Travis County Commssioners Court
December 17, 2002
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Item 26
26. Consider and take appropriate action regarding requests for exception to commissioners court prohibition on the taking home of vehicles outside Travis County effective January 1, 2003, beginning with the following: a. Sheriff's office; b. Constable precinct 5; c. Constable precinct 3; d. Constable precinct 2; precinct 3 asked to being postponed. I think they have resolved their matter. But I guess a lot depends on what we do today. They may want it to being back on. D. Constable precinct 2; e. Fire marshal; f. Starflight; and. G. Health and human services.
>> all right. Sir, what we have attempted to do is to better define the issue for the court beginning with the judged of asking that law enforcement vehicles be exempted from their requirement and giving some specifics as to what that -- what that means. Giving a definition to that being patrol officers and supervisors, criminal investigations, special missions team, our swat, special operations, which are traffic people, canines, officers, narcotics intelligence offers, lake patrol, mental health unit, the stray officers, livestock, internal affairs, the courthouse command which essentially is one person because he's responsible for getting our -- our communications there, the public information open and an extremely limited command staff. What that results is in that we have essentially 245 take-home cars. 122 within the county, 123 are for outside. That leaves us with [inaudible] non-take home cars. What we are proposing is to remove 12 vehicles from the take home status, 8 of those being from corrections, two from training and one from the crime lab.
>> that leaves of total of how many take home, judge?
>> oh, well, I think the -- the 245 includes the 12. So it's 233, sir.
>> what was --
>> it was 8 for corrections, two from --
>> training.
>> thank you. And one from the crime lab?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> does your financial officer still have a take home vehicle.
>> no, ma'am.
>> thank you.
>> okay, those add up to 11, not 12. What are we missing?
>> that's not very good math, guys. Where is the -- we have a list here. Obviously we left one off. I think we left off the i.t.s. Vehicle.
>> it had already been changed, already been done on that. I apologize for that.
>> let me ask something that I chatted with the officers association about and some of the sheriff's administrators.
>> yes, sir.
>> since we last met. And in the December 9, 2002 memo, to the court, from sheriff frasier, she indicates what in her view the law enforcement people [inaudible] vehicles an united to be able to -- and need to be able to take them home.
>> [inaudible]
>> yes, sir.
>> ... Swat team, special operations, canine, narcotics, intelligence, we all got this memo.
>> yes, sir, the big thick one.
>> the full list there.
>> in addition, we talked about, there is some -- some disagreement over exactly how taking this vehicles out of the county serves Travis County. But it seems to me that more information would help. These officers by and large have logs. And it made sense to me when I chatted with them for us to try to capture certain information during the rest of this year. Now, ied in that's doable. I understand that's doable. That information would be basically if they maintain county employees, whatever maintenance they do, they just simply indicate the days they do it on. Now, I'm not looking for a full, detailed description of exactly what they did. If they washed their car, their car wash is fine. Something of that nature. On the way in respond to different emergencies or any sort of incidents that cause them to stop whatever they were doing, render assistance on the days that that happens, maybe one or two words that describes it, would that be helpful -- that would be helpful, also. The times that they are called in in response to whatever emergency the sheriff has. That would help. Basically we would be grandfathering in those who have cars right now with the understanding that they would try to capture this information. As to new-hires, we had talked about imposing a five-mile limit. To me the importance of that is if you hired on with the understanding as a deputy in law enforcement who would be given an automobile, you disclosed that you lived, you know, 12 miles away, so you came to work and perhaps it would have been unfair for us to change that at this time. But as to the future hires, if there was a five mile limit and that's disclosed to the applicant, then that's in place from the beginning. The other thing is a matter that came up yesterday, what about emergency situations. Say there's a day nine officer and that -- canine officer, that officer leaves, somebody says I will do this. Not everyone is agreeable, if that person lives outside this distance, then the sheriff would come to us basically, we woulded in. We would understand.
>> on a case-by-case basis judge in terms of those kinds of exceptions.
>> that's my understanding.
>> all right.
>> the other exceptions to this are the command post trailer. What was the rationale on that?
>> the command post trailer, that is -- that is what the courthouse command, in other words lieutenant page, he's responsible to -- for getting that vehicle on a call-out situation and maintaining that vehicle. Although he lives in the county. The question is whether or not he would have a vehicle period but he lives in the county.
