Loved this blog post from Steven Reid on attending an actual County Commission meeting:
http://nacilbupera.blogspot.com/2010/04/utah-county-commissioner-mtng.html
TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2010
Utah County Commissioner Mtng Attendance
This morning we attended our first ever Utah County Commissioner's Meeting. Since becoming a county delegate we figured it was our duty to go check out our elected Commissioners in action and see if things were running properly and now that the convention is over, we had a bit more time to do so.
Utah County is made up of three County Commissioners who meet Tuesday mornings at 9am. We're rather astonished that the meeting is at 9am when we like many are scheduled to work. Provo has its city council meetings at 7pm when we are more able to attend. We might be able to fathom the 9am meeting time if the meeting were rebroadcast: but there is no rebroadcast of Utah County Commissioner Meetings! We discovered the only venue currently available to citizens of the County for meeting review are agenda meeting notes posted online up to two weeks later after the meeting has taken place. In other words, the review-ability for our elected Commissioners is grossly deficient: THIS MUST BE FIXED!
At today's meeting, Commissioner Anderson was excused for health reasons and Commissioners White and Ellertson reviewed a rather non-controversial agenda approving all the items 2-0. Items of interest included Health Dept Director Miner talking about a aerial mosquito abatement program, a discussion on the Jordan River Commission to have the 18 jurisdictions split a $100K bill making the river a showcase for the state, and Richard Nance presenting the results of the clean-out-the-cabinet prescription drug reclamation of nearly 900 pounds of medication (see detailed Deseret News article).
The meeting also prompted us to chronicle the attendance of our elected officials at these meetings. Below is a spreadsheet using data extracted from the official minutes of the County Commissioner meetings for 2010 (for any corrections plz comment below or see our profile for email address):
From this data we gather the following interesting conclusions:
Our County Commissioners all have superb attendance at these meetings. This is really crucial as there are only 3 to conduct business
Joel Wright and Leon Frazier were the only two Commissioner candidates to have attended ANY Commissioner meeting in 2010. We were flabbergasted that Doug Witney had yet to attend any meeting yet was able to knock out the incumbent Steve White at Saturday's convention. We wonder if this glaring absence continues how in November either Republican Witney or Democrat Barratt are going to have any clue on what the issues are or of a smooth transition. We didn't see either at today's meeting nor was Mr. Wright present. We feel it unreasonable to expect perfect attendance during a campaign for a candidate running for County Commissioner, while we do expect some attendance.
Our elected County Officials appear to be attending as they are able. We feel that all of our elected officials should be making periodic appearances whenever available at our County Commissioner meetings. We also feel there will be times when then have pressing conflicts and should not be viewed as having to attend every meeting. Furthermore, some positions may merit more frequent attendance than others. We feel all the current elected county officials are doing due diligence.
We plan on keeping track of and periodically disclose attendance at the County Commissioner Meeting as a way of doing our patriotic part to keep check on our government.
Showing posts with label Gary Anderson; Utah County Commissioners. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gary Anderson; Utah County Commissioners. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Summary of the Convention, on to the Primary!
I was very happy with the results of the Convention, and our campaign's execution at the Convention. I believe we surprised many delegates with our ability to effectively get our message out at the Convention. I was especially happy with our speech to the delegates - the nominations went great, none of my children started crying (though one did fall asleep), and the delegates really responded to our message.
Now we have a primary. It is a completely different race than the one we had at Convention. I heard one person tell me that the Convention is sort of like a boxing match, while the Primary is sort of like a football game. I think that is a good analogy. We are actively working on our strategy for the Primary election on June 22, 2010 when every single registered Republican in Utah County (over 200,000 voters) can vote for County Commission Seat A, even though if the Primary elections in June 2006 or June 2008 are any indication, we'll likely only get 20,000 to 30,000 voters to come out. And if we don't have a Senate Primary Race, we might get even fewer. In other words, it will once again likely be a race where a few highly discerning voters will determine the outcome.
Below are the articles on the Convention from the Daily Herald, Des News and SL Trib. I include the highlights immediately below:
DAILY HERALD (at http://bit.ly/cOItev ):
"The other incumbent, Gary Anderson, will have his hands full come June when he has a primary with challenger Joel Wright in what was a very close convention vote."
