.

Bullis Appeal May Have Far-Reaching Impact in State

Court ruling comes just as charter schools must meet a deadline to submit their annual facilities space request on Tuesday.

Late Thursday afternoon, the news rippled rapidly across Los Altos, parts of Mountain View, Los Altos Hills—and even beyond, to the legions of specialists who advise charter schools and school districts: that upheld the school district in a dispute with over facilities space.

Stunningly, the state appeals court had found against the (LASD) in how it measured school facilities to determine what was “reasonably equivalent” to provide Bullis, in fulfillment of Proposition 39 regulations. Four other lower court cases had upheld the district.

“We're certainly looking at all our options,” said a disappointed Bill Cooper, president of the LASD board. “But it would be premature to put a definitive stake in the ground.”

And it wasn’t just Bullis Charter School nor Los Altos School district officials who would be thinking about this turn of events over the weekend, contemplating what was next.

The published decision was clearly intended to have impact far beyond Los Altos.

“I have to read this decision over the weekend …it's something I have to be aware of, said Ed Sklar, an attorney with Lozano Smith in Walnut Creek, who represents school districts complying with Prop. 39.

In fact, Tuesday is the deadline for charter schools across the state to submit their requests for facilities for the 2012-2013 school year to their host districts, so the court’s ruling will likely become part of the discussion of Prop. 39 requests very soon, Sklar said.

“We will be looking to this decision to see if there's any further instruction to give to clients,” he added.

Representatives of the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA), which had submitted a 35-page friend-of-the-court brief in support of the Bullis appeal were also expecting to use the decision in its work.

“It will be very helpful in our statewide efforts,” said Julie Ashby Umansky, vice president for legal advocacy at the CCSA.We're really pleased by it.

Prop. 39 was passed by voters in 2000. It provides that charter schools are offered  facilities with “conditions reasonably equivalent” to what students would receive if they were attending other public schools in the district, and that facilities must be shared with all students of the district.

Prop. 39 compliance is also the main topic that lands charter schools in court against school districts. At any given time, there might be about five or six cases involving Prop. 39 up and down the state, Umansky said.

The court, in publishing its ruling, and addressing at length the way the Los Altos School District measured facilities space and where it was found lacking, was attempting to bring guidance to the contentious topic, and in particular what “reasonable equivalence” means.

Despite the number of Prop. 39 cases that get filed, none have given guidance to “reasonable equivalence,” Umansky said. It has been a big issue with charter schools, who are seeking facilities space from the very districts with which they are competing, she said. The CCSA's experience, she said, is that districts often show a pattern of responses that serve to undercount facilties space, spread out charter facilties all over a district, and essentially result in unfair allocation of space for students.

“I was very impressed with the clarity with which the justices covered all of the issues," said Bullis Charter School president Ken Moore, calling the ruling “tremendous.” Moore added that it was the first time, through four lawsuits, that a court had taken the time to look at the actual calculations of space available in a district, rather than take the district's assessment of space on face value.

There is some disagreement about the broader impact of the ruling beyond Los Altos.

 “I read it expecting lots of clarity,” said Stephanie Farland, who was the senior policy consultant for the California School Boards Association for a dozen years, primarily involving charter schools. Farland now is a consultant assisting "charter school authorizers," such as school districts and county boards of education, in submitting charter school petitions, applying for renewals, and annual reviews.

“It just seemed like it provided more confusion." Because there is a 2005  appeals court decision in Kern County (Ridgecrest Charter School v. Sierra Sands Unified School District) that accepted that school district's assessment of facilities space without challenge, she's a bit unsure which would have precedence.

One thing is sure: As the weeks go on, the decision will be finely examined by any charter school in the state that is unhappy with its space allotment and any school district that must respond with an offer.

The districts must make their preliminary offer to charter schools by Feb. 1, so the coming weeks will bring much discussion.

While only the Los Altos School District Board trustees know what the next step is, Moore is hoping that the 2012-2013 request for facilities space is met with an adequate offer.

“I expect LASD to rectify its non-compliance and look forward to where we're given reasonably equivalent school site in time for the next school year,” he said.

Editor's note: Both the Sixth District Cout of Appeal ruling and the friend-of-the-court brief filed by the California Charter Schools Association are provided as a pdf attachment, above and to the right.

