https://www.facebook.com/908265182370482/

Waukesha School Board Election 2026, Waukesha, WI (2026)

04/08/2026

Results are in... closest race I have seen.

04/08/2026

Link to live Waukesha County election results in comments.

04/07/2026

📌 Debt-Free in 2026: Two Different Ways Incumbents Are Framing the Same Milestone

Two incumbents on the ballot today recently shared the same guest opinion about the School District of Waukesha becoming debt-free — but their messaging around that milestone is very different.

🟥 Bette Koenig’s framing

Bette Koenig highlighted two outcomes together:

● #1 academic performance among large Wisconsin districts

● Becoming completely debt-free

● Credit to “exceptional fiscal management”

● A link between financial discipline and student outcomes

Her post emphasized that:

🗣 “Responsible stewardship and student success are not competing goals… they go hand in hand.”

The focus is on results:

● Strong academics

● Debt elimination

● Long-term fiscal stability

● Avoiding future interest costs

The article itself notes that accelerating repayment:

● Eliminated remaining debt early

● Saved taxpayers nearly $1.6 million in interest

● Strengthened long-term financial flexibility

● Reduced future taxpayer burden

This framing treats early payoff as a shared governance decision that benefited both taxpayers and students.

🟦 Diane Voit’s framing

Diane Voit shared the same article but emphasized different points:

● Taking credit for being “on that board”

● Highlighting the 2018 structure

● Pivoting to the Hawthorne sale

● Arguing buildings should be retained if sale price is below sunk costs

Her messaging shifts from:

Debt payoff → to → protecting past capital investments

This creates a different emphasis:

● Focus on sunk costs

● Concern about selling buildings below investment

● Less discussion of operating costs of excess capacity

● Less emphasis on long-term savings from right-sizing

📊 The Key Difference

Both incumbents are referencing the same milestone:

● Debt-free district

● Accelerated payoff

● $1.6M interest savings

But they frame it differently:

🟥 Bette Koenig

● Financial discipline + student success

● Long-term savings

● Flexibility for future boards

● Positive outcome of governance decisions

🟦 Diane Voit

● Personal credit for 2018 structure

● Concern about selling buildings

● Focus on sunk capital costs

● Argument for retaining facilities

📌 Why This Matters

The debt-free milestone came from:

● Accelerated repayment decisions

● Long-term planning

● Accepting short-term constraints

● Right-sizing discussions

● Operating efficiency tradeoffs

One framing emphasizes: ➡️ discipline and results

The other emphasizes: ➡️ protecting past investments

These lead to different policy priorities moving forward.

And that’s why messaging around the same accomplishment matters — it signals how candidates may approach future financial decisions.

📌 A Different Tone Around Difficult Decisions

Incumbent candidate Bette Koenig addressed the debt-free milestone, but paired it with acknowledgment that the decisions leading to it were not easy.

In a recent campaign video, she said she understands that some of these decisions have been challenging for families and staff and that she respects those perspectives. As a parent and educator, she emphasized how important schools are to families.
She also stated:

🗣 “Please know all decisions were made thoughtfully with students at the center and a long-term vision in mind as birthrates continue to decline statewide.”

This framing emphasizes that becoming debt-free — and right-sizing the district — required difficult tradeoffs, not just financial planning.

🎥 Campaign video below

04/07/2026

📌 From First Amendment Questions to the Content of Diane Voit’s Post: Debt-free in 2026

In my last post, I focused on First Amendment issues raised when incumbent board member Diane Voit deleted questions under a campaign post about the Hawthorne sale. That discussion highlighted the legal principle that criticism and questions about public decisions are protected, even on social media.

This post shifts the focus to the content of Diane’s post itself. By looking closely at the messaging about debt, building sales, and financial priorities, we can see why some voters raised those questions — and why Diane deleted questions about the sale of Hawthorne. Understanding both the legal and substantive context provides a fuller picture of Diane’s communications and priorities.

📌 Debt-Free in 2026: What Actually Made It Possible

Incumbent board member Diane Voit shared a guest opinion published in The Waukesha Freeman on her campaign page. The article, titled “Debt-free in 2026: While Wisconsin districts add billions in debt, Waukesha eliminates it,” was written by School District of Waukesha CFO Darren Clark and Board Treasurer Karrie Kozlowski.

