Penwell's July 27, 2005 presentation to school board

GUEST COLUMN BY FRANK PENWELL

Dear Editor,

posted 08/03/05
I want to apologize for the confusion our committee gave the public about the LaFarge donation. We simply took the original commitment letter from LaFarge at its face value. On 8/31/04 LaFarge wrote and pledged, "…to supply any non manufactured sand or gravel which may assist you..….." We are now told the only commitment is a verbal commitment and it is for 1000 to 1500 yards.

In attending the Board meeting on Wednesday, I was dismayed at the Board’s choice to make a decision without hearing the full input from those who wished to speak. I was cut off from my 12 minute presentation, even though I had about 300 petition signatures to give them. I also gave them letters from others. Sad to say, but their minds were made up before we got there. They did not read any of the letters, or even look at the petitions prior to their decision. They are tired, frustrated, and feel they have heard it all, as noted by their not allowing Don Galt to respond to the presentation by Mr. Soltman.

However, what struck me the most was the cavalier attitude toward risking losing some ball field commitments. That attitude helps explain why the $651,064, received as matching funds for the fields or development of the Carter Street property, ended up being spent over the years on other items. One Board member said, “Its only 7% of the fill. Let’s not worry about it.” I was also struck by the arbitrary way the Board controlled the speakers, and the reluctance to hear all the facts. For example, at one point the Board took a statement from a person (who had already spoken) about a fence requirement and its costs. Don Galt asked if he could respond. He was told he could not. The Board was left with false information about the fence from that speaker.

The Board made it clear that they want the CUP, the funds, and everything else in place before the ball field project starts. Their fear is that it will cost too much to develop. If the Board and the neighborhood group have their way, it will be a long time before anything starts. We have the plans and specifications in place. Over $30,000 in planning and surveying have been done and paid for. Moving ahead a stitch at a time, or as way opens, would be the fastest, most successful and inexpensive way to complete the fields. As each stitch was completed and as the community invested their time and energy, they would become more excited, encouraged and invigorated. This would be a real boost to the fund raising. To demand to have the CUP, funds etc first makes it more difficult and causes more delay in getting the fields done. The perception the Board gives is the same as Mr. Soltman’s statement at the June public meeting: After Mr. Soltman said the District had no funds for the fields, he went on to say, "Furthermore, it was emphasized at that time that the schools had no need for additional fields – which is still the case – and that it was due to the community’s needs that we agreed to engage in the process." This attitude is not helpful, and it is contrary to all the testimony at the June public meeting. The school and the community need these fields.

I am also sorry the Board chose not to respond to the two past School Board members who spoke. Dave Eden pointed out how negative Mr. Soltman’s presentation was. Dave Eden advised the Board to have more faith and to be positive. He recommended the Board complete the grading permit. Sharon Kivisto asked what harm would be done in moving ahead now. She too, advised moving ahead with the grading permit.

We are inviting some of the Board members to meet with us next Thursday, to answer some questions. We hope they will give us the same courtesy they gave the opposition.

Frank Penwell

Penwell's July 27, 2005 presentation to school board

posted 07/28/05
Education should be the District’s highest priority, and I believe it is. However, the implication in last week’s paper, that supporting ball fields does not support academic education is wrong. Athletics are integrated with our schools because they are an important part of education. The co-curricular activities are an extension of that education. They also provide learning and lessons of life that cannot be taught in the classroom. Some students are motivated to do well in school because of the co-curricular activities. To not have adequate equipment and fields is akin to not providing paper in the classroom.

Since the 1997 bond vote, the School District’s Boards have all verbally stated their commitment to doing the ball fields, yet the District continues to refuse to invest in fields in the manner other districts do. I have been hearing a lot from people who feel the fields are necessary, long overdue and that many past promises by the District have been broken.

I looked back at the history to find out why I was getting emails like this. I found that in 1997, the District promised the community it would develop fields. Cal Johnson, former Friday Harbor Athletic Director, wrote me about this and said, "I do know that during the campaign for the bond issue it was stated by all of us, over and over, that the state match money of approximately $400,000 would be used as 'seed' money for the development of fields or the Carter Street site."

The community responded to the District’s promises by an unheard of 82 % affirmative vote. That was over seven years ago, and I have been told that the District got that money, yet the district has chosen to take the position best stated by Micheal Soltman at the start of the June public meeting.

