| Author | Message | ||
     Gerardryan |
After last night's meeting, Tom Lamb and I exchanged some emails. These mails were both copied to fairtax01 and received a pretty broad distribution, so I thought it fair to post the messages, unedited and in their entirety. Jerry ----------Tom's message:-------- Dear Mr. Ryan: Last night you said to the public, and to me, that just because we say things over and over it "does not make it so". In principle I agree. However I believe my comments on the revaluation process as being "random, incompetent, illegal and arrogant" are true and I will attempt to "prove" them here. Random: The fact that assessment numbers can be formulated and communicated to homeowners without the slightest evidence of a process seems to bear this out. Also the release of "amended" values that are seemingly across the board and, again, without any rationale, support the claim of randomness. Incompetent: Your own view, and the view of the Township Council expressed last night, as well as the need for 4 extra part-time tax assessors to clean up the mess, support this. Illegal: We have heard time and time again that the contract was clearly stated to use sales figures over the last 3 years to put together values for the revaluation. And yet, the 3 year clause was not followed across the board. This was confirmed by my conversation with Mr. Galante on Monday. Arrogant: You admitted that the customer service and the general treatment of the public by Certified Valuations is one of the biggest downfalls of this process. I would also submit that Certified's unwillingness to accept the Township's invitation to attend the last two Township Council meetings further support the arrogance that I am speaking of. Although you may not believe it, I generally do not speak just to hear my own voice or with generalizations that I cannot back up. I am speaking about this issue often and openly because I believe in what I am saying and believe it must be said. Thank you for time on this matter. Sincerely, Tom Lamb copies to; Mrs. Ellen Davenport Maplewood Fair Tax Committee -------Jerry's reply---------- Tom: since you copied Fairtax01, I'm doing so as well. I also plan on posting both pieces of this correspondence on Maplewood Online. >Last night you said to the public, and to me, that just because we say things >over and over it "does not make it so". In principle I agree. However I >believe my comments on the revaluation process as being "random, incompetent, >illegal and arrogant" are true and I will attempt to "prove" them here. Tom, what I said was that there is too much resorting to "proof by repeated assertion" (a joke my mathematician friends like). You repeated your phrase thrice last night, I think, and again in this mail today. Repeatedly asserting things proves NOTHING. I am trying to have a fact-based discussion with people. That's why I worked to put the revaluation information in a machine readable form and make it available to everyone. >Random: The fact that assessment numbers can be formulated and communicated to >homeowners without the slightest evidence of a process seems to bear this out. >Also the release of "amended" values that are seemingly across the board and, >again, without any rationale, support the claim of randomness. Tom, all of the discussions make it clear to most observers here that there is a process to this, defined by and regulated by the state, so your assertion of "without the slightest evidence of a process" are simply unfounded. Has the process been somewhat opaque to all of us, and not explained as clearly as we all would like? Yes. And again, "seemingly across the board" and "without any rationale" are not supported by any facts. >Incompetent: Your own view, and the view of the Township Council expressed last >night, as well as the need for 4 extra part-time tax assessors to clean up the >mess, support this. Their ability to deal with the public just plain stank, there is no question about that, and it is a poor reflection on this company's reputation, but you can't just repeatedly assert "incompetent incompetent incompetent" to justify the result that you want. The extra part timers are, along with the requested-and-granted extensions, part of the Township Committee's effort to make sure that everyone in the town has a fair and ample opportunity to be heard by Galante's office. You can assert whatever else you like about this action, but again that does not make it true. >Illegal: We have heard time and time again that the contract was clearly stated >to use sales figures over the last 3 years to put together values for the >revaluation. And yet, the 3 year clause was not followed across the board. >This was confirmed by my conversation with Mr. Galante on Monday. I've said this to a lot of people, I think you as well as everyone else. CV was supposed to consider 3 years of sales. You heard Ed talk about how that is used for a trend analysis. You can use the factual information in the database that I have posted (and some other stuff I am about to post) to compare assessments with sales as well as with neighboring houses. My lawyer says it wasn't illegal. My expert says it wasn't illegal. Your repeated assertions that it was doesn't make it so. "Illegal" is an accusation that a crime was commmitted, and I have no evidence of that; neither do my professional experts in these areas. I suppose if you sue, your lawyer and expert will say different and a court will have to sort it out. I don't know what will satisfy you short of that. >Arrogant: You admitted that the customer service and the general treatment of >the public by Certified Valuations is one of the biggest downfalls of this >process. I would also submit that Certified's unwillingness to accept the >Township's invitation to attend the last two Township Council meetings further >support the arrogance that I am speaking of. You're 110% right on the money on this one, Tom. Jerry Ryan | ||