In her campaign post, Diane credited herself with the early payoff:

🗣 "The 2018 $60M referendum that passed with 66% approval has been paid off in record time thanks to an accelerated payment plan set in 2018. to have been on that Board!"

While the 2018 referendum included provisions for early repayment — a planning decision that deserves credit — achieving debt-free status required years of continued board decisions, a part often overlooked.

Diane also wrote:

🗣 "Now the Board needs to be good stewards of the $91M invested in our Waukesha Public Schools 2017-2025. The Board recently sold Hawthorne to a private school for less than the $3.6M invested in the elevator and secure front entrance."

In other words, Diane suggests that unless the district can sell a building for more than what was invested, it should not sell — prioritizing past investments over operational efficiency.

📝 In a previous poat Diane disclosed that the distrixt invested $3.6M into Hawthorne, it appraised for $1.7M recently, and the Board accepted an offer of $2.5M. I have not confirmed whether this is accurate, but if so, it made clear that investments into schools do not translate into value.

📌 The 2018 Referendum and Early Payoff

The 2018 referendum bonds were structured with:

● Early call provisions

● Accelerated payment options

● A shorter repayment timeline than typical 20-year bonds

This structure made early payoff possible, but it did not require it. Multiple boards over subsequent years had to decide whether to:

● Continue accelerated payments (stick with the 8-year plan)

● Reduce the debt levy (lower the amount collected for debt service)

● Increase the operating levy (use freed-up capacity to support operations)

Amid declining enrollment, structural deficits ($3M–$4M), excess building capacity, and rising operational costs, boards consistently chose to maintain accelerated payments — opting not to reduce the debt levy or increase funds for day-to-day operations. This disciplined approach ultimately saved taxpayers roughly $1.6 million in interest payments compared with a standard 10-year payoff.

Diane Voit was the only board member to advocate for slowing debt repayment and increasing the operating levy. Yet in her campaign messaging, she now takes credit for the accelerated 8-year payoff.

🎯 Enrollment Context: District enrollment began declining in 2008, with a temporary boost from adding 4K (peaked in 2012). Enrollment has steadily decreased since. While adding 4K is a common strategy statewide to boost numbers, it is costly because DPI funds it at only 60% of other grades, whether half- or full-day.

🎯 Why Taxpayers May Be Upset: Voters were told referendum funds would be used for accessibility and security — elevators, secure entrances, etc. That is still Diane’s campaign messaging.

But a closer look at the final referendum presentation — combined with the reality of the buildings themselves — shows upgraded administrative office spaces, including at Hawthorne and Bethesda. Walking into these schools, the upgrades are obvious. The discrepancy between promise and reality fuels frustration and skepticism. (Screenshots of the presentation are attached)

Now Diane frames retaining these buildings as the only responsible way to steward taxpayer funds, arguing that selling them would not recoup the cost of the upgrades. She does not address how much it actually costs students, staff, and taxpayers to operate underutilized buildings or maintain excess capacity.

📌 Recent Context and Contradictions

Two months ago, Diane asked during a committee meeting whether debt repayment could be slowed to free funds for operations. The CFO explained that while lower payments could be made, the levy was already set for debt service — it could not be redirected.

At the same time, Diane voted against measures projected to save taxpayers millions:

● Optimizing Our Future (OOF): Projected savings $3.2–$3.7M without cutting programs

● Selling Hawthorne: Would reduce operating costs and free funds for classrooms

She also advocated for an operating cost referendum. When the majority of the board did not support it, she filed a harassment complaint:

🗣 “The harassment that I detail here interferes unreasonably with my work performance… My suggestion that the District could consider a referendum to address annual budget issues was ignored because it does not fit the WisRed priorities.”

In other words, Diane framed the board not considering her operational referendum as harassment, while continuing to vote against efficiency measures.

