School Board Financial Disclosures

I'm a big believer in open government. I believe that the people who administer the government are doing work assigned to them by the citizens, and that those citizens have a right to review the work done by the elected officials and civil servants. This is generally done by the press and public interest groups, but it can also be done by any individual. I wrote a bit about the impact on the Loudoun School Board of the Freedom of Information Act back in January.

In addition to this law, which guarantees citizen access to almost any document produced in the course of public business, there are financial disclosure laws that govern Virginia elected officials and even many volunteer board members. I've been filling out these financial disclosures (also termed Statements of Economic Interest) annually for several years, first as a member of the Loudoun Industrial Development Authority, then when appointed to the Loudoun Social Services Board, and now again as a School Board member.

The Virginia State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act (2.2 ch. 31) governs these financial disclosures. In the words of this act:

...the citizens are entitled to be assured that the judgment of public officers and employees will be guided by a law that defines and prohibits inappropriate conflicts and requires disclosure of economic interests.

Requirements for financial disclosure are laid out in 2.2-3115. Disclosure by local government officers and employees. The code dictates that certain officers and employees "shall file, as a condition to assuming office" (and annually thereafter) "a disclosure statement of their personal interests." Even candidates for office are required to file financial statements under this section of code.

There are special sections just for School Boards, including 2.2-3108. Prohibited contracts by members of school boards, which primarily dictates that:

No person elected or appointed as a member of a local school board shall have a personal interest in (i) any contract with his school board or (ii) any contract with any governmental agency that is subject to the ultimate control of the school board of which he is a member.

Further, section 2.2-3119: Additional provisions applicable to school boards, and employees of school boards basically prevents School Boards from hiring anyone who "is the father, mother, brother, sister, spouse, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law or brother-in-law of the superintendent, or of any member of the school board."

Of course all of this disclosure does the citizens no good if they don't have access to these records. A quick internet search brought me to the Secretary of the Commonwealth's Conflict of Interest page, which states:

If you are interested in the disclosure of local officers and employees, contact either the clerk of the governing body or school board.

So, since I've gone to all the trouble to fill one out several times over now, and you're interested enough to have read to the bottom of this post, I invite you to review my own Statement of Economic Interest. The current Statement is on file with the Clerk of the School Board, Ms. Christine Coleman, who can be contacted at (571) 252-1020.

School Board Retreat

The Board, Superintendent and senior staff spent Sunday and Monday at an out-of-town retreat. Before I left, my kids asked questions about it and part of the conversation was explaining to them why some people are very critical of such things. I also explained that what we hoped to accomplish by sequestering ourselves outside of a familiar environment and the distractions of our lives and work was an opportunity to improve how we do our work.

As I write this, it is Monday morning before breakfast. I’m in a room at Capon Springs and Farms Resort, WV. Picture the movie Dirty Dancing, and the old-style Catskills resort where the film is set. This is that place, captured in time. It is white bread Americana. Yesterday we spent about eight hours in a tiny meeting room with checkered linoleum floors, notepads and a big writing easel. We ate a dinner straight out of the 1950s among patrons who have probably been coming here annually since then. After the work was done, a few of us played ping pong until they closed it down.

Board members and staff are roughly two different teams, each trying to explain itself to the other across the gulf of our perspectives and experience. While the staff has generally one person speaking on its behalf on any given topic, the Board usually has 3-4 people coming at it from their various perspectives. Most folks would probably be interested to know that among Board members the compatibilities that count have nothing to do with political party or length of service.

The Board and staff talked about core beliefs, about the roles and responsibilities of staff and Board members, our relationship with the Board of Supervisors, about legal issues and the different worlds that we inhabit as part-time politicians and lifelong educators. This morning we are to discuss the budget process for the next school year (FY10), which is already underway, and then to work out a revised set of goals. Four years ago the previous board set 30 goals, and the consensus is that this is far too many to manage, so that they become essentially meaningless. Each of the goals should tie back to the consensus on core beliefs that I discussed above.

The discussion has been at various times guarded and at others candid. We’ve heard new issues and rehashed old issues, but there is still plenty that will go unsaid when all is done. We’ve tried to cram a lot into a little time because this isn’t an opportunity that comes around very often.

Aligning the schedules of nineteen busy people, half of which have other full-time jobs and most of whom have children at home, is a challenge under any circumstance. Getting them all to drop off out of life for two days is terribly rare.

We’re expecting the presence of a reporter from Leesburg Today at some point during Monday’s session, and I expect that this will put a damper on some of the more pointed discussions, especially on the part of the Superintendent and staff because they’re more disciplined than the Board as a group. While it’s good both to have times of unguarded candor and the transparency of open meetings, any understanding of human nature will tell you that those two things tend to work against each other. (Note: after writing this I was pleased to see even better discussions with Leesburg Today reporter Erika Jacobson in the room than we had the day before. Here is her article.)

It’s time now for another eight hours of meetings.

Mandarin Chinese Extended to Third Year

I was going to write about this, but instead today I'm featuring "guest columnists" if you will. A few members of the School Board have traded emails in the past 24 hours about the Mandarin program, and they have staked their positions out better and more completely than I could do myself. With their permission and my gratitude I am publishing those emails here:


(From Tom Marshall, Leesburg District)
I am not as enthusiastic with regard to Mandarin 3 (or 1 & 2). I remember when Russian and Japanese were the flavors of the day. I believe in languages, but I also believe it would be far better to teach students a language like Spanish, given our geographic location, from a very early age, perhaps 3rd grade through high school so our society (not just a few precocious students) would finally master another language other than English. Once our students, who had started with Spanish, at a young age as a graded subject became so comfortable with the Spanish language they, without the inhibitions of adolescence, would willingly speak fluently outside a classroom environment and many would be far better equipped to learn more difficult languages in college deemed important for political or economic reasons.

We are creating with Mandarin Chinese what we created earlier with AP French 5, Ap German 5, many Latin 3 & 4 classes, not to mention ASL 3 ----- courses that are under-enrolled for the benefit of a few and to the detriment of those in lower level languages, who now have larger classes as a result of the staffing pressure brought about by having a teachers of foreign language sacrificing the students in levels 1, 2, and 3 for upper level languages with just a few students. We spread ourselves too thin and our too fad conscious with respect to languages. Why can't we just learn one language well and stop pandering to those who now want another esoteric language for themselves. This is not a sermon---just a thought!
Tom Marshall


(From Warren Geurin, Sterling District)
Dear Tom and all others,

I have refrained from adding my two cents worth, but I want each of you to know that agree with Tom Marshall. The real issue, which has apparently not been given any consideration so far, is the class load for the Chinese teachers we currently employ -- as well as the future costs of adding additional Chinese teachers.

While it may be that the costs of adding one additional teacher is small, in the overall scheme of things -- it is pretty hard to explain to the Board of Supervisors that we need additional staff so that 12 or 13 students in two high schools want to take a 3rd year of Chinese.

Aside from the costs, the guidance folks and principals at these two schools will have a Dickens of a time building an whole schedule around 12 or 13 students. I would much prefer that they sign up for a set of Rosetta Stone CDs and study on their own time.
Our veteran members will remember, of course, that I opposed adding Chinese teachers to our staff from the beginning. The fact that we do have some students taking Chinese 2 does not, in and of itself, produce any evidence that the our experimental pilot program is successful.

If there were as many students wanting to take Chinese as there are students who want to take Latin, German, or French -- then I would be more disposed to the idea that Mr. Ohneiser has apparently convinced Mrs. Ackerman is a good one. I do not think that it is.
Having said all this, I want to express my confidence in Mrs. Ackerman's ability to make this a good experience for those few students who actually sign up for these classes.

Warren Geurin


(From Bob Ohneiser, Broad Run District)
I'm actually pleased we are having this discourse as the basic tenets apply across many goals we aim to accomplish as a team with children and their climate for success as our focus. This will not be a Spanish versus Mandarin review because the audience doesn't need to be overly reminded of trade issues, historic significance of China, billion plus population spread worldwide, trillion or so dollars in reserve, highly difficult language, high school differentiation from viewpoint of college recruiters and the perceived commitment we made to students like the ones who spoke at our school board meeting. This is only a temporary accommodation for two high schools yet it does raise issues I think we should seriously deliberate about during our upcoming planning session. This note is intended to spend a moment balancing arguments with perhaps the opposite pole using the following excerpts I think I perceived from Warren and Tom's notes. I hope this is seen as a constructive way to show we need as a board to discuss planning what the school system should focus on going forward.