| Ffof |
Jerry - just some comments about your comments - bear with me if you will - 1)I believe that the process that Tom L. is referring to, I think, is the Certifies Val. process. For example, the random amount of decreases in site valuations - while I won't argue with them - came out of the blue. Why $50M and why not $60M or $40 or whatever. We just want answers to our questions. 2)The incompetency: If the Township had had a full time assessor going into this, we may not be where we are now. NOW we're hiring extra hands, but isn't this hindsight management? 3)Illegalities: I guess I believe that we can't hold anything legal over CV's head, but what about one of the speaker's comments the other night about a statement in the contract about letters all going out before Nov 1? Clearly many people got their letters after the election around Dec 8. | ||
| Gerardryan |
1. I didn't hear anything that led me to believe that anything was "random" 2. Two points: a. I don't think part time or full time has anything to do with this b. It is not "hindsight" to work to be responsive to issues raised by citizens 3. As has been stated on a number of occasions, they got a late start because of a need for updated tax maps from the county, which took a while. That is, as I hope you will agree, not illegal. Very annoying, yes. People have asserted the existance of an insidious plot to keep these letters back until after the election, which is just not true. | ||
| Townie |
My view of why the contract wasn't illegal is that 3 years actually were considered -- and they were found to be insufficient to determining the actual market value of homes in Maplewood, and misleading if given inappropriate weight. Ffof, ps: I don't know what Jerry Ryan will say in response, but I'd like to say that I don't view the hiring of extra hands as hindsight management. I think it's a thoughtful thing to do for people who have appeals so that all can meet with Mr. Galante before the next deadline (instead having the only remedy be a trip to County Tax Board) and it also recognizes that a great many people whose assessment actually is on the money will be appealing nonetheless and taking up time that otherwise would go to help people who are questioning the accuracy of their own assessement, not the town process. Ffof, I don't know if you are appealing your assessment or not, but perhaps you can answer this question: Why are people who know they have an accurate assessment and who also know that almost all other houses in town are assessed at market prices so concerned about knowing the details of how that assessement was arrived at mathematically? I hope the question doesn't sound obnoxious. I'm really puzzled by that. | ||
| Mlj |
Jerry, please advise: 1. Is the database info available in another form to those who either (a) are not on-line, or (b) cannot download it (me). (I realize that it is an unofficial record subject to change.) 2. I think it was said the database info can be looked at at Town Hall or Library when it is printed. Does this mean one copy for everyone to review? Will it be given to the News-Record if individual copies are not to be made available due to cost/recycling considerations? 3. When we get through with the current reval process and filing, what do you think will happen to tax assessment consideration as the market continues to soften? Will they be adjusted automatically by the Tax Assessor, or will residents need to make individual appointments with Mr. Galante armed with current comps and bank appraisals in the coming months? 3. Do you think Tom Lamb et al. are representative of the frustration people feel because we (all of Maplewood, including the TC) still do not know how the assessments and newer adjustments were arrived at? 4. Mr. Galante's explanation of the 3-year issue did not enlighten me. Can you explain it? Thanks for your unending patience. | ||
| Ffof |
Jerry - thankyou for all your feedback. It is definitely commendable that you take time responding to everyone's gripes, concerns, need for detail, etc. No small feat. The state extensions...thank you. I just can't help myself, but I feel that there is a feeling among many that the TC could have been more pro-active back in December (maybe november?) in order to have quelled the citizen response that we've all been witness to for the past 3 weeks. Any thoughts there? Ffof (Fickle Finger of Fate) | ||
| Ffof |
Townie- I personally have no feeling either way about the mathematical formula but there certainly have been many who want it. Maybe someone else will respond to that question. It is just curious how CV arrived at the new (seemingly?) random site adjustments. It's unfortunate that no CV representative was at either meeting for those with these questions. As to the hiring of more hands, I think that is a good response as well, it just seems that we may have benefitted from a full time assessor all along. | ||
