FOIA Gras D65 Voter Guide

Are you ready for some last minute cramming for the exam?

If you want to skip directly to the D65 voter guide, click here. If you scroll to the bottom, ChatGPT provides a summary of the answers.

---

Early voting for the District 65 Board starts tomorrow on Monday, March 17th. There are 13 candidates on the ballot, including one who dropped out (Kimberly Fair) running for 4 seats. There are no incumbents running.

Over the next day or two, I will be posting a few other stories related to this election, which include either endorsements or responses from community groups. I’m trying to figure out the exact timing on this, because I want to get all my voter guides out first.

Last week, I allowed the D65 candidate to make their own post on FOIA Gras. 11 candidates took me up on the offer. You can read their posts at the links below:

1. Andrew Wymer

2. Brandon Utter

3. Chris Van Nostrand

4. Christopher DeNardo

5. Lionel Gentle

6. Dan Lyonsmith

7. Nichole Pinkard

8. Peter Bogira

9. Pat Anderson

10. Randy Steckman

11. Maria Forres Opdycke

I also gave the candidates a written questionnaire. 8 of the candidates responded. You can view their responses in my extraordinary lengthy 21 page voter guide. The remainder of this post discusses the 8 responses to the questionnaire.

For the Single Issue Dr. Horton Voter

I know there are a few readers here who are single issue voters regarding referring Dr. Horton to the State’s Prosecutor for the various schemes committed while he was in District 65. This section is for you.

The question I asked here is:

(4) Criminal Complaint: Dr. Horton participated in acts that appear criminal, including awarding no-bid contracts to business partners, receiving kickbacks for those contracts, using the purchasing card for personal expenses, and intentionally misleading statements on the lease certificate. Do you support the Board filing a formal criminal complaint with State or Federal Law Enforcement?

I summarized the responses, which are the following below;

• Andrew Wymer – Yes

• Brandon Utter – Yes

• Chris Van Nostrand – Maybe (supports board members filing but is more focused on the future of D65)

• Lionel Gentle – Yes

• Nichole Pinkard – Maybe (concerned about financial stability and governance reform rather than legal battles)

• Peter Bogira – Yes

• Pat Anderson – Maybe (supports investigating legal options)

• Maria Forres Opdycke – Yes

To add to this, if you are a dual issue voter who cares about Dr. Horton referral and Screen Sense Evanston’s technology pledge, the following candidates meet both of those criterion:

• Andrew Wymer

• Brandon Utter

• Lionel Gentle

• Peter Bogira

• Maria Forres Opdycke

Of course, there is always some nuance to the answers - so read the PDF yourself.

🤖 TLDR, Let the Robot do the Work

If you don’t feel like reading the whole PDF, I plugged their answers into ChatGPT and asked it to summarize their “their general worldview, politics and positions.” It provided me with the following answers, which I think are surprisingly accurate for this race.

• Andrew Wymer: Wymer prioritizes transparency, accountability, and structured governance, advocating for data-driven decision-making and community engagement in educational policy. Politically, he leans toward progressive values, emphasizing equity, strong public oversight, and structured processes to restore trust in the district.

• Brandon Utter: Utter believes in balancing fiscal responsibility with a commitment to equity, advocating for clear performance metrics and responsible budgeting to improve district efficiency. He supports community-driven decision-making and is willing to take bold actions, including reducing administrative overhead, to ensure resources directly benefit students.

• Chris Van Nostrand: Van Nostrand takes a pragmatic approach to education policy, focusing on data-driven performance metrics and the importance of maintaining high academic standards. Politically, he values efficiency and innovation, believing that strong leadership and community relationships are more impactful than rigid bureaucratic requirements.

• Lionel Gentle: Gentle emphasizes restoring public trust through strong accountability measures, including strict residency requirements for leadership and greater transparency in district operations. He leans toward a more community-centered approach, advocating for stronger local engagement.

• Nichole Pinkard: Pinkard’s view is centered on balancing equity and excellence in education, ensuring all students have access to rigorous academic opportunities while also addressing systemic disparities. She takes a nuanced political approach, prioritizing structured accountability while recognizing the complexities of governance and funding in public education.

• Peter Bogira: Bogira is focused on strategic, long-term solutions to district challenges, advocating for structured governance reforms and proactive fiscal planning. Politically, he values progressive policy but is also pragmatic about financial constraints, supporting measures that blend responsible budgeting with a commitment to educational equity.

• Pat Anderson: Anderson takes a methodical approach to district policy, prioritizing structured oversight, fiscal responsibility, and clear performance metrics in educational governance. Politically, she leans toward moderate pragmatism, supporting reforms that improve efficiency while ensuring resources remain focused on students’ needs.

• Maria Forres Opdycke: Forres Opdycke believes in strong institutional accountability, advocating for stricter financial oversight and ethical leadership in public education. She leans toward a proactive, problem-solving approach, emphasizing community involvement and creative funding solutions to address long-standing district challenges.

Let me know if you find any issues in the document, it took me hours to copy/paste it together and format correctly, so it’s entirely possible I made some mistakes.