Editor’s Note: Quotes in this article are transcribed from the Cameron R-1 School District’s live stream recording of board meetings. Due to poor audio quality, some quotes may contain transcription errors.
On December 19, 2025, the Cameron R-1 School Board sat through a 30-minute presentation from Superintendent Matt Robinson about the district’s need for a tax levy increase. Robinson indicated the levy would need to be between 75 and 90 cents, which would generate approximately $525,000 to $630,000 annually from a community where 40% of residents live at or below the poverty line.
Not one board member asked what this would cost the average household.
Not one board member asked if there were places to cut spending.
Not one board member asked why the district needed to jump straight to 75 to 90 cents instead of a smaller incremental increase.
But four months earlier, in August 2025, someone had asked those questions. Me.
The Request They Ignored
At the August tax rate hearing, I stood before the board and made a simple request: form a budget committee. Include both supporters and critics of current spending levels. Review the budget systematically. Look for waste. Find places to cut. Give taxpayers some relief.
“Every month when the electricity and water bill come due for Cameron residents, there’s somebody in there talking about how much more expensive it is,” I told them, referring to the Cameron Community Forum on Facebook where residents regularly discuss rising costs. “40% of the people who live in [Cameron] are below the poverty line… Our families are having difficulty making ends meet… People are putting food on credit cards because they don’t have enough money to get by.”
I pointed out that while the tax rate was technically decreasing, assessed values had jumped—meaning every taxpayer’s actual tax liability was going up.
I even gave them an example of what a budget committee might catch. Scrolling through budget documents, I found that the district was listing $438,000 in healthcare costs under “Superintendent – Dues and Membership” instead of under employee healthcare where it belonged.
When I asked about it, Robinson interrupted to explain it was insurance costs. But here’s the real problem: not one board member asked why employee healthcare costs were being listed under the superintendent’s dues and membership. Not one questioned why the budget was organized in a way that makes it impossible for taxpayers to understand where their money goes. They just accepted Robinson’s explanation and moved on.
The irony? Just months earlier, this same board had been “apoplectic” about spending $8,500—not on school operations, but on hiring attorneys to redact public records for Sunshine Law requests. But they directed their anger at the citizen who requested transparency, not at the unnecessary expense of hiring attorneys to do redactions that staff could have done in-house. Not one board member asked: “Why are we paying attorneys for this instead of having staff do it?” They were upset about the cost of transparency, not upset about wasting money on unnecessary attorney fees.
The board obsessed over $8,500 spent because a citizen wanted transparency while never questioning why $438,000 in healthcare costs were hidden under the wrong budget category.
I ended my testimony with a simple plea: “Surely the school district can find places where they can cut from the budget. I ask that you form a committee and look into these.”
The board voted to set the tax rate that night in August.
They never responded to my request for a budget committee.
Four Months of Silence
Between August and December, the board held regular monthly meetings.
No budget committee was formed. No public call for citizens to participate. No systematic examination of expenditures. No discussion about where cuts could be made. No coverage by the local newspaper about the budget committee request or the need for budget review.
The August request simply disappeared into silence.
Meanwhile, enrollment continued declining. Robinson would later admit the district had “added positions with kind of a declining to steady enrollment”—though nobody asked him to clarify what that actually meant.
By December, the board was ready to discuss asking taxpayers for more money. But they’d never asked themselves—or allowed the public to help them ask—whether they could get by with less.
December: The Questions They Didn’t Ask
On December 19, 2025, Robinson presented his case for a 75 to 90 cent levy. To be clear: as of this writing, the board has not proposed or approved any levy to be added to the ballot. No timeline has been set. No decisions have been made. This article examines the December discussion and the questions that weren’t asked.
Board members asked some questions during the presentation—mostly about timing, amounts, and comparisons to other districts. But they never asked the hard questions.
Robinson opened by saying the budget is “very, very tight” because “revenue is not keeping up with expenses.”
But nobody asked: What does “very, very tight” actually mean? Is there enough money for the current school year? How long will reserves last? Is this urgent, or is there time to wait for new leadership?
Robinson listed rising costs: transportation up 15% initially, then 5% annually. Food costs up. Utilities up. Insurance costs rising.
Nobody asked: You say transportation costs jumped 15% and keep going up 5% every year—have we looked for ways to reduce those costs?
Robinson mentioned Senate Bill 190, the senior tax freeze that’s “costing” the district $25,253 this year and will continue to grow as more residents turn 62.
But here’s the thing: Robinson and the board knew about this law a year ago. It was discussed at board meetings in late 2024. If they knew it was coming, why weren’t they planning for it? Why weren’t they adjusting the budget to offset the known revenue loss?
Nobody asked.
Robinson said enrollment has “slight downward steady trends” but “we’ve added positions with kind of a declining to steady enrollment.”
What does that mean? Are we adding new positions or just filling vacancies? If enrollment is declining, shouldn’t costs be declining too? Could we save money by leaving some positions unfilled? Should we be eliminating positions to save money?
Nobody asked for clarification.
Then Robinson dropped the big number: Cameron hasn’t raised its tax levy since 1998. Twenty-seven years without an increase. Now they’re discussing 75 to 90 cents, which would generate roughly $525,000 to $630,000 annually.
Board member Ryan Murphy made an important point: “This isn’t something you can go back to… we need to make sure that it’s beneficial.”
Robinson agreed completely. You don’t want to keep going back to voters.
But if that’s true, why did the district wait 27 years? Why not 25 cents in 2005, another 25 cents in 2015, and work up gradually? Why let it build to a point where they’re discussing 75 to 90 cents all at once?
