Representative Ann-Margaret Ferrante will introduce an amendment to the House as early as today. If the amendment passes in the House and then the Senate, the charter school will be prevented from opening as the current population in Gloucester is below 30,000.
The amendment reads as follows:
Ms. Ferrante of Gloucester moves to amend the bill by adding at the end thereof the following section:
“SECTION____. Subsection (i) of section 89 of chapter 71 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2006 Official Edition, is hereby amended by adding the following sentence:- No new commonwealth charter school having been approved by the board, but not yet begun its initial year of classes, shall begin classes in any community with a population of less than 30,000 as tallied in the annual list of residents pursuant to section 4 of chapter 51, in its initial year of classes, unless it is a regional charter school.”
Please take a few minutes to show support for this amendment. E-mails and calls can be short and sweet. Identify yourself as a parent, grandparent, teacher, concerned citizen of Gloucester...... Mention the census numbers and the difficulties that our small city will face if we must finance the GCA Charter School.
Call and write:
Speaker DeLeo
Speaker of the House
617-722-2500
Chairman Murphy
House Ways and Means Chairperson
617-722-2990
Representative Ferrante
617-722-2425
Pass this on. Numbers matter. Thank you for all that you do.
Jane
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Ray Lamont's frustrating editorials....
Do Ray Lamont's Gloucester Daily Times editorials represent the voices of our community? You decide.
April 2, 2009
Click here to read the editorial and responses to it.
This from Iceman:
The founders of Community Arts Charter School are not GPS's "colleagues." They are a very small group of people with no training or experience in education.
And no, the debate is not "over." When a tiny handful of people manages to make off with public money -- against overwhelming community opposition -- to fund their fantasy liberal arts college, then you can expect a debate. You think "overwhelming opposition" is hyperbole? Look at the DESE's own reporting about the run-up to the charter school vote.
Looks like the GDT argument is no longer the standard, business-model "healthy competition" garbage? They are now hoping for "an opportunity for more collaboration, rather than competition" between the schools? They'll contort themselves and invert their metaphors in any way in order to avoid framing the GPS as anything other than a cantankerous old union member one inch from retirement. Maybe they should actually enter one of our schools and report on what they actually see.
February 26, 2009
April 2, 2009
Click here to read the editorial and responses to it.
This from Iceman:
The founders of Community Arts Charter School are not GPS's "colleagues." They are a very small group of people with no training or experience in education.
And no, the debate is not "over." When a tiny handful of people manages to make off with public money -- against overwhelming community opposition -- to fund their fantasy liberal arts college, then you can expect a debate. You think "overwhelming opposition" is hyperbole? Look at the DESE's own reporting about the run-up to the charter school vote.
Looks like the GDT argument is no longer the standard, business-model "healthy competition" garbage? They are now hoping for "an opportunity for more collaboration, rather than competition" between the schools? They'll contort themselves and invert their metaphors in any way in order to avoid framing the GPS as anything other than a cantankerous old union member one inch from retirement. Maybe they should actually enter one of our schools and report on what they actually see.
February 26, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Ed Shoucair of The Gloucester Education Foundation
March 25, 2009
To the editor:
I am writing on the topic of the charter school in Gloucester.
I admire the supporters of this initiative and their sincere wish for an excellent education for children of Gloucester admitted to the new school. However, I ask that they reconsider the approach they are taking. I have read their materials, heard their leaders speak, and am aware that they feel sure they are doing a good thing for Gloucester by creating an alternative school.
In my mind, the call for a charter school has provided a valuable public service by adding to the discussion on how to improve Gloucester's schools. A number of the charter school programs, such as "responsive classrooms" and the addition of more art into the curriculum, are good ones. In many instances, these programs and other initiatives in the charter school proposal exist in one form or another in Gloucester's public schools. But there is no question that these successful programs should be expanded and made available to all the students in the District.
The major shortcoming I see in the charter school is that the zealous belief in the benefits of a charter school prevented many of its supporters from seeing the alternative school's benefits will be dwarfed by the damage it will do to the larger school community. I also believe that the growing awareness of this fact is the reason for the loss of a number of the charter school's original individual and organizational supporters.
