Commentary: Now That the Parcel Tax Has Passed…


Lost in the tumult surrounding the presidential election is the fact that, once again, the voters overwhelmingly approved the school parcel tax.  While the district and campaign volunteers can now rightly pat themselves on the back, I want to raise a few issues that have troubled me for some time.

I have always been a strong supporter of the parcel tax – we have had good experiences in the school district with our children and, without the parcel tax, this would be a below-average funded school district.

My view from the start was that we actually asked for too little – a view I think that is largely confirmed by the 71 percent for the measure and the lack of organized opposition.

At the same time, my concern is that the district often walks on egg shells any time a problem arises, out of fear that any sort of controversy will cause voters to oppose the parcel tax.  In my view, that fear is silly and it actually ends up eroding trust, transparency, and confidence in the district.

Ironically, the fact that Measure H was passed as an eight-year rather than a four-year tax might help in this regard.  But I think the whole notion is flawed, if not somewhat insulting to the voters in the district.

The impending parcel tax, interestingly enough, did not prevent the district from making dramatic and controversial changes to the AIM program.  While there were some frustrated parents threatening not to support the parcel tax – those threats were not only hollow, but self-defeating.

Board President Madhavi Sunder and incoming board member Bob Poppenga made it clear in their public statements that the district needed the parcel tax.  While parents may have been frustrated at a number of things, in the end they knew that they would only be hurting things for their kids if the parcel tax failed.

A secondary strategy of opposing this parcel tax to send a message and then approving one in the spring would have been fraught with risk and certainly would have increased the heartache for teachers in the district – who were not involved in the controversial decisions.

In the end, the implicit message should have been – if you have a problem with the school board, vote out the members that you have a problem with.  Don’t take out your anger on the kids.

And that’s precisely what happened.  The voters voted for Measure H in an overwhelming manner, while incumbent Susan Lovenburg was narrowly voted out.  Agree or disagree with AIM or that decision, that is the right way to approach this.

So now that we know that the voters are intelligent and discerning, can we drop the charade about keeping quiet about district controversies?

The district has actually had more than its share of controversies, and yet the voters renewed the parcel tax – increased its base value and increased its length.

The district has managed to survive the biggest local controversy in recent years – the Nancy Peterson volleyball saga.  Decisions by a sitting board member to take her feud with a volleyball coach public ended up with Ms. Peterson resigning in 2014.  Two board members may have lost their political careers over it – Sheila Allen lost a bid for city council and Susan Lovenburg did not win a third seat on the school board.  But it didn’t cost the district the parcel tax.

The AIM issue had some bumps in the last year and a half, as well.  The decision to blindside people with more extensive changes to the program.  The 3-2 decision to not retain Deanne Quinn.  The 3-2 decision to reduce the number of strands to two, when the parents were promised three.  The poor handling of a testing error.  Parents were angry at these, but they took their anger out on the school board candidates, not the parcel tax.

The Vanguard this fall pulled no punches.  We published a controversial letter by a parent against a school psychologist.  We published a lawsuit filed against the former principal at North Davis.  And we published a letter from a parent about the AIM testing snafu.

The fact is, those three articles were among the most widely read articles the Vanguard has published this fall – each of them getting multiple thousands of reads – and yet the voters still voted for the parcel tax.

To me, that is evidence that we do not have to pull back on critical stories even during an election.  We don’t have to bury problems in the school system.  We can be out front and open when something goes wrong, and attempt to fix it without fear of retribution from the voters on the parcel tax.

The voters are not going to punish the kids for some errors by the leadership.  There could not have been a bigger controversy than the Nancy Peterson one, and yet two years later the parcel tax was renewed by a fairly wide margin.

Make no mistake – while I am grateful to the school district for the education it has provided my kids, this district has at times sat back on its laurels.  We have not addressed the achievement gap in a satisfactory manner.  We have a very good district, but we still have a ways to go to become a great district.

Hopefully we can have these discussions without fear that the parcel tax will be voted out – the voters in Davis are not going to do that.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts


  1. Tia Will

    My view from the start was that we actually asked for too little – a view I think that is largely confirmed by the 71 percent for the measure and the lack of organized opposition.”

    I do not know whether the amount asked was “right” or “too little”. I do not believe that the amount requested should ever be based on what is believed will pass but rather on how much is needed to achieve specific goals. This is yet another area where I believe there would be much to be gained by transparency instead of gamesmanship.


    1. Barack Palin

      I do not believe that the amount requested should ever be based on what is believed will pass but rather on how much is needed to achieve specific goals.

      Shouldn’t we also consider how much requested should also be determined by the ability of those that are actually being taxed to be able to afford it?

    2. South of Davis

      Tia wrote:

      > and the lack of organized opposition

      Keep in mind that anyone that “organized in opposition” in town will be hated more than Trump himself and their kids (if they had any) would probably get beat like a Trump supporter on a regular basis…

      P.S. Does the county release the number of senior voters who vote for the tax (and higher home values to help with there reverse mortgages) then file forms so they don’t have to pay it?

      1. wdf1

        SoD:  Does the county release the number of senior voters who vote for the tax (and higher home values to help with there reverse mortgages) then file forms so they don’t have to pay it?

        The county will never release information on how voters vote, only whether they turn in a ballot or not.

        The county will make a list of seniors who have asked for the exemption, if you make a request.  David G. has done that before.

        1. wdf1

          BP:  at what age can one get an exemption

          65 or older

          BP:  My understanding is if a member of the household is 65 or older.

          Person must also be owner of the house, and live there.

        2. hpierce

          Once you turn in your ballot, there is no way to know who turned in what ballot (therefore how they voted)… ages are not shown on the roster… the County cannot “release” information they do not have…  DUH!

          Now, there may be other “databases” out there where somewhat might be able to figure out how many seniors are in a given precinct, perhaps even how many were likely to have filed an exception, and hypothesize from there.

        3. hpierce

          wdf…  am recalling it is more nuanced… the parcel has to be owner occupied, and must have a household member 65 or older… the senior does not have to be ‘on title’ as “owner of record”… think it only applies to SF properties…

        4. Barack Palin

          I looked it up:

          To qualify for a senior exemption from the parcel tax, you must be the owner-occupant of the property in question and at least 65 years old.

          Wdf1 is correct as I knew he/she would be, otherwise people could just say their parent or grandmother is living with them to get the exemption.

      2. Tia Will

        South of Davis

        Keep in mind that anyone that “organized in opposition” in town will be hated more”

        There is something to be said for having the strength of your convictions. If you are not willing to take the chance of being criticized for your beliefs, then one probably should remain silent. But then, you can hardly blame those who choose to speak their minds using their own names to do so.

    3. hpierce

      Tia… example… DJUSD CFD #2 is a ‘charity’ assessment  for us ~ $550/yr, for facilities that our kids never used…  you are not assessed that… so, for credibility, please remit $550 to DJUSD, and then I’ll listen.

      1. quielo

        Let me go back and look at it. It may be better to reduce the number of opt outs than try to increase the base rate. I am very skeptical about the poor old fixed income pensioner storyline though it may in fact be true. Since H has passed the opportunity to supersede it with a more restrictive plan at the same base level may be the way to go.

    1. hpierce

      To what end?  Shaming?

      Am thinking this “transparency” thing has gone way too far… public employees with their names/salaries/pensions on-line (“transparentcalifornia”) have been a gold mine for solicitors/scammers… pretty easy to cross-check names with phone #’s, mailing addresses, etc.

      Suspect it also increases possibilities for identity theft…

      Suggest we don’t add to the mayhem…

      1. wdf1

        hpierce:  Am thinking this “transparency” thing has gone way too far…

        And if you’re a public employee, don’t delete any e-mails.  It’s career suicide.

        1. hpierce

          BP… you can see no difference from a cabinet level employee and a municipal employee making sure sewer blockages are fixed?  Wdf’s comment is only slightly less weird…

          Please note, if you have the cognitive abilities to do so, I said “don’t add”… I did not say “roll-back” (but I do think things have gone too far…)

        2. South of Davis

          > if you’re a public employee, don’t delete any e-mails.  It’s career suicide.

          You can always just put a server in your closet at home for your e-mails…

      2. South of Davis

        hpierce wrote:

        > public employees with their names/salaries/pensions on-line

        > (“transparentcalifornia”) have been a gold mine for solicitors/scammers…

        If I was selling high end items and found a list of people that made about a million a year I would try to let them know about my product.

        > Suspect it also increases possibilities for identity theft…

        [moderator] edited, off topic.

  2. Napoleon Pig IV


    I appreciate the quality and quantity of coverage provided on DJUSD issues by the Vanguard and think you should keep up the good work. However, I think you are too confident in the strength of support for the parcel tax.

    You characterize Lovenburg’s defeat as “narrow” and support for Measure H as “overwhelming,” but the data suggest the opposite. Measure H was passed by only 911 votes (71 percent of the total when 2/3 was required). Lovenburg was defeated by Fernandes by 1151 votes and a lot more by Poppenga.

    Yes, the voters properly targeted the school board as the core of the problem(s), and collectively maintained support for school funding. But, that support and collective wisdom should not be taken for granted. DJUSD has a long way to go to be “great,” and I hope the new board is up to the task.

    I’ll continue to look to the Vanguard for better coverage of DJUSD than that other so-called newspaper in town. Oink!

    1. wdf1

      I think that if Measure H had not been running in the same election as the school board election, Lovenburg probably would have finished stronger.  A lot of volunteers on Measure H were supporters and past volunteers of Lovenburg, but had made the choice to volunteer time and money on the school parcel tax, because a worse outcome, IMO and that of other volunteers, would actually have been to lose school parcel tax if Lovenburg had won.

      1. hpierce

        Reality check… for a home owned and occupied for 20 + years, the Parcel taxes:

        DJUSD 2000 bond :            $67

        DJUSD C & E                       $531

        DJUSD CFD #1                    $217

        DJUSD CFD #2                    $591

        Total:                                   $1,406…   which has gone up with H, and doesn’t include the portion of property taxes siphoned by the State, for schools…

        1. wdf1

          It’s a fair point, and that argument was raised in different ways during the campaign.  But a voter would weigh that against the value of those school taxes — what that money goes toward.  It is subjective up to a point (is this too much for me to pay for this?), and that’s why we vote on it.  2/3 vote to pass is already a higher than a traditional threshold (50% + 1).

          I don’t think anyone on the Yes on Measure H campaign took anything for granted. There are always others in the community who take it as a foregone conclusion that it will pass. I don’t.

        2. hpierce

          Actually, I made no point… I shared facts… CFD #2 was not voted on by the public (fact)… it was ‘voted on’ by developers, as a condition of approval, and obligated the property (fact).

          Will not address your opinion on “value”, as not sure folk buying in to properties subject to CFD#2, were really cognizant of the cost/implications.

          Side note, since WDF has pursued, CFD # 2 was for a 30 year bond, according to a district employee… CFD#1 is forever, “to her knowledge”… (fact, as to conversation and what I was told)

    2. David Greenwald

      Good point. My point wasn’t to take it for granted, but also not to use the parcel tax as a reason to shield the district from criticism and scrutiny.

  3. WesC

    There is a little wiggle room in the senior exemption:


    A under 65 property owner who has an over 65 spouse who is not the property owner qualifies for the exemption as long as they both  live on the property.

    Historically about 1,200-1,500 households have applied for the senior exemption.  The district is in the process of writing the measure H exemption application and it will be released in January.

    1. hpierce

      That sounds ‘not wrong’, as I understood it differently…

      Both on clarification of the exemption and the # applied for… sounds like we’ll know by the end of January…

    1. quielo

      “but we still have a ways to go to become a great district” I agree but the real issue is what students are we going to become “great” for first. I had my kids at LAUSD for K+1. Many of the policies in place there were counter to the interests of my children and the other parents felt the same way. When we pushed back we were told that LAUSD is predominantly low SES students so all policies are designed to support low SES students and don’t be so selfish. With Lovenberg what I heard from her coded messages and saw in her actions was “we are going to focus our attention and resources on low SES students in the name of social justice so don’t be so selfish.

      When I heard this message from LAUSD I had admit there was some reason in it so being out of step with their priorities I moved my kids to a district that looked a lot more like my children. They went from complaining about school to being so engaged that they asked to go to school even when sick. That is what I am looking for in DJU.

      1. wdf1

        quielo:  That is what I am looking for in DJU.

