where Gerber’s fellow teacher and friend, Sandra Houghton, described this incident as follows:
“We did the forging experience [field trip] in 2 groups. My group came home 4 hours before her group. The next day she she told me a ‘funny story’ which was this: The lights weren’t working on the small bus and another driver flashed his lights at her from Sandy to Lehi. She already knew the lights weren’t working and said that it was incredibly distracting and annoying to have the person not just move on. She pulled over in Lehi, but the person also pulled over. He approached the driver window, and at some point during the conversation, she chewed him out, using the F bomb with students still on the bus. I don’t know how long she yelled at him or if he yelled back, but when he went and got in his car, she pulled behind him and followed him for a short distance, flashing her lights at him to give him a taste of what he had done to her. She told me the kids told her to stop, so she did.”
See also #3, 8th page, where the investigation report states:
“Winterim 2024 had a field trip incident ... N.G. [Gerber] reported a ‘funny story’ the next day to a co–worker that because of faulty lights, a driver was following behind the bus and flashing lights and being a little over the top. N.G. [Gerber, who was driving the bus,] pulled over and the driver pulled over coming up to the bus. There were some words exchanged between N.G. [Gerber] and the other driver in which N.G. [Gerber] dropped the ‘F bomb’ a few times. Upon pulling back onto the highway, N.G. [Gerber] followed the other driver closely, flashing lights etc. until the students asked her to stop. There is a full report of this in the Administrative file and reported to Ted [Gilbert] and Dustin [Simmons].”
Allegation 2 - Gerber angrily threatening to kick a student “where the sun doesn’t shine” (see R277-217-2(11))
The investigation report (see #3) includes allegations that:
See #8, 1st page, where Maeser Prep’s then-Director, Ted Gilbert, described this incident in an email, sent to Gerber three days after the incident, as follows:
“Ted Gilbert <ted.gilbert@maeserprep.org>
Mon, Mar 18, 2024, 7:30 AM
to Natalie
Hi Natalie,
I overheard some comments you made about [redacted – student name] in the faculty room on Friday. I could tell you were quite upset in the moment, so I felt addressing you about it later would be best. I just want to remind you how important it is that you speak professionally when you are in a school setting, especially when it comes to talking about students. I know you were not serious when you made statements about kicking him where the sun doesn’t shine, but if any bit of that were to somehow end up in his ears it could lead to serious issues. Please let me be your sounding board. You can always express your grievances with me in confidence. I cannot promise the same when you express frustrations to colleagues.
As far as [redacted – student name] is concerned, I would advise that if you decide to express your frustrations with how he handled himself that you speak to him in a way as you would if his parent(s) were present and I would suggest having another adult with you. I would also err on the side of mercy. He is only [redacted] years old and has a lot of life and learning to do. The other [redacted] grade students will probably do a good job of letting him know where he fell short and you can be a soft landing spot where you can express hope that he learns from his mistakes and rises to the level of leader he can be.
If you have any questions or want to visit, I am available. Just drop by my office or we can chat over the phone.”
Allegation 3 - Gerber angrily targeted students with the F-word and B-word in front of other students (see R277-217-3(3))
The investigation report (see #3) includes allegations that:
See #9 and #10, 2nd page, where Gerber’s fellow teacher and friend, Sandra Houghton, described this incident, and Gerber’s pattern of repeatedly “losing it” with students, as follows:
“[The 12th-grade female student] came to me last Tuesday afternoon and she told me:
1. While decorating the halls on Friday, [redacted – the 12th-grade female student] saw and heard Gerber yella at the [redacted – 9th] grade student body president using the F word, calling him dumb, because of canned goods Gerber ordered for the 9th graders, but delivered on the wrong day. [The 12th-grade female student] approached and put herself in the conversation, and then Gerber started in on her.
2. Gerber apologized to [redacted – the 12th-grade female student], but then friends sent her texts that Gerber was talking about what went down, and referred to [redacted – the 12th-grade female student] as a self–absorbed B___, and that Gerber was sick of it.
3. Communicated ideas about necessary cheating so that seniors, juniors don’t win. Based on a video that a student took, shared to who showed it to me, I honestly think this maybe started as her trying to get students to rally and help graders do well, but when things went south, maybe that part got forgotten.