📌 Mixed Messaging on Financial Priorities

Diane’s current campaign messaging emphasizes:

1. Taking credit for Waukesha becoming debt-free in record time

2. Protecting past capital investments, arguing buildings like Hawthorne should be retained because selling would not recover prior costs

These priorities conflict with her historical positions:

● Advocating to slow early debt repayment for operational flexibility

● Voting against OOF savings

● Voting against selling Hawthorne

● Filing a harassment complaint because her operating referendum suggestion was not supported

🎯 Result: Mixed messaging. Celebrating past accomplishments while selectively ignoring one’s prior positions and votes. Some voters may not notice, but others do — accountability requires honesty about how decisions were actually made.

📌 Why This Matters

The accelerated debt payoff was not automatic — it required multi-year board decisions. Protecting underutilized buildings increases operating costs. Voting against efficiency measures while taking credit for financial discipline and framing the board as “harassing” you for disagreeing creates a confusing narrative for voters.

Understanding the full context helps voters evaluate:

● How Waukesha became debt-free

● What tradeoffs were involved

● How Diane Voit’s current messaging aligns — or conflicts — with her actions

📌 Coming Next

In my next post, I’ll compare how Diane Voit frames the district becoming debt-free with how fellow incumbent Bette Koenig presents it — highlighting differences in messaging, priorities, and transparency.

🔗 Links to sources are in the comments, including my detailed post about the 2018 referendum from December 31.

04/07/2026

📌 Deleting Questions About Public Business: A First Amendment Issue

In my previous post, I discussed the First Amendment and comments made by incumbent board member Diane Voit suggesting the board may need to consider limiting public comment to prevent “harassment.” The key point was that criticism of elected officials is protected speech, and public bodies must be careful not to restrict viewpoints simply because they are uncomfortable.

That same First Amendment principle does not only apply to microphone time at board meetings. It also applies when elected officials use social media to discuss public business and then moderate the conversation.

A recent campaign post from incumbent board member Diane Voit highlights this issue directly:

“The Board recently sold Hawthorne to a private school for less than the $3.6M invested in the elevator and secure front entrance.”

Under that post, a commenter asked three straightforward questions:

● Did the sale close yet?

● Is the offer to purchase public record?

● Is the appraisal public record?

Those comments were later deleted.

That raises an important First Amendment issue.

📌 When Public Officials Use Social Media for Government Topics

Courts have increasingly ruled that when elected officials:

● discuss official government business

● speak in their role as officeholders

● invite public engagement

● and then moderate comments

…the comment section can become a limited public forum.

In that setting, officials cannot delete comments based on viewpoint — including critical questions.

📌 Key Legal Principle

Public officials can remove:

● profanity

● threats

● spam

● off-topic commercial content

But they cannot remove:

● criticism

● questions about public decisions

● requests for transparency

● disagreement with the official

Deleting only critical questions is considered viewpoint discrimination.

📌 Courts Have Ruled On This

Courts have repeatedly found First Amendment violations when public officials delete comments about official business:

Officials cannot block or silence critics when using accounts to conduct public business

Comment sections discussing government action are treated as public forums

Removing critical comments while leaving supportive ones is unconstitutional

This applies even if:

● the page is labeled “campaign”

● the account is personal

● the official adds a disclaimer

If the official posts about government decisions, First Amendment protections can apply.

📌 Why This Matters Here

The deleted comments were not:

● abusive

● threatening

● profane

● personal attacks

They were questions about:

● a school building sale

● public records

● appraisal transparency

Those are exactly the kinds of questions public comment protections are meant to allow.

📌 The Broader Issue

When a sitting board member:

● posts about district decisions

● frames those decisions politically

● invites votes

● and deletes questions about the decision

…it raises concerns about selective moderation of public discussion.

The First Amendment protects the public’s ability to question elected officials, especially about government actions.

Deleting those questions undermines that principle.

This is why the First Amendment discussion matters.

On one hand, Diane Voit suggested the board may need to limit “harassment” during public comment — something courts have repeatedly warned cannot include criticism of elected officials.

On the other hand, questions about a public school property sale were deleted from Diane Voit’s campaign post discussing official district business.

Both situations involve the same core issue:

Where is the line between harassment and protected criticism?

Courts have consistently answered that question: criticism, questions, and requests for transparency are protected — even when they are uncomfortable.

The First Amendment does not just protect speech that officials like.
It protects the public’s ability to question decisions, ask for records, and hold elected leaders accountable — whether at the podium or in a comment section.

