ACLU & Planned Parenthood No Coincidence?

Brace yourself. Friday's P & C divulged that both the ACLU and Planned Parenthood are opening offices in downtown Charleston. For the ACLU it's the only office in the state--where else but Charleston, of course. For Planned Parenthood the impetus is being "flush with cash" and seeing Charleston as under-served. Probably it saw South Carolina's "sixth-lowest abortion rate in the nation" as a disgrace, you know, rather like the way we view CCSD's graduation rates.

According to PP, "'Initially, the center will not offer abortion services.'" For how many hours?

Don't hold your breath, either, waiting to see if the ACLU will support the rights of protesters against Planned Parenthood.

Maybe these two like-minded organizations thought there would be safety in numbers. Maybe they're both being funded from the same source. Does anyone see the irony in Joe Riley's being present for the ACLU's ribbon-cutting?

Food for thought.

Delay, Linger, and Wait: Again with the Fire Report

Why do politicians make important announcements late on Friday afternoons? No, this is not a trick question.

It's to get bad news out when their audience is paying the least attention. Some won't even get the word until the following Monday, and by then the worst of the storm will have blown over (at least that's what politicians hope).

So it should come as no surprise that it was late on Friday afternoon, only a few hours ago, that Mayor Riley, who no one doubts has political skill, announced that the long-awaited requested panel investigative report on the fatal fire at the Sofa Super Store will now be delayed until the middle of June.

The middle of June. For a report that originally was supposed to come out in December. Actually, what Riley said was, "the panel's report could be released over the summer, but he refused to commit to a definite timetable." Now the excuse is a wait for the results of two federal probes.

You know, Joe, at this point people are beginning to murmur, what has he got to hide?

CEN's Butzon Butts in on Charter School Rent

Don't you just love the edu-blob? It pretends to have the best interests of students at heart, when in fact it has its OWN interests at heart. Take Jon Butzon, of the Charleston Education Network, a Riley and Chamber-of-Commerce front--please take him!

Monday's P & C's op-ed page has a message from Butzon: The sky is falling in CCSD. Run for your life.

Butzon tries to link CCSD's financial woes to its failure to charge rent to the new Charter School for Math and Science. For example,

"Locally sponsored charter schools are already a financial albatross for school districts. When charter school proponents complain about the slow growth of charter schools in South Carolina, they typically attribute that slow growth to anti-charter sentiments among educators and school boards. But as the law is currently written, having charter schools is a financial disincentive for school boards."

What you really mean, Jon, is that school boards lose control of the money that goes to those students. I agree it's a financial disincentive but only because many on the school board have other agendas than the best interests of the students involved. You and I both know that the amount of money alloted per student in the district does not change--only who handles it.

More to the point, why should the Charleston Education Network get a chair at the table? Who elected it to decide what policies the district should have about anything? Why do so many friends of Riley and Democratic activists sit on the committee? What qualifies Jon Butzon to sound off on the finances of the district and its funding? Let's see his credentials.

As I inquired in a posting last July 27th,

Who calls the shots in this unwieldy committee of 26?
Who decides what policies to push?
Where does more than $92,000 in "public support"[as of 3 years ago] come from?
What are Butzon's qualifications for sitting in on CCSD meetings?
Why does CCSD list CEN under "parent" organizations?

Well, Jon? Why did CEN leave its offices at the Citadel? Why is it that on CEN's website not a single member of the committee is listed under "Who We Are"?

Don't you just love it?

Riley's Golden Goose, or Running a City with Illegals

How many P & C readers got indigestion over Saturday morning's headline, Company's Goose Cooked After Bird Killing? Plenty, I'll bet. While our state legislators pass an immigration bill at a speed somewhere between dead slow and stop, let's look around.

Once your friendly neighborhood teenager had a nice income in the spring mowing lawns. Now those nicely manicured lawns are worked by illegal aliens employed by temporary services.

Once the City of Charleston employed workers to care for its parks. No longer. Now it employs illegal aliens procured by temp agencies. And they certainly cost less than any legal workers who might, after all, complain about their rights under the law. Sweet, isn't it? That allows Mayor Riley and his friends to state that they had "NO IDEA that gambling was going on in this establishment," to paraphrase Casablanca. Right.

