We're going to do something here at Weber County Forum that we haven't done in a good long time. We're going to submit today's article to a complete re-write.Earlier today we leapfrogged off today's Standard-Examiner article, and hastily published what we confess to have been a half-baked opinion piece, criticising in part the reporting of Ace Reporter Schwebke, and his story about last night's Emerald City RDA session. So stunned were we that last night's meeting didn't result in a flurry of new bonding, that we overlooked a few highly essential points. Here's what we originally said:
We find a puzzling Scott Schwebke story in this morning's Standard-Examiner, regarding the American Can development project. The Emerald City RDA board last night amended the existing development agreement governing that project, the article reports; however our favorite Ace Reporter provides not the slightest clue as to the substance of that amendment. We incorporate Mr. Schwebke's hopelessly vague "descriptive" paragraph here:Here's the part of Mr. Schwebke's article we failed to highlight:
"OGDEN — The Ogden Redevelopment Agency agreed Tuesday night to amend a development agreement enabling a developer to secure a $3.7 million bank loan to renovate Building D within the former American Can Co. complex."
That's it folks. That single paragraph is all this story provides us regarding the nature of last night's development agreement amendment. From this point the story rambles off into an odd array of largely irrelevant tangents, leaving interested readers scratching their heads, wondering exactly what substantive change the RDA Board made to the existing development agreement.
The development agreement amendments approved by the RDA board, made up of city council members, will enable Peddie to borrow funds from Wells Fargo Bank to make improvements to Building D, said Richard McConkie, the city’s deputy director of community and economic development.Several of our gentle readers immediately set us straight about this glaring omission on our part; and we have thus somewhat sheepishly re-written today's article. Ace Reporter Schwebke did indeed provide us most of the essentials to last night's RDA session story, which boil down to these elemental points:
Peddie plans to lease about 57,000 square feet on three floors in Building D to Amer Sports Corp., an international outdoor gear company.
The development agreement amendments call for Peddie to form a single entity, AmCan Properties I LLC, to own and operate Building D, said McConkie.
The amendments also allow tax increment by Building D to be pledged by Peddie to secure the Wells Fargo loan.
The development agreement for the complex renamed the AmeriCan Center calls for Peddie to receive 75 percent of the tax increment generated by improvements through 2017. Those proceeds are expected to total about $1.6 million, McConkie said.
Our Emerald City RDA Board apparently handed another Friends of Matt (FOM) another fat taxpayer subsidy last night, once again reprising the tired Boss Godfrey refrain:
Emerald City remains "the armpit of Utah;" the only way to turn this city's economy around is to round up a few FOM's and reward them generously.
We regret our error, and apologize to Mr. Schwebke for what we now consider to have been unwarranted criticism.
We also apologize to our gentle readers, for posting the original article "on the fly."
We aim for perfection here on Weber County Forum, and we'll now eat another bite of delicious and nutritious "crow."
On another topic, we'll briefly highlight another Standard-Examiner Letter to the Editor, appearing on this morning's editorial page. Judging from this Donna Gardner letter, it would appear that it's not just Weber County Forum readers who are a mite suspicious of Boss Godfrey's "Godfrey the Crimefighter" 2007 election campaign platform plank. If anyone amongst our readership knows Ms. Gardner, we hope they will refer her here. As regular Weber County Forum readers know, in the arena of crime-fighting, Boss Godfrey isn't merely an exaggerator -- but rather an outright prevaricator.
The floor is open. Talk about any of the above... or whatever else floats your boat.
38 comments:
I'm "the speaker wearing a little hat who insisted on speaking" to the RDA agenda at the end of the CC mtg.
Garcia didn't want to allow me that privilege, but finally told me to go ahead. I asked for my full 3 minutes since I'd had to use time arguing that it is futile to come and speak to an issue AFTER the CC has voted on it! Amy turned back the clock.
Johnson is a CC candidate, a director of the OCF (as are Patterson, Harmer, Safsten, Godfrey, etc.) AND is the organizer of AM Can LLC. All place him in a postion of conflict of interest. I quoted the code violations that each CC member had been sent thanx to Ms Littrell.
They knew very well what I was talking about IF they had read communications sent to them by the public.
Safsten thinks communications from concerned citizens are nothing more than "nusances" that should be ignored.