📌 Bottom Line

Public officials are free to campaign.
They are free to post about district decisions.

But when they combine the two, they cannot selectively remove questions about those decisions.

That’s why this is a First Amendment issue — not just a social media disagreement.

📎 Screenshots attached showing the post, the questions asked, and the comments after deletion.

04/07/2026

📌 Public Comment, “Harassment,” and the First Amendment: What School Boards Can — and Cannot — Restrict

At the final Policy committee meeting before tomorrow’s election, incumbent board member Diane Voit suggested the board should discuss changes to public comment rules “to prevent board members from being harassed during public comments.”

🎯 That raises an important question:

What does the First Amendment actually allow when it comes to school board public comment?

Because this is not just a local issue — courts across the country have ruled on this repeatedly.

📌 First: Public Comment Is a “Limited Public Forum”

When a school board opens a meeting for public comment, it creates what courts call a limited public forum.

That means:

● The board can set reasonable time, place, and manner rules

● But the board cannot restrict speech based on viewpoint

● And criticism of board members is protected speech

This is where many districts run into legal trouble.

📌 Courts Have Repeatedly Ruled Against Boards That Restrict Criticism

🎯 Ison v. Madison Local School District (6th Cir. 2021)

A school board banned:

● “personally directed” comments

● “abusive” comments

● “antagonistic” comments

The court ruled this unconstitutional because it allowed praise but not criticism.

The court explained that criticism of public officials is core protected speech, even when harsh.

🎯 Pennsbury School District (2022 settlement)

Residents were cut off for criticizing board members.

The district ultimately paid $300,000 to settle a First Amendment lawsuit.

🎯 Moms for Liberty v. Brevard County (11th Cir. 2024)

The court ruled that “civility” policies were too vague and led to selective enforcement.

The result: speech was chilled, which violates the First Amendment.

📌 What Boards CAN Restrict

Courts are clear that boards can enforce decorum, such as:

● No profanity

● No threats

● No disruption

● Time limits

● Staying on agenda topics (sometimes)

But they cannot restrict:

● Criticism of board members

● Statements that accuse officials of misconduct

● Comments directed at specific officials

● Speech that is harsh, uncomfortable, or accusatory

Those are all protected political speech.

📌 Criticism vs. Harassment

This is where the distinction matters.

Courts generally define harassment in meetings as:

● Threats

● Repeated disruption

● Personal intimidation

● Blocking the meeting from continuing

What does not qualify:

● Saying a board member violated policy

● Saying a decision was unlawful

● Saying a board member acted improperly

● Directly addressing a board member by name

● Asking for accountability

Those are exactly the kinds of speech the First Amendment protects most strongly.

📌 Why This Matters

Public comment is one of the few opportunities residents have to directly address elected officials.

If rules are written to prevent “harassment” but are applied to criticism, courts consistently rule those policies unconstitutional.

This is why districts across the country have:

● Been sued

● Lost in court

● Paid settlements

● Rewritten policies

📌 A Practical Reality

Board members are public officials.

The Supreme Court has long held that public officials are expected to tolerate more criticism than private individuals, not less.

That includes:

● Sharp criticism

● Accusations of poor judgment

● Allegations of policy violations

● Direct statements about decisions

These are part of democratic accountability.

📌 The Real Question

If speakers are:

● Not swearing

● Not threatening

● Not insulting appearance

● Not using slurs

● Not disrupting meetings

…but are criticizing decisions or conduct…

● Is that harassment?

● Or is that protected public comment?

This is an important conversation — but it should be grounded in constitutional law, not discomfort with criticism.

Public comment is not meant to be comfortable.
It is meant to allow citizens to hold elected officials accountable.

04/06/2026

📌 The 2026 Waukesha School Board Race: End-of-Cycle “Where’s Mary?” Chronology and Transparency Questions

One of the unanswered questions in this election cycle is the presence — and disappearance — of Mary Parizek Lopez.

She participated in two joint campaign-style events with Mitch Gallagher and Melissa Toledo on December 7 and December 8, appeared to be running alongside them, and then did not file nomination papers.

Mary was not a regular advocate in the district prior to this. She appeared, participated publicly with candidates, and then disappeared from the race. There has never been a public explanation.