>> we don't have to worry about him with the out of county stuff.
>> that's correct. He's not an out of county issue.
>> that's where we are. I think that it requires a little additional effort to -- to write down the information, if you are doing the log sheet already, it's easier than it would be if you were not doing one. But at least we would have the specific information. This enables us to grandfather in those who live outside five miles right now. And if we apply a five mile limit to those hired after -- after January 1, then it would put them on notice as to what the requirements are. The other thing is that if -- if we adopt something like this for the sheriff, then I expect the others with out of county vehicles to expect the same treatment. Now, all of this is against the back drop of -- of the assurance that these individuals need the county vehicle, need to take it out of county because that's where they reside. And if they are having the vehicles in their possession, out of county, it enables them to be more efficient. And what they are saying is that there's one thing if they leave to report to work at a certain place, it's another thing if they are on duty by the time they get to the county line. I canned in that when you get to the county line. I don't have -- I don't know that it makes any difference if you just drive additional mileage unnecessarily. Those are the ropes why I have kind of come around and said let's put this in place, see what information we captured between now appeared the end of the fiscal year. And the end of the fiscal year. Look toward the five mile limit. Relee on the manager's -- I defer to the manager's discreation. At some point you have to call is it necessary to have this car with you overnight, but if you reside within out of county or within the distance, the county ought to live with that because the county receives the benefits.
>> right. Now --
>> judge, I think that's a very reasonable compromise here. And I would hope that it would also be for all of the other departments, as you mentioned. In addition to at, the 11 vehicles plus one, the i.t.s. Vehicle, already been identified by the sheriff that really were -- didn't matter if it was in or out of county, it's really whether they ought to have a vehicle or not. I would hope whatever we do would also incorporate any other vehicles that ought to be pulled and reallocated, no matter whether it's in or out of county. It's whether you appropriately need to have that vehicle or not.
>> some of these were in, some of those were out.
>> yeah, yeah.
>> we didn't distinguish on that basis.
>> right. Just a question of appropriateness of vehicle. So I think it's a very reasonable compromise and again anecdotal information doesn't help. If we have these good logs I think this will help everybody make some good decisions in the future. That five mile limit for the new folks will capture a lot of folks anyway. There are a lot of folks because our county is split for reasons that are their own choose to live in Cedar Park and Leander, they are literally just barely over the line. That's a decision that they have -- they can make or not.
>> the five mile limit -- I guess the straightest road to the county line. Not necessarily as the crow flies, but as you would rife an automobile.
>> correct too that's -- as you would drive an automobile.
>> that's what we chatted about, right?
>> that's certainly an issue. It would be highly detrimental to create a situation where someone has to go outlet of their way -- out of their way, burn more fuel, so they get closer in driving distance when literally expanding the -- the size of the county by that five mile limit. Ability to plot residences rather than having to calculate or do a lot of forms to do that? That's certainly however the court wants to handle that.
>> is the mileage an issue from a monetary standpoint or is there just an arbitrary we don't want it to be more than 5 miles? I mean, is it -- is it more monetary? What -- or is it more --
>> monetary secondarily. Primarily I think it's --
>> in Travis County services?
>> okay. Travis County public purpose. Now I still have not admitted, I don't believe that you having a car 10 miles out of Travis County helps Travis County. I may believe it helps the other county. But when you get to the county line, I still believe that it helps Travis County. Law enforcement presence in Travis County helps deter crime in Travis County. So it's outside of the county line, that's a big -- that's the kicker for me. But on top of that, though, this is a new policy and there are people who came aboard with one understanding to whom we made a certain commitment, and I'm beginning to think that it's kind of unfair to change the policy on them and, you know, mid stream. At one point let's just grandfather and go back d spare -- they say okayse let's@ just shorten the distance because we had talked about it in court previously.
