Board Discusses and Approves Contract Not Listed on Agenda While Demanding Public “Follow Our Policies”
By Heath Gilbert
Cameron School District Exposed
January 23, 2026
They understand the law. They’ve been trained on it. Board President Andi Lockridge has invoked it to silence a citizen. Vice President Ryan Murphy has used it as justification for banning another. Yet on January 20, 2026, the Cameron R-1 School District Board of Education violated the very Missouri Sunshine Law they claim to uphold—in the same meeting where they extended a ban against Dan Landi for allegedly violating their policies.
The hypocrisy is documented. The evidence is clear. And the law they broke is unambiguous.
The Violation: A Contract Appears Out of Thin Air
At the January 20, 2026 board meeting, the publicly posted agenda listed only one item under “Items Under Consideration”: Board Policy C-145-P, a routine change updating the custodian of records to Bridges Legal Services.
But that’s not all the board discussed and voted on.
During that same agenda section, Board President Andy Lockridge informed board members that a contract with Bridges Legal Services had “just been sent to your inbox.” She acknowledged they likely hadn’t had time to read it and gave them approximately two minutes to review the document on their computers during the meeting.
The board then discussed and voted to approve this contract—a contract that was never listed on the meeting agenda provided to the public.
Let that sink in. A governmental body, required by Missouri law to notify the public of items to be discussed, approved a binding contract that the public had no advance notice would even be considered.
The Law Is Crystal Clear
Missouri Revised Statute 610.020.1 could not be more explicit:
“All public governmental bodies shall give notice of the time, date, and place of each meeting, and its tentative agenda, in a manner reasonably calculated to advise the public of the matters to be considered.”
The Missouri Attorney General’s Office has repeatedly clarified what this means. In their brief supporting a Sunshine Law lawsuit against Western Cass Fire Protection District, Assistant Attorney General Jason Lewis wrote:
“A public governmental body cannot hide an elephant in a mouse hole by using vague or excessively broad terms to hide what the body intends to do. The tentative agenda must be specific enough for the public to be able to make an informed decision about whether to attend the meeting.“
The Attorney General’s Office has successfully prosecuted Sunshine Law violations for exactly this conduct. In their December 2023 case against the City of Belle, one of the five counts filed involved “discussing items of public business not on meeting agendas.”
Cameron R-1’s board didn’t just discuss a non-agenda item—they voted on it. They approved a contract. They took official action on a matter the public had no reasonable opportunity to know would be considered.
The Evidence: In Their Own Words
The audio recording from the January 20 meeting captures the entire sequence:
ANDI LOCKRIDGE (Board President): “Moving on to items for consideration in board policy C-145-P… Also, just into your inbox was the contract that the assessor has asked, which we will also need to approve. Which, if you want a second to look through that, we can take a second since that was a late addition.”
[Extended silence as board members read the contract on their computers]
ANN CLARK: “I like that there’s a cap.”
LOCKRIDGE: “I would make a motion to approve—”
CLARK: “That contract with Bridges for custodian of records.”
LOCKRIDGE: “I think we need a motion to approve the policy and then we need a separate one for the contract. So I’ll take the approval of the contract. Mrs. Clark has motioned, second by Mrs. Ice. All in favor, raise your hand. Motion passes.”
A contract emailed during the meeting. Read for two minutes. Voted on and approved. Never on the agenda.
And not one single probing question was asked.
Zero discussion about why the district was moving from fulfilling records requests in-house to contracting out the service. No questions about cost. No inquiry about whether the district solicited competitive bids for this service. No consideration of alternatives.
The board simply rubber-stamped a contract they’d just read for the first time—a contract that appears designed to serve the superintendent’s interests, not the taxpayers who fund this public school.
They Know Better—They’ve Used This Law Against Citizens
What makes this violation particularly egregious is that the Cameron R-1 Board demonstrably understands Missouri Sunshine Law agenda requirements. They’ve used this very principle to terminate public comment and ban citizens from district property.
Exhibit A: Andi Lockridge Invokes Agenda Requirements to Silence Dan Landi
At the August 2025 board meeting, Dan Landi attempted to address the board during his allotted public comment time. He was speaking about curriculum and library materials—topics he was permitted to discuss.
Board President Andi Lockridge repeatedly interrupted him, ultimately terminating his speaking time and ordering him to sit down. Her justification?
ANDI LOCKRIDGE: “We have to notice the topics that we’re going to talk about… You’re not talking about that, you’re talking about other things.”
In other words, Lockridge was invoking Missouri Sunshine Law—claiming that because topics must be noticed on the agenda for the board to discuss them in compliance with the law, Dan Landi could only speak about items shown on the agenda.
She didn’t just suggest this was a guideline. She enforced it. She ended a citizen’s First Amendment-protected speech because, in her determination, he wasn’t staying precisely on his noticed topic.