Harold Barton November 08, 2011 at 11:10 PM
That would be fine, Jason, if that's all there was to it. BCS now needs at least TWO campuses to accommodate it's growth--that leaves only five elementary campuses left in Los Altos--and they plan a heck of a lot more growth. How do they do it? Simple: test scores. Most parents just want to send their child to the school with the highest test scores. It's no more complicated than that. Since BCS is allowed to pick and choose only students who will make their test scores the highest, they will always have an unfair advantage and will have absolutely no problem maintaining a much higher average than any public school who must, by law, accommodate all students. This little scam has only one logical ending: BCS will take over every campus in Los Altos and there will be NO public schools here. The less advantaged kids will be shipped off to Cupertino, Mountain View, or god-knows-where. It doesn't matter how "good" the existing public schools are: they don't stand a chance against the millionaire owners of BCS.
Andrew November 08, 2011 at 11:59 PM
Harold I heard that less advantage kids might get shipped off to West Virginia or Mississippi. And when I say less advantaged, it means anyone who makes less than $5 million/year.
Andrew November 09, 2011 at 12:07 AM
Now that we're back to reality and out of "make up stuff to scare people-land" 1) every school has an open school night to inform parents about their school 2) odds are if BCS didn't have an open school/information night some people, & I can't guess who (can you?), might accuse BCS of being elitist and 'keeping info just to themselves' 3) Why do you think BCS has been expanding so much and the demand for the school is so high? Is it because parents like choice and a different approach? LASD schools are GREAT schools-no one is saying they're not. But some people like a different approach to education and that doesn't mean they should be forced to go to private schools. As a great sociologist once said "public education brightens the dull and dulls the bright"-perhaps the reason for this is not everyone learns the same way? 4) did you know there is a double blind lottery to get into BCS? In fact, teachers at BCS have to put their kid into the same lottery as everyone else. But you might prefer to make up things like "they have preference for families with net worths over $25million, then for $10 million-then all the "poor" people who only have $1million" That would be a funn thing to make up too, wouldn't it?
Harold Barton November 09, 2011 at 07:01 AM
My God, can't you even keep from contradicting yourself in the same paragraph? You start by saying, "LASD schools are GREAT schools-no one is saying they're not." and then you go on to say, "public education brightens the dull and dulls the bright". I mean, if you're going to lie, as is typical of BCS supporters, you should at least try to hide your feelings a little better than THAT. The agenda at BCS is crystal-clear: they HATE public schools, they HATE LASD and they HATE any sort of democracy or accountability. They are exploiting Los Altos' reputation to build up their own private education empire. By the way, did YOU know that BCS enrollment is open to "Any child residing in the state of California"? Gee, I can't wait until THOUSANDS of kids are bussed in from all over the state to come to our formerly public schools here. The high test scores and wonderful campuses OUR tax dollars bought will be irresistible to every parent within a 100 mile radius. Scare mongering? The new ruling makes it crystal clear: "LASD, hand over your campuses". All BCS needs to do is increase enrollment, which is trivial given our district's reputation.
Andrew November 09, 2011 at 03:15 PM
Harold-you should take a step back, take a deep breath and actually THINK about the issues, and respond with intellect and facts. I'm sure you're right-BCS people hate LASD, public schools, democracy, apple pie and baseball. I hear they're all communists! or maybe even Al-Qaeda terror cells! Yes-scaremongering. Calm down and think.
Andrew November 09, 2011 at 03:16 PM
their so-called agenda is to 'provide children with a great education'--i know, so distasteful!
Harold Barton November 09, 2011 at 05:53 PM
Then why don't they leave one of the top school districts in the country alone? Why do they want to destroy it? Why are my children going to be kicked out of the school they've grown to love, torn away from all of their friends, disconnected from all of the teachers they know and forced to attend a school far away that has lower test scores, worse facilities, and less parental support? That's the "choice" that BCS supporters are talking about: BCS or go grovel for a spot in a Cupertino or Mountain View and a 30 minute drive to school. So that agenda is a LIE. You can say it twice or ten times or a hundred times. It will still be a LIE. BCS exists to take over all of the schools in LASD so they can drag half of the Bay Area to our world-leading public schools in exchange for the regime gaining enormous power over people's lives and extracting the ultimate revenge over the LASD board. There is absolutely NOTHING legally to stop the BCS regime from doing this. That is the FACT in this matter. They will immediately take two LASD campuses because of their growth. Is it crazy to think they will need a lot more based on their STATED dislike for LASD and public schools in general? Based on their ends-justify-the-means righteousness? That's right folks, prepare to share our wonderful campuses that our tax dollars, donations and participation over the years has paid for with EVERY CHILD WITHIN A 50 MILE RADIUS. Revenge will be theirs.