1. Should we really teach Spanish to the exclusion of other languages? I think Spanish is an elective not a social mandate where we replace student and parental choice with our own sense of demographic evolution.

2. Should we 1apply resources to teach Spanish through 8 choices in high school as well as middle school choices and FLES which is mandatory in all elementary schools to the exclusion of not just other languages but to the exclusion of other courses which could be offered but for the extensive investment in Spanish. I would like to see how much funding we dedicate to Spanish throughout the entire system so if we decide as a school board to make Spanish available like all other foreign languages what amount of budget could be used for other courses. if we feel as a board that Spanish should be sponsored as a social mandate then so be it but we should decide that openly and understand the cost to education to accomplish this.

3. Should we view American Sign Language or the strings program or the Academy of Science or Monroe or the Douglas School or ESL as expendable because they serve a minority interest or as Tom put it " benefit of a few to the detriment of others". Again I think these are topics of great importance to us as a board to make from a zero budget basis instead of merely agreeing or disagreeing on how much we can afford to expand them. In my experience ALL non-core subject choices are open to discussion and re-prioritization. If our aggregate budget is squeezed we have to make both incremental choices as well as vertical choices in how to apply funding. Thus far we have focused on an incremental view in my opinion.

4. Should we view budget dollars as fungible or on a department by department or subject by subject basis? If everything is important then one could argue nothing is important other than we get our way. As long as the county keeps closing its eyes to the impact of residential growth our aggregate funding needs will appear to be a greater and greater threat so we may have to decide what we want to prioritize. Should class sizes be kept within a narrower range so every part of Loudoun gets equal treatment regardless of economics or ethnicity or recency of immigration? Do we realize that under Virginia Law Section 22.1-238 textbooks are only intended to be provided for free if “parent or guardian is financially unable to furnish them". One could argue we are under no obligation to provide textbooks to the tune of $millions per year to any student who can afford school lunch. Could we use such funds to meet our budget challenge or could we perhaps improve our curriculum or pay custodians more etc by rigorously reviewing what we must do as a school board versus what we choose to do voluntarily.

5. If foreign languages should not be deemed important based on political or economic reasons then why do we continue to support the governors school, debating programs, economics classes or anything else not directly tied to State minimums? ASL is not a foreign language but its classes in some cases are much LOWER than the current temporary accommodation for Mandarin. Based on Mrs. Ackerman's January 31, 2008 report BWHS only has 3 students in ASL 3, DHS only has 8 in ASL 3, LCHS only has 8 in ASL 3 and PFHS only has 6 in ASL 3.

6. China and its impact on the earth in the past and its foreseeable impact in the future could never be considered to be a "FAD" but as a school board we need to balance how much of our future funding should be focused on courses that do not directly add competitive advantage to our students as they approach college and/or the job market. The size of our investment in ESL is now $10's of millions per year as just one example. I doubt that the many courses to teach Spanish for Spanish speakers is going to create an advantage in getting into a good college or a better job given it is the student’s primary language especially if the offering of this cuts into that students ability to master English which is their second language. English is still most likely to be the primary language on their job beyond local food service facilities.

7. Teaching the same elective courses to all students is another interesting concept in terms of balancing expense and educational value. I tend to favor teaching courses that students are genuinely interested in as electives so they devote their interest and hard work into making the course important to them for the long term. I think Mandarin qualifies in this area.

8. Re-elected board members will remember I asked for Russian, Arabic and Mandarin. WE settled on Mandarin on a pilot basis but I still believe LCPS should consider piloting Arabic next. I hope we don't view the transfer of wealth to the middle east or other reasons Arabic is important to understand and the history surrounding such populations are a fad or an esoteric exercise. I think students who choose challenging electives will truly benefit from a climate for success as they reach well beyond the local Burger King for long term participation in the world we live in. Our AP testing expenses are testament to incenting students to stretch beyond basic rudimentary state minimums. Isn't AP accomplishment especially students who take many AP courses garnered by a minority of students? Doesn't this give them a competitive advantage from a college recruiter perspective?

I look forward to all of us getting in a room to thoroughly review our goals and mission for LCPS to make sure we agree on the degree we deliberately extend our tax dollars beyond basic reading, writing and arithmetic putting the best interests of all students above anything else as long as it makes sense for the world they will be living in. I hope we can meet sooner rather than later so LCPS will use our input for this next years budget instead of skipping a year before we can have any change in impact.

