Are we to be a nation of laws or not? That question is one I reflect on with far more frequency than one should feel compelled to in a nation begun as a republic. Despite the best intentions of those who wrote the guiding documents that serve as frames of order for the societies in which we live — federal to local — human beings are involved in how policy is implemented. That leaves us with the inevitability that even the best of laws and principles are dependent on whether or not those in power respect and abide by them. That’s true in capitols, courthouses, and city halls across the land. It’s also true in the corridors of small city school districts. We’re observing that reality in clear play in Lansing, Kansas, where a school board member who's also a professor at the nearby U.S. Army Command and General Staff College opposed efforts to comply with Trump Administration guidance to remove curriculum that advocates for a neo-Marxist worldview, and appears to have put a tactic contained within the parameters of military information operations to work against fellow elected school board members.
RELATED: Military War College Professors Still Show Their Left-Wing Stripes
Lansing is a small city roughly 35 miles northwest of Kansas City, Missouri. Incorporated in 1959, this suburb is home to roughly 11,000 people. Nearby Fort Leavenworth is the main economic driver for this "city" that lacks a downtown or shared culture around which residents coalesce, its biggest indicator of growth manifesting in the tax burden. As it turns out, the most interesting show in town is often the local school board meeting. This locale is a testbed for progressive activists aiming to complete a scalable proof of concept on how to anchor left-wing dominance in semi-rural school districts nationwide and block concerned parents from reclaiming a voice in curriculum, spending, and hiring practices.
Despite Kansas being a generally conservative state, Lansing voters placed a committed left-wing majority on the school board in the 2023 election, with four progressive adult males against three conservative women. Retired U.S. Army Col. Pete Im, a former military intelligence officer, is the latest addition to the board’s left wing. His campaign signage hearkened back to the I like Ike visual aesthetic. But Im’s manner of performance in office contrasts with that of the revered general.
Weeks ago, one of the conservative school board members, Kirsten Workman, filed a Kansas Open Records Act (KORA) request in order to obtain the results of a Title IX complaint against the district that she was being unlawfully denied access to, both as an elected board member and city resident. The thick packet of information ultimately released revealed a document in which it appears Mr. Im advised the local school board superintendent and a fellow progressive board member to undermine three elected conservative school board members in public session.
Having served as a military public affairs officer for 20 years, I'm well-acquainted with information operations processes, described in Joint U.S. military doctrine as:
The integrated employment, during military operations, of information-related capabilities in concert with other lines of operation to influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp the decision-making of adversaries and potential adversaries while protecting our own.
This aligns with information dominance practices, which emphasize “the control, exploitation, and protection of information to gain a decisive advantage over adversaries.”
These tenets of information warfare are designed to be part of a strategy to support combat operations against opposing powers. As an Army civilian, now directing the elite Information Advantage Scholars Program at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Im is no doubt well-versed in these techniques. His current role is one that includes educating a select group of U.S. military Majors on how to wield military informational capabilities for military gain. Military doctrine prohibits military units from conducting such influence campaigns on the American public. Yet the results of the KORA request suggest that he put military information dominance experience and technique to work in such an effort this year, a short distance down the road from Fort Leavenworth. Ironically enough, the base is home to the Army’s information operations proponent.
In an email dated August 25, 2025, Im advised the superintendent, Marty Kobza, and fellow board member Aaron Yoakam to frame board member Amy Cawvey’s fiscal concerns as a “delay tactic.” The setting was a special meeting that was called out of concern over a $70,000 lighting installation contract that bypassed the competitive bidding requirement. The full context of what led to the lighting installation — tied to the Title IX complaint over athletic facilities — is a controversial story deserving of its own, more in-depth coverage.
Workman commented for this report that:
“In times of great societal division or turmoil, personal integrity and the standards and rules we hold ourselves to are what preserve us. After nearly two years in office, I've learned to ask myself when people are pointing fingers whether they are pointing at something egregious, or away from it.”
When contacted for comment about this story, both Mr. Kobza and Mr. Yoakam stated that they neither requested nor responded to Mr. Im’s emailed recommendations.
In what appears an attempt to block further deliberations, Im recommended the use of talking points that accuse conservative board members of sowing disorder.
“Amy will try to spin this as a ‘meeting about transparency’ or ‘fiscal responsibility,’” Im writes.
He goes on to recommend the following response: “Message. This meeting isn’t about transparency, it’s about second-guessing and creating chaos after the board already made a lawful decision.”
Im proceeded to make predictions about concerns that fiscally conservative board members might share, and recommended precision messages to be used “in meeting and in messaging.” He followed with advice on how the superintendent and progressive male board members should behave in order to appear more dignified and avoid engaging the fiscal and ethical concerns raised.
“Stay calm and steady. Let Amy, Kirsten, and Mary look like the ones sowing chaos,” Im writes.
Im's note concludes with a talking point that defends the board and school district’s previous, questionable actions with the talking point “Title IX compliance isn’t optional or political—it’s the law.”
Mr. Im did not respond to request for comment.
The topic of following the law is worth additional consideration. In March, Im voted against a resolution to comply with the Department of Education’s guidance on removing curriculum materials that promote divisive DEI philosophies, or risk the loss of federal funds. His response: “So why are we putting all this energy and effort into a policy, or excuse me, a recommendation, from a federal organization that may not exist a couple more months down the road?” This followed a vote in which Im opposed allowing teachers to raise classroom safety concerns directly with school board members — a stance at odds with the Army’s long-standing requirement for supervisors to maintain open-door policies.
It’s further worth noting that the code of ethics for the USD 469 school board in Lansing, KS, states that members shall:
- “Make policy decisions only after full discussion at publicly held board meetings”
- “Encourage the free expression of opinion by all board members”
- “Convey respectful collaboration among BOE members”
- “Take no private action that will compromise the board”
According to board member Amy Cawvey, who Im named in the email:
“State statute is very clear that no one board member has more power than another and alone cannot direct the superintendent. Only the majority of the board can do this. Not only was Mr. Im’s actions unethical but he violated state statute and his oath to uphold the law and constitution.”
Yet no state agencies in Kansas investigate allegations of ethical breaches at local school boards. These boards are left to police themselves, as the majority sees fit.
Returning to the question I asked at the beginning, are we to be a society that runs according to its own rules? Shall we be accepting toward the use of tactics reflective of military information operations techniques to undermine elected representatives at school board meetings? The answer is a choice, not a fatalistic inevitability. Voters and morally principled magistrates have agency and responsibility to force accountability and reject the use of efforts aimed at blocking responsible deliberation in local school districts. The real question is whether or not they will.
The results of this week’s election place that very much in doubt. Conservative board members Cawvey and Mary Wood — both referenced negatively by Im’s email — lost their reelection bids on Tuesday. The Lansing School Board seated in January will feature a ratio of six progressives to a single conservative.
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member