Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
`’Tis some visitor,’ I muttered, `tapping at my chamber door -
Only this, and nothing more.’—”The Raven,” Edgar Allen Poe, published 1845
Mayor Hieftje’s “facilitation” of City Council meetings reached a new low on Monday of this week. If there is a hell for meeting facilitators who consistently allow bad process to get in the way of the actual business of a meeting, John Hieftje will go there on a very, very, slow train that will make hundreds of stops. The train will almost arrive at the station, but will be diverted. Hieftje will descend slowly into madness.
On December 5th, Roger Fraser had warned all of the City Council members that unless they instructed him to do otherwise at the Monday December 7th meeting, he would immediately issue layoff notices to 14 of the city’s firefighters. At the Monday meeting, our Council member little old ladies fretted, worried and picked nits for, literally, hours over changing the Percent for Art Program to the “Half-A-Percent for Art” (until 2012, when the program will revert to the Percent for Art Program). Those micro-managers extraordinaire then spent more time than it took Michelangelo to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel to figure out how the Percent for Art program actually works. Yes, they sat in their little oval and tried to puzzle out how a program worked that all but Kunselman had all voted to implement over 14 months ago, and to which over $1 million dollars in tax money has already been funneled.
Talk about fiddling while Ann Arbor burns. The watch word of the evening was anything except “firefighters.” Our Council members and Mayor wasted endless hours of public time and money to avoid the tower truck in the Council Chambers.
Then, they spent hours wringing their hands over the difference between “adopting” and “accepting” a series of recommendations called the Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan.
This was actually when something interesting happened at the meeting. Third Ward Council member Stephen Kunselman asked how David Stead, the Chair of the HRIMP committee, could possibly hope to lead the group toward a consensus decision about how to best manage the Huron River. Since we know that Mayor and Council have a devil of a time finding people among the city’s 112,000 residents to serve on the city’s boards and commissions, they frequently appoint one person to multiple boards and commissions. David Stead is one of those people. He sits on the Ann Arbor Environmental Commission. You may also remember Stead from such classic films as, “I proposed the resolution to remove the Argo Dam.”
Kunselman spoke up and suggested that, perhaps, David Stead might be biased in his opinions about how to best manage the Huron River in his position as Chair of the HRIMP committee.
The Council School Marms picked up their rulers and closed in on Stevie K.
First up was that bias/conflict of interest expert, and Fifth Ward School Marm, Carsten Hohnke. Hohnke said it was “absolutely inappropriate to suggest the chair [of the HRIMP committee] had a bias.” Hohnke warned councilmembers to be careful about questioning the characters of members of the community who volunteer to serve the city.
Hohnke, after all, has no interest in discussing bias or conflicts of interest unless, of course, he benefits personally.
Carsten Hohnke was appointed to the Ann Arbor SPARK Board this past summer. Know how he got the appointment? If you guessed cronyism, you get a fabulous prize. Later. Hohnke also has a new job at the Michigan Economic Development Corporation in Lansing. Does the MEDC sound familiar? It should. It’s where 53rd District House wanna-be Ned Staebler works as a VP. Staebler’s Inspire Michigan PAC donated to Hohnke’s 2008 City Council campaign. The MEDC job given to Hohnke was never posted to the public. It was a cozy little give-away to Carsten.
The next School Marm up with a ruler was Kunselman’s Third Ward Council colleague Christopher Taylor. Taylor told all present that he felt “like some folks’ integrity had been impugned” based on very little evidence. Taylor said that for Kunselman to imply David Stead had a bias suggested “duplicity and conniving.” Taylor said he’d seen no evidence of that. Bias, of course, does not suggest either duplicity or conniving. Taylor’s deliberate misuse and incorrect definition of the word “bias” to make Kunselman appear as though he were suggesting David Stead was duplicitous and/or conniving was, of course, deliciously duplicitous and conniving behavior on the part of Council member Taylor.
The last School Marm to rap Kunselman over the knuckles for suggesting David Stead might be biased toward, oh, removing the Argo Dam as opposed to keeping it because Stead sponsored a resolution to remove the Argo Dam, was First Ward’s Sabra Briere. She told all present that questions brought before Council needn’t be answered quickly, but they did need to be answered “civilly.” I have to wonder if Sabra Briere was listening during Taylor’s comment when he used the words duplicity and conniving.
