Correspondence between Bright Futures and PCEF
Park City Education Foundation: Ingrid Whitley and Caleb Fine
Bright Future Original Founders: Tommy Tanzer, Eric Garner, Lynn and Rick Bleil, Moe Hickey, Franklin Morton, Ernest Oriente, Stacey Sayers and John Wendolowski
Ingrid’s Email about Tina Resigning
December 11, 2024
Hi all,
I hope you all have had a wonderful week. In advance of the holidays, I wish you a joyful holiday season.
I’m writing to share a staff update. Our Program Director, Tina Goette, has decided to step away from her position as of January 10. We are incredibly grateful for the dedication, structure, and care she brought to the program. Her work has contributed to significant improvements, so please join us in thanking her and wishing her all the best in her next endeavor.
We are still determining how to staff the program’s needs for the remainder of the fiscal year, and we will share more with the committee as we make those decisions. If you have any questions or thoughts, please do not hesitate to reach out.
In advance of the holidays, I wish you a joyful holiday season.
My best,
Ingrid
President and CEO
Park City Education Foundation
Tommy’s Response to Ingrid
December 11, 2024
Ingrid,
Thank you for the call yesterday and the update. On our end, we all feel the same. You and the people advising you have made it clear that you don t want to run the program in a way that we, the founders, think it should be run. Eric is out of town till late next Wednesday. But he is quite aware of what is happening. We ve been preparing for this since Abby turned to Joelle over a year and a half ago.
We would like to sit down in person NEXT week after Eric returns and listen to your plan to proceed. It would be fine to keep it small, Eric will decide for us who attends; but it would be best if you could openly share your plan so we can decide how we need to proceed. With the holidays coming and Tina leaving, it seems clear what you’re (PCEF) is doing. And we don’t want to wait to hear it honestly from your side so we can begin the process of protecting and administering the program ourselves. We deserve honesty and face to face truth. The behind the scenes maneuvering didn’t work for Tina obviously and won’t work for us. Pick a day, and pick your team and let s sit down so we can be ready, when Jan 9, 2025 comes.
Tommy
Founding Member of Bright Futures
Ingrid’s Response
December 12, 2024
Hi Tommy,
My team is working on a staffing plan in partnership with our board and PCSD staff to ensure student needs continue to be met through the end of this school year with as little disruption as possible during Tina’s transition. As you can imagine, that will take some time, though we are making quick progress. Once it is finalized, we would be happy to meet and share the plan during the week of January 6. Eric and I talked about this timing as well. I’ll reach out to you soon to schedule a meeting for the week of January 6.
Separately, as I shared with Eric, we are in the middle of organizational strategic planning. This Board-led process aims to define our five-year goals, strategies, and tactics in all areas of our organization – fundraising, communications, program strategy (including Bright Futures), and staff/operations. We started the process in September with a community-wide survey, focus groups, and interviews, and we received more than 300 responses from parents, educators, alumni, donors, etc., who shared feedback on all parts of PCEF, including Bright Futures. Informed by that data, over the past month or so, our strategic planning committee, staff, Board, and leaders from PCSD have been discussing all the programs we fund that impact students within the district. We are also happy to bring you into where we are during our meeting in early January, with an important caveat that no decisions have been made, and the Board will not adopt a final plan until March.
Best,
Ingrid Whitley
President and CEO
Park City Education Foundation
Ingrid’s Email to Tommy
December 14, 2024
Hi Tommy,
I hope you had a nice weekend. Caleb and I connected this morning and aligned on meeting after the winter break.
No changes are happening to the program right now that would necessitate an urgent meeting. If the Board decides to make any shifts through strategic planning, those would take effect next fiscal year, which begins in July.
Our organization’s most urgent and important priority is ensuring we can continue meeting high school students’ needs, so our time and attention right now needs to be on staffing.
Again, we are happy to meet and hear your input following the break.
Best,
Ingrid Whitley
President and CEO
Park City Education Foundation
Tommy’s Email to Caleb Fine
January 8, 2025
Caleb,
I got your email to Rick and Eric. Ingrid is available to meet Tuesday but she wants to have a buffer of her people around her. I hope you will insist that she brings who she can with her to meet us on Tuesday as per her and your pre agreed schedule.
They are trying to push it past the 16th of Jan when their board voted to do what ever they’ve decided. The reason I asked you to be there and meet before this is a fate acompli? is that if this is not satisfactory to the BF board and founders of BF, we will make a huge public display that will hurt PCEF immeasurably in order to save our program. Abby Mc Nulty and this Joelle Kanopolosky? are driving this power play.