Harmer, in true Godfey MO style, urged that the the amendment 'be passed in a timely fashion" which means to the initiated: "Godfrey wants this passed NOW before you have time to think about it!"
Dorrene asked many thotful questions. She deliberated a long time and voted NO. Safsten gave his smarmy talk on 'conflict of interest' and didn't feel he had to recuse himself..and voted YES..as did everyone else.
Susan said YES and then told us she was "suspicious" and didn't feel comfortable, etc...did NOT change her vote and let that resounding YES stand.
I had urged the Council during my first remarks BEFORE they discussed and voted on the RDA agenda, that they should move to table, and not succeeding, then vote NO. Only Jeske did.
I said to Susan after her waffling and troubling vote that she is a mayoral candidate, and the taxpayers and voters want to know how she stands. It was a disappointing performance by one in her position.
A straight Godfrey vote without any sense of values in it.
I had said that if an issue is good it can bear scrutiny. If it is bad or "suspicious" then it bears more scrutiny and should be voted down for further study.
Jeske deliberated after asking many questions...voted no and proved she can think with a sound mind.
Kudos Dorrene.
After which Neil Hansen, who spoke, was insulted by Safsten WHO WOULD NOT LOOK NEIL IN THE EYES, Then Rulon and I got our snide scoldings from him and Stephenson. Deja Vu all over again. Only Filiaga was missing.
"Johnson is a CC candidate, a director of the OCF (as are Patterson, Harmer, Safsten, Godfrey, etc.) AND is the organizer of AM Can LLC. All place him in a postion of conflict of interest. I quoted the code violations that each CC member had been sent thanx to Ms Littrell."
Johnson's litany of "conflicts" will indeed present some interesting questions, Sharon, if indeed the lumpencitizens prove to be dumb enough to elect Mr. Johnson to a council seat.
Until then however, Mr. Williams is right. Mr. Johnson has no existing conflicts of interest as a councilmember, because he is NOT a councilmember.
It will be interesting to observe how he deals with his actual and potential conflicts however, in the low-probability event that he edges out the Sheila Aardema campaign juggernaut.
Glad to see ya's back in action at our city council circus, Sharon.
And you gotta miss your old pal Fasi!
Agreed, that this morning's story left much to be desired by way of explaining to readers who were not there what had happened or why. The questions Rudi raised seem to me to be good ones, and a good story would have answered them as a matter of course. [E.g. what did the existing development agreement say that needed to be changed; what were the arguments put forth for changing it. The story does not answer either question.] Not Mr. Schwebke's best work.
Not having been there, and not having heard Ms. Van Hooser's comments, I hesitate to draw conclusions about them. I would say, as a matter of general policy, that when a matter arises that leaves a Council member with misgivings about unanswered questions, the course of wisdom would be, seems to me, to vote to table the matter until more information can be gotten. Particularly given this Administration's penchant for bringing matters to the Council at the last second and demanding immediate action without much time for examination or review.
Was s work session held on the proposal last night? I don't know. Does anyone know?
What bothers me most about the tax increment element of whatever it was that happened last night, is this: is it the course of wisdom for the city to continue to underwrite, with tax revenues, bonds for projects "the market" seems unwilling to support without the prop of public funds? IF the renovations and development of the American Can building are economically sound projects, why should public funds have to be offered to guarantee the financing bonds? Why, for an attractively planned development, aren't private investors willing to underwrite the project?
As for the conflict of interest matter involving Mr. Johnson: there does not seem to me to be any conflict of interest involved with respect to his running for a council seat and his being now a member of the Foundation Board.
When the city gives this TIF to the these businesses all it is doing in my view is a free handout for a corporate welfare at the expense of the taxpayer. If this is such a great thing for the city then go to the bank and get the loan for what ever you need. Is this not how it was done before we got this tax give away?
Curm & Robbers: One of the more encouraging things we got from this morning's article was the report that Peddie and his investor partners are apparently obtaining private financing through Wells Fargo Bank, which would indicate that this investor group is indeed now properly resorting to the private credit market for necessary further financing.
Nothing in the article suggested additional tax increment financing, although the article was thin on the facts, as we earlier pointed out.
To invoke a mechanical analogy, imagine your automobile has stalled. Whereas it would probably be advisable in a proper case to prime the carburator to get the motor running again, you STOP the priming once the motor is ready to engaged by the drive gear.
