The Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center (Mass Budget) has a preliminary look at the state FY2011 budget and the news is predictably bad. The report can be seen here. Mass Budget is estimating the shortfall to be $2.25 billion. That shortfall follows the FY2010 cuts of $5 billion. Despite those cuts and increases in sales and restaurant taxes, the Commonwealth is deep in red ink.
Federal stimulus funds will help fill in some of the gaps ...
... as they did this year. It is not enough.
What do you think should be done? Tell us in comments.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Preliminary look at FY2011 budget
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
65 comments:
fin com voted 6-3 to NOT recommend flag by-law...are they kidding?
Before making judgements I would like to know the costs involved. Would it be more expensive to change our flag purchases? And if so, how much more expensive?
Does it matter? we have people dying in foreign lands for us and the flag. lets save a few bucks and insult them. true Dartmouth spirit's alive and well. no matter what, save a buck
There isn't any extra costs, Fin Com didn't recommend on the issue of symbolic and protectionism, and also in their minutes the opposition said ..."little or no financial impact on our town."
All of our flags that the Town purchases are made here in the U.S.A, I just wanted to add a by-law that would protect this practice in the future. Unfortunately some in the opposition are letting their ideology of free markets and global trade get in the way of what I am trying to accomplish.
Out of all the aspects of our economy and government we pledge allegience to the FLAG, not to the government and not to the economy,the Flag never changes even when our leaders in government do. I would like to thank Mary Louise Nunes, David Ferriera and Patrick Roth for their support. Unfortunately some on the opposition had a problem with the sponsor and not the bylaw itself, I find that very disheartening.
If all of our flags are U.S. made, then why have a bylaw? This is just attention grabbing as far as I am concerned. Get real Ray.
telling Ray to get real and then posting anonymously? At least he's doing something which is more than 95% of the people who post here. I have no problem with the article or Ray
Like I said earlier, just because that is what we are purchasing today, doesn't mean that will not change in the future. If the town has a by-law, at least we KNOW it will stay this way for good. I started this "project' because I was personally surprised at the amount of foreign made flags that are being sold. I was at the Battleship with my two boys this summer and I looked at the P.O.W flags there and they were all made in a foreign country, not one was made here. I feel very strongly about the Flag and to say this is attention grabbing, you are right...but it is not the attention for me, but toward this issue..I think foreign made flags made in countries that aided our enemies in the past and still are not our allies in most respect is disrespectful of the men and women who have died for that flag. The flag is to be revered. I look at people who are opposed to this and the first thought that comes is PROFITS over PATRIOTISM...if buying an AMERICAN flag made in the U.S.A is a protectionist move...then I am a protectionist..if this was a protctionist article i would have barred the sale of foreign flags in all retail stores in the entire town, a law like that passed in Minnesota, but that is not included in this by-law. For those of you who do not know about the night I went before the Fin Com, I was asked questions by 3 of the members of that committee, 2 of them didn't even bring up the substance of the article, but did have a problem with the Dartmouth Democratic Town Committee sponsoring this. It was strictly partisan, I believe on their behalf. I know many Republicans in this town and around the area who are in support of this. To call this protectionist is absurd.
What's "disheartening," Ray, is not that they "found a problem with the sponsor and not the bylaw itself," is that you may be misinterpreting their concern, and, in doing so, casting a negative light on the individuals who serve the Town on the the FinCom, usually with more criticism than thanks.
It was nothing against you personally or the Dartmouth Democratic Town Committee itself. The fact that you tagged the Committee's name after your own as a sponsor was the question.You were letting everyone (especially Town Meeting members) believe an entire committee was behind your efforts. You were asked if you had the backing of the Committee to put its name on the article, as well, and you said you did not. The impression then was that you were sponsoring the article as an individual, which I believe is the case because I believe you said just that.
Putting the Committee's name after yours certainly gives credence and some status of importance as it applies to the entire Committee's being behind you in your/their effort, as it gave the impression you were the spokesperson for the Committee, when, in actuality, you are working alone.
Members of the Dartmouth Democratic Town Committee may indeed support you, but they, in their entirety, did not give their name to the article as reading its sponsorship suggests.
I think you were questioned on that. Adding the Committee's name looks good, but it, in this instance, is not quite accurate.
