Grand Junction Chamber backs scary candidates for the contested seats in School Board election

The chamber is endorsing pretty scary candidates for school board

It’s no surprise that in the contested District 51 School Board races, the Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce is endorsing candidates who are demonstrably the worst of the pack. That’s par for the course.

What IS surprising is that you can figure this out from reading the Chamber’s very own “Mesa County Valley School District 51 Voter Guide,” (pdf) in which the chamber endorses Thomas Keenan for District E and Dusti Reimer for District D.

For the voter guide, the chamber asked each candidate to answer four questions. Apparently the chamber printed the candidates’ responses verbatim, without editing.

The results are pretty damn scary for the two candidates they endorsed.

Thomas Keenan, the District E candidate, had a hard time putting together a coherent sentence. Below is a screenshot of Mr. Keenan’s answer to the chamber’s Question #4: “Why should members of the Grand Junction Area Chamber vote for you?” Immediately beneath his barely-comprehensible answer, the chamber endorses Mr. Keenan:

School Board candidate Thomas Keenan’s answer to the chamber’s question, “Why should members of the Grand Junction Area Chamber vote for you?”


That the Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce would endorse a candidate who cannot put together a coherent sentence is beyond shocking, particularly when the candidate is running for SCHOOL BOARD.

In another small but telling indication of incompetence, Dusti Reimer numbered her answers 1, 2, 3 and 5.

Dusti is also challenged with grammar and spelling. Under the “Issues” tab on her website, in her discussion of fiscal issues, Dusti used the wrong spelling of the word “principles”:

“I will impart these principals, that we use everyday in our own households, into our Mesa County School Budget.”

Other parts of Dusti’s website contains fragmented sentences, like

“Professionals who deeply care for our children and their educational success.”


“Just like you do.”

Even worse, according to a September 18, 2017 article in the Daily Sentinel, Dusti’s children don’t even attend public school. They go to private school. So why Dusti is running for District 51 public school board when she has demonstrated that she is already willing to pull her own kids out of the public system and leave the rest behind? Shouldn’t a school board candidate have some stake in what happens in the public schools?

Those are the questions the chamber, or someone, should be asking Dusti Reimer.

Another oddity is that Reimer and Keenan claim to be running on the same “slate.” Both candidates claim they are conservatives and their candidate websites are nearly identical. They use exactly the same graphics and tag line of “RISE Mesa County,” but neither site describes exactly what this so-called “RISE” slate seeks to do, or where it came from. All we see is that it consists of platitudes like “Respecting teachers,” “Empowering parents” and other vague statements about choice, flexibility, fiscal responsibility and career readiness.

The Grand Junction Chamber is clearly keeping up it’s track record of failing to vet the candidates it endorses, and endorsing candidates based solely on their political ideology, no matter how horrifically unqualified or poorly suited they may be for the jobs they seek.

Now THAT’s scary.


  5 comments for “Grand Junction Chamber backs scary candidates for the contested seats in School Board election

  1. I agree with your points in this article, but in browsing your site something is really, really bugging me—PLEASE learn the correct usage of “its” and “it’s”.

    “It’s” (with an apostrophe) is a contraction of “it is”. So if you replace “it’s” with “it is” in a sentence, and it doesn’t make sense with the replacement, then you’re using the wrong “it’s”.

    “Its” (with no apostrophe) is the possessive form of the word. So, for example, in the above article you would say, “The Grand Junction Chamber is clearly keeping up its [NO APOSTROPHE] track record of failing to vet the candidates it endorses.”

    I’ve noticed this in several of your articles, so it’s obviously not just a typo, which is why I bring it up. Your words hold more weight when you follow the rules of English.

  2. Thank you for this breakdown of these two candidates. Sure makes you wonder between the North Ave. Idea and backing of these ‘articulate’ folks who is running the ship at the Chamber.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *