Standing firm on board

Standing firm on board In reference to Larry Hill’s recent letter to the paper about Winchester Planning Board.

Is the problem real?
Or is it simply ignoring responsibility to the public in order to promote a personal agenda?
Well let’s talk about it.
First the PA system in the Winchester Town Hall works just the way it should. All that people have to do is use the mikes properly. That means talking directly into them.
Now to a member of the planning board, who was appointed, not elected, and made a mistake by not voting the way he was told to because he wasn’t paying attention, and wanted a do over: If you’re not going to listen and ask questions, why be on the board?
Do you think of yourself as a rubber stamp for those with certain interests? You also can’t abstain from the vote when you think the fix is in and your vote isn’t needed.
You also have to listen to and understand, the motions being made to be sure you say yes or no at the right time to please your handlers.
Here’s a radical idea: If you don’t know what you’re voting on, don’t vote.
Now for the fun stuff. While I was in a restaurant in Keene, across the bar from me a group of people were talking and laughing when one person asked a businessman how it was going with the planning board in Winchester, and I heard him say, ”Those people in Winchester can be bought off with a bag of groceries.”
At the time, all I could think of was “why would someone who put the fix in brag about it while he was drinking?”
Be assured, some of us members can’t be bought off at any price.
BRIAN MOSER
168 Clark Road
Winchester

WINCHESTER- NEW FROM ARCADIA PUBLISHING!

I am pleased to announce the upcoming release of LOCAL authors Carol Lamprey Poole and Dorothy Doolittle Farnan’s pictorial history book Winchester, from Arcadia Publishing.  Set to publish on Monday, September 10^th, this new title reconnects people with their past through vintage images – images that may even include you, your family and your friends.  We would be honored to have this new book featured on your website to help spread the word about its release!  I have attached a press release and a JPG of the book cover for your perusal.

If you have any questions or need more information, please feel free to contact me directly.  I can be reached at 843-853-2070 x 181 or cjeffers@arcadiapublishing.com.

Wishing you every success!

                                                                                                                                           

Chanler Jeffers

Sales and Marketing Specialist, North and MidAtlantic

Arcadia Publishing

ph: 843.853.2070 x181 and fax: 843.853.0044

Explore more than 8,000 titles at www.arcadiapublishing.com

 

MORE censorship by our town leaders

In the past, members of boards and committees could contact the LGC ( Local Government Center .. http://www.nhlgc.org/ ) to seek advice regarding procedures, revised statutes, state regulations and any other questions that come up during hearing processes. Our Town Administrator and Board of Selectmen now want to stop this from continuing and censor legal advice and information from the LGC to board members who have questions. Our tax dollars pay for this service and it should not be up to those questionable people in power to determine who has the right to seek out information. Once again they show exactly what their agenda is and along with Tedford's attempt to do away with due process, the public's right to be heard at their meetings, it's quite obvious what they seek is COMPLETE CONTROL !

Sneaky moves in Winchester

The only part of the doughnut the folks of Winchester will get is the hole. It appears that four members of the Winchester Planning Board are absolutely intolerant of any mistakes.

When one member immediately acknowledged that he had mistakenly voted (probably because of the horrendous audio conditions in the town hall) and asked to change his vote, he was denied. At the following meeting, there was a motion to reconsider the motion in question to allow him to record his vote as he intended.
The member was not at this meeting due to emergency surgery.
An alternate was asked to sit in his place at this meeting. The motion for reconsideration was made, which would have allowed that member to record his vote, along with all other members, at the next meeting he would attend.
There are four members who saw to it that this would never happen.
While some may wonder if the four members who voted against reconsideration was self serving, either for themselves personally or for a friend, the fact remains that our taxes may now reflect an increase to pay unnecessary legal expenses and our revenues will not increase by the taxes generated had the project been approved, not to mention the 10 lost jobs.
Just some food for thought the next time your are in the voting booth.
LARRY HILL
107 South Parish Road
Winchester

What Are You Afraid of Sherm?

 I gotta call them as I see them and this is just plain wrong and 100% censorship. It looks like our town Selectmen and women have something to hide and don't want to answer any questions about their questionable conduct in allowing transgression after transgression by town employees and themselves. Talk about censorship. If this doesn't get under the skin of every single tax paying voter in town and get them thrown out of office I don't know what will. Light up the town's switchboard and tell them what you think about this proposed new policy ... 239-4951

.. and remember who NOT to vote for if you want an open and honest town government.

