1. May 12, 2014
Open letter to USD 400 School Board and Administration:
Also the clerk of the USD 400 School Board:
Please add the following to the record of minutes of this school board meeting.
I am writing this letter to publicly request some information and actions from this Board
of Education. I know that the Board is not required to respond to a patron, and I know
that as only one patron the Board is not likely to respond to my requests. However I
sincerely believe that what I am asking for is in the best interest of the students of the
district and are all reasonable requests. In fact, I think in a well functioning district this
information would be available and these actions taken as a matter of course. What I
am requesting relates to what I feel are the two issues plaguing this district – nepotism
and a lack of transparency. Here are my requests of the board:
I am requesting the resignation of any board member or administrator that is directly
related by blood or marriage to a district employee, so that any future decisions can be
clearly made on the merit of the persons involved alone and under no cloud of
nepotism.
I am requesting that the board announce its position on and under what circumstances
it would agree to a transfer of the Marquette land to another school district.
I am requesting to know why I get conflicting information about the decline in our
contingency reserve. Dale Dennis from the State Board of Education gives me one
view about the facts in the budget and the USD 400 budget gives me another. Should
generally accepted accounting practices (GAAP) not be waived by this district as it has
been in the past?
I am requesting to know why the blame for falling enrollment was put totally on the
Marquette Area Students for going to Little River. Nothing was mentioned about 40
students from the Lindsborg area attending 4 different neighboring school districts. I
have also heard of approximately 100 students being homeschooled in the district.
I am requesting more detailed information on the revenue and expenses of the virtual
school other than just the budget.
Please allow me to backup for the reasons why I am making these requests.
Following the hearing to close Marquette, I have been investigating the decisions of this
board. I have not liked what I have found. In addition to the Marquette issue, it is my
conclusion that this school district has a culture of non-transparency and nepotism that
is affecting its ability to make good decisions for its students. With the new rules on
tenure from the state government this culture would seem likely to become worse rather
than better unless drastic changes are made.

2. I feel that the district also has an issue with nepotism. The problem with nepotism is that
it creates a perception of favorable treatment whether decisions are actually based on
merit or not. Also, if an employee does receive favorable treatment it could lead to
liability for the entire district.
We have administrators and board members who are closely related to district staff.
Recently an administrator was fired and the board hired a replacement who is the son
and son-in-law of two board members. No abstention in voting can remove the stain and
clear conflict of interest when board members hire immediate family, or when
administrators supervise their spouses. Few interviewees would report to the board of
education that the board members own son gave a less than stellar interview. Anyone
hired under a cloud of nepotism will always be suspected of having been hired for
reasons other than merit. I have heard of several instances in which there was the
perception that the Superintendent’s spouse received favorable treatment that other
teachers would not have received. Common sense tells us all that when your co-worker
is a relative of your boss, it makes you less willing to voice concerns about that co-
worker to your boss.
Transparency is a major issue in this district. The residents of Marquette felt blindsided
when at a meeting in January the board voted to hold a hearing on closure at the next
board meeting. This had the effect, which I believe was intended, to make it difficult for
resistance to closure to organize. It also caused an important decision to be rushed and
left the school board with limited facts and information with which to base its vote. In a
well-functioning district, a school closure should be an open and deliberate process, in
which all the stakeholders are invited to work for a solution that will minimize the
damage and maximize the benefit to students. Instead this district operated in the most
divisive way I can imagine.
The deadline the school board set for the closure hearing was completely artificial.
There is no reason that decision could not have been discussed in January and set for
two or three months later, with the same effects. If a closure was voted upon then there
would be a chance to generate more ideas and research. In fact, if the board had only
waited until the new school finance bill was passed they would have had relevant
budgetary information before them, instead of an estimated guess based on a now
replaced funding system.
I can think of a few instances that clearly illustrate my belief that the Board and
Administration have not been transparent in the manner they closed Marquette. Prior to
the closing hearing, the Salina Journal had already removed Marquette as one of the
District Schools in its Smoky Valley advertising. Second, although at the closing hearing
the administration claimed to have reached out to Marquette to have discussions, I can
only find one instance where such a meeting took place. No one seems to have actually
received any of the letters regarding closure that were supposedly sent to people in
Marquette. I have heard that at a school in-service in April the administration told the
staff that the District would receive the same or more state funding in 2014-2015 as

