I found the arguments of conflict of interest that Keys makes quite tenuous, and only in particular, narrow circumstances should he have been found in conflict of interest. I also find that the suggested conflicts which prevented BIll from participating in certain aspects of governance to be inappropriate.

Bill's description of what he was told to be conflict of interest seems to border on a definition of disinterest, which no BOE members should be accused of.

I would presume that board members, especially those retired, regardless of the role they played while active in the district should not be disqualified from participating on any but the most directly personally beneficial items. Minimum integrity of Board members must be both demanded and presumed, and if they cannot accept the role of Board member and put their prior positions and loyalties aside, then they must not serve in any capacity, instead of expanding the definition of conflict of interest to absurd lengths.

What is concerning about the description Bill paints of conflict of interest is who it would seem to exclude from the prohibitions. Say, someone is elected to the Board who is an advocate of privatization, but has no financial interest in privatization. There would be no conflict of interest -- quite an absurd result.

Board members must always serve in a fiduciary capacity in the interest of the health of well-being of the public education system and students, which implies support of teachers and staff who deliver the services, but always keeping in mind the primacy of the students first.

It is important that Board members bring differing views to the table which will allow for deeper understanding, and hopefully better decisions. But, bias has no place.

I don't find any of the current candidates have a problem with conflict of interest that would disqualify them from fully serving in that capacity.

I hope my sense that Bill Keys' arguments are genuinely due to some misunderstanding of conflict of interest rules, rather than Bill being the propagandist for MTI and the local Democratic party in their attempt to scuttle Nichols.

Voters need to decide on the best candidate based on substantive information, not on the irrelevant subtle attacks that seem to be surfacing.