Don't demean the members of the FinCom who either oppose the passage of your article or did question the sponsorship of the article. Because your comments indirectly and subtly are stated to do just that.
And what is really "absurd," or more accurately, false, is your belief that your opposition was "partisan" in nature. I highly doubt that even entered any of the FinCom members' minds, whether they were in opposition to the bylaw or in support of it.
Comments like that twist the reality of the situation and the events of that FinCom meeting.
Well said anon 11:40 a.m.
I also wonder whether Ray buys only U.S. made products. He holds patriotism like a badge but does that extend to all aspects as a consumer? Does he shop at Wal-Mart? Does he purchase anything made in Japan, once an enemy to the U.S.? How about any of the other countries we once fought against? I think there is a bit of hypocrisy here.
huh!!, another case of the Fin CoM sticking it's nose in someone's business.This isn't going to cost the town ANY more MONEY but yet they still want to put in their 2 cents
Ray, unfortunately there are people in this town that are never happy. You are actually getting off you a$$ and doing something positive, and these people out here want nothing more than to tear you down...these are the same people on here all the time. They have been bashing you since you started to become active in policy and voicing your opinion. They DO NOT like dissent. They are pathetic people who dont put there names on there posts, so the people they are slamming wont put their insignificant head threw a window.
The only reason I am doing this, is because I believe the flag should be made on the shores it was born on. I am not a protectionist, but I believe there is a fine line between global trade and having other countries manufacture our flag, yet deny their people the rights our flag represents. It just doesn't make sense. Fisher price and microsoft do not represent American freedom but our flag does.
The reason I questioned the people on the FIN COM that had an issue with the sponsorship is the fact that, that was their only problem. To me this is non-partisan the flag represents all parties and independents. I am not doing this to grab attention as some on this blog are saying. I am doing it because I revere our flag.
Also to the person who was at that FIN COM meeting, you didn't mention is your post that I offered to strike the DDTC from the sponsorship, if that was their only problem. I told them I do not have a problem sponsoring the article by myself. The only reason I attached the DDTC is the fact that when I called everyone on the comittee, the majority was in favor of it(this was an informal vote). After that meeting I took a formal vote and it passed unanimously just as I said I would, to appease to those two individuals
I claimed that it was partisan simply because those 2 on the FIN COM questioned the sponsorship but yet did not mention any concerns about the article itself. Just because the article said Sponsor: Raymond Medeiros, Jr. chairman of the Dartmouth Democratic Town Committee, these two people had a red flag perk up, why? Did they question other article sponsorships either now or ever in the past?
According to a previous poster who was at that meeting I was just looking for attention. My question him/her is, now is the entire DDTC looking for attention as you claimed I was in a past post. I sure hope not.
This will be my last post on this subject until those who oppose it on this blog label themselves and let everyone know who they are. Why hide behind anonymous, put your neck out there if what you believe is right.
It was a cautionary question on their part, and their right to ask it, without the insinuation that they are partisan or whatever else may be subtly attributed to them. Not everyone in any organization necessarily wants his or her name attached to a cause or issue, no matter what their reason for not wanting to do so.
Your comments make it sound like these individuals have something against Democrats, perhaps? I doubt it.
You may have followed proper protocol and asked your members, informally at first, and then formally after the fact, but, initially, that did not come across to the FinCom that questioned you. It was a reasonable question to ask; stop making it sound otherwise and turning it into something it isn't.
So they didn't have anything to say about the bylaw itself. So what? To want to believe or to have others believe that there was an "ulterior motive" for their not doing so is just ludicrous, not to mention irresponsible.
No one is saying that you or the Dartmouth Democratic Town Committee want to be recognized as "important." No doubt any one of us could add "status" to our person if we were to add some title or accomplishment before or after our name. Let's face it; it is impressive to be able to do so. We are all proud of our accomplishments. So then, since this bylaw was your idea based on your principles, just leave it at that. Sign your name only to it. Never mind the Democratic Committee.
It was never stated that you or the Committee were looking for attention. Adding an organization after your name does make it look more "important," official, or whatever you would like it to look. Not saying that that was your intent, Ray, just what it looks like to the ordinary reader. Don't take things so personally.
You may have offered to strike the name of the Committee, true, but you offered that after being questioned by FinCom. So, why even put the Committee's name on in the first place?