Now that Ogden City's economic engine is running again... it's time to STOP priming the carburator. That appears to be what's happening now with the American can project, and all over Emerald City.
Even diehard Keynesian economists don't advocate priming the pump once economic recovery is in progress.
Now more than ever we believe its time for our overbearing city government to step back, and let the forces of the free market take over.
With this statement in the paper, I would bet that Jon Petti and Blaine Johnson are laughing all the way to the bank and saying to one another boy did we just dupe the city out of 1.3 million, what suckers. ha ha ha and Safsten helped us the most. ha ha ha ha ha.
forgot this is the statement...
The development agreement for the complex renamed the AmeriCan Center calls for Peddie to receive 75 percent of the tax increment generated by improvements through 2017. Those proceeds are expected to total about $1.6 million, McConkie said.
Rudi:
From the story: The development agreement for the complex renamed the AmeriCan Center calls for Peddie to receive 75 percent of the tax increment generated by improvements through 2017. Those proceeds are expected to total about $1.6 million, McConkie said.
Doesn't that mean the project is still being underwritten by tax dollars, by a pledge of tax funds to support the mortgage? Or am I mis-reading or misunderstanding something [which is quite possible].
Thanks for the updates, Robber.
We stand duly corrected.
It would seem the taxpayers did "take it in the shorts" yet again.
"Doesn't that mean the project is still being underwritten by tax dollars, by a pledge of tax funds to support the mortgage?"
Yep. we should have re-read the article again.
We're munching on a plate of crow right now.
Peddie and his investors have indeed resorted to the private market; however the dumb taxpayers will be picking up about 1/2 the tab.
Wasn't the Council scheduled to bless the final election results last night? Anyone know the final tallies, including absentees?
Rudi
To carry your car analogy one step further may I suggest that the fuel pump is broken. In fact the whole damn machine has burned up with the gallons of fuel poured down the carb which has spilled over everything and caught fire.
The only people making out with this massive public funds give away are friends of Godfrey. Millions are just simply disappearing into the FOG!
You are encouraged because Wells Fargo is willing to lend to these grifters, but I remind you that they are apparently not willing to do so without the guarantee of backing by the TIF (public money).
So can any one answer one simple question about this whole AmCan Scam. Where did the $3 million that the new owners pay go to?
It seems like the whole deal from the very beginning was all done with various forms of public money. The $900 free money from the state, various other grants in the millions from public funds, etc. Now the place is sold to "private investors" who just happen to be Godfrey insiders, who allegedly have payed $3 million to buy it. So once again, who got that $3 million? Did the public get its original money back? Is that $3 million just sitting in a sludge fund accessible only to Godfrey and his crooked pals? Did these friends of Godfrey actually even pay the $3 million?
Like everything else that Godfrey has been involved with the whole deal is hard to see through and has a strong oder. It gives new meaning to the FOG - Friends of Godfrey.
So many questions, so few answers.
As to Safsten, well, every thinking person that has observed him in action realizes that he is a jerk, a joke and a large and rather stupid and dishonest baffoon. Regardless of who replaces him, it will be a pleasant change.
The short-sightedness of our city government is just appalling! Not only is our city being given away to FOM now, it's future revenue is also being wiped out. Can anyone say "Ghost Town"?
Dan, just got off the phone, WCF people will be glad to hear that Miss Amy Wicks recieved the most votes in our recent primary, this is truely good news. Now we all need to make as strong an effort as possible to make sure that she retains her seat.
This upcoming election offers the people of Ogden a very unique opportunity that may never come around again. We can eliminate all the corruption by simply voting for all women candidates.
This would bring very favorable attention to our fair city.
It isn't that Blain Johnson is a candidate for City Council....but, he's a director of Ogden Community Foundation and the organizer for Am Can LLC. THAT puts him in a 'conflict of interest" position.
Utah Code 16-6a-825. CONFLICTING INTEREST TRANSACTION.
See IRS Code for Section 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations which includes specific rules for directors. NON-profit directors cannot have dealings with themselves in other business entities.
Until all issues were resolved, the vote last nite should have been delayed. The Council members were given these facts long before the meeting, and if they had read and understood what they had before them, more of them than Jeske would've had concerns. Susan's "suspicions" would have had her voting NO.