In March of 2006, the Ann Arbor Environmental Commission passed a resolution that created the Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP) Committee. The committee was charged with developing recommendations for managing the Huron River. Steve Kunselman was absolutely right to point out the potential conflicts with having David Stead Chair the HRIMP committee. Stead wants the Argo Dam out, and voted at the May 2009 Environmental Commission meeting in favor of removing the dam. The HRIMP committee’s job was to come up with a “committee vision” on best practices to manage the Huron River.
David Stead’s vote to remove the Argo Dam and subsequent chairing of the HRIMP committee is actually the least of the conflicts and biases on which we should focus, however. The appointment by Mayor and Council of the same individuals to multiple boards and commissions in Ann Arbor should attract our undivided attention. The political gene pool has been limited, unnecessarily, by this political ploy. The Mayor uses the strategy to groom his Council candidates of choice, and help them “build” résumés.
Another issue to focus on is our Mayor’s nasty habit of appointing citizens to boards and commissions after receiving campaign donations from them. Law enforcement agencies refer to this as “pay-to-play.” For instance, in 2003 David Nacht was appointed to the AATA Board for a 10-year term after a 2002 campaign donation to Mayor Hieftje. Nacht is not alone, of course, and shouldn’t be perceived as the only example of this pattern.
Yet another issue to focus on is the awarding of city contracts to the companies of individuals appointed to “serve” the city by sitting on boards and commissions. Planning Commissioner (appointed in 2007) Bonnie Bona recently sent out an email to potential customers that used her company’s 2005 Argo Park redesign work as a sample of her company’s design capabilities.
There are knuckles that need to be rapped, but not Steve Kunselman’s for bringing up potential biases or conflicts of interest.
Popularity: 31% [?]
feed://www.a2politico.com/?feed=rss2
I voted for Kunselman and am quite pleased he stands up like that and talks straight. Of course, he pisses people off. But you know, I am more than a little ticked off every time I take a detour around the Stadium Bridge, because I just won’t use a bridge that brittle, and every time I pass the new parking garage site, I get a little more huffy, and then I get really angry about the firefighters, and the list goes one, and I make sure I vote the angrier I get…
Comment by rose — December 10, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
Well, as someone that was at this meeting, I love this article! Want to tell the council just what you think of them shutting down the FD? Oh, and I say that with all confidence since it was Fraser that said he was ok with them becoming a “defensive” department. Meaning, if your home is on fire, no fireman will be going in to get people out. Fraser is ok with cutting them so thin that they won’t have the people to do rescues. Isn’t that the whole point of a firefighter’s job?!?! And Fraser is ok with that. Well folks, I’ll keep my opinions about the dam to myself, but all I can say is that if I’m having a medical issue or, god forbid, my house is on fire… no dam is going to rescue me. And soon, under Fraser’s plan, nor will any firefighter. Anyone want to join me in speaking up at the next meeting?
http://www.a2gov.org/government/citycouncil/Pages/CityCouncilMeetings.aspx
I’m signing up!
Comment by Had Enough — December 10, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
Actually David Nacht is a good guy. But otherwise you are batting .999%.
Comment by Alan Goldsmith — December 10, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
A2P, conflating biases and conflicts of interest isn’t helpful.
By way of clarification, the HRIMP committee was a committee of the Environmental Commission. The commission has six standing committees and has had several ad hoc committees, including HRIMP. Three commissioners serve on PAC, CPC and the Energy Commission, respectively, as required by the ordinance that created the commission. (This was intended to facilitate communication and coordination between the groups. I’ve questioned the need for that, and we’ve agreed to not request that council change the requirement for now.) Commission members serve as chairs of the committees as well as make up most of the membership. Several of us serve on multiple committees, some as chairs of multiple committees. Committees have staff support and usually have a staff person (or two) in attendance at meetings.