Bea November 09, 2011 at 06:46 PM
Apparently the "disruption" effect of BSC is driven by a shared value among its supporters that the free market impact of choice and competition as applied to a public good is the utmost priority. That is, among all of the legal reasons for creating a charter school, the BSC proponents value "choice" most highly. Interesting. That is not a priority shared elsewhere in the state. In a very recent survey by the California PTA, "choice" ranked last, behind issues that are directly tied to the educational experience of the student and strengthening neighborhood schools. One has to wonder if BSC supporters had placed program first (over competition), if they might have found a way to devote their considerable resources and energy to bringing innovation to the existing neighborhood schools to the benefit of the entire community. It's a first world problem you've got there, Los Altos. Hey -- here's an idea! Instead of taking those kids to Borneo or the Gallapagos for their enrichment, how about instead you bus the kids to a Central Valley school and use your resources to stock and staff a school library? It'd be a three-fer: life changing experience for you, your kids and the kids your wealth would impact.
Bea November 09, 2011 at 06:46 PM
Forgot the link to the survey: http://t.co/HpUe92Mj
Ron Haley November 09, 2011 at 07:09 PM
We got to see the "real" Harold Barton at the LASD board meeting on Monday evening. He was just as crazy in person :)
Harold Barton November 09, 2011 at 07:57 PM
Wow, name calling. Cool. But this is what to expect out of BCS supporters: Arrogance. The ends justifies the means. "Ha ha, we get to own all of your schools now and there's nothing you can do to stop us!". Ron is at least a "little" more honest than a lot of other BCS supporters who pretend to offer an olive branch to LASD when in fact they want every campus in the district to be their own. I suspect that Ron here is being asked to STFU by other BCS supporters as he's exposing their true intentions on a daily basis. And for that I thank him. If it wasn't for Ron, I would have had no idea how SERIOUS the situation is with our schools here. I am not now nor have I ever been an "activist" except for donations to LAEF. That will change, and I suspect that there are a lot of other parents like myself who are hearing a very clear call to arms here. I'm spreading the word the best I can: Act NOW, or your local school will be closed and re appropriated by a private organization who is free to bus kids in from anywhere and destroy our property values, our children's lives and our schools.
Harold Barton November 10, 2011 at 01:03 AM
Thanks, Bill. That's a great article. Is there anyplace online where the BCS MOU can be downloaded? I would love to look at that, and I'm sure a lot of others would too.
Christy Lin November 10, 2011 at 01:40 AM
Suggest you read more about charter law. "Any child residing in the state of California." is a REQUIREMENT of all charter schools. Note that LASD does NOT provide facilities for children that attend BCS that are from out-of-district. They are assumed NOT to exist when LASD does their calculations for space.
Harold Barton November 10, 2011 at 04:59 PM
So in short, BCS is on a knife edge: they are flaunting the Charter laws by not emphasizing "academically low-achieving students", but if they did so, their test scores would plummet as would their attendance. You see, BCS spokespeople can deny it all they want, but I was at the packed "marketing presentation" and talked to a lot of parents who were interested in BCS: virtually ALL parents are attracted by BCS' higher test scores. If they fell below LASD schools, they would have nearly ZERO attendance. Yes, like the Waldorf school and others like it, there would always be a small, obscure following, but the reason BCS has its current following is: TEST SCORES. Now normally, when a Charter is started out of a need to education kids (and not revenge) this is not an issue: it's started within a district with very low test scores and filled with "academically low-achieving students". In the case of Los Altos, we're already in one of the best districts in the USA--so BCS needs to recruit the cream-of-the-cream to keep their test scores--and thus their attendance--up. But they are not allowed to do that, theoretically. Oddly, this gives me a new-found appreciation for the Charter concept. The founders of the CA Charter law apparently envisioned a mess like BCS and worded the law to prevent it. Now how do we get BCS to stop breaking the law?
Noel Brick November 12, 2011 at 03:12 AM
