Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Stitt and Solak have a problem with cost allocation

Board Directors Stitt and Solak have a problem with Close's request that the $94,000 spent on the architect and future costs be put towards the total of reopening Elderton. Would this be because of the lawsuit holding them and the four others that voted to reopen this school financially responsible for all costs involved with the reopening of Elderton?

Monday, April 26, 2010

Nickleach Dismisses Peliminary Objections

Judge Nickleach dismissed all of the defendants' preliminary objections and ordered them to file an Answer to the allegations of the Complaint within 20 days. This is pertaining to the lawsuit against the 6 ASD board members who are not being fiscally responsible with our tax dollars!

Memorandum and Order

April Monthly Meeting

The April Monthly Meeting will be held on Monday, April 26 at 7:30 pm at Lenape Elementary.  All parent with denied transfers or issues with transfers are urged to not only attend but to address the board during public comments. 

April Monthly Meeting Agenda

ASD Class Sizes

An Editorial by Rebecca Fullerton
Many studies out there seem to tout the advantages of small class sizes on student achievement, especially at the elementary levels. While not all studies on the subject have shown that students learn more in smaller settings—and while many are still ongoing—most studies have found some benefits. These studies indicate that the greatest success in small class size and increase in student achievement is seen in the grades K-3 and in the more economically disadvantaged (free and reduced lunch) students. Some 40 states have adopted federal class-size-reduction programs, under the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary School Act—popularly known as "No Child Left Behind" Act of 2001—with small elementary class sizes in the range of 17-20 students per classroom. With so many states/districts adopting these policies why then is ASD seeming to go backward with this concept? It seems that all of the elementary schools in the district now have in excess of 25-28 students in a classroom (with the exception of Dayton Elementary). With the upcoming “discussion” of the closing of Kittanning Township Elementary and merger with Elderton Elementary it seems this trend is continuing. What do these districts know that ASD does not? Why is ASD seeming to do the opposite, with decreasing class sizes in the upper classes rather than the elementary?

Some of the benefits and advantages of small class size may be seen in a number of different ways. For example, small class size could affect how students interact with each other—how they engage socially. This could result in less noise and disruptive behavior in the classroom, and in turn affect the kinds of activities the teacher is able to provide. Smaller class size may also affect the time a teacher is able to focus on individual students and their specific needs rather than on the group as a whole which may then result in increased individual attention. The class size could also affect the teacher’s allocation of time and, therefore, effectiveness, in other ways, too—for example, he/she may be able to cover much more material, or may choose different methods of teaching and assessment. They may assign more writing, or provide more feedback on students’ written work, or use open-ended assessments, or encourage more discussions, all excellent tools for improving achievement. It is also thought that exposure to a particular learning environment may not only affect learning over the time period of exposure, but may have long term or delayed effects as well (e.g., by increasing self-esteem or cognitive developments that have lasting effects). Various other advantages have been seen with a decrease in class size also, such things as noticeable declines in the number of disciplinary referrals, improved teacher morale, focus on prevention rather than remediation and higher levels in classroom participation by students.

Shouldn’t the energies and finances of the district be focusing on how to keep ALL of our elementary class sizes small and thus bestowing advantages on our children at their youngest and most impressionable levels rather than fighting over buildings, vying for dominance and control, and crushing educational advantages? Isn’t this the job of our elected School Board Directors and Administrators—to work together for the common good of the district, to focus on the educational issues at hand, help ALL of our children to achieve educational excellence and to afford them every choice and opportunity possible??

Friday, April 23, 2010


An Editorial by Becky Fullerton and Jennifer Willyard

This week has been quite an interesting one for the Armstrong School District, hasn’t it?

The main topic at the ASD School Board’s open caucus meeting this week was the numerous transfer requests that were submitted by parents who wanted their children to attend a school other than their assigned attendance area building.

As reported in the newspapers, there were 28 transfer requests that were denied because of the following question asked of the parent signing the form:

“Does your child play any sport/s in grades 9-12 for his/her school? If yes, please be specific and list.”
The board did not care if a parent wanted educational continuity, if a parent had babysitting arrangements elsewhere, or if a family lived only 1/8 of a mile from an attendance border……if somebody had written Football, Basketball, Baseball, Tennis, Wrestling or any other sport, even without checking the box for sports as a reason for requesting the transfer, they were automatically denied. Did the board even look at anything beyond that word “sports”? Did they look to see if a student did flourish when transferred to new surroundings? Of course not, they wouldn’t even have looked at “sports” had they not needed to devise some way to force students into Elderton High School.

