Commentary: Understanding privatization - What Thomas Knudsen doesn't get
by Ron Whitehorne on May 10 2012 Posted in Commentary
Thomas Knudsen says critics who talk about privatization have it wrong. Speaking at the School Reform Commission community budget hearing at Kensington Creative and Performing Arts High School last week, the chief recovery officer said, “For-profit businesses will not be running schools. This is not about privatizing schools.”
SRC Chair Pedro Ramos chimed in, disputing that accelerating the growth of charters represents privatization, because charter schools are, according to the law, public schools.
As someone who has characterized the SRC’s policy as privatization, let me say that Knudsen and Ramos miss the point.
For starters, nonprofits are private associations governed by self-selected boards. As such, they are not subject to the Sunshine Act and Right to Know Law or the ethics laws that apply to public officials.
The mission of many nonprofits distinguishes them from for-profit corporations and exerts influence on economic decisions. But although nonprofits do not have to answer to stockholders who expect maximum returns on their investments, they are impacted by market forces. In a competitive market environment, they must maximize revenue and reduce costs. The behavior of some large nonprofits, like Blue Cross Blue Shield, mirrors that of private insurers. The bottom line, not the quality of health care, drives economic decisions.
In Pennsylvania, charter schools are nonprofits by law. Although Ramos and others may characterize them as public schools, a more accurate description would be that they are a hybrid: publicly funded but privately managed.
Many have pointed out that some charter schools are driven by making money for would-be entrepreneurs who double-dip as CEOs and landlords or providers of services. But outlawing these practices will not change the fundamental dynamic, which is that charters, independent of their motives, are businesses competing for customers in an education marketplace. They are privately governed by trustees who have no public accountability beyond getting their charter renewed every five years.
Privatization of education is about transforming schools into businesses and making education market-driven. It is about rolling back the public sector. Families, who traditionally have expected that education will be provided as a public service, are being transformed into consumers who shop around for the best buy for their taxpayer dollars.
Reducing the public sector means there is more wealth for corporations in the form of reduced taxes and new markets to exploit. A for-profit sector of education management organizations, consulting firms, testing companies, and textbook publishers exists alongside a market-friendly collection of nonprofit think tanks and service providers. The motive is not simply economic, but ideological and political as well. A healthy public sector challenges the idea that markets always do it better.
Just to be clear, I’m not saying that public schools do not have to operate efficiently. Certainly, we have seen more than our share of bureaucratic mismanagement and fiscal irresponsibility by the District. Indeed, part of why the “the market does it better” argument has gained traction is because of disinvestment and neglect of the public sector.
The crucial difference is that a public system recognizes that it is a social decision how much will be invested in education and not a calculation of profit and loss. The quality of public education is largely a reflection of political will, both in terms of the willingness to invest resources and the engagement of citizens in making the system responsive to public needs.
Comments (50)
Submitted by Susan DeJarnatt (not verified) on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 17:17.
Good post Ron! And Pennsylvania law does allow the non-profit that holds the charter to hire a for-profit management company. Few of the existing charters in Philadelphia do this but it is the way the main charter in Chester is run. That charter is operated by the founder's private, for-profit management company. Dan Hardy of the Inquirer wrote about this sometime back. I am pretty sure the big cyber charters operate this way too. There is a stark difference between a public school system run by a public entity--even the SRC which is less accountable than an elected school board--and a bunch of private outfits, even non-profits, who answer to their non-elected boards. If the charter "reform" legislation advocated by Corbett is enacted, the renewal of all charters in Pennsylvania will be up to a state-run commission, will be for a period of 10 years, and the renewal will happen automatically unless that Commission affirmatively decides to revoke the charter. Not a democratic prospect, if you ask me!
Submitted by Ron Whitehorne on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 17:20.
Thanks for this valuable addition, Susan, and nice job in Council yesterday.
Submitted by Rich Migliore (not verified) on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 07:58.