Harold/Bill/Al/DC is a lost cause --- We get that you are a strong teacher's union supporter. To everyone else - I hope we can all find a way to insure the best education for all of our children. Charter School's exist in both rich and poor school districts to create competition by offering a choice. Serving under achieving students is just one of the many reasons for creating a charter. Here is the great thing about charters that is not true of public of schools, they succeed if parents choose to send their children to them. If no one is interested then the school closes. BCS is a popular choice - thirty percent of LASD parents of incoming kindergartners apply to BCS. I don't think they are interested in just test scores. All LASD schools do a great job with that. In fact it's the main focus of most district programs. Maybe parents are interested in BCS because it offers so much more. If you are on the fence about the charter school consider this, BCS is offering a terrific program. It does much more than LASD but spends the same/student. Spending goes to educating students -- instead of lavish benefits for tenured and retired employees. That's the reason that BCS has specialists teachers and fully credentialed associate teachers, while LASD continues to cut specialists and teachers aides.
Harold Barton November 12, 2011 at 07:02 AM
I speak for myself and I could care less about the "teacher's union". Nice attempt at a straw-man attack though. So there you have it: if you actually LIKE the school your child currently attends and you do NOT wish to send your child to BCS for any reason, then you are a slimy union supporter. If you don't wish for your children to be kicked out of the school they've attended for years, the school your work and your money have helped make great, then you are a shill for the LASD. If you actually believe in democracy, and are against unchecked private control over people's lives, then you must be for the very worst aspects of such a system (and in a way, this one is true: democracy has a price--but it's far better than the alternatives). By the way, MY family was one of the ones you have counted in your "applied for" statistics. Like most we know who "applied", we wanted to keep our options open WHILE WE DECIDED. The BCS philosophy was NOT for us, as it is for MANY others we've talked (many we've talked to have even switched BACK to LASD). And as for the parents who are interested in "other things" OH COME ON. Just like boys get Playboy magazine "because of the articles". Take away the cachet of the "rich kids" school and the test scores, and BCS is TOAST. Both of those things would (hopefully will) happen if BCS followed the law.
Andrew November 13, 2011 at 12:38 AM
Harold: And for those who support BCS, according to you, they are: liars, anti-democracy, millionaire conspirators and a whole host of other names. How can there ever be world peace when there is such vitriol, suspicion and closed mindedness (remember your comment 'you can say it 100 times I won't believe it") regarding a local school. From your description you'd think the kids there are being taught devil worship. You were the 1st to get upset at name calling when someone described you as crazy, but you were the 1st to cast that stone. It's truly sad, or should I say, it would be truly sad for your children to see your hatred, suspicion and name calling over a school. Prop 39 is the law, the appeal and decision in favor of Bullis was determined by the 1st NON-elected judge to adjudicate over this process. Beyond the law: fair and reasonably equivalent facilities, civil dialogue and respect for the law are not only the decent thing, but the right thing for ALL of Los Altos children. To educate children in portables/trailers, particularly in such a wealthy school district, is flat out embarrassing and shameful. Our (all Los Altos school children) deserve better. Let's focus on how to work together.
Bryan Johnson November 13, 2011 at 01:34 AM
Did you know that portables are a significant fraction of the classrooms on every LASD elementary school campus? If we're focusing on how to work together, let's see if we can figure out how to raise enough money to eliminate them all, rather than just for BCS.
Harold Barton November 13, 2011 at 03:39 AM
For the record, I don't believe BCS supporters are devil worshipers. So let's work together. Given that you intend to close at least one, if not two campuses in the near future, has anybody over there thought of what to do with the "refugees"? You know, all of the kids' lives you will turn upside down when you kick them out of the school that they love? Remember them? I mean, clearly they deserve what they get, given what LASD did to the millionaire founders of BCS, but do you have any mercy at all? I'm pondering this myself. I'll spend my every last dime in donations and will offer my time to try to stop my child's school from closing, but I'm realistic: money trumps democracy sometimes, and the BCS has a lot of it (for everything except building a campus of their own that is). So where will my child go? BCS is, of course, out of the question: they "lock in" their kids from kindergarten with the the mandatory Mandarin class and other idiosyncrasies. Any child past 2nd grade wouldn't stand a chance at fitting in. I suspect this is by design. Private? Probably. There will be a line a mile long after BCS does their work, but we're fortunate to at least have that option. I don't know about my children's classmates though. I guess they'll get bussed across town to a double-packed school somewhere. It will be very, very sad and terrible unless we can, you know, "work together" and you can decide NOT to come close our schools. I await your suggestions.
