Checklist: explain the allegation of military-style information tactics used in a local school board fight; describe who is involved and what documents show; cite exact quoted messages and doctrine where relevant; note legal and ethical concerns about military personnel influencing civilian politics; report election outcomes that followed these events.
The story centers on allegations that a Lansing, Kansas, school board member and Army-affiliated professor used methods resembling military information operations against conservative colleagues. Documents obtained via a Kansas Open Records Act request show private advice aimed at shaping public messaging and steering the narrative at a school board meeting. The core concern is whether military experience and doctrine were applied to influence local civic debate and whether that crosses legal and ethical lines. This piece summarizes the key facts, quoted communications, and the political consequences that followed.
Lansing is a small suburban city near Fort Leavenworth where school board fights draw intense local attention. Voters there placed a progressive majority on the board in 2023, and the newest progressive member is Pete Im, a retired Army colonel who now directs an Information Advantage scholars program at a nearby Army institution. The kerfuffle erupted after board business tied to a $70,000 lighting contract and a Title IX complaint became public, prompting one conservative board member to file a records request. The document dump revealed an email from Im advising how district leaders should frame the controversy and respond to conservative oversight.
The leaked memo reads as tactical guidance, offering suggested lines to use in meetings and messaging to undermine dissent. One portion recommends painting fiscal concerns as disruptive, warning that: “Amy will try to spin this as a ‘meeting about transparency’ or ‘fiscal responsibility.’” The memo then prescribes a response: “Message. This meeting isn’t about transparency, it’s about second-guessing and creating chaos after the board already made a lawful decision.” Those exact words are now central evidence in accusations the memo functioned like an influence operation.
Military doctrine included in the public record was quoted as a point of comparison in reporting, defining information operations 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.” That doctrinal wording is clearly intended for theater-level operations, not local governance. The presence of that doctrine in the review fuels the argument that skills learned in uniform were being repurposed for partisan advantage at a school board table.
Im’s role at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College involves teaching officers how to manage information advantage. Critics point out military policy forbids influence campaigns aimed at the American public, and they ask whether offering scripted messaging to elected civilian officials violates that principle. The district’s code of ethics calls for open deliberation, equal authority among board members, and public decision-making, and several board members now say the email undermined those norms. One conservative board member who sought the records said she was denied access to material she was legally entitled to review, prompting the KORA request that made everything public.
There are statutory and ethical questions here beyond partisan disagreement. Amy Cawvey, named in the memo and quoted about impacts on governance, said: “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.” That statement frames this as not merely politics as usual but a potential breach of legal boundaries by someone with military influence and training.
“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.”
Despite the questions raised, the superintendent and at least one other board member told reporters they neither requested nor responded to Im’s recommendations. Still, the guidance included precise behavioral coaching: “Stay calm and steady. Let Amy, Kirsten, and Mary look like the ones sowing chaos.” Those prescriptions are exactly the kind of scripted tactics many worry morph military tradecraft into civilian political warfare. The community now faces the fallout of whether such tactics will be normalized at town-hall levels of governance.
The story also tracks to policy: in March, Im voted against a resolution to follow Department of Education guidance on removing divisive curriculum materials, asking why the board should heed a federal recommendation that “may not exist a couple more months down the road.” He opposed allowing teachers direct safety communications to the board, a stance some say contradicts military expectations of open-door leadership. Questions about the line between lawful professional advice and improper political influence remain unsettled under Kansas law because state authorities do not investigate local school board ethics in most cases.
“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.”
The immediate political consequence was electoral. Two conservative board members named in the memo lost reelection, leaving a board that will be overwhelmingly progressive come January. That shift changes who holds power over curriculum, budgets, and local governance. The core issue for voters is simple: whether those with military training should apply those tactics inside civilian civic institutions, and what accountability looks like when blurred lines appear between service expertise and partisan maneuvers.
Add comment