Who would have thought the Spears sisters — Britney, a troubled mother of young sons entangled in a messy and public custody battle, and her pregnant, 16-year-old sister, Jamie Lynn — could influence Connecticut politics?
But Planned Parenthood’s in-house lobbyist Susan Yolen said the Spears’ woes and the popularity of Hollywood hit movies about unplanned pregnancies — such as Juno and Knocked Up — are reasons lawmakers need to focus on these issues now.
“You look at pop culture and you can’t help but notice these things,” Yolen said. “It’s been out there recently and it’s time to do something.”
The Connecticut chapter of Planned Parenthood is gearing up for a strong legislative push this session for the state to provide “real” sex education. While the organization has lobbied for more thorough guidelines for sex education in the past, the current landscape of popular culture is its impetus to get something done in the coming legislative session.
It is a challenge for Yolen, who is Planned Parenthood’s only registered lobbyist, to make this happen by herself.
“We simply don’t have the resources of our own to spend on lobbying that, for instance, a big business has,” she said.
As a result, her group is focusing on coalition lobbying, reaching out to like-minded volunteers, including parents, teachers and even teenagers themselves, and organizations with the same goal. The organization’s Connecticut chapter, located in New Haven, will push its legislative agenda with volunteers who will man phone banks on Jan. 29. It will be its second such effort within a two-week period.
“For what we’re trying to do, it is crucial that we show that there is a groundswell of support,” she said. “We’ve been talking to our allies in the General Assembly and we’ll continue to make our points.”
More Sex Ed
Ultimately, Planned Parenthood wants the state to bolster its guidelines on sex education and include more information about sexually transmitted diseases and distribute the latest findings on teenage sex studies to older students. The organization maintains that many public school sex ed curricula are outdated.
Another factor is that sexual ed varies greatly from district to district because each board of education is responsible for setting its district’s curriculum. In many cases, these boards are hamstrung by a lack of funding, staffing, and at times, public disapproval.
As for potential opponents, Yolen said they know of none so far, but it could change when these suggested reforms turn into actual, proposed legislation.
The Family Institute of Connecticut, represented by Dolores Malloy of Malloy & Associates, is undoubtedly an opponent. “We would oppose any further involvement by Planned Parenthood because whatever they’re pushing, it’s really about abortion,” said Family Institute executive director Peter Wolfgang. “They are the nation’s largest abortion provider and should be the last folks involved in sexual education.”
The institute will again lobby for parental notification for abortions, as Malloy said the state is one of a handful in the country that does not require parents to be involved in that process.
“We were able to get an informational hearing last year and there has been the possible promise of a bill for parental notification this year,” she said.
Wolfgang also said the group is beginning to take a strong look at abstinence education.
“We want there to be less sex education and more education of the whole person,” he said. “It shouldn’t be just about managing sexual appetites and sexual desires. It should be about marriage and a fulfilling adulthood.”
Monday, January 28, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Criminal Justice Reforms Update
A little more than a week ago, Influence looked at groups that were lobbying for prisoners and against the parole ban.
It's time for something of an update as there has been a compromise on home invasion laws during a special session of the General Assembly today.
In other news, here's an article from the Yale Daily News about roughly 60 people attending a candlelight vigil in New Haven to promote a "more humane" criminal justice system.
It's time for something of an update as there has been a compromise on home invasion laws during a special session of the General Assembly today.
In other news, here's an article from the Yale Daily News about roughly 60 people attending a candlelight vigil in New Haven to promote a "more humane" criminal justice system.
Monday, January 21, 2008
The Sound Of Money
It’s green, it makes a crinkling sound when crunched, and it can make the difference between survival and death for nonprofit arts organizations.
Money — in the form of grants and state funding — is critical for arts groups. That is why the state’s museums and art entities are increasingly turning to lobbyists to help them promote their causes with legislators and foundation officials.
The lobbyists representing arts organizations are selling the point-of-view that an investment in the state’s museums is an investment in the state’s economy. And they aren’t going it alone to push the point. A prime example can be found at the Web site, savetheartsct.org.
“It’s a technique we’re trying to get everyone in the arts community engaged on the same page,” said David McQuade, of Murtha Cullina LLP. Murtha Cullina is the registered lobbyist for the Greater Hartford Arts Council.