Caleb we need to sit down with you before they meet on the 16th. Ingrid agreed and then got scared to do it herself. If we can t meet with you ahead of their meeting there are 3 disruptive techniques BF can and will take to withdraw from PCEF. By meeting ahead of time, we can avoid this disruptive and negative publicity. But PCEF thinks they can avoid the confrontation by just voting and then forcing BF to comply. I tried to tell you this before the break but you didn’t want to force a meeting. You need to force one now or this relationship is going to blow up in PCEF s face and will hurt them, unnecessarily for years to come, maybe permanently. Your leadership is necessary to stop this blow up. Without you, this has no where else it can go but to explode.
Tommy
Founding Member of Bright Futures
Caleb’s Response
January 9, 2025
Tommy (cc Rick and Eric),
Please know I am incredibly grateful for your (and many others) contributions to the Bright Future Program. The program has had such a positive impact on our students.
Second, I am in support of the evolution of the program, call it Bright Futures 2.0. Most specifically I am excited about the idea of a First Generation Counselor at PCHS as I think it has the potential even greater impact as it builds on what has been done. Here are a few reasons why I support the idea:
• A licensed counselor ensures we are compliant with all laws and regulations along with adding stability (turnover has been a noted issue) to the position as it comes with licensed pay and benefits.
• Allows PCHS/PCSD to hire, lead, and manage the school-based employees working with our first-generation students.
• Increases access to first-generation students and can support a variety of post-secondary options for all first-generation students.
• Creates greater program efficiencies at PCHS.
• Maintains the heart of the Bright Futures Mission, changing lives by getting students TO and THROUGH college.
In full transparency, I do not support the idea of damaging the Education Foundation as I know that is NOT what is best for kids. I believe that there is a positive path forward, a path that magnifies impact and improves on the program. If a choice is made to deliberately hurt PCEF I cannot support PCSD partnering with a program that would do that.
I genuinely feel the best meeting option is a meeting with all stakeholders. I feel a productive meeting can happen before or after the PCEF board meeting and will support it being scheduled asap with all stakeholders.
Sincerely and with Gratitude,
Caleb Fine
Interim Superintendent
Park City School District
Eric’s Response
January 9, 2025
Hello Caleb,
Thank you for your email. I understand your logic, but it has a fatal flaw.
I have been working hands-on with programs that support first gen student to get to and through college for nearly 30 years. I am familiar with many different program models. Most of them get modest results at best, in the range of 40%-50% success. In contrast, the Bright Futures model, based on the Bright Prospect model we developed in California, achieves ~90% success.
Knowing what I know through hard experience, I can tell you that the new model being suggested will likely get students into college, but will NOT get them through college. It will be a complete disaster for the students in the program. Rick, I and others will send you a full memorandum in the next few days that explains this in detail. I am hopeful that you will reconsider and will meet with us on Tuesday in order to be able to discuss this in a calm, rational manner.
The future of the students served by the program will be dismal if PCEF and the district proceed as you’ve outlined below.
Sincerely,
Eric Garen
Founding Member of Bright Futures
Bright Futures Founders Email to PCEF
January 14, 2025
PCEF Board Members,
The original Founders of the Bright Futures Program (Lynn and Rick Bleil, Eric Garen, Moe Hickey, Franklin Morton, Ernest Oriente, Stacey Sayers and John Wendolowski) have heard rumors around the PCEF strategic planning activity that give us serious concerns for the future of the Bright Futures program and the students it serves.
Several Bright Futures Committee members who were among the original Founders, including myself, have attempted since December 11 to meet with PCEF management and the PCSD superintendent to learn, first-hand about the possible changes being considered. PCEF management have put off such a meeting. We were able to meet in December with Kim Abbott and Heather Koopman who listened to us, and we appreciate that opportunity, but no specifics were shared by them and we were given verbal assurances that no plan was finalized and awaiting approval.
We fear that, in the upcoming January meeting, PCEF Board members will be presented with a plan to remake Bright Futures that lacks:
Any historical perspective on the features of the program that have led to its success;
Any objective or experience-based data to support how the redesign will lead to equivalent or higher college completion rates for Bright Futures students; and
Fiduciary responsibility for appropriately allocating funds contributed to date and restricted to Bright Futures.
It is out of an abundance of caution and a strong desire to ensure the BF program continues helping students achieve their college goals, that we feel compelled to share our perspective with the Board of PCEF. Our inability to get PCEF management and PCSD to engage with the Founders who sit on the BF Committee required that we provide our thoughts in writing; thus, the attached letter.