After he said the Districts had no fund for the project, he went on to say, "Furthermore, it was emphasized at that time that the schools had no need for additional fields – which is still the case – and that it was due to the community’s needs that we agreed to engage in the process."

These contradictory actions give the 82 percent of voters who supported the bond, good reason to feel betrayed.

The School Board has the responsibility to put its shoulder to the wheel. It must find the courage and the tenacity to move forward with the grading permit. This action would be consistent with the Board’s verbal commitments and acceptance of money. The 82 percent mandate of 1997, was a consensus.

Here is an estimated summary of the costs of the field. It is about $1.9 million. To date there is about $340,000 of donation and commitments. Many individuals, businesses and non profit organizations are standing by ready to step up to the plate to make this project a reality, and they stand by in disbelief at the Board’s delay. In fact, many past school board members do not understand the delay.

Public commitments to date include:

Many drawings done by Warren Jones. A job shack which was donated by Tim Judkins. Tom Starr and Tom Metke have donated several thousand dollars in site prep. Dennis Martel and Al Mauldin have each agreed to donate a well. One well is in and one is being drilled next week. That is about 20 to 25 thousand dollars in value.
The Town of Friday Harbor agreed it would support this project in the amount of $20,803 for: water, sewer, grading, Conditional Use, SEPA, building permits, etc.
LaFarge, Friday Harbor Sand & Gravel, originally had agreed to provide "any" fill for the fields, but now they only have 1000 to 1500 yards of fill available for commitment. The amount of fill available is expected to dwindle further as time goes on. Original value of this fill was about $350,000. Current value is about $45,000.
A private cash donation of $50,000 was given as seed money to help start the project at the June public hearing. That money is in the bank and ready to be spent.
There is a letter of intent to donate $100,000 for the entry road by Richard Lawson.
Project management donation by Don Galt is worth about $150,000.

While I don’t have any kids, or personal use or need for the new ball fields, I see that the majority of our community does, so I stepped forward to see if I could be of help. Frankly, at this point I see three primary interest groups.

The first group is a small group of individuals wanting to postpone the ball fields. This group claims they do not oppose the ball fields, but their statements, actions and demands indicate otherwise.

I even have an email from one of the major players. It states, "The truth is, I don't usually mind if other people play ball but I've never cared much for sports. I felt blessed that at my high school we had the alternative of taking Modern Dance for PE class. I think our children would be very well served if we taught them yoga and ballroom dance." This person also said, "There is nothing I enjoy more than stopping traffic."

These kinds of statements speak to this group’s real interests. This group is clearly just trying to pour cold water on the ball field project in hopes that it will go away, or be postponed for another year. This group is using tactics that are divisive. For example, calling respected people, like Steve Enoch and Don Galt liars, upsets people and does nothing to solve any of the real concerns.

The second group are the athletic groups and some non profit groups. They are frustrated at working toward passing a bond by 82 percent in 1997, in hopes of getting some decent ball fields. At the June public hearing we all heard the testimony from the coaches about not enough fields to schedule events, poor quality of fields, and groups like the little leaguers who have to go off island to play games because Friday Harbor does not have enough available fields. Their concerns and testimony are real and they are being honest and respectful.

The third group I see is a School Board claiming to be in a neutral position. To me, I see a School Board that is simply unaware that they are choosing to stall this project for the personal benefit of a few, and over the rights of the majority. Some of my reasons for feeling that way are:

That several past school board members disagree with the current decision to delay.
On many large projects like this, the normal process is to move ahead with the grading permit, while the Conditional Use Permit process hears and deals with all the concerns brought up. That way everyone’s concerns can be heard and dealt with, prior to construction, and the project can move ahead efficiently, saving time and money.

In this particular case, the district is choosing to do things in a way that will add costs, and ignore the inconvenience and damages to user groups and taxpayers.

Why not address both groups’ concerns equally? Let the normal legal process and CUP move forward naturally. The CUP will handle all the issues.

Simply give up your micromanagement of the issues, and let the professionals do it. The athletic groups, businesses, non profit organizations, and taxpayers at large, do not deserve to be left with the costs of a delay.

