I never had Ms. Hill in an English class, and I’m sure many of you can tell us how she was in that capacity. I knew her from my hour and a half with her every day. Why an hour and a half? Remember, lunch was set up so that some classes went to a half hour of lunch first, then an hour of class. Others went to a half hour of class, then a half hour of lunch, then another half hour of class. Finally, others went to an hour of class first, then a half hour of lunch.

The school newspaper, the WiPaHiSc, supposedly was scheduled to be the second alternative – lunch midway. But except for a short organizational meeting by Ms. Hill (that’s really an oxymoron), it was basically an hour and a half of free time. It was brilliant in a way, because everyone in school had to eat lunch. And if we needed to get a story or interview someone, we could access anyone at lunch time. We would even go the principal’s office occasionally and ask them to tell us what lunch period a student had.

The term “election fraud” is a relatively recent term. There were no chads back in 1967. There was no voter registration, no voter IDs. In homeroom, every senior simply filled out a form – most likely to succeed, best dressed, etc., male and female. Then Ms. Hill tabulated the results. Another oxymoron.

One day, during WiPaHiSc class, she called me over. The classroom was relatively empty, everyone out on assignment. (wink, wink) She told me that I had been voted first in two categories, but that I would only receive one superlative, to which I readily assented. Then she said she would choose one. What? Really? I don’t get a say-so? Nowadays, on the grounds of Ms Hill’s zaniness and disorganization, I would simply sue for a supervised recount.