Doesn't it make you wonder what other parts of city government are employing illegals? How about other cities? Other city contractors? Staffing 2000 isn't the only temp agency to use illegals and claim that they're all legal. The agency is only one step up from using slave labor.

Those poor workers probably thought they'd enjoy a nice roast goose. Does it make you angry to think that Charleston has knowingly exploited the evil situation this country now faces? Knowingly because South Carolina has one of the lowest percentages of legal Mexicans (and other Latin Americans) in the country, and Staffing 2000 has provided its so-called legals for nine years? What did they do, round up every poor but legal Mexican in the entire state?

To use the excuse that the City just noticed that Staffing 2000 is not on the list of state-approved contractors is just plain nonsense. We all know what's going on here.

Idiocy of the Day: Riley to Head League's Youth Council

According to Thursday's P & C,

"The National League of Cities has announced that Charleston Mayor Joe Riley has been appointed to chair the league's 2008 Council on Youth, Education, and Families.

"The council works to assist municipal leaders in identifying and developing effective programs for strengthening families and improving outcomes for the children and youth.

Riley should really be helpful regarding programs to strengthen education. Look what's happened to the penninsula schools during his tenure.

As Long as We Need to Restructure Burke

Now that Burke High School (among others in CCSD) has failed to meet AYP for six years, it faces restructuring, according to NCLB. May I remind you of some highlights of Burke's trials over the past 18 months? I'm sure many readers can add the tribulations of the many previous years.


Let's begin with June of 2006. Burke was almost taken over by the State Department of Education, Inez Tenenbaum then Superintendent. It had failed to implement recommendations made by the state review board during the previous year. What happened next? Promises, promises! In fact, Mayor Joe Riley promised at the time to make (and I quote!) Burke "'a renowned national model for excellence.'" Goodloe-Johnson promised that, after a string of six principals over seven years, the new one would do the trick.

Barely three months later, the P & C (of all sources!) broke the scandal that Burke has been used as a dumping ground for troublemakers from other schools in CCSD. [See my posting of You Can't Make This Stuff Up! for details.] Is anyone on the school board following up on these questionable transfers? What percentage of Burke's students do not live in District 20? Do these transfers continue? How about telling us how many students who live in District 20 are bused to CCSD high schools in other parts of the county? Now, that number would be revealing.

Of course, in May of 2007 CCSD held its famous $77,000 meeting at Burke regarding the use of the Rivers High School building. During that meeting (and at various times since) CCSD has hinted that Burke may get an "AP Academy" or other speciality program. As it is, Burke doesn't even offer enough world language courses to qualify students for USC or Clemson, not to mention other deficiencies in its course offerings.

If plans exist to improve Burke, it appears now that the Superintendent will spring them by surprise upon the residents of District 20. Is she going to meet with District 20 constituents (especially PARENTS) to ask what they would like to see with the restructuring of Burke? Surely that's an important step that needs to be part of any restructuring!

Meanwhile, Burke has plenty of room in its practically-new building.

Why not take all those applicants to Academic Magnet who will be rejected for the coming year's class but meet the old generic standard and create a second "academic magnet" at Burke?

Don't like that?

Why not take all 75 students from Sea Islands YouthBuild Charter (who don't have a school building) and create a spectacular building trades program in the space at Burke?

Don't like that either? What about replicating some vocational programs now at Garrett and offering them at Burke?

Most importantly, what does the downtown community as a whole see as the best solution for Burke? And I'm not talking about NAACP officers who live west of the Ashley!

Say It Ain't So, Joe!

Why would Superintendent McGinley and a representative of the charter high school committee meet in the office of the mayor of Charleston four days before McGinley announced her commitment to charging a high rent on the Rivers building that insisted on an illegal quota system and sharing of the building with a phantom "Lowcountry High Tech" school?

According to a well-placed source,

" Mayor Riley and Dr. McGinley called a meeting in the mayor's office with a representative of the charter school group in order to dictate terms for the occupancy of the Rivers building. The lone charter school representative who was allowed to attend the meeting was essentially ambushed. This meeting was four days before the county school board's vote (last Monday) and several days after Mayor Riley had assured representatives of the NAACP and the Ministerial Alliance that he would 'take care of the matter.' Mayor Riley and Dr. McGinley agreed in advance that they would make the environment so objectionable at Rivers that the Charter School would be unable to attract the numbers that it would need. The rent discussion was just a distraction for what would really KILL the charter school outright which is what both officials appear to want."