4. [redacted – the 12th-grade female student] asked me why Gerber she gets away with repeatedly losing it, apologizing, then losing it again with students and colleagues. I answered that probably would be a question to ask admin, and diverted the topic.
5. I asked [redacted – the 12th-grade female student] if she talked to her parents about everything that transpired, and she told me that they sided with the idea that she should have been respectful of the teacher by not interfering, or altering her choice of words, that maybe she was disrespectful while trying to help the [redacted – 9th] grader. I asked [redacted – the 12th-grade female student] if she told her parents the specific things she heard that made her step in, and the specific things directed at her once she relieved the [redacted – 9th] grader. She told me that no, she edited everything because of fear that her father would become too angry and not back down in anything that followed. Her parents do not know what actually happened between her and Gerber.”
See also #8, 2nd page, where Maeser Prep’s then-Director, Ted Gilbert, described this incident as follows:
“In the meeting on Tuesday, March 26th, 2024 we discussed the interactions Natalie [Gerber] had with [redacted – the 9th-grade male student] and [redacted – the 12th-grade female student], two students. She admitted fault and did not try to excuse any of her behavior. I let her know that these were serious professional infractions and that any further issues could result in termination of employment. The interaction between [redacted – the 12th-grade female student] and Natalie [Gerber] where Natalie [Gerber] called her a b**** in front of other students was brought to the board as we were discussing employee performance as part of the staffing plans for the 24–25 school year. She received a C rating for the year and was asked to report back quarterly to the board on her performance in 2024–25.”
Allegation 4 - Gerber told sexual jokes to students and created a sexually charged atmosphere (see R277-217-2(22))
The investigation report (see #3) includes allegations that:
See #3, 6th page, where the investigation report states:
“Innapropriate Jokes or comments:
• One student plead the 5th
• One student said there were a few times that they felt there were inappropriate and somewhat sexual in nature comments but those will typically be shared [by Gerber] with a specific group of students.
….
• “N.G. [Gerber] told a student that N.G. [Gerber] could do a double flip and then proceeded to flip off the student with both hands. The student also observed the same joke in New York.”
See also #3, 9th page, where the investigation report concludes that:
“…it appears that Natalie Gerber (N.G.) may committed several boundary violations including violating:
2(a)(i)(3): telling risque jokes to, or in the presence of a student.
• One of the students mentioned she had overheard jokes that she felt were inappropriate and somewhat sexual in nature being told to a group of students.”
See also #4, 1st page, where on March 21, 2025, Maeser Prep administrators Ted Gilbert, Laura Ure, and Robyn Ellis met with Gerber and presented her with various allegations, including:
“Inappropriate student-teacher communication ... Creates a sexually/socially charged atmosphere considered soliciting.”
Allegation 5 - Gerber discussed, with students during class time, drinking alcohol and getting drunk (see R277-217-2(22))
The investigation report (see #3) includes allegations that:
See #9 and #10, 1st page, where Gerber’s fellow teacher and friend, Sandra Houghton, observed the following during Maeser Prep’s January 2024 Winterim semester: Speaking to students, Gerber shared “details about a night out drinking to the point of drunk multiple times, listing other teachers names that also went. One was the designated driver. Bringing the painting in, talking more about the fact it was painted while drunk.”
See also #3, 5th–6th pages, where the investigation report states:
“Alcohol related conversations have occurred
….
• Another student reports N.G. [Gerber] said alcohol can be harmful; however, the student perceived N.G. [Gerber] to imply she drank.
• At a Print Comm reunion with former students, a student overheard a conversation about alcohol.
• Students made a comment and N.G. [Gerber] shared she had taken a wine and painting class.
• Teacher interview reports that during Winterim 2024, N.G. [Gerber] informed the Winterim class of this Wine & Painting class in detail bringing in the ‘drunk painting’ which she donated to be hung in the classroom. It was discarded at the earliest convenience.
• Another teacher interviewed reports she has discussed it with students but doesn’t advocate it. Things like, when you become an adult, here is what beer is like, differences between different types of alcohol, and liquor laws in Utah. These observations were from conversations in class and New York winterim …
• N.G [Gerber] was drinking chocolate milk and the student asked her if that was her favorite drink? To which, N.G. [Gerber] replied, ‘No, it was an alcoholic beverage.’ Student reported that in that same conversation that N.G. [Gerber] mentioned she had been drunk at a game night with other adults.