I thank you, too, Ron, for starting up this must needed discussion on the question of whether charter schools are being operated as public schools or as private organizations for the benefit of their founders, trustees and officers. I also thank Susan and concur with Susan's comments which are festering issues.
I have written much on the legal issues of charter school governance and have been thinking of writing a blog on the issue of what makes a school a true public school. It boils down to the issue of, How are the board of trustees "appointed or elected?" Who appoints them and for how long? Or, who elects them?
Whoever controls that process controls the board of trustees and thereby controls the school. There is a studied reason why I entitled my book on school governance and leadership, Whose School Is It? the Democratic Imperative for Our Schools. I did not create the phrase Whose School Is It? I borrowed it from a legal expert on governance of nonprofits at the Pennsylvania Bar Institute's Nonprofit Symposium.
The expert led a session on representing boards of trustees of nonprofits. He said the first thing you have to determine is 'Whose organization is it?" Because, that is who the board of trustees owe their "fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and good faith."
I have tried to impress upon our readers that there is a significant legal, philosophical and practical difference between a school set up as a charter school with its own board of trustees and a school operated by a "charter operator" with its own independent board of trustees.
May I leave you with this thought: The term "nonprofit" is the greatest "legal fiction" in America. Just look at the salaries of many of the CEO's and officers of the so called nonprofits. Then tell me that they are not for profit!
Submitted by Teacher (not verified) on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 11:54.
Anyone else notice the ad for Mastery top right?
Submitted by Joan Taylor on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 19:28.
I've been concerned about it too...a sign of the times, I guess.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 17:30.
What's happening now is a manifestation of decades of failure of the public sector to deliver educational services in Philadelphia. Public sector entities are organized by and for their employees, not the customers of their services. This is an inherently flawed model.
Submitted by Rich Migliore (not verified) on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 10:12.
Sorry I do not agree with your comment at all. Public schools and public school systems are "public trusts." The students, their parents and citizens are 'beneficiaries" of that public trust. Public schools were crated as a "common good."
They are not businesses with customers. Charter schools, by law require a "board of trustees."
The public school system serves our schoolchildren and their communities very well in the vast majority of our public schools across our state and throughout America. They serve their communities very well. In Philadelphia and our large urban cities, the number of successes far outnumber our failures.
Our small democratically governed school districts (99% of our school districts) do have higher achievement rates on average than our urban school districts which have less indicia of democracy. They also have on average higher achievement rates than any of our charter schools or schools operated by "charter operators."
The issue of public vs. privatization is one of whether we want our schools to operate for the best interests of our children and their communities, or, whether we want them to operate as businesses which serve the best interests of those who operate them for their personal profit.
The problems with our school system in Philadelphia are caused by a lack of equitable funding, the high poverty rate of our city, and the poor management and leadership of those who were imposed upon our school system and individual schools.
The public school model is not flawed. It is a pillar of American democracy. Those who argue for the privatization of public schools, I submit, have not thought deeply about what that means to us all as a democratic society, and have not thought deeply about all of the ramifications that has on our freedoms, our rights, and protections which we cherish in America.
Or, of course, they have thought deeply about it and are just in it for the profits they plan on reaping. We are not customers, we are citizens. And they are "Our" schools.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 12:42.
What a powerful informative post! Thank you!
Submitted by MBA to M'Ed mom (not verified) on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 22:34.
Awesome!! 'Our school's'...I wish I would meet more administrators and teachers with your outlook in the SDP. Gives me hope after an awful week volunteering and being screamed at several times by teachers and staff along with the kids.
Submitted by Phantom Poster (not verified) on Sun, 05/13/2012 - 23:57.
The greatest breakdown in the model is the imposition of ego-driven leadership whose only consistency has been in putting self-interest above all else.
Submitted by Rich Migliore (not verified) on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 07:16.
You obviously speak with the wisdom of many years of experience in schools as both a follower and leader.
Leadership that is "imposed upon a school community" is most often terrible leadership. It is certainly a poor way to choose our leaders.
