Archive through August 9, 2006 Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search | Who's Online
Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

M-SO Message Board » South Orange Specific » Corzine’s plan to “streamline municipalities” and property tax reform » Archive through August 9, 2006 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising

Post Number: 456
Registered: 2-2006
Posted on Friday, July 7, 2006 - 9:27 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

From today's NY Times article about NJ budget deal:

"Mr. Corzine said that the use of a portion of the sales tax increase on municipal aid would not prevent the state from exploring other ways to lower property taxes, including holding a legislative session this summer on subjects like streamlining the state's 566 municipalities.

'We have a series of reviews going on that will bring fundamental property tax reform,' Mr. Corzine said."

So, it looks like some revenues will come to SO for property tax relief, thanks to the Speaker of the NJ legislature, and maybe more later because of the Governor. (I hope the BOT does not take this as a sign they should increase bonding.)

Aside from this, does anyone know what the Governor's plans for "streamlining municipalities" might be and how they might impact SO and Maplewood's shared services or possible merger?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Politicalmon
Citizen
Username: Politicalmon

Post Number: 196
Registered: 9-2005


Posted on Friday, July 7, 2006 - 9:57 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

From what I can gather - 50% of the 1% sales tax increase will be used to offset property tax increases for the 1st year and then 100% for the following years.

In addition, there will be cuts made in municipal aid to all communities in NJ. So due to this, Municipal governments will have less to work with and therefore will be forced to raise local property taxes to make up for the loss of funding from Trenton.

So in essence they make it sound like tax relief is coming while at the same time they are cutting municipal funding - in the end we will end up paying more!

As long as the state budget keeps increasing and local politicians protect their turfs and roadblock shared services & township consolidation there is big dark storm gathering energy.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave


Post Number: 10057
Registered: 4-1997


Posted on Friday, July 7, 2006 - 10:04 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The cuts to municipal aid was what would have happened had the sales tax not been raised.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Politicalmon
Citizen
Username: Politicalmon

Post Number: 197
Registered: 9-2005


Posted on Friday, July 7, 2006 - 10:17 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Agreed simply because of the huge defecit, but based on a discussion with a state non profit fiscal watchdog group the cuts will turn into no aid what so ever and local defecits will have to be addressed through local funding.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

frannyfree
Citizen
Username: Frannyfree

Post Number: 205
Registered: 1-2004
Posted on Friday, July 7, 2006 - 10:20 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

We will always get the shaft from our politicians. We wont see a penny. It's all for them and their pet projects and the people be damned..hey you live in NJ!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David Lackey
Citizen
Username: Davidlackey

Post Number: 51
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 2:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

With our sky-high property taxes and joint school system, South Orange and Maplewood are prime candidates for municipal consolidation. Corzine is right about NJ having too many municipalities. Are there really very many compelling reason to remain apart? Lower taxes could be realized statewide if towns consolidated where it makes sense. The elimination of county governments would be the next step, and again I'll ask why not?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner

Post Number: 2868
Registered: 4-2002
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 2:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

David: Some of the money has been earmarked for towns to look at consolidation of services or the towns. I continue to ask that we do a consolidation study and hopefully the state will fund the full cost of a study and implementation. It is easy to say we should have municipal consolidation (and elimination of county government) as long as the funding to back up those ideas are there. I think the timing to do a study is right because it appears Corzine is willing to back up his words with money (via the 1% increase in sales tax).
There is no question in my mind S. Orange and Maplewood could be a model study. The only question I have is why would any one object to having this study done if the cost is minimal?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive

Post Number: 4477
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 2:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

His name is Bill Calabrese and he doesn't want to lose POWER.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David Lackey
Citizen
Username: Davidlackey

Post Number: 52
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 3:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I doubt anyone outside of political office-holders (not selfless ones like you, Mark, but "others") would object to a study. However, is a costly study really needed? Who cannot see that there would be savings? Is it a question of knowing HOW MUCH savings before the idea is worthwhile? WHO CARES? Any savings at all would result in lower taxes. THE BOT has given lip service to "studying" the cost benefits of merged services (although NOT of merged townships) for YEARS. Yes, years. Stop looking for someone to foot the bill for a study and just consider doing something NOW. Perhaps we should start the call for ONE TOWN, ONE VISION.