Up until this time, past practice of the district, has never denied transfer requests in this manner. Why suddenly is the board so concerned with these???? You all know as well as we do, it is the same reason they are pushing for Lenape Tech to be ½ time…..warm bodies in EHS so that it looks like there was a solid reason for reopening.

For the students that did have their transfer requests approved the board, according to Mr. Marklinski’s telephone interview in the Kittanning Paper, will force them to sit out of sports for 1 year. Suddenly ASD Policy 252, Guideline #6 is being enforced in the district? Why? Never has been before?! PIAA doesn’t care…..again warm bodies, to falsely inflate numbers at EHS. As an aside is this policy even relevant? The students were already at the schools in question for 1 year and are simply asking to stay where they are…….is this even LEGALLY a transfer??)

We still don’t understand though, why EHS needs these numbers? Why is this board punishing parents and students who do not want to return to Elderton? The school is reopening, being majorly renovated and staffed for the students who want to be there. The fact that there are some students who do not wish to return is not going adversely affect the students that will attend EHS. The small number of students, with or without the transfers, will not change the class offerings at EHS, regardless they are already at the minimum for offering classes and losing a few more students will not make a difference in that regard. Why then can’t the students/parents have school choice, as has always been the case in our district? Why are the students who wish to transfer being bullied into returning to a school that they do not want to attend?

We have already heard of one family that had requested that their two children be transferred. One was approved and the other denied! Why? You guessed….the one child plays a sport.

Before the meeting, we had heard of a young man who previously did not like school and his grades were barely passing. With the closing of Elderton High School, he was transferred to a new school where he enjoyed the camaraderie, his grades improved and so did his spirit. Thus his family put in a transfer request to keep him in these surroundings that nurtured him. Wouldn’t you do the same if it were your child? Sure you would! Any of us would. But guess what? He plays a sport. We are going to take a guess that his family did put on the form that he plays because they seem to be honest people, so I am wondering if his request was indeed denied as well.

What do you do if you are a parent in any of these situations? You start fighting. It is YOUR child’s well being, it is YOUR child’s education and it is YOUR child that suddenly turned himself/herself around all because of a change of school.

If we were that parent, we would be filling out new request forms and attaching copies of previous report cards, letters from teachers and anything else relevant and then resubmitting it and making sure you got onto the agenda to speak to the board. There are, of course, always the legal avenues that can be pursued as well as Cyber School.

Were you denied your transfer request? Let us hear about it. Contact us by email at info@asd-news.com or by mail at:

PO Box 424
Ford City, PA 16226

There was another little issue brought up at the meeting, but because it was at the end when most people had left, there has not been a lot of discussion about it…..the estimate from the architects for renovations of Elderton High School.

$18,000,000.00 That’s right, Eighteen million dollars.

For a comparison of what this new study could possibly be, go to the ASD website and look at the 4-10-07 Hayes Large Facilities Master Plan. In their study, what they deemed as a Level Two renovation had a cost of $15,212,200 with only approximately $4 million in reimbursement from the state. Keep in mind, that figure did NOT include asbestos abatement which is VERY costly and must be done.

You can also go to the ASD website and look at the Hayes Large study from 3-20-06 OR the Ingraham Dancu Master Facilities Plan from 9-8-03. Those studies have studied previous studies at the taxpayer expense for years!

At any rate, at next week’s board meeting, it will be interesting to see what the $18 million includes.

In closing this editorial, we would like to thank Dr. William Kerr for his years of service to our district. There are many people here who have admired the dedication that you have shown to the students and families of ASD and appreciate the dignity and class you have shown in the face of adversity throughout the years. We wish you the absolute best in your new position as Superintendent of Norwin School District. Our loss is their gain.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Something Wicked This Way Comes

An Editorial by Scott Starr

The title is a line from The Tragedy of MacBeth, or for those who wish to be more contemporary the title of a Ray Bradbury novel, and even a short story by Agatha Christie. I remember the soliloquy memorized all those years ago, “is this a dagger which is before me? The handle toward my hand? Come let me clutch thee…” Sorry for the digression, oh to relive the days of attending 1984 Kittanning Sr. High (College Prep. English) in the super school with a graduating class of 250.