I have seen comments suggesting Diane Voit talked Mary out of running. That is speculation, and I cannot confirm it. However, the timing — combined with the early coordination between candidates — raises questions about how this slate ultimately formed.

What is clear:

● Mary participated in joint candidate events

● She was publicly introduced as a candidate alongside Mitch and Melissa

● She did not file nomination papers

● No one involved has addressed her absence

This election cycle will likely end with Mitch, Melissa, and Diane never publicly discussing Mary’s brief involvement. That silence, combined with the early coordination, is unusual and worth documenting.

📆 November 13, 2025 – Mary Parizek emails Diane Voit after attending a board meeting:

🗣 “Good morning Diane,

My name is Mary, and I am a resident of Waukesha. As a concerned citizen I attended the board meeting last night.

I really just wanted to reach out to express my gratitude for your commitment to finding a solution that fosters trust within the community. Thank you for trying to create a plan that would keep the school open, your creativity is inspiring, and I wish it didn't seem like you were on such an island last night.

If it's allowed and if you would like to, I'd love to take you out for a cup of coffee or tea to express my gratitude. Either way, thank you for all of your hard work.”

Mary sent the email from her professional account at Mount Mary University, where she works as a case manager. Her email signature included the following land acknowledgment:

🗣 “Mount Mary University and Milwaukee occupy the ancestral homeland of the Potawatomi, Ho-Chunk, and Menomonee people…”

This is notable because similar land acknowledgments have appeared in communications and events associated with Blue Sky Waukesha, which later introduced Mary alongside Mitch Gallagher and Melissa Toledo as school board candidates.

While an email signature alone does not define political views, this is one of the only written indicators available from Mary. It also aligns with the same advocacy spaces and messaging patterns seen among groups involved in early campaign activity.

📆 Diane responds the same day:

🗣 “Thank you, Mary, for reaching out.
I am up for re-election in April. Perhaps we can meet to sign my nomination papers after Dec.1.
The comments shared in this communication are made by me as an individual and are not made on behalf of the Waukesha Board of Education.”

⚠️ Note on Use of District Email
This exchange raises a governance question. Diane responded using her official School District of Waukesha email account and referenced nomination paper signing:

🗣 “I am up for re-election in April. Perhaps we can meet to sign my nomination papers after Dec.1.”

Nomination papers are part of a political campaign, not board business. District policies generally restrict the use of district resources — including official email accounts — for campaign-related activity.

While Diane included a standard disclaimer that the comments were made “as an individual,” the communication itself used a district-issued email account for campaign purposes, which is explicitly not allowed.

These communications were included in the Ethics complaint Paul Reese filed about Diane

📆 November 14, 2025 – Diane forwards an email to Blue Sky Waukesha President Kristin Hansen and Waukesha County Supervisor Larry Nelson referencing Mitch Gallagher and the Bethesda advocacy effort:

🗣 “Mitchel Gallagher summarized a lot of the Bethesda story in the attached. He started the petition to save our schools I believe.”

The focus of this message appears to be connecting recipients with Mitch Gallagher, who would later announce his candidacy for school board. Blue Sky amplified Mitch’s candidacy the same day he announced later that month.

⚠️ Note on Use of District Email
Diane blind-copied her campaign account while sending this message from her district-issued email. The communication references advocacy activity and an individual who later became a candidate, while simultaneously involving a campaign account.

This raises further questions about the separation between official board communications and campaign-related activity.

📆 November 19, 2025 – Blue Sky Waukesha posts a video acknowledging Wisconsin is founded on stolen land

📆 November 29, 2025 – Mitch Gallagher announces his candidacy on Facebook. Blue Sky shares the post, and Mitch thanks them

📆 November 30, 2025 – Melissa Toledo announces her candidacy on Facebook. Blue Sky amplifies and she thanks them

📆 December 4, 2025 – The Freeman features Diane Voit, Mitch Gallagher, and Melissa Toledo on the front page in an article about candidates running for school board. Mitch and Melissa invite the public to a nomination signature event on December 7 at Mama Ducky’s.

📆 December 7, 2025 – Nomination signature event at Mama Ducky’s: Melissa, Mitch, and Mary Parizek collect signatures together. Diane attends but does not participate in signing.