Winchester board reviews comment policy 

Posted: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 12:15 pm | Updated: 11:34 am, Wed Aug 15, 2012.

By Sentinel Staff 

WINCHESTER — The town’s selectmen are debating eliminating the public comment section of the board’s weekly meetings. Selectman Sherman Tedford made the suggestion during the board’s Aug. 8 meeting, according to draft minutes.

The public comment time allows residents to bring concerns or questions to the board during a meeting.
Anybody wishing to address the board would need to put their requests in writing in advance and be placed on the agenda, Tedford said.
Tedford’s reasoning is twofold: The limit would allow the board to determine if the matter was meant for public or nonpublic discussion, and would allow the board to invite anybody whose reputation might be affected by an item discussed to attend.
It would also allow the board to research the issue in question, he said.
Chairman Roberta Fraser said she understood the reasoning but did not agree.
Selectman Gustave A. Ruth said in a telephone interview this morning that the board’s main concern is protecting town employees’ reputations, but he did not believe the public comment section should be done away with entirely.
“We don’t want to hide everything, but certain things (you don’t know) until the discussion is over if they should be public or not,” Ruth said.
The board did not vote on the issue, and Town Administrator Joan C. Morel said selectmen would take it up again at tonight’s meeting.
Information that Morel received from the Local Government Center, Inc., a support resource for municipalities, indicates removing the public comment section would be legal.
According to the center, the board only has an obligation to accept public comment during a public hearing, but not during a regular selectmen’s meeting.

 

A voter ID law is a no-brainer

How does one begin to answer those who want to suppress a law for voter ID? A law that will guarantee the ability of all “eligible” citizens during an election to cast a safe ballot.

One would like to believe that any intelligent, law-abiding, “legal” citizen would want his or her vote protected. That each legal vote is not cast out by a vote from an “illegal” resident, a vote that is cast by a legal citizen, just not a legal resident of the city, town, or state they happen to be in on an election day.

Recently, a letter appeared in the paper stating that the Cheshire Republican Party did a voter fraud check and that is incorrect. It was a private citizen, and I am the citizen who did a very small mailing. It was done predominately in the area surrounding Keene State College following the 2004 election.

Out of 75 mailings, 35 first class post cards were returned undeliverable. With the assistance of Bill Gardner, secretary of state, and then-Assistant state Attorney General Bud Fitch, the voters in question were investigated. Five of the voters were found to be registered not only in Keene and Rindge, but also in their hometowns or state, although the investigation did clear them of voting in more than one location.

From this same group, the Attorney General’s Office notified the voters in question that they cannot continue to have an out-of-state, or town driver’s license while registered to vote in Keene and Rindge.

They were advised they had 60 days (RSA 261:44 -2005) to change their licenses to a valid New Hampshire driver’s licenses, and for those with out-of-town New Hampshire driver’s licenses, they have 10 days (RSA263:9 - 2005) to update them or risk being removed from the local voter checklists.

The AG’s office did find one case of fraud by a person who was not, nor ever, a resident of Keene. Once the information was validated, a bench warrant was issued. The remaining voters were primarily students who moved back to their “legal” residences and it was requested they be removed from local checklists.

This again brings us back to the persistent and serious problem of students voting in their “host” state, as opposed to voting in the state of legal residence. No student should be prevented from his or her right to vote and that is why we have absentee ballots.

The tired overworked mantras of those who want to go against the laws of our land are tossed around ad nauseam. Oh, the poor, minorities, infirm, and anyone in between will be disenfranchised!

Not a word of it is true: The poor are provided free identification, the infirm are provided absentee ballots.

Who would have thought in 2012 this country would need to rise up and fight for the rights of religious groups across the country.

The fictitious “war on women” is nothing more than a smokescreen to hide the outright anti-Catholic sentiment that is being promoted by the present administration.

We are witnessing untold damage by a “minority” of union thugs, and when we should have the assurance of our top law enforcement leader, Attorney General Holder, to protect our rights, he blatantly refused to prosecute those (Black Panthers) who physically prevented citizens from voting in the last general election.

What can we expect in the upcoming election?