From the beginning, the charter school's leadership has claimed that there will be no or minimal negative financial impact on the existing system of public education in Gloucester. This is false. The truth remains that after an initial transition period, more than $2 million per year will be taken from Gloucester's public schools serving more than 3,300 students to fund a school serving 240.
At the February hearing before the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, the president of the charter school asked for approval for its proposal stating that there was "widespread grassroots support for the charter school." He gave evidence of this by saying the Gloucester Daily Times had written several editorials in favor of the charter school, and that "just the day before, the editor of the Times called and encouraged me to go before State Board and speak." Putting aside the impropriety of the editor's phone call, the Gloucester Daily Times editorial page is not evidence of widespread community support. Not on this issue. Letters and phone calls to the governor from those in Gloucester opposing the charter school ran nearly 10 to 1.
To finish reading Ed's letter click here.
ED SHOUCAIR
Washington Street, Gloucester
To the editor:
I am writing on the topic of the charter school in Gloucester.
I admire the supporters of this initiative and their sincere wish for an excellent education for children of Gloucester admitted to the new school. However, I ask that they reconsider the approach they are taking. I have read their materials, heard their leaders speak, and am aware that they feel sure they are doing a good thing for Gloucester by creating an alternative school.
In my mind, the call for a charter school has provided a valuable public service by adding to the discussion on how to improve Gloucester's schools. A number of the charter school programs, such as "responsive classrooms" and the addition of more art into the curriculum, are good ones. In many instances, these programs and other initiatives in the charter school proposal exist in one form or another in Gloucester's public schools. But there is no question that these successful programs should be expanded and made available to all the students in the District.
The major shortcoming I see in the charter school is that the zealous belief in the benefits of a charter school prevented many of its supporters from seeing the alternative school's benefits will be dwarfed by the damage it will do to the larger school community. I also believe that the growing awareness of this fact is the reason for the loss of a number of the charter school's original individual and organizational supporters.
From the beginning, the charter school's leadership has claimed that there will be no or minimal negative financial impact on the existing system of public education in Gloucester. This is false. The truth remains that after an initial transition period, more than $2 million per year will be taken from Gloucester's public schools serving more than 3,300 students to fund a school serving 240.
At the February hearing before the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, the president of the charter school asked for approval for its proposal stating that there was "widespread grassroots support for the charter school." He gave evidence of this by saying the Gloucester Daily Times had written several editorials in favor of the charter school, and that "just the day before, the editor of the Times called and encouraged me to go before State Board and speak." Putting aside the impropriety of the editor's phone call, the Gloucester Daily Times editorial page is not evidence of widespread community support. Not on this issue. Letters and phone calls to the governor from those in Gloucester opposing the charter school ran nearly 10 to 1.
To finish reading Ed's letter click here.
ED SHOUCAIR
Washington Street, Gloucester
Friday, March 20, 2009
Frieda Grotjahn's visit to O'Maley
March 20, 2009
Because my oldest son, a fifth-grader, had been talking with his friends about O’Maley School, I made an appointment with Principal Michael Tracy to visit. I, along with two other parents from my son’s school, met with Dr. Tracy on a windy, cold Monday morning last December. I saw some trash around the rink, but with the wind I was not worried and did not pay particular attention to it as I was more concerned about what I would find inside of the institution looming grey and cold in front of us on this dark winter morning.
Dr. Tracy welcomed us into his office and we had a chance to ask a lot of questions about the curriculum, the contents and the appearance of the school, which he answered in a competent and friendly way. He spoke about the after-school program, which is funded by the Gloucester Education Foundation. Languages, robotics, flight simulator, CAD, video-film and more will be offered. He spoke about the new science lab, which will be funded through the collaboration on curriculum development with the MIT-Edgerton center and about the chance for middle school students to go to MIT for two weeks in summer. He explained that this collaboration was again made possible by the GEF and will provide sustainable improvements to science and technology education.
To finish reading Frieda's letter click here.
Frieda Grotjahn
Blake Court
Because my oldest son, a fifth-grader, had been talking with his friends about O’Maley School, I made an appointment with Principal Michael Tracy to visit. I, along with two other parents from my son’s school, met with Dr. Tracy on a windy, cold Monday morning last December. I saw some trash around the rink, but with the wind I was not worried and did not pay particular attention to it as I was more concerned about what I would find inside of the institution looming grey and cold in front of us on this dark winter morning.
Dr. Tracy welcomed us into his office and we had a chance to ask a lot of questions about the curriculum, the contents and the appearance of the school, which he answered in a competent and friendly way. He spoke about the after-school program, which is funded by the Gloucester Education Foundation. Languages, robotics, flight simulator, CAD, video-film and more will be offered. He spoke about the new science lab, which will be funded through the collaboration on curriculum development with the MIT-Edgerton center and about the chance for middle school students to go to MIT for two weeks in summer. He explained that this collaboration was again made possible by the GEF and will provide sustainable improvements to science and technology education.
To finish reading Frieda's letter click here.
Frieda Grotjahn
Blake Court
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Pamela Campbell: When the story hits a nerve
GLOUCESTER - It’s always a balancing act, trying to be objective in community journalism when the community you’re covering is the family heirloom. Gloucester is my home, my roots, my heritage, my point of view: in five years of living outside Chicago, it was my steadfast identity. That first winter out there, my 4-year-old son made snow angels while singing Daisy Nell songs at the top of his lungs, into the Illinois sky.
So I was thrilled to be able to reconnect with my hometown by contributing pieces to the Beacon. Slowly finishing a long-overdue degree in English, hoping to teach locally when I’m done, I figured, why not? And it has been such a wonderful way to delve into the community, learn new things, meet new people, and write.
When asked if I’d cover the Gloucester schools for the Beacon, I said, sure. I am a product of the Gloucester schools: Beeman for six years, Central Grammar for two. I also worked as a classroom aide in Debbie Goodwin’s first kindergarten class at Fuller in 2002-03, and was one of the last-hired staff to be cut when the ax fell that fateful “No Child”/federal funding year. It’s what sent me back to school for the ever-elusive degree.
But the charter school story has struck a very deep nerve, and it hurts.
To continue reading Pamela's column click here.
So I was thrilled to be able to reconnect with my hometown by contributing pieces to the Beacon. Slowly finishing a long-overdue degree in English, hoping to teach locally when I’m done, I figured, why not? And it has been such a wonderful way to delve into the community, learn new things, meet new people, and write.
When asked if I’d cover the Gloucester schools for the Beacon, I said, sure. I am a product of the Gloucester schools: Beeman for six years, Central Grammar for two. I also worked as a classroom aide in Debbie Goodwin’s first kindergarten class at Fuller in 2002-03, and was one of the last-hired staff to be cut when the ax fell that fateful “No Child”/federal funding year. It’s what sent me back to school for the ever-elusive degree.
But the charter school story has struck a very deep nerve, and it hurts.
To continue reading Pamela's column click here.
Ongoing letters to the editor of the Gloucester Daily Times
Peter Van Ness' insistence that he and his group (the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School) have enjoyed a broad coalition of support in their efforts to bring their charter school to fruition is puzzling.
The public record paints a contrary picture of his inflated "re-vision" of public enthusiasm. According to the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 16 letters of support were received — of which seARTs, Montserrat College of Art in Beverly, Lesley University in Boston and Councilor Jackie Hardy all subsequently withdrew their endorsement. At the only public hearing, where members of the community were able to voice their concerns, the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School group could muster only 17 supporters (of which seven were founding board members) to speak in favor.
Conversely, 151 letters in opposition were received by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and, of the 94 people signed up to speak in opposition, half were denied the opportunity because of time constraints. Many people who intended to speak against the application did not bother to sign up because the opposition list was already so long.
To read the rest of Jason's letter click here.
JASON GROW
City Councilor, Ward 1
Gloucester
When people care enough to become involved in their community, we assume that they do so to improve the quality of life for all. We have many intelligent and informed community members and elected city officials who try hard to make decisions based on this assumption.
For me, the most disturbing aspect of the charter school situation is the involvement of members of our own community who do not seem to share this assumption. These community members apparently gave up trying to work within the confines of the local process and were willing to further diminish the core educational opportunities that the majority of children in Gloucester receive in order to satisfy their dissatisfaction with the status quo.
To read the rest of Simon's letter click here.
