When Politics Overtake Good Governance: Students Pay The Price
Up until this point, I believe it would be fair to say that I have built my case for being elected on the general notion of providing stable leadership and good governance.
My personal belief is that when a person’s politics are on display at the board table, they only serve themselves. I suppose it is a bit of a paradox. On one hand, the role of a school board could not be simpler: provide sound governance and make decisions that are in the best interest of our students. Unfortunately, those decisions are made by people. The events displayed at the last school board meeting, on July 20th, are a textbook case of this paradox in action.
During the discussion around our district’s participation in the Minnesota State High School League (MSHSL), an amendment was made to change the wording in the MSHSL’s contract. Even after our new superintendent, Dr. Wagner, explained that the amended contract would be unenforceable, we still had three board members vote in favor of it.
Think about that! Three votes were cast for an amendment that was not able to be enforced, but had it passed, could have caused real harm to our students and their ability to participate in athletics and the arts. Regardless of how strongly you feel about a certain issue, is taking a risk like that really in the best interest of our students?
This is why I so strongly believe these types of conversations have no place at the board table. Truth be told, I would take issue with any political stance being introduced into the discussion, including those that I may hold true or agree with. This is about the students; not our personal beliefs. Anything at that table that detracts from or steers the conversation away from our students is, in my estimation, out of bounds.
The discussion at the table during the last meeting was about politics, when it should have been about the merits of our district's MSHSL participation. Too often board members think that it is their responsibility to bring their political beliefs (and the political beliefs of those supporting them) to the forefront of the discussion, as opposed to letting it guide their internal decision-making.
In fact, this is not the first time we have seen a predetermined conclusion being advanced at the table that would negatively affect students. Let’s take a glance at some of the more consequential votes from my—albeit short—time on the board.
March 2026 Regular Meeting - Achievement and Integration (A&I) Grant Proposal
Passed 4-3 / Arguments against approval were made claiming that the district had failed to meet the goals of its previous A&I plan. This claim turned out to be false and was sourced from a different, unrelated, report provided by the district.
April 2026 Regular Meeting - Staff reductions and non-renewal of probationary contracts
Both passed 4-3 / Arguments against approval focused on “administrative bloat” and claimed that total teacher FTE had decreased. This was built with data explicitly not used for that type of analysis and the district’s data actually showed the reverse trend: that teacher FTE actually increased.
June 2026 Regular Meeting - Final 26-27 budget and levy amount for November
Both passed 4-3 / Arguments against approval of the budget cited a three-year-old projection as the standard the district should still meet without accounting for anything that changed since. Additionally, there was a continued assertion that there was “administrative bloat” that could be removed from the budget. As for the levy, the decision between the amount of $32/month on average, versus the $46/month on average, came down to confidence in what could pass.
This all circles back to what I outlined earlier. That good governance is allowing your perspective, values, and lived experience to guide how you weigh the facts. It should not be used to decide the facts. Undeniably, it is amazing that the six votes referenced were passed 4-3. Change one vote on that board and some of these outcomes shift. And when they shift, it isn't board members who pay the price; it’s our students.
If this isn’t evidence that elections matter, then I don’t know what is.