Regards, Bob

Legislative Visit Update

Yesterday most of the Loudoun School Board ventured to Richmond to learn about state legislation affecting education and to meet with Loudoun's legislative delegation. There isn't much to write about in terms of the afternoon... hours of presentations kicked off with a nice speech by Governor Kaine. There was a light reception afterwards, but the real meat of the day began at dinner.

Our delegation was very pleased to be joined for dinner by Senator Mark Herring and his legislative aide Norm, Delegate Joe May, Delegate Chuck Caputo and Tricia Stiles, aide to Senator Jill Vogel. There were two tables so I didn't get to talk to everyone, but I did have the great pleasure of sitting next to Senator Herring but also with Bill Mims, who for years lived in Countryside and was the Delegate and then Senator from our area. Bill is now the Chief Deputy Attorney General of Virginia, and it was a real pleasure to have the opportunity to spend that time with him. (He was also very kind to say that he reads this blog occasionally.)

This morning we have meetings with Senator Vogel and Delegate Poisson. I'll provide links for all of these people later in the day, but for now I need to run and hope there's time for a little bite to eat before the first meeting... these legislators start the day early!

Joint Committee Meeting #1

The first meeting of the joint committee of the School Board and Board of Supervisors was this evening, and was an interesting affair. Each board appointed three members to represent it at the beginning of this month, fulfilling a campaign pledge made by all of the Democratic candidates in the 2007 election.

I took a lot of notes on what was said by everyone, and I’m a little reluctant to transcribe them for some reason, but I shouldn’t be. It was a public meeting, audio recorded and with citizens and a reporter present. I’m not offering any comment here, just the notes I took. Discuss.

By the way, you won't see many comments from me below, because I didn't take notes while I was speaking.

• Tom Reed raised the issue of himself and Sally Kurtz being co-chairs instead of Sally as Chair and Tom as Vice Chair.
• I commented that I thought the best hope for this committee was an improved familiarity between members of the boards that would foster communication and trust. I mentioned that some School Board members are also reaching out to their counterparts on the Planning Commission.
• Priscilla Godfrey focused on land and towns, and the interdependence that we have with the county for programs and use of facilities.
• Susan Buckley spoke of the two boards being habitually in roles where the Supervisors are playing offense with the schools playing defense. She recounted watching previous work sessions that "started with conclusions" that weren't changed by discussion, and were a waste of everyone's time. She talked of feeling like we're "in the same book but on different pages."
• Kelly Burke expressed hopes for a less rancorous budget process
• A skeptical Jim Burton asked "Are things goint to be different?" and said "I'll give it a try." He talked about our fundamental differences in responsibilities, and opined that the relationship between the two boards has improved steadily over the past eight years. "I don't buy that we've been at loggerheads recently." He talked favorably about the western Loudoun Schools joing planning exercise presentation, and said that BOS concerns about school building costs had fallen on deaf years in the past.
• Tom Reed talked about a Ven Diagram of overlapping areas of concern and said that the intersection of our responsibilities basically boils down to money. He said we need to concentrate on the kids.
• Sally Kurtz said "we need to be at the table." She agreed with Tom Reed's money assessment, saying it often felt like that was the only reason that the School Board ever talks to the Supervisors. She asked how our similar departments can work together in areas such as finance and planning. She said a priority for her was "fiscal clarity... I can't read your budget." Sally remarked on the perception of the Board of Supervisors as "scrooges" and talked about this joint committee being "a new animal." She mentioned the membership of a business person and mentioned having a business perspective at the table. She isn't worried about perceptions of being equal, and wants to focus on concrete decisions that can be brought back to our respective boards.
• Jim Burton (I'm paraphrasing) "I should not have been a skeptic about this, after looking at the task force over the course of the year. There is genuine communication occuring that had never happened before. The mayors have asked to continue to meet."

Discussion of Fiscal Clarity

• Kirby Bowers spoke of the long term liability for retirement obligations, about getting more funds and a change in the retiree health plan.
• Dr. Hatrick suggested that a good starting point would be to educate ourselves about all of the joint endeavors between the two organizations. He listed several: trash collection, recycling, use of facilities, accounting system, health care plan, turning old schools into community centers.
• Susan Buckley asked for recommendations of opportunities for collaboration.