The full quote is “by the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes”, it was said by one of the witches in MacBeth, and just like the witch in the play, I am getting a tingling sensation, an omen if you will, that there are some interesting events about to occur. No, I am not talking about the Gang of 6 voting to reopen Elderton Sr. High School, rather this is about the change in solicitors. The reality is change can be good, but let’s consider why and for what reasons this change was made.

Director James Solak, expressed his adoration for the business skills and expertise of our new Solicitor the former Business Manager for Duquesne School District (DSD) ( now defunct). The Auditor State General conducted an accounting audit of DSD’s records for 1997 and 1998. Here is what was found:
  • There were 102 transactions for which the superintendent's credit card was used. Receipts for only 24 of the transactions, totaling $4,913, were found in the school district's records.
  • There were 122 transactions for which the business manager's credit card was used. Receipts for only 11 of the transactions, totaling $2,154, were found in the school district's records.
  • Overall, there was documentation for 35 transactions totaling $7,067, or about 13 percent of the expenditures
  • Nine computers for which SDCD was charged $12,765 are missing from the school district and are unaccounted for.
  • A SDCD employee with whom the business manager had a financial relationship was paid commissions in connection with a purchase by the school district without adequate records of justification or full disclosure.
  • SDCD failed to manage properly the process of purchasing computer technology equipment and services. The school district also obtained technology services without a written agreement or record of prior school board approval.
  • The school district failed to maintain records concerning travel reimbursement payments to the former business manager, payments to a school district employee for food and meals, miscellaneous purchases of food and payments to an employee of a school district contractor.
  • SDCD has not received the services of a personnel director called for in a contract with the former business manager. The contract has cost the school district over $30,000 to date.
  • SDCD overpaid the City of Duquesne about $14,776 for tax collection and other financial management services from 1997 through 1999.
  • The school district has failed to maintain records of financial activities in several basic areas and has poor record keeping procedures. These deficiencies impede efforts to verify expenditures or determine the reasons for actions taken by school district officials. As a result, the school district's overall financial management is subject to question.
I am not making accusations, nor implications, I am only reporting what the STATE AUDITOR GENERAL found. Here is the link, so you may read for yourself
Our new solicitors experience also has an element of building construction in Duquesne School District, an article was published in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, October 7, 1997 describing the construction of DSD:

  • The construction was expected to be September 15th, but was pushed back until October 6th ( if I read the article correctly)
  • Modular trailers were brought in to house students (the article states they were nice trailers)
  • Kindergarten through 4th grade were moved to a vacant Catholic School called St. Denis in Versailles
  • Grades 5 – 8 were moved to a vacant Catholic School called Holy Trinity in McKeesport.
Yes, Mr. Solak I understand in construction things don’t always run smoothly, I’m just reporting.

Apparently there was at least one board member at Duquense School District who was not very happy with the business manager and the handling of the construction, one Judith M. Burton, made an accusation that Raintree Consulting was not being pushed hard enough because it had contributed to the business managers unsuccessful run for State Representative in 1996. Please read the article for yourself.

Subsequently, Ms. Burton sent a letter to the McKeesport Daily News, which resulted in a lawsuit being filed against her by the business manager. The lawsuit was not successful. For those interested please read article here. 

(OK, I’ll just wait for a lawsuit to be filed against me for this recitation of facts).

If you are reading this use the power of Google to do some other research and ask questions, get the facts. I welcome any information which disputes the content of these links.

So, what do YOU think? Do you agree with the business savvy of Mr. Solak? Does Armstrong County need the “Duquesne Way”.

Do you agree that something wicked this way comes?

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Were you denied a transfer?

If you were denied a student transfer last night, please contact us at info@asd-news.com.  We have some information for you.  Please pass along this information to anyone you know who may be in this situation.

Sports is the reason?

At the meeting last night, all transfers were approved except some in Ed-6 and Ed-8.  Ed-6 were students in Pine and Rayburn who wished to remain at Kittanning istead of being sent back to West Shamokin.  One mother stated that her children were transferred to Kittanning to make room for the Elderton kids that would be transferred to West Shamokin.  Six transfers were in Ed-6 and two of those six listed sports as one of the reasons for the transfer.  The Sports box may not even have been checked as a reason, but they completed the section that asked if their children played sports and if so to list what sports they played.