These costs are real and tangible. For example, the Little League could save at least $3000 a year by not having to send teams off island, not to mention the travel costs for parents and friends.
The district’s actions do not support its rhetoric. The district says it is for the fields, yet its actions have spoken louder than its words. It should be the district’s job to promote and get these fields done. You were given the mandate to do the fields in 1997, with the 82% vote. You took money from the state to do it. Yet, you have been unwilling to invest any money in fields.

You only make a step forward on the ball field project when the community forces you toward it. Again, it should be the district’s job to make this project happen. As Michael Soltman said, "We are fortunate to have him (Don Galt) providing the leadership, project management, and energy behind these fields. You know – without him this wouldn’t be happening."

To me, it looks like the district does not understand the educational value of the fields, the physical shortage of fields, or that it has an obligation to fulfill a commitment to 82% of the

The appearance of fairness is in question. Calling and having a neighborhood meeting at a house where some neighbors have voiced opposition, does not gather together a true neighborhood meeting. It gathers together a special interest group. Why is the district adding credibility to this group?

As a result of the complaint about the location, Michael Soltman wrote to the complaining person and said, "We'll meet any group, anywhere." I accept and appreciate this statement. If nothing changes at this meeting, I am sure you will be getting calls to explain your position to others.

The XX, at the end of emails, between these two power players, Michael Soltman and Lee Sturdivant, is representative of a close relationship, so additional care to be fair should have been exercised.
From 1997 to now is over seven years. Excuses and rationalizations only go so far.

At this point, the credibility of the district is at stake, and an attitude toward the district is beginning to appear, and will clearly affect the next levy vote.

One cannot expect to get 100% approval on any major project. Yet, the Board’s stated position is that it will take 100% consensus between opposing interested parties, in order to move forward. This is a grave mistake.

To many, it looks like an attempt to avoid getting involved. It is your job to be involved, and to be the guardians of what is in our children’s best interests.

You have been given authority to take actions that are in our kids’ best interests. It is also your job to support what is in the best interest of the community.

Are you doing that by putting off getting the grading permit? You are entrusted to find the facts and to make decisions that are in the best interests of the District, not the best interests of a select few.

In closing:

I ask this School Board to take into consideration the concerns of all interested parties.
I ask this School Board to find the courage it takes to make the tough decisions to support your past promises and commitment to the community on the ball fields. The 82% approval vote in 1997, was a consensus and a mandate.
I ask this School Board to understand that when you accepted money from the state for these fields, it gave you a legal responsibility to fulfill.
I ask this School Board to recognize the decision to delay for what it is: a decision to put the LaFarge, and other donations, at risk, and to assist one group’s interests over another’s.
I ask this School Board to recognize that this delay is a step back from your commitment, and legal responsibility.
I ask this School Board to recognize the delay is a hardship to the community at large.
I ask the Board to consider all the consequences of not moving forward with the grading permit.

Delaying this project until the good weather has passed is unhelpful. Since you cannot provide money, at least consider choosing not to delay this project. Help others make this project happen efficiently. Make a decision that reflects the best interests of the District, the community and most importantly, the children. I have concluded that the fairest decision is to move ahead with the grading permit process.

I have 300 signatures on a Petition asking you to move forward with the grading permit. I also have some letters to share with you.

Letter to San Juan Island School Board

Dear San Juan Island School Board,

sent July 25, 2005
On behalf of the San Juan Island Community of interested parties that wish "To Put Kids First" as the ultimate user groups of the ball fields, we ask you to reverse your decision to delay transportation of fill material from LaFarge to the school district property. Because of recent communication with LaFarge, we are concerned that this delay will cause this donation to be lost, estimated to be near $350,000.

Doug Higgins, from the Friday Harbor Gravel Pit and representing LaFarge, stated to Sharon Kivisto, from sanjuanislander, in June, that the F.H.Gravel Pit would only be able to donate the fill if it can be handled in the next two months. The gravel pit will be shutting down and has its own time table to follow. The Conditional Use Permit cannot be completed before the middle of October, due to the 30 day comment process and the time to wait for the appropriate Town Council meeting. Time is of the essence, so a decision needs to be made now, in order to take advantage of this generous LaFarge donation.