So for the compromise, my view is that once this is put to rest, we really ought to start working on reducing the number of county cars by a couple of hundred. I think we have 200 more than we need. I think if we start with those who absolutely must have a vehicle to perform their county duties, that's what they are for. And so you start to talk at the top, the clearest county purpose, work our way down, I'm thinking toward the bottom we will run out of real good reasons with about 200 cars left. I'm thinking those are the ones that we ought to concentrate on taking back. Let me add at the same time I don't have a set of specific facts I'm relying on. I'm kind of looking around, looking at the data that's being collected. You see what I'm saying? To a great extent, I know that some of that is probably flawed, but we have a whole lot of vehicles. And we spend a whole lot of money requiring them, maintaining them, gassing them.
>> > well, I think, you know, we will always have an issue with law enforcement being a different what I would consider a different reason to -- to look at it differently. And I -- I can condition your rationale -- I can understand your rationale with regards to there being a certain mileage beyond the county line. It kind of leads me into -- sheriff, I see that -- of the automobiles that are 32 32 bastrop, 24 hays, like 61 Williamson county which is probably, you know, without a doubt the largest, is there any sort of -- if you live, if you take your car to Williamson county, are you in the -- in the b -- a.p.d. Is what frank division, harry, whatever they are. If you work or live in Williamson county, are you most likely on the beat that's on the north side of town? Is there any sort of coordination, if you are bastrop, you don't have to work in western Travis County?
>> we try to as much as possible assign officers close to their homes. So with the Williamson county folks who -- usually be the northern part of the county, then the east and west part would depend on what part of Williamson county. If you are from the Leander area, it might be much more convenient to go to the west command where if you are over in the Round Rock area, it's kind of six of one, half dozen of another, might be east command. We try to assign people as close as possible. Although sometimes we will have -- we will have circumstances occur where because of somebody's specialty they will be -- they will be assigned to the west command and they live in bastrop county. We try to accommodate and put folks as close as possible to where they live.
>> okay. I notice that there are some people that have -- have a harley and an automobile. One name in particular, had a harley, flipped over, had a car.
>> that officer doesn't have both vehicles at home. It's an assignment basically for maintenance, for someone to be responsible for the maintenance of that vehicle. And -- and it just -- it appears when you look at the list, you will have a motor officer that had a motorcycle and a car. He only takes the motorcycle home. But he is held accountable and responsible to ensure the maintenance on that pooled vehicle for the motorcycle officer who is -- who is kept up.
>> they share a car so that inclement weather situations in which a car is needed.
>> okay.
>> yeah, because it's not like a patrolman that's on a motorcycle if it's raining he gets the day off.
>> no. [ laughter ]
>> they might very well go out on the motorcycle. I always call it the days when I go out and say you guys are crazy. They ride their bikes most of the time. Give them the right weather gear, but there are days when they can't ride them.
>> can you tell me, ied in the grandfathering aspect of this. Those persons that -- that -- policy, when he was at 1990 what? Take home vehicle policy.
>> that was before I got here.
>> how long ago did we initiate that policy.
>> it was before I got here. Somebody is going to have to help me out.
>> about 1988.
>> 88.
>> 1988.
>> okay. We still have persons that are still -- how many do we have now left with the county on the -- this particular policy, do we know that number?
>> I think quite frarpgly my answer would be all 238 because -- frankly my answer would be all 238 because they are very -- there are very few of the officers that have come in after the -- after the -- I guess September was when the courts said after January you don't get to take a car home out of county. To me those would be the only folks where you could argue that they didn't come in with an expectation that they would have that use of that vehicle.
>> well, I'm looking at the grandfathering aspect. And then I'm still looking at the out of county vehicles. I really do not really -- really want to -- support out of county vehicles being taken home by law enforcement unless they live in the county. [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> 123 out of the county. Out of Travis County.
>> yes, sir. And gone, you know, I asked last week about we have the east command center there and [inaudible] 24 hours a day. I still don't understand why it's not where you don't have vehicles that could be left there. I think some of those same questions really haven't been answered yet and I haven't seen any numbers suggesting that here we have vehicles out of the county; why can't we report just as a.p.d. Does as not having any vehicles taken home, but if there was a policy in place to allow a lot of these things to happen, of course that's another story. But I still haven't had an answer as far as cost effectiveness to see what is the most cost effective. For officers to -- and I guess, what did officers do for a.p.d.? Can anyone answer this question? Here they are coming to work. They have to go to a place where their vehicles are left housed. And wherever they reside, whether it's out of county or in county, they are coming to work to pick up a vehicle. And I'm quite sure there are things they say on the -- see on the way to work. How do they deal with that situation?
