Residents Press Grand County Commission to Make Gardner Institute Study Public
Loading...
Summary
Public commenters asked the county to release drafts and the final Gardner Institute report and to answer questions about changes to the agreement, delivery dates and who reviewed drafts before the commission votes on an amendment to extend the study deadline.
Mary O'Brien, who identified herself as from Mesa Valley, urged the Grand County Commission on Feb. 3 to require greater transparency around an independent study the county contracted with the Gardner Institute.
"Public release of the final report will be subject to the discretion of Grand County," O'Brien said, reading from materials she gave the commission and asking why that clause exists. O'Brien also said the commission previously approved a proposal on June 17, 2025, by a 4–3 vote and that an agreement signed on July 1, 2025, included several changes from the proposal, including reducing the number of Gardner Institute researchers and altering report delivery timing.
The matter is on the agenda as an amendment (item 14) that would extend the deadline for a final report. O'Brien asked whether draft reports, past or future, were shared with all commissioners and called for a public release of the final report. "A research report paid for by the public regarding Arches National Park should not be conducted in secret," she said.
Later in public comment, Allison Mathis of Moab repeated related concerns, saying parts of the study appear "opinionated and/or suspect" and urging full disclosure of drafts, communications, and comments between commissioners and the Gardner Institute. Mathis said the county is spending about $60,000 on the study and questioned the value if the final report might be withheld from the public. "Sunlight and transparency are the only paths forward," Mathis said.
Both commenters asked the commission to answer a set of written questions provided to the board before any vote on the proposed amendment. The written material submitted by O'Brien listed specific items she said changed between the original proposal and the signed agreement, including the number of researchers and the schedule for draft and final reports.
The Feb. 3 public record in the chamber shows the concerns were raised during the public comment period; no response from a commissioner appears in the provided transcript before the meeting moved on to a scheduled presentation. The commission's next recorded action in the transcript was to proceed to a University Home and Community Department update.
The commission packet and the signed agreement with the Gardner Institute were referenced repeatedly by commenters but are not reproduced here; commenters said they had submitted copies to the commission. The transcript record shows different spellings used by speakers ("Gardner" and "Gartner"); the agreement and Mary O'Brien's materials referenced "Gardner Institute". Questions remain in the record about which drafts, if any, were shared with all commissioners and about the public-release clause O'Brien cited.