When a community chooses its own leaders through an inclusive, transparent, open and democratic process, the result is more often a leader who is supported by the community, has a leadership style that fits that community, and has a higher chance of effectively leading that community.
I read with interest this morning, the Inquirer's article about Tim McKenna, presently the outstanding principal of Furness, being selected by the Central H.S. to be their new principal. The selection team included faculty, students, parents, and alumni.
The question remains, why aren't all of our principals selected by the school community in that manner or a similar democratic manner?
Submitted by Philadelphian but not for long (not verified) on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 08:15.
Because the schools that count in the SDP are places like Central, Masterman, SLA, etc. - they aren't neighborhood schools.
Submitted by Stan Shapiro (not verified) on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 17:53.
Council does not have to collaborate in this outsourcing of the District, even if it decides it needs to make the $94 million requested by the SRC available. In fact Council can help prevent the sell-off of the School District through a simple carrot and stick approach.
All it has to do is sequester the $94 million and hold it out until the community gets what it wants and deserves.
Here’s how Council can do that:
1) Amend the pending Operating Budget Bill to appropriate $94 million to the City’s Sinking Fund Commission, a traditional place for parking money intended to be used later for other purposes. Putting the $94 million there would mean the School District couldn’t get it until Council passed another ordinance approving its transfer later in the year.
2) Amend the Mayor’s AVI bill to shift the revenue targets so that the City is getting $94 million more (the money that would go to the Sinking Fund) and the School District $94 million less.
3) Work with labor and the community to come up with a plan that works to keep the School District public and thriving, and refuse to send the $94 million until the SRC goes along.
What if the SRC doesn’t meet our demands by the end of the next fiscal year? Well, then the $94 million merges back into the City’s General Fund to be allocated next year either for other purposes or to enable tax rates to be reduced. Or it could be used to reduce the pain from the Governor's social services cuts.
That’s it. It’s not rocket science; it’s just about Council’s sincerity in opposing the privatization of the District. They can fight it if they want.
None of this is to suggest that going to AVI is necessarily the most progressive way to raise money for the School District or anything else. That's a more complicated question that I've dealt with here: http://youngphillypolitics.com/multitasking_1_%E2%80%A6_killing_schools_...
Submitted by Philly Teacher and Parent (not verified) on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 18:47.
As you wrote, Ron, Blue Cross is a classic example of a "non profit" that runs like a "for profit." The United States spends more per capita than any other country on health care. Yet, at least 50 million people do not have health insurance. If schools continue to be "charterized," which is market driven, public education will be analogous to the U.S. health care system. People will scramble for crumbs while the select get a fresh loaf of bread.
Submitted by Dina (not verified) on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 19:29.
Great post. A well needed explanation.
Submitted by Not convinced (not verified) on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 11:04.
I keep hearing the critique of the District's plan that they are trying to impose a "business model" on education. In an age of shrinking funding sources, what would the alternative look like? Running the District without imposing a quality "business model" is precisely what has gotten us into the mess we're in, and that mess is negatively affecting the education of children, not just some bottom line.
You say that with privatization, "Families, who traditionally have expected that education will be provided as a public service, are being transformed into consumers who shop around for the best buy for their taxpayer dollars."
Families with means have always done this across a system of private and religious schools. Families without means, who traditionally expected education to be provided as a public service, have been treated to a system that fails to educate even half of their low-income children to be proficient in reading and math. Who wouldn't choose to shop around if that were an option?
Submitted by K.R. Luebbert (not verified) on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 15:21.
The problem with a "business model" in public education is this: children are not raw materials. They cannot be rejected or returned for being "inferior" or not "up to par". If I own a business making blueberry scones, I would only choose the best blueberries, flour, sugar, eggs, etc... to make my product. Any time something I ordered was of inferior quality I would send it back and refuse to pay. Children come to us as they are. They all deserve an education. Some come with a wealth of background knowledge and experience, and some come hungry and having almost never heard a kind word or been taken anywhere enriching in their young lives. It is our sacred public trust to take and educate ALL OF THEM! That is what is wrong with a business model!
