I train for this meal all year.

Thumbnails above, full frames below the fold.  

These guys showed up in the spring – good thing for them we’re a duck family.

It really does not matter whether you are for or against ATV trails in State natural areas. Whether the trails are a good idea is not an issue, at least at this point.  The issue is whether ANR has the legal authority to set aside State natural areas for ATV trails and the answer to that question is – it does not.

The Douglas Administration, through the agency of natural resources (ANR), has drafted and is proposing administrative rules that will create ATV trails on state land. The legislative committee on administrative rules (LCAR), which reviews new agency rules, will consider whether to approve the ATV trail rules at a hearing this morning.

There is no legal basis for LCAR to approve the proposed rules because the administration’s rules violate state law. LCAR needs to tell the administration that there are ways Vermont can establish ATV trails. Unauthorized adminstrative rulemaking, however, is not a permitted avenue.

LCAR needs to explain to the Administration that they are welcome to come to the committees on Natural Resources and Government Operations where they can request legislation allowing ATV trails and legislation that authorizes ATV trail rulemaking. After ANR takes this required first step and if the legislature passes legislation that gives ANR rulemaking authority, including the parameters of that authority, then we can talk about what is the best way to implement any legally granted authority.  

Why LCAR cannot approve ANR’s natural areas & State land ATV trail rules after the click —

ANR has no authority to propose natural area/State land ATV trail rules.  The General Assembly has not granted powers to ANR that enable unelected agency officials to adopt rules designating ATV trails on State land or in natural areas.

The only legal avenue to establish ATV trails on state land, in natural areas or any area under ANR’s regulatory jurisdiction, is for the legislature to do the following:

1. Give ANR authority to engage in rulemaking (an “enabling” act); which

2. Authorizes the use of specific land for ATV trails; and

3. Sets guidelines for determining what land is eligible, the process for establishing, maintaining and/or closing trails; and

4. Establish a state policy for ANR to follow in drafting, proposing and implementing authorized rules.

Nothing may legally happen until the General Assembly passes an enabling statute that authorizes ATV trails and authorizes ANR administrative rulemaking to establish ATV trails.

ANR’s actions are the result of the administration’s attempt to exploit an inartfully drafted prohibition against ATV riding in natural areas. The administration is contorting a statutory prohibition against ATV use into a grant of rulemaking authority that gives trail granting authority and creates a state policy/program that does not exist anywhere in the laws governing ANR. It does not exist anywhere in Vermont law for that matter.

ANR bases its proposed ATV natural area trail designation authority on a motor vehicle statute. 31 V.S.A. §3506(b) which says:

“An all-terrain vehicle may not be operated: . . .(4) On any public land, body of public water or natural area established under the provisions of section 2607 of Title 10 unless the secretary has designated the area for use by all-terrain vehicles pursuant to rules promulgated under provisions of 3 V.S.A. chapter 25.” (emphasis added).

Section 3506 is an overall prohibition against riding an ATV by certain people (kids, people who are intoxicated etc.) and a general prohibition against riding in certain places (natural areas, public roads, private property etc.).  This prohibition is in the Title containing Vermont’s motor vehicle statutes. It is not a grant of authority to ANR to make rules. Rather, it is a prohibition against riding ATV in certain places also recognizing that the prohibition might not apply if the Secretary of ANR does something in the future. It does not, however, authorize the Secretary to do anything. That is an entirely different subject and one the General Assembly has yet to address.

The first obvious problem with ANR’s approach is that the statute (§3506) references a potential loophole to ATV riding in natural areas but nowhere else in the statutes is there authority to adopt rules that will allow this loophole to come into play. Whether to let ATVs enter State natural areas was left for future legislation by the committees of jurisdiction (Natural Resources/Government Operations). Neither of these committees have written, nor has the General Assembly passed, legislation that gives ANR the authority to exploit this potential loophole. The legislature can remedy this situation by granting ANR this particular rulemaking authority if the Legislature so chooses. The administration cannot “remedy” the situation by just taking authority it does not have.  