Here is the vote on ED-6

Yes - Rearic, Yassem, Choncek, Close and Monroe

No - MJM, Smeltzer
No on ones that list sports, Yes on all others - Stitt and Solak
If you put sports as one of the reasons 5-4 motion carries
Any other reasons listed 7-2 motion carries


Now we come to Ed-8, which are students transferring OUT of Elderton.  60 transfers were submitted and 28 listed sports as one of the reasons, again, some did not even check the Sports box, only listed that their chilren played sports and what they were.  No transfer listed sports as the only reason.

Here is the vote on ED-8

Yes - Rearic, Choncek, Close, Monroe

No - MJM, Yassem, Smeltzer
Yes on all but no to ones with Sports or Lenape Vo Tech transfers - Stitt and Solak
If you listed sports or was a Lenape Vo-Tech transfer 4-5 - DENIED
Any other reasons 6 - 3 Motion carries.

Yassem voted NO on these because they affect EHS.
Every parent who has had their request denied NEEDS to resubmit another transfer request and put a special note saying that sports is NOT a reason for transferring.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Current State of the Armstrong School District

Editorial by Adam Scaife

Does the ASD have a short term and a long term plan for improvement to the student’s education while being fiscally responsible to the tax base? If so, what is this plan? The previous board did have a plan for fiscal responsibility while offering a broader curriculum range to the students of the Elderton attendence area. This was the painful, but correct, plan that the previous board and Dr. Kerr had implemented, but this plan has been torn apart, shredded, and flushed. What is the new board majority’s plan? Returning to the status quo is the only answer that we find to this point.

The ASD must plan for the future and stop living in the past and present. It has always been that way and it will always be that way is not acceptable any longer. There are pension fund expenditures coming in the future that are going to cripple many school districts in the state in addition to the ASD. Over the past 40 plus years the ASD has: an ever aging and increasingly geriatric tax base living on fixed incomes, declining student enrollment, loss of industry (tax base), increasing low income and government subsidized incomes, and lower property values than the surrounding successful school districts. Do we not want to improve? Do we not want to be able to offer the best to the students that our tax dollars have to offer?

Please explain how re-opening Elderton Jr. Sr. High School provides a benefit to ALL students and ALL tax payers within the ASD. What is the benefit to the Elderton Jr. Sr. High School students other than the very low student to teacher ratio. This has not provided any stellar results. It has, however, kept the students from enjoying a broader curriculum range. With the age of the internet and online classes will the students on the Elderton campus not still require an adult observer or supervisor when in the classroom? The people of East Brady, Worthington, Shannock Valley, Kittanning, Ford City, and Dayton would like to understand where the benefit for ALL is in this re-opening of Elderton Jr. Sr. High School. These areas have all experienced closures and consolidations. East Brady, Worthington, Shannock Valley, and Dayton areas closures and consolidations have been very similar to the closure and consolidation of Elderton attendance area. We are very aware that East Brady is no longer a part of the ASD. They were, however, closed and consolidated when still a part of the ASD. Following that they successfully seceded to Karns City School District.

Please do not misunderstand us. We do not want Elderton to secede. This is because the people from Elderton are good, upstanding people that contribute positively to the community. We want your children to have as stellar of an education as possible, but not at the expense of other children’s education within the district. The misconception that the ASD needs Elderton and their taxes in the ASD is not factual. However, Elderton attendance area does need the ASD in order to keep their facilities open. Surrounding school districts sought for consolidation will not keep the Elderton Jr. Sr. High School open. Our wanting for Elderton to remain within the district has nothing to do with revenues provided by the Elderton attendance area. That is like filling a bucket with water only to find that there is a leak in bottom side of the bucket. Everyone has access to the data from the ASD for attendance area revenues and expenditures. We urge you to review them. Yes, if Elderton attendance area is to remain within the ASD, the ASD needs to close and consolidate Elderton in order to reduce expenditures in facilities and staffing. This is where the greatest gains are to be had. However, positive revenue stream for the ASD is also created by a secession of Elderton along with their revenues.