        Public education is political, and there’s no way around it.  Higher SES parents (as defined by either income and/or education level) are likelier to show up and participate.  Lower SES parents, not so much.  State and federal policy ask for a certain recipe of accountability especially for lower SES students.  In part it’s supposed to keep higher SES parents in the district from ignoring the needs of lower SES students.  It’s a balancing act.

        1. quielo

          As an example at LAUSD all classes must use the first three weeks of school for review (Reteaching) whether or not that is the amount the kids in that class need. 15 days wasted out of 180 and you are losing 8% of the school year and boring the hell out of the kids at the same time.

    2. hpierce

      Ok… back to your points… AIM and achievement gap being the main two, as I read it, and the “walking on eggshells” thing regarding those.  Noted… arguably if AIM is needed to improve achievement for some, does that not imply the achievement gap will likely grow worse?

      You miss a third point, which I postulate… how will the passage affect the “sunshine” requests for raises, benefit enhancements for teachers, administrators, and other staff?  Bet it will be much more than maintenance of benefits (allowing for inflationary factors), and maintenance of salary (with inflation running close to zero).   We shall see…


  4. JMH

    So how many people who think the amount is “too little” or simply don’t care and voted for the measure don’t actually own property and pay the property taxes?????  Lots of renters in Davis and why would they care how much the property taxes go up…….

        1. Barack Palin

          That’s just the point, apartments used to be taxed by the unit but no longer.  So they will see no rise in their rent.  Home renters possibly could if the homeowner decides to pass it on.  Either way homeowners have no choice, they have to pay.

        2. Barack Palin

          More than half of this town are renters.  So there were very many renter votes and my guess is they were almost all yes votes.  They definately tipped the scale.

        3. Barack Palin

          It’s not just college students who rent here.  With the high home prices many people who aren’t college students rent and vote here.  An example would be the owner of this blog.

        4. Chamber Fan

          Have you looked at the numbers?  We did two years ago when the city was looking into a parcel tax.  Students voting numbers are low and most renters are students.

        5. Matt Williams

          quielo said . . . “The way around these problems is to align the city and school district boundaries. Then you can get rid of parcel taxes entirely.”

          You have made similar statements in the past and they were just as bizarre then as this one is now.  What reason do you have for believing such an alignment would solve anything?

        6. Barack Palin

          Well I think you’re wrong here.  I feel there was a big enough number of renters voting that they swung the vote in favor of Prop H.  Maybe someone knows the actual number of non students who are renting in Davis and could supply a link.

        7. wdf1

          quielo:  The way around these problems is to align the city and school district boundaries. Then you can get rid of parcel taxes entirely.

          I think that would either require a city vote to annex those areas of the district outside of city limits, which would have a tough time passing, or invite a lawsuit for disenfranchising district families/residents who live outside city limits if the district were hypothetically to cut them out of the district.

          I think this is probably an easier thing to do with landlocked cities, like San Francisco.  In the case of SF, the city coincides with the county, so it is really the county government that runs the city.  That allows for added flexibility for them.

        8. quielo

          “What reason do you have for believing such an alignment would solve anything?”

          The parcel tax is the vehicle available to school districts. If the schools and the city had the same tax base you could use any form of municipal taxation to support the schools. You could tax rentals, have a sales tax, there are hundreds of options. With the current arrangement it’s a parcel tax or nothing. Does that answer your question?

        9. quielo

          “I think that would either require a city vote to annex those areas of the district outside of city limits, which would have a tough time passing, or invite a lawsuit for disenfranchising district families/residents who live outside city limits if the district were hypothetically to cut them out of the district.”


          In most cases (but not all) school district boundaries are controlled by the county board of education. You would almost certainly have to offer annexation to The Binning Tract, North Davis Farms, and other adjacent areas. Whether you look at that as a good or bad thing depends on where you sit.

        10. Matt Williams

          quielo said . . . “Does that answer your question?”

          No it does not.  Why would a school district with a smaller footprint have any different taxation alternatives than a school district with a larger footprint?   Geographical size has no meaning.

          A City has different taxation alternatives because it is not a school district.  It is governed by the laws and regulations that pertain to a City.  For Cities geographical size also has no meaning.

          You are mixing apples and ribeyes.