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 08:35.
Your words are so true. We just need to find a way to make the SRC, Governor, and the 1% understand this. We must find a way!
Submitted by Ron Whitehorne on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 15:41.
Yes, that is why it's wrong to fault parents who have taken advantage of charter or magnet schools. They are doing what is best for their familes. My argument is that their should be sufficient public investment in urban and, for that matter suburban and rural schools in poor communities so that families can expect their children will get a decent education in a neighborhood public school. After all this is what families in more affluent communities are guaranteed.
As for the "mess we are in" I don't think it comes from the absence of following a business model although I grant, there has been bureaucratic mismanagement and waste. More transparency and accountablity is what is needed to curb these abuses, not privatization. Let's not forget that corporations, particularly when they feed at the public trough, are notoriously wasteul. Haliburton in Iraq to name just one notorious example.
Submitted by Annonymous (not verified) on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 16:20.
The investment in the SDP has to be more equitable. There is HUGE inequity with in the SDP. For example, I am at a neighborhood high school without a librarian or even anyone to staff the library to keep it open. Central has a multimillion dollar library. Penn Alexander gets $1300/per pupil more from Penn (and now Penn will pay for an additional kindergarten classroom), PD from Penn, maintenance from Penn, etc. There are many other examples but until the SDP deals with the internal inequity, not much will change.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 16:57.
We had a library once. Now it is an empty room and the books are stacked in a closet.
Submitted by MBA to M'Ed mom (not verified) on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 22:31.
Yes!! Great comment!!
Submitted by Rich Migliore (not verified) on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 08:50.
What has been imposed upon the School District of Philadelphia is a "Factory Model" of business where teachers and students are treated as expendable widgets and forced to teach in an assembly-line manner. That model has not worked anywhere in America.
That model is characterized by adversarial relationships and tensions between management and the workers.
Any business model is predicated on the proposition that an organization exists purely to "make profit."
The new plan put forth by Mr. Knudsen which is obviously nothing more than the Boston Consulting Group's plan is a return to "feudalism."
What we need is a plan to lead us into the 21st century in our notions of school governance and leadership which recognizes that Great schools are Great school communities. Effective schools are the ones which function as "professional learning communities."
What model in "our portfolio" is designed to turn our schools into professional learning communities with a collective vision, a common mission and a commitment to the task of meeting the needs of all students?
We need to move forward not backward in our notions of school governance and leadership. "The bureaucracy" has always proven to be an ineffective system of governance and leadership. It has always failed us.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 12:45.
Successful suburban schools do not run like a business. Fund us fairly and we can be successful too.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 12:50.
TO THE NOTEBOOK: IF THIS WEBSITE SUPPORTS PUBLIC EDUCATION AND UNION TEACHERS WHY IS THERE A "MASTERY SCHOOLS" ADD ON THE TOP RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THIS WEBSITE????? ANYONE?????
Submitted by Non-Union Employee (not verified) on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 13:43.
I hate to say it (as a former PFT member) but supporting UNION teachers (as opposed to supporting teachers and students) is not necessarily the same thing as supporting Public Education. Mastery Charters are public schools. I know that draws strong reaction from union members, but the reality is, the face of public education is changing toward choice. My main concern is that the already most disenfranchised students will fare worst in the transition. (But I gotta tell ya', they're not doing all that great right now even with unionized teachers in front of them.)
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 14:50.
