Correcting the Record on PLSEA
The PLSEA endorsed me again for 2026, and along with that endorsement have come claims about the union's process and motives that don't hold up. Before addressing them, I want to hold myself to a standard first: if I had spent months questioning non-union teachers' motives and character, I'd be criticized, and rightfully so. That standard applies both ways. You can't claim to be pro-teacher while attacking the organization that represents them. You're either representing everybody, or you're only representing yourself.
Here are the specific claims Rick Storlie has made, in his video and in writing, and what's actually true.
Claim: PLSEA-endorsed candidates have a conflict of interest, because they'll be negotiating the 2027 contract.
They won't, because the board doesn't negotiate the contract at all. There's a district negotiating team and the PLSEA, with a negotiating table between them. The board's role is to approve the agreement or send it back. No elected board member negotiates the contract personally, not this year, not in 2027, not ever. To support the conflict-of-interest claim, the written post also cites the Ohio School Boards Association. I read that source. It doesn't mention unions, teachers, endorsements, or campaign contributions. It addresses four things: being a district employee, having a family member employed by the district, being employed by a district contractor, or holding another public office simultaneously. None of that is what's being alleged here. There's no conflict of interest to cite, and the citation offered doesn't support one either.
Claim: A small core group decides the endorsement, which is why a candidate like Storlie would only pull "one percent" of the vote.
This rests on a single line in the candidate email referencing PLSEA members "throughout the district," read as evidence most teachers never see the questionnaire. Non-union teachers don't see it because it isn't their process to respond to. The real question is whether union members had access, and they did. Not every member has to respond for the result to be legitimate. No election requires full turnout. And that "one percent" figure isn't random. It's the actual result of my 2025 endorsement, where I carried 99% of 217 votes. The claim was posted August 21st. A PLSEA member corrected it in the comments that same day, with those results attached. It was then republished in writing on August 28th, seven days later, with no acknowledgment it had been disputed and no indication it was ever checked with the PLSEA.
There are hundreds of teachers, around 8,600 students, and nearly 50,000 residents in this district. I represent all of them, not just the ones who agree with me. But claims like these aren't really about the union. They're about deciding in advance whose voice counts and whose doesn't; treating one group's input as suspect, while treating your own supporters' input as self-evidently legitimate. A candidate who pre-selects whose voice matters before they’re even elected is describing a different job than the one on the ballot.
I held myself to a standard at the start of this: you can't be anti-union but pro-teacher. That's not a subtle distinction, it's a contradiction dressed up as nuance. The same standard applies to how claims get corrected and republished. When a claim is disputed with documentation and then repeated a week later unchanged, that's not an oversight. It's a choice about which facts matter.
More detail can be found in my video here.