Please, anyone with good reasons we should remain two towns, speak up!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave


Post Number: 10241
Registered: 4-1997


Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 4:06 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Because SO taxes would go even higher if Maplewood were included in a two-town reval? Just a guess, really.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner

Post Number: 2871
Registered: 4-2002
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 4:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

David: There are legal issues why an official study has to be done. Plus eventually it has to be sold to the voters and they are going to want to make an informed decision based on the pros and the cons.

I will say that if property tax savings is the real goal, then elimination of county government, and ending the use of property tax for the primary funding source for schools would be far more beneficial to towns like ours. The average town spends over 50% of their property tax bill for education so obviously towns with mostly commercial ratables are in a better position financially. The other towns fight to get commercial ratables even when their downtowns are not designed for large commercial development.
Consolidation makes sense to do, but at best will bring us a small savings. By most estimates it will mean a 5 - 10% savings of the municipal portion. That means the average in S. Orange would go from $12,000 to $11,700 (10% of the municipal portion which on average is $3,000). Some people will argue it is not worth giving up control of the police, fire, recreation, etc for a small savings.
However, I think we need to do everything we can do. Consolidation, sharing services, eliminating the county government and using income taxes (and yes, that would mean a large increase) to fund schools.
Our property taxes are insane and steps need to be taken. At my level, the only thing to do is consolidation and to lobby the state for other changes.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive

Post Number: 4479
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 4:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


Quote:

I think we need to do everything we can do. Consolidation, sharing services, eliminating the county government and using income taxes (and yes, that would mean a large increase) to fund schools.
Our property taxes are insane and steps need to be taken




[Insert obligatory TAU comment here]
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising

Post Number: 539
Registered: 2-2006
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 4:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It isn't clear to me, why that would be true, Dave. Would you please explain it?

If it were true, maybe property tax equilibrium in the two towns could be achieved simply by raising SO's taxes gradually, across a long period of time, according to what might be their normal course anyway, while Mplwd's are held in place. The state could subsidize the difference in gradually attenuating amounts, until equilibrium were achieved, as part of its funding the merger/consolidation.

Possible? Anyone?

David Lackey, differences in municipal personnel systems might need studies, analysis, or other think-tanking before we should try to implement a merger of different systems. It would be unfair to implement municipal mergers at the expense of town employees. For potential merger areas of less complexity, scarce state monies, at a time of significant deficits both in NJ and in SO, might be better spent as you suggest, on mergeing itself.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave


Post Number: 10243
Registered: 4-1997


Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 4:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's really a guess based on an assumption that the average house in South Orange has a slightly higher value than the average house in Maplewood. As for the adjustment/raising of a property re-evaluation over time, Maplewood looked into that and wasn't able to do so legally.

The reason for the two towns originally separating was due to a re-evaluation disagreement.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner

Post Number: 2872
Registered: 4-2002
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 4:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dave: Actually, I think Maplewood would wind up with the larger increase, not S. Orange (at least that is what I saw from one of the initial reports from the first consultant). However, there would be a net savings for both towns and in the long run the argument about which town gets the short end of the stick with the school funding goes away.
SORising: You are correct about the municipal personnel systems (civil service in S. ORange, not in maplewood) need to be worked out. There is legislation pending to help make it easier to sort these things out, but until they pass we will not know exactly how that will work out.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising

Post Number: 540
Registered: 2-2006
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 4:47 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If the Governor is serious about wanting to reduce the number of municipalities, there would have to be a well-thought through system or wide net of carrots and sticks to move it along.

I don't understand how county governments could be eliminated. What about unincorporated areas? Perhaps the role of county governments should change but how would they be eliminated?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

bets
Supporter
Username: Bets

Post Number: 23695
Registered: 6-2001


Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 4:53 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


Quote:

Plus eventually it has to be sold to the voters and they are going to want to make an informed decision based on the pros and the cons.