We have had several offers from community minded citizens to help save this donation. Mike Loucks offered to have the material come through his property. Eric Janguard offered to stockpile it on his property near town. Both of these options were nixed by the inefficiency, added costs and by Mike Bertrand, Land Use Administrator / Town Marshal, from the Town of Friday Harbor. In fact, Mike Bertrand wrote to Lee Sturdivant and noted, “The only current legal access to these lots, where roads currently exist, are off of Carter Avenue and also the emergency access off of Coho Drive.” Mike Bertrand has also stated he will not sign a grading permit that does not use a legal access to the land. With this knowledge, the material will certainly have to come down Carter Ave.

The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) will allow the hearing of everyone’s concerns. Those concerns will be addressed by professionals, and recommendations will be made to the Town Council. That review should include the need for additional access points to the school property, but at this point Carter Street is the only legal access. In any case, the school will always keep Carter Street as a major access point.

Although there are many reasons to immediately proceed on the grading permit and hauling of material, we offer our list of a few for you to consider:

It provides a cooperative, working relationship with the community at large.
It will meet the desires of the majority of citizens, as previously noted by an overwhelming voter approval in 1997 of over 82%. br>
It will speed up the process of getting the fields done. br>
It will not put the interests of one group in front of the interests of the community at large: ie the CUP will address all of the comments and concerns being brought up by the Carter / Larson individuals, but who will address the financial loss, and time loss, to the community at large? br>
To lose the LaFarge donation would be a hardship on the taxpayers and to many non profit groups of our community who would have to step up to the plate to replace this loss. br>
It would be a significant financial asset loss to the School District. br>
Delay and inaction hurts the kids.

While it may be a challenge to have truckloads of fill travel down any of the access roads, it will also be an inconvenience to a few other neighborhoods. This is only temporary, and expected for any large project. Wouldn’t you agree that the end result for the benefit of the island’s youth is far greater than any temporary inconvenience that may result?

Let us all support the ball field project by moving forward immediately, with enthusiasm and without any delay. Please consider the consequences of the decision to delay, and join us in "Putting Kids First."

Respectfully,

Harvey Brown
Jim Carroll
Dave Eden
Marilyn Goff
Mike Loucks
Frank Penwell
Ray Slocomb

Show your support for fields

Dear Community Members,

posted 07/17/05
Our Committee has had input from: The Town of Friday Harbor, three past School Board members, the current Board, Michael Soltman, leaders of multiple athletic groups Doug Higgins at LaFarge and neighbors to the planned ball fields.

The long and short of things are:

The school District is committed to doing the ball fields. Timing and money are their major concerns.
There is a small group of people whose “minds are made up” regarding allowing use of any current legal accesses. There are two current legal accesses. Their aim seems to be: say you are for the ball fields, but do what you can to delay them. I think their plan is to have the LaFarge donation be lost in hopes the project will then be abandoned or postponed. I see this as short sighted and selfish. This small group’s position is not fully supported by their neighborhood. I have received comments from several of their neighbors who want the fill to be immediately accepted.
There is a large group of people who feel the fields are necessary, long overdue and that many past promises by the District have been broken. For example, as Ms Wilson points out, several hundred thousand dollars were given to the district by the state as “seed” money to develop the fields, but that money has been spent on other school emergencies.
The large donation by LaFarge will be lost in about 1 month if the district does not change its mind and complete the grading permit. This permit has been filled out and can be completed in one day, so prior to the July meeting, the District had planned on moving ahead as mandated at the June meeting.
Who is in power makes the difference. For example, our committee has had input from three past School Board members who think the current Board members are wrong in their decision, and that the Board made a critical error in effectually having a second hearing at their July meeting. This meeting was attended by the minority people in opposition to the field’s current access. This minority group hounded the Board for about 3 hours before the Board finally made a decision in their favor, which puts the Lafarge donation at risk of being lost.
Boyd Pratt and Michael Soltman have issued a statement saying they will not move ahead with the grading permit that is necessary to accept the LaFarge donation. It stated, “The Board is open to recommendations from Mr. Penwell’s committee or any other person(s) working constructively toward resolving concerns, but cautions that any recommendations must have the consensus of the stakeholders involved.” I have never seen past School Board’s demand that any decision they make have a complete consensus, and they are lucky that is not how our political system works. In the end, this means that the current ball field donation is probably doomed, unless the Board has a change of heart.
My feelings are: Everyone who is interested in this issue should write a letter (PO 458) and show up at the next Board meeting on July 27th, at 7:00pm, in the high school library. Your input will help the Board move on with their ball field commitment. Those who do not want the ball field next door should put their houses up for sale, because I see no way for the district to reverse their ball field commitment, with or without the LaFarge donation.
My personal recommendation to the Board is based on the testimony at the June meeting and the emails I have received. It is to move ahead with the grading permit now. There are many perceived threats, but the only current real threat is the loss to the community of the LaFarge donation. The Board has an obligation to deal with this real threat, because it has the potential to affect the Board’s credibility to the community at large, and its future finances. The Board got consensus at the June meeting. The access, drainage and other issues, which are in question, will be dealt with through the CUP, regardless of what goes on with the fill. This way no one’s rights will be put aside. There is no real “threat” to those who question the access, drainage, etc. If the District is truly committed to putting in the ball fields they must move ahead with what was clearly a consensus at the June meeting. Not accepting the LaFarge donation is very short sighted.