"Unfortunately some in the opposition are letting their ideology of free markets and global trade get in the way of what I am trying to accomplish." (Your October 10, 9:46 a.m. post.)
Please, what is that supposed to mean? Explain it to us.
I'm not an attorney, but I do wonder if there might be a violation of trade laws involved here. That possibility has been mentioned to you. It may be farfetched; I don't know. Perhaps not. As I said, I am not an attorney. But, since you are so adamant about the issue, why don't you take the time to consult a trade law attorney and see if your bylaw is actually legal to do, within whomever's governmental jurisdiction, local, state, federal, whatever.
And let us know.
That would be an interesting piece of information, of value to all of us.
According to Massachusetts General Law CH:71 sec:69
The school committee shall provide for each schoolhouse under its control, which is not otherwise supplied, flags of the United States of silk or bunting not less than two feet long, such flags or bunting to be manufactured in the United States, and suitable apparatus for their display as hereinafter provided. ...
Minnesota has a state law that has not been proven to be against any trade laws or the AG of that state would have deemed that law illegal.
Many municipalities in our Commonwealth and municipalities across the Country have adopted similar by-laws and laws to this extent.
After seeing other States accomplish this type of law, I thought that it would be a great idea for our community. To me it is a matter of principle that our town would not purchase foreign made flags. I don't believe it is right, which is the only reason why the committee and myself are proposing this by-law. To be honest, I try my hardest to purchase American made product whenever I can, from paper products to my vehicle and especially my American flag that I fly outside my home.
What I meant about ideology is there are some people who are unwavering on their principles of free and open global trade regardless of the principle of this by-law oor any other law of similar content.
I am in favor of FAIR TRADE not FREE trade. I believe that by purchasing products from countries that do not uphold the human rights and labor rights and Enviromental laws that we have in this country is only encouraging more of the same atrocious acts that we as a people are aganist.
According to MGL a new paragraph has also been added as of 2009.
Chapter 2: Section 6. Flags of the United States and commonwealth; display; manufacture in the United States
Section 6. The flag of the United States and the flag of the commonwealth shall be displayed on the main or administration building of each public institution of the commonwealth. The flags shall be of suitable dimensions and shall be flown every day when the weather permits.
[ Paragraph added by 2008, 516 effective January 15, 2009.]
All flags of the United States or the commonwealth displayed pursuant to this section or procured by an agency shall have been manufactured in the United States; provided, however, that a flag shall be considered manufactured in the United States if a substantial majority of the principal components are assembled into the final product in an assembly plant in the United States.
You know Ray, Dartmouth doesnt really take the MGL too seriously.
I also find it peculiar that fin com passed all articles but did not recommend the Flag article, and according to Mr. Medeiros he was questioned on the validity of the sponsorship,but I am sure the sponsorships of the other articles by the CPC and the waterways commission were not questioned, why question the falg's sponsorship. Sure they have every right but it suspicous that only ONE article's sponsorship was questioned and the fact that the chairman of the Fin Comm is an active member of the republican town committee, Peter Freidman and vice chairman Gregory Lynam is also a conservative whether or not he is a registered Republican is easy to find out, but i am not sure. I believe that this is purely political on their part. It's ashame, where is the America first GOP in this town?
Please!!! How ridiculous you sound. The other articles were put forth by commissions. When doing so, it is understood that the commission is sponsering the article. Is Ray a commision now?
Why is it the town has to keep wasting its time on Ray's nonsense??? First it was the recall attempt which everyone knows was a mean-spirited attempt to get rid of a board member/s who made a decision he didn't agree with. He wasted the taxpayers' money on a special town meeting and he wasted our time. Now with this new bylaw, he has wasted the SB's time and FinCom's time by going before them for something the town is already doing. Of course town meeting members' time will also be wasted when it is put before them.
To Mike Amaral aka Saul Raposo. Your comments make no sense at all.
12:37, that is an absurd insinuation, both on your part and Ray's part.
Your tendency to "finger-point" at those who question you or have differing opinions brings back to mind the absurd fiasco of the recall petition that cost us money and cost our officials and administrators precious time that could have been put to far better use than to listen to the hateful, vituperative comments spewn by a minority that just didn't get its way. Too bad, so sad. Get over it. Yours is not the only voice or opinion on the planet.