If Andi Lockridge believes the board “has to notice the topics” they’re going to discuss with such rigidity that she’ll silence a citizen mid-sentence, then she absolutely knows the board cannot discuss and vote on a contract that isn’t on the agenda.
Exhibit B: Ryan Murphy Demands the Public “Follow Our Policies”
The January 20 meeting featured another telling moment. As the board extended Dan Landi’s ban from district property, Vice President Ryan Murphy made the board’s expectations perfectly clear:
RYAN MURPHY: “The ban was in place due to the breaking of policy… I would say that we uphold and maybe move this further a little longer. All we’re asking is for people to come in here and follow the policies within our buildings.“
Read that again: “All we’re asking is for people to come in here and follow the policies.” Listen for yourself in this 16 second video.
But Missouri Sunshine Law isn’t just a policy—it’s state law. And Cameron R-1’s own Board Policy requires compliance with it.
The board demands citizens follow their rules with such fervor that they ban military veterans from public meetings. They extend those bans when individuals allegedly commit technical violations. They lecture the community about policy compliance.
Yet in the very same meeting where Ryan Murphy demanded policy compliance, his board violated Missouri state law by discussing and approving a contract not listed on the public agenda.
This Isn’t Ignorance—It’s Deliberate
Some might argue this was an innocent mistake, a last-minute necessity, an oversight.
The evidence contradicts that defense.
First, Board President Lockridge explicitly acknowledged this was a “late addition” that hadn’t been properly noticed. She knew it wasn’t on the agenda. She proceeded anyway.
Second, the board has received mandatory Sunshine Law training. Missouri school boards are trained on these requirements. They receive materials from the Missouri School Boards Association. They have legal counsel who should advise them.
Third, and most damning, the board has repeatedly demonstrated they understand agenda requirements by enforcing them against citizens. You cannot credibly claim ignorance of a law you’ve wielded as a weapon against the public.
The Pattern: One Standard for Citizens, Another for Themselves
This violation exemplifies a disturbing pattern at Cameron R-1 School District:
- Citizens are held to strict interpretations of policy. Dan Landi is banned for alleged recording violations, even when those allegations are disputed.
- The board operates under loose interpretations of law. They approve contracts without proper notice, claiming “tentative agenda” means they can add whatever they want.
- Citizens face escalating consequences. Bans are extended. Property access is restricted. First Amendment rights are curtailed.
- The board faces zero accountability. No consequences. No acknowledgment. No correction.
Here’s the question that should haunt every board member: Dan Landi was banned from district property for allegedly not following policies. How many board members will be banned for this Sunshine Law violation? How many will face consequences for breaking state law?
The answer, of course, is zero. The rules only apply one direction.
Missouri Law Provides Remedies
RSMo 610.027 establishes that any citizen can seek enforcement of Sunshine Law violations. The remedies include:
- Voiding actions taken in violation of the law
- Civil penalties for purposeful violations
- Attorney fees for successful complainants
- Court orders requiring compliance
The Attorney General’s Office has prosecuted and settled multiple cases involving the exact conduct Cameron R-1 committed: discussing and approving matters not listed on meeting agendas.
What Should Have Happened
Missouri Sunshine Law allows for emergency additions to agendas, but it requires justification and documentation.
RSMo 610.020.4 states: “When it is necessary to hold a meeting on less than twenty-four hours’ notice, or at a place that is not reasonably accessible to the public, or at a time that is not reasonably convenient to the public, the nature of the good cause justifying that departure from the normal requirements shall be stated in the minutes.“
If the Bridges Legal Services contract was truly such an emergency that it couldn’t wait until the February meeting with proper notice, the board should have:
- Stated the specific emergency necessitating immediate action
- Documented that justification in the meeting minutes
- Acknowledged they were departing from normal Sunshine Law procedures
They did none of these things. They simply added it, discussed it, and voted on it as if the public’s right to notice didn’t matter.
The Message This Sends
When a school board violates open meetings law, it’s not just a technical violation. It’s a breach of public trust.
When that same board simultaneously punishes citizens for alleged policy violations while breaking state law themselves, it reveals their true character.
The Cameron R-1 Board of Education doesn’t want accountability. They want control.
They want the authority to ban citizens from public meetings while conducting public business in secret.
They want the power to extend punishments against critics while operating above the law themselves.
They want the community to “follow our policies” while they ignore Missouri statutes.
Call to Action
This violation should be investigated by:
- The Missouri Attorney General’s Office, which has successfully prosecuted identical violations
- Missouri taxpayers and citizens, who have standing to file civil actions under RSMo 610.027
The board’s action approving the Bridges Legal Services contract should be declared void under RSMo 610.027’s remedies for Sunshine Law violations.
And every citizen of Cameron, Missouri should ask themselves: If the board won’t follow state law when conducting public business, what else are they hiding?