The second obvious problem is this — Even if a statute that expressly prohibits an activity (ATV riding in natural areas) was actually intended to grant authority to allow it (which is ridiculous and which is NOT what it does), the statute directly contradicts itself and State policy if you read it the way ANR does.  The statute says “no ATV trails in natural areas.” Straightforward enough, right?  ANR’s reading of the statute is: “No ATV riding in natural areas unless ANR says it’s OK and with no guidelines or oversight.” This is also crazy.  A “natural area” is specifically defined under Vermont law as:

limited areas of land which have retained their wilderness character, although not necessarily completely natural and undisturbed, or have rare or vanishing species of plant or animal life or similar features of interest which are worthy of preservation for the use of present and future residents of the state and may include unique ecological, geological, scenic and contemplative recreational areas on state lands.

Land uses and practices in natural areas shall be subject to regulations . . . to manage or maintain the areas for the preservation of their natural condition.

ANR is suggesting that a section of the motor vehicle’s Title of the Vermont Statutes, which does not authorize rulemaking authority for ANR, is in fact a statutory enabling act that allows ATV trails in areas that are under ANR’s jurisdiction; and ANR is arguing that it has authority to unilaterally allow ATVs onto land that the legislature has already determined must be “managed for the preservation of their natural condition” because of its “unique ecological” value.

When LCAR reviews ANR’s proposed new rules, it does not approve or withhold approval based on whether they agree with ANR’s rules. Rather, LCAR’s review is limited to whether ANR’s proposed rules properly implement a statute, passed by the General Assembly, that authorizes rulemaking and permits ATV trails in natural areas. This review is controlled by the Administrative Procedure Act and 3 V.S.A. §842. The legislative committee will review whether ANR’s new rule (1) is beyond the authority of the agency;  (2) is contrary to the intent of the legislature; or whether (3) the proposed rule is arbitrary.

The ATV natural area trail rule fails all three tests.  There is NO authority to begin with so they have already exceeded the legal bounds of what ANR can do. It is not only contrary to the intent of the legislature, the legislature has not even set forth a policy for ANR to follow. The proposed rule is arbitrary because there are no guidelines or parameters for ANR to follow which they obviously didn’t.

—

Examples

Examples of ANR enabling legislation and ANR rulemaking authority in Title 10  (conservation and development), read like this:

Section 5402. Endangered and threatened species lists.

(a) The secretary [of ANR] shall adopt by rule a state-endangered species list and a state-threatened species list. The listing for any species may apply to the whole state or to any part of the state and shall identify the species by its most recently accepted genus and species names and, if available, the common name.

(b) The secretary shall determine a species to be endangered if it normally occurs in the state and its continued existence as wildlife or a wild plant in the state is in jeopardy.

(c) The secretary shall determine a species to be threatened if its numbers are significantly declining because of loss of habitat or human disturbance and unless protected will become an endangered species.

(d) In determining whether a species is endangered or threatened, the secretary shall consider:

(1) the present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of the range or habitat of the species;

(2) over-utilization of the species for commercial, sporting, scientific, educational or other purposes;

(3) disease or predation affecting the species;

(4) the adequacy of existing regulation;

(5) actions relating to the species carried out or about to be carried out by any governmental agency or any other person who may affect the species; and

(6) other natural or man-made factors affecting the continued existence of the species.

(e) In determining whether a species is endangered or threatened, the secretary shall:

(1) use the best scientific, commercial and other data available;

(2) consult with interested state or federal agencies, other states having a common interest in the species, and any interested persons; and

(3) notify the governor of any state contiguous to Vermont in which the species affected is known to occur.

Notice all the detail.  

First, the legislature authorizes rulemaking. Next, the legislature lays out the requirements needed for ANR’s to write and propose new rules. Then the legislature defines concrete parameters of regulatory oversight that must be part of an overall, and objectively predictable, rulemaking formula.  To do this, the Legislature gives specific instructions that the rules must address such as: (a) what goes into the list of species determined by administrative rules, (b) who must be consulted, (c) what must be considered, (d) multiple factors to be included in regulatory determinations, and (e) notification requirements.  

“The secretary may adopt rules” or “The secretary shall adopt rules.”  That is what rulemaking authority looks like. I have never seen a legislative grant of rulemaking authority that reads: “An all-terrain vehicle may not be operated in a natural area established under the provisions of section 2607 of Title 10.”