    1. hpierce

      No way of knowing… one can guess by precinct totals and rental units within… MF is the only easy one to look up…

      My Aunt chose to be a renter… lived in Pittsburgh (50+ years)… didn’t want the responsibility of a homeowner (she could have afforded to buy a decent condo, or more)… some rent for economic reasons, others figure either they are students, or are planning to be flexible in full time jobs, where they don’t plan to be in town for 10+ years… “rentals” do not “equal” students… “students” does not equal “no children”… “renters” does not mean “no children”…

      Landlords do not necessarily pass on parcel tax increases to tenants… [on the latter, do the math… if they pass it on, they’ll have more income (increment of increase), and pay Fed/State taxes @ their marginal tax rate, for the increased income, vs. their deduction, at their marginal tax rate for the increase in deductions… do the math to see how important that is… de minimus…



  5. JMH

    There are approximately 400 properties owned by the City of Davis that are completely tax exempt.  These are reserved for low income..  In all if you have a couple living in each of these properties, that is 800 people potentially voting for this measure who will never have to worry about the outcome….

    1. hpierce

      Interesting question… not sure if City owned housing projects are exempt from DJUSD assessment… am thinking, not… two independent levels of government… City of Davis properties do not pay ‘general’ property taxes, but on DJUSD assessments, not clear, as the DUSD is reluctant (when asked… and not posted) as to what their ‘rules’ are…

      1. JMH

        If a property has “exemptions” on the value, the DUSD voter approved  tax would still be charged …  When a property is owned by any government agency, they are given a zero value in which case there are no special tax charges…   So no, City owned properties do not pay the voter approved charges….

      2. South of Davis

        hpierce wrote:

        > Interesting question… not sure if City owned housing

        > projects are exempt from DJUSD assessment…

        Over the past 30 years (working as a CPA who saw more municipal tax bills than average guy) I have never seen a city, county, state or UC owned property in CA pay any property taxes OR anything else that other people pay with their taxes e.g. library bond measures mosquito abatement charges, school parcel taxes.  I don’t want to bother my realtor friend who has a title company account and can log on to see the details of any property, but maybe someone who knows a realtor (or title company rep) can see if the city owned 112 unit apartment at 1752 Drew Circle Davis, CA  95618 (APN 069-300-056-000) is paying any parcel taxes or other assessments.

    2. Tia Will


      “… all if you have a couple living in each of these properties, that is 800 people potentially voting for this measure who will never have to worry about the outcome….”

      While I agree with your statement as written, I would like to point out that there is precedent for people voting for measures in which they personally do not have to “worry about the outcome”. A few examples :

      1) Voting for a military hawk when neither you nor anyone in your family will ever have to go to war.

      2) Voting for a climate change denier when you are in your 90’s and have no younger family members to care about.

      3) Voting for someone who promises to abolish Medicare when you are a millionaire ensconced in a position which provides you with full health care.

      I am quite sure that anyone of the philosophic right can find as many examples from their perspective.

      When thinking about the “outcome” of a vote, I would encourage voters to look beyond the strictly immediate financial outcome to themselves. Everyone has a stake in the “outcome” for our society of a better educated citizenry and, in my opinion, we should all be willing to pay for that.

  6. Chamber Fan

    Because turnout was down and students didn’t come out to vote in numbers like they have in the past.  A high percentage of students also vote at their parents house.  Add it up and you would be surprised how few renters voted.

  7. hpierce

    Agree with BP (and I dislike that)… what is your basis for that statement?  Ironically, most City rental properties are NOT predominately occupied by students, unless you mean students with family… would think they would be more likely to vote, particularly on school measures… I reject your posit as undefendable.

      1. hpierce

        Reminds me of a current commercial… you stay ornery, as well, my ‘friend’… [almost mis-typed the last word, but that would have caused unnecessary rancor]

  8. hpierce

    Wow… so many don’t understand either government structures and/or taxation…

    The City of Davis and DJUSD are two different legal entities… I hope it always remains so, as to not merge different missions and resources… ex.  someone is suing the City of Sacramento School District, AND naming the City of Sacramento as well…

    The City, DJUSD and the County (library) and Los Rios Comm. College all have parcel taxes.  See your property tax statement

    Quielo, you do need to get real… ad valorem taxes are possible, but constrained by Prop 13 and other law… CFD’s a little less so, but increases have to be put into original docs., or voted on…  the State dishes out school revenues… they’d probably love to have DJUSD and the City to appear to be one entity!  More money for SoCal!