We believe that the PCEF Board deserves a balanced perspective as you consider a redesign of the Bright Futures program. We seek to offer a historical perspective based upon an understanding of programs like Bright Futures that have met with both success and failure. Bright Futures is not a brand or fundraising vehicle, but a proven program that has successfully helped college-ready high schoolers enter and complete college.
It is with an eye toward continued success in helping students achieve their college aspirations, that we authored the attached letter. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with the Board to discuss our concerns for the welfare of our students and the continued success of the Bright Futures program.
Respectfully,
The Founders
Eric’s Email to PCEF
January 15, 2025
PCEF Board Members,
It has come to our attention that an email was sent to you yesterday that referred to my previous email and characterized me and other signatories to the letter as “donors.” This is an unfortunate mischaracterization of me and the others who authored the memorandum to you.
I and Rick Bleil, another signatory to the letter, both serve as members of the Bright Futures Committee – the committee of your PCEF Board that is charged with providing advice and guidance regarding the program. Perhaps, referring to us as “Members of the PCEF Bright Futures Committee” would have been a more accurate characterization than “donors.”
Unfortunately, other than being told that PCEF is undergoing a broad Strategic Planning exercise, the Bright Futures Committee has been given NO information by PCEF staff about the potential changes or redesign of the Bright Futures program. Despite repeated requests for any information on options being considered, PCEF chose to circumvent the Committee structure and pursue a process devoid of this Committee’s input. Best governance practice would dictate that the Committee charged with providing input on a given program would put forward their advice to the board regarding any strategic changes to that program rather than the other way around. Why has the BF Committee been neither kept informed nor asked to provide advice on the proposed changes, much less involved in the process of drafting that proposal?
Long before I was asked to join the BF Committee of your Board, I spent years reviewing academic studies and examining successful and unsuccessful programs targeting college readiness and completion. Over 20 years ago, I came upon a highly successful model in its infancy, brought it to Pomona, and successfully scaled it up to the Bright Prospect program that now serves over 2,500 students. It is on this proven-successful Bright Prospect program that Bright Futures was built. Since launching Bright Futures nine years ago, I and every signatory to this this letter have spent numerous hours with Bright Futures students in mentorship and support. We understand these students’ needs and the elements of the program that have helped them get to and through college.
In summary, are the authors of the letter donors? Certainly. Are the authors of the letter “just donors”? NO! The simplistic characterization of us as “donor” belittles our extensive knowledge, our hands-on involvement, our programmatic contributions and our unwavering commitment to the remarkable students in the Bright Futures program.
Given our participation on the Bright Futures Committee of the PCEF Board, as well as our extensive knowledge of this and many other similar programs, we remain baffled that PCEF staff has actively resisted our Committee’s participation in deliberations concerning the future of Bright Futures. Again, we ask, “Why?”
Respectfully
Eric Garen
Founding Member of Bright Futures
Ingrid Whitley, on PCEF’s strategic planning
January 23, 2025
Dear Community,
This school year, Park City Education Foundation (PCEF) is working through a Board of Directors-led strategic planning process to guide our organization for the next five years through 2030. Critical parts of this process include ensuring that our mission, vision, and values are centered in all we do; assessing all our programs, fundraising initiatives, and organizational processes; and discussing ways to deepen and broaden our impact while improving student outcomes. The Board-stewarded process began with a comprehensive assessment to gather feedback from parents, educators, donors, and community members in the fall, which included a survey that received more than 300 responses, several focus groups, and a dozen interviews.
One of PCEF’s programs is Bright Futures, which supports Park City’s first-generation students in getting to and through college. Thanks to the incredible generosity of our community, we have invested over $2.6 million from donor-directed gifts into the program over the past decade, including $590,000 in scholarships. We currently support 151 students in the program from tenth grade through post-secondary graduation.
In partnership with Park City School District, we aim to broaden the services provided to every first-generation student, who, we believe, all deserve support to accomplish their dreams. While the details of the changes are still taking shape during our ongoing strategic planning process, we can share that we plan to continue to invest significantly in the program. Part of this plan includes serving students beginning in ninth grade and expanding support to every first-generation student in Park City High School – possibly tripling the number of students we can impact. Post-high school support would continue as in the past.