Nobody asked.
The Revenue Sources Nobody Mentioned
Here’s what’s stunning: the board discussed needing $525,000 to $630,000 more from taxpayers without ever asking about new revenue sources.
Cameron has both a marijuana dispensary and a growing facility within the district. Missouri voters legalized recreational marijuana with tax revenue designated for education. Nobody asked: How much marijuana tax revenue does the district receive? Has it increased? Could it offset any need for a tax increase?
Sports betting launched in Missouri on December 1, 2025—just 18 days before this meeting. Voters approved it specifically to fund education. Nobody asked: How will Cameron R-1 receive this money? What’s our projected share? Should we wait to see actual revenue before asking for a tax increase?
Casino revenue has been generating education funding for years. Nobody asked about that either.
These aren’t theoretical revenue streams. They’re real money designated by voters to fund schools. Before asking taxpayers for $525,000 to $630,000 more annually, shouldn’t the board at least know how much the district receives from these sources?
The Superintendent Who’s Leaving
Robinson had announced his resignation back in September, effective June 30, 2026. So by December, everyone knew he was leaving.
Now he’s pushing for a 75 to 90 cent levy—money he won’t be around to manage. At one point he said: “I do want to leave the next person in a good financial standing.”
But here’s a question nobody asked: Should this levy decision be left to the new superintendent?
The board is conducting interviews this week for Robinson’s replacement. Wouldn’t it make sense to ask candidates: “Can you find ways to work within the current budget?” “What spending cuts would you make?” “Do you think a 75 to 90 cent levy is necessary?”
A new superintendent might bring fresh eyes to the budget. They might see inefficiencies Robinson missed—like why $438,000 in healthcare costs are listed under “Superintendent – Dues and Membership.” They might have experience cutting costs without cutting quality.
But if the board pursues a levy before the new superintendent even starts, they’ve eliminated that option.
Nobody asked about waiting for new leadership to weigh in.
The “Necessary Evil” Nobody Challenged
Robinson wrapped up by saying: “Nobody wants to pay taxes, but it may become a necessary evil.”
Think about that. Robinson just told seven elected board members—representatives chosen by Cameron taxpayers—that “nobody wants to pay taxes.”
And not a single one of those seven knuckleheads asked: “So what can we do to reduce the tax burden instead?”
They just nodded along. Because these board members don’t serve the community that elected them. They serve Matt Robinson. And what Robinson wants is a 75 to 90 cent levy to make his successor’s job easier before he walks out the door in June.
A board that serves taxpayers would have responded to “nobody wants to pay taxes” by demanding proof that an increase to the levy was actually needed and that every possible spending cut had been explored first.
But this board? They accepted “necessary evil” as the final word and moved on to discussing when to schedule a levy election.
A Crisis of Confidence in Leadership
This isn’t just about a tax levy discussion. This is about a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the Cameron R-1 School Board.
Over three years of attending board meetings, I’ve seen the same pattern: lack of transparency, lack of planning, lack of oversight, and ignoring the community.
Healthcare costs buried under wrong budget categories. The board “apoplectic” about $8,500 for attorneys to redact public records, but nobody asking if staff could do it in-house for less. Problems they knew about a year ago presented as sudden crises. Reasonable requests from taxpayers simply ignored.
This pattern creates a crisis of confidence. How can taxpayers trust a board that repeatedly fails to provide basic oversight? How can residents believe their voices matter when reasonable requests disappear into silence?
The December levy discussion proved it again: this board doesn’t ask hard questions. They accept the superintendent’s framing. They nod along. They move toward his conclusion.
When Robinson said the budget is “very, very tight,” nobody demanded concrete numbers. When he mentioned problems they knew about a year ago, nobody asked why they didn’t plan for it. When he discussed needing more money, nobody asked about new revenue sources or spending cuts.
They’re not representatives of the taxpayers. They’re an audience for the superintendent’s presentations.
What This Means for You
If a 75 to 90 cent levy eventually goes to voters, here’s what it means:
Property owners pay their share. Businesses pay their share—then pass those costs to consumers. Landlords pass costs to renters (more than half of Cameron residents rent). Every service and product in town becomes more expensive.
And Cameron residents are already being squeezed from every direction. Water costs have doubled for infrastructure voters rejected twice at the ballot box—a $12 million project that’s ballooned to nearly $50 million. City Councilman John Feighert warned on December 22, 2025: “We will run people out of Cameron with these prices.”
Add to that 45% inflation over five years and families already putting food on credit cards. Now the school district wants to layer on another $525,000 to $630,000 annually from the community.
And you’re not getting alternatives explored first. The board has not:
- Formed a budget committee to review spending
- Conducted a systematic search for spending cuts
- Explored new revenue sources (sports betting, marijuana, casino)
- Planned for known revenue losses
- Waited to hear from the next superintendent
- Asked how to reduce costs that grow faster than inflation
What Happens Next
As of now, no decisions have been made. No timeline has been set. No ballot measure has been approved.
This is the time for taxpayers to make their voices heard. Attend board meetings. Ask the questions the board didn’t ask. Demand to see the budget review that should have happened.
And if a levy eventually comes to a vote, remember: you’re not just voting on whether to pay more taxes. You’re voting on whether to reward a board that refused to look for alternatives first.
Four months after I asked them to form a budget committee, they proved exactly why one is needed. The December discussion is just the latest example of this crisis of confidence in school board leadership.
It won’t be the last—unless voters demand better.