📆 December 8, 2025 – Blue Sky Waukesha posts about their December meeting on Zoom, highlighting three candidates:

🗣 “We’ll hear updates about the 2026 spring races and hear from three Waukesha School Board candidates:
🍎 Mitch Gallagher … His decision to run for School Board grew out of the fight to keep Bethesda open during the Optimizing Our Future process …
✏️ Mary Parizek … Ensuring an equitable public education system has been a part of her value system throughout her entire life … Mary believes that trust and transparency are at the core of building a positive relationship with community members …
🎓 Melissa Toledo … What began as an effort to save Bethesda became a push for transparency, data-driven decisions, and a stronger voice for families across the district.”

📆 December 13, 2025 – Diane holds her own nomination signing event at Mama Ducky’s, separate from the December 7 group event.

📆 December 20, 2025 – Blue Sky shares Melissa Toledo’s campaign post celebrating submission of her and Mitch’s nomination signatures to the district:

“Woohoo!!! One step closer to getting onto the ballot ✅
The recent, drastic communication errors that occurred, causing uncertainty, stress, and additional lack of trust in the district has only reinforced our need and reason for running; we need a positive change.
What now? How can you help? Well thank you for asking 😊

1. It’s fundraising time …

2. Spread our info …

3. Sign up to volunteer …
And remember, come this Spring, # voteMnM”

📌 End-of-Cycle Observations

Mary Parizek appeared publicly as part of a candidate grouping with Mitch Gallagher and Melissa Toledo in early December. She participated in a joint nomination event, was introduced by Blue Sky as a school board candidate, and then did not file nomination papers. No explanation was ever provided.

Diane Voit had direct communication with Mary before this period, referenced campaign activity using a district email, and later held a separate nomination event. Mitch, Melissa, and Diane all continued their campaigns, while Mary quietly disappeared from the race.

This sequence is unusual. It suggests early coordination followed by the quiet removal of a participant, with no public acknowledgment from any of the candidates involved.

The only continuing connection is that Mary serves on the board of PFLAG Waukesha and is listed as the Communications Director, and Melissa has engaged/liked/loved with multiple recent PFLAG Facebook posts.

🎯 Why this is relevant

School board races are often presented as independent candidates running separately. This timeline shows something different — early coordination, shared events, and overlapping advocacy networks before the ballot was finalized.

It raises a straightforward question:

If a candidate publicly participates in joint campaign events and is introduced to voters as running, then disappears, should voters expect some explanation?

That explanation has never been provided.

This post does not assign motive. It simply documents the sequence:

● Mary communicates with Diane

● Diane connects with advocacy network

● Mitch and Melissa announce and are amplified

● Mary participates in joint candidate activity

● Mary is publicly introduced as a candidate

● Mary does not file

● No one addresses it

Documenting this pattern provides a clearer picture of how this race developed prior to the ballot being finalized.

📎 Screenshots of related emails and posts attached.

04/02/2026

🧔 Candidate Spotlight: Chase Allen — Perspective, Priorities, and Voter Considerations

📌 Background

● Professional: Chase is a facilities commissioning agent, specializing in evaluating building performance, efficiency, and long-term cost management. He helps organizations determine whether buildings are being used effectively and ensures that every dollar spent maximizes value for occupants. His experience spans commercial, institutional, and educational facilities (information obtained from his January 4 post, link to post in comments).

● Local roots: A long-term Waukesha resident, Chase attended Whittier and Central (now Les Paul) and graduated from West High School (February 10 campaign video, clip attached).

● Political ideology: Conservative and transparent. He publicly notes when events are hosted by outside groups, such as the Young Republicans (meet & greets or canvassing) and TP Action (Super Chase event).

● Slate / Collaborative Campaigning and Support: Chase initially filed nomination papers alongside Maria Carrillo and publicly thanked supporters in a joint announcement. After Maria stepped back due to harassment, Chase condemned those attacks and emphasized civility. Since then, he and Bette Koenig have run a cooperative slate—canvassing together, promoting one another, and distributing joint campaign literature. While each runs an individual campaign, voters can view them as aligned conservative candidates, with both receiving support from conservative and Republican-aligned organizations.