Discussion of 21st Century Global Education

• Sally said this was of great interest to the EDC
• Tom Reed suggested moving the topic to the front "Start with the end in mind"
• Dr. Hatrick spoke of educating kids for their future, not our past. "We have the first class of truly world citizens." He talked about our welding students having their highest paid opportunities in China and Dubai, and needing to prepare them for jobs and lives in other parts of the world. He recounted the comment earlier in the day of a Maryland public school official, who noted that today's kids are entirely plugged in to technology... coming into school with iPods in their ears and cell phones texting messages back and forth... and as soon as they hit the school door we make them turn it all and put it all away, it's like sending them back in time.

Discussion of Staff Liaison Role (mostly addressed by Asst. County Administrator Paul Brown)

• Provide data, analysis, research
• Bring daily/practical issues to the committee
• Capital facilities are the County's biggest concern. We need to have a serious heart to heart about land acquisitions. We share a common ground in our difficulty in acquiring land for fire stations, community centers.
• There are serious concerns about debt andthe ability to deliver critical public facilities at the right time. "It's the elephant in the room."

A public hearing format was established. Speakers will be heard at the beginning of each meeting for a maximum of three minutes, with a 15-minute time limit.

Future meetings will be held on second Thursdays of the month from 4pm-6pm.

Swearing In

The Loudoun County School Board for 2008-2011 was sworn in last Tuesday in front of an empty (though very open to the public) room:

Pictured, from left to right, Clerk of the Court Gary Clemens, Priscilla Godfrey, Tom Reed, Bob Ohneiser, Jennifer Keller Bergel, Tom Marshall, Warren Geurin, John Stevens, Joe Guzman, Chairman Robert DuPree. Marshall and Keller-Bergel are the newly elected members, the rest of us are repeats.

This Saturday the Board of Supervisors will be sworn in before a standing-room-only crowd.

Capital Improvement Plan

On Wednesday and Thursday nights this week, the School Board held public work sessions on the Capital Improvement Plan. The CIP calls for $1.3 Billion in land acquisition and construction costs over the next six years. See the story in Leesburg Today and associated comments from readers. You can download a one-page summary view (a somewhat skewed PDF) of the plan from the LCPS website.
Did you notice that there was just one school bond on this year's ballot? That will be the last time that happens for quite a while. We need more schools, folks. We're packed to the gills. Most schools in growing areas are over capacity and the problem just gets worse in the coming years.
Only one speaker came to the public hearing held on the CIP on Tuesday, eighth-grader Katie Stevenson, who pressed us to build a Humanities Academy.
The major point of discussion by the Board this year revolves around building a new Monroe Advanced Technology Academy to replace the aged C.S. Monroe Technology Center. This project has had a very herky-jerky history with the outgoing Board of Supervisors that I don't have time to write about at the moment, but a year ago it was on the School Board's list of projects for this year, and the Board of Supervisors put it off. Trying to stay within the Supervisor's debt cap, the Superintendent has now proposed to delay the construction an additional three years to allow us to catch up on base Elementary, Middle and High Schools. This is distressing to the School Board, which is committed to updating the career & technical education facilities as soon as possible. The question of the day among School Board members is whether to press the new Board of Supervisors to move $100M to the front of the plan (FY2010) and get the new academy built sooner.
Unlike the operating budget, which is funded by the Supervisors but within that limit is set by the School Board, the Capital Improvements Plan is ultimately under the full control of the Supervisors. The School Board only makes a recommendation. That vote is expected at our January 8, 2008 meeting.

Elementary Boundary Changes

It's that time of year again, time to decide whose kids will go to a new school next fall. You can read about it in the Loudoun Connection, Leesburg Today, and Loudoun Independent.

This is the first time through the process for me as a Board member, so even many of the parents are more veteran than I am and if you want to hear from an experienced Board member about it, see Tom Reed's blog post entitled Seven Stages of School Boundary Changes.

Many parents of Ashburn children are unaware or unconcerned. But some are very concerned, I listened to them speak at one of the information sessions and I read their emails last night and this morning. I'm sure I'll be reading many more emails in the coming weeks.

So with that in mind, I'm posting a few notes here that I would want my Ashburn friends to know. I want to stress that this is based mostly on what I have heard and read so far, and not on my own past experience. If your experience contradicts this, let me know.

