Champaign School Board president responds after tense meeting outing superintendent
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. (WCIA) — A contentious Champaign School Board meeting is still making waves almost 24 hours later. The meeting saw an approval to move on from Superintendent Dr. Sheila Boozer — a fiery public comment period — and even a near fight.
'We conducted some tough business last night,' said Champaign School Board President Tony Bruno.
Champaign board to continue proposed solar farm discussion later this summer
Bruno was steadfast — saying they did what the voters wanted. He realizes this wasn't a decision agreed upon by 100% of people — but still thinks it's the right thing to do.
'The election was 60 days ago,' Bruno said.
And it's been busy ever since for Bruno and the newly elected board members. The Champaign School Board had their third special board meeting on Thursday to decide the future of Superintendent Boozer. The board voted 5-2, approving a separation agreement with Boozer. Bruno said this decision was made by people at the polls.
'They decided who would serve in these roles,' Bruno said. 'And there were candidates who wanted to do exactly what we did last night. And there were candidates who took the opposite position, and the voters spoke, and we delivered.'
It brought immediate blowback. People questioned the board's decision during the public comment portion of the meeting. Bruno said that part of the meeting was designed to let everyone speak. But he also people in the crowd continued interrupting.
Champaign restaurant asks for help after cameras catch teens damaging property
'It's bad for our community to have a circus play out at a meeting of a governmental body,' Bruno said. 'Every person who wanted to speak was given an opportunity during the public comment period. But then there becomes a time when it's the board's turn to speak.'
And he said that's unacceptable. Bruno also had a man walk aggressively towards him who had to be stopped by security. He said the security staff will be assessing how to balance keeping the meetings open and accessible while still being safe for board members.
'We have to leave the bad examples of the last board in the past and we have to move on, and we have to act like adults,' Bruno said. 'And you may not agree with the business that's being conducted or the votes that are being taken, but this is a democracy and we're operating as a functioning unit of government.'
Bruno said he hopes the board can move forward and work together on other issues coming in the future.
WCIA reached out to Justin Michael Hendrix and Grace Kang — the two board members who voted against the separation agreement. WCIA didn't hear back from Hendrix — and Kang declined to comment on Friday.
WCIA also reached out to the board's former president, Gianina Baker, who was in attendance Thursday night, but didn't hear back from her.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Chicago mayor says Trump's America looks like Confederacy won, suggests ICE are 'terrorists'
All times eastern FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Trump attends bill signing ceremony at the White House
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
L.A. Immigration Crackdown Sparks Concerns About Possible Martial Law
TOPSHOT - Demonstrators holding signs and flags face California National Guard members standing ... More guard outside the Federal Building as they protest in response to federal immigration operations in Los Angeles, on June 9, 2025. US President Donald Trump on June 9 ordered active-duty Marines into Los Angeles, vowing those protesting immigration arrests would be "hit harder" than ever. Protests in Los Angeles, home to a large Latino population, broke out on June 6, triggered by immigration raids that resulted in dozens of arrests of what authorities say are illegal migrants and gang members. (Photo by Apu GOMES / AFP) (Photo by APU GOMES/AFP via Getty Images) In recent weeks, the Los Angeles immigration crackdown has become the epicentre of a dangerous national experiment—one in which immigration enforcement is serving as the pretext for something far more ominous: a steady descent into possible martial law. The deployment of U.S. military forces into California without the governor's consent, the violent sweep of immigration raids, and the weaponization of emergency powers all signal that the constitutional order is under siege. President Donald Trump's decision to send 4,000 National Guard troops and Marines into California was met with outrage from state leaders and legal experts alike. California Governor Gavin Newsom has called the action 'an illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional act,' and the state has filed suit against the federal government, citing violations of the U.S. Federal Code, which prohibit federalizing state militias except in cases of invasion, rebellion, or when a state cannot enforce its own laws. None of those conditions apply in this case. Yet the justification offered by the administration—that Los Angeles was on the brink of collapse due to immigrant protests—is as false and inflammatory as was demonstrated on a recent episode of Jimmy Kimmel, which showed footage of quiet Los Angeles streets. Following a series of ICE raids that detained over 100 people, protests erupted across the city. While the Los Angeles Police Department stated that the demonstrations were largely peaceful, federal officials framed them as acts of rebellion. In televised comments, President Trump, without evidence, declared that Los Angeles would have been 'completely obliterated' without military intervention. However, some legal scholars point out that such claims are disturbingly reminiscent of how autocrats have historically manufactured crises to seize power. For instance, in comments made recently by Yale historian Timothy Snyder, he warned, 'Be wary of paramilitaries. When the men with guns claim to be against the system, the system is under threat.' These warning signs are increasing. Earlier this year, President Trump re-declared a national emergency at the southern border, significantly intensifying deportation efforts, particularly in sanctuary jurisdictions. His Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem, asserts that these efforts are crucial to national security. However, critics contend that the raids are politically motivated, intended to incite chaos and test the boundaries of presidential authority. This is not mere conjecture. There have been calls to arrest Governor Newsom for defying the troop deployment—an idea that would equate to criminalizing political opposition. The implications are chilling. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Republicans are racing to pass what Trump has dubbed his 'big, beautiful bill,' a sprawling legislative package that, among other things, includes over $46 billion for the border wall and ICE funding. The administration is leveraging the unrest in Los Angeles to push hesitant GOP senators to fall in line. The proposed bill also imposes a $1,000 asylum application fee—an unprecedented barrier to legal refuge—and earmarks billions more for new Border Patrol and customs agents. These aren't merely policy choices; they are tools of exclusion and intimidation. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), a leading voice for the legislation, is actively urging his colleagues to use the Los Angeles protests as proof of why ICE and the border crackdown require even more support. Beyond Capitol Hill, the cultural symbolism of this shift is equally revealing. Trump has announced a massive military parade in Washington, D.C., timed to coincide with the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary—and his own birthday. With tanks, howitzers, and cruise missile launchers on display, the spectacle is designed to evoke strength. But it also mirrors the authoritarian aesthetics of regimes like Russia and North Korea. The question is, where is this all heading? During his first term, Trump was dissuaded from invoking the Insurrection Act during the George Floyd protests only after senior military officials objected. This time, with loyalists appointed to key positions, those checks seem to be absent. Historically, there exists a dangerous precedent for all this. In 1933, Adolf Hitler used the Reichstag Fire to suspend civil liberties and consolidate power. Legal analysts are increasingly drawing comparisons between that moment and today's ongoing use of emergency powers in the name of immigration control. 'If you saw all this in any other country — soldiers sent to crush dissent, union leaders arrested, opposition politicians threatened — it would be clear that autocracy had arrived,' said constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe. Even tech magnates are playing a role. Elon Musk, who now owns X (formerly Twitter), has eliminated most content moderation, amplifying polarizing rhetoric and misinformation. His platform has become a megaphone for conspiracy theories that portray immigrants as invaders and critics as traitors. Beneath all these disturbing developments in the crackdown on immigrants lies a core question: Is the United States still a democracy governed by civilian law, or is it becoming a militarized state ruled by executive whim? The courts may still provide a line of defense. California's lawsuit regarding the unauthorized deployment of federal troops will test the judiciary's willingness to uphold the Constitution. However, history teaches us that legal battles alone cannot protect democracy when institutions are co-opted or eroded. What is unfolding is more than a dispute over immigration policy; it is a stress test of America's democratic fabric. The use of immigration raids to justify military actions, the demonization of peaceful protests, and the consolidation of emergency powers—these are not isolated events. They form a pattern. While Americans seem divided on the issue of military use in the Los Angeles immigration crackdown, with half in favour and the other half, particularly Californians, opposed, June 14th, 2025, the 'No Kings National Day of Action,' promises to be a pivotal day for America as immigration protests, which have spread to other cities, will likely reach their peak on that day. While this unfolds, Trump will head to Canada to attend the G-7 meeting while keeping a watchful eye on events back home. Meanwhile, the fate of the Republic may hinge not on whether Trump builds a wall, but on whether Americans permit him to dismantle the walls of constitutional restraint in the name of constructing it.
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Governor Wes Moore to announce initiative to lower energy costs in Maryland
Amid rising energy costs, Maryland Governor Wes Moore plans to announce a new initiative to lower energy costs Thursday morning. On Jan. 1, Baltimore Gas and Electric raised rates, increasing the average residential gas bill by 9% and the electric bill by 7%. The cost of energy in Maryland continued to rise BGE customers and state leaders publicly challenged the increases, which were a part of the company's planned multi-year utility rate hikes. In February, the Baltimore City Council called on state regulators to stop the increases, which totaled $602 million over the course of three years. BGE said the increase was necessary to cover the cost of continued investments in gas and electric distribution systems. In March, City Council President Zeke Cohen led a community walk, going door to door to collect signatures on a petition that asked the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) to stop the hikes. Some customers experienced price hikes larger than the stated increase rates, with some residents reporting that their winter bills climbed by more than $200. In response to the hikes, lawmakers passed a bill, the Next Generation Energy Act, which aims to reduce costs by directing the Public Service Commission to reject multi-year rate hikes that don't demonstrate customer benefit, and prohibiting utilities from charging ratepayers for certain expenses like trade association memberships and private planes. Why have energy costs increased? BGE said those additional increases seen by consumers were a result of an increase in the price of natural gas and increased gas usage. Then again on June 1, BGE's electricity cost to consumers rose by $16 monthly, which the company said was due to an unexpected spike in capacity auction prices and the Talen Energy reliability-must-run (RMR) fee. When BGE announced the increase, the Maryland General Assembly wrote a letter urging federal legislators to stop the increase. They blamed PJM Interconnection, the region's power grid operator, for miscalculating the supply and demand for electricity during the capacity market auction, a competitive bidding process where power companies promise to make their electricity generation available in the future.