• Student interview confirmed a conversation with N.G. [Gerber] in class where the student told [Gerber] her mom was going to [redacted] to which N.G. [Gerber] asked the student to have her mom call her because she would like her to bring something back for N.G. [Gerber] from [redacted]. The student asked what N.G. [Gerber] would like her mom to bring to which N.G. [Gerber] replied ‘A bottle of specific gin.’”
See also #3, 14th page, where Gerber admits that she asked a student, while taking attendance in a classroom full of students, to ask the student’s mom to bring Gerber “a bottle of specific gin” back from a trip.
See also #4, 1st page, where on March 21, 2025, Maeser Prep administrators Ted Gilbert, Laura Ure, and Robyn Ellis met with Gerber and presented her with various allegations, including: “Inappropriate student-teacher communication ... Multiple conversations, different times, about Gerber’s personal consumption of alcohol and hangovers, including asking students if they’ve ever had a hangover.”
See also #3, 11th page, where Gerber admits that “… I am not shy that I do consume alcohol …”
See also #3, 8th–9th pages, where the investigation report concludes as follows:
“Conclusion ... it appears that Natalie Gerber (N.G.) may committed several boundary violations including violating:
• 2(a)(i)(11): discussing an employee’s personal life or personal issues with a student.
o N.G. said that she is not shy that she does consume alcohol and student interviews confirmed that the topic of alcohol is discussed and one student said that N.G. had said she had been drunk at a game night with other adults."
Allegation 6 - Gerber routinely told female students to avoid marriage (R277-217-2(26)(f))
The investigation report (see #3) includes an allegation that Gerber told female students to avoid marriage.
See #3, 7th page, where the investigation report states:
“Student reports N.G. [Gerber] told the class that N.G. [Gerber] was almost married but it was a horrible experience and to be careful about marriage. Would talk about past personal relationships, but the student mentions no specific recollection of negative or positive. Parental rights group alleged, ‘Print communication teacher [Gerber] routinely tells Maeser girls to avoid marriage, injecting personal baggage into the classroom.’”
Allegation 7 - Gerber disparaged student and parent political beliefs in classes that had nothing to do with government or politics (R277-217-2(26)(g) and R277-217-2(28)(g))
The investigation report (see #3) includes allegations that:
See #3, 1st–2nd pages, where fellow teacher Rachele Nolan, whose classroom was next to Gerber's, reported overhearing the following statements by Gerber in Fall 2024:
“As elections approached in November, Ms. Gerber’s communication to the students became more dramatic and very politically/socially charged. She let her students know that she was a passionate advocate and believed strongly in letting others know her beliefs. Rants became common- the volume and emotion were on a new increased level throughout a lot of November. The morning after the elections, Ms. Gerber came to school and spoke very loudly and forcefully to her students throughout the day about how it was the worst day ever, she had a terrible headache- she was physically sick because the worst thing ever had happened: Trump had been elected. She carried on and dramatically repeated that only idiots would vote for Trump because he is such an awful person. Again, I was concerned about the ethics of a teacher speaking this way to students, and I felt bad for the students in the class for being in a very intimidating climate. I also felt concern for the students’ parents who were not sending their students to school to be politically/socially formed by a teacher’s personal views.”
See also #3, 2nd page, where the investigation report confirms (in red) that: “This was corroborated by Natalie herself and student interviews.”
See also #3, 6th–7th pages, where the investigation report states:
“Politically charged environment
N.G. [Gerber] has admitted that yes, she has violated this boundary.
• One student says yes politics have been talked about, personal views shared, but respectful of the other side. Another student says they don’t feel directly attacked. She has one on one conversations with students, but doesn’t make me feel dumb if I have another viewpoint.
• Another student says they have felt put down and negative of opposing side
• Openly shares political opinions. Very upset with the election. ‘How can the other side think like that?’
• Most political discussions I’ve heard have been outside of the classroom. After the election, N.G. [Gerber] noted to be on edge and more intense.
• Another student feels N.G. [Gerber] pushes her ideology on others. In NY, N.G. [Gerber] asked a student why he was conservative? Student felt it was a sarcastic/cutting comment. Asked a student why he would support Trump? Another student would do Trump impressions in class and N.G. [Gerber] would tell him to stop commenting that Trump is a racist, narcissist.
• A student asked who N.G. [Gerber] voted for and N.G. [Gerber] responded neither Trump nor Kamala.