I'm going to make the most important point right up front:

I heard it stressed at the public presentation and think it should be more widely reported that everyone who received a letter from school about boundary changes and is concerned with where their child will go to school next year should pay attention to and if possible be a part of this process. The initial publicized plans are just a starting point. Just because your neighborhood isn't indicated to move on the initial maps doesn't mean it won't be when the final vote is taken.

By the same principal, don't panic just because the map shows your kids going to a new school. Get involved, but don't panic. Here's why.

The draft plans that the LCPS planning staff put forward are not "the plans." They are not the staff's recommendations to the board. They are discussion starters. They are purposefully not an attempt to make the best plan, for two reasons. First, the planning staff doesn't know the area as well as the people who live in and represent it. Second, when in the past the planning staff has tried to make the best possible plan prior to public input, they have been accused of rigging the process. Of course in this scenario they get hammered for putting together a plan that obviously needs work, so either way they'll be vilified by somebody. This is another example of how people who can't be civil spoil it for everyone else for years to come.

Something that may surprise you is that the school board goals and policies for boundaries are self-contradictory. The policy states that we will take into consideration:

• student enrollment projections,
• school capacities, new facilities and/or renovations to existing school
  facilities,
• school location and site characteristics
• transportation issues (walk zones, transportation times, costs, safety,
  existing and planned road networks)
• natural and man-made geographic features
• existing and planned communities
• whenever possible, minimize the effect of previous boundary changes
• demographic characteristics of the students and communities
• whenever possible, equitable distribution of programs and resources, and
  
• long-term costs.
  

In the very text of the policies, it says "the School Board recognizes that it may not be reasonably practicable to reconcile each and every factor in any boundary change." I say this to make the point that a boundary line that makes sense under one goal may directly contradict another, leaving parents very frustrated.

I'll give you two examples of how principles sometimes cannot be reconciled. First, there is at least one school in the area under discussion this fall in which there are more kids living within walking distance to the school than there is capacity at the school. This means that there are some kids who could walk to a school who will instead be bussed to a more distant school.

The second example is the attempt to balance demographic characteristics with the benefit of having neighborhood schools. I think it's pretty well accepted that it's important that we avoid breaking our district up into 'rich schools' and 'poor schools.' This priority (demographic characteristics) may clash with the second (existing and planned communities) when there are rich and poor communities. I would be hard pressed to show you a poor community in Ashburn, but people are aware of various degrees of wealth and prefer to cluster with others of similar means.

As I'm reading the parent emails, I can't help but chuckle at all the names for the little enclaves. They have such formal titles. It all looks like "The Meadow Glen Farms at Broadlands Foxtrot Estate Villages" to me. I suppose it's the same for folks who got here before I did and think it strange when I refer to the different parts of Sterling north of 7 as Countryside, Cascades and Lowes Island. I don't say that to poke fun, I say it to make a point. I don't know these areas, the people who represent them (primarily Mr. DuPree and Mr. Ohneiser) do know them, and I will need to rely on their recommendations in deciding how to vote.

Superintendent Oversight

Members of the School Board frequently hear from members of the public that we seem to be rubber stamps for the Superintendent. I disagree, and last week I heard something on the topic worth writing down. I was in Richmond for an orientation for new School Board members and new Superintendents conducted by the Virginia School Boards Association. At that presentation this topic came up, because apparently such charges are typically leveled at School Boards across the Commonwealth. The response of the experienced folks there was interesting to me. They basically made the point that if the Superintendent is acting according to the wishes of the Board, there shouldn't be much for the School Board to overrule and be critical of. Work together as a team, they said. That is best for the schools. And if you find that the Superintendent isn't following the Board's priorities and meeting the Board's goals, get a new one.

Living in LoCo

Tammi Marcoullier writes a Loudoun County blog called Living in LoCo for WashingtonPost.com, and I read it daily. Today she referenced a new blog by an LCPS parent called Loudoun Schools Feedback, and promoted it with the phrase:

“just the thing the school board doesn't want people reading”

I like Tammi’s blog, it is a good source of information. But it's old schtick to sell something with the exciting claim that it exposes the dark underbelly that some authority figure is trying to hide from you. The truth is that the School Board is just nine hard-working people, all of them parents of kids who are in or have been through the LC Public Schools, all of whom ran for the School Board hoping to make a positive difference, and none of them whom have been there for so long that they have a personal stake in masking problems.