Members of the West Hartford Taxpayers Association voted not to pursue a budget referendum reports the Hartford Courant. Checking their website, they put out a memo to the Mayor and offered further explanations.
"In a close vote at the 04/24/09 WHTA meeting, members voted not to pursue a budget referendum. The Town came in with less spending than last year; $600,000 less than the current $213.1 million budget. The new tax rate will be 34.81 Mills. The current Mill rate for West Hartford is 36.97. Members who voted against a referendum said that the Town came in with less spending and lowered the Mill rate, they also provided unprecedented transparency in the budget process this year and spent time listening and sitting down with WHTA leadership. Since the Town is bound by contracts, and unions were giving up wage increases this year in order to save jobs, it seemed that having a referendum would not produce any significant decreases, especially since the budget drivers are primarily salary and benefits. The only thing left for the Town to cut would be services, like closing libraries and pools. The WHTA leadership felt that the town has much work to do going forward, and should begin thinking about some long range planning especially as it pertains to negotiated contracts. They are also advocating for a management audit by a citizens audit committee. It would appear that the real referendum this year will be in November at election time."Reality Check: Until the Town of West Hartford actually addresses how to reduce the cost of wages and benefits, and deals with upcoming contracts with some sort of realistic future planning in mind we'll keep doing referendums and having major arguments about our budgets. There still are some very real, long-term budget issues facing West Hartford. WHTA and individuals, like Robert Sisk, have consistently beaten the drum saying over and over again that it's wages, benefits and pension costs that are eating away at our ability to provide services to our citizens. The path we've been on has been unsustainable. Coming in with a reduction in Town Spending has been a welcome start, especially in this difficult economy. There are certain parts of the budget that are not under our control. Perhaps we should hold our representatives in Hartford much more accountable for some of that (for heaven's sake they ARE in the majority party!). Unfunded mandates and the money they can't seem to get back for us from the State is a budget headache for us.
There have also been others in the community, including voracious education budget supporters, who are beginning to seriously question the Board of Education and Superintendent's budget. After the many laments that they don't have a dime to shave off their budget, they always seem to find anywhere from a half million to a million and a half dollars laying around when truly pressed for it. That is a red flag and even more cause for pursuing a citizen's audit.
It might be a good opportunity for West Hartford residents to hear more about audits given this announcement:
The Farmington Taxpayers Association cordially invites you to attend a presentation by Dr. Armand Fusco, on Monday, May 4th, from 7pm-9pm at the Farmington Library. The presentation will entail details on how to establish a Citizen Audit Committee in our/your town. Dr. Fusco has worked with the BOE in Enfield (they have completed their initial audit) and is currently work with the towns of Wolcott, Trumbull, Monroe, Woodstock and Durham NH in the implementation and training of their citizen audit committees.As for Ms. DiNapoli and her quest to obtain signatures to pursue a referendum despite WHTA's support of the budget this time, the Town Charter correctly allows for citizens to do what she is doing. Right or wrong, she says she is giving the opposition a voice, and that is what the Charter provision intended. She may or may not succeed. Time will tell.
In the meantime, we really ought to be paying attention to the much bigger issue at hand: Getting a firm grip on how this town will deal with salaries and benefits going forward, and how to balance that out in order to provide the services everyone wants to retain in town, and to do that within the constraints of the economic realities locally and nationally. Even the "tax and spenders" have a limit as to what they can continue to pay to live here.
28 WH Responses:
Oh goodie, it's Dr. Armand "Forensic" Fusco coming to save the day!
Shorter Dr. Armand Fusco:
Your school system is corrupt!
Better get a posse of homeschoolers, taxpayer advocates, and paranoid maniacs to descend on Chip Ward's office and start doing some due diligence!
I have footnotes!
The long version may be read on the "non-partisan" Yankee Institute's website.
So tell me "Anonymous" - the fact that Enfield found 22 computers listed in their budget audit that were unaccounted for makes a school audit something for kooks?
And why such the attack on homeschoolers? What do they have to do with anything? Oh right.. you despise the likes of Ms. Aron and "her kind". I get it. I would think you'd be happy West Hartford homeschoolers pay taxes and use none of the school resources in town. My mistake. Run 'em out of town, those "crazy" lot.
No one is talking about corruption. Don't you give a whit about the best use for your tax dollar? Probably not.