The only person with the authority to "call a meeting in the mayor's office" IS the mayor. The last time I looked, Mayor Riley had no legal standing in CCSD. In fact, although once the Charleston city schools functioned under the aegis of the mayor and council, as a result of the Act of Consolidation that is no longer true. Not "legally." That never stopped Joe Riley apparently. It's unlikely that he called this meeting in his role as a board member of the Charleston Education Network.

It's not difficult to understand that, although McGinley gives lip service to the concept of charter schools, she really hates them. After all, public charter schools COMPETE with the other public schools run by the district and its school board. As with James Island Charter High School, the probability exists that sooner or later authorities in charge of the other public schools will look like bad managers (for obvious reasons). What is not so clear is why Mayor Joe Riley wants to kill the downtown charter high school.

What do the NAACP and Ministerial Alliance hold against integrated high schools? Does Joe Riley really believe that his opposition to the charter high school will guarantee the support of African-American voters? Why? How can he even look them in the eye after what has happened to downtown schools on his 32-year watch?

CEN's Big and Little Shots: Who's Playing in CCSD

Not too surprisingly, the Board of Directors of the Charleston Education Network (CEN) is comprised of big shots, money bags, and even the occasional educator.


Jon Butzon, its executive director, reports to a chairman, co-chairman, and 24 directors. Since the tax reports of 501(c) organizations (such as CEN) must be available to the public, through a helpful reader I am able to provide the names of these mysterious eminences, at least as of two years ago. Perhaps you can add some pertinent information to my groping attempts to identify all of them.

1. Neil C. Robinson, Jr., a lawyer with Nexsen Pruett, a director who states he is a founder and past chairman of CEN on the firm's website;


2. John Barter of Kiawah Island, listed as past co-chair, on the Board of Directors of Spoleto Festival USA and Board of Investors of the Noisette Company;


3. James Etheredge, vice-chairman for operations, has an MUSC email address;


4. Wilbur Johnson, lawyer with Young Rivers Clement;


5. Sybil Fix, former education reporter for the P & C;


6. Katherine Duffy, of Katherine Duffy and Associates, a marketing research firm, former director of the Palmetto-Lowcountry Health Systems Agency;


7. Lee Gaillard, former principal of Burke High School and present interim principal at Murray Hill Academy;


8. Edwin Halkyard, former president of the Charleston Symphony Orchestra;


9. Thomas Hood, president of First Financial (better known in Charleston as "First Federal");


10. Robert Lurie, retired founder of Bright Horizons Corporate Day Care, who lives on Kiawah;


11. Cathy Marino, also of Kiawah, active in Gibbes, Etc., and WINGS;


12. Elizabeth Marshall--no clear information available;


13. Sara Davis Powell, professor in C of C's School of Education;


14. Allan Rashford, M.D., downtown practitioner whose patients include former police chief Reuben Greenberg;


15. Retired Bishop (and former chairman) S.K. Rembert of the Reformed Episcopal Church;


16. Joseph P. Riley, Jr., who needs no introduction;


17. John Thompson, whose name is so common that no reliable identification can be made here;


18. Ruth Baker, another activist in community affairs from Kiawah;


19. Nella Barkley, director of Crystal-Barkley and first general manager of Spoleto Festival USA;


20. Johanna Carrington-Martin, co-chairman previously identified here;


21. The Rev. Willis T. Goodwin, chairman of the Charleston Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance;


22. Alicia Gregory, identified as Secretary, also on the board of directors of the Children's Museum along with Robert Lurie, its president;


23. Paul Hines, Co-chair of the Blue Ribbon Education Committee that opposed the A-team in the last school board election;


24. Rita O'Neill, General Manager of Channel 5;


25. Theron Snype, Minority Business Enterprise Manager for the City of Charleston and CCSD school board candidate in 2004;


26. Elisabeth Oplinger, former principal at Memminger Elementary.

In 2005 CEN listed its address as Capers Hall, Room 330. In that year it received almost $93,000 in "public support," $65,ooo of which went for Butzon's salary as the only employee.