When asked what the arts council’s top priority is, McQuade laughed and said the answer is obvious. “Money,” he said.
“We’re working hard to increase funding and last year we got to see some increases,” he said. “[The arts council] tends to be very collaborative with a host of different groups that they work with.”
Collaboration Is Key
As a lobbyist for the arts council, McQuade said simply pulling everyone together has been the most important work he has taken on.
Kenneth Kahn, executive director for the arts council, agreed that statewide advocacy, not just from one particular group, is instrumental in garnering future funding.
McQuade’s second major focus as a lobbyist is to get the point across to legislators that the arts provide a serious influx of money into the state from tourism.
“We really try to get across that the arts need to be recognized as a key part of the state’s economy,” he said.
Museum and arts organizations have at least one very important ally in Gov. M. Jodi Rell, recognized by the arts community as a friend for her push to increase funding.
Though Rell’s proposal to take a portion of the state’s cable tax and dedicate it to the arts failed, state lawmakers have been more receptive towards funding nonprofit arts organizations than they have in the past.
Initially, Rell’s proposal for the $10 million “Cultural Treasures” bill stalled in the commerce committee, but more than $4 million was allocated to the Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism by the General Assembly. Of that figure, Rell announced last month that nearly $2 million had been doled out to 132 nonprofits. All told, about $8 million will benefit arts funding this year.
Economic Case
Making the economic case has been the basis to justify state funding: the state as a whole will benefit. That argument has gained recent support, helped by the commission’s 2006 report on the impact of the arts on the state economy.
“They did the economic impact study that put some more information out there,” he said. “There are a lot of things feeding into this right now.”
Despite the constant need for more funding and thin budgets, arts organizations clearly see the value of lobbyists and are not hesitant to spend money to receive money.
The Greater Hartford Arts Council has a $24,000 per year contract with Murtha Cullina, according to 2007-08 data posted by the Office of State Ethics in December.
Similarly, the Kidcity Children’s Museum of Middletown pays $10,000 a year to Rome Smith & Associates while Greenwich-based Bruce Museum Inc., has a $2,500 monthly contract with Sullivan & LeShane and the Connecticut Historical Society spends $2,000 a month to retain Robinson & Cole.
Money — in the form of grants and state funding — is critical for arts groups. That is why the state’s museums and art entities are increasingly turning to lobbyists to help them promote their causes with legislators and foundation officials.
The lobbyists representing arts organizations are selling the point-of-view that an investment in the state’s museums is an investment in the state’s economy. And they aren’t going it alone to push the point. A prime example can be found at the Web site, savetheartsct.org.
“It’s a technique we’re trying to get everyone in the arts community engaged on the same page,” said David McQuade, of Murtha Cullina LLP. Murtha Cullina is the registered lobbyist for the Greater Hartford Arts Council.
When asked what the arts council’s top priority is, McQuade laughed and said the answer is obvious. “Money,” he said.
“We’re working hard to increase funding and last year we got to see some increases,” he said. “[The arts council] tends to be very collaborative with a host of different groups that they work with.”
Collaboration Is Key
As a lobbyist for the arts council, McQuade said simply pulling everyone together has been the most important work he has taken on.
Kenneth Kahn, executive director for the arts council, agreed that statewide advocacy, not just from one particular group, is instrumental in garnering future funding.
McQuade’s second major focus as a lobbyist is to get the point across to legislators that the arts provide a serious influx of money into the state from tourism.
“We really try to get across that the arts need to be recognized as a key part of the state’s economy,” he said.
Museum and arts organizations have at least one very important ally in Gov. M. Jodi Rell, recognized by the arts community as a friend for her push to increase funding.
Though Rell’s proposal to take a portion of the state’s cable tax and dedicate it to the arts failed, state lawmakers have been more receptive towards funding nonprofit arts organizations than they have in the past.
Initially, Rell’s proposal for the $10 million “Cultural Treasures” bill stalled in the commerce committee, but more than $4 million was allocated to the Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism by the General Assembly. Of that figure, Rell announced last month that nearly $2 million had been doled out to 132 nonprofits. All told, about $8 million will benefit arts funding this year.
Economic Case
Making the economic case has been the basis to justify state funding: the state as a whole will benefit. That argument has gained recent support, helped by the commission’s 2006 report on the impact of the arts on the state economy.
“They did the economic impact study that put some more information out there,” he said. “There are a lot of things feeding into this right now.”
Despite the constant need for more funding and thin budgets, arts organizations clearly see the value of lobbyists and are not hesitant to spend money to receive money.
The Greater Hartford Arts Council has a $24,000 per year contract with Murtha Cullina, according to 2007-08 data posted by the Office of State Ethics in December.
Similarly, the Kidcity Children’s Museum of Middletown pays $10,000 a year to Rome Smith & Associates while Greenwich-based Bruce Museum Inc., has a $2,500 monthly contract with Sullivan & LeShane and the Connecticut Historical Society spends $2,000 a month to retain Robinson & Cole.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Speaking For Prisoners
It’s not easy to lobby lawmakers on behalf of prisoners, especially when the public is still reeling from the horrific crimes that took place in Cheshire this past summer.
But that’s exactly what lobbyist Betty Gallo is doing on behalf of her clients — the American Civil Liberties Union, A Better Way Foundation and the Connecticut chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness. The groups are concerned that lawmakers are rushing to make decisions in the wake of tragedy, which will affect how reforms are established.
In particular, A Better Way Foundation has been at the forefront of the issue. The foundation exists as a nonprofit organization that is dedicated to shifting from a drug policy that often results in incarceration to promoting public health and treatment.
Lorenzo James, executive director for A Better Way, said the organization sprang into action by coordinating a coalition of residents who let legislators and state officials know how families are being affected by the parole ban established by Gov. M. Jodi Rell.
Rell suspended parole for all inmates currently serving time for violent offenses in September. She reasoned that the state needed to find a better way to determine who poses risks to the public if released.
The groups represented by Gallo oppose the ban.
The nonprofit then established the Clean Slate Committee, with chapters set up in towns from New Haven to Glastonbury. Meetings have been set up with Rell’s legal counsel and Department of Corrections Commissioner Theresa Lantz, said committee co-chairman David Samuels.
“We wanted to give a chance to people whose voices haven’t been heard,” Samuels said. “It serves as a counter to the governor’s task force because that body has just been looking at law enforcement.”
With such a high-profile case serving as a catalyst for the reform, Samuels is keenly aware of the obstacles that those in favor of prisoners’ rights have to overcome.
“We’re looking for a system that looks at reintegration and supports the formerly incarcerated instead of just keeping them in jail,” he said. “The question that needs to be asked is why are these people re-offending? What kind of system do we want? Is it a system where we just warehouse people for so many years and release?”
In the Cheshire case, Samuels said the two men accused of murder were only paroled because “the parole board didn’t receive the sentencing report” and that this fact “has really been swept under the rug.”
The response from state officials, according to Samuels, has been to punish all parolees.
In addition to the standard lobbying of legislators and officials, A Better Way and the Clean Slate Committee are reaching out to the community to, in turn, sway their own representatives.
However, it will be a tough sell as the parole debate evolves.
Last week, Rell and Democratic legislative leaders released their recommendations for criminal justice reform. Later this month, the General Assembly is expected to convene a special session on the matter.
Both Republicans and Democrats appear to be in agreement on some preliminary recommendations, including the creation of a full-time Board of Pardons and the establishment of a new “home invasion” crime category.
Rell is endorsing changes to the penal codes, such as a mandatory minimum of five years for burglaries committed at night or with a firearm and tougher penalties for repeat offenders that could create a three-strikes law.
With so much focus, and rightly so, on the victims in the Cheshire case, it could be easily construed that everyone is for keeping criminals behind bars as long as possible.
But the old adage, there are two sides to every story, holds true here.
But that’s exactly what lobbyist Betty Gallo is doing on behalf of her clients — the American Civil Liberties Union, A Better Way Foundation and the Connecticut chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness. The groups are concerned that lawmakers are rushing to make decisions in the wake of tragedy, which will affect how reforms are established.
In particular, A Better Way Foundation has been at the forefront of the issue. The foundation exists as a nonprofit organization that is dedicated to shifting from a drug policy that often results in incarceration to promoting public health and treatment.
Lorenzo James, executive director for A Better Way, said the organization sprang into action by coordinating a coalition of residents who let legislators and state officials know how families are being affected by the parole ban established by Gov. M. Jodi Rell.
Rell suspended parole for all inmates currently serving time for violent offenses in September. She reasoned that the state needed to find a better way to determine who poses risks to the public if released.
The groups represented by Gallo oppose the ban.
The nonprofit then established the Clean Slate Committee, with chapters set up in towns from New Haven to Glastonbury. Meetings have been set up with Rell’s legal counsel and Department of Corrections Commissioner Theresa Lantz, said committee co-chairman David Samuels.
“We wanted to give a chance to people whose voices haven’t been heard,” Samuels said. “It serves as a counter to the governor’s task force because that body has just been looking at law enforcement.”
With such a high-profile case serving as a catalyst for the reform, Samuels is keenly aware of the obstacles that those in favor of prisoners’ rights have to overcome.
“We’re looking for a system that looks at reintegration and supports the formerly incarcerated instead of just keeping them in jail,” he said. “The question that needs to be asked is why are these people re-offending? What kind of system do we want? Is it a system where we just warehouse people for so many years and release?”
In the Cheshire case, Samuels said the two men accused of murder were only paroled because “the parole board didn’t receive the sentencing report” and that this fact “has really been swept under the rug.”
The response from state officials, according to Samuels, has been to punish all parolees.
In addition to the standard lobbying of legislators and officials, A Better Way and the Clean Slate Committee are reaching out to the community to, in turn, sway their own representatives.
However, it will be a tough sell as the parole debate evolves.
Last week, Rell and Democratic legislative leaders released their recommendations for criminal justice reform. Later this month, the General Assembly is expected to convene a special session on the matter.
Both Republicans and Democrats appear to be in agreement on some preliminary recommendations, including the creation of a full-time Board of Pardons and the establishment of a new “home invasion” crime category.
Rell is endorsing changes to the penal codes, such as a mandatory minimum of five years for burglaries committed at night or with a firearm and tougher penalties for repeat offenders that could create a three-strikes law.
With so much focus, and rightly so, on the victims in the Cheshire case, it could be easily construed that everyone is for keeping criminals behind bars as long as possible.
But the old adage, there are two sides to every story, holds true here.
Monday, January 7, 2008
New Year, New Ethics Leadership
When Benjamin Bycel resigned as head of the Office of State Ethics director in July, it was apparent that the time had come for a change. He resigned after the Citizen’s Ethics Advisory
Board unanimously approved a critical assessment of Bycel. Under his leadership, the entire office had been targeted for negative attention by legislators and the media.
For nearly five months following his departure, the ethics office stayed afloat thanks to a core group of employees and a temporary interim director as a permanent director was sought.
Carol Carson began her role as the head of the ethics office in mid-December. Well aware of the problems that besieged the office and her predecessor, Carson’s focus is on the agency’s future.
“I did my due diligence and I know that the office has had some issues,” she said. “My plan is to move forward because the past is not something I can change.”
Just hours after arriving at her new job in Hartford, there was one area of deficiency that appeared in need of instant rectification.
“There is a lot of infrastructure missing here in terms of staff,” Carson said. “We need to get the office appropriately staffed and that means a couple of office assistants, a business manager and another technology expert.”
The ethics office currently employs about a dozen people who Carson maintains have been stretched in the past couple of months. It’s a good point. The need for more employees could have been a reason for some of the criticisms lobbed at the office in the past year, specifically regarding lobbyist data, because there simply was not enough manpower to get everything done.
Carson is, however, impressed with the employees and compared them favorably to those she worked with at her previous position with the Massachusetts Ethics Commission.
“One of the things I’ve noticed here, and one of the reasons I like this field … is that I get to work with a group of committed individuals,” she said.
Carson’s career began as a newspaper reporter. Eventually, she got involved with the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission as an investigator and took part, she said, in many hearings involving the ethics of state legislators.
“In general, I appreciate the investigation process and what that entails,” she said.
While in Massachusetts, Carson gained experience in almost every aspect of the commission’s activities. That should serve her well in Connecticut.
In Massachusetts, she took care of the commission’s public relations and communications function. More recently, she visited many Massachusetts municipalities to educate local officials about state ethics codes.
Her biggest asset, Carson said, is her experience as an investigator into ethics violations. “The process is the same and I really believe, as I did as an investigator, that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect,” she said.
In her mind, the Office of State Ethics does not exist simply to punish those who go astray, but to make sure that lobbyists and politicians know the rules and are not tempted to go astray.
“Most people, whether they’re lobbyists or politicians, are just like everyone else in that they get up and go to work every day,” Carson said. “The role of the office is to help these people understand a series of very complex laws. And my role as ethics director is to fairly and vigorously enforce those laws if they are not complying.”
Board unanimously approved a critical assessment of Bycel. Under his leadership, the entire office had been targeted for negative attention by legislators and the media.
For nearly five months following his departure, the ethics office stayed afloat thanks to a core group of employees and a temporary interim director as a permanent director was sought.
Carol Carson began her role as the head of the ethics office in mid-December. Well aware of the problems that besieged the office and her predecessor, Carson’s focus is on the agency’s future.
“I did my due diligence and I know that the office has had some issues,” she said. “My plan is to move forward because the past is not something I can change.”
Just hours after arriving at her new job in Hartford, there was one area of deficiency that appeared in need of instant rectification.
“There is a lot of infrastructure missing here in terms of staff,” Carson said. “We need to get the office appropriately staffed and that means a couple of office assistants, a business manager and another technology expert.”
The ethics office currently employs about a dozen people who Carson maintains have been stretched in the past couple of months. It’s a good point. The need for more employees could have been a reason for some of the criticisms lobbed at the office in the past year, specifically regarding lobbyist data, because there simply was not enough manpower to get everything done.
Carson is, however, impressed with the employees and compared them favorably to those she worked with at her previous position with the Massachusetts Ethics Commission.
“One of the things I’ve noticed here, and one of the reasons I like this field … is that I get to work with a group of committed individuals,” she said.
Carson’s career began as a newspaper reporter. Eventually, she got involved with the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission as an investigator and took part, she said, in many hearings involving the ethics of state legislators.
“In general, I appreciate the investigation process and what that entails,” she said.
While in Massachusetts, Carson gained experience in almost every aspect of the commission’s activities. That should serve her well in Connecticut.
In Massachusetts, she took care of the commission’s public relations and communications function. More recently, she visited many Massachusetts municipalities to educate local officials about state ethics codes.
Her biggest asset, Carson said, is her experience as an investigator into ethics violations. “The process is the same and I really believe, as I did as an investigator, that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect,” she said.
In her mind, the Office of State Ethics does not exist simply to punish those who go astray, but to make sure that lobbyists and politicians know the rules and are not tempted to go astray.
“Most people, whether they’re lobbyists or politicians, are just like everyone else in that they get up and go to work every day,” Carson said. “The role of the office is to help these people understand a series of very complex laws. And my role as ethics director is to fairly and vigorously enforce those laws if they are not complying.”
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Foreclosure Prevention To Lead Legislative Topics
It has been reported by nearly every media outlet in the state. It has been the talk of the real estate and lending communities for months. So it comes as no surprise that the current mortgage crisis will likely be a hot topic when the General Assembly returns to session in 2008.
Obviously, legislators will make at least some regulatory changes in an attempt to battle the current crisis while simultaneously attempting to stave off a recurrence years down the road.
For mortgage brokers and lenders, their efforts will be focused on convincing the legislature to merely fine-tune the system instead of making radical changes that could cause more harm than good.
Marshall Collins will be at the forefront of these discussions as the lobbyist for the Connecticut Association of Mortgage Brokers (CTAMB), which is one of the two main organizations for brokers along with the Connecticut Society of Mortgage Brokers.
More than two months before the new session starts in February, Collins said mortgage brokers and CTAMB officials had met with state banking officials about the recommendations laid out by the Governor’s Subprime Mortgage Task Force.
“There has been talk of increasing the net worth requirements for brokers, and we don’t have a problem with that,” he said. “They want to include more education and an exam to pass course work, and that’s fine with us.”
However, mortgage brokers are concerned that simply increasing the necessary time spent on education could lull consumers into a false sense of security.
“They’re calling for continuing education for brokers, but I’ve been to those courses and they can be an absolute joke,” he said. “You just have to physically sit in the room. You don’t have to answer any questions, and you listen to someone drone on for three hours.”
Collins suggested that a more reasonable solution would be to require a more intensive education about regulatory changes, since most brokers are already well-versed on the current laws. Even with more education, that does not necessarily equate to preventing mortgage problems.
“Florida has one of the toughest continuing education programs for brokers, and they have the highest foreclosure rates,” said Collins. “There doesn’t seem to be much of a correlation.”
Another recommendation is to require more disclosure from brokers and lenders about exactly what homebuyers and consumers are getting into at the time of a deal. The problem, at least from the brokers’ perspective, is that it could make the process an easier target for fraud and predatory lending.
Simplify And Clarify
“One of the objectives is that we have to be careful when we talk about more disclosure,” said Collins. “The real answer is to simplify and clarify. The goal should be to streamline the process or provide more information in plain language.”
Brokers are concerned about the possibility of new legislation coming down too hard or making life difficult for hard-working companies in an effort to prevent the criminal predatory lending that has taken place.
“With the question of fraud, how do you prevent it?” said Collins. “There are always slimy, crooked brokers out there, and they should go to jail. We have no problem with that, and we’re for whacking the bad guys who cheat and commit fraud.”
Overall, Collins is confident that the banking committee co-chairs — State Rep. Ryan Barry, D-Manchester and State Sen. Bob Duff, D-Norwalk — are “very knowledgeable, good guys” who have shown a good understand of the process.
“I don’t anticipate that they’ll go overboard because they’re pretty level headed,” he said. “We’re not worried, but we have objectives that we want to take care of.”
Obviously, legislators will make at least some regulatory changes in an attempt to battle the current crisis while simultaneously attempting to stave off a recurrence years down the road.
For mortgage brokers and lenders, their efforts will be focused on convincing the legislature to merely fine-tune the system instead of making radical changes that could cause more harm than good.
Marshall Collins will be at the forefront of these discussions as the lobbyist for the Connecticut Association of Mortgage Brokers (CTAMB), which is one of the two main organizations for brokers along with the Connecticut Society of Mortgage Brokers.
More than two months before the new session starts in February, Collins said mortgage brokers and CTAMB officials had met with state banking officials about the recommendations laid out by the Governor’s Subprime Mortgage Task Force.
“There has been talk of increasing the net worth requirements for brokers, and we don’t have a problem with that,” he said. “They want to include more education and an exam to pass course work, and that’s fine with us.”
However, mortgage brokers are concerned that simply increasing the necessary time spent on education could lull consumers into a false sense of security.
“They’re calling for continuing education for brokers, but I’ve been to those courses and they can be an absolute joke,” he said. “You just have to physically sit in the room. You don’t have to answer any questions, and you listen to someone drone on for three hours.”
Collins suggested that a more reasonable solution would be to require a more intensive education about regulatory changes, since most brokers are already well-versed on the current laws. Even with more education, that does not necessarily equate to preventing mortgage problems.
“Florida has one of the toughest continuing education programs for brokers, and they have the highest foreclosure rates,” said Collins. “There doesn’t seem to be much of a correlation.”
Another recommendation is to require more disclosure from brokers and lenders about exactly what homebuyers and consumers are getting into at the time of a deal. The problem, at least from the brokers’ perspective, is that it could make the process an easier target for fraud and predatory lending.
Simplify And Clarify
“One of the objectives is that we have to be careful when we talk about more disclosure,” said Collins. “The real answer is to simplify and clarify. The goal should be to streamline the process or provide more information in plain language.”
Brokers are concerned about the possibility of new legislation coming down too hard or making life difficult for hard-working companies in an effort to prevent the criminal predatory lending that has taken place.
“With the question of fraud, how do you prevent it?” said Collins. “There are always slimy, crooked brokers out there, and they should go to jail. We have no problem with that, and we’re for whacking the bad guys who cheat and commit fraud.”
Overall, Collins is confident that the banking committee co-chairs — State Rep. Ryan Barry, D-Manchester and State Sen. Bob Duff, D-Norwalk — are “very knowledgeable, good guys” who have shown a good understand of the process.
“I don’t anticipate that they’ll go overboard because they’re pretty level headed,” he said. “We’re not worried, but we have objectives that we want to take care of.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
