Dear Board of Education, Administration and

Patrons of USD 112:

Afew months ago, a group of community members from across USD 112 were asked to serve on a committee called the Futures Committee. When we were recruited for the committee, we were led to believe that the goal of this group was to come together to explore different solutions and ideas in order to create a sustainable future for the district. Monthly meetings were scheduled from August to January with a mediator from the KASB, Gary Sechrist, to help the group navigate the process. Our task was to reach a consensus within the group and present our recommendation to the Board of Education at their meeting in January.

As with any group of people that come together towards a common goal, rapport was being built around the over arching goals and hopes for quality education, and a sustainable, stable future. Understanding that each of us has biases, and differing ideas of what the future looks like, we began the process of getting together a common vision. We toured all the facilities except for Bushton, to better determine current and upcoming needs, while beginning to formulate ideas of possible solutions tot the challenges that our district is facing.

At the start of the third session, Tony Zink, Vice President of the Board, indicated to the group that the only item we were being tasked with, was to determine whether the communities would support a school bond to build an all-in-one school. This would encompass all district students, at a central and “neutral” location. This was news to almost everyone in the room, and in direct contradiction with the originally discussed objectives for the team. The consensus among the members of the group is a belief that there are solutions which would better fit our communities vision. As the district had previously denied an $8 million Bond, it would not follow that a significantly higher cost bond, which would also remove the schools from each community would be the solution. The result of this, a committee that should serve to strengthen and unite the district, has become another implement in the Board of Education’s toolkit to destroy the hard-earned trust.

If all the Board really wanted to explore was the viability of a bond to construct an all-in-one building for the entire district, why form a committee that is going to spend several months investigating a question that could have been answered by the District sending out information to district patrons and asking for a response, or simply hosting Town Halls in each community? Why invite KASB to facilitate these meetings?

To be honest and transparent, since Tony attended our last session and changed the committee’s task, there have been serious discussion amongst some of the committee members of resignation. What transpired in the creation and implementation of the committee has not earned the committee’s collective trust. What is the purpose of continuing this committee if the information isn’t going to be taken into consideration? Despite this, the consensus among many of the members is that with the assistance of Gary Sechrist, we have made strides toward building a safe environment to explore solutions for the district. We plan to make our presentation to the Board in January, but it will include more than the answer to the School Board inquiry we were tasked with. We demand that the board listen to our presentation in its entirety and give all ideas presented full consideration.

Allison Koch Stephanie Petermann Kenny Schepmann, Jessie Habiger Rachelle Stratmann

Karen Riggs Sonja Lamatsch