I’m not aware that David Stead has been appointed to or has served on any other commissions during his time (almost ten years) on the EC. I’m also not aware that he has any conflict of interest regarding Argo Dam. If anything he probably had among the lowest levels of conflict of any of the variety of stakeholders we invited to serve on the committee with him. As for bias, I don’t know how that term applies. Stead, like other commissioners, has opinions and reasons (mostly educated ones) for them. I believe he was most qualified (not to mention willing and able) to lead that challenging and extensive effort. Outside facilitators were brought in to assist with the process. In hindsight we might have taken a different approach, but excluding Stead from involvement wouldn’t have been part of that–there would be no reason for doing so. I appreciate David’s experience, skills and generosity with his time on our behalf. If any of you readers see him you might thank him.
Comment by SBean — December 10, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
David Stead should absolutely be thanked for his service; he should not have Chaired the HRIMP committee because of his sponsorship of the resolution to remove the Dam, and I think that was Kunselman’s point. Consensus takes differing viewpoints into account, and is best served through neutral facilitation.
Comment by A2 Politico — December 10, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
If more of our elected officials asked hard — and sometimes uncomfortable — questions like Kunselman did instead of patting each other on the back, the city might not be in the current position of budget shortfalls, deteriorating service, and an attitude of disdain toward the taxpayers. Kunselman has demonstrated that he will not blindly follow the herd and appease the Heifje/Fraser spinmeisters. Instead of berating him, the other council members should emulated his honesty and integrity.
Comment by calmic — December 10, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
It’s too bad there isn’t someone on Council who could write a script in advance of the meeting so each Council Member would know in advance what is acceptable to say.
I don’t think any Council Member is going to be flawless. I do take comfort in the thought that Kunselman will ask questions even at the risk of causing discomfort. The majority has had the comfort of going unchallenged for too long.
Was CM Briere challenging Kunselman’s civility or Taylor’s civility? From the reference to her remark here, it doesn’t sound like she is addressing what Kunselman said. On the other hand, Taylor’s characterization of the bias remark as meaning “duplicity and conniving.” seems uncivil.
Comment by Jack Eaton — December 10, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
If that were Kunselman’s point, he would be confused. The HRIMP process took place over about two years with the resolution to remove the dam being presented at the end of that process, not the other way around. We might as well be discussing whether Kunselman shouldn’t have proposed allowing chickens to be raised in the city because he ate eggs before that.
As I pointed out, two professional facilitators were brought in. That aside, I’m open to suggestions for possible improvements to such efforts.
Stead absolutely should have chaired the committee because he DID. That’s the reality. Arguing with reality is the source of confusion, stress and suffering. I don’t know what Kunselman’s point was, but short of suggesting an alternative or new policy for the future (or even if he had done that), baselessly challenging the integrity of volunteers in their absence and from a position of power, while it may not scare away Stead or other capable leaders, certainly won’t attract them to unpaid service.
Comment by SBean — December 10, 2009 @ 3:16 pm
Dissent isn’t pleasant to everyone, but it’s soooo needed in these parts! It can be messy, it can miss the mark, and it will stir things up – as evidenced on this righteous blog. A mere question asked by a councilman in public seems to be considered by some as dissent (or close to it).
Would that more council members and citizens start asking REALLY uncomfortable questions in this pleasant and oh-so-courteous little city. Often. The soul is being ripped out of Ann Arbor, and a large citizen majority do nothing.
The council emails show that citizens are looked down upon. Reaching out to and involving citizens in every way possible should be an important goal for council/mayor. And not just those who donate money.
Comment by money&buildings — December 10, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
Mr. Bean, I am confused. Can you help me?
This post reads as if Mr. Stead had previously indicated his support for removing Argo Dam. Is this an accurate assertion? Next, the post tells us that Councilman Kunsleman made a point which I paraphrase as “Someone who is already on record as favoring one particular outcome would seem to be biased toward that particular outcome. This may not be helpful on a committee charged with taking a fresh look at all the available engineering evidence and public comment regarding what to do with the dam.”
Next, it appears that several members of council impugned Mr. Kunselman’s integrity because he raised this point.
Is there more to this issue than this? Is there incorrect or missing information on the post?
Thanks for your help.
Comment by John Floyd — December 11, 2009 @ 12:57 am
John, thanks for the questions, they prompted the following new thoughts on the matter.