• Student noted a conversation with a group of students where N.G. [Gerber] was heard to say, ‘Trump is horrible and if you vote for him how can you call yourself a Christian?’”
Allegation 8 - Gerber may have violated several sections of Maeser's "Employee Code of Conduct" and several sections of the "Educator Standards” found in Utah Administrative Code
The investigation report (see #3) concludes that:
Gerber may have violated sections 2(a)(i)(3), 2(a)(i)(11), and 3(f) of Maeser's Policy 6112 – "Employee Code of Conduct" (see #33).
Gerber may have violated sections R277-217-3(2)(b), R277-217-2(7)(a), R277-217-2(7)(b), R277-217-2(22), and R277-217-2(28)(g) of the “Educator Standards” found in Utah Administrative Code §§ R277-217-2 and R277-217-3 (see #32).
See #3, 8th–10th pages (emphasis added), where the investigation report concludes as follows:
“Conclusion:
Following the allegations outlined in [redacted – Rachele Nolan’s] letter, evidence was gathered concerning knowledge of the specific allegations and other statements on the themes of the allegations. This evidence is taken directly from student and teacher interviews.
Using Maeser’s current Employee Code of Conduct posted on the Maeser website and in Maeser University Classroom, it appears that Natalie Gerber (N.G.) may committed several boundary violations including violating:
• 2(a)(i)(3): telling risque jokes to, or in the presence of a student.
o One of the students mentioned she had overheard jokes that she felt were inappropriate and somewhat sexual in nature being told to a group of students.
• 2(a)(i)(11): discussing an employee’s personal life or personal issues with a student.
o N.G. said that she is not shy that she does consume alcohol and student interviews confirmed that the topic of alcohol is discussed and one student said that N.G. had said she had been drunk at a game night with other adults.
• 3(f): Staff member communications with students, whether verbal or written including electronic communication, shall be professional and avoid boundary violations.
o It is reasonable to conclude from the evidence obtained from interviews, that there have been many communications and interactions that are inappropriate as alleged.
o It is reasonable to conclude that N.G. often creates situations that lead students into inappropriate teacher-student communications that involve far more personal information than students need to know to maintain a professional student-teacher relationship.
o Utah Education Standards R277-217-3 also states that
• An educator shall:
o (2) maintain a professional educator/student relationship, including by
(b) maintaining appropriate verbal, emotional and social boundaries;
….
Moreover, in reviewing Utah Educator Standards R277-217 we are concerned that the following parts of the rule may apply in this situation as violations:
• R27 -217-2
An educator may not:
(5) [Note – current numbering is (7)] engage in:
(a) a single egregious instance or pattern of inappropriate contact in any communication, including written, verbal, or electronic, with a minor, student, colleague, or member of the community; or
(b) a single egregious instance or pattern of boundary violations with a student;
(19) [Note – current numbering is (22)] expose students to material the educator knows or should have known to be inappropriate given the age and maturity of students.
(a) Specifically alcohol related conversations as cited from interviews.
(25) [Note – current numbering and language is found in (28)(g)] use the educator’s position, through instruction, materials, or symbols, to actively endorse, promote, or disparage a particular partisan, religious, denominational, sectarian, agnostic, or atheistic belief or viewpoint, in a manner inconsistent with the policy of the educator’s LEA.
(a) Student interviews confirmed that political beliefs about an opposing party had been shared.
….
We have limited evidence that any of these conversations have anything to do with class curriculum. A recent submission of scope and sequence for her classes do indicate a lesson plan on FERPA laws. To her own credit, N.G. has said she’s drifted from the curriculum.
Based on history, N.G. has been counseled many times over the course of many years by at least 3 administrators for unprofessional behavior and conduct (see addendum). Coaching and counseling have not produced the results as hoped, as evidence that continual instances continue to happen each year. N.G. herself admitted that her behavior needs to change, even offering a proposed behavior modification plan, and indicating that “her classroom can’t be her living room” and she had treated it as such. Different versions but several incidents each year seem to recur. Therefore, we respectfully submit this report in response to the allegations as outlined in [redacted – Rachele Nolan’s] letter to the Maeser Board of Directors dated March 13, 2025.” (Emphasis added).
© 2026 PleaseFixMaeserPrep.org
info@pleasefixmaeserprep.org