Get a grip man. I dare you to go to the Farmington meeting and actually talk to the man himself. Your prejudicial dart throwing is really childish.
FYI - Fusco has nothing to do with Yankee Institute other than they printed a study of his.
"No one is talking about corruption"? Let's see:
Fusco's paper on the Yankee Institute website is entitled "Ending Corruption and Waste in Your Public School."
His thesis is:
"The reality is that some degree of corruption is likely to be found in most school districts."
He advises:
"The two major problems facing taxpayer advocates are (1) how to discover if there is school corruption and, if so, (2) how to prove corruption to the public. Only when corruption can be proven will practices and procedures be put into place to limit its cancerous impact on resources. This manual will provide the information, tools, and techniques that will assist taxpayer advocates in this critical endeavor."
In their "memo to the mayor" (!) the Taxpayers Association is "advocating for a management audit by a citizens audit committee".
You can see where this going.
I did not make "an attack on homeschoolers". I have nothing against homeschooling per se and have even considered doing it myself. No, I am not "happy" that homseschoolers "use none of the school resources in town". Rather, I am unhappy about the WHTA's belligerence toward public education and the Board of Education.
Yeah, like I really want to waste my time listening to a tendentious quack like Fusco for 2 hours.
WHTA's belligerence toward public education and the Board of Education? You mean like just asking them to account for money spent and justifying their programs, or wondering why their costly programs aren't delivering results? How dare they! Guess you'd rather write a blank check.
Asking questions is belligerence? Asking for accountability is belligerence? I guess so for some who simply have a problem with accountability.
Tendentious quack like Fusco? You mean like you'd rather people held your biases instead? Because of course YOU are not a quack. Hah!
Name calling is so helpful. I can see where this is going too.
Please, the WHTA has a long public record of antagonism to the Board of Ed. Of course you are free to pretend it doesn't exist. For everyone else, there's google.
I don't have a problem with accountability; who does? I do have a problem with the officers of the WHTA doing an endrun around the legislative process by trying to position themselves as an official oversight committee. Who elected them? What qualifies them for this function? Why don't they run for office if they're so tantalized by the power of the purse? The answer is obvious: because they would lose.
How am I supposed to be a quack? I made no claim to expertise. I am simply a citizen who has read what Dr. Fusco has written and finds it to be pretty dubious.
I am adding my two cents: Endrun? So you elect your candidates and absolve yourself and walk away. That's precisely why we have watch dog groups. I suppose you'd like the ACLU and Ethics Commissions and other organizations that hold elected people's feet to the fire to just vanish.
That's brilliant.
Bet you'd love to live in Cuba too.
I have an idea, why don't YOU run for office. Instead of criticizing everyone else, how about YOU concentrate on what YOU do. It's easy enough to yap all day long on your computer and make anonymous sniping remarks on blogs.
As for the last remark; I agree with you, you certainly have no expertise. That's evident.
R. Wiley, great points.
The BOE doesn't like to have any questions asked, that we all know.
But when they needed another $500K in cuts after the referendum (last year or the year before, I forget which) it just appeared.
The BOE had no idea what Open Choice was costing the Town when questioned. Now we are magically billing Hartford for reimbursable services to these kids, to the tune of $200K. I recently heard this was up to $400K, but that may include IDEA reimbursable funds we were also ignoring.
The $$ for Idea Funding (I believe this was the category) in the '08 was listed as $70K. The same category for the '09 comparison changed this figure to $270K with no footnoting. Great bookeeping!
John Hardy, a normally pro-budget person, came up with a list of 12 pages of budget questions. Kathy Wilson, another pro-budgeter, has started publically question the budget. Diane Mudge, a BOE member, has submitted 4 pages of budget questions. Unfortunately the questions don't come easily.
The Administration is reluctant to give answers. This is a $120million enterprise and we as the taxpayers (stockholders) deserve better answers to our budget questions.
Carl,
What nonsense. Just because I disagree with the WHTA's tactics and ideology doesn't mean I'm against watchdog groups. On the contrary, I'm in favor of them.
My point is that Fusco, the Yankee Institute, and the WHTA share the same agenda, which ultimately is to promote private-sector solutions to a host of issues. That's their privilege, but they should argue on the merits.
Fusco, for example, asserts that "the reality is that some degree of corruption is likely to be found in most school districts".
His evidence for this is a study by Quality Education Data based on a sampling of 479 school districts across the country. Fusco fails to mention that the study was commissioned by Follett Software Co., a company that sells asset management software. Fortuitously for Follett, the study demonstrates that school districts experience difficulty with asset management. The data is based on estimated cost of loss, damage, or redundant purchases of assets. The second page of the article footnoted by Dr. Fusco is available by subscription only, but nowhere on the first page is it suggested that "corruption" is at issue. Fusco simply jumps to this conclusion because his premise is that school districts are corrupt.
Note that Fusco is explicit about what he means by corruption:
"breach of trust, bribery, crime, crookedness, deceit, deception, dishonesty, exploitation, evil,
extortion, fraud, graft, malfeasance, nepotism, payoff, profiteering, tainted, unethical,
untrustworthy and unscrupulousness"
This "research" is dubious.
Today Karen List announced the cut programs at Smith and Charter Oak would be restored (Hartford Courant)
This is the same BOE that said:
1- it needed 3.5% for the new budget.
2- It could get by w/ 2.7%.
3- Classes would suffer at 0%.
4- Then discovers a $1.2 million surplus to prefund parts of next years budget
5- Now finds the money to restore cuts at these schools.
So while the Town has cut, and the taxpayers will pay more, what has the BOE cut?
Somehow, they always dig up money when they need it! This happens year after year.There needs to be an audit!
I'm guessing funding for after-school at Smith and Charter Oak will come from federal stimulus Title I money.
Another million of IDEA money from the feds enabled the board to offload a million from the general fund.
Another $1.1 million comes from a projected 08-09 surplus to prefund energy expenses for 09-10 and 10-11. The admin didn't anticipate the drop in energy costs and got a windfall. The rest is here.
That's how "somehow" came about.
Anonymous (May 1 5:58) You comment "My point is that Fusco, the Yankee Institute, and the WHTA share the same agenda, which ultimately is to promote private-sector solutions to a host of issues."
What a bogus assertion. WHTA's agenda does in no way seek to promote private-sector solutions to a host of issues. All they seem to be looking for is a sustainable budget and the reduction of waste. They have been talking about this for years. You seem to think there is some dubious hidden agenda and that is silly and wholly biased.
You think they are pursuing lower taxes for the sake of just paying less money? Looking for something for nothing? God no! They are looking to stop the systemic wasteful spending that plagues this system. From the spending on catered lunches, to the practice of stockpiling budget dollars to every other wasteful program and practice. For goodness sake, Chip Ward is finally billing Hartford and other Towns for services we've been giving away for free! Now there's a concept!
Get off your prejudicial notions about WHTA and take a look at what they have been talking about; responsible budgeting, planning and getting the most out of every tax dollar. That's common sense to me as a taxpayer. Based on your continual mocking of WHTA it would seem you ARE against such watchdog groups.
As for Dr. Fusco; You can question his analysis, but he must know quite a thing or two about school systems and funding - he has seen many of them and has had personal experience running them.
But whatever, you certainly won't be swayed. Continue your "anti- them" rantings if it makes you feel better, it's kind of silly though in light of WHTA not pursuing a referendum.
I must say I am DEEPLY disturbed by the exchanged I am reading on Ms. Aron's blog, where she asserts that President Obama is not an American citizen.
It's a free country, but to see the leadership of the WHTA holding such absurd positions cannot be good for their cause.
I want to stay annonymous because I happen to have close personal and social ties to some of the people involved in the WH budget debate. I just thought you'd be interested to see just how warped the mind of one of the WHTA's leaders is.
http://yedies.blogspot.com/2009/04/first-one-hundred-days.html
I support many of the ideas the WHTA has for the budget, but seeing this type of garbage from the leadership is unsettling!
Carl,
You're right. I do think the WHTA has a dubious hidden agenda. Except it's not so hidden--the WHTA leaders are a chatty bunch. George Kennedy's tirade at the last budget forum suggesting that the entire Board of Ed be replaced by businessmen is typical. As the other Anonymous pointed out, Judy Aron is actually in a lather over President Obama's birth certificate. Come on.
Funny that you think because I oppose the WHTA that I must be against watchdog groups in general, as if the WHTA were some shining example of watchdoggery. No. Demagoguery and bullying does not pass for responsible advocacy.
