School Board member Alvin Edwards is taking a two-month sabbatical during the budgeting process, and he won’t say where he’s going, why he’s leaving now, or what he’s up to. Rachana Dixit writes in the Progress that the Democrat and former mayor says he’s staying in touch via e-mail, and that his colleagues don’t see that his absence is problematic. Rev. Edwards will be missing six meetings, two budget sessions, and a town hall meeting. He was elected in 2007 to the position that he was appointed to in 2005.
67 thoughts on “School Board Member Takes Extended Leave”
The wonders of electronic communication.
Yeah, uhhhh, you hold public office then you probably need to do yourself a favor and give more information than fodder for the rumor mills.
Sounds sketchy at this crucial juncture of the process given the economics of the upcoming year.
danpri, if he’s going out of state to an advanced cancer treatment center for newfangled, controversial and radical cancer treaments that aren’t available locally, why should he have to tell anybody? This isn’t the type of thing that should be public information.
I’m not sure what to think of this. On the one hand, the fact that he holds a minor elected office doesn’t mean that he has to surrender his privacy. On the other hand, elected officials do have a duty of performance and, when they can’t or won’t deliver, ought to provide some sort of an explanation, even if it’s as cursory as “health matters.” But I hope a discussion here might help me sort it out.
@danpri, “Yeah, uhhhh, you hold public office then you probably need to do yourself a favor and give more information than fodder for the rumor mills….” What is this all about?
Waldo, at this stage of technology, it may not be necessary for an individual to be in a room in order to participate in a meeting. I once sat in on a meeting and voted using the telephone. I haven’t (and won’t) look up the school board’s policiy on absentee members voting in a quorum-enabled session, but, the state does allow electronic participation in some circumstances. It may all be left up to the by-laws of the local board. I do think it would be reprehensible for a politician to absent himself from his duties without explanation to his constituents, and, if that proves to be the case here, I wouldn’t consider voting for him in the future.
He’s doing a two month sabbatical in either North Carolina or South Carolina…I can’t remember which. I overheard him telling this to someone as I walked past him standing by his Mercedes in the parking lot at ACAC.
That aside, he is the poster child for what is wrong with our city schools. He doesn’t give a crap whether our schools are good or bad, and has missed a ton of meetings already. He needs to grow a conscience and get out, allowing someone in who gives a rat’s behind about our schools.
Interesting. I wonder if his ACAC membership fees are paid by the taxpayers, just like the rest of the city employees that take advantage of the program?
Come to think of it, that’s a pretty good area to look into when the city is dealing with less revenue and budget cuts having to be made in the current economy.
Sounds like some skullduggery may be afoot. That’s the problem we have now at the state and federal level…too many politicians trying to “phone it in”.
Several points I’d like to make:
1. Rev. Edwards describes his absence as a “sabbatical”–generally understood to be a break from work, often to fulfill a goal, eg. professor writes a book. (To me, “leave of absence” denotes a personal reason.)
2. Llezelle Dugger says that Rev. Edwards should explain the reason for his long absence if constituents were to ask. So I have, in my official capacity as president of the CHS PTO. (I’m not saying there is anything wrong with a sabbitical, but an elected official ought to address his constitutents in some form on the matter.
3. Ned Michie says that there are a lot of five member boards out there and “we will get by.” I’ve been wondering about this. Should we even have a 7- members school board? Maybe 5 people are enough.
Any thought about that? (School Board members, too.)
I think the only reason he remains on the school board is for the extended sister city vacations, at taxpayers expense, oh I forgot, anonymous donors. Shows up when he wants and no one says squat about his absenses.
I mentioned something about this last year when the school board voted to include ACAC as a benefit for the school employees and no paid attention. Well now that we are in worse economic times it might be a good idea to take that benefit back.
Not only that, Jogger. Evaluate the entire ACACA benefit program as a cost cutting measure. Many city employees get to participate on city time and drive city vehicles to the facilities.
My membership isn’t paid by my employer. I am not suppose to drive my company issued vehicle to the facilites. And I am not suppose to go on company time.
Another issue that concerns me as a taxpayer is the number of city and couny issued “take home” vehicles now. Many of them travel out of the city and county to their homes in surrounding counties on the taxpayer’s dime. There is so much waste in city government that it’s pathetic.