If secession is truly pursued by Elderton attendance area, for the price tag placed on the buildings you will find that the insured values of the facilities and assessed market value of the acreage should be a fair market price. Do insurance companies generally place higher replacement values on facilities that they insure? Regardless, the insured value of the buildings and the assessed market value of the acreage is the place to begin negotiation at a minimum. When Sugar Creek Elementary was closed by the ASD and re-opened to be continued to be used as an elementary school by the Karns City School District they paid for the facilities as such at that time. Other facilities that were closed and no longer to be used as a school have gone at lower prices. Which way would be preferred when the district's buildings are assessed for their value? Additionally, comments have arisen about the portion of the ASD’s debt that Elderton attendance area is responsible for. Elderton has contributed to the debt of the ASD. Is Elderton attendance area to have the rest of the district pick up their portion of the debt tab for them? Again, please explain the logic in this to the people of: East Brady, Worthington, Shannock Valley, Dayton, Kittanning, and Ford City.

The buildings that are currently in use by students from the Elderton attendence area are not over crowded. If they would have been, the state would never have allowed the consolidation of these students into these facilities. Every other attendance area of the district has suffered through closures and consolidations. Elderton’s time to do so is now for the best of ALL the students and ALL of the tax payers of the district. Dr. Kerr and the previous board made the correct painful decision.

Friday, April 16, 2010

Special Meeting to be held for student tranfer vote

A Special Meeting will be held on Monday, April 19, 2010 at 7:00 pm at Lenape Elementary School.  This meeting is concerning the amendment to Policy 252, the Student Transfer Policy and also for the board to vote on the student transfer requests for the 2010-2011 school year. 

Agenda for Special Meeting

Immediately following the Special Meeting will be the April Open Caucus meeting.

Agenda for Open Caucus

All parents that have submitted student transfer requests are encouraged to attend the Special Meeting and if possible, give your comments during the public comments section.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Judge rules suit to reapportion Armstrong School District can move ahead

KITTANNING — Judge Kenneth Valasek dismissed preliminary objections filed by Armstrong School District attorneys, allowing a case to reapportion the voting regions to move forward.

The suit — filed Feb. 16 by attorney Chuck Pascal on behalf of Gretchen Dosch of Applewold and Cheryl Zboran of North Buffalo — seeks to reapportion the voting regions of the school district from the current nine to three, each with three directors. Each region would represent about 14,000 voters.

The women allege that the regions are in violation of the U.S. and Pennsylvania constitutions because they were not reapportioned after the 2000 Census and the Pennsylvania School Code, which requires equality among regions.

Earlier this month, attorneys representing the district argued that it would be better to wait until next year when the 2010 Census numbers are released, as opposed to having to complete the redistricting twice in two years.

Pascal said the district attorneys can, if they wish, submit an alternate redistricting plan by May 14 and schedule a status conference in June to further discuss the suit.

The regions proposed in the lawsuit are:
Region 1, including Worthington Borough and East Franklin, Manor, Pine, Rayburn, Valley, Washington and West Franklin townships;
Region 2, including Applewold, Ford City, Ford Cliff, Kittanning, Manorville and West Kittanning boroughs and Bethel, Cadogan and North Buffalo townships;
Region 3, including Atwood, Dayton, Elderton, Rural Valley and Smicksburg boroughs and Boggs, Burrell, Cowanshannock, Kittanning, Plumcreek, South Bend, Wayne and West Mahoning townships.

Currently, school directors are elected in nine regions:
• Region 1 — Boggs, Pine, Rayburn and Wayne townships and Dayton Borough
• Region 2 — Atwood, Rural Valley and Smicksburg boroughs and Cowanshannock, Valley and West Mahoning townships.
• Region 3 — Bethel, Burrell and Kittanning townships.
• Region 4 — North Buffalo and West Franklin townships and Worthington Borough.
• Region 5 — Elderton Borough and Plumcreek and South Bend townships.
• Region 6 — Cadogan Township and Ford City and Ford Cliff boroughs.
• Region 7 — Kittanning Borough.
• Region 8 — Applewold and West Kittanning boroughs and East Franklin and Washington townships.
• Region 9 — Manor Township and Manorville Borough.

The above was a Leader Times article

Below are the proposed new regions with the current board member representing that region.  As you can see, it looks as though all attendance areas will be represented in two regions each.