MARILYN HUSTON
362 Roxbury St.
Keene

Swanzey Board nixes plan for store

Fire protection a sticking point; no Dollar General

By Garrett Brnger Sentinel Staff |

SWANZEY — A proposal for a Dollar General store was killed because of its fire protection plan.
The planning board voted Thursday night to deny Zaremba Group LLC’s application to build a Dollar General store at the corner of Cobble Hill Road and Route 10. Only Chairman Glenn W. Page supported the application.
The crucial issue was the proposed sprinkler system for the 9,100-square-foot building. The system called for relying on West Swanzey Water Co. Inc. to provide the water, but the company has refused, saying its system could not take the strain.
Although Zaremba Group attorney Silas B. Little 3rd argued West Swanzey Water was legally required to provide the property with fire protection, planning board Vice Chairman Scott Self replied that had yet to be determined. In the meantime, he said, Zaremba had failed to find an alternate plan.
“You’re in a position where you think you can force a private water company to hook up to your building, and maybe you can. I don’t know,” Self told Little. “But that sounds like it’s going to be a court battle and in the meantime you’re going to go ahead with your plans, but you should have an alternate in place providing that case does not go the way you plan.”
Board members referenced a letter dated May 8 from West Swanzey Water President Sally Brown that stated the water system could not support any more emergency fire protection systems. Based on this and a wariness over the system’s capabilities, Zaremba was told at the July 26 planning board meeting to provide another fire protection plan that did not rely on West Swanzey Water, such as a cistern.
Instead, Zaremba stuck with the sprinkler plan.
During Thursday night’s meeting, Michael J. Joanis, a fire protection engineer from Covenant Fire Protection, testified on behalf of Zaremba Group that when he tested the water pressure for the site it met all of the requirements for the sprinkler system.
Little argued under West Swanzey Water’s public utilities commission tariff, anyone in the company’s service area is entitled to water service and therefore the fire protection plan was valid.
Nothing beyond “anecdotal evidence” had been produced to prove adding Dollar General would be a burden to the system, he said.
“We have relied on both field data and filings with the public utilities commission, and I think they are entitled to a dignity and deference that far surpasses anecdotal or possible qualifications as to the ability of this West Swanzey Water Company to provide fire protection,” Little told the board.
Reached Thursday night, West Swanzey Water Co.’s Brown said adding Dollar General to the system would stress the system’s machinery too much since one of the pumps is more than 60 years old and does not work well.
Little said Brown had refused to meet with Dollar General or its engineers. Brown declined to answer when asked about Little’s comment.
Water supply was not the only thing board members knocked the plan for.
Several members continued to voice concerns about traffic safety issues they believed would arise by adding another driveway to the area.
Little said there was no basis for concern and that Zaremba’s traffic study showed no problems with the plan. An independent review of the traffic study requested by the board had also agreed on “all fundamental points,” he said.
Little also protested the suggestion that Zaremba pay for a sidewalk between Cobble Hill Road and Gomarlo’s Food and Circus.
The board’s selectmen’s representative, Nancy Carlson, disagreed with Little on all points and their exchanges became increasingly terse as the meeting drew on.
At one point, Little accused Carlson of having pre-judged the application because Carlson and the other selectmen had opposed the project’s driveway permit.
Although it denied Zaremba’s application, the planning board approved the subdivision of Stephen and Joan Pappas’ lot, where the project was to be located.
Little and other project representatives declined to comment on the decision.
Zaremba, a Cleveland-based land development company, has proposed several Dollar General projects in the area. One such proposal in Winchester was blocked three weeks ago when it failed to get a key variance from the town’s zoning board.
Garrett Brnger can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1436, or gbrnger@keenesentinel.com.

Board of Selectmen Regular Minutes 8-1-12

Let's blow some more money; after all it isn't ours.

Planning Board Minutes 07-16-12

People are starting to realize that those entrusted to act in their best interests are not and are starting to get involved and hold those responsible for illegal actions accountable. Who's going to step up to the plate again in Winchester?

Group suing Antrim board 

By Kaitlin Mulhere Sentinel Staff

Group suing Antrim board ANTRIM — A month after a group of Antrim residents alleged the Board of Selectmen held illegal meetings, five residents have filed a lawsuit against the board claiming it violated the state’s Right to Know law.

