District employee and member of the Board.

As I sip what remains of my frothy latte, I cannot help but ponder the meaning of the District's questionable legal advice. Surely the English language couldn't be so difficult to comprehend for people that make a living in education. When Board policies are adopted that specifically prohibit spouses of employees from serving on the Board, how can educated people hire lawyers (at considerable cost) to redefine the Board's intent and the efficacy of our native tongue?

If there is no conflict with a Board member voting to rebuild a $100,000,000.00 high school for his wife, why can't District employees run for a seat on the Board? The lawyers will have you believe that as long as you were an employee BEFORE obtaining your seat on the Board - there shouldn't be a problem.

Imagine the fun you could have with your boss. Imagine the new policies you could put in place. Every workroom could have an espresso machine. Every meeting could be catered (again). Every Friday could end with happy hour in the Board Room. Every conceivable bell and whistle could be put in place and you still wouldn't come close to overtaking the foolhearty choices made by the current regime.

A suggestion to Bruce Williams' replacement and Ann McMurray: Don't get comfortable. I anticipate a lengthy list of "qualified" candidates will be filing with Snohomish County in 2009 - with a resounding endorsement from the District's legal team.