3. before, however the same people told the Marquette Tribune that the school closing
was due to a decrease in state funding and enrollment. This sounds to me like the
Administration was misleading the Marquette paper about the circumstances
surrounding the closure.
I have sought out teachers and district employees, who have no desire to speak publicly
for fear of retaliation and asked their opinion of the district’s issues. I have heard stories
that make me think there is a pattern of controlling behavior that is not limited to the
Marquette issue. I would encourage all district patrons to ask friends, relatives and
neighbors who are teachers for their honest feelings about the district. It is unlikely that
in this environment many teachers will want to discuss their experience publicly but I
feel all patrons have a civic duty to start a conversation with people they trust about
their experiences with our public schools.
I have tried to understand the budget information on the revenue and expenses from the
district’s virtual school. It would seem to me that the virtual school budget should
receive just as much scrutiny as the Marquette budget. If the board’s true goal is to save
money how can they vote to close one building and not compare the cost and benefits
of other projects?
One of the actions that could begin to restore faith in the district would be for every
board member and administrator to resign if they are closely related by blood or
marriage to a district employee. Service as a board member or administrator is a
privilege and not an entitlement, and a person acting in the best interest of the district as
a whole should be willing to make this sacrifice.
Finally, with the exodus of students from Marquette to Little River there has been
speculation about a possible transfer of school district land to Little River. A transfer
would seem to be logical, because the Little River budget may be stretched by the influx
of students, and it is logical for the property taxes to pay for those students to come
from the area where they are living. Why should students go south and their property
taxes go east?
At the board meeting on closure it was specifically said to the Board that a land transfer
was a likely result of the decision to close Marquette. Superintendent Suppes stated, as
I recall, that the likelihood of a land transfer was taken into account when considering
the decision on closure. My question is, if a request for land transfer is someday made,
how can USD 400 deny such a request, when they considered it before closure. They
were clearly made aware that it was a likely result of their decision to close and they
voted in favor of the closure anyway? It would seem that when they made the decision
to close the school in Marquette they had taken into account the likely consequences of
that decision.
My question to the Board is what is your position on a transfer of land from Marquette
to Little River, and if you would oppose such a transfer, how can you justify that
position?

4. In summary, I would ask all patrons of the district, as voters and taxpayers, to ask your
own questions and learn for yourself about how the district is operating. You may come
to agree with my conclusion that this district has a clear pattern of avoiding transparent
decision making and input from the community, as well as a troubling issue with
nepotism. Change is unlikely unless the voters, taxpayers, and patrons of the school
district demand for it to happen, as I hope they will.
Mrs. Peterson, you are supposed to be our board representative and voted to keep
MES open. I hope that vote came from your true beliefs and conscience. Please
distance yourself from the mess this board has created and make a motion tonight to
revisit the decision to close MES. Hopefully another board member will agree and
second that motion. This would keep these students in this valley until we can work
together for a better solution for the Smoky Valley.
Sincerely,
Ron Larson

5. From: Patrick Hoffman
Date: Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:32 AM
Subject: RE: letter
Mr. Suppes and the board are completely wrong in assuming that the state school board would not
authorize a transfer from a 'large' district to a 'small' one. If the USD 400 board had tabled the decision I
could have provided them with some research on petitions to transfer.
There have been 19 hearings on petitions to transfer since 1987. All other transfers were by agreement.
When the parties don't come to agreement it would likely be because the 'losing district' has a strong
argument and won't compromise, so it is not surprising that only 8 of the 19 that go to hearing have
been approved. However, of those 8 there is no pattern suggesting that the size of the district is a
factor. Here are the 8 successful petitions:
year losing district size gaining district size
1987 Americus 251 2a Emporia 253 5a
1990 Wellsville 289 3a Ottawa 290 4a
1991 Garnett 365 4a Franklin 288 4a
1992 Leon 205 3a Burden 462 1a
1998 Riverton 404 3a Galena 499 3a
2000 Chapman 473 4a Abilene 435 4a
2001 Abilene 435 4a Chapman 473 4a
2007 Cimarron 102 3a Montezuma 371 1A
Thanks,
Patrick G. Hoffman
SHERMAN, HOFFMAN & HIPP, LC