In a lawsuit dated July 30, the plaintiffs allege that selectmen decided on the terms of a payment plan with a wind energy company in a series of secret meetings. Those meetings violate the Right to Know law’s requirements for posting notices of meetings in advance, preparing and posting meeting minutes, and properly using nonpublic sessions, according to the lawsuit.
On June 20, selectmen approved a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreement with Antrim Wind Energy. A subsidiary of Portsmouth-based Eolian Renewable Energy, Antrim Wind wants to build 10 wind turbines on Tuttle Hill.
The project is currently under the control of the N.H. Site Evaluation Committee because of its large size, about 30 megawatts.
The lawsuit states that “the conscious decision to exclude the public and to meet in secret rendered the Nov. 30 and June 20 public hearings meaningless,” and asks that the Hillsborough County Superior Court invalidate the PILOT agreement that was approved on June 20.
The lawsuit also asks for an injunction ordering selectmen to abide by the Right to Know law.
“This was not an oversight, this was not an isolated instance where the requisites of the statute were mistakenly overlooked,” the lawsuit reads. “These secret meetings were structured to exclude the public.”
The plaintiffs — Gordon Allen, Mary Allen, Charles Levesque, Janice Longood and Martha Pinello — are five of the seven residents who sent a letter on June 14 to selectmen requesting dates, time, public notices and minutes for any meetings between selectmen and Antrim Wind representatives.
In a letter dated June 19, the selectmen’s attorney Robert W. Upton 2nd responded to the June 14 letter listing five dates from February 2011 to April 2012 when selectmen and Antrim Wind representatives met to negotiate the PILOT agreement.
His letter states that RSA 72:74, which allows a town to enter into a PILOT agreement, “clearly contemplates that these kinds of negotiations would not occur in a public meeting” because confidential financial information was discussed.
The statute requires selectmen to hold a public hearing after the negotiations are complete so the public has an opportunity to question the PILOT agreement, according to Upton’s letter.
But the plaintiffs counter in the lawsuit that the private meetings do not state the provision of the Right to Know law that would have allowed the Board of Selectman to go into nonpublic sessions, and in fact, that there is no part of the nonpublic meeting requirements that would allow for discussion of a PILOT agreement.
Further, the plaintiffs argue in the lawsuit that since the public could not attend meetings where details of the PILOT agreement were negotiated, members of the public had no opportunity to understand the subject matter at the two public hearings.
Upton could not be reached for comment this morning.
Levesque has previously said that he is not opposed to the wind farm, but that there is no doubt that the selectmen held illegal meetings.
Finally, the lawsuit claims that while the wind-turbine project falls under the jurisdiction of the state’s Site Evaluation Committee, tax assessing and the decision to enter into a PILOT agreement are the sole jurisdiction of the Board of Selectmen.
The state committee is expected to reach a decision on whether the project is approved in the fall.
Kaitlin Mulhere can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1439, or kmulhere@keenesentinel.com

 

Oh so familar .. just change the name of the town

Madness must be stopped 

 

Perhaps a review of events might clarify the political turmoil in Marlborough: 1. The board was sued for violating RSA 91-A, the right to know law. This is the keystone law in maintaining open government.

2. It lost the case and, in a 52-page order, members were placed under injunction not to violate the law again. The selectmen were found guilty of several different instances of violating the law.
3. Almost the first words spoken by Selectman Johnny Northcott after that was “It was a slap on the wrist” and it would be “business as usual.”
4. The board is now being sued again for living up to Northcott’s comments, by again violating the law. This time they are accused of not providing public information, holding illegal meetings, mishandling town meeting requirements for implementation of petitioned articles, and improper release of 35 sealed, confidential documents.
The board members’ defense? They claim the plaintiff didn’t give the documents back, she read them, and is talking about the contents. The other violations have all been denied. Kill the messenger!