As for your complaint about "spending on catered lunches", please cough up some evidence for this urban legend. While you're at it you might back up your charge of "wasteful programs" and services to "other Towns".
You asked, "You think they are pursuing lower taxes for the sake of just paying less money?" Yes. That's what I think. If the town was Wasteville but taxes were low, goodbye WHTA.
Of course Dr. Fusco knows a thing or two about school systems. So what? That's irrelevant to my contention that Fusco's paper is a hack job.
My anti-WHTA rants do not "make me feel better". Every time I think about the WHTA, I feel worse.
And I choose to stay anonymous because I'm familiar with your practice of deleting posts by people who criticize members of the WHTA.
"As for your complaint about "spending on catered lunches", please cough up some evidence for this urban legend. While you're at it you might back up your charge of "wasteful programs" and services to "other Towns". "
For the BOE, which was very indignant that there should even ba a question on the subject.
This number grew from almost 0 to under $9,000 when The Advocate reporter lost her job and it was no longer persued.
Not a large number in a budget of this size. The bigger problem is not knowing how big it really was.
There is no line item for Food, catering, snacks or whatever in the education budget no one will ever know without an audit.
FYI - interesting debate on WHTA strategy at:
http://iblogwesthartford.blogspot.com/2009/05/whta-refuses-to-commit-to-working-to.html
I love the way you guys are agonizing over the WHTA.
The WHTA simply VOTED NO to go for a referendum. I seriously doubt they will go and spend resources on a referendum should Linda get enough signatures. The vote not to go to referendum was very close, I don't think their would be any support to spend funds to support the budget.
Let the PTAs spend their resources on Vote Yes signs.You keep mouthing off about the WHTA, how much are you guys going to put up?
Frankly, this year should there be a referendum the fewer signs the better. The smaller the voter turnout the less likely the turnout will be big enough for a valid election.
Cynic -
I'm not going to get into the chicken-salad sandwich debate with you (I know what the Board said, but I agree that it's not detailed anywhere). I will, however, grant you one big point as per my 12 page of questions/issues (which you've cited above):
There are quite a number of large, seemingly amorphous "blobs" of expenditures in the budget for which much more detail needs to be provided. The detail pages in the budget supplement just aren't enough for some of these sums, most notably those in the 5 or 6 digit categories that are accompanied by only a few words of explanation.
That's not to say I think that there is "corruption" (Dr. Fusco's word; I read his document) in the WHPS Administration, and I'm not convinced we need an "audit," forensic or otherwise.
What we need is more detail and transparency. And yes, as I've suggested in conversation with WHTA folks, I would be supportive of fleshing out a recommendation for some sort of non-judgemental "citizens' commission" for the operational side of the WHPS to lend the financial/administrative expertise (however developed) present in the community, help look at issues through new and different lenses, and perhaps explore different/best practices to operations.
I've suggested that folks take a look at the recently concluded initiative in Newton, MA as an example (by the way, Newton used WH in some of their benchmarking....).
http://www.ci.newton.ma.us/CitizenAdvisoryGroup/index.html
But I guess I want this kind of effort to be helpful and positive - I think it was helpful and positive that it was pointed out that Hartford wasn't being billed for services, and new revenue was the result. Let's celebrate that you guys pointed that out and saved us something - not use it as a club. Keep looking for this stuff - I know I will.
John,
I'm wary of this Citizens Advisory Commission proposal. On the face of it it seems like a good idea. After all, what's wrong with citizens partnering with government to work toward better solutions to our problems?
On the other hand, I read the Newton group's mandate at the link you provided:
"--To help define the choices facing the City with respect to municipal and educational service levels and their long-term funding requirements.
--To help identify, within this context, innovative ways of increasing short- and long-term operational efficiency and effectiveness and developing new or enhanced sources of funding for City services—including the people, facilities, and equipment that make the delivery of such services possible.
--To make sufficient progress in these tasks by the end of this calendar year so that the Mayor, the School Committee, and the Board of Aldermen will be able to integrate promising strategies and actions into the process of planning for the fiscal 2010 budget and beyond."
These responsibilities are already assumed by our town government and admininistration. Nothing prevents any citizen or advocacy group from submitting ideas for improvements. Why is this advisory commission necessary?
What would be its status?
Who would determine the participants' qualifications?
