Please Fix Maeser Prep

‹ Back

The Problem - The Maeser Board sent an open letter riddled with lies that are easily disproven by the Maeser Board's own records

 

Note – All numbered records on this page can be found on the Sources page.

 

In response to growing awareness in the Maeser community of the corruption in the Maeser Board and Executive Director, the Maeser Board sent an open letter to the Maeser community on February 11, 2026 (see #30). However, the Maeser Board's own documents prove that this open letter is riddled with lies. Below is an open response to this open letter that uses the Maeser Board's own documents to prove just how dishonest the Maeser Board was in their letter. 

 

----

 

March 1, 2026 (with updates on March 27, 2026)

 

Dear Maeser Board and Maeser community,

 

I write in response to the Maeser Board's open letter to the Maeser community sent on February 11, 2026 (see #30). Below is my response to each statement in that letter.

 

Maeser Board Letter - Statement 1 - "Dear Maeser Community: The Maeser Preparatory Academy Board of Directors is aware of rumors and secondhand claims circulating in the community about alleged inappropriate behavior by current and former Maeser employees. These rumors also allege that the Maeser Board and Administration have attempted to protect employees from consequences of inappropriate behavior and/or to cover-up that behavior or any omissions by the board. This allegation is blatantly false. The Board categorically denies any allegation that it has participated in, directed, or condoned a cover-up of misconduct or student harm."

 

Response to Statement 1 - The "inappropriate behavior" by teacher Natalie Gerber is well documented in the Maeser Board's own documents (see Misconduct page). The "inappropriate behavior" by the Maeser Board and Executive Director in enabling Gerber's misconduct "for many years" is also well documented (see Enablement page). The Maeser Board and Executive Director's orchestrating of an elaborate cover-up of Gerber's misconduct is also well documented (see Cover-up page). Finally, the Maeser Board and Executive Director's breaking of misconduct reporting laws is also well documented (see Failure-to-Report page). The Maeser Board and Executive Director's enablement of, cover-up of, and failure to report Gerber's misconduct in order to protect Gerber from any consequences for her misconduct, and in order to protect the Maeser Board and Executive Director from the consequences of their misconuct, is obvious. Here the Maeser Board lied because they did, in fact, protect Gerber and themselves from the consequences of their misconduct, and they did, in fact, cover up their misconduct.

 

Maeser Board Letter - Statement 2 - "When credible concerns are raised, the Board’s focus is on ensuring any issue is addressed in a timely manner through lawful, appropriate processes. We take any credible concern about student safety seriously."

 

Response to Statement 2 - The Maeser Board's own documents prove that credible allegations of Gerber's misconduct, and credible concerns about student safety, were raised, repeatedly, "for many years," but the Maeser Board and Executive Director failed to take appropriate action to protect students and failed to take these concerns seriously (see Enablement page, Cover-up page, and Failure-to-Report page). Enabling Gerber's misconduct "for many years" is not addressing her misconduct "in a timely manner." Breaking misconduct reporting laws by failing to report Gerber to UPPAC is not a "lawful, appropriate process[]." Here the Maeser Board lied because they did, in fact, fail to address Gerber's misconduct in a timely or lawful manner, and they did, in fact, fail to take credible concerns about student safety seriously. 

 

Maeser Board Letter - Statement 3 - "We also ask community members to refrain from repeating unverified allegations.

A note about rumors and reputational harm

Spreading false or unsubstantiated accusations can permanently damage a teacher’s reputation and career and can cause real harm to families and students. This kind of rumor-sharing is the antithesis of Maeser’s values and our motto—Truth, Honor, and Virtue. We expect and ask current students, parents, employees, board members, and alumni alike to live those values by not gossiping, speculating, or spreading rumors and by speaking truthfully and acting responsibly. Information about misconduct should not be shared with others but should be reported to school administration and/or law enforcement officials as warranted."