After I spoke the first time to this issue of Johnson being a director and a principal in AM Can...the Council with the razor-sharp atty, Gary Williams went into Exec Session.
When they returned, Williams completely obfuscated the issue of Johnson's conflict of interest. He spoke only to Johnson's candidacy and how that did not place him in a conflict of issue position.
(No wonder mama's wish their baby boys would grow up to ballerinas instead of lawyers...sorry Rudi).
What a lot of gibberish. Obfuscation was the word that popped into my mind listening to this Godfrey mouthpiece talk.
Johnson's candidacy was not the issue, of course, as he could recuse himself from voting on any issue where he clearly did have a conflict, should he make it onto the Council (You'll note that OFC director Safsten did not recuse himself).
However, the other 6 members of the Council swallowed his line like proverbial hooked fish.
Rulon jumped up before I did, and said the same thing: "obfuscation". That amused me, and cemented for me that two cracker jack minds can think alike and see thru the machinations of this city atty.
Either Rick or Brandon stated that Williams was doing the best he could.....in that case, the guy should be fired post haste!
We have enuf disengenuous opinions rendered by Safsten and Stephenson, and they speak for much longer times too!
Board of Canvass results for the Primary Election held September 11, 2007 are as follows:
CANVASS ON OGDEN CITY ELECTION RETURNS
FOR PRIMARY ELECTION HELD
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2007
I, Cindi L. Mansell, the duly appointed and acting City Recorder in and for the City of Ogden, County of Weber, State of Utah, do hereby certify that the returns received from all the polling districts in Ogden City, Weber County, Utah, for the Primary Election held September 11, 2007, have been publicly canvassed and the results are as follows:
FOR MAYOR (Four Year Term) TOTAL VOTES
Matthew Godfrey 2,935 Duly Nominated
Neil Hansen 1,457
Doyle W. Sexton 67
John H. Thompson 195
Susan E. “Susie” Van Hooser 2,694 Duly Nominated
COUNCILMEMBER – MUNICIPAL WARD 4 (Four Year Term) TOTAL VOTES
Jim Freed 468
Caitlin K. Gochnour 1,329 Duly Nominated
Kent B. Petersen 1,392 Duly Nominated
COUNCILMEMBER – AT LARGE SEAT A (Two Year Term) TOTAL VOTES
Sheila P. Aardema 2,270 Duly Nominated
Blain H. Johnson 2,862 Duly Nominated
Dirk Youngberg 1,892
COUNCILMEMBER – AT LARGE SEAT C (Four Year Term) TOTAL VOTES
Royal S. Eccles 3,217 Duly Nominated
Dennis Howland 660
Amy L.Wicks 3,235 Duly Nominated
TOTAL REGISTERED VOTERS 44,750
TOTAL NUMBER OF BALLOTS VOTED 7,375
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I attach my signature and affix the seal of Ogden City this 18th day of September, 2007.
CINDI L. MANSELL, MMC
OGDEN CITY RECORDER
Sharon,
I am so glad you were at the meeting last night.
I agree that the issue is that Blain Johnson sits on the board of the Ogden Community Foundation and the conflict is that he owns part of AmCan Properties, LLC that received 1.6 million in TIF last night to develop his American Can property.
This all dates back to Scott Brown's involvement with the attorney in Virginia that we have copies of the e-mails between the two.
This is the out-of-state lawyer who gave the legal opinion that put this historical American Can property tax credit show together. This was when Scott Brown was on the Ogden City payroll.
Someone needs to get both of them on the witness stand to find out the whole story.
Sharon:
Actually, I think Mr. Williams was responding to a Dorothy Littrell written complaint, rather than your comments.
It's not all about you.
ON the Blaine Johnson conflict of interest matter:
1) Much depends, I think, on timing. Was Mr. Johnson on the Board of the Ogden City Foundation when it transferred ownership of the American Can building into private hands? And if so, was he at that time an investor in or representative of the LLC that received the property? If so, then it seems to me there is a potential conflict of interest that needs probing. [The question would be: did he vote as a member of the board to transfer property to an LCC in which he was either an investor or an agent of the investors.]
Or was Mr. Johnson added to the Ogden City Foundation board after it had already transferred the American Can property to its new private owners? I seem to recall that Mayor Godfrey hastily expanded the Foundation Board with non-Administration members in a belated and transparent attempt to, retroactively, establish that the Foundation was a private not a public body --- for which shenanigans the state auditor recently chastised him. If Mr. Johnson was one of those "oh, let's make it look more private" add-ons, and was not there when the American Can property was transferred, then there may well be no conflict of interest involved.
What does seem beyond dispute is that yet another friend of the Mayor seems to have benefited from yet another shuffling of RDA matters that were not at the time, and are not now, well understood by the public. All this gives added import, seems to me, to the Mayor's twisting and turning in his attempt to keep Ogden City Foundation records from coming to light and being examined as public records. And it seems clear that based on the recent auditor's report, there is no doubt that the Foundation was a public body at the time it transferred the American Can building to private hands. It might have "gone private" at some point after that, but it was not, the auditor has plainly said, a private body at that time.
All this is far more complex and difficult to unravel than most voters have the stomach for, so it would be well I think to reduce it to basics: (1) The Ogden City Foundation, a public body, which included the Mayor, key members of his administration and a Council supporter, sold the American Can Building to private investors. (2) The Mayor then refused to make the Foundation's records involving that transfer public, claiming [wrongly, the state auditor says] that the Foundation was a private not a public body.
Raising the key question for me: why? What was he trying to hide then --- and is still trying to hide now --- from public view?
If the Ogden Community Foundation is entirely private and not connected to the city in any way, why would Ogden City Recreation Department handle registration for on of their fundraiser events?
The dealings of government and nonprofit organizations need to be completely transparent in order to maintain the public trust vested in these entities.
Who got the three million the new private group paid for the bldg?
The three mil flowed direct into Godfrey's Ogden Community Foundation. That much we do know.
As to the ultimate distribution of these proceeds of the American Can sale, Godfrey and his cronies have clammed up.
"We're a private foundation, and it's none of the public's business", Godfrey and his cronies keep repeating, although the State Auditor's Office and the IRS have differing opinions on this.
Nice catch googler, this lying little unconscionable current mayor displays a total disregard for propriety, legality and any ethical concerns. Like instructing city employees to write (against their will) letters of endorsement of his latest campain. November can't come soon enough.
OUST lying little matty gondola godfrey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, here's another hot potato.(not a reference to anyone's nose)
These tax increments, in some cases can be a valuable tool, but, this should only apply to projects like very costly historic building restoration. They should not be doled out as a reward for any one coming into town and never for new construction.
That said, why is it not firm policy that if you want to do business with the city or RDA, you must submit to full disclosure?
It's only common sense. If you want the city to give you money or participate in your project, the public has a right to know who you are, all benefactors, are your finances sufficient and what's your background. How can anyone determine the financial strength of an unknown entity?
This simple policy would go a very long way in stopping the cronyism, real and alledged, that has taken place during lying little matty's rule of terror, time in office.
Who can argue to the contrary?
Bill,
If what you say is true about {this lying little unconscionable current mayor displays a total disregard for propriety, legality and any ethical concerns. Like instructing city employees to write (against their will) letters of endorsement of his latest campaign.} He has broken the law and needs to be indited on this. Can you give some proof of this allegation? Is there some one that can be talked to on this? Call the blog mister and I will get with him on this matter.
Thanks HOO.
We're seeing an upsurge of Ogden City employees who've emailed us privately, and would love to tell their stories, if only Boss Godfrey didn't hold the constant "headman's ax" over their carreer heads. None of the employees of Ogden city that we've heard from are recently are independently-wealthy enough to get fired on a Godfrey whim, even now, as the little ethical dwarf moves forward toward his first election defeat.
Where there's smoke there's fire.
We're looking for disgruntled Ogden City employees to give us the word.
We'll go to jail before we'd divulge such confidential communications.
We need your input, Ogden City employees. Believe it or not, 40% of the Ogden voter "pod people" population believes Boss Godfrey is annointed as the next reinarnation of Brigham Young.
Ken Lay is more like it, we think.
There: I made it clear in my first post that Dorothy Littrell gave the Council information....don't shoot the mesenger. Where were you? Only 3 of us stood at the podium.
Williams did not address the issue of Johnson's being a director of OCF and an organizer of Am Can LLC. He told the Council that Johnson's candidacy and, (heaven forbid), sitting on the Council was not a problem before them last nite.