If ANR wants authority to create ATV trails, it needs to go to the General Assembly, respect the democratic process, respect the rule of law applicable to all of us and ask for statutory authorization. ANR’s power grab, and illegal claim of State land and natural area authority, is a farce.

This year I carved a smiley face. It took a lot less time to do, but you can imagine how boring the picture is. This was from two Halloween’s ago.

The kids haven’t decided what they are going to wear tonight running house-to-house, street-to-street, as they go trick or treating.  The top two choices are “The invisible Person,” which is a black sheet covering the entire body with black shoes and a black candy bag and the trick is to only visit neighborhoods with no street lights; or “Space Man” which involves wearing clear plastic laundry bags as a space suit.

I was thinking about dressing up as Entergy/Vermont Yankee. All I need to do is wear torn clothes, shoes with holes in them and spill whatever it is that people give me.  

What are you doing?

The secretly drafted all terrain vehicle give-a-way of state land is a product of the Douglas administration.  To be fair to ANR, a besieged and imperfect agency just like all the rest, this problem is being forced on them and ANR is being forced to dump it on us.  

While Vermonters are hearing vaffanculo loud and clear, the message is coming from Jim Douglas’s posse and not the ANR bureaucracy.  From the beginning, this has been a political decision  shepherded by Jim Douglas’s personally selected Agency of Natural Resources Secretary Jonathan Wood. There has been no policy consideration in normal sense of the process as the Douglas administration hides behind ANR’s skirt while pulling Jonathan Wood’s strings.

Regardless of how you feel about the proposed new State land give-a-way for motorized vehicles, understand how we came to this point. The people at ANR did not spend the winter drafting these rules and waiting for the legislature to adjourn before pulling the trigger this controversy. These proposed rules were quietly drafted within a tight circle of people who had the Governor’s knowing, direct & express blessing to pull this stunt. The Governor’s team also – and deliberately – waited until just a few clicks of the lights AFTER the General Assembly adjourned in May before it announced this turkey publicly. The secrecy and timing was no accident, and it was not how a state agency works with interested parties in developing a rule prior to proposing it. The ATV rulemaking process continues to be 99% calculated politics and barely 1% off-the-cuff agency policy deliberation and rulemaking.  The process has been, and is, a joke.  

We have witnessed nothing but window dressing. Purported acts of procedural rulemaking process have covered for the failure of the Douglas administration to engage in actual policy. The ATV rules are nothing more than politically divisive acts, and the proposed new ATV rules represent an intentional failure to perform the responsibilities of government. The rulemaking process was outside of the public’s eye and done without the legislature’s knowledge or the knowledge of anyone who may have had an interest other than the crony constituency that is receiving the hand-out. It amounts to another dereliction of duty by the Republicans who have been skating around Montpelier playing office for the past seven years while letting corporations, cronies and incompetents bleed the state of economic opportunities for sustained and healthy growth.

The ATV rules were proposed with Jim Douglas’s OK, they were revised and continued on his OK, and they will go forward on his OK as part of a Republican effort of division politics.  This is not about ANR, this is manipulation coming from and controlled by the Governor’s office by a politically divisive clique that, among them, could not find first gear on an ATV with a hand clutch up their ass.

First: Go read Mathew Brauer’s post.

Second: “Net Neutrality” — a quick primer.  

ISPs (internet service providers), e.g., cable companies, AOL or any service that provides your internet access (Comcast, Verizon etc.) can control how data from websites goes through their network and can allow it go faster or force some sites to load at an extremely slow pace. As it currently stands, the cable companies/large telecomms, ISPs, are required – and they DON’T like it – to let data travel through their networks at the same rate of speed regardless of whether it is a website that generates more money for the ISP and regardless of whether the ISP wants people to have access to the information a particular website publishes. If Congress and the FCC do not protect Net Neutrality, consumers will likely find that ISPs will speed up websites that benefit them and slow down websites that they do not like for financial/content reasons. Some sites could be blocked or just be useless due to the consumer’s inablity to have the site load.

There is no good explanation for Congressman Welch signing a letter with 71 anti-consumer members of congress who are advocating federally sanctioned corporate denial of access to information and resources available through the internet.

For a good introduction to the relatively basic consumer protection regulatory steps the FCC is trying to accomplish, I recommend reading Julius Genachowski’s statement, which is located on the White House website.  Mr. Grenachowski is the chairperson of the FCC.

