Lemke Defends Vote to Approve Title IX Changes Allowing Boys in Girls’ Sports

In a recent Facebook post, Melinda Lemke took aim at the Nelson and Cox Wrightstown Spirit ad that reached mailboxes this week. Her critique of Nelson, claiming “our students don’t have political affiliates so neither should school board members,” raises eyebrows and questions about her own political affiliations. While school boards are intended to be non-partisan, the reality is that political parties often endorse candidates who align with their principles. This endorsement complicates the notion of complete neutrality, especially when Lemke and her running mate Jonathan Curtis are backed by the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), one of the most left-wing political organizations in the state.

Summary of Melinda Lemke’s “Timeline”

1. Debt Defeasance: Lemke defends trying to pay off debt early to save on future interest, but her timeline and statements raise questions about accuracy and transparency. 
2. Boys in Girls’ Sports: Lemke’s defense of her vote to allow biological boys in girls’ sports is misleading, as WIAA does not control elementary or middle school sports.
3. Sex Identity/Boys in Girls’ Bathrooms/Title IX: Lemke’s stance on gender identity issues is ambiguous, raising concerns about her understanding and consistency.
4. Streaming of Board Meetings: Lemke’s actions and statements regarding the streaming of board meetings and transparency are contradictory.

Lemke’s response goes further, addressing the negativity of the campaign despite her involvement in the recall of Angela Hanson-Winker and the creation of a private Facebook page she created with fellow board member Tiffany Van Vreede that selectively includes members and blocks others while claiming transparency. This raises serious concerns about inclusivity and openness. Moreover, a recent Supreme Court ruling forbids elected officials from blocking voters from responding to them on Facebook, making the creation of the private R4WCSD Facebook page by three board members even more questionable and possibly illegal.

Debt Defeasance

Debt defeasance is another topic Lemke tackles in her post. She defends it by stating, “By paying the bill in full you are saving on future interest.” However, her timeline is suspect. She mentions defeasance was brought up in an open forum during her second year in office, yet newspaper reports indicate it was discussed at nearly all board meetings. This discrepancy raises questions about the accuracy of her statements. 

Lemke’s explanation of the Village reassessing and altering taxes collected, claiming “that is not double taxing. It is reassessing and increasing the taxes collected!” is concerning. Increasing taxes collected raises people’s taxes, and paying off a 2% loan that is not due for 18 years from now could be seen as double taxing our community.

Her claim that no debt defeasance was brought forth this year, as suggested by Mr. Space, and that she mentioned a 7-0 vote is puzzling. There isn’t a single line in the 2024/25 school budget mentioning debt defeasance. How can anyone claim they voted against it if it was not in the budget? Interestingly, meeting minutes from February 21, 2024, show that Lemke did vote for debt defeasance along with Warner and Van Vreede before Angela Hanson-Winker became board president.

Boys in Girls’ Sports

Lemke’s defense of her vote to allow biological boys in girls’ sports by saying WIAA controls this decision, not the district, is misleading. WIAA does not control elementary or middle school sports. This statement raises questions about her understanding of the issue.

Sex Identity/Boys in Girls’ Bathrooms/Title IX

In an impressive feat, Lemke tackles her timeline numbers three and four together: Sex Identity/Boys in Girls’ Bathrooms/Title IX. She educates us on Title IX’s history from the 1970s and explains its purpose: allowing equal opportunities for males and females. She states that all students have “A” bathrooms to use but does not specify according to their biological sex. This ambiguity raises concerns about her stance on gender identity issues. She also fails to mention her vote for the new Title IX policy would have allowed biological boys in girls’ bathrooms. 

Streaming of Board Meetings

Melinda says a lot. Please refer to the April 16th, 2024, board meeting minutes, where she voted to discontinue streaming board meetings for the public. Transparency? 

Lemke’s closing statement claims Nelson is running a fear campaign, bringing politics into the school board, dividing the community, and calling for taking back their great community. However, given her own actions and endorsements, these claims seem hypocritical.

Addressing Lemke’s Closing Points

1. Fear Campaign: Lemke accuses Nelson of running a fear campaign, but it appears she is fearful of people knowing her voting record.
2. Bringing Politics into the School Board: Lemke is correct. Nelson has, in fact, fought some political battles on the board. In the Title IX July 17th board vote, Nelson clearly demonstrated his willingness to defend the girls of Wrighstown, protecting their sports, locker rooms, and bathrooms. Nelson dispatched Superintendent Andy Space’s false claim Whittaker vs. Kenosha Unified Public School District was Wisconsin Law. Nelson also fought against Debt Defeasance every year he was on the board. Also, Nelson and Cox were endorsed by the Brown and Outagamie County Republicans and the NEW Patriots, while Lemke and Curtis’s campaign to “Build Back Better” was endorsed by the Teachers Union, WEAC.
3. Dividing the Community: Nelson’s conservative votes are visible, but he hasn’t taken personal shots or public shots thus far during this election, despite continual attacks from R4WCSD.  In contrast, Lemke has participated in the private R4WCSD Facebook page and the vicious recall of the sitting school board president. Nothing brings together a community like a good ol’ recall election. 
4. Taking Back the Community: Lemke’s voting history suggests we know exactly where she will take us. 

In conclusion, while Lemke’s response aims to defend her position and criticize Nelson’s actions, it raises several questions about transparency, accuracy, and consistency. It’s essential for voters to consider these factors when evaluating candidates for school board positions.