>> most times, sir, they can't --
>> do they have radios, anything like that?
>> no, they don't have radios with them. I mean they basically in situations -- and it would be a similar situation if debbie hemby, if he were driving home and he saw something, a.p.d. Has a similar policy if it's a light-threatening circumstance, under certain circumstances they can try to take action, but it's impossible to make a stop, we have a policy prohibiting it, to make a stop in your personal vehicle. Usually what you are left with is similar to any citizen and that is you take out your cell phone, assuming you have one, and you call 911. So that's what you do. So I mean I think there is a value and we have attempted to place a monetary value on the fact that from the point ofout of county officers, from the point where they reach the county line and are traveling before they actually go on duty, there is a value, I think, to the citizens of Travis County and proactive law enforcement presence. Not only in the situations where they actually stop and assist a motorist or realize that they have a potentially drunken driver in front of them and so they radio in and take the call, but just the fact that they are driving on the road, I would suggest any -- even members of the court if you leave here this afternoon, this evening and you are driving down the road and you see a law enforcememt officer, you slow down. Even if you are not speeding. Maybe Karen doesn't. [laughter] paragraphs paragraphs commissioner Sonleitner is looking kind of guilty here. But the general public lets off the gas and even if they realize, oh, my god, what am I doing that for, I'm not even speeding. And people drive less aggressively, you know, because of the presence of a law enforcememt officer.
>> but the presence of law enforcement, and I guess basically I'm looking at Travis County in its entirety with all of our law enforcement here. However, people choose to live where they want to live. But again I'm faced with the stion whereby folks -- the stion whereabouts -- situation folks are asking me the question, we're paying taxes just like everyone else is, why are their vehicles, our vehicles allowed to house themselves up there and not share Travis County. And, of course, if they are paying taxes, they are paying the bill, they ought to have a justifiable answer. And, of course, I think there can be ways we can look at this right now, and I really do, I think there's a better way we can do this than what we're doing now. And I know it is. I think we've got to work hard at it to [inaudible] for the taxpayers of Travis County to have to foot these bills. They have to pay these bills.
>> commissioner, I understand that and I think that quite frankly we have a disagreement between the two of us as to the value --
>> it's not a disagreement between you, it's a disagreement between the folks paying the bill. Some that live in Travis County.
>> I would be happy for any -- [multiple voices]
>> bastrop or hays county to disagree with the taxpayers of Travis County who are saying why are our vehicles up in another county. They are not complaining the ones they see in Travis County, somebody speeding, they see those, but they cannot understand why they are out of Travis County.
>> commissioner, first of all, I would tell them that there is a large group of people who commute to Travis County and the city of Austin to come to work every day, and while they may not necessarily pay property taxes, they certainly pay some sort of tax while they are here working during that work period, so they are contributing to the overall taxes. Now, it may not necessarily come directly to the county, but they are paying taxes and expect to receive some services. That commuting public obviously coming in from other counties, if we have officers who are traveling with those commuters will obviously slow down or the officers can take action at the county line as opposed to waiting until they are, you know, to downtown Austin or in the center part of the county to take action. A couple of other issues that I would like to clarify with you, sir, is that, one, you mentioned personal use. Our policy much like the constables mention add week ago strictly prohibits personal use of the county vehicle. If you are aware of any specific violations, we would be more than glad to hear them and investigate it and take appropriate corrective or disciplinary action. Lastly, in regards to a.p.d., A.p.d. Has a large contingent of take-home vehicles and a large number of those equal to or probably exceed our numbers leave the city of Austin and in fact travel well into other counties. So while a.p.d. Also has a large number that they park at their satellite offices primarily for the patrol officers, they also have a large number of vehicles that leave their city, and much for the same purposes that we have designated in our policy and what we have discussed with you all today and on previous occasions. So it's the not just a matter of everybody at a.p.d. Leaves their cars and everybody travels to the station to pick up their cars. They have a tremendous number of cars that are taken home and taken outside the city and well into other counties. So anyway, I just wanted to clarify those issues with you and provide you some response to your questions.