In contrast to the sentiments inexplicably expressed in the letter signed by Congressman Welch, Mr. Genachowski explains his pro-consumer and pro-equal access to the internet position by sating that

The key to the Internet’s success has been its openness.

The Internet was designed to be “future-proof” – to support ideas, products, and services that today’s inventors have not yet imagined. In practice, it doesn’t favor or disfavor any particular content or application, but allows end users, content creators, and businesses of every size and in every sector of the economy to communicate and innovate without permission.

Notwithstanding its unparalleled record of success, today the free and open Internet faces emerging and substantial challenges.

We’ve already seen some clear examples of deviations from the Internet’s historic openness. We have witnessed certain broadband providers unilaterally block access to VoIP applications and implement technical measures that degrade the performance of peer-to-peer software distributing lawful content. We have even seen one service provider deny users access to political content.



And as many members of the Internet community and key Congressional leaders have noted, there are compelling reasons for concern about even greater challenges to openness in the future, including reduced choice in the Internet service provider marketplace and an increase in the amount of Internet traffic, which has fueled a corresponding need to manage networks sensibly.



The rise of serious challenges to the traditional operation of the Internet puts us at a crossroads. We could see technology used to shut doors to entrepreneurs instead of opening them. The spirit of innovation stifled. A full and free flow of information compromised.

[snip]

. . . I proposed that the FCC adopt two new rules to help achieve this.

The first says broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. The second says broadband providers must be transparent about their network management practices. . .

. . . I also proposed that the FCC formally enshrine the four pre-existing agency policies that say network operators cannot prevent users from accessing the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching non-harmful devices to the network.

It’s well worth reading his full statement here.

The proposed regulations that give Congressman Welch and the other co-signers “concern” and make him “suspicious” are, in fact, simple no-brainers. Net neutrality is a critical protection for all consumers.

To a degree, (and for some of us, that degree is close to 100%), we all rely on, and are at the mercy of, the large telecomm monopolies that our federal government helped to create. Congressman Welch and the FCC need to ensure that access to information is protected and that we are protected from the telecomm giants. ATT, Comcast, Verizon, etc. have made no secret of their interest in censoring information or making it harder/more expensive to access.

We already know that AT&T their ilk want to screw us.  The issue then is what the FCC can and will do to give us some measure of protection. Now is not the time to weaken policies that are in place and which need to be make into federal regulations.  

Only my keyboard, my need to be informed and my curiosity are appropriate arbitrators of the news, information and data resources that must be available to me. Whether I have that right should not be controlled by Comcast or Verizon.  It should be vigilantly protected by my elected representatives.  

The proposed regulations that give Congressman Welch and the other co-signers “concern” and make him “suspicious” are in fact no-brainers. Net neutrality is a critical protection for all consumers.  To a degree, and for some of us, that degree is close to 100%, we all rely and are at the mercy of the large telecomm monopolies that our federal government help create. Congressman Welch and the FCC need to ensure that access to information.  

When it comes to the monopolies governed by regulations that determine whether these monopolies control – and the extent to which they control – information flowing to us and from us, this is the bottom line: Only my keyboard, my need to be informed and my curiosity are appropriate arbitrators of the news, information and data resources that must be available to me. Whether I have that right should not be controlled by Comcast or Verizon.  It should be vigilantly protected by my elected representatives.

Is this what Congressman Welch meant to say?

A rather long quote from Senator Franken because, it’s all good!  

. . . this is about entrepreneurship and innovation. Great innovations only take place on an even playing field, where the little guys can go head-to-head with the big guys. If we change the rules of the game to benefit the big guys, innovation will suffer.

So the issue here isn’t only what might be blocked [without net neutrality regulations], but what might never be developed in the first place. . .

First, censorship. Take a look at Iran. In Iran, every Internet provider uses filters to control the Web sites and e-mails that users can access. They use a technology called “Deep Packet Inspection” to filter every e-mail, Facebook post and Tweet that anyone sends, and – in real time – block content that’s deemed objectionable.

You might say, “Well, that’s a terrible situation, but it’s happening in Iran, and we are not Iran.” No, we’re not Iran, but that isn’t stopping several companies from taking the same or similar technology for a test drive.

