Oskaloosa School Board Candidates Present Competing Visions at Forum

Oskaloosa School Board candidates took part in a forum at Penn Central Mall on Tuesday evening.

Editor’s note: This article summarizes the positions expressed by candidates during the forum and does not independently fact-check any claims. The full video of the forum is available at the bottom of this article so readers can watch and judge for themselves.

OSKALOOSA, Iowa — Eight candidates for the Oskaloosa Community School Board took part in a public forum Wednesday evening at Penn Central Mall, offering their perspectives on the future of the district as early voting approaches. The discussion highlighted divisions over leadership, transparency, and trust, while also underscoring shared priorities around student achievement and fiscal responsibility.

The candidates included incumbents Aaron Hinnah and Kathy Butler, along with challengers Tasha Janssen, Scott Van Veldhuizen, James Feudner, Crystal Jimenez-Boender, Tyler Wilson, and Katie Johnston. Boender and Johnson are looking to fill the term of Charlie Comfort, who resigned earlier this year, while the other candidates are looking to fill three four-year terms.

Priorities and Responsibilities

Candidates were first asked to outline their view of the board’s core responsibilities. Several emphasized the board’s duty to focus on students as the center of decision-making, while others highlighted governance and oversight of the superintendent. Fiscal responsibility was a recurring theme, with candidates noting the board must safeguard taxpayer dollars and ensure efficient use of resources. Some emphasized aligning budgets with strategic goals and supporting teachers and staff. Others framed accountability and accessibility as central to their approach, insisting the board must remain open to parents, students, and the wider community.

Superintendent Fisher’s Leadership

The most pointed exchange came when candidates were asked about the state of the district under Superintendent Mike Fisher. Some described the district as deeply divided in the past year and called for a reset of the board’s leadership. Others acknowledged mistakes but urged the community to move forward positively. A few candidates linked their decision to run directly to concerns about transparency and communication from the administration.

Incumbent voices defended the district’s trajectory under Fisher, pointing to positive developments in student achievement and new programs. Others took a more measured view, arguing that while the district itself remained unified, the community conversation had grown divisive.

Transparency, Audits, and Accountability

Questions about transparency drew strong reactions. Candidates spoke about the importance of consistent communication with teachers and staff, with several describing the need for stronger accountability structures and more open dialogue. Some favored small group meetings or relationship-building efforts, while others stressed that better communication from leadership could repair trust.

The topic of audits also surfaced. The board confirmed that a review of the superintendent’s performance, delayed in recent months, is now scheduled before the election. An independent audit of district finances is also in progress, following direction from the State Auditor’s Office.

Conviction and Outside Pressure

When asked how they would vote under outside pressure, candidates described their decision-making processes in broad terms. Several emphasized reliance on data and evidence, and others pointed to their professional backgrounds in business, banking, or auditing as preparation for making independent decisions. Many framed their leadership style as one rooted in integrity, accountability, and listening to the community without being swayed by rumor or outside influence.

Open Records and Community Tensions

Late in the forum, questions about open records requests underscored frustrations in the community. Candidates acknowledged that the process has been slow at times and explained that volunteer board members are not always equipped to manage the volume or complexity of such requests. The exchange demonstrated how deeply transparency concerns continue to shape the local debate.

A Community Choice Ahead

The forum revealed a community weighing sharply different approaches. Some candidates expressed confidence in the district’s current leadership and direction, while others argued that the board needs a reset to rebuild trust. All emphasized support for students, responsible budgeting, and improving relationships with parents, teachers, and the public.

With eight candidates competing for seats, voters now face a clear choice between continuity and change. The forum made it evident that the outcome will help determine not only the district’s leadership but also the tone of its relationship with the community in the years ahead.