Seriously, in one sentence you say Mastery CHARTERS are PUBLIC schools. Really? I always though Charter Schools were separate from Public Schools. Interesting. It's good that you like being a Non-Union teacher. Don't look at your Principal the wrong way and watch your back. Any little misstep or soemthoing taken the wrong way and you have no due process rights whatsoever. Truth is since we are talking truth and facts, that the TURNOVER rate in these "Charter" Schools are insane and definitely not good for the children of this city. That's funny that you say children aren't doing great right now when I know persoanlly a PFT teacher with years of experience who received a letter from the Superintendent for a job well done. Most teachers are good!!! Most have exceptional credentials!! So enjoy your Non Union teaching position and just remeber that UNION Nurse who may need to save your life one day or that UNION airplane pilot who make ssure your trip is safe or the UNION police or firefighters who help people in this city. Don't you forget now!!! Honest days work for an honest days pay!!! Go PFT!!!!! And yes, no way City Council will approve all of these schools closing and going to Charter Schools. It is proven fact they are an extreme cost and what is part of this debt problem---just look at your non union Ackerman---$629 million in the hole ---WOW!!! That was greatr for the children of this city (said with sarcasm).
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 16:52.
Yea, choice for the schools to handpick their students.
Choice for administrators to fire teachers whenever they feel like it.
Choice in paying livable wages to teachers that actually reflect their expertise.
Choice for politicians to blame urban schools for not being good enough, instead of themselves for allowing corruption and underfunding.
Choice for businessmen to profit off of children.
And, this trend is ONLY ONLY ONLY seen in very poor, politically disconnected, urban school systems. There are laws in many states that specifically restrict charters to urban counties or districts. Why do you think that is?
The students who "aren't doing that great" in public schools, the most disenfranchised, will not be permitted to attend charter schools.
And don't even bother telling me otherwise. When you see who gets expelled, surprise! Every year it is those students deemed troublemakers in those schools selected for turnaround by a private provider next year. They make sure to do it at the end of the previous school year so that nobody can prove the charter providers did it. If you don't know this, you are lying to yourself.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 23:07.
If Mastery Charters are public schools then why aren't they forced to keep problem students the way public schools have to do.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 14:31.
YES! I was wondering the SAME THING! Take it OFF!
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 12:54.
Seriously, Why would The Notebook allow "Mastery Charter Schools" to even be on this site? Could it be because they paid a hefty fee to the Notebook to have the add placed there? Hmmmmm.......
Submitted by Ron Whitehorne on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 15:47.
The Notebook takes ads in both the paper and the web site. This is not an editorial endorsement. How do you think we publish the paper and maintain the web site?
Submitted by Dina (not verified) on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 18:14.
Hopefully the Notebook is a place where honest discussion can happen about ALL schools in Philadelphia. Although some of us can believe that charters may be part of an effort to "privatize" our public school system, let's not forget that there are many dedicated parents who send their children to charters, wonderful urban students who attend them, and caring people who staff them. If we have a critique of charters and their purposes, curriculum and/or policies, then fine, let's air them. But vitriol gets us nowhere. Like everyone else, they advertise in the Notebook.
Submitted by Rich Migliore (not verified) on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 19:18.
Well said and true.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 22:07.
Yeah, but advertising for Mastery while PFT teachers lose their positions because of schools closing and schools being turned around isn't good at all. It's a slap in the face to union teachers. Hope Diane Ravitch doesn't see this website with that in the upper right hand corner of the front page---geez!!!
Submitted by Dina (not verified) on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 01:09.
I have felt that way myself. And, in fact, I believe that in many ways charters, whether they want to be or not, are a part of a larger scheme to break teacher and public service unions. That being said, it's always a little bit more complicated. Playing this as good versus evil is rarely productive, and and we have to acknowledge the people who are working hard for kids, even in charters. And, frankly, Diane Ravitch would agree, even though she decries the attack on public education that is going on now (as I do). She has visited charters and spoken to people in them, including the large charter chains, and has recognized the things that we might have to learn from them.
Submitted by Annonymous (not verified) on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 21:09.
The PFT needs to focus on organizing teachers at charter operators like Mastery.
Submitted by Annonymous (not verified) on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 04:09.
With charter operators like Mastery, wouldn't ACES be able to organize all of their schools versus one school at a time? I realize organizing is an uphill battle - and I know of charters that dump any teacher who shows union support - but it is essential. Mastery teachers - along with other charters - are at will employees without due process. That can not, in the long haul, provide a stable learning environment.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 22:14.
Not agreeing with you on this one, Ron. This website is called The Public School Notebook NOT The Charter School Notebook. Mastery is taking union teachers jobs yet The Notebook has their advertisement on the front page upper right hand corner for everyone to see. If it's because Mastery gives a lot of money to have it there so what--some things are a matter of principle and can't be bought. Diane Ravitch would be in an outrage if she saw that.
Submitted by Timothy Boyle on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 08:58.
Perhaps releasing the Notebook's protocol for ad-buying would settle this. Many ed releated groups buy ad space in print and on this website. If the PFT wanted to run an ad here, I am sure it would be welcome. If you really don't like how many charter schools ads run on the Notebook, I suggest assiting in the membership drive that sustains this service.
Submitted by Philadelphia citizen, voter, taxpayer (not verified) on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 14:51.
"Not a good fit," to use a euphemism beloved of charter school personnel when "counseling" an undesirable student to leave: Charters might be technically "non-profit" but they ARE private organizations only minimally accountable to us tax-paying citizens -- a "bad fit" with the basic premises of our American system of public education.
Submitted by K.R. Luebbert (not verified) on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 15:14.
Yes, When the playing field is level with the same rules about admission, "counseling out", and discipline, then charter schools will be true public schools. Until then, they are semi-private schools run with public money. Many do a good job, many do not. There are students who are not a "good fit" at my school--but we are not allowed to send them away. THAT is a public school, educating any and all who are there!
Submitted by JG (not verified) on Sun, 05/13/2012 - 21:08.
Ron-
I very much appreciated the spirit of this post, but I believe you are mistaken as regards whether the Sunshine Act and the Right to Know Act apply to charter schools.
24 PA § 17-1716-A(c) states that the Board of Trustees of a charter school must comply with the Sunshine Act.
The PA Supreme Court has held that charter schools are "agencies" within the meaning of the Right to Know Act and are therefore subject to its disclosure requirement. Zager v. Chester Community Charter School, 594 Pa. 166, 934 A.2d 1227 (2007).
JG
Submitted by Rich Migliore (not verified) on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 09:55.
Thank you for the citation because I have been meaning to read that opinion. Yes, those laws apply to charter schools duly enacted pursuant to the Charter School Act, but they do not necessarily apply to the nonprofits who want to manage schools pursuant to a management contract.
For example, those laws do not apply to the Philadelphia Education Fund, etc. Universal is not a charter school. Neither is ASPIRA. They are privately controlled organizations with their own separate boards of trustees if they have a board at all.
I would argue that for a school to be a 'true charter school," it must have its own separate board of trustees.
There is a crucial difference both legally and practically between a school set up as a true charter school and a school being operated by a privately controlled nonprofit. We can call it a charter school but it is not a charter school.
There is a crucial difference between a true charter school and a school being operated by a "charter operator" which is actually functioning as an "educational management organization."
Ron is actually right when he describes those nonprofits. You are correct when we are speaking about nonprofits that actually are charter schools and meet all of the legal requirements of a charter school.
Section 17-1703-A requires a charter school to be set up as a "public, nonprofit corporation."
Submitted by Ron Whitehorne on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 16:37.
Thanks JG. I was speaking of non-profits generally but was not aware of this exception as it pertains to Charters. Good to know.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 17:35.
Totally off topic, but has anyone noticed that Site Selection will not be ready for review until 5/18?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 17:59.
I happened to see the list that showed the actual vacancies -- then when I reloaded the page, all of the vacancies disappeared and like you said, became "to be determined by 5/18" . Today was the day when vacancies were supposed to be published. I did manage to view the vacancy listings for about 20 minutes though. Very interesting why that happened.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 19:51.
does anyone have a take on why it may have happened?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 20:30.
We're probably all getting layoff notices on 5/17. Kidding (hopefully).
Post new comment