| Thomas |
Jerry I can't beleive you are still debating Certified's incompetence. All your numbers must be clouding your common sense. I know you are slowly coming around but you are just to slow. If you and Vic would just listen a little harder to Ms. Davenport this town would be much better served. I believe She has had a much better grasp on this right from the beginning. | ||
| Mtierney |
Mr. Ryan: I take issue with your comment that repeating something over and over necessarily means "nothing". To me, it also can mean "conviction". Many "convictions" may eventually be disproved, however, pompous put-downs don't work for me. Also, how do you figure that apart-time or full-time tax assessor might not have resulted in better results? For one thing, response to public questions would have been speeded up; the residents would have felt that they had a friend in court; delays on the part of CV would have been questioned as they occurred; maybe the concern over timing and the elections would have been avoided; perhaps the process would have been clearer conducted over a longer timeframe by the availability of the taxassessor; and I believe this public relations disaster would not have happened. How in the world did those now famous "adjustments" take place over 48 hours? How did the rationale that the difference could now be stuck to those not so vocal via an increased tax rate. Will the taxes on the east also rise due to these actions? Now, if I repeat this three times, will you tell me it just isn't so? | ||
| Townie |
Dear Ffof (and Mtierney), Re those adjustments: At the town meeting, I heard Mr. Galante say that he made adjustments for "the bidding wars" that he knew had occurred in some neighborhoods recently, on and above the overall rise in housing prices in Maplewood. There certainly were bidding wars for houses on my street that drove house prices beyond what people were asking for. The first letter I got from Certified stated a house price that I felt sure I could have gotten during last summer's bidding wars. The second letter I got stated a house price I would settle for in a so-so market -- in other words, a "fair" market (instead of the hot seller's market we've been experiencing). I can't answer your question authoritatively, but my sense from listening to Galante was that the adjustments weren't random at all, but were applied to places that had experienced known bidding wars, and he took that into account where Certified had not and made those neighborhood adjustments accordingly. I would imagine that, with a computer, it doesn't take a long time to figure out the appropriate adjustment and make it where it's needed. | ||
| Curmudgeon |
Re: Bidding wars...assessments are supposed to be based on current market value, and market value is, by definition, what the property will sell for. These bidding wars have been a fixture in the area's real estate market the last few years; to factor them out is, in my opinion, to ignore what current market prices really are. | ||
| Ffof |
Townie- I'm sure you're right. I said "seemingly" random because 1) people who got these letters had different amounts taken off their assessments and 2)these assessments were sent out SO fast (after the Jan 16 mtg) it was, frankly, surprising! And Townie- I have never said that i thought my very own assessment was "unfair" in light of last year's housing market as you describe above. Now...I think everyone (me, Mtierney and Thomas)and others reading this thread are waiting for a response from Jerry Ryan (not me!) | ||
| Townie |
Curmudgeon: I don't know why I got a reduction in my assessment because I also met face to face with Certified after receiving my first letter and supplied them with more information about my house. To speak more generally, I've heard some people quoting NJ case law that says a valuation can't be based on the prices houses sold for in a volatile housing market. I don't know if the goal is to determine the "current" market value or the "fair" market value for my house. I guess in addition to the local mathematicians and the local lawyers doing a fine analysis of my assessment, the local semanticists will want their say too! And now I will take Ffof's nice hint and quit hogging the space (never said you thought yours was "unfair" and if you had, wouldn't argue.) All yours, Jerry! Bye! | ||
| Dpc |
Curmudgeon: I purchased my house in Oct 2000. and closed in Dec. This is the period of time in which the market value saw supposed to have been determined. CVI valued my house approx 100k more than I paid. The new number was adjusted down 50k which is still 50k more than I paid. My sale date and sale price are also not included in the stats that are available on Mr. Ryan's web site. | ||
| Flugermongers |
Townie - You're a voice of reason and calm rising above the arguing and minutae! Thank you! Hey, I know you've mentioned you live on Durand, you wouldn't live at 106 Durand by any chance? (: | ||
| Townie |
Dear Flugermongers, Nope. I'm not any of those reasonable people who live at 106. You'd never guess which house 'cuz we look from the outside to be quite irrational. ;-} | ||
| Gerardryan |