In contrast, other candidates—including Mitch Gallagher, Melissa Toledo, and Diane Voit—have received support from progressive and Democratic-aligned organizations as well as the teacher's union.

● Campaign approach: Chase has run a traditional, issues-focused campaign that is generally positive toward the district and centered on building on existing strengths. His responses to criticism or opposing viewpoints tend to present his perspective rather than engage in direct or combative exchanges.

As a result, his campaign has generated fewer points of controversy or conflict. There are also fewer publicly available records—such as past statements, emails, or open records materials—that provide additional context for analysis. This contributes to why he has received less coverage on this page compared to other candidates, where more extensive documentation or specific claims have been available to review.

● Faith: Chase is a Christian, and his faith informs his perspective on community and education. Regarding enrollment and school engagement, he has written:

🗣 "I attend church in Milwaukee, and I respect my pastor immensely. He holds the belief that if he preaches the Word of God faithfully, then God will gravitate people to the church. I hold that as a truism — do the core work well, and the quality will attract and retain families, no matter the numbers."

This reflects his focus on core quality and long-term outcomes, including challenges such as district enrollment and retention.

● Family: Chase and his wife have three young children, with one on the way, and have chosen to homeschool. While some voters have raised questions about this decision, Chase emphasizes that his role as a parent is separate from his role as a school board member, and that his focus is on what’s best for the district as a whole.

🎯 Some voters question whether someone who homeschools should serve on a public school board.

📌 Chase Allen on Homeschooling and Board Service

When asked on one of his Facebook campaign posts why he chooses not to send his children to the School District of Waukesha, Chase stated:

🗣 “For my wife and I, homeschooling is a personal choice, rooted in wanting a more individualized approach and also having closer involvement in our kids’ daily learning. Every family makes decisions based on their own circumstances. I can respect that those choices look different for everyone.”

He distinguishes personal decisions from public responsibility:

🗣 “I'd like to be clear: my role as a parent is completely separate from the role of a school board member. My responsibility on the board would not be to replicate my family’s choices—it’s to ensure that the district can provide a strong and high-quality education for the thousands of students it serves.”

🗣 “I may bring my unique perspective, but I won’t make decisions based on my household. It's about making them based on what’s best for the district as a whole.”

On the broader role of public education:

🗣 “Public schools have to work for a lot of different families, and my focus would be on making sure the district is doing the basics really well—teaching kids to read, write, and think, and giving parents confidence in what’s happening in the classroom.”

He also highlights a perspective often missing from discussions about homeschooling:

🗣 “At the same time, I do think it’s important for the board to understand why families—whether homeschooling, choosing private schools, or open enrolling—are making those decisions. That insight should be used to strengthen the district, not dismiss those families and their voices.”

He explained why he is running for school board:

"These are the kids who wil shape our community's future. Everyone should care about their education."

📌 “Skin in the Game” — Context for Voters

Some candidates have personal ties to the district—through children currently enrolled or employed—which is often described as “skin in the game.” This dynamic can provide insight and perspective, but it may also introduce strong preferences tied to specific schools or programs.

Voters may consider:

● Can a candidate make decisions that may negatively impact their own neighborhood, preferred school, or program?
● Can they evaluate tradeoffs across the entire district—not just the areas closest to them?

The following public record examples illustrate how personal ties and district priorities can intersect. These examples are presented for context, not as endorsements or critiques.

📄 Public Record Example — Melissa Toledo

In an October 27, 2025 email sent to district administration and board members—the same day as the final Optimizing Our Future workshop—candidate Melissa Toledo wrote:

🗣 “Since the ‘newer’ three proposals have been released, I'm very aware that everyone has heard from others in the community, especially parents and staff at schools listed as possibly closing. I'm grateful for them voicing their concerns, however I hope it does not take away from or diminish the efforts the Bethesda community has put in since June 12th.”

She added:

🗣 “Just this weekend my husband and I saw homes near Bethesda because we are committed to the school: for our boys to attend the incredible Dual Language program held there as well as a future home for my teaching career. Therefore I'm hopeful for continued support for keeping Bethesda open during tonight's Workshop.”

Analysis: These statements reflect a clear personal connection to a specific school and program while district-wide decisions were being considered.

📄 Public Record Example — Diane Voit

On that same day (October 27, 2025), while the board workshop was taking place, Diane Voit—who was out of town—e-mailed real-time input to district leadership while watching the meeting:

🗣 "STEM at Horning not Les Paul
Share Banting playground
Central location of remaining middle school”

In a follow-up email to Bette Koenig on November 8, she wrote:

🗣 “First of all, THANK YOU for suggesting that STEM Saratoga relocate to Horning at the Board Workshop! My daughter is a Special Ed. teacher at Les Paul, and that is truly an answer to prayers! That idea has been included in Plan E.2!”

At the following Board meeting, she raised concerns about Horning students in a way that framed the STEM program as an “outsider” in the building:

🗣 “Why relocate, just for the sake of trying to merge the entire STEM program together? Shouldnt the Horning current students have more priority than a wish to put together a charter school? To take over their building?”

And, in the same discussion, she framed Horning’s students as “displaced” by STEM, highlighting her focus on the staff at Les Paul—where her daughter works as a Special Ed. teacher:

🗣 “So my question is how quickly can we serve the 99 students with IEPs that are being displaced from Horning that are being reassigned to Les Paul that the Special Ed. staff there is going to be asked to serve..."

She also raised concerns about shared facilities, even though she had previously recommended sharing Banting’s playground in her October 27 email:

🗣 “I am so glad to hear the switch to Horning from STEM is working out as a very positive situation. My concern is the need to have Whittier students relocate next year already... when there is a lot of concerns about the playground equipment availability for both students at Banting and Horning.”

Analysis: These examples show how family connections and professional roles may inform perspectives and priorities in board decisions.

📄 Public Record Example — Mitch Gallagher

During OOF, Mitch submitted a detailed facilities proposal (obtained via open records), which:

● Kept Bethesda Elementary open
● Proposed closing Lowell, Hawthorne, and Prairie
● Relocated STEM to Les Paul

Bethesda is an open-concept building, while Lowell is widely considered a stronger facility. At the same time, Gallagher’s child attends Bethesda, and his family emphasized the importance of proximity to that school.

Analysis: Like the other examples, this illustrates how personal considerations may intersect with district-level decisions.

📌 Key Takeaways for Voters

Personal ties can provide insight and perspective—but they can also introduce strong preferences that influence decision-making.

The central question is how candidates balance personal priorities with district-wide considerations.

Chase Allen’s approach highlights this balance: his homeschooling experience informs perspective, but he emphasizes that his board decisions would prioritize the needs of all students.

📌 Campaign Engagement and Responses

Chase provides context or perspective in response to other candidates’ posts and videos, illustrating his approach to communication and community engagement.

● Response to Melissa Toledo: Melissa noted that, despite only living in Waukesha for three years, she can research the district’s history via the library. Chase responded with a video showing his visit to the library, finding his high school yearbook, and sharing his senior picture to illustrate his long-term local roots (clips of both videos attached).

● Response to Mitch Gallagher: Mitch posted that homes are the “biggest investment.” Chase responded with a video explaining that he believes children are the community’s most important investment, highlighting his perspective on educational priorities (clip and screenshot in comments).

📌 Final Thought

This race presents voters with candidates who bring different perspectives:

● Candidates with direct personal ties to specific schools, programs, or outcomes, supported by progressive-leaning organizations, including the teachers’ union.

● Candidates with a broader, district-wide focus, supported by conservative-leaning organizations and local Republican groups.

Neither approach automatically makes a candidate more or less qualified, but they can influence how decisions are evaluated and prioritized across the district.

🎯 Ultimately, voters must decide which matters more:

● Insight and experience drawn from personal stakes in specific schools, programs, or outcomes.

● Or the ability to step back and make decisions for the district as a whole.

Both considerations are valid, but they are not the same — understanding this distinction helps voters evaluate the choices in this race.

📎Note on Attachments:

Facebook limits the number of videos or screenshots that can be attached to a single post. For this reason, only two clips are included in the main post. All other screenshots, supporting documents, and related clips are available in the comments section.

Waukesha School Board Election 2026

04/08/2026

04/08/2026

04/07/2026

04/07/2026

04/07/2026

04/07/2026

04/06/2026

04/02/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category