Christy Lin November 13, 2011 at 07:49 AM
Portables is not the issue... it's the NUMBER of portables and the amount of space for blacktop and turf. I've always said that what goes on in the classroom is way more important than what the classroom looks like. But without a reasonable number of portables and outside space, programs are impacted. LASD doesn't need to close a school if they don't want to. They could just swap Gardner and BCS. Gardner has about 280 LASD students. BCS, i believe has about 450. Just move some of the portables from BCS up to Gardner, and we're all done. The issue is that a 10+ acre site for 280 kids vs. less than 6 acres for 450 kids is NOT sharing facilities equally. If Gardner doesn't want to close, they don't have to... I respect that they've built a community and want to keep it. This solution seems to solve the concern about overcrowded schools, loss of community, etc. I realize these families will have to drive a bit further but otherwise what's the issue? I'd really like to hear from the Gardner families as to why this wouldn't be a viable solution.
Harold Barton November 13, 2011 at 10:42 AM
Swapping won't work because the district lines will be completely hosed that way. Kids who lived much closer to other schools would need to go to the Egan campus for no apparent reason. There's no way any rational district would draw the lines this way because it would be utterly crazy in the long-run. It would also destroy the community aspect of whatever school you swapped with since it would move the school across town. Houses sold with the feature, "within walking distance to public school" would lose millions in property value in aggregate as that area of town would become a cursed one, stuck with a school that is across town. So no, swapping is a non-starter. You're actually better off destroying the school (like you are "better off" having your arms and legs chopped off versus your head). Next suggestion?
Christy Lin November 13, 2011 at 06:23 PM
Excuse me? Why is that all the kids in the Crossings and 49 Showers go to Covington then? I know it's not a rationale way to draw lines (but LASD has never been rationale when it comes to attendance boundaries). I'm frankly not concerned about property values... I've heard 40% of the Hills children go to private schools anyway. If the Gardner families REALLY value their community, then swapping campuses should be a viable option they should push for. (Do they really value their home values more than their kids? I don't believe that for a minute.) The problem you have is the math. There is no way any court is going to look at 280 students on 10 acres and 450 on less than 6 and say that's fair.
Harold Barton November 13, 2011 at 07:06 PM
"I'm frankly not concerned about property values." -- BCS Supporter I want to buy an ad for the front page of the Town Crier with just the quote above. That's all most people need to know about BCS's interest in our community. Our property values are driven by our schools, and parents pay the enormous premium to live here because they care about their children. Destroy the schools, you destroy kid's lives, and yes, you also destroy property values. Property values are important to everybody (except the millionaire BCS supporters who probably all own a dozen houses each) including non-parents. So BCS will effect the lives of ALL Los Altos residents, not just parents and children. As for court, well, it looks like we're all going to be spending a LOT of time and money there in the next few years... *** By the way, is anybody taken by the IRONY that BCS was started based on somebody closing a school, and now here they are, fighting another group of parents to close their school? If any of the BCS supporters can remember the anger and the call to action that drove themselves years ago, well, that's what you'll be up against this time... Prepare to fight your doppelganger...
Christy Lin November 13, 2011 at 07:45 PM
you'll have to change your tag on the quote... i don't have a kid at bcs... change your tag to "school reform supporter"... i at least have a bit of objectivity which you are clearly lacking. suggest you take a deep breath and get a life. be thankful that ALL the schools here are good whether you choose LASD or BCS. Be thankful for the fact that our teachers have the curriculum they want to use, books for every child, more computers per child than 90% of the districts in this country, and an education to be envied (regardless of whether they are at an LASD school or BCS). I'm working to make sure that ALL kids get this...and like it or not, sometimes reform has to start where parents can afford to stand up for their rights. Wish you could have seen how charter schools all up and down California were celebrating when this ruling came out. Have at it Mr. Barton--unfortunately, the courts have already ruled.
Courtenay C. Corrigan November 13, 2011 at 07:51 PM
