By: Diane Benjamin
The Union Five Teacher’s Union made clear who they want to see on the School Board. They have a union contract expiring soon so of course they want board members who represent them. Senior citizens and those with no kids in school will be forced to pay higher taxes because fiscal responsibility isn’t on the agenda – nobody will represent taxpayers on the School Board.
Did the Association even meet with the other candidates? They don’t say!
Kelly Pyle and Amy Roser have been on the board since 2018 and have known since then Unit 5 has a “structural deficit”. The last local politician to use that term was Tari Renner. Bloomington’s “structural deficit” was caused by failure to be responsible with taxpayer dollars. Renner went on the raise numerous taxes and institute a gas tax and amusement tax. Bloomington is now swimming in money and none of it is being returned to you.
Unit 5 is no different, taxpayers have to force ACCOUNTABILITY. It isn’t with these 4.
Alex Williams loves Diversity Equity and Inclusion. He has a compelling story about his education (poor) but yet he managed to graduate from college without it. Mark Adams (no kids yet) tells people he campaigned for People First candidates. That is the group of socialists who were wiped out trying to take over the Bloomington council.
When 35% of Unit 5 students who go on to college need remedial education, it is time for change.
The four candidates running for change keep updating their website: https://unit5studentsfirst.com/welcome
Ask them questions, not me.
Vote No Again on the referendum!
These 4 candidates will not allow cuts to student programs, just pork. Future revenue is not being considered and Unit 5 has plenty of money for at least 2 years. A property tax increase is a want, not a need.
Teachers who want to keep their jobs are risking them voting for the UFEA candidates. If the referendum doesn’t pass they will cut your jobs.
In case you missed it:
Hey Diane, once again, telling us why the other candidates are bad is preaching to the choir. We don’t lile them. We’re just upset that local Republicans and conservatives couldn’t find better alternatives.
Wurth, Jada, Emery, & Frank want to increase e-learning. However they try to spin it, it’s a bad idea. We fought for YEARS just to get kids back into classrooms with teachers. The last thing any of us want as parents is to have our kids spending even more time staring at screens, regardless of whether it’s at home or at school. Expanding e-learning is a bad idea.
One of the companies they’ve pushed and touted for e-learning is called Imagine Learning. That company’s website is FILLED with references to DEI. Why are “conservative” candidates going out of their way to increase that nonsense, whether intentional or not.
The referendum failed because advocates were being dishonest. They tried to call a tax increase a decrease. People saw right through that BS. But now the conservative candidates are tip-toeing around the deficit without answers. People, likewise, see through the BS of- “We’ll save money through e-learning” and “let’ s just have Heartland do it for us.” There need to be cuts. SUBSTANTIAL cuts. But all these candidates have put forward is paying more to an online learning company and NOT cutting sports or band. They need a plan, and they need to talk about specific things that need to be cut. Like closing Carlock Elementary, for starters. We shouldn’t be paying that much for a building with so few students. Maybe they should come out and be honest that Carlock needs to close regardless of whether or not the referendum passes.
that’s an example, not their pick.
If I still had any kids, they’d be homeschooled. Period.
The other candidates refused both the invite and questionnaire from the union.
Again, the facts, not pie in the sky. Thank you Diane for what you report
One of the conservative candidates made a good point the other day. She said the Union should not support or advocate for school board candidates because the school board is involved in approval of school union’s contracts. If that is the case, it makes sense to me. Buying candidates that will support you later is not right.
Did you feel the same way last municipal election when the police dumped over 20,000 in that election? Consistency in principles is important. Can’t decry it in one instance and shrug it off in another. Because any concerns you have about the Teacher’s Union would also hold for the police Union. Just sayin’….
Socialists were running wanting to defund the police! I didn’t troll contributions either. Labor unions are worse, they just want taxpayer funded building projects
Um, wow, yet again you failed to do basic research. Mollie Emery put out on Facebook why she refused the invitation from the Union. Yet you put out an assertion that they weren’t even invited without facts. Do better!
Even if revenues are way better than expected, I have yet to hear anyone claim that it can even come close to covering a 12 million dollar gap. The cuts already announced over the next two years account for about 5 million. Seems like a reasonable start and if revenues come in higher than hopefully no additional cuts will be needed.
You claim, on their behalf, that the conservative candidates will only cut the “pork.” Cool. What exactly are they talking about that comes even close to 4 or 5 million in cuts? I’d love to hear it. Salaries are public- tell us what they’d cut instead that even gets close to that.
Or…..is it that they don’ t actually have any ideas and their words are just a lot of hot air.
I’m not their voice! You are getting very boring, I don’t troll Facebook. I report on what others send me. Grow up please!