Our committee will have another meeting next Thursday, and we will see if we want to come up with a recommendation for the School Board.

Frank Penwell
378-6473
email: penwell_ballfields@yahoo.com

Work together to make fields a reality

By Frank Penwell

posted 07/11/05
My first involvement with the ball field issue was to go to the June meeting. At that meeting I said, "The athletic fields are being supported at the grass roots level. It is something that would not be possible if it were not for thousands of dollars of volunteer money and labor being offered to make it happen. Since the district is currently in such a financial bind, this is an opportunity the district cannot afford to pass up."

I listened to the community have its discussion about the ball field needs and I also heard a willingness of the neighbors to let the stockpiling of materials begin. I believe all supporters of the fields left the meeting feeling the Board supported the community need for a field, and that the neighbors agreed to let material stockpiling begin. However, that turned out not to be the case.

Lee Sturdivant led a group into the next School Board meeting. It was a very emotional and intense meeting with no supporters of the ballfield in attendance. An individual who was there on another issue said to me, "I would not want to be a Board member and have to take the abuse they do from groups like that" (referring to the group led by Lee Strudivant).

What troubles me most is the fact that Lee and her group misled the proponents at the June meeting into believing they would not oppose the hauling of fill. In fact, Lee Strurdivant wrote a letter to the Town of Friday Harbor stating, "Do we need to get an attorney on this?"

Mike Bertrand, of the Town of F. H., responded by saying that the school has a legal right to use the roads. He also wrote, "I am surprised that you are opposed to going ahead with the clearing and grading permit since at the public meeting two weeks back you stood up and stated that you would not oppose the hauling of material from the gravel pit to this site."

While I am troubled by the lack of candor, I do not think it is on purpose. I think it is more a case of selective hearing and wishful thinking. How we solve our differences are what is important. I am interested in helping find what is fair and to help the community work toward building a consensus in a timely manner. The taxpayers should not lose thousands of dollars in donated materials and labor to benefit the few while denying the majority.

This issue is not rocket science. I am collecting information in the form of a survey. Please have everyone you know fill it out and send it in. I will share the results with the School Board. The Board needs to pass the next levy. They cannot afford to displease the majority of voters, or to be fiscally irresponsible by letting large sums of grass roots donations fall by the wayside.

In an effort to help the community build a consensus, I am asking for volunteers from both groups to join in a committee to work on forming a consensus and maybe finding a way to limit the impacts this growth will have on the ballfield neighborhood. The committee members must be willing to be open, honest, tolerant and willing to move ahead in a timely manner. We will share all information with the School Board.

I would like to personally ask David Eden to be the chair of this committee. He has been a School Board member and he has had experience with tough, emotional discussions. If you can help by being on this committee, please phone me at 378-6473. I would like to schedule the first meeting on July 14th.

For those of you who have no knowledge of what has or is going on regarding the ball fields, I have reviewed a lot of documents on this issue and below are some of the historical facts I have found:

1997 the voters of San Juan passed an 11.5 million dollar capital improvement bond to modernize the schools and to purchase 30 acres for future development of a high school and athletic fields.
In 2000 Hart Pacific Engineering provided preliminary engineering services for development of the fields. A projected field opening date was to be in 2002 or 2003.
In 2001 the District became a partner in the gravel pit project and put the planned fields on hold.
In 2003 the Gravel pit levy failed.
In 2004 Don Galt, President, Friday Harbor Athletic Association, asked the District to let volunteer time and money finish the promised athletic fields. The Board emphasized they had no money to devote to the project, and they had no immediate need for additional fields. Some of these comments were met with comments and confusion from the public about the District's past comments and commitments to co curricular activities, and how our fields compared to other districts fields, as well as how academics are affected by co curricular activities.
A coalition of community groups (Island Rec, the Town of Friday Harbor, Little League, Lacrosse, San Juan Soccer, Tiger Football, and a multitude of adult users of softball, soccer, ultimate frizbee, etc), helped the District come to a consensus regarding field specifications for the user groups.
Prior to the June 16, 2005 Board meeting for public input, a letter was sent to the School Board from Steve Enoch and Cal Johnson. It stated that they had more questions than answers regarding what they read as statements attributed to them by Lee Sturdivant. They denied the factual basis of Lee Sturdivant's comments, and the School Board records support Steve's and Cal's recollection about the history of the property and roads.
On June 16th the Board held a community meeting to get input from the public. The Board wanted answers to two questions:
1. How much does the community want additional athletic fields? This comment was clearly and quickly answered when after testimony from many coaches, parents, students and users of the current fields testified. The audience was then asked if anyone felt we did not want or need the fields. No one stood up to dispute the need and desire to have fields.
2. How much can we resolve the issues about access? At the start of this question the District stated, "...we simply cannot afford to become embroiled in neighborhood controversies about the development of athletic fields." The translation to this is that they have a Bond levy that needs to pass and they want all the votes they can get.
  
  However, if the School Board does not act in the affirmative to the majority of citizens, or it does not recognize the importance of these fields to the quality of our educational and co curricular programs, then it will surely alienate and dishearten many citizens. It probably will lead to apathy and a very low voter turn out, or outright rejection of the next levy. It may also lead to replacement of several Board members at the next election.
  
  I am also a bit confused as to why the Board was even asking the second question about access. The District paid for an access study prior to purchase of the property, and the road plan has been on the Town of Friday Harbor plans since the 70s. The question should have been: How can we be good neighbors and help limit the impact on the residents?

Testimony and comments at the meeting included:

From Proponents:

Statements of the urgency of getting the donated materials for the fields, as the materials would not be available in a few months.

Many users of the current fields commented on the conditions of our fields and how they compared to other schools fields.

Many coaches commented about difficulties of scheduling and use of the fields.

Soccer parents commented about lack of fields and no available times, and no times before 7:00pm.

A student asked why our fields were so substandard to other school's fields.

The neighborhood opponents are putting their personal interests above community interests.

Several people pleaded with the opponents to work with the proponents by giving suggestions of how to make things work.

The opponents issues will be addressed at a CUP hearing, and that is where their testimony should be heard and considered.

All costs for the field construction and maintenance will be by private donations and billboard advertising, like at the Catholic Church site.

It will increase local property values.

From Opponents:

The roads cannot support the traffic.

I can't even imagine how trucks or buses can come down the roads.

It is dangerous because of how people speed and drive on the roads.

There is a drainage issue.

The school district cannot afford the costs of the fields or maintenance of the fields.

Lee Sturdivant stated that she was lied to by Steve Enoch. (Comments from the Board stated there was no record of Steve making promises that she has attributed to him, and Steve Enoch stated he had no reason to make such a comment.)

The neighborhood simply cannot support the traffic.

Find another access into the site, our street access is not an option.

It will lower our property values.

How will they deal with the lighting of the fields?

The School Board then held a Board meeting in early July, wherein no proponents showed up and a bunch of opponents to the Ball fields appeared and gave very emotional input.

On 7/10/05, I heard about how the emotional plea swayed the Board on its decision not to move forward with the hauling of materials. I feel the actions of the Board revolved around trying not to offend anyone, because of political worry about the next levy.

From what I hear now, I feel the upcoming levy will fail unless a consensus is reached, or the majority get what they want. With that I am offering my services to help gather together the opposing groups. It is important that everyone becomes educated on the issue and rights each group has, and to come to a resolution in a timely manner that will not endanger the loss of the donated labor and materials.

If you are a proponent or opponent and want to be heard, please volunteer to be on our committee. Call

Sincerely, Frank Penwell : )

Related pages

Penwell's July 27, 2005 presentation to school board

Letter to San Juan Island School Board

Show your support for fields

Work together to make fields a reality