If the committee had recommended removal of the dam, Kunselman’s point might have been appropriate. The fact that the committee didn’t come to agreement on dam removal seems to be evidence that any alleged “bias” on Stead’s part was irrelevant. Furthermore, the agenda item at the council meeting had nothing to do with the dam, so the comment seems misplaced as well as of questionable appropriateness. Maybe that’s why Hohnke and Taylor heard it the way they did and responded the way they did.
It’s possible to raise a concern about process or practice without singling out an individual. If a council member has concerns, I’m sure there are numerous ways to raise them in a more productive way than was done in this case.
To your last question, keep in mind that A2P isn’t reporting objectively, he/she’s presenting a slanted account of the events in order to make his/her own points. It’s up to us to see past that to the true context, assuming that we’re interested in that. Our egos would rather project our discontentment onto others or have us feel like we’ve taken someone else down a notch.
Beyond that I suggest that you direct any unanswered questions to A2Politico for clarification or to Kunselman for his motivation.
Comment by SBean — December 11, 2009 @ 11:28 am
And did Stead previously state a preference for removing the dam? (Didn’t mean to skip that one.) I don’t remember any specific comments from him beyond one that indicated that he thought the commission would likely come to the conclusion that removal would be best for the river. (Not that it matters, but he was correct.) I don’t remember hearing a preference from him. I’m making a distinction between a prediction and a preference that is likely to be ignored or dismissed by some, but that’s for them to live with. I don’t have any idea what Kunselman was referring to in regard to regarding bias.
I’m now realizing, after looking back at the post above, that maybe Kunselman didn’t say anything about dam removal (though I don’t know what else he would have been referring to), that maybe only A2Politico muddied the waters by throwing that in. If that’s the case, then parts of my previous comment don’t apply.
Comment by SBean — December 11, 2009 @ 11:48 am
I think, Steve, you need to make clear to those reading these comments who may be unfamiliar with the cast of characters, that you are Stead’s colleague, and Chair of the Environmental Commission, on which Stead serves. The HRIMP committee, then, is associated with the Environmental Commission, as well.
Comment by A2 Politico — December 11, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
Sbean,
Good day!
I am but a simple citizen. After attempting to understand your point, I come away similarly confused as John Floyd. Would you please help me understand your vantage point and relationship to Mr. Stead? I am also curious about your position on Argo Dam; would you please provide your stance?
Sbean, from your apparent position of inside knowledge, please explain Mr. Stead’s position on keeping or removing Argo Dam during his tenure on the HRIMP committee. Since the committee was in place for two years, there must be a record of his views. I am curious to understand the relationship between your position and his position. I believe that his background information will help me decipher your entries above. I would be in your debt and would appreciate your help.
Best regards,
Poges
Comment by PogesMahone — December 11, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
Okay, I’ll try to be clear about that when it’s appropriate. But if you keep bossing me around like that and readers will think you were serious about paying me.
I’ve changed my online name. The URL link to it (which I had added earlier) goes to the city’s State of Our Environment Report web site.
Comment by Steve Bean — December 11, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
Steve Bean, you posted the 1,300th comment to A2Politico. I thank you for frittering away a few minutes of your day now and again here on the blog. Once I decide on what the fabulous prize for those who make it into the A2Politico Virtual Hall of Fame should be, I’ll have my personal assistant (when I hire one) send whatever that prize is your way (when I have money for postage). I look forward to more of your pithy comments, criticisms and critiques.
Comment by A2 Politico — December 11, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
A2P, thanks for the info on Steve Bean. It absolutely puts his comments in a new light. Mr. Bean, Mr. Stead is your colleague and you obviously have lots of respect for him as a person and as a member of the board you chair. He proposed the resolution to take out the dam. He wants it out. He voted for the dam to be removed. That was his opinion. He can’t have it both ways, and neither can you. His character wasn’t impugned by Steve Kunselman, his desire to “serve” isn’t being questioned. Steve Kunselman spotted a potential problem and called Mr. Stead (and everyone else) out on it.
Can we please stop pretending the Argo Dam issue is about science? It’s about politics. Stead’s appointment to EC was political. His place on the HRIMP committee was political. There are always some “familiar” names when board appointments come to council. The whole system is broken and so the work of the boards (Argo Dam is a perfect example) ends up wasting everyone’s time and money. Council doesn’t want to decide because of politics.