. . . [I]in 2007, Verizon refused to allow the pro-choice group NARAL to send text messages to its supporters – even though they had signed up to receive them. Verizon’s explanation was that it had the right to block “controversial or unsavory” messages. Like, for example, that a woman should have control of her reproductive system.

A second example: Comcast has used Deep Packet Inspection to block lawful peer-to-peer applications. . . during a live Webcast of a 2007 Pearl Jam concert, AT&T killed the audio for a few beats. Turns out the missing lyrics were critical of President Bush.

ISPs want to profit from a closed Net

Stifling openness on the Internet isn’t always about censorship. In the future, it could simply be a product of business at work – of ISPs turning a profit. The chief technology officer for BellSouth recently said, “I can buy a coach standby ticket or a first class ticket… I can get two-day air or six-day ground.” He asserted that the Internet should be the same way.

The CEO of Verizon made the same point when he said, “We need to make sure there is the right economic model… we need to pay for the pipe.” And one provider proposed a system where consumers could pay a cheap monthly rate for light Internet use, a higher fee for heavier use… but with an exception for people who accessed only the content created by that network provider.

That’s a business motive, but it has the effect of limiting speech, and as far as I’m concerned, free speech limited — or free speech delayed – is the same as free speech denied. Because the truth is that the Internet is the town hall of the 21st century.

In the 1997 decision Reno v. ACLU, Justice Stevens wrote:

   “Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer.”

I serve on the Judiciary Committee, and on my fourth day in the Senate – my first hearing on that committee – we were dealing with the nomination of Judge (now Justice) Sonia Sotomayor.

I asked her specifically about whether she thought the American public has a compelling First Amendment interest in ensuring the Internet stays open and accessible. And if I could paraphrase her answer, it was “yes.” As noisy and messy as it may be, the Internet is a democracy. And because of that, it is a critical part of our democracy. But without strong legislation prohibiting ISPs from regulating content, that may not always be the case.

Let me add that among the people who would be hurt the most are rural users, who, like many in my home state of Minnesota [& Vermont], often only have access to a single ISP. If that rural ISP decides to favor or cut special deals with big companies-or with the companies that ISP also owns – then rural users would only receive the viewpoints that the ISP favors. ISP profit margins should never come at the cost of a free and open Internet.

UPDATE: Mark Johnson reports that Dubie is running for Governor, and will make that announcement shortly has dribbled that announcement out via email, rather than making a public statement.

Last week, GMD asked its readers what Brian “Light Flight” Dubie would do this week.

Well, in few hours, he is going to announce that he is < < drum roll < > running for Governor.

For those of you are interested, this is the result of last week’s non-scientific what’s.on.your.mind poll, which GMD put up when we also reported that Light Flight would be announcing this week:

The totally non-scientific poll asked, in light of the pressure he was receiving from GOP leaders to run, whether Light Flight Dubie will —

33.33%   Succumb to the pressure to run



26.67%   Give an announcement speech that lacks enthusiasm



13.33%   Give Tom Salmon a bouquet of flowers and skip town (TIE)

13.3%    Keep the money and not run (TIE)

6.7%      Succumb to the pressure to NOT run (TIE)

6.7%      Bow out but look really relived while doing it (TIE)

So with various rationals, the vote came down 60-40 on the side of a gubernatorial run.  

Well, in a few hours, we’ll know for sure whether GOP leaders have talked Light Flight into running for, what will be for him, a classic Republican economy & Jim Douglas employment plan, i.e., a job requiring (1) significantly more hours of work that comes with (2) significantly less pay.  

Stay tuned.

How can we stay at 37, (or even work our way to 40!) . . .

. . . if we don’t even take care of the most vulnerable and deserving among us? You know we need to protect . . .

. . the health insurance executives.  

The rumor mill says Lt. Governor Brian Dubie will not run for Governor. I believe that is correct and I predict he will not run. While I don’t have any inside information, his public actions speak volumes.

What and why – after the flip. . .

In 2002, Peter Shumlin and Doug Racine both announced they were running for Governor.

Many Democrats who wanted to avoid a primary at all costs (as well as folks in Racine’s camp), convinced Peter Shumlin to run for Lt. Governor instead.  So Shumlin took-one-for-the-team, bowed out of the gubernatorial primary and ran for Lt. Governor rather than Governor.