SIMON PADDOCK
Mount Pleasant Avenue, Gloucester
The public record paints a contrary picture of his inflated "re-vision" of public enthusiasm. According to the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 16 letters of support were received — of which seARTs, Montserrat College of Art in Beverly, Lesley University in Boston and Councilor Jackie Hardy all subsequently withdrew their endorsement. At the only public hearing, where members of the community were able to voice their concerns, the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School group could muster only 17 supporters (of which seven were founding board members) to speak in favor.
Conversely, 151 letters in opposition were received by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and, of the 94 people signed up to speak in opposition, half were denied the opportunity because of time constraints. Many people who intended to speak against the application did not bother to sign up because the opposition list was already so long.
To read the rest of Jason's letter click here.
JASON GROW
City Councilor, Ward 1
Gloucester
When people care enough to become involved in their community, we assume that they do so to improve the quality of life for all. We have many intelligent and informed community members and elected city officials who try hard to make decisions based on this assumption.
For me, the most disturbing aspect of the charter school situation is the involvement of members of our own community who do not seem to share this assumption. These community members apparently gave up trying to work within the confines of the local process and were willing to further diminish the core educational opportunities that the majority of children in Gloucester receive in order to satisfy their dissatisfaction with the status quo.
To read the rest of Simon's letter click here.
SIMON PADDOCK
Mount Pleasant Avenue, Gloucester
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Open Letter to the People of Gloucester
Dear Friends,
On Tuesday the Board of Education narrowly decided 6-5 to grant the Gloucester Community Arts School a charter. Here is a summary of the past few months. I want people to know that our efforts were extensive and that they did not go unnoticed--though it feels like they did. It is unfortunate that the charter application process is as flawed and undemocratic as it is. The fact that 6 individuals who do not intimately know the needs of our town or send their children to our schools can decide whether or not we need this school in the face of huge community opposition is unconscionable. Please take a few minutes to stroll down memory lane with me and take note of what we have been up against and what we have accomplished.
1. The school district released projections of how the charter school would affect approximately 3200 students--while 240 would enjoy capped classes of 20. One or two school closings and more teacher and staff cuts resulting in larger class sizes were projected.
2. The GCA applicants claimed to have cost-saving measures for the district; they had created a budget based on information given to them by Christopher Farmer. When it came time to reveal this budget, they would not produce it. People who have been paying attention to money in the city know that there is no "magic" budget.
3. On December 11, 2008, the state held a 3 1/2 hour (the longest the state has seen) public hearing during which 17 people spoke in support of the charter school. 7 of those people were founding board members. 48 people spoke out against the charter and 46 people were unable to speak due to time constraints. NOT ONE voting Board of Education member attended the hearing. At the 1/27/09 Board of Education meeting the board voted to waive the requirement in 603 CMR 1.04(3)(b) with respect to attendance by a member of the board at the public hearing.
4. By January 5, 2009 151 people opposing the school had written letters to Mitchell Chester at the Board of Education. 16 people wrote letters in support of the school. These numbers are especially important to take note of. Applicants claimed--after the hearing--that a lot of supporters were afraid to speak at the hearing because of the hostile reaction by a large number of people in the community. Letters, however, are different because the state does not reveal names. If our community was as desperate for a choice as the applicants say, founding members should have been able to get hundreds of people to write letters. They got 16 people, most likely including themselves as demonstrated at the public hearing. This is disgraceful. Whether applicants needed community support or not, they should have sought it. This is the spirit of community. This is the spirit of reform. This is the spirit of "together we can." To see a summary of the letter content and public hearing as produced by the DESE go here:
Summary
5. Mid-January, AFTER the letter writing deadline had passed, The Boston Foundation released a study about the Boston Public School System. THOUSANDS of charter school proponents statewide cited this study--irrelevant to Gloucester--when asking the Governor, the Secretary of Education and Commissioner Chester to lift the charter cap and approve the charter schools set to open in 2010. The well-oiled machine that is the statewide charter school lobby group is large-scale. Paul S. Grogan of the Boston Foundation is a major pro charter player. Our opposition group, small in comparison, fought on. We wrote letters to the Governor, to Secretary Reville and to the Commissioner again--even though the period for public commentary about the proposed charter had closed.