Townie (et al): I don't think it's "hindsight management" to try and get some extra help to resolve this issue. Mlj: The database is HUGE, much too huge to print out the entire thing more than a few times; even the condensed form of the spreadsheet would be over 125 small-type pages. The official data that it's based on are available in printed form in town hall and the libraries, or will be in a day or two. There will be one or maybe two copies per location. I don't know what will happen to the market going forward; none of us do. I expect that there will be a lot of attention paid to this question by a lot of people, so that even if the assessor doesn't proactively adjust based on the market (something I expect him to do by the way), he will be urged to by the community :-) I can't speak for Tom Lamb et. al. And wouldn't presume to. I know that they are angry, they have made that clear. Late in the meeting Tuesday I stated that nobody sitting in the front of the room would believe a word that I, Certified, Galante, the Township Committee or any of our staff said, and I got several nods of acknowledgement. I think that there are some folks who will only be satisfied if the reval is "rejected and redone" and will accept no information or alternative solution. I can't do much about that. As for Ed's statements, I heard him say that 3 years of history is looked at to determine trends: the market's going up, the market's flat, the market's going down. Ffof: I think we did start having concerns and discussions about it in November and December, at our meetings. We had a fellow from Certified at a meeting in November (I think or maybe the first meeting in December). Those that attended or watched will remember me asking the fellow from Certified to make sure that everyone that came to see them got their property record card· and I even hooked him up with a fellow who had failed to get his. They simply told us one thing but continued to behave in another way in the citizen meetings. If you think you are annoyed about this, imagine how I feel: I believe that they lied to my face. Also, please, I don't want to have to repeat my discussions about "random" or the other assertions. And I am still not getting the argument about how "a full time assessor would have avoided all this". Thomas: please, enough already. I'm not "to slow" (sic), though thanks for the jab. Read my previous postings on this "incompetent" business. Mtierney: I didn't say it meant nothing, I said it proves nothing. I said stating it over and over again doesn't make it true. And at the meeting I said that about both sides of the argument, though Mr. Lamb's mail and this thread have focused on one side of the discussion. You can call me pompous if you want to, thanks. The pace of public questions picked up just as soon as information got into people's hands. You can accuse me of delaying disseminating this until after the election· I have answered the delay-past-the-election question here already. Neither a part time assessor nor a full time assessor would have stopped the tide of angry people that fairtax and the Times article encouraged to come to the meetings. Can you explain to me why you think a full timer would have? With all due respect to everyone, the process was communicated for a long time, but it didnât strike home until the financial impact of the individual assessments became real for people. And from that point on, as soon as people needed it, we extended deadlines, added help and extra meetings, and answered questions. I also don't know why you think that the adjustments only took 48 hours to do. The assessor has been working with Certified for a long time on this. I don't understand what you mean by "How did the rationale that the difference could now be stuck to those not so vocal via an increased tax rate." The tax rate changes because the total assessments changed, and that increased rate affects everyone. A reduction nets out not-as-big, an increase is larger. Ffof: the letters got sent out shortly after Jan 16 because the work to do the changes reflected in the letters had been underway long before the 16th. Whew! long post! Jerry | ||
| Papa |
I do think that the val going out to the people on the west side of town after the election, and the val going out to the east side of town before the election was NO accident.....I think it was a very well planned program.....By whom I can't say , realy don't know , but it did seam very strange....... | ||
| Townie |
Hi Jerry, Thanks for checking back in. I think you mixed me up with people who have a problem with the TC hiring extra people to assist appeals. I don't at all. I commend you and the TC on the action. And commend you in general for the way you've handled the response since the News-Record and The Times printed incomplete information about the reval, which caused lots of us to feel we had to demand more complete information. Most government entities have the inability to respond and correct problems in anywhere near the short turnaround time this TC has. What you've done in two weeks is actually rather amazing. Thanks. | ||
| Gerardryan |
Thanks very much! off to the day job... | ||
| Euclidean |
