Advertisement

Archive for Monday, November 23, 2009

$260 million in state budget cuts will lead to state employee furloughs, less funding for highway maintenance, schools

Schools, highways cut; furloughs expected

David Wetrich, foreground right, a sixth-grader at New York School, rehearses “Jingle Bells” with the school band Monday. Standing at back is band instructor Paul Morgenroth. Gov. Mark Parkinson cut public schools on Monday by $36 million, in addition to not funding the $156 million needed to compensate for increased school costs. Since last year, base state aid has been cut from $4,433 per pupil to $4,012 per pupil. “Some districts will be forced to lay off teachers and close schools,” Parkinson said.

David Wetrich, foreground right, a sixth-grader at New York School, rehearses “Jingle Bells” with the school band Monday. Standing at back is band instructor Paul Morgenroth. Gov. Mark Parkinson cut public schools on Monday by $36 million, in addition to not funding the $156 million needed to compensate for increased school costs. Since last year, base state aid has been cut from $4,433 per pupil to $4,012 per pupil. “Some districts will be forced to lay off teachers and close schools,” Parkinson said.

November 23, 2009

Advertisement

$260 million in state budget cuts will lead to state employee furloughs, less funding for highway maintenance, schools

Gov. Mark Parkinson on Monday announced another round of budget cuts that officials said will mean more state employee layoffs, unpaid furloughs, crowded classrooms and bigger holes in the social service safety net. Enlarge video

— Gov. Mark Parkinson on Monday announced another round of budget cuts that officials said will mean more state employee layoffs, unpaid furloughs, crowded classrooms and bigger holes in the social service safety net.

“The cuts we are making now are to basic services,” Parkinson said of his $259 million in budget adjustments.

Presiding over the worst revenue drop-off in state history, Parkinson apologized to the people who would be affected by the cuts, and urged Kansans who were doing well “to dig deep” and contribute to churches and charities.

Parkinson refused to say whether he would push for a tax increase in the 2010 legislative session, which starts in January. “We will analyze all our options,” he said.

Battle lines form

The cuts, which were made to balance the current fiscal year budget, represent the fifth round of reductions since the state fell into a deep recession.

This year, approximately $1 billion has been cut from what was once a $6 billion state budget.

The battle lines over the budget morass have clearly formed with one side urging consideration of a tax increase, or closing some current tax exemptions.

“We cannot overlook the nearly 100 tax cuts enacted by this Republican-controlled Legislature over the past decade in explaining how we got into this situation,” said House Democratic Leader Paul Davis of Lawrence.

But the anti-tax group, Americans for Prosperity of Kansas, applauded the budget cuts, and urged Parkinson to ignore calls for a tax increase, saying that would hurt Kansans as they try to survive the current economic difficulties.

Furloughs expected

Meanwhile, people who are affected by the cuts weren’t happy.

Jane Carter, executive director of the Kansas Organization of State Employees, said “state workers are bearing the brunt” of the budget cuts.

KU budget forum planned for Dec. 2

Kansas University will address the governor’s latest budget cuts in an upcoming budget forum for the KU community on Dec. 2.

The forum, scheduled for noon at Alderson Auditorium in the Kansas Union, will focus on the options, timelines and decision-making process regarding the most recent set of budget cuts, according to an e-mail distributed on campus from Danny Anderson, interim KU provost and executive vice chancellor.

Anderson wrote that more cuts could mean fewer course sections in the spring, along with the cancelation of plans to fill faculty and staff vacancies, upgrade technology, fix equipment or make maintenance repairs.

Whether additional layoffs are needed would depend on the size of the cuts to KU, Anderson wrote Monday.

The budget session will be streamed live on the KU Web site and will be broadcast to all campuses.

A 12-day furlough, she said, is equivalent to a 5 percent pay cut. While the demand for state services has increased, she said, the number of state employees to provide those services continues to fall.

Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Davis said furloughs are more likely in the judicial system because Parkinson is recommending only partial funding to fill an $8 million hole in the judiciary budget.

“What does this mean for you?” Davis said in a letter to judicial employees. “It is impossible to know for certain at this time, but this turn of events increases the likelihood of at least some period of involuntary unpaid leave,” he said.

Schools cut, lawsuit threatened

Both public schools and higher education were sliced back to 2006 levels, an important mark because going below that could jeopardize millions of dollars in federal stimulus funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Parkinson cut public schools on Monday by $36 million, in addition to not funding the $156 million needed to compensate for increased schools costs. Since last year, base state aid has been cut from $4,433 per pupil to $4,012 per pupil.

“Some districts will be forced to lay off teachers and close schools,” Parkinson said.

Nearly 70 school districts have joined a coalition that is considering a lawsuit against the state because officials have reneged on court-ordered school funding increases.

Parkinson urged the schools to be patient and not sue, although he conceded that the quality of public school education will decrease under the cuts.

Higher education hurting

In addition, Parkinson cut higher education by $2 million, bringing this year’s cuts to $106 million or 13 percent.

“The system has certainly shouldered its fair share of the state’s budget burden, and we’re now beyond the point where cuts are undermining the quality and quantity of the education our institutions are able to offer,” said Kansas Board of Regents Vice Chair Gary Sherrer.