If you are so intent on the issue, make your comments about the issue/article, and not about people.
Your obsession with making this something it is not is getting tiring.
What Ray is doing is not a waste of time, in fact I think it's admirable. Sure the town is already doing it, but there is nothing on paper saying that the town HAS to do it. If the town changes it's mind and decides to fly a Chinese made American flag they can without this by-law. you are absolutely pathetic. I can see why you hide behind anonymous, because if people knew who you were, you would be the laughing stock of the town, and most likely lose all credibilty, that is if you have any to begin with.
When someone brought up the deputy chief for Dartmouth and accused Michaud of planting a freind from the sherriff's dept. Bill came in and defended him, I wonder why Bill is so quiet on this debate.
If you don't like the by-law don't vote for it, fairly simple...but before you vote please identify yourself,so we all know what an ass you are
As I see it, Ray needs to drop the insinuations that some FinCom members were making their decisions on their personal political philosophies.
These comments were initiated by Ray's own posts questioning the motives of these FinCom members who sought to determine sponsorship of the article.
All that is necessary is discussion on the proposed bylaw, debate, if one wants to, and opinions, if one wants to give them. Ray has certainly done his homework for defending his position and his desire to see this bylaw passed by providing information. He does not need to imply that any FinCom member who questioned sponsorship of the article was doing so because he or she held differing political views.
That's my "issue" with Ray's postings, not the actual bylaw that he is proposing. His postings have become targets for his belief that he "knows" the hidden motive as to why some members of the FinCom "oppose" the bylaw, and that their "opposition" is based solely on their politicially differing from him.
Wow! With all of the important fiscal issues facing the community I never thought I would see the focus of the debate being about this "Flag Waving" piece of nonsense. Vote for it or against it WHO CARES!!!
Its obviously an attempt to give someone the limelight by wrapping himself in the flag.
I know, why not sponsor an article recognizing Washington and Lincoln as great Americans! I dare to see Friedman, Lynam and company vote against that one!
Can we talk about some of the real issues facing the town like the upcoming collective bargaining contracts or Doris?
Ray, I ask you kindly. Please stop wasting the time of the select board, fincom and anybody else in your quest for attention. They have far more important issues to deal with than flag bylaws and recall efforts.
Being at the meeting myself, I wondered regarding the fincomm actions and hostility towards Ray on what seems like a simple question. Mr Lynam brought up losing jobs and free trade if we adopt a bylaw that keeps us doing what we are already doing! I do believe it was personal.
I do not believe there was any hostility but perhaps frustration. There are many fiscal issues facing the town and the Selectboard and Fin Com and to be wasting time on the flag issue when we have ominous financial clouds on the horizon is to be fiddling while Rome burns
I think 11:23 may have expressed just what this is: frustration on the part of officials at this point.
There ARE far more important FISCAL issues to deal with, without bashing people who disagree with you or voice an opinion or ask a question that upsets your apple cart.
Ray, it is admirable that you feel and express your patriotism as strongly as you do. Please, though, can you now cease and desist if the rest of us do, too?
You've made your point; I think the rest of us have, as well. Nothing may change anyone's mind, if it even should do so at all. That is the right we have: to hold and express our views, even if contrary to others.
What about Doris?
Fin comm should NOT be fiddling with non- financial poicy...stick to finances..policy issues is the job of town meeting and the SB.
Yeah Ray, we hate it when people wrap themselves up in a flag...like the past eight years of BUSh...if your against us, your not a true patriot.!!! bunch of horse crap..LYNAM grilled Ray on an issue that is not even a financial issue to the town..it is a policy issue.
Also, to those who said there are more important things to discuss, then why did Lynam and Lantz Grill Ray for 15 minutes at least on a non-financial issue and sponsorship. FIN COM stay out of town policy..you are over stepping your boundaries.
Lynam grills everyone that goes before FinCom and I for one appreciate it. No Ray, you are not special. You just happened to go before a very thorough committee. Clearly, you are in over your head. Please stop wasting the time of those who actually get the work done for our town.
STAY OUT OF POLICY FIN COMM. It's pretty basic, Lynam had no business grilling Ray. He is a pompus a$$, who just likes to throw his weight around. I for one find it funny how he is against alot of taxes, but freely takes FREE VA care and is also employed as a contractor to fix DPW radios...take take take lynam..but cut only when it doesnt affect him
Happy, Ray? You made it personal. Now the masses have another individual to crucify.