Considerable overlap exists between this group and the members of the Charleston Planning Project for Pubic Education (C3PE) that produced a year-long study of public education in Charleston County in 1998. That organization's work was described by the Charleston Business Journal as

"the Equity and Excellence Study funded by private donations generated through a volunteer committee, the Charleston Planning Project for Public Education. C3PE is an education planning group consisting of business leaders and educators who are dedicated to the overall improvement of Charleston County schools."

Is that study the blueprint for the Charleston Education Network?

Who calls the shots in this unwieldy committee of 26?

Who decides what policies to push?

Where does more than $92,000 in "public support" come from?

What are Butzon's qualifications for sitting in on CCSD meetings?

Why does CCSD list CEN under "parent" organizations?

Any and all answers will be appreciated!

CCSD: Everybody Else Does It

What part of "kickbacks" does Don Kennedy, CCSD's financial officer, not understand? Apparently, he never met a kickback he didn't like.

Part of the P & C's campaign to return to the good graces of CCSD (and probably Joe Riley) is a front-page followup on the solicited funds that paid for Goodloe's farewell party.

According to Kennedy, "Companies that win major contracts with the Charleston County School District have been subject to requests from district officials for donations for school-related activities for years. Vendors for the district could be asked for donations several times in a school year." Kennedy goes on to extol the benefits of those contributions to the school community.

This story gets better, though. Kennedy admits that CCSD "doesn't have records . . . and no one monitors the requests or donation receipts." So, as I understand it, this is "off the books" money? Does anyone wonder how much is involved besides me?

Either quite naive or disingenuous, Kennedy claims that "donations play no role in whether the companies win lucrative contracts." He also defends the practice by saying that it "preceded his working with the district" and isn't "'unique to Charleston County.'"

An important question for SMG Chairman Bill Wiseman, whose firm contributed and has $241.5 million in contracts with CCSD, was NOT asked (or at least not reported): how or if SMG reports such contributions in its income tax returns. Needless to say, Wiseman "did not see the donations as a conflict." In fact, he's quoted as saying that :the only time the company avoids giving money is when a contract is pending." Right. When a contract is pending, CCSD can't remember if SMG has ever contributed to the district.

The comments solicited from district officials in Berkeley County and Dorchester District 2 reveal another can of worms, folks. While Berkeley claims not to solicit on a regular basis, it also doesn't know who's given what to whom. Dorchester District 2 says it "doesn't pay attention" to contracts when "soliciting partnerships or resources." The article did not clarify the attitude of its business manager, Allyson Duke, on the practice of donations, but she apparently does not have records of them.

The most egregious example of a kickback is the $6000 to CCSD from SSC Service Solutions, more than 10 times the amount provided by the other two contractors. Don Kennedy and its spokesman, Bill Steward, would have us believe that gift was unconnected to the expiration of its $24 million contract next summer. Wiseman's memory is fuzzy over how much has been donated in the past 25 years. Again, my question: how is the company reporting this $6000 on its income tax returns? How does CCSD plan to report it; or, maybe I should say, does CCSD plan to report it, if it doesn't keep track of donations?

Everyone can understand a local school's soliciting funds for extras, but let's think about what abuses can arise from the process if it is not monitored or recorded.

• The district receives funds unrecorded on its balance sheets.


• Contributions theoretically can influence awarding of contracts.


• Schools with "contacts" will receive an inequitable share not reflected in the figures shown by district accounting.


• Lack of oversight tests human nature's desire to get an edge on the competition.

We should use common sense, as Ron McWhirt is quoted as saying.

• Donations over some minimum amount, say $50, should be recorded and reported to the district.


• The district should keep records, public records, and include such donations on its balance sheets.


• And those who award contracts should not solicit nor accept funds from potential contractors.

These policies (with the appropriate adjustments) can be put into effect for the coming school year. All it takes is the will to do it!

CCSD, NAACP, & Ministerial Alliance: Unholy Trio

Sunday's Post and Courier story on youth recruitment by Charleston's NAACP contains both interesting facts and revealing quotations. For example, the local branch has a membership of 625, only five percent of whom are white, as opposed to Columbia's branch (size not given) that has a membership that is 35 percent white. Why the great disparity?