Documentation Available
I have archived:
- The publicly posted January 20, 2026 meeting agenda showing only Board Policy C-145-P under “Items Under Consideration”
- Complete audio/video recording of the contract discussion and approval (January 20, 2026 Board Meeting)
- Audio from the August 2025 meeting where Andi Lockridge cites agenda requirements to silence Dan Landi (August 2025 Board Meeting)
- Audio from the January 20 meeting where Ryan Murphy demands citizens “follow our policies”
Note: Board member quotes in this article are taken from transcripts of publicly available video recordings. There may be minor unintended inaccuracies based on audio quality.
All evidence will be provided to appropriate authorities and is available for public review.
The board knows the law. They’ve used the law against citizens. Now they’ve broken the law.
That’s not a mistake. That’s a choice.
And it demands accountability.
How to Take Action
File a Sunshine Law complaint with the Missouri Attorney General:
- Online complaint form: https://ago.mo.gov/get-help/programs-services-from-a-z/sunshine-law/sunshine-law-complaint-form/
- Phone: (800) 392-8222
Contact Cameron R-1 School District:
- Compliance Officer: complianceofficer@cameronschools.org
- Board of Education contact information: https://www.cameron.k12.mo.us/board-members
- Board email: boardmembers@cameronschools.org
Demand accountability. Demand transparency. Demand they follow the same laws they enforce against citizens.
Heath Gilbert is a U.S. Navy veteran and independent journalist covering government accountability in Cameron, Missouri. His investigative work focuses on transparency, constitutional rights, and institutional failures at Cameron R-1 School District. This article is part of ongoing coverage at Cameron School District Exposed.
Cameron R-1 School Board Extends Candidate’s Ban for Recording Public Employee in Public Space
January 21, 2026
At Tuesday night’s Cameron R-1 School District board meeting, the board voted 6-0 to not only uphold but extend the ban of Dan Landi—a declared candidate for Cameron school board—from all district property. The extension pushes Landi’s ban from its original May 2026 expiration to January 2027, conveniently carrying it through the April 2026 election and well into the period when newly elected board members would typically be sworn in and begin serving.
Among the six board members who voted to extend the ban was Ann Clark, an incumbent board member who is also running for re-election to the very seat that Landi is seeking. Clark is one of Landi’s direct competitors in the upcoming election.
Let that sink in: An incumbent school board member voted to ban her electoral opponent from school property, creating a situation where voters who choose Landi would be electing someone the board has deliberately excluded from physically attending meetings, participating in public ceremonies, or setting foot on district property during the critical early months of his potential term.
If this isn’t election interference, what is?
The “Violation”: A 19-Second Video of Constitutional Activity
The stated justification for extending Landi’s ban? A 19-second video he recorded on December 9, 2025, while lawfully present in the Cameron R-1 central office to file his candidacy paperwork for school board.
When asked why he records his interactions with district officials, Landi explained: “Video recording, audio recording whatever is going to protect me just as much as it would anybody else. And so it’s not only for protecting ourselves but it also brings accountability because if they’re doing something wrong and I catch that and I record that, they can’t argue that.”
Let’s examine what actually happened in that brief clip, which has garnered nearly 75,000 views on social media:
Dan Landi stands in the public lobby area of the central office—a space furnished with chairs specifically for members of the public conducting business with the district. This was during normal business hours on a day when the building was open to the public for candidate filing. In fact, three candidates were present filing paperwork at the same time, including Ann Clark herself.
In the video, Landi steps to the door of Gina Bainum, the district’s custodian of records—a public-facing position specifically designated to handle citizen records requests. He knocks on her door. Bainum, who appears to be decorating a Christmas tree, comes to the door. Landi asks if he can submit a Missouri Sunshine Law request.
Bainum refuses. She tells him he cannot submit a lawful public records request and that he needs to “follow the rules that the board established.”
That’s it. That’s the entire “violation.”
Landi’s perspective on why this recording was necessary is illuminating: “She could have also accused me at that time of threatening or swearing or putting hands on her even. There’s a lot of things that she could have accused me of had I not been recording. It would have been word versus word. She would have complained to the school district about my behavior and then it’s her word versus my word. We all know who the district believed in that scenario.”
He’s right. Without that video evidence, this could have been spun into something far worse. Instead, what we have is an indisputable record of exactly what happened: a citizen making a lawful request, and a district employee refusing to perform her duties.
Missouri Law is Clear: Landi Broke No Laws
Missouri is a one-party consent state for recording. This means Dan Landi had every legal right to record his conversation with a public school employee performing her official duties in a public space during business hours.
Policy C-165-P, which the district claims Landi violated, explicitly allows recording at “performances or activities to which the general public is invited” and at “open meetings of the Board or District committees.” The December 9th candidate filing was quite literally an event open to the public—three members of the public were there conducting the exact same business.
The hallway where Landi stood is the public lobby. The employee he recorded is the custodian of records, whose job is to interface with the public on records requests. The building was open for business. There was nothing confidential, nothing private, nothing restricted about this interaction.
Furthermore, any district policy that contradicts state or federal law is void and unenforceable. The district cannot ban citizens from exercising their First Amendment right to record public officials performing their duties in public spaces, particularly when Missouri law explicitly permits such recording.
The Real Issue: The Video Made Them Look Bad
Here’s what the board doesn’t want to talk about: That 19-second video captured a district employee refusing to accept a lawful Missouri Sunshine Law request. That’s a problem. A big problem.
Landi describes what happened: “She wasn’t busy at all. That’s when I asked her about the records request and she said no… She’s a public servant. She’s got a job to do. It was a reasonable request. I wasn’t rude. I wasn’t threatening in any of this stuff, and just out of disdain for me, she said no and that was that.”
Under Missouri law, public entities must accept Sunshine Law requests. They can’t simply refuse to take them because they don’t like the requestor or because “the board established rules” that contradict state statute. Policy C-145-P itself commits the district to complying with Missouri Sunshine Law requests.
That video—with its nearly 75,000 views—is evidence of the district violating state transparency law. It’s embarrassing. It makes them look exactly like what they are: a public body that doesn’t want to be held accountable to the public it serves.
When asked why he thinks the district is so adamant about preventing him from recording, Landi observed: “I think part of it’s just a power trip. I think that’s their domain and they think that they can rule it with an iron fist and when they say go, whether it runs afoul of the Constitution and our rights or whatever.”
So what does the board do? They punish the person who documented their employee’s unlawful refusal. They extend his ban. They keep him off school property. They make an example of him.
This isn’t about protecting district policy. This is retaliation for exposing institutional failure.
Ann Clark’s Ethics Violation
While all six board members who voted to extend Landi’s ban should be ashamed of themselves for violating their oaths of office to protect the God-given rights they swore to uphold, Ann Clark’s vote stands apart as a particularly egregious ethics violation.
Clark is running for re-election for a position on the Cameron R-1 school board. Dan Landi is running against her for that same seat. They are direct electoral competitors.
Clark’s participation in this matter extends beyond just the public vote. She also participated in the closed session meeting where the board discussed Landi and his potential ban. What arguments she made in that private deliberation are not public record, but it’s entirely possible she swayed the opinions of other board members against her electoral opponent. She should not have participated in those closed-door discussions either.
By voting to extend Landi’s ban—and by participating in closed session discussions about him—Clark:
1. Created a competitive advantage for herself– Her opponent is now officially banned from district property while she, as an incumbent, has full access to school facilities, staff, and events.
2. Sent a message to voters – The board’s action tells the community that Landi has done something wrong, something worthy of extended banishment, potentially influencing voter perception of her opponent.
3. Undermined democratic participation – If elected, Landi would begin his term unable to physically attend board meetings, participate in swearing-in ceremonies, or be present at district events. While Policy G-400-P technically allows board members to attend meetings virtually, the optics and practical implications of having an elected official banned from the very property he’s meant to oversee are deeply problematic.
4. Violated basic ethical standards – Policy G-260-P requires board members to “avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance thereof” and to “refrain from using Board membership for the benefit of special interest groups or select individuals, including self.”
5. Provided grounds for an ethics complaint – Clark’s actions give Landi reasonable grounds to file a complaint with the Missouri Ethics Commission regarding her participation in matters directly affecting her electoral opponent.
Clark should have recused herself from this entire matter—both the closed session discussions and the public vote. Period. Full stop. Any reasonable person can see the conflict of interest. She is voting on whether to ban her electoral opponent from school property during an election season and potentially into his term if elected.
Even if Clark genuinely believed Landi violated district policy (he didn’t), the ethical thing to do was to step back and let the other board members make that determination. Her participation in this matter—both in closed session and in the public vote—is indefensible.
It’s the kind of knucklehead move that undermines public trust in elected officials.
Board President’s Suspicious Recusal
Adding another layer of intrigue to this mess: Board President Andi Lockridge recused herself from the vote. A concerned citizen who spoke with Lockridge after the meeting reports that Lockridge admitted she “had a part in some fashion” in the complaint against Landi.
So the board president—who apparently has some involvement in the complaint—recuses herself. But Ann Clark, who is literally running against Landi for a board seat, doesn’t?
The lack of consistency and ethical awareness is staggering.
The Strategic Timing
Let’s talk about timing, because the timing here is not coincidental.
Landi’s ban was originally set to expire in May 2026. The board had written into the ban terms that they would reconsider it at the January 2026 meeting. They’ve now extended it to January 2027.
The April 2026 election falls squarely in the middle of this extended ban period. If Landi wins, he would be elected while still banned from school property. His swearing-in ceremony, his first board meetings, his initial weeks of service—all would occur while the district has him officially excluded from school grounds.
While policy technically allows him to attend meetings virtually, let’s be clear about what this creates:
– An elected official who cannot physically be present in the buildings he’s meant to oversee
– A board member who cannot walk the halls, visit classrooms, or attend school events
– A representative of the people who has been officially declared unwelcome on district property
The board is essentially telling voters: “You can elect Dan Landi if you want, but we’ve already decided he’s not fit to be here.”
That’s not coincidence. That’s calculated.
What Should Happen Now
The Cameron R-1 Board of Education should:
1. Immediately lift Landi’s ban – He violated no laws. He exercised a God-given right to free speech and to document interactions with public officials. The ban is retaliation for documenting district failures, nothing more. Every board member who voted for this ban violated their oath of office to uphold and protect the constitutional rights of the citizens they serve.
2. Acknowledge Ann Clark’s ethics violation – Clark should publicly acknowledge her conflict of interest and the board should formally censure her for participating in both closed session discussions and the public vote regarding her electoral opponent.
3. Issue a public apology – The board should apologize to Landi and to the voters for attempting to interfere with the democratic process.
4. Retrain staff on Sunshine Law compliance – Gina Bainum and other district employees clearly need additional training on their obligations under Missouri’s transparency laws.
5. Adopt a policy prohibiting board members from voting on matters involving electoral opponents– This should never happen again.
The Broader Pattern
This incident doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s part of a troubling pattern of behavior by the Cameron R-1 School District Board:
– Banning residents who ask uncomfortable questions
– Restricting public comment beyond what law requires
– Retaliating against those who file Sunshine Law requests
– Selective enforcement of policies to punish those who ask difficult questions or challenge the district
– Using district policies to silence criticism rather than engage with community concerns
– Treating accountability journalism as a threat rather than a civic good
The board has demonstrated time and again that it values control over transparency, compliance over constitutional rights, and institutional protection over public service.
A Message to Voters
Cameron R-1 voters need to understand what happened here: The school board—with Ann Clark’s participation—voted to ban her electoral opponent from school property through the election and into his potential term of service.
This is your school board using its authority to interfere with your right to elect the representatives you choose. This is your tax dollars being used to create obstacles for a candidate who has committed no crime, violated no law, and done nothing more than document a district employee refusing to accept a public records request.
When you go to the polls in April, remember this moment. Remember that Ann Clark thought it was appropriate to vote to ban her opponent. Remember that the board chose retaliation over constitutionality. Remember that they prioritized protecting their institutional reputation over respecting your God given First Amendment rights and your right to free and fair elections.
What the Law Says
For those who want to verify the legal principles at stake here:
Missouri One-Party Consent Law: Missouri Revised Statutes § 542.402 allows any party to a conversation to record it without the knowledge or consent of other parties. Dan Landi was party to his conversation with Gina Bainum.
First Amendment Protection: Federal courts have consistently held that citizens have a First Amendment right to record public officials performing their duties in public spaces. *Glik v. Cunniffe*, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) and numerous other cases affirm this principle.
Missouri Sunshine Law: RSMo Chapter 610 requires public governmental bodies to provide access to public records. The district’s own Policy C-145-P acknowledges this obligation.
Policy C-165-P Exceptions: The district’s recording policy explicitly allows recording at events open to the public and at board meetings. Candidate filing is an event open to the public.
Policy G-260-P Ethics Requirements: Board members must “avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance thereof” and “refrain from using Board membership for the benefit of special interest groups or select individuals, including self, family members, and business associates.”
Call to Action
If you’re as disturbed by this as you should be:
1. Contact the Cameron R-1 Board of Education – Let them know this behavior is unacceptable. Board meetings are held the third Tuesday of each month at 423 N. Chestnut, Cameron, MO 64429.
2. Attend board meetings – Show up. Be present. Exercise your right to public comment. They can’t ban everyone.
3. File Sunshine Law requests – Exercise your rights under Missouri transparency law. Don’t let them intimidate you into silence.
4. Vote in April – The election is your opportunity to hold these board members accountable. Use it.
5. Share this information – Make sure your neighbors understand what happened here. Democracy depends on an informed electorate.
Conclusion
The Cameron R-1 School District Board of Education had a choice Tuesday night. They could have done the right thing—lifted an unconstitutional ban, acknowledged Dan Landi’s rights, and allowed the voters to decide who represents them without institutional interference.
Instead, they doubled down. They extended the ban. They sent a message that documenting district failures will result in punishment. And Ann Clark, in a move that defies basic ethical standards, voted to ban her own electoral opponent from school property.
This isn’t governance. This is self-protection. This is the kind of institutional arrogance that has made Cameron R-1 a case study in what happens when a school board forgets it serves the public, not the other way around.
The voters will have their say in April. Let’s hope they remember who stood for their constitutional rights and who voted to suppress them.
—
Cameron School District Exposed continues to document transparency violations and constitutional rights abuses by the Cameron R-1 School District Board of Education. Have information about district misconduct? Contact us through our website.
Related Policies
– [Policy C-165-P: Use of Recording Devices or Drones] (Page 23)
– [Policy G-260-P: Board Member Ethics] (Page 44)
– [Policy G-400-P: Board Member Removal from Office] (Page 51)
– [Policy C-145-P: District Information and Records] (Page 18)
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.
It was another big week for the Cameron R-1 School District, but not in a good way. During a 4-hour appeal hearing for a Cameron Veterans Middle School teacher who claims she is being wrongfully terminated, we heard a lot of testimony. One of those who testified was of particular interest to us, mother and Cameron High School librarian Tonya O’Boyle. She was rightfully concerned that her son was exposed to sexually explicit and vulgar language while on the high school football team. Watch the video, and then let’s discuss why this is of interest. Content warning, there is graphic descriptive language in this video.
Allegations Made by O’Boyle
Mrs. O’Boyle claims that during an “extra-curricular activity” at school events, she has personally witnessed the use of foul language on school grounds. She says she has been to events where vulgar music was played as part of those school events. Mrs. O’Boyle stated that the vulgar language she overheard was “student choice” and included the “N-word.” Her stated concern for the choice in that music was: “Promoted as a family event. There were toddlers there. There were grandparents there.”
When asked if there were other school-sponsored events where she witnessed foul language being used ,she responded, “Yes.” She confirmed it happened during this current semester. She heard the coach, another school district employee, use those foul words which were directed at her child. When asked what was said, she responded, “You are the fucking reason we are losing this fucking game.”
Why This Testimony is of Interest
This website was started in part because of our fight with the Cameron R-1 School District relating to the extensive collection of vulgar and explicit books found in Mrs. O’Boyle’s high school library. You can find a partial list of those books on our Dirty Book List page.
During O’Boyle’s time as the librarian at the high school, a vast majority of those books were added to her library. According to district policy and public records requests, she added the majority of those books. Just two of the books on that list, The Hate U Give and Juliet Takes a Breath include the F-word 198 times. The book Juliet Takes a Breath is one you can see her receiving in an unboxing video she posted to her personal social media account. It uses that word she didn’t like 100 times.
The Books Get Far Worse Than Just Using Profanity
Many of those books on the Dirty Book List for the Cameron High School include graphic, sexually explicit descriptions. If Mrs. O’Boyle takes issue with her child hearing two vulgar words at football practice and functions, surely she would also be opposed to graphic descriptions of incest and pedophilia. The book Identical, found in her library, includes both pedophilia and incest. Passages from that book were read to the Cameron R-1 School District’s Board of Education at a previous board meeting. Extreme content warning in that video, but HERE is the link.
Why are the Words Wrong but Books Acceptable?
That’s the million dollar question. If vulgar words used in the presence of high school children are immoral and socially taboo, why then are all of these graphic books available for the same high school kids to read? Mrs. O’Boyle, please explain it for me. Why are you willing to hand my children and my neighbors’ children that book which uses the word you don’t like 100 times? You wrote an essay to get that book donated to the school. Now that your child has been exposed to such language, have you changed your opinion on the books in your library? Help me, help all of us, to understand the hypocrisy between your anger at your child being exposed to these words while you hand our children books with far more graphic content.
An Open Letter to the Cameron School Board
On Thursday night, we heard multiple accounts from mothers, a father, and school teachers about how upset they were about the language used by your staff member in his capacity as football coach. They are right – it was wrong and is a violation of policy. Why, then, do you fire one staff member for using inappropriate language while you protect the other? If it is wrong for a staff member to use a single vulgar word around students, especially when that language is directed at a student, how is it acceptable to put books in that same child’s hand that have dozens or hundreds of those profane words? And if a single profane word is not acceptable, how on earth are graphic descriptions of pedophilia and incest acceptable? Let me say the thing you don’t have the courage to say. It isn’t acceptable.
Final Closing Thoughts About Thursday’s Hearing
The district has a serious transparency and accountability issue. This book topic is one of the many glaring, self-imposed black eyes the Cameron School District received on Thursday night. There are serious problems at the district and in the leadership at the central office. There needs to be a full investigation revolving around the accusations made that night. Someone also needs to look into why your administrators couldn’t answer the questions from the respondent’s lawyers. “I do not know” is not an acceptable answer to those questions from top-tier administrators.
In the span of little more than a week, the Cameron R-1 school district has had three different videos released that should concern any red-blooded, Constitution-loving Americans. These videos raise concerns about our public education system and what is being taught about our God-given rights, which are defined and protected by the Constitution.
Cameron school district police department
The first video includes the entire Cameron school district police department and its lead officer, Palmer. It shows a brief conversation between SRO Palmer and resident Heath Gilbert. Gilbert asks Palmer if he will be arrested for speaking to staff—something school superintendent Matt Robinson ordered in a ban letter. Palmer appears to believe that his chief of police, school superintendent Matt Robinson, has the authority to deny First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press by decree through a ban order.
Why Palmer’s stance is so concerning
In addition to swearing an oath to support and defend the Constitution as a law enforcement officer, SRO Johnny Palmer has also sworn that oath as a 22 year veteran of Missouri Army National Guard. Palmer appears to not understand that the Fourteenth Amendment protects all our civil liberties and guarantees they can’t be denied without due process of law. Palmer has sworn that oath twice but doesn’t appear to understand or honor those oaths.
School board president Andi Lockridge restricts Landi’s 1st Amendment
In our second video, local resident Dan Landi is attempting to address the board of education about school curriculum. When Landi mentions the word “pornographic,” a reference to adult books used as CHS curriculum material, Lockridge was quick to interrupt his address. Landi pointedly asked why she was trying to restrict his First Amendment rights. Her response?
“Because you’re not staying on topic. “ – Cameron R-1 school board president Andi Lockridge
Several concerns with Lockridge’s silencing of Landi’s freedom of speech
In the complete Landi address video,
I see several civil rights concerns. There appear to be several attempts to force Landi to stop reading from his prepared notes and instead talk about a document that the district had displayed on the wall-mounted monitors. Those interactions have the ring of compelled speech.
The “cause” for the frequent interruptions during Landi’s address appears to be based on the assertion that Landi was getting off topic. The final straw for Lockridge, and what ultimately caused her to terminate the remainder of his designated public comment period, was his attempt to bring books into his curriculum topic. Since when are books not related to school curriculum?
The implied threat of being forcibly removed or arrested
If you begin watching Dan’s address video at the 5-minute and 5-second mark, you will see that SRO Palmer has approached Landi and confronted him to get Landi to stop speaking and to sit down. After several requests to sit down, Palmer states, “I am going to ask you one more time,” and Landi responds with, “Or else what?” Palmer responds by saying:
“You and I are going to go outside.” – SRO Palmer
While Palmer doesn’t say the words “you will be arrested,” I would argue that it was implied when he told Landi that they would be going outside if Landi didn’t stop and go sit down. Those words, and Palmer’s close proximity to Landi, were arguably enough to chill speech. That could be argued to be a First Amendment violation.
A Likely Defense from the District to Any Possible First Amendment Claim
In this video, you can repeatedly hear Lockridge say variations of things such as “please sit down” and “I am asking you to sit down.” The Cameron school district or their attorneys would likely argue that he was asked to sit down—he wasn’t forced. I see two problems with that argument. Back to the video: at the 4-minute and 55-second mark, look towards the right side of the screen to the man in the background. That is superintendent Matt Robinson, and he runs the timer. Watch as he reaches out and removes the timer from the table. It will be difficult to argue that Landi could have continued talking with the timer stopped and removed from the table.
Small chance they would have given Landi unlimited time to continue to talk about books. When you add Lockridge’s threat—”I am warning you, if you go off topic your time is over”—the removal of the timer is a clear indication that the Cameron school district carried out that warning. Combine the actions of SRO Palmer and I believe Landi has a very strong First Amendment claim.
Similar event in Lawrence led to lawsuit against Lawrence school district
To help support my claim that Landi has a legitimate complaint against the Cameron school district, I am going to reference some breaking news. In a recent Libs of TikTok post on X, we see a lawsuit filed against the Lawrence, Kansas USD 497 for accusations of First Amendment violations after that school board had a mother’s microphone shut off. I agree with Libs of TikTok: HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE. We will be following this federal lawsuit with great interest. Give them the business, Ms. Schmidt!
If you’re on X, please go show this post some love.
Resident Given Ban Despite Offering Proof Accusations Were False
The final video showing the Cameron school district has contempt for the Constitution is from a special hearing held to allow Heath Gilbert to appeal an indefinite ban. The discussion and vote can be seen in the following video clip. The full hearing video can be watched on the Show Me Transparency YouTube page, with the link taking you to that video. For an excellent summary of what is happening in this video, go read the write up from Hick Christian.
School board members are supposed to uphold the constitution
In the state of Missouri, elected school board members are required to swear an oath before they can begin to serve on the board. All Missouri school board members must take the oath prescribed by Article VII, Section 11 of the Missouri Constitution, which requires them to “take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States and of this state, and to demean themselves faithfully in office.”
I contend that the actions or inactions of these Cameron school board members are a violation of their oath of office. The board is elected to serve and safeguard the interests of the residents who make this school possible through significant taxes. Watching these videos leaves me with a very strong opinion: the Cameron R-1 school board members are captured and serve the school district, not the community. The board is in direct violation of their oath of office.
At the June 2025 Cameron R-1 school district school board meeting, a concerned resident addressed the school board about yet another book. After giving a much needed content warning, Mr. Gilbert reads passages from the book Identical, which is found in the high school library, from the book Identical. The 7 person school board didn’t appear concerned by the content.
What is in that book that causes concern
The passages Mr Gilbert read includes graphic details of a father grooming and then involving one of his identical daughters in a sex act. Even when those passages were described in medical terms the local Cameron paper refused to publish that letter to the editor. He denied it because it was too graphic.
Here is the video of that address to the board. For those of you who would like to confirm this content is in the book we will provide the Rated Books link to the book Identical.
Last nights Cameron R-1 school districts board meeting we heard concern raised about possible unnecessary and wasteful spending in the district. Were these legitimate concerns about wasteful spending, or a veiled attempt by the district to discredit a local resident? Let’s flesh this out a little and allow you to draw your own conclusion.
The relevant discussion happened in the first few minutes of last nights meeting. School board vice president Ryan Murphy brought up a concern and started a discussion about a large bill for attorney services to redact records for a single Missouri Sunshine Law request. During the discussion about that bill, board member Pam Ice asks Superintendent Matt Robinson how much that specific records request cost the district to make redactions. Matt responded that it was $8200. That is unquestionably a lot of money.
You can watch that full exchange in the following video. But be sure to continue reading as we will provide additional and relevant details about likely reasons why attorneys are now making these redactions.
Can those redaction be made by school staff to save money?
That is the relevant question I would have liked one of the board members to have asked superintendent Robinson. Board members Peck, Ice and board president Lockridge all joined in the conversation to share concern about the cost for redactions. They were concerned about the cost, why were there no questions on how the district could reduce that cost?
I believe that both the district and school board have a fiduciary responsibility to the tax payers to spend our money wisely. Paying a law firm $200 plus dollars an hour to redact names from public records doesn’t seem like a good use of tax dollars IF those redactions can be made by the district.
Around the 2 minute and 45 second mark in the above YouTube video, Robinson mentions the district can only charge the individual requesting the records an amount equal to the lowest paid qualified staff member to complete that task. Robinson mentions that is around $20 an hour.
Why then isn’t the Cameron school district making their own redactions and saving tax payers $180 an hour? Of course hindsight is 20/20, but this would have been a good question for a member of the board to ask. I’d love to hear a cost reduction question at every board meeting!
Has the school district previously completed their own records redactions
That is another question I would have liked to hear a board member ask. And if the answer provided was “yes”, a follow on question to ask why the change from previous and cheaper in house redactions. The board didn’t ask those questions, but i can still provide an answer to that question.
Yes, the Cameron school district has made its own redactions in the past.
In this screenshot you will see an email response from the district where they state that the superintendent was personally redacting records requests previously. Why was the highest paid staff member for the district conducting this task?
This image is from one of my own Sunshine Law requests and the redactions being made were staff names, the same type of redactions made in the $8200 request mentioned at last nights May 20th board meeting. If the district was previously able of making redactions to protect the names of district employees, why outsource that task to a significantly more expensive law firm? Another good question I wish one of the board members had asked.
Why did the Cameron school district stop completing their own redactions for records request?
While it is typically frowned on to comment on such questions with mere speculation, in this instance my answer is based on irrefutable fact. Records we previously obtained through Sunshine Law requests pertaining to the dirty book fight appear to indicated unlawful redactions made by the district.
One of the redactions appears to be an attempt to avoid transparency and coverup proof of records the district previously said didn’t exist. We can show you that unlawful redaction.
To the right in the attached screenshot you can see a record with a poorly made redaction. The link is to a google document of book votes taken by a book review committee. This is important because when I originally asked for records of these votes I was told that no records existed. This redaction appears to be an attempt made by the district to cover up the existence of public records. This is the exact opposite of transparency.
When did the district switch to using lawyers for redactions
If Mr Murphy were to extend his records request he shared with the board and made a public record at last nights meeting to around the time of my records request, I suspect we will find an uptick in the billable hours by Ed Council. It is my belief that it was around this time that found this unlawful redaction and attempt to avoid transparency that the district began outsourcing simple redaction duties to its law firm.
Was this a personal attack or legitimate concern about wasteful spending
Once again I can only speculate on this question. In the 2 plus years I have been attending these board meetings, last night was the first time I recall a monthly expense budget item being questioned during a meeting. If this was a one time event and we don’t hear similar questions in the future, we have our answer.
I hope that I am wrong. I hope this is a sincere concern about possible wasteful spending of our tax dollars in the Cameron R-1 school district. I hope to see additional concerns about expenses brought up at future meetings. Hopefully routine series of questions are developed and asked during those meetings to ensure our hard earned tax dollars are being spent responsibly and wisely.
Here is the video from the Cameron R-1 school districts board of education meeting from December 19, 2023. There are time stamps in the description for the video. There was an update in this video to the ongoing book fight.
In March of 2023, the board of education amended policy BDDH-1 to allow them to place specific restrictions on citizens addressing the board of education during public meetings. One of those changes allows the board to restrict a citizen from discussing a topic which has previously been discussed before the board in the past 90 days.
The problem is that the school district and board of education are selectively enforcing that policy. Watch the video below for details.
Mrs Debbie Cox addresses the Cameron school districts board of education to talk about the sexually explicit books they are making available to students in the school libraries. Some of those books violate Missouri law and statute 573.550, prohibition against schools providing sexually explicit content to minors.