Great picture of my daughter during my speech to the delegates: http://bit.ly/bFpJLr
Picture of me giving my speech to the delegates: http://bit.ly/cuzYOZ
DESERET NEWS (at: http://bit.ly/cr9Yh7 )
"There will be a primary election for the other Utah County Commission seat, as incumbent Gary Anderson and Joel Wright split the vote, 52 percent to 48 percent.
Wright said he was satisfied to take the election to a Republican primary race.
"I'm really happy. It's very hard to take out an incumbent," he said."
SALT LAKE TRIBUNE (at: http://bit.ly/cM9ns8 )
"An anti-incumbent backlash swept one Utah County Commissioner out of office and forced another into a primary battle for the Republican nomination."
....
Anderson and Wright's race went to a second ballot, as neither of them got 60 percent on the first round. During the second round, with candidate Jim Vein eliminated, Anderson received 51.6 percent to Wright's 48.4 percent.
"It's very hard to take out a powerful incumbent, who has the support of powerful types," Wright said. But he said his message of fiscal responsibility and taking on Anderson's support for the Utah County Convention Center helped with delegates.
Anderson noted the convention's anti-incumbent tone, but said he was grateful he was still in the race. He said primary voters are more representative of the party's mainstream than delegates.
"I felt good coming out of there," Anderson said. "The voters know me."
END
Now we have a primary. It is a completely different race than the one we had at Convention. I heard one person tell me that the Convention is sort of like a boxing match, while the Primary is sort of like a football game. I think that is a good analogy. We are actively working on our strategy for the Primary election on June 22, 2010 when every single registered Republican in Utah County (over 200,000 voters) can vote for County Commission Seat A, even though if the Primary elections in June 2006 or June 2008 are any indication, we'll likely only get 20,000 to 30,000 voters to come out. And if we don't have a Senate Primary Race, we might get even fewer. In other words, it will once again likely be a race where a few highly discerning voters will determine the outcome.
Below are the articles on the Convention from the Daily Herald, Des News and SL Trib. I include the highlights immediately below:
DAILY HERALD (at http://bit.ly/cOItev ):
"The other incumbent, Gary Anderson, will have his hands full come June when he has a primary with challenger Joel Wright in what was a very close convention vote."
Great picture of my daughter during my speech to the delegates: http://bit.ly/bFpJLr
Picture of me giving my speech to the delegates: http://bit.ly/cuzYOZ
DESERET NEWS (at: http://bit.ly/cr9Yh7 )
"There will be a primary election for the other Utah County Commission seat, as incumbent Gary Anderson and Joel Wright split the vote, 52 percent to 48 percent.
Wright said he was satisfied to take the election to a Republican primary race.
"I'm really happy. It's very hard to take out an incumbent," he said."
SALT LAKE TRIBUNE (at: http://bit.ly/cM9ns8 )
"An anti-incumbent backlash swept one Utah County Commissioner out of office and forced another into a primary battle for the Republican nomination."
....
Anderson and Wright's race went to a second ballot, as neither of them got 60 percent on the first round. During the second round, with candidate Jim Vein eliminated, Anderson received 51.6 percent to Wright's 48.4 percent.
"It's very hard to take out a powerful incumbent, who has the support of powerful types," Wright said. But he said his message of fiscal responsibility and taking on Anderson's support for the Utah County Convention Center helped with delegates.
Anderson noted the convention's anti-incumbent tone, but said he was grateful he was still in the race. He said primary voters are more representative of the party's mainstream than delegates.
"I felt good coming out of there," Anderson said. "The voters know me."
END
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Response to Linda Houskeeper, and a Challenge to Gary Anderson
Since one of Gary Anderson’s campaign supporters, Linda Houskeeper, made a series of baseless attacks on our campaign last Tuesday, we have been hoping that Gary Anderson would publicly distance himself from the actions of one of his supporters. Since he has not yet done so, we feel obligated to defend ourselves from these baseless charges, and challenge Gary Anderson to refuse to participate in any more Meet the Candidate events sponsored by Linda Houskeeper unless all county candidates are invited to attend, which is what the overwhelming majority of the county delegates would prefer.
Campaign Tactics used by Linda Houskeeper and Sandi Hoffman, supporters of Gary Anderson
Facts:
1. Linda Houskeeper is currently a Republican candidate for Utah County Commissioner Seat B, and Sandi Hoffman is a county employee.
2. Both Ms. Houskeeper and Ms. Hoffman are supporters of Gary Anderson for Utah County Commissioner Seat A, and are doing everything they can to help Gary win a fourth term as County Commissioner against Joel Wright.
3. Ms. Houskeeper scheduled a number of Meet & Mingle events that were advertised to the county delegates as being held for all county candidates with all county delegates invited. The emails advertising these events did not disclose they were Linda Houskeeper campaign events, as required under Utah Code 20A-11-901. The sign at the door of each Meet & Mingle event stated “Utah County Republican Party – Meet and Mingle – Utah County Office Candidates” – and did not clarify they were Linda Houskeeper campaign events. This gave most, if not all, county delegates the false impression that the Utah County Republican Party was sponsoring these events, instead of being sponsored by the candidate Linda Houskeeper.
4. At the Meet & Mingle scheduled by Ms. Houskeeper on Tuesday, April 6th, Ms. Hoffman came over to Mr. Wright’s table and repeatedly interrupted a conversation Mr. Wright was having with a delegate who was complaining about the difficulties he encounters in filing personal property taxes. Ms. Hoffman told the delegate that she makes such filings all the time and they are easy to do.
5. Mr. Wright then asked Ms. Hoffman to stop interrupting their conversation because he wanted to hear from the delegate.
6. Ms. Hoffman then raised her voice and called Mr. Wright a “liar” because “everyone knew Mr. Wright had promised to cut the salaries of county employees if elected, and now he was saying something different.”
7. Mr. Wright told Ms. Hoffman that he would indeed likely propose a cut to the salaries of county employees if the economy got worse and the tax revenue continued to decline, and would make no promises either way.
8. Ms. Hoffman called Mr. Wright a liar again, and then Mr. Wright’s campaign manager intervened and asked her why she was doing this. They spoke for a short while, and Ms. Hoffman then left, and she was not crying at any point. Mr. Wright’s campaign believes Ms. Hoffman has no grounds for her claim that “I have never been so publicly humiliated in my whole life.”
9. Mr. Wright never used any personal attacks or disparaging comments in his conversation with Ms. Hoffman. In contrast, Ms. Hoffman called Joel Wright a liar.
10. After this incident, Ms. Houskeeper asked Joel Wright about it, and Joel Wright discussed the event extensively with her on several occasions along with at least one witness of the event. Ms. Houskeeper then decided to “uninvite” Joel Wright from attending all future Meet & Mingle events based on this incident.
11. Ms. Houskeeper has also “uninvited” Jeff Buhman, the only Republican candidate for County Attorney, from attending her Meet & Mingle events, because she also dislikes him for reasons we do not understand, but we believe to be without merit.
12. Ms. Houskeeper continued to promote her Meet & Mingle events as open to all County Candidates, despite the fact she had uninvited both Joel Wright and County Attorney Jeff Buhman.
13. Joel Wright’s campaign then did their homework, and learned there are a number of restrictions on public buildings holding campaign events. Our campaign shared this research with the public charter school in Salem, and they concluded that their tax exempt status could be revoked if they held a campaign event that favored one candidate over another (see applicable IRS guidance here: http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=163395,00.html), and they also learned that their insurance through the State of Utah would not cover any campaign event because the taxpayers would then be subsidizing a political campaign. The school then informed Ms. Houskeeper of these facts.
14. Ms. Houskeeper’s response to these facts provides tremendous insight into her true motives. When Ms. Houskeeper was informed that the public charter school in Salem could not host the Meet & Mingle unless all candidates were invited, Ms. Houskeeper sent Joel an email dated 9:58 AM on Tuesday, April 20, revoking her previous “uninvite” and re-inviting Joel Wright to attend the Meet & Mingle that night. In other words, if Ms. Houskeeper truly believed that the incident she cited above was a legitimate reason for “uninviting” Joel Wright from attending any future Meet & Mingle events, she immediately discarded that reason once it was not in her best interests. In other words, she did not “uninvite” Joel Wright on principle – she only uninvited Joel Wright because she thought it was in her best interests, and then immediately re-invited Mr. Wright once it was in her best interests to do so.