Now, of course, statistics don't always tell the full story, as I recently noted regarding Academic Magnet's success in Newsweek's index; however, perhaps these percentages do give a clue to the orientation of local leadership--namely, their continued position that true integration of downtown schools is a BAD idea, not a good one. From everything I have heard and read since returning to the Charleston area six years ago, the NAACP has worked closely with Joe Riley for more than 30 years while supporting the positions of CCSD and its school board. The results are de facto segregation in District 20 and miserably failing schools.

But, of course, many of the youth affected by this sorry state of affairs are poor. In the same article William Jenkins, of the Father to Father Project in North Charleston (and an NAACP member), suggests that the poor he works with see "the NAACP as a middle-class organization out of touch with their needs." That certainly fits with the residence of its local leaders in West Ashley and the attitude of Toya Hampton-Green, the one Board member who resides in District 20 but claims to represent the interests of the whole district instead.

The Post and Courier has reported several times now that the NAACP and the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance, supposedly representing 10,000 downtown residents desirous of CCSD's opening a tech school in the Rivers building, "staunchly" oppose the creation of a downtown charter high school for math and science. Their reason? To prevent further segregation of downtown schools.

You mean the half-dozen white students who now attend District 20 schools (excluding Buist, of course) would have to leave?

What's the REAL agenda?

Nancy McGinley, Mystery Woman

When I saw in Saturday's Post and Courier that Sunday's edition would include an article on Nancy McGinley, the new Superintendent of Schools for CCSD, I looked forward to learning more about her. In particular, I hoped to get some sense of McGinley as a person and of her plans for the district. Alas, it was a hope not fulfilled.

For those who have no access to the Web or do not know how to use Google, I suppose today's article contained news. The only news I gleaned was that McGinley is (and was) an athlete in high school and college and that her father was a principal in the Philadelphia schools. Oh, yes, and she surfs at the Washout on Folly.

So I have a list of questions for McGinley that should have been asked. Perhaps they were, and McGinley refused to answer them; perhaps the editors cut these questions and answers out of the article. I'll give the reporter the benefit of the doubt. Here they are in no particular order:

1. Apart from receiving a job offer here, why did you want to come to the Charleston area?


2. Now that you have resided in the Lowcountry for a few years, how have your perceptions of it changed?


3. Is it too personal to ask if you have ever been married, had children, etc.?


4. What is your opinion of the relationship that exists between the city (in particular, the mayor of Charleston) and county government and CCSD?


5. How do you intend to respond to parental and community discontent over the handling of the principal for Fraser Elementary and of the lottery for Buist Academy kindergarten slots?


6. Are you concerned that District 20 schools are de facto segregated?


7. What are your ideas about the proposed downtown charter high school and its use of the Rivers building?


8. What do you see as differences between your leadership style and that of Maria Goodloe-Johnson?

Well, that's a good start, although I suppose McGinley can't answer some of these until Maria Goodloe-Johnson is well out of town.

Maybe the rest of you can think of some more.

What Has Changed since 1997, Joe?

The Sunday Post and Courier's Faith and Values section included an interview with Mayors Summey, Riley, and Hallman called "Poverty Forum." Most of their answers appear to be what the reader might expect of such forums--many platitudes sprinkled with a few good ideas. What caught my eye, however, was Joe Riley's answer to the following question:

"Education is universally cited as the key to breaking the cycle of poverty. What more can local government do to support the goals of our public schools?"

After attempting to describe how family life has changed in the last 30-50 years (mothers working, violence, drugs, divorce), Riley makes the following assertion:

"There is a very important role for local government as a supporter of public education. As opposed to 10 years ago [italics mine], I am regularly communicating with [G-J, McGinley, Lewis, and/or CCSD principals]."

Not much has changed in the last 10 years in the areas you cited, Joe, so what has motivated your change in behavior? You now say that city government has its role to play in improving education. When did you discover this novel idea? I ask because, well, haven't you been mayor since 1975--that's 32 years? And how have the schools on the peninsula fared during that time?

According to the rather grandly named Riley Institute for Urban Affairs and Policy Studies at the College of Charleston,

"Mayor Riley has led a city government with an impressive record of innovation in public safety, housing, arts and culture, children's issues, the creation of park and other public spaces, and economic revitalization and development. The City of Charleston is recognized as one of the most livable and progressive cities in the United States."