I’m sure none of this will be included in the upcoming city efficiency rating survey to be released soon, because most of it probably wasn’t even reported to the people doing the survey most likely. I didn’t see one word mentioned in the county efficency survey recently about the expanded county “take home” car program, expanded back when gasoline prices were the highest they have been in history.
Many city and county taxpayers can hardly keep their heads above water month to month paying bills, while their steadily increasing taxes are paying to make the lives of the city and county employees better each year. The county executive and city manager need to take a serious look at the freebies they have been handing out to their employees for years. In these rough economic times it’s time they start taking a few of these freebies back.
Smart employers know that healthier employees = major long-term cost savings to the employer. Which is why most intelligent employers these days, public and private sector, are offering incentives like reduced-rate gym memberships or smoking cessation classes etc. for their employees. Many health insurance policies do the same. The cool thing about the city’s plan is that if you don’t use the gym a certain number of times per month, you have to pay the full unsubsidized rate. That’s a real incentive!
I think we need some clarity with respect to any ACAC benefits that may be provided to public employees. I’ll second the motion of “long-term vs. short-term thinking”, to the extent that properly monitored and incentived fitness programs are good public policy. But, if that program is extended to elected public officials (and I have no idea whether or not it is), then, it would appear to be self-serving on the part of those public officials. Such benefits wouldn’t seem appropriate for elected officials who serve on a part-time basis.
Maybe somebody with knowledge of the facts can shed some light on this benefit program?
LTvsST, your argument doesn’t hold water.
The vast majority of the public has changed their eating habits, exercise more frequently, and many have quit smoking. They didn’t need their smart employers, on the taxpayer’s dime, to create some type of incentive to do so.
There comes a time when everybody has to accept responsibility for their own well bieing instead of relying on the city taxpayers to provide them health club memberships, city issued cars to drive to the facility, and city time to go exercise.
Really? I’d love a citation on that. My understanding is quite the opposite, save for the long-term trend on smoking (not that gym memberships have anything to do with that).
If a comprehensive, peer-reviewed study demonstrated that it’s cheaper for employers to provide gym memberships—that it’s a net positive, financially—would you agree that it’s sensible for the city to provide this benefit?
If city employees …i.e. school employees, weren’t getting ACAC gym membership as a “freebie” benefit at taxpayers expense you couldn’t get them to even go near a gym/acac.
Rather than pay for a gym membership why don’t the city school employees take advantage of the programs offered by the city P&R dept for exercise and fitness? Why don’t they use the facilities at both Buford and Walker already in place?
“Which is why most intelligent employers these days, public and private sector, are offering incentives like reduced-rate gym memberships…” Can anyone name three private employers that subsidizes their employees’ gym memberships?
I’m talking locally, not Google.
NG Sperry Marine does, Cville Eye. Reduced rates at local gyms.
Can’t drive the company car there, though :-)
There is a minimum attendance requirement.
I don’t for one minute subscribe to all the news clips on TV showing the big belly big butt folks walking down the sidewalk. Sure, the media films the big butts, it adds spice to their story, and hopefully ratings. It’s been my personal observation that people around me are exercising more and eating much healthier. Is this a national trend? I do not know, and I can not offer a specific cite.
And in the present condition the economy is in, I do not agree that a employer is obligated to help make employees healthier on the taxpayer’s dime. As I said, people need to step up to the plate and take a little more responsibilty in maintaining a better lifestyle and their own health. At least until times get better.
The economy is in the worse shape I have seen in 50 years. Police departments, schools and fire departments are laying dozens of employees off in some cities and counties. (Mesa, Arizona, population 420,000, just had a $33 million deficit in their budget and laid off 350 employees. The rest faced a 2% reduction in pay to balance the books) I imagine most of those being laid off would have given up a few perks in their benefits packages rather than being laid off. And those still employed would have given up a few perks too rather than see their fellow workers and friends laid off.
City and county employees nationwide have lived high on the hog for a long time while feeding at the public trough.
Thanks to jayrunswild we have one smart private employer. Are there two more in the area?
@Demopublican, those layoffs will neer happen here. Council would just raise taxes without batting an eye lash.
If I recall, when Edwards was on Council,there was something in the news about his absenteeism.
Certainly if he has health problems we should be sympathetic. But it is also fair to ask whether he should remain on the Board if he is incapable of participating.
