the following express right to agree to arbitrate: “The governing body of a county may enter into a written agreement to submit any existing controversy to arbitration and may execute a contract which contains a provision to submit to arbitration any controversy thereafter arising." 1987 Va. Acts c. 483 (emphasis added). This amendment obviously would have been unnecessary if the legislature believed that the power to contract conferred in section 15.1-105 expressly included the power to arbitrate. Finally, our conclusion that the power to contract does not by definition include the power to agree to arbitrate is consistent with decisions of the highest court in Virginia to have considered the question. See Hanover County Sch. Bd. v. Gould, (Hanover Cty.Cir.Ct. C-23-1984, Apr. 4, 1984) (<HOLDING>); cf. Spotsylvania County Sch. Bd. v. Sherman
holding that content of bulletin boards was government speech in that boards were used to express school policy that access was limited to faculty and staff that postings were subject to the oversight of the school principals that the school district had made no affirmative effort to disclaim responsibility for the boards content and that the boards were the property and responsibility of the school and the district holding invalid on preemption grounds state statute making agreements to arbitrate franchise claims unenforceable holding on state constitutional grounds that school boards lack authority to arbitrate holding that the new mexico school district and their governing boards are not arms of the state entitled to eleventh amendment immunity holding school boards are persons within the meaning of the fifth amendment due process clause