Um. Except for its downtown schools? Aren't they a "children's issue"? Can the Institute (and Riley, presumably) claim Charleston as "livable and progressive" if its downtown schools are failing? Frankly, from my point of view, the "urban affair" of overriding importance should be successful urban schools. Try to imagine what a difference such a phenomenon would make in livability for urban residents.

Could it be that accountability for schools has come to the forefront? That schools that have always been failing are now labeled as failing for all to see?

More at issue are Riley's further comments about Fraser Elementary and the "circle" of community drawn around it. Are the entities he named--McNeil Law firm, Piggly Wiggly, Pratt-Thomas Gumb & Co., the School of Law--as part of the circle making a difference at Fraser? Different than, say, 10 years ago? If so, what is it? Is it hype or reality?

More Appropriate Headline: "A Band-Aid over Melanoma"

"State board leaves Burke in school district's hands," by Diette Courrege AND "Trouble on 'A-Team': Engelman departs," by Schuyler Kropf, The Post and Courier, Thursday, August 10, 2006, front page, above the fold.
http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPages/departmental/news/Stories.aspx?section=localnews&tableId=101778&pubDate=8/10/2006
http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPages/departmental/news/Stories.aspx?section=localnews&tableId=101787&pubDate=8/10/2006

It's hard to say which of these stories dealing with the future of public education in Charleston County is more disheartening.

1. Is it worse that Joe Riley, after being mayor of Charleston for 30 years, during which time Burke High School has gone from a poor high school to an abysmal one, has the temerity to suggest NOW that he will make it a "renowned national model for excellence" so that it will not be taken over by the state? or
2. Is it worse that the self-named "A-Team" running for the CCSD school board promising true reform turns out to be headed by "good ol' boy" Arthur Ravenel, Jr., who somehow believes that making millions mixing real estate and politics and having his name on a bridge gives him the right to be the new school board chairman?

It's a close call, but I have to go with # 2. After all, in the case of Burke, we have a DEMOCRATIC mayor putting on a good show for a DEMOCRATIC state supertintendent. If you believe politics wasn't a factor, well, you must have fallen off the turnip truck yesterday! But more importantly, the status quo will be changed ONLY by a change of personnel on the CCSD school board and in the state superintendent's office. Certainly not by Joe Riley, who has no control over what goes on in the school district!

AND, politics was also the factor for the "A-Team," the "Republican" slate in this non-partisan election. "Non-partisan" is a joke, and all those involved know it. It's "pig-in-a-poke" voting. This expression refers to buying a bag supposedly holding a valuable pig while trusting that the unseen pig actually exists. When the sucker opens the bag, it turns out to hold ... a worthless[substitute some worthless animal here].

For those of you not familiar with South Carolina before it elected its first Republican governor in a century, it used to be that all white folk were Democrats, Southern ones that is [think of Dixiecrats], with only a few "Post-Office Republicans" (liberal) hanging on by their fingernails. That's when Arthur Ravenel, Jr. was a Democrat. Now, the large majority of whites in South Carolina have moved into the Republican Party with the rest of the conservatives in the country. In fact, for most offices in the state, you must now be a Republican to get elected, and thus Arthur Ravenel, Jr. is a Republican. But, he's still a good ol' boy who believes that Charleston should be run by the same small group of old Charlestonians and their hangers on. That belief is the true cause for the public disagreement between him and Sandi Engelman.

Is there any way to fix the train wreck? Not this year. Talk about counting your chickens before they're hatched--arguing about who's going to be board chairman even before running, much less before being elected?

Whence my quote, "a Band-Aid over melanoma"? That's from the only sensible member of the state school board (one out of 12!), Ron Wilson, in regard to the district's presentation of how it will fix the Burke problem, "smoke and mirrors," he rightly names it. Apparently he CARED that Marvin Stewart, chairman of the downtown constituent school board, presented a "unanimous vote of no confidence in Charleston administrators." Why should anyone pay attention to them? They only live in the district and send their children to Burke!

By the way, if you are wondering who these state school board members are, apparently four of the 17 did not vote. Were Terrye Seckinger (Isle of Palms), Kristin Maguire (Sanford's appointee), Patsy Pye (Summerville), and Joe Isaac (Pawleys Island) voting "Yes"? Or were they too timid to be there?

If so, let's hold these lackeys of the state superintendent responsible! They're appointed by your legislative delegation. You can email them at http://ed.sc.gov/agency/stateboard/page296.html .