Some people never stop, do they?
Send in a resume to the Moderator and get on the FInCom. Mr. Lynam sends many, many hours reviewing town finances and operations and makes his opinions known publicly. You, on the other hand, post here anonymously and try to impugn his work.
"You are a sad little man and you have my pity!"
Mr. Lynam has grilled Ed Iacaponi and Michael Gagne quite extensively over the years. Just because he wants to get to the bottom of an issue - - yes, even an issue of sponsorship - - is to be commended.
Thank you, Mr. Lynam.
As the spokesman/Chairman of/for the Democratic Party in Dartmouth I believe I was within my rights to label the article the way it states. The reason I questioned some on the fin com's motives was due to the content of the questions. One question was "Did you ask the Republican party to co-sponsor?" Why is this relevent to the article? It isn't. "did the Democratic committee agree to sponsor?" again irrelevent to the content of the article. Mr. Lynam was the only member of Fin Com who actually asked relevent questions about the article. Although I do not agree with his conclusion, he at least made his comments and questions relevent. To those who claim I am just trying to gain attention, why would I want to? I have nothing to gain from this attention. To those woh claim I am wrapping myself in the flag, your right. I love the Flag.
As the opposition in the fin com have stated about this article,"this is a symbolic article", it is symbolic as our flag is symbolic of our freedoms. If we do not even care about the very symbol of our freedoms being manufactured in a country that prohibits it's citizens the rights that our flag represents, what should we care about.
Well, geez, Ray, why didn't you say so? Up to now, it was two or three FinCom members, I believe you said, that were against your bylaw. Actually, it was everyone with the exception of Ms. Nunes, Mr. Roth, and Mr. Fereira who were opposed.
Nice. Now that you have the animals after Mr. Lynam, you claim he was "the only member of FinCom (in opposition of the bylaw) who actually asked relevant questions about the article."
You couldn't have said that sooner? Better to have him attacked here in this blog for awhile, before you credit him with being "relevant"?
What about Doris?
Hey, Ray, what is your interpretation of the opposing FinCom's statement that "this is a symbolic article"?
Let's remember.. FinCom is an advisory group. They don't run for office, they are simply appointed. They advise town meeting.. End of story..
It is quite obvious that Ray and Saul strongly dislike Peter Freidman and Greg Lynam. How many posts on this blog are from them bashing these two dedicated people who volunteer their time for us? As I have said in other posts, Saul Raposa is a sad little man with sad little ideas. Apparently Ray is of the same cloth.
Ray will continue to waste our officials' time, town meeeting members' time and lets not forget our money because he needs the attention. I really don't mind your need for the spotlight Ray but do you think you could come up with something that would actually help the town?
I find it humorous that people on here defend the fin comm when they questioned Ray's motives, but when Ray questions their motives these same people on here do not like it.
Seems the bloggers on here are alittle hypocritical or just have an axe to grind against ray.
If you ask me the proof is in the pudding, on this article they(fin comm) are purely politically motivated.
Saul and ray may be sad little men but they have the balls to post using their own names unlike the vast majority of you nutless wonders
I don't recall FinCom's ever questioning Ray's motives. They asked if the Democratic Committee sponsored the article, with Ray as its sponsoring name, that's all.
No one asked him, "Why are you sponsoring this article?" Ray has made it perfectly clear all along why he is sponsoring it.
They asked him, "Who is sponsoring it?" They wanted to know if he were representing the Democratic Committee or if he were acting alone, which he admitted was the latter, offering to get the backing of the Committee if FinCom asked it.
Good for him on both counts. Now if he had just dropped it right there, but it seems he could not.
Maybe your belief is that FinCom had no "right" to question sponsorship, and that is your prerogative. No one on the FinCom insinuated that Ray was looking for attention, nor were they imposing their personal politics on their decision.
Now, of course, the focus is on "motives" and personalities. Town Meeting will vote as it feels; hopefully the issue will end there, since it seems some are bent on giving the article a life of its own.
that was one person's question, the other was why didn't he ask the republican party to co-sponsor. HOW IS THAT RELEVENT
I heard the Republican TC will get behind this article, and also the VFW and the ladies AUX. FIN COMM was WRONG in rejecting this article. they even said this has no financial impact on the town, shouldn't that make them happy, we may implement a by-law that is symbolic and patriotic and the 6 on the fin com say NO. Stop defending FIN COM even when they are wrong, people. It seems fin com has alot of lap dogs on this site.