Dear TC: My two cents- I think the reval was a good old-fashioned screwup. Certified is almost entirely to blame and I take some comfort from the knowledge that all of the negative publicity will hurt their business. Certified and the taxing authorities should have made it overwhelmingly clear (i.e. plain English in a letter) that significant percentage of households were going to experience reval shock and that the impacted households should work closely with Certified to ensure that the valuation is as accurate as a estimate can be. Instead, we received a fuzzy letter saying that some property taxes would increase and some would decrease. At any rate, the damage has been done and we seem to be moving forward. Meanwhile, all of the fuss has put the spotlight on some other questions which the TC must address: 1) What is the story with the 175,000 in pool funds? Were these borrowed as claimed by the letter from the pool committee? 2) What is the response to Mr. McNany's motion to ask the state to review the town finances? What I understand to be an unfilled CFO position for the township is a pretty serious matter. 3) What is the business plan for Springfield Ave.? Is it documented somewhere? I assume it is more than "Field of Dreams", but seeing exactly what we will be getting for $8 million will be of some comfort. 4) Where can I find a copy of the rent control act? What is the purpose of this act? My concern is that rent control can often be a wonderful short-term band aid with long-term undesirable results (see NYC). | ||
| Mtierney |
Mr. Ryan: I hope this response doesn't generate into the what the meaning of "is" is. I said that while your comment that repeated assertions don't make something true or factual, it can spell conviction on someone's part. Just saying it isn't so doesn't work for us taxpayers. You have to prove it! I can't believe that a full time assessor could not have avoided a lot of the mess we now have. A more orderly and timely process could have educated both the community and the reval people. For one thing, if working full-time, perhaps the tax assessor could have arrived at the meetings fully prepared. Honestly, in the computer day and age, for him to look at a sheet of paper in hand and present only a colored-in zoning map at the CHS meeting was ridiculous. And the public had to swallow the refusals by CV to attend either meeting. Of course, it sounded as if on both occasions the town's invitations were rather casual and/or late. If CV up and refused to defend their work, tell us the truth! CV certainly seemed incapable of doing the math! In good conscience, how could CV have felt that zapping homeowners with $18 to $20 thousand in taxes would have been accepted without a whimper? Did they ever multiply the new assessments by the tax rate and look at the resulting numbers? As has been said ad nauseam: Many people (like me) bought their homes 20 years or more ago. They weren't that smart, mostly lucky. The money value is not REAL if you planned to stay in the home you love. You paid off your mortgage. You're living on a fixed income. You raised your kids and now look forward to the joy of seeing the kids and grandkids in your home. Taxes are REAL, however. It is social engineering when people have no choice but to sell out (now at greatly reduced prices) and leave Maplewood. It is heartbreaking to me that people will be forced into a condo in another community, leaving behind most of their possessions and all of their memories - not to mention all the perennials they planted over the years! Well, off to the library. | ||
| Melidere |
Mtierney, i'm with bacata. There are tons of perennials planted lovingly by the people who are being forced to sell THEIR homes due to onerous tax payments. Why aren't you even considering taking the 'luck' you had and investing it back in the town? The money they are paying now is REAL too. Supposedly, in 20 years, you've developed some relationships that would be more easily maintained if you stayed in the area. But then again, all you mention leaving are possessions, memories and perennials. You could also work to help revitalize those areas selling on the cheap, and get your old taxes back that way. But again, that solution would assume a committment to the town and it's people. That's the ticket!!! our new slogan..."ADOPT A PERENNIAL TODAY!!" I'm sure the old inhabitants will rest easier knowing that their perennials are in good hands. | ||
| Ffof |
Jerry - as if you may not have known, I second what MTierney just posted! I also look forward to the answers to Euclidean's questions. But on another note, Jerry, I just wanted to say something here for the record, I am on the Fairtax e-mail list and as far as I know, Tom Lamb DID NOT copy your e-mail exchanges to this extensive list. I have the feeling that the man is truly upset and frustrated by his personal tax situation and is not a "talking head" for the Fairtax group (not that you said this, but it felt like it). Also, (anyone please chime in here if you feel otherwise!) but the Fairtax e-mail list has been being used as an informational tool i.e. when the TC meetings are, how to get a property card, what is an appeal, how to do it, etc. Yes, a few people have been very vocal in the name of the Fairtax Committee and I think those who have spoken at either of the larger TC meetings have formulated some excellent questions and arguments regarding this entire affair. But for the most part, most folks on the e-mail list just want to stay informed. They are individuals making their own opinions. Certainly the one thing they have in common is an enormous tax increase to be reckoned with and a need for openness and honesty from their local government. From my own point of you, you really have been trying, and again, thank you. Just keep answering those questions! | ||
| Fairtax01 |