>> the county auditor brought up the i.r.s. Conformance situation as far as the situation that we have to deal with i.r.s. As far as it being maybe part of a compensation-type setting. It was a survey that was supposed to have come out. Has that basically been done? What have we done with that?
>> as far as I know --
>> I think [inaudible] can tell us if there are --
>> we've already started sending out the first set of letters regarding the taxability of a vehicle. I think 170 letters have already gone out. As soon as the court gets finished today, depending on what policy they set, we'll be sending out the remainder by the end of the week. So we have all the responses back. We're meeting with one more elected official later this week to clarify some of the questions help and other than that we'll be finished by the end of this week and those letters will be completed. So ...
>> charles, what value does that have? What do you predicate that on? Would you -- I mean, what do you consider that worth to, let's say, an officer in this regard? I mean, is that applied as a $4,000 contribution, compensation package or what?
>> I think for the vast majority of those that we have looked at, for those that will still be taxable, we'll be using the commuting method, which is the equivalent of three dollars per day, about $30 per pay period taxable value. That doesn't increase their base salary, but it increases the base value of their taxes. So their tax on an additional $30 -- they are tax odd an additional $30, but their base salary does not increase $30. That's what the vast majority of people would fall under would be taxable would be the commuting value.
>> commissioner Davis, let me see -- I understand what you are saying. I think the most important thing here, and if I were to be asked by my constituents why, gerald, would you be comfortable with these vehicles going out, to me it really is a compensation and a morale deal. I mean I do think it's great to have -- you are right, when somebody sees a law enforcememt officer, you bet she they clean their act up, unless they are crazy. And -- but that's the reason I asked initially was this part -- is there any part of the compensation looked at with regards to this vehicle. And that's what I would tell my constituents, listen, we're trying to keep the best law enforcement people that we can. We cannot get to where they really want us to be, which is in parity with a.p.d. That's always -- before I got elected, that's all I ever heard from Travis County is that they are not. But if you can tl people that, you know what, I mean, this is part of the compensation package, it keeps somebody from having to buy two cars. That's the reason I said is it $4,000. I think if you go out and buy an average $20,000 car, not that you can get an average $20,000 car anymore, but if you can and you amortize it, you got five grand so you got $400 a month. That's a pretty nice, you know, I think that that is a add-on or part of the package that I think most of the officers do look at and say, okay, I mean because you don't have to have a second car. That's the way I would try to defend that with my constituent, say, if you don't want us to have good law enforcement, we're having a hard enough time keeping them as it is because they are always being gone after with all of the other jurisdictions around, so I don't know whether that helps you or not, but that certainly is an argument I feel I can stand in front of people and say --
>> well, I don't want to -- I just want to make sure that everybody understands that we have a tough budget year, and I would like to hear folks come up here and tell us how we can save the taxpayers some money, especially with the -- [inaudible] right now and that's in any subject matter. And so that's basically where I'm coming from on this issue is I'm going to have to answer to the folks in my precinct who are actually my boss and look them straight in the eye and say, hey, of course i've been a strong supporter of public safety since i've been here. I'm not divorcing myself from that. If there's a better way to do it, I think we need to look for that. And that's what I'm asking you to do, to look for a better way to ensure that the taxpayers aren't bitten into any deeper than they are already being bitten into. So that's basically where I'm coming from. And I think there is a better way and I think we need to explore it.
>> let me try a motion. It has multiple parts. The first part would be for us to sanction the sheriff's current policy of up to 15 miles out of the county and grandfather in the law enforcement deputies listed on page 1 of her December 9, 2002, memo to the Travis County commissioners court. There's like one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11 categories. Which means that instead of focusing on certain individuals, we basically focus on the categories. That we ask those individuals to keep certain information for us between now and the end of the fiscal year. I have that information falling into four cat. What I should -- categories. I should try to get with mike and the sheriff and make sure we reach agreement with that and share it with the court. But basically it's maintenance responsibility that the deputy picks up that Travis County otherwise would pay for, time served by having to drive directly to work rather than to drive to a show-up location. Emergency call-ins. The car is readily available, which eliminates having to go to pick up a car at one location and then respond to the emergency. And the fourth category are sort of incidents that the deputy happens upon while doing -- while either on duty or off duty where the deputy is really in a position to stop and render assistance.