6. On February 13, 2009 Mitchell Chester issued a statement of recommendation for the GCA charter school while choosing not to recommend two other charter proposals. Many citizens of Gloucester were astonished as the GCA proposal had been misleading and dishonest. Why was the Commissioner unable to see this? Residents started calling the Governor's office and the Commissioner's office. They called again. And again. And again. By Monday afternoon, 2/23/09, the aides working at the state constituent's office were saying, "I'll add your name to the list. Yes. It's a long list. We've been getting calls all day."
7. After the successful pro charter lobby in January, Deval Patrick stopped waffling about charters and discussing problems with funding and issued statements in support of charter schools. On Tuesday, both of the Governor's men on the Board of Education voted in favor of the GCA school: Secretary Reville who wasn't actually present and Dana Mohler-Faria, President of Bridgewater State and Patrick's special advisor to education and instrumental in leading the Commonwealth's readiness project, quietly voted "yes."
8. I was told on Monday evening that--after meetings and letters and phone calls--8 board members would most likely be voting yes and 3 members would be voting no. I felt sad and defeated. I chose not to attend Tuesday's Board of Education meeting.
9. Tuesday morning I learned about the final vote: 6-5. I was stunned. Two board members had changed their votes. 5 of 11 board members dismissed the Commissioner's recommendation to only consider the school's viability and voted no. They heard us--our collective voices. This is no small victory.
I'm sure that I've left out things. Please let me know what I've forgotten. Mainly, though, I want to say thank you for your efforts. Before I got involved with the process of opposing the charter, I was of the mind that most people don't have time or energy or motivation to act. It's difficult to get people to write letters. It's difficult to get people to care--especially with all the demands that are placed upon people every day. But you showed me. You showed me again and again how much you care about all of the children in our city.
The applicants may have their school (we'll see if the state writes a check), but they've lost credibility within their own community. They attained victory by riding on the backs of the statewide pro charter lobby, by participating in a seriously flawed application process that failed to produce a record of 400 petition signatures or more than 16 letters in support of the school--and by refusing to acknowledge our many voices; this is a hollow victory at best.
I am proud of all that we have accomplished in spite of serious deficits. I am proud of how hard we have fought for the district's children. And I am proud that I live in Gloucester with people willing to ask hard questions about class and inequity and a charter lottery system that favors involved and culturally and financially advantaged parents. I'm proud of the foundations that have been established to supplement our schools and make things better for all of Gloucester's students, especially those who most struggle to pass the MCAS. I'm proud of the teachers who are always innovative--who have been implementing the ideas in the GCA application for years. I'm proud of the teachers who are constantly trying to reach as many children as possible in as many creative ways as possible--though class sizes continue to grow. I'm proud of everyone who goes beyond what is expected of them. I'm proud of people who don't lose hope in the face of an enormous setback.
Thank you for all that you have done, all that you do and all that you will do for our community.
Sincerely and with great admiration and appreciation,
Jane Cunningham
On Tuesday the Board of Education narrowly decided 6-5 to grant the Gloucester Community Arts School a charter. Here is a summary of the past few months. I want people to know that our efforts were extensive and that they did not go unnoticed--though it feels like they did. It is unfortunate that the charter application process is as flawed and undemocratic as it is. The fact that 6 individuals who do not intimately know the needs of our town or send their children to our schools can decide whether or not we need this school in the face of huge community opposition is unconscionable. Please take a few minutes to stroll down memory lane with me and take note of what we have been up against and what we have accomplished.
1. The school district released projections of how the charter school would affect approximately 3200 students--while 240 would enjoy capped classes of 20. One or two school closings and more teacher and staff cuts resulting in larger class sizes were projected.
2. The GCA applicants claimed to have cost-saving measures for the district; they had created a budget based on information given to them by Christopher Farmer. When it came time to reveal this budget, they would not produce it. People who have been paying attention to money in the city know that there is no "magic" budget.
3. On December 11, 2008, the state held a 3 1/2 hour (the longest the state has seen) public hearing during which 17 people spoke in support of the charter school. 7 of those people were founding board members. 48 people spoke out against the charter and 46 people were unable to speak due to time constraints. NOT ONE voting Board of Education member attended the hearing. At the 1/27/09 Board of Education meeting the board voted to waive the requirement in 603 CMR 1.04(3)(b) with respect to attendance by a member of the board at the public hearing.