I don’t doubt for a minute the city wastes money on perks and freebies for city staff, like take-home taxpayer-owned vehicles.
Its one thing for private employers to offer things like gym memberships, quite another for the taxpayer to pick up the tab.
We all have our hobbies and interests,preferred form of recreation etc. Since I like to read a lot, if I worked for the City, would they give me a subsidy to shop at Barnes and Noble or Amazon?
I think not, nor should they.
CVille Eye, I agree. But they couldn’t raise taxes this year as much as they wanted to. They would have the same tax revolt on their hands that’s taking place in Augusta County presently. Those folks over there are mad as wet hornets. Real estate market bottomed out, and yet they still saw a 28% increase in assessments. Some of them moved away from Charlottesville because of triple digit increases in real estate assessments each year. They jumped out of the pan and into the fire. What a riot!
And most private sector employers, whether intelligent or not, are cutting back on any and all benefits. And I doubt mnay of them had ACAC benefits in the first place. Even my health, dental and vision insurance (federal employee plan) cut back the benefits afforded us starting in January of 2009. Just as one example, any prescription I might need went from $10 to $65 for a 90 day supply. I can’t afford to get sick or need many longterm prescriptions! :)
jayrunswild, Sprerry Marine is not a real good example. They feed at the public trough too through numerous multi million dollar contracts awarded them by the U. S. Government. Some may view them as private sector, but I view them as an extension of our federal government.
Demopublican, I didn’t mean for my question to be that technical. I am trying to see just how widespread are gym subsidies in this area. Often times, people believe that government employees are not doing as well as those in the private sector and use that excuse to give them more money or benefits or perks. I’m willing to accept Sperry but I’ve noticed there has been no overwhelming outpouring of other busines names. Am I to believe that subsidizing employees’ gym memberships is not the norm for this area? If so, why is the tax payer paying for hundreds of government employees’ memberships? Since people are always coming and going as city employees, how is this program of benefit to the residents?
Both my wife’s (private) employer and my family’s business offer acac memberships to their employees.
How is this program of benefit to the residents? well, people claim ACAC makes healthier employees, so the insurance rates are lower. This might be true if the insurer were to base the city health insurance rates on healhy city employees only. But I suspect their rates are based on much more than just city employees.
Here’s your list of ACAC corporate memberships (excluding municipalities):
Chandler Law Group
Church Hill Homes
Church of the Incarnation
Fashion Square Mall
Health Services Foundation
Hospice of the Piedmont
Management Services Corporation
Martha Jefferson Hospital
Medical Automation Systems
Monticello-Thomas Jefferson Foundation
Oak Hill Fund
Perrin Quarles Associates
Red Light Management
Virginia National Bank
Since people are always coming and going as city employees, how is this program of benefit to the residents? I don’t get your point? Is it your suggestion that city employees turn over faster than those in the corporate world? If so, can you provide details to support that? It’s a benefit to all employers to have healthy employees, who are fit to work and have a minimum of “down-time”. It would seem logical that, if subsidized gym membership is seen by employees as a benefit, it would encourage them to stay put in their jobs. And, it’s not like people are going to the gym to bask in luxury. They work hard. They sweat. Their muscles hurt when they’re done. It’s really not fair to treat public employees as whipping boys.
I wouldn’t think a corporate membership at ACAC means the corporation is paying the full membership dues for all their employees. The employees are offered “preferred corporate rates” and “reduced enrollment fees” only if an employee enrolls I suppose?
The city paid my ACAC fees 100% when I was employed there.
This link explains the “corporate membership” program.
Harry Landers, I stand corrected.
Sorry Steve, you’re wrong again. City employees have to pay to join and use the gym, but they get a reduced rate just like many private sector employees. That may have been different when you worked there but it’s not the case today.
Interesting. Seems like cost cutting measures have already taken place at some point in time. What is the full membership rate now and what portion does the city pay?
It’s still quite an atractive perk for some employees to be able to go to and from the gym on city time and in a city vehicle though. Let the taxpayers foot the dime of employees getting there and back. Hoorah! :)
It’s still quite an atractive perk for some employees to be able to go to and from the gym on city time
That would be an attractive perk. But, is it true? Are public employees permitted to work-out while on the clock?
Not city teachers…how in the world would we have time to do that during the school day? We are directly responsible for the supervision of students for the vast majority of the day; we don’t even have 30 minutes to slip out for a nutritious meal at Mickey D’s!
Obesity is on the rise in Virginia, and in a big way. Here’s a graph:
We went from 15.7% our population being obese in 1995 to 25.3% in 2007. We’ll double our obesity rate in just 15 years. For more information, see the CDC’s Virginia page, and press the “View Trend Data” for more details.
There’s no question: Virginians are more overweight and consequently less healthy than ever.
Just out of curiosity, couldn’t the city put together a fitness program using “public” fitness facilities? Public employees are using taxpayer dollars to use the current system, and those dollars are getting thin. It is a nice perk, but in the current fiscal “crisis”, does this qualify as an essential government function?
Jeez, just forget that I mentioned ACAC. Listen, people, the whole point here is that he is a really bad school board member, and we ought to demand more, especially given the state of our schools.
If you are going to attack subsidized gym memberships, though, please remember the adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I’m pretty sure this exchange rate hasn’t changed much over the years.
Seems like Virginia does indeed have a bunch of little fat fockers running round. I knew Gaylord Focker and Pamela Martha Focker shouldn’t have gotten married! :)
Voice of Doom, it’s OK. I am sure I can find something else in city government other than ACACA to whine about. I’m still mad as hell for their raping me on my December water bill. Just as I expected, my water bill went back to normal for the January billing cycle. I knew damn well I didn’t have any leaks, and I knew damn well I had not used an extra 5,000 extra gallons of water in December. And the little girl in city hall sounds like a well trained parrot, all she knows how to say is, “Well sir, the water meter says you used the water, you have no choice but to pay the bill!” It’s a shame they don’t have a little competition in providing water to city residents. At least with television we have 4 options now….. Directv, Dish Network, Comcast and antenna. And I have never had any trouble with Dominion Virginia Power trying to tack a little extra on any utility bill.
I’ve seen city firefighters going into ACAC in the past, but, now they have an exercise room at the Ridge Street fire station. Supposedly, the new YMCA facility is supposed to have wonderful exercise areas, unless they have removed them from their newly downsized plans, that are quite affordable. Perhaps the city employees will change to a different venue or use the existing area at the fire station.
Quite frankly I wouldn’t want my employer to pay for my exercising because eventually they’ll make a case for their managing my diet.
Also, the mere fact that somebody exerises regularly at at gym does not make or keep him healthy. A couple of years ago, the city, while its employees had ACAC priviliges, spent over $2M in direct health care costs of its employees. Although regular exercise can help control high blood pressure and type II diabetes, and mild exercise is recommended for some with heart disease, exercise has never been show to prevent any of those diseases. The same could be said for MS, MD, cancer, tuberculosis, AIDS, macular degeneration, rotting teeth, etc.
“Listen, people, the whole point here is that he is a really bad school board member…” I’ve stopped paying much attention to our school system, so I have no idea if this statemnt is true. Can Voice of Doom explain the reasons for this statement?
CVille Eye, You’re correct. Even if every city employee working out at ACAC becomes a healthier person, their little random illnesses or injuries along the way are not what insurance rates are based on anyway. Sadly enough, it only takes a very few employees being diagnosed and treated for cancer to drive their health care costs through the ceiling and into the millions in any given year.
I won’t mention any names, but a long time ago I was in an office and listening to a conversation about a city employee having cancer and costing the insurance company close to a million dollars already. Another employee spoke up and said he hopes the SOB dies anyway, he didn’t want the guy draining –HIS– city retirement fund for another 25 years anyway. All this jerk was thinking about was himself. Ya know, the more I associate with or live around people, the more I love dogs!
Good lord, the Cville Eye-Demopublican City Hall hatefest on this blog sure does get boring and tiring. You two are nothing if not predictable.
Children think their parents don’t love them when they don’t give them money. They think that you love someone, you shower them with gifts. That is why Get A Life thinks that when we say that Papa-Daddy City Hall should stop giving people money, it’s a sign of hate.
Of course, Get A Life, is upset because of enjoying his feeding at the public trough.
Haha, good one Cville Eye. I would venture to guess that you have consumed far more public resources in your life than I have.
Cville Eye said:
This is ludicrous to the point of hilarity. Well done.
Cville Eye, that’s a good question. How would one go about rating the individuals on a school board. My criteria would probably be: is actively seeking to understand what is happening in the schools, has a vision for what the schools ought to look like, seeks to move the schools toward this vision, converses with students and teachers on a regular basis, attends meetings. I am giving him an F in all of these categories.
I’m thinking that ranking the school board members is actually a pretty good idea. I bet Karl Ackerman could give it a good go. For me, I’m ranking Ms. Galvin and Ms. Blount at the top, with solid 10s. I’m ranking Ms. Puryear, Mr. Wade, and Mr. Michie as 4s to 5s, Ms. Dugger as a 3, and Mr. Edwards as a big fat 0.
But do we need 7 School Board members? The Board just voted itself a raise, from $3K to $5K/yr. No complaint from me as I would guess this barely covers expenses. But if they divided the newly appropriated $35K among 5 Board members, that would mean $7K per board member. Win/win?
One reason to have so many board members is that they serve on a lot of committees. Do they really need to? I honestly don’t know. If you can run a city with five councilors, why can’t you run a school division with 5 Board members? (I’m not saying you can, just why you can’t.)
As for ranking them, I ain’t going to go there beyond saying that I voted for Kathy Galvin and Colette Blount, and couldn’t be happier with the job they are doing. Both are people who do their homework. There is a lot of info to digest as a school board member. You have to be willing dig in and ask questions.
I do think you learn something about the quality of school board members by the quality of their questions.
Mr/Mrs/Miss GetALife, before I rush out and get a life, I want to make sure it’s actually worth the trouble. Can I borrow your life this weekend for a test drive please?
Speaking of the fire guys, it’s been awhile since I’ve been to their their web site, so I wanted to check it make sure, but it looks like they’re in the process of redoing it or something. Which is a little strange in itself since Chuck used to pride himself on how comprehensive it was.
Anyway, on the old site they had a lot of pictures of their equipment, etc. plus pics of the inside of the firehouses. So this one shot was of the “rec room” at the Ridge St. station and I swear, it had like eight really nice “Lazy Boy” recliners (looked like leather) spaced in a semi-circle around the wide screen TV. I couldn’t believe it. Chuck, tell me I’m lyin’!
So I wonder what it’s like now? This was awhile back, so it’s probably the 52” wide screen plasma with the 5.1 Dolby with matching Limited Edition Barcaloungers. Chuck, where’s that vitual tour you used to have?
Voice of Doom, that’s a great set of questions, very thoughtful.
I’d like to affirm that Kathy Galvin and Collette Blount are doing a fantastic job on the school board. It’s clear that they are taking the responsibility seriously and work hard in their roles. If I’d voted for Rev. Edwards, I’d feel betrayed. He ran for the office and public voted him in; now he feels free to walk away for a sabbatical? Give the job to someone else.
@Will M. if an employer can require an employee to quite smoking (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4475698) can my idea be that far behind? The employer’s role in getting employees to reduce weight is already being discussed (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20960522/).
Likewise, I assume, you wouldn’t your employer to pay for your health insurance because eventually they’ll make a case for managing your diet. Right?
Yes, Waldo, you are exactly right. I like to chose my own health insurance with the benefits tailored tomy situation, at the price I like. By going with your employer’s group plan, depending upon what supplements you want, you may well end up paying more, believe it or not. What my employer CAN do is pay me a decent salary, and I’ll make my own housing, clothing, eating, health, investment, transportation, vacation and entertainment decisions.
@Will M., these employers seem to be knee-deep in their employees’ diet and weight-loss programs: http://calorielab.com/news/2005/09/22/microsoft-starbucks-foot-employee-diet-bill/ . i just wonder how many employees would have had bariatric surgery without their employer’s help.
In a way, the Virginia State Police have pretty much controlled the diet of their troopers for many years. They have a fixed Body Mass Index a trooper must stay within according to their height. If they suddenly start exceeding the maximum BMI in their specific height, they are called into headquarters to explain why it’s happening and what they intend to do about it. I do not recall at what point a penalty kicks into play, or what the penalty is though.
I don’t think any of this has changed either. You simply don’t see any six foot troopers with 48″ waists, just ain’t gonna happen.
Cville Eye, perhaps I misunderstood you. When you suggested employers were going to use fitness incentives as grounds to “manage” employees’ diets, I took that to mean you thought employers would dictate and place requirements upon said diets. If I understood you correctly, I maintain that line of logic is hilariously ludicrous.
Having elective fitness programs, as in the case of Starbucks and Microsoft in the story you linked to, is great. It’s elective, not required. Neither program appears to dictate and place requirements upon diets unless voluntarily submitted to by the employee.
I do not have a problem with an employer creating incentives or assistance programs for fitness. In fact, I encourage it. But unless fitness is a prerequisite for being able to perform a job, requiring fitness crosses a line and begins down a slippery slope.
Will M., it is voluntary if the employee seeks out management and requests these programs, it is coersive if management calls an employee in and “suggests” that he takes advantage of the program, in my opinion. Do you agree?
If they’re harassing an employee to utilize a voluntary program, of course it’s wrong. It’s not voluntary, then.
quote: “Sorry Steve, you’re wrong again. City employees have to pay to join and use the gym, but they get a reduced rate just like many private sector employees.”
Long-term vs. short-term thinking, looks like YOU were wrong, or at least you were stating your facts in a misleading manner. Whether the employees are getting a reduced rate or not as you say, is not important. What is important is the fact the taxpayers are paying 100% of the employee’s monthly membership fee currently. The new city efficiency study just released says, and I quote, “Health club benefits for current and retired employees currently cost $30/month. It is recommended that all participants provide a co-pay amount of $10/month to share in the cost.”
The city has bargained acac down to $30/month for a membership? That’s awesome. Us peons pay something like $90/month. (I paid for a year up front, so I can’t remember what it works out to.)
Yes, it’s quite an attractive rate, isn’t it! Even if the city employees have to start paying their co-pay of $10 a month as suggested in the study, it’s still one of those bargains of a lifetime for them.
Will M., you might find this interesting. It’s from an article “Employers Promoting Fitness” By Goldsmith, Julie Publication: Indianapolis Business Journal Date: Monday, July 11 2005 @ http://22.214.171.124/search?q=cache:vQeQet0eG_YJ:www.allbusiness.com/medicine-health/diet-nutrition-fitness-exercise/10572638-1.html employer force employees to lose weight diet&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us. It’s describing the various approached employers can take to their having a healthy workforce:
“While wellness programs in general are being embraced by many companies, some are confused about how to go about it. Should they use a democratic approach or target employees at high risk for diseases?
“General health promotion you put out to all employees because it’s something being given and aims at the population in an indiscriminate way,” said Larry Hicks, Midwest Benefits Practice Leader with the human resources consulting firm Hay Group in Chicago.
In addition, Hicks advocates the use of disease management companies to screen and manage the chronic conditions of about 40 percent of the work force with health problems, such as high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, back and neck conditions, and excessive weight.
Dr. Julie Meek, founder and CEO of the Haelan Group in Indianapolis, said exclusive use of “disease management” misses the point. Her business, which serves about 25 companies, is a “population health management company,” using the democratic approach to improve health.
Health promotion needs to identify people ahead of the predicted medical costs and ahead of their suffering, Meek said.
“Everyone gets a health-improvement plan for that year We are reaching 96 percent of the employees and their families and developing goals,” Meek said.”
The description of disease mangement seems potentially coersive to me. I did not see anywhere in that model was “voluntary” used.
Demopublican, the efficiency study was incorrect. The membership rate for city employees at ACAC ranges from $62.50-$155.00/month. The employee has to pay $33.00-$125.50/month out of pocket.
It sounds as if the city is paying $30 of it’s employees’ membership cost. Is the $155 the cost of a family membership?
So…. this is two mistakes we have found in the Weldon Cooper study already. The health club costs, and the year the Circuit Court building was built.
How much did we pay for this survey? :)
Cville Eye, yes that’s the fee for a family membership including pools. If you just want fitness center membership, no pools, you pay somewhat less.
Then I suspect the $30 figure is the city’s contribution to the employees’ memberships.
How could Weldon make the mistake? They probably got the information from the city. For some reason 315 E. High Street is not listed in the City’s Assessor’s database unlike the rest of the city owned property. BTW, the city has my house as being built in 1977 which is the year it was remodeled. When I bought it in 1964, it wan’t new.
Comments are closed.