I was there at that meeting and although greg was hard on him, the other two had nothing to add to the conversation other than, "Did you ask the Repubicans about this?" How else was Ray supposed to interpret that question? There are a few people on here that just don't like Ray, oh well. But he's right on this article and he's right in feeling that there was a feeling of political opposition.
Why??? Just because someone asked him if the Republicans were onboard, too???
Give me a break.
To Ralph. Saul has never had the balls to post under his own name.
Ray, before you go waving the American flag in everyone's face, please take a moment to think about what you are representing. A flag is a piece of cloth with little to no significance if the principles behind it are hypocritical. We as a country hold our flag dear but we do not stand behind it. We do not insist that our troops are equipped with the necessary means to fight a war. We do not insist that our leaders incite war only when absolutely necessary. We allow them to use our dedicated soldiers in useless battles in countries where we have no business. We allow them to go to war for oil instead of insisting that we become energy independent. Then we refuse to take care of those who have made the sacrifices for us. Our treatment of veterans is deplorable. A flag means nothing. Actions on the other hand do. So tell me what you are doing to stand behind your so called patriotism other than insisting that a worhtless piece of cloth is made in the U.S.A.?
The flag stands for the freedoms we as a people hold dear,not the policies our politicians create. The flag stands for liberty and God given rights of natural law.
to anon. 5:22 why was that a question, get it through your head, it was irrelevent.sure attack the article, but what the hell kind of question is,did you ask the republicans. If he did, it would have said so under SPONSOR, kind of self explanatory....IE sponsor: Ray Medeiros
Dartmouth Democratic Town Committee and the Republican Town Committee. The other ABSURD thing that came out of this gentleman's mouth was,I PROUDLY fly a chinese made American flag and I am a veteran...really? PROUDLY? He could have easily said I fly a chinese made American flag, but PROUDLY come on. get a life, defending these people on this is pathetic
To Anon 6:01, I see saul has company
I'm not aware they are being defended. And I'm not aware the article was under attack, either.
I don't think anyone on the FinCom needs defending. They are all big boys and girls quite capable of standing up for themselves, if they choose to. And they have stood up to (questioned) or "grilled," if you'd like, a lot of people on far more pressing issues than this one, folks. And guess what else? None of these other people reacted in the manner that Mr. Medeiros did, that is, implying and even outrightly stating that a FinCom vote for or against an article or whatever came before them was politically motivated.
no other political committee has ever gone before the fin comm anyway, so your arguement does not have any track record. Ray is part of a political committee that is sponsoring this article, Ray was asked partisan questions, not pertaining to the article, so in conclusion ,why ask political and/or partisan questions. I accomplishes NOTHING
You can not be partisan on a non-partisan sponsorship, The DDTC is the first political committee to go before the fin comm, so to say the Fin Comm has never been accused of being partisan, well that's simply because no other partisan committee has approached them.
Ray, freedom and liberty come at a price. Who pays that price? Our troops. This country gained its freedom through war. You cannot separate them so please stop with the rhetoric and flag waving when you have no clue what patriotism really means.
I never seperated the two,in fact this article represents everything those men and women fought for. To come out on this blog and call the flag a worthless piece of cloth is to the credit of everything that flag stands for, it even gives you the freedom to spew irresponsible garbage, and I challenge you to come out behind the blanket of Anonymous and reveal who you are.
"The flag stands for the freedoms we as a people hold dear,not the policies our politicians create."
Ray, that is called separating the issue. Politicians decide on wars and wars have to be fought for freedom. Whether or not you agree a particular war is necessary for our freedom is another matter.
The problem I have with you Ray is that you never directly address a legitimate question or issue. When confronted, you resort to historical quotes from great men, rhetoric that never answers the question or addresses the issue at hand, or accuse people of having a hidden agenda. Your last post is a perfect example. You claim you have not separated the two but do not bother to respond to the issues raised by anonymous 6:53 p.m. Then you fall back on the tired excuse that someone is not worth responding to if he or she posts anonymously.
Post a Comment