The truth? The documents were not marked confidential, the only way to tell they were confidential was to read them, and she has not mentioned the names of the nine people whose rights were violated.
She has asked the county attorney and Department of Justice how to handle the documents. They advised her to petition the court for instructions and she has done so.
So, to recap, we have selectmen who were tried in court and found guilty of breaking laws, then attempt to minimize the event in their comments in news media and to the public.
They are again accused of violating the law, this time facing contempt of court, and now they turn down a chance to stream live meetings to the public free, without cost to the public.
One would think that the board would welcome public exposure, but this refusal keeps their exposure to a minimum, something they seem to be striving for
.
Take a look at www.townhallstreams. com/locations/north-hampton-nh to see how North Hampton handles its openness in government issues.
I have personally experienced periods of 20 minutes of silence where the Marlborough board has shuffled files and papers around without explanation of what they were doing, without a word being said to the public.
North Hampton is open, has respect for the public, and there is never a doubt that they are doing their best to keep their citizens informed.
But, what is the saddest thing about the whole issue is that the board has been getting away with it. Only a few people try to hold them accountable, others just don’t care, and some seem to enjoy the rumor mongering that is going on.

Someone once said that you get the government you deserve. I think it is time for some more people to get involved to stop this “Marlborough madness.” ( substitute Winchester )

Attend meetings, write letters, make phone calls. Stop accepting unfounded rumors as truth, speak up against falsehoods.

The Right to Know law is not perfect. It is one of the few laws that requires that the public go directly to the courts for relief. It allows the budgeted town funds to be used to defend the people who violate the law.

But, remember that in the last case, it was the selectmen who were declared lawbreakers, not the plaintiffs. Contrary to rumors, the plaintiffs get nothing. In fact they have to put court costs up front, only being reimbursed when the court finds in their favor.

Let me emphasize that point, the selectmen were declared by a New Hampshire court to have violated the law, and the citizens of Marlborough had to pay for their court costs.

Now the selectmen are sued again and will have the benefit of using the public’s money again for their defense.

Yet I hear comments that the plaintiffs have cost the town money.

So, let me see if I have this right, the selectmen get a pass for violating the law, but the plaintiff gets the blame for protecting her rights?

When you figure out that logic please let me know.

ROBERT CAMERON
50 Oliver Road
Marlborough

This is what the BOS did not want to include in it's meeting minutes, that Jennifer Bellan went before them to complain of the inappropriate conduct of Margaret Sharra and how they covered it up as usual. Want to guess who the management of the sidewalk grant is she is talking about?

Inappropriate dealings in Winchester

  Winchester’s Planning Board seems to be willfully ignorant about the role of alternates on its board.

In direct opposition to the state law and the board’s own rules of procedure, an alternate (me) was initially blocked from participating in the deliberative session concerning the proposed Dunkin’ Donuts by the land use assistant, who was no longer a member of the planning board.

When I brought this procedural misstep to the attention of the selectmen, I was told, in essence, that I had nothing to complain about because I was ultimately allowed to speak that night.
Instead, the select board argued with me about my contention that Winchester should not be expected to pay for half of the Dunkin’ Donuts perimeter sidewalk when the town doesn’t have enough money for its own sidewalk project.
This deal was suggested by the land use assistant to the select board before the planning board could deliberate on the application. I was told by the select board that I was wrong in my assessment that taxpayer money was being used so a multimillion dollar company wouldn’t have to pay for its own sidewalk, because it would be part of the matching funds in the grant for the town’s sidewalk project.
I don’t think the town understands that grant money is taxpayer money.
Moreover, it is money with very clear rules about the application, deadlines to be met, how matching funds are procured, and how discrepancies between the projected cost and the actual costs are handled.
The management of the sidewalk project grant should be investigated.
Winchester cannot afford to have future state or federal money withheld because of prior mismanagement — and we definitely cannot afford to “sweeten” deals with multimillion dollar companies to bring them into town.
JENNIFER MARIE BELLAN
P.O. Box 3
Ashuelot

Official quits amid secrecy

Silence angers staff who sought probe

By Laura McCrystal / Monitor staff

August 2, 2012

 

The Hillsboro selectmen spent more than $46,000 in legal fees for an investigation of their town administrator that led to his resignation last month, according to the selectmen.
The investigation report about John Stetser's job performance will remain private as part of Stetser's resignation agreement, which the selectmen accepted last month.
While the selectmen said they hope the town will now move on from the four-month investigation, town employees have expressed anger over how the situation was handled.
Deputy town clerk and tax collector Denise DeForest spoke out at a selectmen's meeting last month, asking for "an apology for everything that's been going on for four years." And Wendy Brien-Baker, who resigned from her position as a town office clerk in May but has continued to work on a part-time basis, spoke to the Monitor about her frustration with the resignation agreement.
"Here we are with nothing," Brien-Baker said. "Nothing from it, other than him resigning. . . . And yes, he's resigned. But the truth is all under lock and key."

