Houston, Ford advance in contentious Lee County school board race

LEESBURG— The race for the District 1 seat on the Lee County School System board is headed to a June 16 runoff after no candidate secured the majority needed to win outright in last week’s election.

According to unofficial election results, challenger George Parrish Houston led the three-candidate field with 534 votes, or 42%, followed by incumbent Donna Ford with 478 votes, or 37.6%. Candidate Lavendra Shootes received 261 votes, or 20.5%.

Because no candidate surpassed the 50% threshold required for victory, Houston and Ford will advance to a runoff election next month.

The results underscored the increasingly competitive and politically charged nature of the race, which has evolved into a broader public debate over taxes, school spending, transparency and trust in local leadership.

Houston has campaigned as a reform-oriented candidate focused on parental involvement, fiscal oversight and accountability. Following the election, he thanked supporters and emphasized that his campaign priorities remained centered on “Safe Schools, Strong Standards, Smart Spending.”

“This campaign has always been about our kids, our schools, and the future of Lee County,” Houston said in a social media statement following the election.

In a separate interview, Houston said he believes residents are increasingly frustrated by what he described as a disconnect between the school board and the broader community.

“The current school board seems a little insulated from the community,” Houston said. “That’s why when I go from door to door trying to connect with voters, I’m handing out my cell phone number. I want to be accessible to parents and members of the community when an issue or concern comes up.”

Houston also pointed to his professional background and personal experience raising children in the county as factors shaping his approach to school governance.

“My background is in HR. I have a background in Human Resource Management,” Houston said, adding that his experience working across multiple industries, combined with raising six children in the school system, gives him insight into what employers are looking for as educational decisions are made.

Houston has said he believes maintaining rigorous and competitive educational programs is critical to ensuring students are prepared for both higher education and the workforce.

Ford, meanwhile, has leaned heavily on her decades of educational experience and institutional knowledge while defending the school system’s operational and financial decisions amid mounting public scrutiny.

“I had two sons go through the entire Lee County education system from kindergarten to graduation,” Ford said in comments provided following the original publication of this article. “I also taught both primary and elementary, worked as an administrator at the school level and at the central office, for 32 years.”

Ford said her long tenure within the school system gives her a deep personal connection to the district and its students.

“I now have served eight years on the school board, so I think I can say that after dedicating that many years to Lee County School System, it isn’t a job anymore, it’s what my heart has become,” Ford said.

She said her priorities remain centered on student safety and educational quality.

“My focus has been, and always will be on, what do the children need?” Ford said. “I am just like every other parent. Safety is a priority to me. I want to know our kids are getting the best education and they’re safe while they’re getting it.”

The runoff comes as county and school officials continue responding to fallout from the ongoing rollback-rate controversy after leaders acknowledged residents overpaid property taxes because of what officials described as an erroneous rollback calculation tied to the county tax digest.

The Lee County Board of Commissioners has publicly stated taxpayers overpaid approximately $1.5 million to county government. The school system has not publicly released an estimate of potential overpayments tied to school taxes.

During an April candidate forum, the distinctions between Houston and Ford became particularly apparent on issues surrounding taxes, borrowing and school governance.

Houston repeatedly framed himself as a candidate willing to challenge existing practices and ask difficult financial questions.

“When things don’t look right, we’ve got to have the courage to speak up and raise our hand and do a stop, think and ask,” Houston said during the forum.

He also questioned continued borrowing against future Education Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax revenues while discussing district finances.

“I was looking at the budgets this week over the past three years,” Houston said. “We are paying down some of the debts over the school board budget. It was just kind of head scratching, like, why would we continue to borrow for that?”

Ford defended the district’s financial approach, arguing that delaying major projects could ultimately increase long-term costs for taxpayers.

“Everything has gone up so much that sometimes it seems more efficient to be able to borrow the money now,” Ford said during the same forum.

She also defended the board’s decision to opt out of House Bill 581, the statewide homestead tax relief legislation designed to limit annual increases in taxable property assessments for many homeowners.

“If we have to lose money as a result of this House Bill 581, we’re going to have to increase class size,” Ford said.

Beyond taxes and budgeting, the race has increasingly centered on communication and public trust.

Ford recently said she prefers direct, in-person conversations with residents over social media engagement, while Houston has consistently framed his campaign around change, accountability and stronger parental representation on the board.

The failed ESPLOST referendum earlier this year has also added additional pressure to the contest, particularly as district leaders continue warning about aging infrastructure needs, including roof and HVAC replacement projects at several schools.

Advance voting for the runoff is scheduled June 8-12 from 8:15 a.m. to 5 p.m. Election Day is June 16.

Editor’s Note: Donna Ford was unavailable for comment prior to the original publication deadline. Her comments were provided following the article’s initial publication and have since been incorporated into this updated version.