Guess I should straighten this one out: Tom Lamb cc'd his conversation with Jerry Ryan to the FairTax e-mail address. We read the letter and assumed it was for our eyes only. Tom Lamb does not, nor has he ever, spoken on behalf of the FairTax group. He is a valued member of our group, but not a spokesperson - in his letter he was clearly speaking for himself. Ffof - Thanks for clarifying the type of information FairTax sends out to our e-mail list. | ||
| Ffof |
To Fairtax - Your Welcome! | ||
| Mtierney |
Melidere: Now I am scared! Such bitterness and rancor! Your tone is exactly what this reval mess seems destined to achieve - a divided and hateful Maplewood. Are we going to measure and evaluate each other's pain? As for giving to the community. Over these 20 odd years, along with raising 4 kids and holding a full-time job, I held non-paying jobs in the schools throughout my kids school years, serving on the boards of the PTAs, council, adult school, women's club, boys and girls scouts, etc. I have also volunteered my time on several municipal election campaigns and township projects. Let's try to work together. | ||
| Melidere |
sorry. | ||
| Gerardryan |
Euclidean: - re the pool item; plesase search for the thread where i discuss this at length - a couple of us tried to respond to the comment Mr. McNany made... a few things here. I went to a couple of seminars on this local government review program, and i have read sample reports out of the process that was performed for other towns. It doesn't mean what you think it means or do what you think it does (for example, every report will tell you to consolidate services with other towns, something we do in a number of cases already). I've looked at the process and the reports and am not convinced that it would not be a waste of time. Mr McNany accused us of financial mismanagement and doing things that were not legal (or at least bordered on the illegal). Budgets are reviewed by the state Division of Local Government Services and must be approved by them every year, and the Township's books are audited every year and the audit report is published and available for all. Despite the political popularity of saying so, there is nothing untoward going on here. Also we were CFO-less for several months last year, not, as was stated, for a year or more. We have a CFO since 1/2/01 (she pushed back her start date a few months because of a death of a close family member; she would have started in the fall otherwise). - springfield avenue is a long topic; could i ask you to do me a favor and hold the question for a week or two and then answer it again? there is a lot of published information available about it and i would live to discuss it, but please, not right here and now? - you can get the rent control ordinance from the clerk. you will find that our rent control ordinance, which has existed for a VERY long time, contains a provision missing from the NYC ordinance: vacancy decontrol. Jerry | ||
| Gerardryan |
Mtierney: I see your point on the assessor I guess but I think it is a fair statement that there was an awful lot of information out there that the reval was happening, what it was, how it was supposed to work, etc. I believe that PT or FT would have made little difference here. I also disagree that Ed came to the meetings unprepared! Yes it is the computer day and age but it is staggering how old the systems that the county and state use! And for that matter both lseltzer and I, two pretty computer savvy fellows, are still struggling with how to generate color coded computer generated maps. It isn't as easy as you might think, unfortunately. The town's demands for certified's attendance were not casual, and as I have said before I'm more annoyed that most anyone about their refusal to attend and discuss this at the two meetings that they were not at (they were at a goodly number before, by the way). Certified was hired to assess the values, not set the tax rate, and as the FAQ observed they are not allowed to consider what the new tax rate would do to assessments. By law. Tested in court. And it isn't social engineering, either. That doesn't make it a good situation, and it doesn;t make me happy. | ||
| Gerardryan |
Ffof: Tom's mail said cc: Fair Tax Committee, and fairtax01@aol.com was cc'd in the mail header. In any case I thought the conversation was valuable to put out here, and it has generated some good discussion... I don't know what the fairtax email alias says, I am not on it. I know what the brochures say, though. And openness and honesty is what you've been getting all along. Jerry | ||
| Ffof |
Brochures? There have been a couple fliers. One after the Jan 2 meeting informing people of what their taxes were actually going to be since there was no mention of this with the CV assessment letter OR no announcement from Town Hall as to how to approxiamate the new taxes from the assessment number. I believe another flier informed people as to when and where the TC meetings would be and encouraged people to go. If there has been other Fairtax "literature", I guess I've been just plain out of the loop! And there is no website for Maplewood's Fair taxation committee, JUST an e-mail address. This e-mail address is on ONE family's computer, so, as Fairtax pointed out above, "they"(husband and wife!?) thought it was for their eyes only! On the other hand, as you pointed out, some good discussion has been generated. As to openness and honesty, all I thought I said was "keep it comin'!" |