Harold, aside from a therapist, you need a reality check. Several key facts: 1. Wherever you put the number one charter school in the state and top performing school in the district--it will improve property values. Los Altos and LAH should be fighting over who gets us! And LAH should fight extra hard considering that GB was the lowest performing in the district. 2. The numbers that make GB the weakest gazelle in the herd are even more convincing when you take out the 30-40 kids that are PAUSD transfers who we all (LASD) underwrite to the tune of $5,000.00 each per year and all the kids who commute to the boutique campus for the all-day kinder program or to otherwise enjoy the small class/school size. Send them all back to their rightful,neighborhood school and the number of displaced kids at GB shrinks even lower. 3. If-and I use "if" b/c I am not convinced GB is the best or only option- if BCS were given the GB site, I am sure you and any other parents currently enrolled there would be given the choice to stay and try out the incredible program that is so bountiful comparatively--or you could choose to pick another LASD school. Or, it sounds in some of your other posts, you would choose Mountain View or Cupertino? Seems far to go from the University area but you have the choice....
Harold Barton November 13, 2011 at 11:55 PM
Here we go again: I don't want my children ripped from the school we spent years making great, so I must need therapy... 1. GB was the "lowest performing school". That's quite a soundbite--it reminds me of, "stop the $793 tax!" from a few months ago: another disingenuous BCS "spin" on the facts. So I guess GB is our very own inner-city ghetto school, full of drop-outs and drug dealers. Uh huh. The FACT is that GB's "lowest score" is practically a rounding error, and it alone still ranks as one of the very best schools in the state. Why the spin? Prop 39 was meant to assist blighted areas that have REAL problems with their schools--so it's necessary that BCS supporters paint our own schools this way. 2. GB is a PUBLIC school and there are boundaries for it drawn up by the district in keeping with a tight-knit community. If attendance is too low, LASD should make minor adjustments to the boundaries to balance things out (for incoming kinders onward, so as not to disrupt). Now the PAUSD transfer thing might be an issue--unrelated to this one--but it's just ABSURD coming from a supporter of a school that is open to "ANY CHILD IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA". Local residents can look forward to THOUSANDS of kids (and their parent's cars) coming to whatever neighborhood BCS plunders next. 3. You haven't been reading MY posts--I discussed this. BCS has a "lock-in" strategy just like Waldorf. You can't realistically join after 2nd grade. This is on purpose.
Christy Lin November 14, 2011 at 01:39 AM
Mr. Barton, BCS takes in 10 or 15 4th graders every year (i'm not sure of the exact number but I know it's pretty big) when class size increases. My neighbors joined at this point two years back... their 1st grader went at the same time. I'll say again.. you've built a great school... just swap the campuses... you'll only have to drive a little bit further. If the school is so great, and the community so strong, why is driving such an issue... the vast majority of GB kids cannot walk to school anyways.
Andrew November 14, 2011 at 03:39 AM
Harold, I love how you disregard any questions or logic. It's a shame that people have wasted their time and effort informing someone who doesn't care to listen, but continues to focus on hyperbole, misinformation and name calling. I'm logging off of this conversation because it makes no sense discussing logic with someone who is clearly . You can fill in the blank. PS I assume you are the ghostwriter behind the 'Alfred binetti' letter, the made up person who had similar 'opinions' as you, but didn't have the guts to make his false allegations in person-hence my login name.
Harold Barton November 14, 2011 at 07:38 AM
All I know is that my children's school is under attack. It will be closed unless we do something to stop it. It will be closed by people who are really angry that that their school was closed a long long time ago. Yes, it's totally insane, but that's what we have to deal with in our town. I wonder, if you did a spot poll, how many parents would say, "oh I don't mind that" when you told them that their local public school will soon be CLOSED. The BCS people would tell you "none at all" or just one crazy person like me since "normal" people couldn't care less about such a thing. That's why there's only one of us. Harold Barton is the same person as Alfred Binnetti who is the same person as hundreds of other parents. Actually I have pseudonyms for several thousand parents and Los Altos residents who all purport to be against a private take-over of our school system. They are all me. In reality, all of the LASD parents are absolutely going to LOVE that their school will be closed and that they now need to drive across town to a more crowded campus. They won't mind that the school they worked so hard to perfect will now be demolished by a bunch of well-connected rich people and their lawyers. Keep thinking that. Don't worry. See you in court. See you in the papers. Look forward to the WHOLE WORLD getting to see what you are doing to one of the best school districts in the country.
vict elli May 04, 2012 at 11:55 AM
HELLO My name is Miss Victoria i saw your profile now i will like to share important discussion with you as friend so contact me through my email addresses (elliotsvictoria60@yahoo.co.uk) for picture and other discussion ok

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something