    Davis could become a charter City, and adopt an income tax [and/or transfer tax on RE sales] to fund things… might be “fairer” (whatever that means) than either property tax or parcel tax.

    Yet, at the end of the day (which is coming shortly), it appears it will be a zero-sum game as far as those paying will experience…

    Quielo… there are other arguments against boundary change, expressed on this thread… not a good idea, at all… yet there would be a negligible benefit to the costs of Elections… fewer ballot types… not worth it, IMO…

    Please feel free to continue to posit the idea… it is your right… just don’t expect people to get behind it…

    1. South of Davis

      hpierce wrote:

      > Wow… so many don’t understand either government structures and/or taxation…

      It sounds to me that quielo may not be aware that people “South of Davis” (and Southeast of Davis in El Macero) pay city of Davis school parcel taxes.

      1. quielo

        I am aware of that. I am also aware of the shortcomings of parcel taxes in financing a school district. If the city and the school district shared the same boundaries, as they did in my last residence, then the city can use any revenue source to fund the schools.

        1. Matt Williams

          No they can’t.  Schools and Cities do not share funding sources.

          Here is an ED 100 lesson on Who Pays?  Where California’s Public School Funds Come From.

          In every state, education funding comes from some combination of federal, state, and local sources, but the proportions vary. The federal government typically provides about 10% of funding in most states. On average among the 50 states, state funds account for somewhat less than half and local sources provide the rest. California is different.
          The State Decides How Much Schools Get
          Although the balance between sources in California fluctuates slightly from year to year, public education funding here depends more on state funds and less on local property taxes than is typical, for reasons that will be discussed below. This pie chart shows the main sources of general operating money for K-12 education in 2016-17.

          Thanks to some unusual provisions of California law, the state controls both the allocation of its general fund contribution to schools and local property taxes.

          The “local local funds” slice, only 5% of the funding pie, is generated and controlled by local school districts. This sliver includes interest income, leases on unused properties, parcel tax proceeds, donations, and a host of other miscellaneous sources. (You can find more about your own district’s sources of revenues in the District Financial Reports on the Ed-Data website.)

          As a parent, school, or union leader you may find little reason to care about the components that make up the revenue mix in your district. Nonetheless, there are several things you ought to understand about the allocation system:

          There are four major kinds of revenue sources for education.

          — Property taxes are not usually the main source of funding, despite what people think.
          — Given the current system, your district can only do things on the margin to affect how much revenue it has.
          — California is different from other states in the very small level of revenue raising power local communities have.
          — The amount per pupil your district gets may be very different from the one next door, in part because of the revenue sources outside of state control.

          The rest of this lesson provides more background regarding how California ended up with its current approach to funding K-12 education.

          The Courts and Voters Put the State In Charge

        2. wdf1

          quielo:  You have expressed concern on raising salaries of district staff, especially with respect to LCAP.  Well, look at this excerpt from the last school board meeting, Lovenburg’s last:

          The board also approved a new four-year contract, through June 30, 2020, for Colby, at an annual salary of $200,000, with an option for 3-percent annual raise, based on a favorable evaluation.

          Trustees also OK’d a new four-year contract for Best, at a salary of $172,000, with a similar option for a 3-percent annual raise.

          The vote on the two new contracts was 4-1, with Lovenburg dissenting.

          “I’m fully supportive of John’s reorganization, and I value Bruce (and Matt) and I support the (new) salaries as comparable to positions in similar positions other districts,” she said.

          But Lovenburg added that she could not support the provision allowing for a possible annual 3-percent raise because, “as a district, I don’t see us having the option to provide an annual increase for all or our employees. … I wish I did … but I can’t support these salary increases in isolation now.”

          Lovenburg, probably more than other trustees I have seen in the past decade, was more often questioning of top administrative salaries than others.  She was notable for asking that top contracted administrators take an initial 2% salary cut when budgets were being cut, and tied any potential salary reduction that might be approved for teaching staff be also reflected in equivalent reductions in top administrative salaries.  She wasn’t afraid to to discuss these issues openly in school board meetings, typically run by those top administrative staff. But you won’t have to worry about her on the board, any more.


Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for