Early in the 2002 campaign, Peter met with a group of potential supporters/donors/volunteers etc. He told us the following disarmingly candid statement, which is also a basic truism of Vermont politics although the majority of Lite Gov. candidates don’t seem to admit it.

Shumlin said:  “I hope you’ll support me. I also hope you’ll consider your support of me as an investment in a future Governor. Let’s be honest here, kids don’t grow up saying ‘I want to be Lt. Governor someday’ and neither did I. Don’t get me wrong, I want to be Lt. Governor, but if I’m elected, I will also be coming back to you because I want to be Governor at some point.  I want to use this campaign and my time as Lt. Governor to demonstrate the type of Governor I can be for you.”

Point well taken.

2009:  So what’s up with Lt. Governor Brian Dubie?

Over the past 30+ years, virtually every person who ran for Lt. Governor did so because they wanted to be Governor.

In fact, if you go back to 1974, when Brian Burns was elected to be Thomas P. Salmon Sr.’s Lt. Governor, every Lt. Governor DID, with varying degrees of success, run for Governor of Vermont (Brian Burns, Peter Smith, Madeleine Kunin, Howard Dean, Doug Racine).**

Where does that leave Brian Dubie?

Countless Vermont politicians have run for, coveted, or served as Lt. Governor for the sole purpose of positioning themselves to be the “Next Governor Of The State Of Vermont.”  

So Dubie is running, right?  No. Here’s why.

First, Brian Dubie has had since the summer of 2002 to think about being Governor and, at some level, the idea of being Governor has appeal to him. It has appeal to anyone who has the least bit of political ambition and has run a state-wide campaign.

But here are just a few of the considerations he’s mulling today. One, he can’t win and he knows it. Two, he can’t win and I suspect there is no shortage of people telling him just that. Three, if he truly wanted the job, he would have been geared up a nano-second after Jim Douglas announced he was being pushed stepping aside. Let’s face it, number one is a show-stopper and number three is as clear a look into his thinking as we can possibly have.

Brian Dubie’s public behavior has telegraphed far more than anything he has said on the subject. He is not running.

There are a lot of Republicans glued to their cell phones this beautiful Labor Day weekend.  Enjoy folks!

————————–

** The two notable exceptions are T.Gary Buckley who was eaten by his own in the ’78 GOP Lt. Gov. primary by Peter Smith and once again by a dozen or so other Republicans in a senate primary in 1980. The other exception is Barbara Snelling who served in the State Senate until health problems forced her to retire.

“For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.”

— Edward M. Kennedy

Four brothers died serving our country.

Ted Kennedy, like his three brothers before him, took public service to mean just that: serving his country.  

Ted Kennedy, like his three brothers before him, took public service to mean just that: serving his country.  

It hurts to say anything negative when posting a tribute (and I’ll probably delete this after the emotions ease), but the contrast with Ted Kennedy and his family’s public service and too many in public office today is startling. The health care debate, as just one example, is a Freak-Show. It is a sickening Freak-Show of elected officials using the opportunity of public service to enrich insurance companies, escalate the violence of class warfare and take health care even further out of reach of the average American.

I know the TV and radio will be filled with members of the Republican Caucus of the U.S. Senate paying tribute to their “dear” colleague. The pain of it will be unbearable. Each and every one — literally – each and everyone one of them has spent the entire session of congress committing class warfare. Each and every one of them has spent the entire session of congress – many of them their careers – committing class warfare against the people they represent while enriching fraudulent insurance companies and criminal banking enterprises and sending their sons and daughters to fight in wars of oil opportunity.

What kind of country have we become? Today, as we pay tribute, how can we look ourselves in the mirror and bear to acknowledge the contrast between what Ted Kennedy stood for and what the Republicans and corporatist Democrats in the U.S. Senate are standing against?

Like I said, it hurts too much to even talk about this in a tribute but to me, it sums up so much of what this man’s life has meant. It sums up so much of what he and his family sacrificed and why they did and why we need so many more like them.

Thank you Ted Kennedy.

Thank you brothers Joe, John and Bobby. Thank you sister Eunice.



Slán agus beannacht leat