Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Parents for Good urges levy referendum, criticizes district communications during negotiations

Anoka-Hennepin Public School District Board of Education · February 24, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At the Feb. 23 Anoka‑Hennepin school board meeting, Parents for Good speakers accused district communications during teacher contract talks of misrepresenting teacher pay and urged the board to consider a levy referendum to avoid future cuts.

Shailen Burbig, a mother of four and co‑founder of Parents for Good, told the Anoka‑Hennepin Public School District board on Feb. 23 that district communications toward the end of teacher contract negotiations “misrepresented the situation” and were “disrespectful to teachers and misleading to the community.” Burbig said a widely distributed graphic about rising insurance premiums and cuts to teachers’ take‑home pay was intended to turn the public against educators and that continuing to refuse a referendum while anticipating cuts would “destabilize our district.”

Burbig said the board “is the only body with the authority” to bring a levy referendum and urged trustees to review expenditures thoroughly and craft a referendum the community could support. Michelle Powers, a district teacher and Parents for Good co‑founder, described the group’s mutual‑aid efforts and said community trust has eroded because the district has not publicly addressed families’ needs amid immigration‑enforcement threats.

Nutgraf: The speakers framed their remarks as both a defense of educators and a call for the board to use its authority over district funding. Burbig asked trustees to consider a levy referendum as a standard tool to address school funding gaps; Powers described community support work and urged a more visible district response.

The board did not take immediate action on the speakers’ requests during the meeting. Several trustees thanked the speakers and acknowledged the concerns; no formal staff assignment or vote on a referendum was recorded in the meeting minutes. The public‑comment period was limited by the board’s stated procedure—five minutes per speaker with written testimony accepted.

Ending: The board moved on to its agenda; members later discussed program updates, policy first reads and a labor contract. Parents for Good materials may be left with district staff per the board’s public‑comment instructions.