December 11, 2025

Sent via email to the Board of Control

Dear Members of the Board and my friends at the League, 

I’m Jon’s fiancée. I have watched this election from the sidelines, but last night’s email from Yoko, Marcie, and Steve crossed a line that requires a response. 

I helped the team with their campaign materials and I am the person who condensed Sandra’s reference to her legal degree and years of legal experience into the single word “attorney.” Despite working closely with lawyers, and despite personal and professional familiarity with the field, I did not know that “attorney” specifically requires bar admission in addition to a law degree. That was my mistake. Should Sandra have caught it? Yes. Did she? Clearly not. But did she correct it as soon as it was brought to her attention and she realized what happened? Yes - clarification went to the Board, the materials were updated, and she issued a public correction in an email sent to members on November 14. As recipients of those corrections, Yoko, Marcie, and Steve know this. Their decision to weaponize a corrected and inadvertent error speaks for itself.

Integrity is not the absence of mistakes; it is the accuracy and speed with which one addresses them. They will occur - by anyone. Sandra corrected hers at once. Jon responded immediately and transparently to every question raised about his materials, whether it concerned a logo design that a few people didn’t like or the return address that Constant Contact required. He clarified and resolved each point without hesitation. These were straightforward administrative matters that he addressed directly; the decision to convert them into claims of intentional deceit is a manufactured political attack, not a reflection of what actually happened.

I have watched as Jon and Sandra have been twisted into caricatures - where a few procedural matters have been assigned malicious intent. The issue has never been the mistakes themselves; it has been the deliberate decision to distort them for political effect. That choice - the conscious manufacturing of false narratives - is what has caused the real harm. Anyone who remains silent in the face of this behavior is endorsing it; anyone supporting it is participating in it.

I have also watched Jon be accused of misrepresenting his fundraising contributions, only to be told afterward that no such implication had been made, and then to have his work minimized as merely “making some phone calls,” despite the fact that the individuals making these statements know precisely what his role entailed. I understand that Jon even provided clear, factual language that would have corrected the false impression and accurately reflected his collaboration with the League’s development team if the issue were to ensure that their contributions did not go unmentioned. Those suggestions were apparently met with silence. This was not confusion, differing interpretations, or genuine concern for protecting staff. It was a calculated effort to create reputational doubt where none existed.

When the printed ballot arrived at our house, I noticed immediately that Sandra’s outdated bio - including the incorrect “attorney” reference - had been used. I personally assisted in preparing the corrected version and the word “attorney” was nowhere in sight. Jon and Sandra have written confirmation that the updated text had been received. Yet the outdated versions appeared. That is sloppy at best and deeply questionable at worst.

The lying, battering, and gaslighting Jon and Sandra have endured in this campaign is something I would not wish on anyone. 

As for me: yes, I am biased. I am standing up for the person I plan to marry. But I also run a company. I sit on a board. I advise companies. I have an MBA from one of the world’s top business schools. I’ve formally studied leadership and ethics. I know what healthy, ethical leadership looks like, and importantly, what the opposite looks like. If Jon were behaving deceitfully or without integrity - trust me, he would hear it from me first. 

I am proud to say that my family’s relationship with the League spans generations - students, instructors, and benefactors. I am not an artist myself, but I deeply value what the League stands for. The behavior displayed in this election is reprehensible. It is beneath the dignity of this institution.

I am aware of the campaign rule prohibiting personal attacks. Last night’s communication did not merely cross that line - it erased it. Jon and Sandra were previously subjected to scrutiny under a rule that did not even exist, while violations of actual rules have gone unchecked. This discrepancy warrants serious examination. 

The conduct exhibited by Yoko, Marcie, and Steve’s campaign is beyond the pale. It reflects neither leadership nor integrity. The persistent distortion of truth in the absence of substantive ideas and the pattern of tearing others down to compensate for insecurity in the face of perceived threat must end.

The emerging pattern is unmistakable: when facts fail, emotion escalates; when disagreement arises, character attacks appear; when the truth is inconvenient, narratives are manufactured. This is not leadership. It is not governance. And it is not worthy of the League.

This letter is not written in anger, nor is it a campaign communication. It is written because remaining silent would be a disservice to the values the League claims to uphold. I informed Jon that this message would be sent; the decision was mine. These words are mine. Those who know me understand that I have zero interest in the political theater that the current leadership has generated. Only extraordinary circumstances would compel me to speak at all.

I would expect a functioning Board to examine the conduct displayed by Yoko, Marcie, and Steve’s campaign during this election and to consider its impact - not only on the candidates but on the credibility of the institution itself.

Sincerely, 

Olivia Cameron