Region I
East Franklin - Rearic
Manor - MJM
Pine - Yassem
Rayburn - Yassem
Valley - Monroe
Washington - Rearic
West Franklin - Close
Worthington - Close

Region II
Applewold - Rearic
Bethel - Stitt
Cadogan - Solak
Ford City - Solak
Ford Cliff - Solak
Kittanning Borough - Choncek
Manorville - MJM
North Buffalo - Close
West Kittanning - Rearic

Region III
Atwood - Monre
Boggs - Yassem
Burrell - Stitt
Cowanshannock - Monnroe
Dayton - Yassem
Elderton - Smeltzer
Kittanning Township - Stitt
Plumcreek - Smeltzer
Rural Valley - Monroe
Smicksburg - Monroe
South Bend - Smeltzer
Wayne - Yassem
West Mahoning - Monroe

Friday, April 9, 2010

VND's Take on Kerr Leaving ASD

In April 6, Tuesday Takes, the Valley News Dispatch gives their opinion on Dr. Kerr possibly leaving ASD.

Kerr leaving?: The fallout from the new Armstrong School Board regime continues. The latest is ASD Superintendent William Kerr is looking to bail and is a finalist to be the Norwin School District's superintendent. Kerr is widely recognized as one of the finest superintendents in southwestern Pennsylvania, but he recommended -- wisely -- the district close Elderton Junior/Senior High School. That was an unforgivable sin in the eyes of the new majority at ASD, which apparently believes a run-down, under-populated school is hallowed ground. Expect other administrators to follow, or be fired.

Round and Round

An Editorial by Becky Fullerton and Jennifer Willyard
“I lived in Dayton for 14 years and, as County Superintendent, worked very closely with the rural people of the county. Knowing them as I do, I cannot comprehend, especially when they pay the same taxes, their acceptance of schools that do not provide their children with the same educational opportunities as those found in Ford City and Kittanning. If this school system is left to stagnate or deteriorate, I can now hear the statement being made that it never could succeed because it was too big. What a shallow excuse this will be. The real reason will be simply because of the lack of foresight of our people to invest in the future. The record will be there for all to see. We “missed the boat” on the Vocational-Technical School. Had we been allowed to build a complete school a few years ago, instead of the partial school we now have, we would have saved our patrons hundreds of thousands of dollars. Now we can’t even round up enough votes to complete it. We are paying a horrible price for every month of delay. Are we again going to “miss the boat” in developing the school system of the Armstrong School District?”
 –C. N. Hanner, Superintendent (November 13, 1969)

This statement speaks volumes! Dare we say history is still repeating itself again and again in the Armstrong School District? Should we STILL be dealing with this same issue in 2010? The SAME studies with the SAME results? Superintendents with the SAME visions as to what is best for ALL students and taxpayers yet, the same opposition?

For more than 40 years, the residents of Armstrong County have gone around and around on how best to right size our schools. Why has nothing been solved yet? The same problems are to the forefront of our district with other problems being pushed aside to fight the battle of appeasing interest groups.

Let’s take a step back and look at the picture. Other than the financial problems our district is facing, what other problems are there?

We have many children with inadequate test scores.

We have bullying, physical abuse, drug and alcohol abuse.

We have schools that lack equipment in order for teachers to properly do their jobs.

We have other deteriorating buildings.

There is an endless supply of concerns for ASD….but it seems as if all else in the district has been pushed aside with the reopening of EHS looming. There are other issues that need to be addressed in this district. Why must all of the focus be on EHS? Why are all available funds being funneled into the Elderton project as Director Michael Markilinski stated “We’re not going to do a bare-bones project. It might be (deciding) between the middle of the road and a high-end (project),”. Should some focus perhaps be on the many other issues in the district rather than focusing all of our time, energy and money on one small part of this district?

Why are the rest of the issues of ASD not as important as renovating and reopening one building when so many other problems need to be addressed? We think it is time that you make your concerns with OTHER issues known to our school board.

And we would like to hear YOUR issues.

What problems do you personally see within the district and how do you think they can be solved?

Email us at info@asd-news.com or write to us at:

PO Box 424
Ford City, PA 16226

All responses will be considered for a future editorial and/or posted on our website. If you do not wish for your name to be used, please just post/write anonymous.