Congratulations Kimberly. I don’t know you but you sound great.

This wasn’t a democratic process and that the board has been choosing its own makeup for years. It has been “managed” by the superintendent and a few domineering directors which as lead to the disconnected groupthink. It’s been biased toward certain initiatives and sometimes dismissive of dissenting viewpoints. The discord over this bond is exhibit A. It’s funny that the superintendent thinks a Stanford MBA team will fix his mess with a PowerPoint.

Please don’t rush to spend the money. Though it’s been authorized it’s still taxpayer money until YOU decide to spend it on their (often reluctant) behalf. Please take the time to get an honest take on the public’s wishes. Ask some tough questions on why the previous construction that we’re still paying for is insufficient. Were we lied to at THAT bond or were the facilities poorly maintained? How can we be sure this won’t happen again in 15-20 years. Is the scale appropriate with a shrinking student body?

Finally, please recognize that you represent ALL stakeholders. Not the superintendent or the loudest or most persuasive voices.

[Portion removed; allegations of criminal behavior without evidence violate terms of use. Please stick to the facts.]

This newspaper needs to compile a list of all the board members who have vacated their positions before their term expires. Then look at how many board members were appointed via the replacement process. Compare and contrast that with surrounding school boards. It will be an astonishing display of influence peddling.