I am glad to see Kunselman is past playing ball and into representing what’s best for the public. Having people with even perceived biases on committee’s is not in the public’s best interest.
Comment by Robert Smith — December 11, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
I agree with Steve Bean on one point (if little else): conflict of interest and bias are two different things. Appointing a committee chair whose views are known to be biased in one direction or another might be all right (most of us do have opinions) if there was a clear indication via the rest of the appointments,the committee’s charge, and the procedural arrangements that the subject would receive a careful review taking in a variety of viewpoints. But if the chair of the committee has all the procedural reins in his hands, including producing the final recommendation, there would be concern that the outcome was “fixed”. From my experience with David Stead, I would say that he is likely to be fairly preemptory, so I hope that there are some safeguards included. (I have little knowledge of this specific (Argo) issue and no strong opinion.)
As for “pay to play”, I think that it is natural for political supporters of the mayor to be appointed to boards and commissions, and also for them to make donations to him. I’m convinced that David Nacht was appointed because of Hieftje’s wish to make transit more regional. He (Hieftje) told me that a long time ago and that is what Nacht has been pushing for. I don’t think that his appointment was as a reward for a campaign contribution.
I would think that the circle of influence and power is more of a concern than the money. In other words, it is cronyism rather than corruption. A fine line but one with some legal distinctions, I believe.
Also, conflict of interest usually means that the individual has a monetary interest in a subject over which he has the decision-making power. So while Carsten Hohnke may benefit from being a crony, even to the extent of getting a job, unless he is voting to decide something related to that issue, he does not have a conflict of interest. His approval of someone else in the charmed circle is just politics, not an abuse of power.
Comment by Vivienne Armentrout — December 12, 2009 @ 9:02 am
Residents want their elected officials to ask hard questions. These are difficult times, and we need to do our homework and make sure the interests of the people are protected. After many meetings this year, I have had residents call or email me to thank me for asking questions. Like Mr. Kunselman, I will continue to do my job by asking the hard questions. With the current and future economy in our area, the questions will just get more difficult!
Comment by Kristin Judge — December 12, 2009 @ 9:07 am
@18
1. Appointing people who give you money is pay-to-play. Either our mayor should not take the donations, or the donors should not be appointed to the boards. It means that people who give money, as opposed to people with expertise, get the board and commission appointments (sometimes multiple appointments), and that’s a disservice to the community (though a service to the mayor).
2. As for council member Hohnke, I read in an entry here that council recently voted to give more money to the LDFA to pass along to Spark. Council members Hohnke and Rapundalo are two sure votes for any funding request from Spark. Many of those people on the Spark board will surely donate to Carsten Hohnke when he runs again. That might be bad news for you should you run against him. His positions at MEDC and Spark will provide him with political and financial gain. That’s how I’m beginning to see (thanks to this blog) the game works in this town. It needs to be cleaned up. Exposing it is the first step.
Cronyism is a form of political corruption; it’s impossible, I think to try to separate the two—it’s like trying to dissemble smoke and fire.
Comment by Yale89 — December 12, 2009 @ 9:39 am
@17: “[David Stead's] place on the HRIMP committee was political.”
Would you share the basis for that opinion, Robert?
“He proposed the resolution to take out the dam. He wants it out. He voted for the dam to be removed. That was his opinion. He can’t have it both ways, and neither can you.”
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. How those facts comprise having it both ways is beyond me.
It was appropriate for David, as chair of the committee to bring a resolution to the commission. (Perhaps Vivienne would be willing to comment on that.) That said, any commissioner had the option to propose dam in or dam out. No other commissioner did so. One alternative, of course, would have been for David (or any other commissioner, except myself as chair) to propose keeping the dam, in which case I think it would be fair to assume that the vote would simply have been the reverse of the vote for dam out (i.e., failing 4-8 instead of passing 8-4.) (Had the dam out resolution failed, another commissioner could have proposed one for dam in, but it passed, which mooted that option.) I fail to see another reasonable alternative to him proposing the resolution that he did. If what I’ve stated is unclear I suggest that you read the Ann Arbor Chronicle’s coverage of the HRIMP and EC meetings. (Also see link below.)
@14: “Since the committee was in place for two years, there must be a record of his views.”
The HRIMP web page is at http://www.a2gov.org/government/publicservices/systems_planning/Environment/hrimp/Pages/HRIMP.aspx. Many of the meeting materials are available there.
One perhaps relevant excerpt from the meeting minutes for the initial March 26th, 2007 HRIMP committee meeting:
“What will be [sic] public participation process look like? Will we make it up as we go along?
David [Stead]: Need for public input– we will need to advertise and invent [sic] public to comment and become involved. Last three months, we will definitely want to have public presentations and get community feedback. At any given point, if subcommittees wish to seek public input, then we should do so at that time, so as not to wait until the end of the process and have to retrace steps.”
I didn’t serve on the committee, so you’ll need to ask David or another member of the committee or dig through the other materials if you want to know more about his views than that. I think A2P sufficiently spelled out my and David’s respective roles. By “colleague” A2P meant that Stead and I are both commissioners–we don’t work together professionally.
If council member Kunselman (or anyone else) has any evidence of any bias, I suggest that he present it. That he didn’t when he made his statement at the council meeting is interesting. Just to be clear, I don’t see Stead’s proposal to recommend dam removal to be biased in any way. (See above.)
I hope I’ve been more clear than in previous comments. Anyone with further questions for me can go to the web site linked through my name below and email me. If you provide a phone number I’ll gladly call to discuss the history of the HRIMP process.
Comment by Steve Bean — December 12, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
@20: I think you set too high a bar about donations and appointments. Most local political donations are in the $100 or below range. That is not enough to purchase most people’s integrity. (The maximum amount for individuals in local elections is $500, I believe.) It would be most unwise to say that if you donate a modest amount to local people running for office, you are ineligible to be appointed to a commission (for which, we hope, you are indeed qualified.)
I don’t owe Mr. Hohnke any favors whether or not I run against him in the future, but I will defend him or any other public figure from criticism that is not factually or procedurally grounded. My point is that cronyism, though reprehensible and worthy of criticism, is not criminal, as a conflict of interest potentially is. It is also classically part of local politics. He certainly is a crony and I think it funny to hear him defending the policies of the mayor and the charmed circle. But incidentally, most of his campaign funding came from a loan from himself. (Together with donations from Ned Staebler’s PAC, kingmaker Leah Gunn, and the Firefighters’ union. Wonder if the firefighters would like a refund.) And then – there was the politically motivated endorsement by the beautiful political couple, Rebekah Warren and Conan Smith. How is that for cronyism? Yet no money changed hands, to my knowledge. As to SPARK, that is a very disturbing nexus of money and power that needs to be investigated carefully.
Comment by Vivienne Armentrout — December 13, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
@22 Cronyism can absolutely be illegal. Putting one’s friends or relatives on the payroll at city hall so that they can have a bit of extra income, for instance, is fraudulent hiring. Before you step in to defend, you might want to make sure of your facts.
Comment by Yale89 — December 13, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
I remember being very frustrated when I watched the May 28, 2009 Environmental Commission meeting on CTN. I found Mr. Stead’s behavior toward the other commission members thuggish and heavy handed when alternatives for Argo Dam were presented. Mr. Bean, as Chair of the Environmental Commission, did nothing to temper Mr. Stead’s condescending behavior. The history of the HRIMP process, and Mr. Bean’s take on the process, is well know to all who have an interest in Argo Pond. For Mr. Bean to suggest that Mr. Stead does not have a “pre-existing position” regarding how best to manage the Huron River is just silly.
Comment by Lostbui — December 13, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
I have no opinion on Mr. Stead’s qualifications as chair or whether or not he brought a bias to the process.
But it seems to me perfectly legitimate of Mr. Kunselman, or anyone, to suggest so. The response from the rest of council should have been to simply explain, as Mr. Bean has here, rather than to be, or act, shocked at the suggestion.
They actually lend it more credence by reacting as they did.
Comment by Tom Hollyer — December 14, 2009 @ 11:07 am
Mr. Yale89: I think we are getting into semantics and I seem to have mislaid my juris doctor, so I give up.
Comment by Vivienne Armentrout — December 14, 2009 @ 9:21 pm