USD 469, Lansing, school board member Kirsten Workman has been under fire by her colleagues for her student-focused outspokenness for some time.
Indeed, the board is proposing policies that would essentially turn the board of education into a rubber stamp for the board president and superintendent of schools.
The board voted Monday, Oct. 13, 2026, to table a proposal that, in a Facebook post, Workman said would “heavily restrict public engagement and will project uniformity, a poor substitute for unity.” The proposed policy will be discussed in an Oct. 20 work session and voted on in November.
“It is my desire to avoid further discord, but this proposal seeks to silence dissent and tramples on the First Amendment,” Workman said in the post. “While I remain committed to collaborating with the district and the rest of the board, I serve the public. In matters that obstruct my ability to do so, I will not comply.”
Workman has clashed with other Lansing board members on several occasions, such as compliance with the 2025 “Dear Colleague” letter from the United States Department of Education ordering schools to cease DEI practices. The Lansing board initially voted 4-3 to reject a resolution to bring the district into compliance, but later adopted one.
As The Sentinel previously reported, the wide-ranging “Board Governance and Operating Procedures” is already raising First Amendment concerns about public access to school district information.
According to Workman, the proposed Lansing policy would restrict board members from:
- Adding a topic to the meeting agenda;
- Speaking to the media;
- Speaking during a meeting without the approval of the board president;
- Commenting on any “extraneous matters” during a board meeting — what constitutes “extraneous” is not defined;
- Speak directly to a presenter, employee, or anyone in the audience;
- Move to give commenters additional time to finish their remarks during the public comment section of a meeting;
- Ask district employees for information;
- Bring a policy concern or suggestion directly before the board;
- Receive documentation or reports from the superintendent unless three other board members concur with the request;
- Speak to the board about the superintendent’s job performance without approval from the board president; and
- Be allowed to vote on the composition of “ad hoc” committees. Members will instead be chosen by the board president.
“The local effort by this Board to restrict individual members from speaking to the media and ‘require’ them to refer all public requests for information or comment to the Superintendent or the Director of Communications and Marketing is another attempt to erode the means by which elected officials may communicate with their constituents and the organization they play a role in overseeing,” Workman said at the time. “Individual Board members are responsible for communicating with the public and the rest of the Board to ensure constituents’ voices are heard. But our Board of Education is about to limit the community’s voice and ability to hold the school district accountable to two people: the superintendent and the Board president.”
Lansing is not the only district attempting to silence board members
Lansing isn’t the only district trying to pressure board members to fall in line.
A teacher at USD 251 North Lyon County recently accused a board member of violating an ethics policy recommended by the Kansas Association of School Boards (KASB) by placing a “vote no” sign in her yard on a school board issue. KASB says no such policy exists, and a legal expert says even if it did, a policy cannot take away a board member’s First Amendment rights.
During the public comment section of the Oct. 7 meeting, teacher Jessica Woodrow said board member Angie Brotz violated the policy.
“First, ‘KASB BH School Board Member Ethics’ section 1.e states that it is unethical to place the interest of one group or community above the interest of the entire school district,” Woodrow said. “When a capital improvement bond is proposed, it is designed to address infrastructure, safety and educational needs for all our students. When an individual board member actively campaigns against a district-wide initiative from their home, it signals to patrons that a personal or divisive agenda is being prioritized over the collective welfare of our schools and our children.”
Regardless, even if such a policy existed, enforcing it would likely violate Brotz’ First Amendment rights, according to Attorney Fritz Edmunds, who assists Kansas school board members through School Boards for Academic Excellence.
“Elected officials do not surrender their free-speech rights by taking office,” Edmunds said. “Core principles from case law and ethics commissions. Private-citizen political speech on matters of public concern (ballot measures, taxes, school facilities) is strongly protected. A personal ‘vote no’ (or ‘vote yes’) yard sign on one’s own property is classic protected political speech. It does not use district resources, does not speak in an official capacity, and does not bind the board.”