Sorry Mark. Other than the pathetically unactive elections, what decisions have voters EVER made in this town?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David Lackey
Citizen
Username: Davidlackey

Post Number: 53
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 5:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mark,
Perhaps in my zeal for lowering taxes, I am indeed being too hasty about township consolidation. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. I just won't hang any banners or organize any marches until you get your studies, panels and debates going. Also, I agree with your assessment that more tax savings would be found in eliminating counties and changing the school-funding source.

SOrising,
To eliminate county government, some of the duties now performed by the county would have to be taken over by the state, while the rest would be taken over by the townships. In this scenario, both state taxes and local taxes would have to rise, but the taxes we pay now to the county would be eliminated. The big-picture savings would be achieved by removing that layer of government. Yes, jobs would be lost, but don't most people feel that government is too big? Your remark above about S.O-Mapl. municipal workers losing their jobs if we were to consolidate is a sad but necessary effect. Why have two people do the job that one can do just as well? Connecticut eliminated counties about 40 years ago. Some Essex County employees would be hired by the state and municipalities. Some would have to shift to the private sector.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising

Post Number: 541
Registered: 2-2006
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 5:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

DL, I didn't say that positions would not be eliminated. But there are better than worse ways to do that.

I still don't understand what would happen to people who don't live in towns but in unincorporated areas. Usually they would have a county government to turn to for ordinances, services, whatever. I don't understand how it could be completely eliminated, so it seems like we might throw the baby out with the bath water if it were entirely eliminated. If you lived in a county but not in a town, would you want to have to contact Trenton for everything? How would it work, really?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Allan J Rosen
Citizen
Username: Allanrosen

Post Number: 173
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 5:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

School funding should not be impacted in South Orange (or Maplewood) because the tax division is based on (state) adjusted tax ratables which should not be changed by revaluation or consolidation. That should be no obstacle to (study of) consolidation.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero

Post Number: 5652
Registered: 10-1999


Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 5:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

SOrising - Unlike some other other states, New Jersey does not have any unincorporated areas. Every square inch is part of some municipality. That's why elimination of county government is given serious consideration here.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tea Kettle
Citizen
Username: Teacup

Post Number: 9
Registered: 7-2006


Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 6:05 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I love counties for having the first cleared roads in the winter.
I love counties for having a county court system.

Are county taxes, really, what's draining us? Or is it just an easy thing to pick off since the seat of the county is located "down there".
However, do both SO and Mplwd need a fire and police chief? Two sets of 911 dispatchers? Is crime so rampant that there is this need? This is a redundancy of service. Mplwd & SO are already praised for sharing a school system, why not more services? It's not about the number of staff, but the amount of staff at the top.

I suppose you can argue that clearing the roads pose a redundancy of service, but I would like to see Mplwd and SO come up with the cash to repave Valley or Springfield on their own, without the pool of county resources.

Mostly, I think that Corzine was addressing the hundreds of school districts over hundreds of towns. Why does Teterboro need a school board? If you think taxes are high, imagine having to pay for 2 high school principles, two of everything. Maybe we should be asking our surrounding towns to start consolidating services to save them, and ultimately, us.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stuart0628
Citizen
Username: Stuart0628

Post Number: 309
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 7:32 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There has been talk about M-SO shared services. Beyond that, can anyone identify things that the municipalities and the county are both doing (perhaps including the roads, but I am thinking beyond that), that could have redundancies eliminated by getting rid of either the municipality function or the county function?

Is there any shot in heck that Millburn would consider a three-way consolidation of certain services?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

metfan33
Citizen
Username: Metfan33

Post Number: 1
Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 2:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If merging with Maplewood is such a problem because of Civil Service why not look at West Orange? I believe Orange is doing this right now
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr

Post Number: 1206
Registered: 6-2001
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 12:16 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

How many PILOT properties does South Orange have?

How many does Maplewood have?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising

Post Number: 605
Registered: 2-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 10:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Article in Star Ledger today saying W. Orange is talkinkg with Montclair and Orange about consolidating.