I was there too. Sounds like one of the Geiger's to me.
So the public coughs up millions of tax payer bucks to get the AmCan bldg going, the building is then sold to a private entity for $3 million and those millions are now in a private foundation, out of the pubic control and not subject to public scrutiny, and available only to Godfrey and his pals?
Am I understanding this correctly, am I missing something here, is these sorts of manipulations really legal?
Actually Rudi, Crow can be quite delicious if cooked properly (not over done), served with a nice red sauce and followed up with a generous slice of humble pie ala mode.
Oz:
Sounds to me like you've got it pretty much right. What I still find it impossible to understand is this: If the foundation is properly using its funds to further education [as they say they are], what possible reason could there be for refusing to open its books to public scrutiny? Nobody has yet offered, from the Administration's POV, a credible answer to that question.
"This isn't real money"...and any real money there might be is for the exclusive use of the dictator to buy FOM's.
Where have you been?
FYI, anyone that may still be dumb enough to believe lying little matty's retraction on the gondola thing needs to go to the home page of the shipping clerk idiot godfrey myna bird impersonator, the unopposed Brandon yes sir stephanson.
Although his website has been kept quite current, all lying little matty's original visionary speil can be found unchanged including salvation by gondola and one mia peterson.
If it wasn't for the ineptness of brown noser brandon, safsten may never have been recruited by lying little matty to participate, in face only, in the biggest fraud in Ogden's colorfull history.
Someday we may just all get to see the complete unedited version of CANSCAM ripping off the public, brought to you by lying little matty and his dancing administrative jesters.
Where is Susie's guts. I guess Godfrey has another supporter.
I, for one, am glad SVH is taking on Godfrey. She finished less than 300 votes behind him in a primary where the anti-Godfrey vote was split. She has support in areas where Godfrey has typically been strong. She has the best chance of defeating Godfrey in the general election. The fact that she didn't vote against amending the development agreement Tuesday eve does not make her a Godfrey supporter.
These anonymous attacks against Van Hooser are getting tiresome.
For a long time I thought these attacks were coming from Hansen supporters. But I've now changed my mind. I'm convinced that these attacks are actually coming from Godfrey supporters who are masquerading as Hansen supporters.
Think about it. Hansen got nearly 20% of the vote in the primary, while Godfrey led Van Hooser by only 3%. Very few of the Hansen voters will vote for Godfrey in the general election. So Godfrey's only hope is to make these folks hate Van Hooser as well. Then they'll stay home on election day, or attempt a futile write-in campaign for Hansen, and Godfrey will be reelected.
For the benefit of those who don't know Van Hooser very well, I'll repeat what I said in the September 14 thread:
Van Hooser has voted "against the Godfrey regime" about as often as Wicks and Garcia--and not as often as Jeske. She has also voted for administration proposals in the large majority of cases, just like Wicks and Garcia (and even Jeske). Moreover, she is very articulate about the reasons for her votes and gives me (at least) the impression of being the most assertive and independent thinker on the council. After serving for only a year.
Examples: Van Hooser voted against the "process resolution" on the Peterson proposal, saying during the discussion, "The people have spoken." She voted to amend the administration's mixed use ordinance (which gives a great deal of power to big developers) to prevent its being applied outside of the River Project area. She voted to change RDA procedures in the aftermath of the Bloom's property fiasco, to prevent something like that from happening again. She also voted against something once, when she didn't actually object to the proposal and knew it would pass anyway, as a way of protesting how the Godfrey administration had taken the proposal to the media before the council learned about it. (Yes, she explained this during the meeting.)
Ok, that's four examples. I'm sure there are others. But equally important are Van Hooser's actions outside of regular meetings. She was the one who, during a council work session back in May, brought up the "secret gondola study" and pressed Godfrey to explain what was going on. This exchange may be what put the Standard-Examiner onto the story...and the rest is history.
A quick WCF mantra for our new (six times deleted) Godfrey troll:
Anybody But Godfrey!
Write it down so you don't forget it.
Thanks, Dan.
We concur.
For the past month or more, lying little matty and warren jeffs have been sharing the headlines quite a bit. Today, same page again, these two have quite a few striking similarities, I've noticed.
Post a Comment