>> I second the motion, judge, but I would like to see if -- are you finished? There's one other little part that I think is key and that is after new hires, that we put in place a five-mile limit, which basically means the mileage limitation would be five miles out of the county measured by the employee's residence to the closest point driveable by vehicle at the county. Not as the crow flies, but as you would usually follow roads, I guess, and get there.
>> I second that.
>> and the only other part is there are exceptions that the sheriff thinks she can justify. Canine was one of the examples given. Swat team I think was also mentioned yesterday. Then we would -- they would be presented to us as exceptions and we would consider them.
>> okay. I second it. And judge, I know -- I noticed the monitoring, the reports that would be generated with the data collected on the different subject matter that you brought in. My concern is that the reporting phase -- when would they be brought in? Quarterly basis or go to the end of the fiscal year? It appears to me there ought to be some mechanism or monitoring in report periods whereby we would be able to look at this for what it is instead of waiting until the end of the year. We could maybe get something that is quarterly or -- how would that be done?
>> how are they done now?
>> well, I mean I would suggest probably a quarterly sort of report. First one being -- with the idea of start January through March with the report being generated, say, mid-april. That would give us a chance to essentially have two reports before next year's budget process begins in earnest.
>> could you -- is that -- friendly, as part of the amendment?
>> yes, sir. I appreciate that.
>> again, as I said, I think this is a good compromise, and I think we don't want to have [inaudible] why we have 15-mile radius to begin with, and that is it was totally about an issue of fairness. And we saw this in the sheriff's original report. Commissioner daugherty and I know this because of the way our precincts are and were and that is that this is not a nice neat square county. It is split. And because of that, you actually had a situation where people who live inside Travis County had a larger commute, a longer commute distance to their place of report than people who lived just on the other side of the county line. And this was dealing with fairness issue so everybody would be treated equally and I don't want that to be loss. And frankly, commissioner, -- it would cost us more money because if it's been out on -- if you've been out on patrol, there is a lot of time spent doing the maintenance, the car washes, the oil changes that they fit into their schedule and it's not coming out of our schedule in terms of their time as a deputy to street. I think it would be costing us more if we did not have this take-home vehicle policy.
>> any more discussion of that motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much. The sheriff did pull 10 vehicles from that list. Now I move that the other departments that we ask p.b.o. To get with them and apply these standards and let us know before the end of the calendar year how they shake out. I think it will be much easier now that we have kind of put a standard in place is what I'm thinking.
>> is that a motion, judge? If it's a motion, I second that.
>> that's my motion.
>> okay, well, I second that.
>> I think that will save us some time today.
>> right.
>> and once p.b.o. Fwhadz the standards are -- understands what the standards are, I think it would be easy to apply them. That includes picking up constable precinct 5 on whose request we ruled I guess it was two weeks ago --
>> actually ruled on 5, 3 and 2, judge. We turned down --
>> I know we did 2.
>> yeah.
>> I thought we did 3. Part of 3. Let's do that, can we?
>> similar issues.
>> I would be happy to show you the map. But I can take care of that with p.b.o. Too because --
>> if we do it with p.b.o., Maybe Margaret and I as part of the budget subcommittee can strub those, and if there's disagreement there, we'll bring them to court and let the court decide. But it will be much more straightforward than us having a full discussion in court. And I am sorry you all had to come down and waste time, but I think being in this hearing has probably helped you some too so you know where we're coming from. Does that make sense?
>> I just want to make sure I understand here that the other constables, we're going to apply the same standards, so those in a law enforcement capacity, there could be a -- would be a grandfathering and a new five-mile limit. That should take care of every one of the constable exceptions.
>> the other thing too was the ability to get to work a whole lot faster by having a car in your possession.
>> exactly, in terms of delivery of their paper. And again, to capture the information over the next year. I know bob is here for the next item as well, so ...
>> from what I was hearing, that means that basically most of the requests I heard would be granted.
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> judge, we did have one other sheriff item.
>> any reason we should not adopt this motion?
>> [inaudible].
>> count it a blessing. These standards ought to help you too.
>> [inaudible].
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Was there a second to that motion?
>> yeah, I seconded it
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM