Integrity is the cornerstone of public service. During my time in the military, I learned a vital lesson: perception is reality. It’s not just about doing what’s right—it’s about ensuring that your actions reflect transparency, fairness, and truth. While I’m not perfect, I’ve always tried to live by this principle.
Integrity also requires the courage to stand up for the truth, even when it’s difficult. It’s with that spirit that I feel compelled to address something troubling I’ve observed in my opponent’s campaign. I believe Mr. Lieberman has attempted to mislead the Lee Hill community about my candidacy in ways that cannot go unchallenged.
Mr. Lieberman has repeatedly claimed to be the only nonpartisan candidate, above the fray of political influence. But the truth is, he has actively publicized endorsements from a half-dozen current and former politicians and has taken special interest money in a previous campaign. I’ve run three campaigns without ever receiving money or support from any political party or special interest groups. So why would he project these falsehoods? Because he must believe that political tactics like these are his only path to victory.
I genuinely respect the effort Mr. Lieberman has put into maintaining his advocacy page over the years. I maintained a similar platform from 2017 to 2021, where I regularly informed over 3,000 community members about local issues. When I chose to run for office, I stepped away from that page—because I felt it was important to keep advocacy and campaigning separate. Mr. Lieberman has chosen a different path, continuing to use his platform for campaign purposes. That decision raises a fair question: Was the goal to serve the public—or to build a following for future political gain?
Another concerning aspect of Mr. Lieberman’s campaign is his involvement in stoking public tensions about the recent Memorial Park at the Spotsylvania School Board office. This project was widely supported by the community, received tens of thousands of dollars in donated materials and labor, and had the backing of political opponents Nicole Cole and Lisa Phelps. If those two could agree on something, I believe it’s something worth supporting. Mr. Lieberman, however, contributed to an echo chamber of misinformation surrounding the project and made no effort to calm the flames he helped ignite. As someone who claims to be a top advocate for our schools, it’s worth asking: why isn’t he a stronger advocate of a memorial for school children who passed away?
Mr. Lieberman has also made a point of highlighting that he’s self-funding his campaign and has even encouraged voters to avoid donating to any candidate. While it’s admirable to self-fund, Lee Hill voters should ask themselves if this implies that only the wealthy deserve a seat in office? Many in our community live paycheck-to-paycheck. I firmly believe that our elected officials should reflect the full diversity of our community, regardless of economic standing. Mr. Lieberman’s narrative seems to suggest otherwise, and that’s a message I can’t support.
Mr. Lieberman implies he is the only one qualified to serve on the School Board because he is a parent. While I value his perspective as a parent, a School Board member represents the entire community, not just one segment of it. If we were to accept Mr. Lieberman’s logic, should non-parents be excluded from voting for the School Board? Should voters whose children are no longer in the district be disqualified from having a say? Of course not. In America, we should elevate individuals based on merit, experience, and character—not on whether or not they have children in our schools.
Lastly, Mr. Lieberman frequently emphasizes his accessibility, and I respect that his early retirement allows him the flexibility to attend events during the day. In contrast, I serve full-time in a national security role, working every day to protect our Sailors and Marines from harm. While my daytime availability may be more limited, I’ve made it a priority to walk countless neighborhoods, knock on thousands of doors, and engage with voters—often late into the evening—because accessibility is about commitment, not convenience. To imply that holding a full-time job disqualifies someone from public service is not only unfair, it’s deeply disrespectful to the hardworking individuals across Lee Hill who balance jobs, families, and civic involvement. My professional background focused on collaboration and data analysis is not a barrier to effective leadership—it’s an asset. Mr. Lieberman’s attempt to frame my national service as a political weakness is disappointing—and it sets a troubling precedent for every working person who aspires to serve their community.
I have always focused my campaign on the issues that matter to our students, educators, and community. In contrast, Mr. Lieberman has chosen to rely on political gimmicks, falsehoods, and misleading tactics. If he’s willing to mislead voters before the election, I have little doubt he will continue if elected.
I urge the Lee Hill community to carefully consider who will truly serve our schools with integrity and dedication. We need a School Board member who will represent all of us—not just those who align with a narrow definition of what it means to be qualified.