4. By January 5, 2009 151 people opposing the school had written letters to Mitchell Chester at the Board of Education. 16 people wrote letters in support of the school. These numbers are especially important to take note of. Applicants claimed--after the hearing--that a lot of supporters were afraid to speak at the hearing because of the hostile reaction by a large number of people in the community. Letters, however, are different because the state does not reveal names. If our community was as desperate for a choice as the applicants say, founding members should have been able to get hundreds of people to write letters. They got 16 people, most likely including themselves as demonstrated at the public hearing. This is disgraceful. Whether applicants needed community support or not, they should have sought it. This is the spirit of community. This is the spirit of reform. This is the spirit of "together we can." To see a summary of the letter content and public hearing as produced by the DESE go here:
Summary
5. Mid-January, AFTER the letter writing deadline had passed, The Boston Foundation released a study about the Boston Public School System. THOUSANDS of charter school proponents statewide cited this study--irrelevant to Gloucester--when asking the Governor, the Secretary of Education and Commissioner Chester to lift the charter cap and approve the charter schools set to open in 2010. The well-oiled machine that is the statewide charter school lobby group is large-scale. Paul S. Grogan of the Boston Foundation is a major pro charter player. Our opposition group, small in comparison, fought on. We wrote letters to the Governor, to Secretary Reville and to the Commissioner again--even though the period for public commentary about the proposed charter had closed.
6. On February 13, 2009 Mitchell Chester issued a statement of recommendation for the GCA charter school while choosing not to recommend two other charter proposals. Many citizens of Gloucester were astonished as the GCA proposal had been misleading and dishonest. Why was the Commissioner unable to see this? Residents started calling the Governor's office and the Commissioner's office. They called again. And again. And again. By Monday afternoon, 2/23/09, the aides working at the state constituent's office were saying, "I'll add your name to the list. Yes. It's a long list. We've been getting calls all day."
7. After the successful pro charter lobby in January, Deval Patrick stopped waffling about charters and discussing problems with funding and issued statements in support of charter schools. On Tuesday, both of the Governor's men on the Board of Education voted in favor of the GCA school: Secretary Reville who wasn't actually present and Dana Mohler-Faria, President of Bridgewater State and Patrick's special advisor to education and instrumental in leading the Commonwealth's readiness project, quietly voted "yes."
8. I was told on Monday evening that--after meetings and letters and phone calls--8 board members would most likely be voting yes and 3 members would be voting no. I felt sad and defeated. I chose not to attend Tuesday's Board of Education meeting.
9. Tuesday morning I learned about the final vote: 6-5. I was stunned. Two board members had changed their votes. 5 of 11 board members dismissed the Commissioner's recommendation to only consider the school's viability and voted no. They heard us--our collective voices. This is no small victory.
I'm sure that I've left out things. Please let me know what I've forgotten. Mainly, though, I want to say thank you for your efforts. Before I got involved with the process of opposing the charter, I was of the mind that most people don't have time or energy or motivation to act. It's difficult to get people to write letters. It's difficult to get people to care--especially with all the demands that are placed upon people every day. But you showed me. You showed me again and again how much you care about all of the children in our city.
The applicants may have their school (we'll see if the state writes a check), but they've lost credibility within their own community. They attained victory by riding on the backs of the statewide pro charter lobby, by participating in a seriously flawed application process that failed to produce a record of 400 petition signatures or more than 16 letters in support of the school--and by refusing to acknowledge our many voices; this is a hollow victory at best.
I am proud of all that we have accomplished in spite of serious deficits. I am proud of how hard we have fought for the district's children. And I am proud that I live in Gloucester with people willing to ask hard questions about class and inequity and a charter lottery system that favors involved and culturally and financially advantaged parents. I'm proud of the foundations that have been established to supplement our schools and make things better for all of Gloucester's students, especially those who most struggle to pass the MCAS. I'm proud of the teachers who are always innovative--who have been implementing the ideas in the GCA application for years. I'm proud of the teachers who are constantly trying to reach as many children as possible in as many creative ways as possible--though class sizes continue to grow. I'm proud of everyone who goes beyond what is expected of them. I'm proud of people who don't lose hope in the face of an enormous setback.
Thank you for all that you have done, all that you do and all that you will do for our community.
Sincerely and with great admiration and appreciation,
Jane Cunningham
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