15. The public charter school in Salem then informed Joel Wright that because he had been invited, that they would go ahead and allow Ms. Houskeeper to hold her Meet & Mingle that night at their school, so long as Ms. Houskeeper could provide event insurance as they were required to do so by the State of Utah’s Division of Risk Management. (Call Morris Haggerty at the State of Utah at 801-538-956 to confirm the requirement that a public charter school may not use their insurance on a campaign event.)
16. Ms. Houskeeper failed to provide event insurance to the public charter school in Salem by that afternoon as required, so the public charter school cancelled the event.
17. Ms. Houskeeper then indirectly “uninvited” Joel Wright again to all the remaining Meet & Mingles on the afternoon of Tuesday, April 20, when she sent out an email to all county delegates stating I was “officially uninvited” from all the remaining events. Once again she violated the law by failing to disclose these were Linda Houskeeper campaign events, as required under Utah Code 20A-11-901.
18. Ms. Houskeeper also accused Mr. Wright of using “legal tactics” to prevent her from hosting a Meet & Mingle the night of Tuesday, April 20 at the public charter school in Salem. Mr. Wright’s campaign respectfully disagrees, and believes that all elected officials take an oath to uphold and defend the law, so candidates should respect all applicable laws, even when such laws are not convenient or in your favor.
Our Challenge to Gary Anderson:
Please make a public statement today that you will not attend any campaign events for multiple county candidates going forward unless ALL county candidates are invited, including Joel Wright and Jeff Buhman. And then please refuse to attend any such events unless you have solid proof that all county candidates have been invited. Note that Joel Wright promises you that he will not attend any campaign event for multiple county candidates unless you are invited on equal terms as well.
Note that Joel Wright’s campaign is not asking Gary Anderson to determine the truth of the facts above. We are simply asking him to comply with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the county delegates to allow all candidates to attend so they can decide for themselves who deserves their vote.
Campaign Tactics used by Linda Houskeeper and Sandi Hoffman, supporters of Gary Anderson
Facts:
1. Linda Houskeeper is currently a Republican candidate for Utah County Commissioner Seat B, and Sandi Hoffman is a county employee.
2. Both Ms. Houskeeper and Ms. Hoffman are supporters of Gary Anderson for Utah County Commissioner Seat A, and are doing everything they can to help Gary win a fourth term as County Commissioner against Joel Wright.
3. Ms. Houskeeper scheduled a number of Meet & Mingle events that were advertised to the county delegates as being held for all county candidates with all county delegates invited. The emails advertising these events did not disclose they were Linda Houskeeper campaign events, as required under Utah Code 20A-11-901. The sign at the door of each Meet & Mingle event stated “Utah County Republican Party – Meet and Mingle – Utah County Office Candidates” – and did not clarify they were Linda Houskeeper campaign events. This gave most, if not all, county delegates the false impression that the Utah County Republican Party was sponsoring these events, instead of being sponsored by the candidate Linda Houskeeper.
4. At the Meet & Mingle scheduled by Ms. Houskeeper on Tuesday, April 6th, Ms. Hoffman came over to Mr. Wright’s table and repeatedly interrupted a conversation Mr. Wright was having with a delegate who was complaining about the difficulties he encounters in filing personal property taxes. Ms. Hoffman told the delegate that she makes such filings all the time and they are easy to do.
5. Mr. Wright then asked Ms. Hoffman to stop interrupting their conversation because he wanted to hear from the delegate.
6. Ms. Hoffman then raised her voice and called Mr. Wright a “liar” because “everyone knew Mr. Wright had promised to cut the salaries of county employees if elected, and now he was saying something different.”
7. Mr. Wright told Ms. Hoffman that he would indeed likely propose a cut to the salaries of county employees if the economy got worse and the tax revenue continued to decline, and would make no promises either way.
8. Ms. Hoffman called Mr. Wright a liar again, and then Mr. Wright’s campaign manager intervened and asked her why she was doing this. They spoke for a short while, and Ms. Hoffman then left, and she was not crying at any point. Mr. Wright’s campaign believes Ms. Hoffman has no grounds for her claim that “I have never been so publicly humiliated in my whole life.”
9. Mr. Wright never used any personal attacks or disparaging comments in his conversation with Ms. Hoffman. In contrast, Ms. Hoffman called Joel Wright a liar.
10. After this incident, Ms. Houskeeper asked Joel Wright about it, and Joel Wright discussed the event extensively with her on several occasions along with at least one witness of the event. Ms. Houskeeper then decided to “uninvite” Joel Wright from attending all future Meet & Mingle events based on this incident.
11. Ms. Houskeeper has also “uninvited” Jeff Buhman, the only Republican candidate for County Attorney, from attending her Meet & Mingle events, because she also dislikes him for reasons we do not understand, but we believe to be without merit.
12. Ms. Houskeeper continued to promote her Meet & Mingle events as open to all County Candidates, despite the fact she had uninvited both Joel Wright and County Attorney Jeff Buhman.
13. Joel Wright’s campaign then did their homework, and learned there are a number of restrictions on public buildings holding campaign events. Our campaign shared this research with the public charter school in Salem, and they concluded that their tax exempt status could be revoked if they held a campaign event that favored one candidate over another (see applicable IRS guidance here: http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=163395,00.html), and they also learned that their insurance through the State of Utah would not cover any campaign event because the taxpayers would then be subsidizing a political campaign. The school then informed Ms. Houskeeper of these facts.
14. Ms. Houskeeper’s response to these facts provides tremendous insight into her true motives. When Ms. Houskeeper was informed that the public charter school in Salem could not host the Meet & Mingle unless all candidates were invited, Ms. Houskeeper sent Joel an email dated 9:58 AM on Tuesday, April 20, revoking her previous “uninvite” and re-inviting Joel Wright to attend the Meet & Mingle that night. In other words, if Ms. Houskeeper truly believed that the incident she cited above was a legitimate reason for “uninviting” Joel Wright from attending any future Meet & Mingle events, she immediately discarded that reason once it was not in her best interests. In other words, she did not “uninvite” Joel Wright on principle – she only uninvited Joel Wright because she thought it was in her best interests, and then immediately re-invited Mr. Wright once it was in her best interests to do so.
15. The public charter school in Salem then informed Joel Wright that because he had been invited, that they would go ahead and allow Ms. Houskeeper to hold her Meet & Mingle that night at their school, so long as Ms. Houskeeper could provide event insurance as they were required to do so by the State of Utah’s Division of Risk Management. (Call Morris Haggerty at the State of Utah at 801-538-956 to confirm the requirement that a public charter school may not use their insurance on a campaign event.)
16. Ms. Houskeeper failed to provide event insurance to the public charter school in Salem by that afternoon as required, so the public charter school cancelled the event.
17. Ms. Houskeeper then indirectly “uninvited” Joel Wright again to all the remaining Meet & Mingles on the afternoon of Tuesday, April 20, when she sent out an email to all county delegates stating I was “officially uninvited” from all the remaining events. Once again she violated the law by failing to disclose these were Linda Houskeeper campaign events, as required under Utah Code 20A-11-901.
18. Ms. Houskeeper also accused Mr. Wright of using “legal tactics” to prevent her from hosting a Meet & Mingle the night of Tuesday, April 20 at the public charter school in Salem. Mr. Wright’s campaign respectfully disagrees, and believes that all elected officials take an oath to uphold and defend the law, so candidates should respect all applicable laws, even when such laws are not convenient or in your favor.
Our Challenge to Gary Anderson:
Please make a public statement today that you will not attend any campaign events for multiple county candidates going forward unless ALL county candidates are invited, including Joel Wright and Jeff Buhman. And then please refuse to attend any such events unless you have solid proof that all county candidates have been invited. Note that Joel Wright promises you that he will not attend any campaign event for multiple county candidates unless you are invited on equal terms as well.
Note that Joel Wright’s campaign is not asking Gary Anderson to determine the truth of the facts above. We are simply asking him to comply with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the county delegates to allow all candidates to attend so they can decide for themselves who deserves their vote.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Clear Differences on Proposed Bridge Over Utah Lake
Last week in Orem I had the opportunity to debate my opponent on
several important issues facing Utah County. One of the questions
was on the Utah Lake Bridge proposal. I believe the responses once
again show clear differences to our approaches and feelings about the
issues.
Below you will find a summary of the responses and a link to watch
the full video for yourself on You Tube. We will also be putting the
other questions and answers on You Tube from that debate over the
next couple days.
The Question was:
There is a proposal to build a bridge across Utah Lake by a
private group. Do you support this effort? If so, how can you
guarantee the taxpayers won’t foot the bill should the group fold?
Summary of Joel Wright's answer:
1. Governor Herbert and his administrative staff will decide this.
2. If the private sector can come and solve one of our transportation
problems, let's make it happen. I'm all for it.
3. The State of Utah should return to Utah County all the revenue
they get from leasing the easement over Utah Lake, and Utah County
should insure that 100% of those funds go to improving the Lake.
4. There should be a construction (or completion) bond on the
construction to make sure the bridge will be completed when it is
started.
Summary of Gary Anderson's answer:
1. I am not for the bridge proposed right now.
2. We need to do an Environmental Impact Study "EIS", and let that
study tell us if a bridge is feasible
3. There are three developers that will pay for the bridge wanted by
the Lake, which an EIS will tell us
4. The developer/owner of the bridge should not make a profit from
the bridge because they will make so much money from the land
across the lake once it becomes accessible. Direct quote: "We have
them develop it, we have them build it, and then the money
(and this is another problem I have with the present bridge) the
money, if that is a toll bridge and it has to be a $2 toll or
something, the money that is made in excess of the debt service on
that bridge goes back into the Lake."
YouTube Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEK0f7mJL_A
As you can see we have very different views on this issue. I look
forward to talking with you more about the issues that affect Utah
County including the Bridge.
If you would like to talk in person please see the complete schedule
of all such meetings here:
http://wright4countycommissioner.blogspot.com/2010/04/where-you-can-meet-me-in-person.html
Alternatively, you are always welcome to call me on my
cell phone at 801-368-5385.
As always, I also ask for your vote April 24th at the
Utah County Convention!
Warm Regards,
Joel Wright
p.s. Please always feel free to call me or email me questions or
concerns, I will always be engaged and look forward to earning
your vote!
several important issues facing Utah County. One of the questions
was on the Utah Lake Bridge proposal. I believe the responses once
again show clear differences to our approaches and feelings about the
issues.
Below you will find a summary of the responses and a link to watch
the full video for yourself on You Tube. We will also be putting the
other questions and answers on You Tube from that debate over the
next couple days.
The Question was:
There is a proposal to build a bridge across Utah Lake by a
private group. Do you support this effort? If so, how can you
guarantee the taxpayers won’t foot the bill should the group fold?
Summary of Joel Wright's answer:
1. Governor Herbert and his administrative staff will decide this.
2. If the private sector can come and solve one of our transportation
problems, let's make it happen. I'm all for it.
3. The State of Utah should return to Utah County all the revenue
they get from leasing the easement over Utah Lake, and Utah County
should insure that 100% of those funds go to improving the Lake.
4. There should be a construction (or completion) bond on the
construction to make sure the bridge will be completed when it is
started.
Summary of Gary Anderson's answer:
1. I am not for the bridge proposed right now.
2. We need to do an Environmental Impact Study "EIS", and let that
study tell us if a bridge is feasible
3. There are three developers that will pay for the bridge wanted by
the Lake, which an EIS will tell us
4. The developer/owner of the bridge should not make a profit from
the bridge because they will make so much money from the land
across the lake once it becomes accessible. Direct quote: "We have
them develop it, we have them build it, and then the money
(and this is another problem I have with the present bridge) the
money, if that is a toll bridge and it has to be a $2 toll or
something, the money that is made in excess of the debt service on
that bridge goes back into the Lake."
YouTube Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEK0f7mJL_A
As you can see we have very different views on this issue. I look
forward to talking with you more about the issues that affect Utah
County including the Bridge.
If you would like to talk in person please see the complete schedule
of all such meetings here:
http://wright4countycommissioner.blogspot.com/2010/04/where-you-can-meet-me-in-person.html
Alternatively, you are always welcome to call me on my
cell phone at 801-368-5385.
As always, I also ask for your vote April 24th at the
Utah County Convention!
Warm Regards,
Joel Wright
p.s. Please always feel free to call me or email me questions or
concerns, I will always be engaged and look forward to earning
your vote!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
