Follow the Money: Contracts, Union Influence, and Rising Taxes at Governor Mifflin

A full investigative look at how union influence, a five-year contract with guaranteed raises through 2030, family voting ties, administrative overreach, a 1.64-mill tax hike, and a $2.6M deficit are connected — and what taxpayers can do about it.

Investigative Report Executive Summary Over the past year, the Governor Mifflin School District has made a series of financial decisions that now have serious consequences for taxpayers. 5-Year Teachers Contract $3,500 Raises / Year Through 2030 $100M+ Budget 1.64-Mill Tax Increase $2.6 Million Deficit Taken together, these decisions raise serious questions about financial planning, oversight, and influence within the district. SECTION I — UNION INFLUENCE IN SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS Teachers unions are not merely labor organizations. They are major political players in education policy and local elections. Groups such as the National Education Association and the Pennsylvania State Education Association regularly endorse school board candidates, provide campaign support, and mobilize members to vote. School board elections historically have very low voter turnout . In many communities, only a small fraction of registered voters participate. That means organized groups that can turn out voters — like union membership — can decisively influence who gets elected. Those elected officials then become the same individuals responsible for: Negotiating teacher contracts. Approving salary increases. Voting on district budgets. While this system is legal, critics argue it creates an inherent conflict of interest — where the people negotiating compensation may have received political support from the same organizations benefiting from those decisions. Taxpayers deserve transparency about those relationships. SECTION II — THE FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT Last year the Governor Mifflin School Board approved a five-year teachers contract guaranteeing $3,500 in annual raises through 2030. These commitments were locked in regardless of economic conditions, district financial health, or academic outcomes. $3,500 Guaranteed Annual Raise Per Teacher 2030 Year Contract Obligations Run Through 15th / 18 District Academic Rank in Berks County The raises are guaranteed regardless of whether academic performance improves. A district ranked near the bottom of its county locked in salary escalations through the end of the decade — with no performance conditions attached. SECTION III — VOTING OPTICS AND PUBLIC TRUST Some board members who voted on the teachers contract have family members employed as teachers in the district. Those members voted on the agreement. When concerns were raised, the district solicitor stated the situation was legal and described it as “part of the whole.” Legally that may be correct. But public governance is not only about what is technically legal. It is about maintaining public trust. When decisions directly affecting compensation are voted on by individuals with personal financial connections to those receiving that compensation, the optics raise legitimate questions. Taxpayers are not required to simply accept a legal clearance as a full answer. They are entitled to question whether the decision-making process was structured in a way that placed their interests first. SECTION IV — SUPERINTENDENT INFLUENCE Superintendents regularly conduct training and orientation sessions for school board members, guiding them on district policy and priorities. But the superintendent is an employee of the board. When the employee trains the supervisors, the line between guidance and influence can become structurally blurred. Some residents have described the dynamic as the superintendent acting almost like “Board Member Number Ten.” The board is supposed to supervise the administration. Not be shaped by it. That boundary matters — and when it erodes, accountability erodes with it. SECTION V — A REVEALING STATEMENT During retirement remarks last year, former district leader Ulrich referenced working with Superintendent Hess and “giving her what she wants.” “Giving her what she wants.” Whether meant as praise or professional courtesy, that statement raises a fundamental question: Who is driving the priorities of this district? The elected board representing residents — or internal administrative leadership? Taxpayers fund this district. They deserve leadership that places the public interest first — not leadership that frames its job as satisfying the administration. SECTION VI — THE TAX INCREASE Following approval of the teachers contract, the board passed a $100+ million district budget that included a 1.64-mill property tax increase . The raises were guaranteed. The taxes followed. Budget Size $100M+ Property Tax Increase 1.64 mills Who Pays Every property owner in the district. Especially seniors on fixed incomes. SECTION VII — THE $2.6 MILLION SHORTFALL The district now faces a projected $2.6 million budget deficit . Deficits do not appear overnight. They are the predictable result of long-term spending commitments that grow faster than revenue. With salary increases guaranteed through 2030, the district has severely limited flexibility to control costs. Many residents now expect another tax increase. Hopefully that prediction proves wrong. But the financial trajectory makes optimism difficult to justify. THE PATTERN When residents step back and look at the full picture, the pattern becomes impossible to ignore: ● Organized union influence in elections ● Guaranteed raises through 2030 — no performance conditions ● Board votes on contracts while family members are district employees ● Administrative influence shaping board thinking ● Property tax increases hitting every household ● Academic performance ranked near the bottom of Berks County ● A $2.6 million deficit with more spending commitments locked in Each decision may have an explanation. Together they raise serious questions about accountability and who this board actually works for. FINAL WORD Taxpayers must remember something important. You are the boss. You are the taxpayer. You are the parent. You are the senior citizen paying the bills. You fund the Governor Mifflin School District. When citizens stay silent, government grows without accountability. Silence becomes a green light. Stay informed. Stay engaged. Attend school board meetings. Ask questions. Demand transparency. And if you want real change? Run for school board. Governor Mifflin needs common-sense leadership — not rubber-stamp budgets. SOURCES: Governor Mifflin School District, GMEA Collective Bargaining Agreement — five-year contract, 2025–2030 (public record) Governor Mifflin School District, 2025–26 Adopted Budget — 1.64-mill property tax increase (public record) Governor Mifflin School District, 2026–27 Budget Development Presentation — $2.6M projected deficit (public record) Pennsylvania Department of Education, School Performance Profiles — Berks County district rankings Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) — school board endorsement and election involvement records (public) National Education Association (NEA) — local affiliate election activity documentation Governor Mifflin School District Board Meeting Minutes — contract vote record (public record) Pennsylvania School Code, 24 P.S. § 11-1101 et seq. — professional employee contracts Pennsylvania Ethics Act, 65 Pa. C.S. § 1101 et seq. — conflicts of interest standards for public officials