We are thrilled at the potential impact an evolved Bright Futures program will have. Once our board completes and approves our five-year strategic plan this spring, we look forward to sharing with our community a comprehensive update on how we intend to implement this program and the seven other initiatives we fund at Park City School District. Our Board of Directors, PCEF staff, and I thank you for your support of PCEF. Every Park City School District student benefits from your investment and belief in our mission. Should you have any questions, please reach out – I would be happy to talk with you any time.
My best,
Ingrid Whitley
President and CEO
Park City Education Foundation
The above pubic email is the only communication from Ingrid Whitley about the changes being made to the Bright Futures program.
February 13, 2025
Below is how we found out our April 2025 Graduation Event was cancelled.
No future information was given to us.
May 7, 2025
KPCW Interview with Ingrid and Jennifer
On Wednesday May 7, 2025 Jennifer Billows and Ingrid Whitley went on KPCW radio to do a promotion for their upcoming and coming fundraiser. The two spoke glowingly about the joys of the event. At the end of the interview, Leslie Thatcher, the moderator, asked them about Bright Futures and the rumors of the proposed changes to the BF program. Mrs. Billows, who is the wordsmith of the organization, was silent. Till now PCEF has not revealed publicly one detail of the proposed changes that they voted on secretly in February or March of 2025, though they have been asked repeatedly.
But Mrs. Whitley reluctantly attempted to fill the void of silence. All she could muster was a vague assurance that nothing about the current BF program would change. She simply said that so few people were benefiting from the current BF program that their larger, more comprehensive targeting of first gen students, would better serve and thus help the district and the greater first gen population. She also said that the college part of the program would continue as it always had been.
Please listen to their May 7th interview to hear it for yourself here. Also please listen to Tommy Tanzer’s interview on Thursday May 8th with Leslie to hear his response here. You can also reach Tommy for further clarification. His information appears in the Contact section in the menu above.
May 9, 2025
The Bright Futures Founders Response to KPCW Interview
Regardless of what PCEF says, when we met with them in February they admitted that nearly all details of their future program were still to be determined. For example, they did not know which, if any, Bright Prospect group activities would be continued, or how future high school students will become familiar with their future college counselor.
What they described to us, and presumably to their board who approved it, was not a plan – it was barely a concept of a plan.
This dismantling of a successful program for an untested concept raises serious concerns. These concerns are amplified by the recent resignations of the Bright Futures’ Program Director and its senior-most staff member.
· An Unmanageable Caseload: One counselor, who will now be a member of the high school counseling team, will manage 260 first-gen students, ranging from the highest to lowest academic achievers. This is drastically different from the current 1.25 Bright Futures staff supporting approximately 75 academically motivated and college-committed students. PCEF’s suggestion of additional support from other high school faculty who are already fully-employed in other functions is unrealistic at best.
· The Elimination of Group Programming: The counselor’s much greater caseload will likely preclude crucial group activities. These activities foster a supportive peer network, which is vital for student success in college. The bonds formed through these activities are a cornerstone of our high graduation rate.
· Disconnected High School and College Support: In the new structure the high school counselor will be on the school staff while the college coach will be employed by the Foundation. This disconnected structure will hinder the development of rapport between high school students and their future college coach, which will likely decrease students’ willingness to seek their coach’s help during college, reducing graduation rates.
· Parental Involvement and Inter-class student connections: There has been NO mention of the involvement and relationship-building with students’ parents, nor was there any mention of maintaining strong inter-class connections between current college students, recent graduates and high school students. Both of these activities have been integral to the success of the program.
These are serious concerns, and underscore the uncertain nature of the future program and we believe are the crux of the problem.
The other thing to emphasize is that Bright Futures was established, and the volunteers raised the money for it, specifically to help students get to and through college and enter a professional career. The program they are replacing it with will help students from the top of the class to the bottom. This raises two concerns. First, the first-gen counselor will not be just focused on preparing kids for college. She will also be focused on helping lots of other kids get to a trade school, and still other kids to just finish high school. There’s no way the college-bound kids will continue to graduate from college at the same rate as they currently do. Second, the money was raised specifically to help students get to and through college. While PCEF and PCSD have laudable intentions for those other students, those intentions are NOT what the money was given for. If they want to pursue those intentions, they should go out and raise the money for that expansion, and not divert money intended to solely to support college-bound students.
May 10, 2025
Park Record – Letter to the Editor
Park Record Related Articles
November 13, 2024
May 19, 2023
September 1, 2021
Disclaimer: The idea and substance of this website are fully the responsibility of Tommy Tanzer. None of the supporters, founders, staff members or advisory board members had any input, decision making about or responsibility for the wording, content or focus of this site. – Tommy Tanzer