Will South Orange be left behind?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive

Post Number: 4527
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 11:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

SORising,

Your post is very timely. An effort had just gotten underway to put a referendum on the November Ballot to decide whether or not a Joint Consolidation Commission should be formed with Maplewood to STUDY the idea of consolidation and/or shared services. To accomplish this, signatures of registered voters are URGENTLY needed by the end of the month. (Unlike Tau, there is a provision in the State for this petition to be binding to initiate a referendum if enough signatures are gathered)

Go to www.somastudy.org NOW and download a petition, have it signed by you, your spouse & your neighbor immediately. When complete, mail it to:
Jeff Dubowy
669 Mountain Drive
South Orange, New Jersey 07079
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising

Post Number: 607
Registered: 2-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 11:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks, MHD.

How many signatures are needed by the end of the month?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive

Post Number: 4529
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 11:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Approximately 600 from South Orange and approximately 800 from Maplewood
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Kibbegirl
Citizen
Username: Kibbegirl

Post Number: 692
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 7:04 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Great link! I've printed mine and have forwarded the link to others!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner

Post Number: 2902
Registered: 4-2002
Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 10:42 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

MHD: I am pretty sure the signature has to be from a registered voter. I know the goal is to get more signatures than required in case some are disqualified.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive

Post Number: 4530
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 10:49 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mark,

Yes...you are correct. Although, I did say that above ("signatures of registered voters are URGENTLY needed by the end of the month").

Sorry if it wasn't clear.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner

Post Number: 2904
Registered: 4-2002
Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 11:02 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

MHD: Sorry, I did not catch that in your post. Let's hope we get enough signatures soon enough to get this on the ballot this year.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive

Post Number: 4532
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 11:09 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

ACK!!! Mark Rosner & I are in agreement? Hmmm....maybe I should reconsider my opinion on this issue.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner

Post Number: 2905
Registered: 4-2002
Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 11:14 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If you change your mind, you will be in agreement with our VP. You just can't win with this one. haha..
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising

Post Number: 610
Registered: 2-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 11:15 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yes, he's trying to ride in your wake, MHD.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mergele
Citizen
Username: Mergele

Post Number: 426
Registered: 7-2003


Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 11:19 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Apparently there was a meeting on this last night? or is it tonight? Yesterday was the 8th, but today is Wednesday...


---------- Forwarded message ----------

Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 20:31:47 -0400
Subject: South Orange Maplewood Concerned Taxpayers
Dear Neighbor,

As you know, there has been much discussion at the state level regarding property tax reform. As one of the most tax stressed communities in New Jersey, most of us in South Orange and Maplewood are following the media coverage carefully.

In an effort to find ways to alleviate the heavy property tax burden our community carries, a group of South Orange and Maplewood taxpayers has formed a grass roots organization called South Orange Maplewood Concerned Taxpayers (SOMACT). SOMACT is currently seeking community support for a study commission to determine the advisability of sharing municipal services or the consolidation of the two towns.

The first step in this process is to file petitions in South Orange and Maplewood seeking to include a consolidation study commission question on the November 2006 election ballot. Under New Jersey law, we will have to obtain the required signatures by the end of August. With such a tight time frame, SOMACT needs the help of fellow taxpayers and therefore is holding a meeting Wednesday night, August 8, 8:00, at the home of (deleted name and address for public posting; PL me for details). Please reply to me if you can attend. If you would like to join in the effort, but cannot make the meeting, please also reply.

For further information, I have Study Commission Questions & Answers set forth below. Hope to see you Wednesday night.

-----------------------------------------------
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive

Post Number: 4533
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 11:31 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mergele,

The meeting was last night. The next step is for everyone to go to www.somastudy.com and download/print/sign the petition!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sheena Collum
Citizen
Username: Sheena_collum

Post Number: 772
Registered: 4-2005


Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 12:06 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This is a great opportunity for anyone who would like to be more involved to come on board.

Please contact Jeff if you're interested. 600 signatures is a piece of cake if we have enough volunteers.

And if any of you rollerblade - you're welcome to come to the neighborhoods with me (always makes time go by faster if you don't hit a rock...)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea

Post Number: 1873
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 12:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I posted a link to the Tax Trauma Index in the Extraordinary Aid thread - it should have been posted here.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Credits Administration