 

Response to Statement 3 - The Maeser Board's own documents prove Gerber's misconduct (see Misconduct page), and the Maeser Board and Executive Director's enablement of, cover-up of, and failure to report Gerber's misconduct (see Enablement page, Cover-up page, and Failure-to-Report page). These are not "unverified allegations" because these allegations are verified in the Maeser Board's own documents. Gerber's misconduct is not based on "false or unsubstantiated accusations" because the Maeser Board's own internal investigation substantiated many of the accusations made against Gerber. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for organizational corruption, and exposing the truth about the corruption in the Maeser Board and Executive Director is not the "antithesis" of the Maeser motto - rather, it upholds the Maeser motto - Truth Honor Virtue (btw, there is no "and" in the Maeser motto between "Honor" and "Virtue" - why doesn't the Maeser Board know the Maeser motto?). The assertion that: "Information about misconduct should not be shared with others but should be reported to school administration" is not reasonable given that the current head of school administration (Executive Director Robyn Ellis) participated in the elaborately orchestrated enablement of, cover-up of, and failure to report Gerber's misconduct. In fact, the Maeser Board's own documents prove that Gerber's misconduct was reported to the Executive Director and Board, repeatedly, "for many years," but the Executive Director and Board failed to act to protect students from Gerber's misconduct "for many years." The Maeser Board does not get to dictate with whom misconduct is shared. Every member of the Maeser community is free to share truthful reports of misconduct with whomever they like. And, hopefully, misconduct will be reported to someone other than the current Maeser Board and Executive Director, who have a documented track record of enabling misconduct, covering up misconduct, and failing to report misconduct to UPPAC as the law requires.

 

Maeser Board Letter - Statement 4 - "The Maeser Board and Administration will not discuss personnel matters through public channels. Utah law requires confidentiality for many personnel records and also protects attorney-client privileged and litigation-related records."

 

Response to Statement 4 - The Maeser Board's own documents prove that the Maeser Board and Executive Director, at best, only follow these principles selectively. For example, when a brave teacher reported Gerber's misconduct to the Maeser then-Director, the then-Director told Gerber who reported her, so that Gerber could hide her misconduct from that teacher going forward (see #3, third page, first paragraph). Apparently in that case, the then-Director had no problem publicly revealing personnel matters through public channels. Further, the Maeser Board fought long and hard, and selfishly squandered over one-hundred thousand dollars ($100,000+) of the school's budget (see #28 and #31.5) attempting to hide its own misconduct, only to have the Fourth District Court (see #25 and #31) and the Government Records Office (see #29) order the Maeser Board to publicly disclose various records that prove the Maeser Board's own misconduct. In this case, shockingly, the Maeser Board also waived its attorney-client privilege for certain attorney-client privileged records (see #0.5) in an effort to avoid any consequences for their unlawful behavior by blaming their attorney for their unlawful behavior (an effort that was, by the way, completely unsuccessful). So while it is true that sometimes laws require that certain records be kept confidential, those same laws also sometimes require that other records be publicly disclosed. And in this case, the Maeser Board selfishly squandered over one-hundred thousand dollars ($100,000+) of the school's budget (see #28 and #31.5) paying four separate attorneys to fight these laws that require disclosure of these records in order to hide their own misconduct, and only released these records after being forced to release them by the Fourth District Court (see #25 and #31) or by the Government Records Office (see #29).

 

Maeser Board Letter - Statement 5 - "What we can clarify

At this time, the Board is not aware of any inappropriate behavior by any Maeser employee or former employee that has not been appropriately addressed. If any person has firsthand, credible information raising a student-safety concern or violation of law, we urge them to report it promptly through appropriate channels—school administration and/or law enforcement, as appropriate."

 

Response to Statement 5 - The Maeser Board's own documents prove that the Maeser Board was aware of Gerber’s misconduct “for many years” and failed to “appropriately address[]” her misconduct “for many years” (see Enablement page). Further, when the Maeser Board did finally fire Gerber for her misconduct, they orchestrated an elaborate cover-up of her misconduct and her firing (see Cover-up page) and broke the law by failing to report her misconduct to UPPAC (see Failure-to-Report page).  Here the Maeser Board lied by asserting that they “appropriately addressed” Gerber’s misconduct. On the contrary, it is hard to imagine how they could have addressed her misconduct any more inappropriately. Further, these same documents prove that the Maeser Board and Executive Director committed their own misconduct in how they mishandled this situation, and their own misconduct has not been “appropriately addressed.”  With regard to reporting misconduct, hopefully members of the Maeser community will report misconduct to someone other than the current Maeser Board and Executive Director, who have a documented track record of enabling misconduct, covering up misconduct, and failing to report misconduct to UPPAC as the law requires.

 

Maeser Board Letter - Statement 6 - "Maeser Board process and confidentiality

The Board is permitted to hold closed meetings for limited purposes under Utah’s Open and Public Meetings Act, including discussion of an individual’s character or professional competence and strategy sessions related to pending or reasonably imminent litigation.
We can confirm that the Board previously convened an emergency closed meeting related to personnel action. Due to some ambiguity in the wording of the Utah Open Meetings Act regarding sequencing, legal counsel was sought and followed. After the fact, it was determined that the meeting held did not fully comply with all legal requirements
applicable to that meeting due to incorrect legal advice. Subsequently, the board corrected that unintentional mistake by holding another meeting that met the technical legal requirements for holding a closed meeting. The board has always followed the requirements of the law regarding board meetings, except in this one instance, based on uncertainty of the requirements for emergency meetings and incorrect legal advice. The Maeser Board does not hold, nor has ever held, secret meetings." 

 

Response to Statement 6 - The rulings by the Fourth District Court prove that the Maeser Board violated Utah's Open and Public Meetings Act (OPMA) at least five different ways (see #25 and #31). These rulings reject Maeser's nonsense argument that OPMA is ambiguous. It's not. On the contrary, any good student at Maeser could have read the clear language of OPMA and easily understood that it would be illegal for the Maeser to secretly vote in a closed meeting to fire a teacher for misconduct. Why couldn't the Maeser Board do the same? The Maeser Board blames the "incorrect legal advice" they got from their atttorney Lisa Fowler with the law firm Employer-Lawyer LLC (read some of her "incorrect legal advice" at #0.5). The shocking truth about this excuse is that, after the Maeser Board got this "incorrect legal advice," the Maeser Board squandered over one-hundred thousand dollars ($100,000+) of the school's budget (see #28 and #31.5) over the next several months for more legal advice from this same attorney, Lisa Fowler, and from this same law firm, Employer-Lawyer LLC (see #28). Further, nearly a full year after the Maeser Board got this bad legal advice, the Maeser Board continues to spend the limited school budget on more legal advice this same attorney and same law firm. If the Maeser Board really blames "incorrect legal advice" from a particular attorney and a particular law firm for their illegal behavior in violating OPMA five different ways, why does the Maeser Board continue to pay the same attorney and the same law firm for more legal advice? The Maeser Board is also incorrect when they say that they have "corrected" their violations of OPMA, as their attempted correction also lacks the transparency that OPMA requires. The Maeser Board expects the Maeser community to believe that they always follow the requirements of OPMA, except that they didn't in only this one instance. In other words, they expect us to believe that the one time they were caught red-handed violating OPMA five different ways is the only time they ever violated any requirement of OPMA. Do we believe this statement? The Maeser Board also lies here when it says it has never held any secret meetings. The illegal closed meeting that the Maeser Board held on April 2, 2025, was exactly that - a secret meeting - so to say they never held any secret meetings is a lie (see #25 and #31).

 

Maeser Board Letter - Statement 7 - "Pending litigation related to a violation of Utah Open Meetings Act (OPMA)

A parent has filed a lawsuit against the Maeser Board relative to the emergency board meeting. She has aggressively requested access to confidential information protected by law about students and teachers. This information will not be released unlawfully."

 

Response to Statement 7 - The rulings by the Fourth District Court (see #25 and #31) and the Government Records Office (see #29) granting access to several sets of the Maeser Board's records prove that the records to which the Maeser parent requested access are not, in fact, "protected by law."  On the contrary, the law required the Maeser Board to release these records. The Maeser Board attempts to make themselves the heros in this story when in reality they are the villains. They dishonestly claim that these records "will not be released unlawfully," but the truth is that the law required them to release these records, and their selfish squandering of over one-hundred thousand dollars ($100,000+) of the school's budget (see #28 and #31.5) in their desperate attempts to withhold these records that prove their own misconduct was the actual "unlawful" action taken in this case (see #28).

 

Maeser Board Letter - Statement 8 - "Engagement with the parent in the lawsuit

We have reached out to the parent who filed suit. Maeser has sought to meet to understand and resolve concerns; however, the parent has indicated she will not meet personally without attorneys involved and has not communicated the reason for the lawsuit, nor what her concerns are. Maeser does not wish to have contentious discussions, but rather to sincerely understand what concerns community members might have. We remain willing to engage in constructive dialogue through appropriate channels."

 

Response to Statement 8 - Before the parent in this case (Nina Gadd) sued the Maeser Board, she sent the Maeser Board a letter notifying the Maeser Board of its various violations of OPMA, and asked the Maeser Board to simply comply with OPMA and apologize, all in an attempt to avoid litigation (see #24.5, Exhibit 2). The Maeser Board wrote a letter back in which they falsely denied violating OPMA, refused to comply with OPMA, and refused to apologize (see #24.5, Exhibit 3). Therefore, the Maeser Board was the party that opted to proceed with litigation to resolve the Maeser Board's unlawful behavior. Further, the only engagement between the Maeser Board and the parent in this case since the lawsuit was filed can be seen in the three emails exchanged in December 2025 (see #28). As clearly indicated in this email exchange, the parent was happy to meet to discuss her concerns, but wanted her attorney present. The Maeser Board has employed four separate attorneys to fight this parent in her attempt to uncover the misconduct of the Maeser Board in this case, so it seems fair that she could attend a meeting with the Maeser Board with her one attorney by her side. This would not have resulted in a contentious discussion, as the Maeser Board claims, but would instead have simply allowed the parent to have the assistance of counsel when interacting with the Maeser Board and Executive Director, who have selfishly squandered over one-hundred thousand dollars ($100,000+) paying their four attorneys to avoid accountability for their misconduct in this case (see #28). The Maeser Board and Executive Director are the ones who rejected this parent's offer to meet, not the other way around. Finally, the Maeser Board lied when they said that the parent "has not communicated the reason for the lawsuit, nor what her concerns are." This is nonsense. The original complaint of the lawsuit clearly communicates the reasons for the lawsuit (see #24.5), and her concerns with the Maeser Board have been regularly communicated in filings before the Fourth District Court and the Government Records Office. The Maeser Board's attempt here to play dumb and play the victim is dishonest.

 

Maeser Board Letter - Statement 9 - "Our commitments

Even while legal processes move forward, Maeser remains committed to these principles in all administrative and legal matters:

Compliance & Due Process: We operate in full accordance with Utah law and internal policies. No final actions are taken without thorough review and a commitment to fairness for all parties."

 

Response to Statement 9 - The rulings by the Fourth District Court (see #25 and #31) and the Government Records Office (see #29) are specific examples that prove that the Maeser Board does not, in fact, always operate "in full accordance with Utah law." Further, the Maeser Board's failure to report Gerber's misconduct is another specific example of the Maeser Board violating misconduct reporting laws (see Failure-to-Report page). Here the Maeser Board lies when they say that "We operate in full accordance with Utah law," as their own documents provide multiple examples of instances where the Maeser Board did not, in fact, operate in full accordance with Utah law. The Maeser Board also lies when it says that they have "a commitment to fairness for all parties." What about fairness to the students who were harmed "for many years" by Gerber's misconduct?  How was it fair to these students for the Maeser Board to enable Gerber's misconduct "for many years" even though that misconduct was harming students? Although the Maeser Board definitely had a shocking commitment to enabling Gerber's misconduct (see Enablement page), it is clear that the Maeser Board was not committed to fairness for the students being harmed by Gerber's misconduct.

Maeser Board Letter - Statement 10 - "Transparency: When credible concerns are raised, we approach those concerns seriously. We consult appropriate outside expertise, including state officials when needed, to ensure reviews are objective and thorough."

 

Response to Statement 10 - The Maeser Board's own records prove that the Maeser Board does not, in fact, approach credible concerns that are raised about teacher misconduct seriously. Instead, in the case of Gerber's misconduct, the Maeser Board enabled and covered up Gerber's misconduct (see Enablement page and Cover-up page). Further, even though misconduct reporting laws require the Maeser Board to report teacher misconduct to UPPAC, the Maeser Board broke these laws and failed to report Gerber's misconduct to UPPAC (see Failure-to-Report page). Here the Maeser Board lies where they claim to approach credible concerns seriously. Credible concerns were raised about Gerber's misconduct "for many years," but the Maeser Board failed to "approach those concerns seriously." Here the Maeser Board also lies when they claim to consult state officials when needed, because when misconduct reporting laws required the Maeser Board to report Gerber's misconduct to UPPAC (i.e., state officials), the Maeser Board broke these laws and failed to report Gerber's misconduct to UPPAC. 

 

Maeser Board Letter - Statement 11 - "De-escalation: Our focus is on facts. We decline rhetoric and personal attacks that distract from our educational mission."

 

Response to Statement 11 - The Maeser Board's own records prove that the Maeser Board brushed aside the facts of Gerber's misconduct "for many years," and instead enabled and covered up Gerber's misconduct (see Enablement page and Cover-up page). Further, the Maeser Board's own lies in their open letter about the parent whose sincere and honest efforts to get at the truth exposed the misconduct of Gerber and of the Maeser Board prove that the Maeser Board does not, in fact, "decline ... personal attacks."

 

Maeser Board Letter - Statement 12 - "Community Focus: Our primary obligation is to maintain a safe, respectful, and rigorous academic environment for our students. The outstanding achievements of our students, both past and present, are a testament to the tireless dedication of our Board, our Administration, and our Faculty and Staff."

 

Response to Statement 12 - The Maeser Board's own records prove that the Maeser Board is not, in fact, as focused as it should be on maintaining a safe and respectful environment for Maeser students. On the contrary, the Maeser Board enabled Gerber's misconduct "for many years," which contributed to an unsafe environment for students and which contributed to an environment where students were treated disrespectfully by Gerber (see Enablement page and Cover-up page). And while the Maeser Board and Executive Director would like to take credit for the outstanding achievements of Maeser students, the students themselves probably deserve most of this credit, and the teachers probably deserve the rest of this credit. The Maeser Board and Executive Director are not responsible for teaching students, and contribute little to student achievements. Instead, the Maeser Board and Executive Director are mainly responsible for running the business of the school. And, as demonstrated by the Maeser Board's own records, the Maeser Board and Director are running the business of the school quite poorly and, in the process, setting a horrible example for Maeser students of lies and lawlessness. The outstanding achievements of Maeser students are accomplished despite the misconduct of the Maeser Board and Executive Director, not because of them.

 

Maeser Board Letter - Statement 13 - "Our school remains strong
While legal processes proceed, the daily life of our school remains vibrant and successful. For 18 years, the Maeser community has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to excellence. Additionally, we are excited for the addition to our facilities of the new Maeser Fine Arts Center and auditorium and the new opportunities they will provide for
Maeser’s students and community members!"

 

Response to Statement 13 - As stated on the home page of this website, I sincerely believe that Maeser Prep is a great school with great teachers and great students. I also love Maeser Prep and want it to succeed. However, the Maeser Board's own records reveal corruption in the Maeser Board and 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.

 

Sincerely,

 

John Gadd 

 

----

 

How to Fix This Problem 

 

1. The members of the Maeser Board who sent this dishonest letter need to be removed from their positions on the Maeser Board. These individuals are:

 

• Cynthia Shumway (Board CAO)

• Steve Whitehouse (Board CFO)

• Sandra Russell (Board member)

• Joanna Larsen (Board member)

• Richard Dodge (Board member)

• Samantha Stonely (Board secretary)

 

2. The removed individuals need to be replaced with individuals who will not send dishonest letters that are riddled with lies.

 

3. The new Maeser Board needs to publicly apologize for the old Maeser Board sending out this dishonest letter and publicly commit to always be honest in future communications with the Maeser community.