To whom would these non-elected experts be accountable?
Thanks Anon 5/5/09 12:42
Let me first clarify that I wasn’t talking about a whole-hog study of the West Hartford public sector. I’m thinking of the WH Public Schools, where there is only Chip Ward and Linda Sitaro….and seemingly nobody else who can really think in a big-picture financial/operational sense. All the other senior managers are career educators. That’s not the case on the “Town side.”
No offense to them or to you, but here’s the thing: after attending countless Board of Ed meetings over the past 6 years, it seems to me that many “new” or “different” ideas are greeted by the Administration with “we can’t do that because” or with some other insurmountable obstacle (incidentally, I hope to be pleasantly surprised by tonight’s discussion of “Community Use of School Facilities”).
So that’s what I’m thinking of – a formal group with the authority to ask questions and dig into current practices; one that can develop financial/operational alternatives and efficiencies to be brought to light and debated by the elected BoE. If you read the Newton materials (including and especially what you’ve cited) that’s all their group has done – contributed expertise, not formed an additional branch of government. Our BoE has a lot on its plate already with managing educational policies to stay responsive to an increasingly diverse population with a wide variety of needs. And there is already a $2 million dollar hole in the FY 2012 budget due to FY 2010 and 2011 use of one-time funds…with who knows what else to come. Plus the whole sustainability issue – I’ve mentioned it in terms of health & welfare benefits costs; others have gone beyond that (Mr. Sisk). Clearly we need to manage our school system differently to prevent future financial catastrophe.
So to your specific questions:
Q: Why is this advisory commission necessary?
A: I think I’ve answered that but, in brief: Because many people – including education supporters like me, with 26 years of private sector experience – who have taken a deeper look at the budget have raised some pretty important questions that haven’t been satisfactorily answered. I for one would like to do everything possible to save expense on the administrative side so that we can spend robustly (and responsibly) on educating our current students, and the kids to come.
Q: What would be its status?
A: Appointed – as I see it, with sort of a “Blue Ribbon Commission” status. Let’s get answers on the table without hiring outside consultants, and without the drama and difficulty of FoI requests/complaints.
Q: Who would determine the participants' qualifications?
A: Whomever appoints them – the Board, maybe the Council, maybe the Administration. Who determines the qualifications for any appointments in Town (e.g., who chose the Superintendent Search Committee?). I know that, as an appointee to the Risk Management Advisory Board by our elected officials, I had to demonstrate a certain professional credibility to them.
Q: To whom would these non-elected experts be accountable?
A: That’s to be decided, but it seems to me that there would be protocols for responsibilities and a timetable for reporting. I think that the appointees would be “accountable” for their behavior, and in agreeing to serve within the framework established. And you know, it wouldn’t necessarily be all WHAT-ers if that’s what you’re afraid of. I’d serve if asked – and anyone who knows me knows that I’m pretty progressive (including this blog, which has in the past labeled me as a “tax-and-spender” amongst other things).
Sorry this is so long. Thanks (hopefully) for your indulgence TOWH
That would be "WHTA-ers" in the second-to-last paragraph. I uploaded the post from WORD and I guess spellcheck doesn't like the WHTA...
John Hardy you've got some good suggestions there. Thanks for posting them here.
Glad to see someone is thinking of solutions instead of just whining or making personal assaults on people.
That's what this forum should be all about. So thanks for being one of the adults in the room.
John,
Certainly no offense taken, and thank you for your generous reply.
My short response is: It's up to the Board of Ed and the administration, of course, to determine whether they would like to engage a Citizens Advisory Commission.
I'm familiar with your suggestions to the BoE and think it's great that you scrutinized the budget so expertly, took the time to identify potential savings, and saved the town $50K, for which we should all be grateful. I disagree with many of your suggestions but am receptive to others, as would be expected.
I appreciate that accountants can lend insight to the budget process, but ultimately education policy is a matter for educators, and I have confidence in the administration. They produce. The right is always whining about test scores as if test scores were simply a matter of administrative will. Test scores are down because of the achievement gap, and the achievement gap is a complex, long-term, resource-intensive project; it requires quality teachers, and quality teachers cost money. There is no way around this.
Anyway, it's clear you'd be a popular candidate for this role; good luck!
Well, not being an accountant I’ll let what reads like a snarky comment go by. And by the way, I disagree vehemently that “it’s up to … the administration … to determine whether they would like to engage a Citizens Advisory Commission.” No, it’s up to us through our elected representatives to do that. The Administration takes its lead from us, not the other way around. Sometimes I think that there are some on “our side” who forget that.
As I think you realize, I’m not talking about educational policy. While I have qualms with certain aspects of the policies and priorities that have been set (domain of the BoE) and the manner in which some of those elements have been executed (domain of the Administration), I don’t believe those to be appropriate topics for the group I’ve suggested. As a parent and a taxpayer what I want is the opportunity to express my opinion as to policy and priority formulation, perceive that opinion as considered and valued, and to demand that the resultant programming have a demonstrable positive return (be it test scores if relevant, or some other agreeable objective measure).
I’ve been pretty clear and consistent that maintaining educational excellence in the face of a rapidly evolving West Hartford demands that our schools be equally and continuously fluid in delivering dynamic and differentiated educational approaches that reach and engage ALL students. And I well agree - that is certainly not an inexpensive undertaking.
What I want assurances on is that we are maximizing our availability of funds for the core mission - education - and not on overhead. And I’m simply not assured of that right now.
John,
While I am certainly the snarky type, I was not being snarky wth my remark about accountants, and I wasn't referring to you specifically when I mentioned them. I don't know what your profession is, to be honest; I even wondered after I posted if you were not yourself an educator at some point. I apologize if I offended you.
I did say that it would be up to the BOARD OF ED and the admin to determine whether they want to engage such a commission. How would you do this without their consent?
You seem to think I'm being disingenuous, but that's not the case. I may have expressed myself badly. "I’m not talking about educational policy" and "all I want is the opportunity to express my opinion as to policy and priority formulation" is a little confusing, but I certainly don't doubt your good faith, either about your position on the district's mission or your intentions as a citizen advisor. Again, there's a lot of room for misunderstanding on the internet, and that's what's happened here.
I do realize the administration is accountable to residents; my point was that they are professional educators, and they know their business. Again, I think taxpayer scrutiny is a good thing; I also think we elect the Board of Ed to problem-solve with the admin and perform oversight.
You said:
"What I want assurances on is that we are maximizing our availability of funds for the core mission - education - and not on overhead."
I think we all agree on that!
Mea culpa; let me clarify because obviously I muddied it up:
Establishing a “commission” (this is starting to sound like the Mafia) is up to the BoE. I think the Admin needs to do what the BoE tells them to do. I’m not for giving the Admin any option on this. The Admin are the “doers,” not the “deciders” (ugly George W. Bush flashback….).
I AM interested in ed policy and expressing my opinion about it as an individual. Again, my thought is that “the commission” would review operational functions / financial elements – not the core educational policies and priorities that are the responsibility of the BoE. So the sentence you referenced probably ought to have read something like “I am not talking about educational policy in the context of a citizens’ committee.”
To be frank, other than Diane and to a certain extent Harry, I haven’t seen the BoE ask the hard questions or push for any analysis on the operational side. One of the members told me in the past that “this is all red-herring stuff.” Baloney!!! It’s frustrating to me when news about projected positive financial balances is met less with “how can we be more efficient” and more with “how can we keep from having to give this money back to the Town.” It happened again last night – not everyone, but that thought was out there.
Okay with your non-snarkiness; I retract that comment and apologize; it went where I have vowed not to go in my blog contributions (name-calling land). And since I’m spending my day writing this stuff instead of what I should be doing, I may not have a profession much longer anyway….
John,
No need to apologize. I often am snarky and anyway, that wasn't name-calling.
Thank you for the clarification. I do appreciate your frustration, and really, you should run for Board of Ed!
There's one issue that the WHTA, the anti-WHTA, the WHEA, seniors, parents, and the whole district could support: getting our fair share of ECS funds. If we got that money, our education budget problems would be solved.
Agreed, The WHTA has long maintained we need to get our proper share of ECS funding.
This has been one of the gripes about Fleischman, he seems more concerned with funds going to Hartford than to West Hartford.
When are the teachers going to feel the pain. Every other union in town is giving up there raise why cant the teachers. In the paper today public works gave up there 3.5% raise. If you ever got the truth from theBOE THey have more money than they know what to do with? Then we could have vacume leaf pick up
Post a Comment