Four women seek inquiry

DeForest and Brien-Baker were among the four female town employees who requested an independent review of Stetser's job performance in February.
Their request did not list specific complaints against Stetser, who was hired as town administrator in 2008. The selectmen said at the time that the investigation would include allegations of sexual harassment and complaints about Stetser's management of personnel situations. They hired attorney Emily Rice of the Concord law firm Orr & Reno to interview town employees and elected officials.
Brien-Baker said she personally met with Rice for a five-hour interview during the investigation. She declined to discuss details of the sexual harassment allegations with the Monitor.
She said Stetser also began delegating his responsibilities to other employees when he began as the town's administrator, and the town office became a "chaotic, hostile work environment."
After working for the town for six years, Brien-Baker resigned in May. The investigation had continued for two months at that point, and she did not want to stay while it was unclear whether Stetser would keep his job.
"During the investigation there were actually sightings of him continuing the behavior that we've all reported. And also because of the investigation, all around town they were calling us names - 'whiny town office women.' "
Brien-Baker said she wished the selectmen had listened to complaints from town employees over the past few years. She said she and other employees only asked for an independent review of Stetser's job performance because the selectmen hadn't taken any action on their own.
Last November, Brien-Baker and four other employees submitted a written grievance to the selectmen about Stetser's management of a personnel issue involving then-Town Planner Shane O'Keefe. The grievance said Stetser had failed to acknowledge the employees' complaints.

Sexual harassment

Sexual harassment allegations had also been brought to the selectmen beginning in 2010, Brien-Baker said. Russell Galpin, chairman of the selectmen, told the Monitor in March that he had previously been aware of sexual harassment complaints against Stetser. The selectmen believed at the time that they could not act without a first-hand account, he said, but had since learned "that was erroneous."
Galpin maintains that the independent investigation was necessary because the selectmen could not have conducted an unbiased review on their own. They needed a report that "could stand up in court" if it led to a lawsuit, he said.
Rice's investigation cost more than $38,000, Galpin said, although the selectmen had initially planned to spend about $20,000. He said the town paid an additional $8,000 to the town's attorney, Michael Donovan, for work related to the investigation and resignation. 

"When you start dealing with lawyers, it gets expensive," Galpin said.Galpin said the resignation agreement also helped avoid a lawsuit, which would have been much more expensive than the investigation.
Selectman Steven Venezia said while "the whole matter was unfortunate for all parties involved," the selectmen acted in the best interest of the town.
The selectmen said the separation agreement gave Stetser a few more days of paid leave than are in his contract and one extra month of health insurance. His resignation is effective Aug. 30 and does not include a cash settlement.
At the July selectmen's meeting when the selectmen accepted Stetser's resignation, DeForest told the selectmen she was disappointed that "this whole situation got off way too easy."
Galpin promised DeForest at the meeting that the board will handle similar issues more efficiently in the future. DeForest told him "that doesn't make it right."
"Shame on all of you," she said. "Shame on all of you."
Galpin said this week that the selectmen hope to schedule a meeting with town employees to "just have them sit down and say, 'Hey, look, this has been a big hassle and a lot of problems. Let's get back to working for the town of Hillsboro.' "

Seeking apology

Galpin said the selectmen accepted Stetser's resignation with an agreement not to disclose details of the investigation because it would "get it out of here, get it done with and let's move on."
Brien-Baker said she feels the town employees deserve an apology from the selectmen to acknowledge that mistakes were made in the past four years, and she still feels the report should be made public.
"The four people that signed the request weren't even able to read the investigation that they requested," she said. "Instead, they make some settlement, make some promise to keep everything locked up. Who's it protecting?"
Galpin said only the selectmen, the town's attorney, Stetser and Stetser's attorney have read the investigation report.
Although he had initially wanted to publicize the report, Galpin said he changed his mind because the final agreement was "the most economical way to get out of it."
"I know I'm not noted for keeping my mouth shut, but on things like this you kind of have to," he said.
(Laura McCrystal can be reached at 369-3312 or lmccrystal@cmonitor.com or on Twitter @lmccrystal.)