Kansas University Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little said KU was relieved the cuts this time weren’t bigger — but added the overall reductions this year have damaged the school.

“Already, the University of Kansas has sustained significant cuts, leading to a reduction of 200 teaching and staff positions,” Gray-Little said.

“Those reductions translate into fewer course offerings for our students, larger classes and reduced enrollments in key areas such as nursing and engineering. We have also seen these budget reductions impact efforts to obtain National Cancer Institute designation, as we've had to scale back efforts to recruit top faculty and researchers who are vital to this and other important research programs,” she said.

Parkinson also cut Medicaid reimbursements to doctors by 10 percent, and pleaded with physicians to continue treating Medicaid patients. He also reduced highway maintenance funds by $50 million.

Other areas that were cut will mean more Kansans with disabilities will be waiting for home-based services, and a reduction in the supervision of released prisoners.

Parkinson’s plan also shifts $85.9 million in federal stimulus funds from the next fiscal year to current one, which will increase the budget hole next year.

Comments

gccs14r 5 years ago

Cutting services will mean a further eroding of the tax base as people flee to places that understand the value of education, healthcare, and infrastructure, leading to further cuts, which will lead to a bigger exodus, etc. Too many cycles of that and Kansas will go into freefall.

Wow21 5 years ago

Sorry Governor, your buddies in the Legislature and their tax cuts and refusal to raise taxes even a small amount to help revenue is hopefully going to get them sued. The Legislature agreed to fund schools in 2006 and now instead of stepping up and doing what's right you've chosen to exacerbate the problem with more cuts on the backs of state workers and school children. The only thing politicians understand are lawsuits and votes.

Teachers lose jobs, kids lose valuable education, state workers get laid off. How exactly does that stimulate the economy? These people aren't going to be out shopping while they're laid off. We're just screwing over the working class now and the future generations of Kansans so they can go out and tell constituents, "I never voted to raise your taxes once!"

I'm tired of Republicans (Yes, let's be honest this is a Republican mess) sacrificing school kids and working people so they can get re-elected. Get a clue! They don't care about you, they care about themselves and getting re-elected. Right now they're stomping on state workers and children, does anyone honestly think they'll stop there if it means the difference between re-election and losing?

Your pathetic pleas not to sue are falling on deaf ears Governor, nobody trusts the Legislature or any promise they make. These guys are in it for themselves and I hope they finally get what they deserve.

leedavid 5 years ago

WOW 21: Republicans?..... WOW! Well at least you didn't blame Bush. I'm a republican and I didn't have anything to do with it. Your a democrat and neither do you. How long has Parkinson been govenor again? What happened to he inherited this mess? Seems to work well for Obama. Why not Parkinson?

Wow21 5 years ago

I'm not a democrat, I'm a republican. I can just recognize the reality of the situation. Let me ask you, if the Republican controlled legislature isn't responsible for all of the tax cuts and tax exemptions, who is?

absolutelyridiculous 5 years ago

This is not a Republican OR a Democrat mess...this is OUR mess. So shut up, deal with it and let's work our way out of it. We are WAY past the finger pointing moment...

Mixolydian 5 years ago

Do any of you read the newspapers or watch the news?

There's a terrible NATION WIDE recession going on. Kansas' woes have nothing to do with tax cuts in years past. This is something every state is facing, including states with much higher tax burdens than Kansas and even states without state income taxes.

It's entirely possible (some would even say likely) that Kansas' budget woes would be much worse now if burdensome taxes hadn't been cut to spur growth and new business enterprise.

Steve Jacob 5 years ago

"reduction in the supervision of released prisoners"

We all know parolees need less and less supervision, ha ha. And I always thought a furlough was better then a pay cut for employees, because you will go back to regular time much faster then getting the 5% back.

leedavid 5 years ago

WOW let me ask you this....why is it the states that are taxed the most California, New Jersey, New York...are on the financial brink? We are in so much better shape than they are. So why would you want to tax people more? We have aweful unemployment, and no hope of new jobs, new companies moving in....what do you think would happen with more taxes? Less money to spend, jobs cut...lets get serious here.

Wow21 5 years ago

But weren't all the tax exemptions and tax cuts we've passed in the last decade or so to stimulate new jobs and new businesses? Where are those jobs and businesses? More importantly, where is the revenue they were alleged to generate?

I'm not a fan of unreasonable tax increases, no one is. My point is that we've given large tax exemptions and cut taxes without reducing spending. It's not a surprise we're in financial trouble. Anyone can tell you that spending more than you bring in is going to cause problems, much like the problem we're facing now. A modest sales tax increase along with reduction of sales tax exemptions which will generate necessary revenue is a lot better than giving out huge tax exemptions and hoping and wishing businesses would come because to date that has not worked.

geekin_topekan 5 years ago

Good thing we have a big shelter in the works. We're going to need it.

gccs14r 5 years ago

"Kansas' woes have nothing to do with tax cuts in years past."

The Bush tax cuts resulted in a reduction in aid to states, which is what started us on the path to reduced services. With rare exception, the red states had been riding on the backs of the blue states. Now we have to pay our own way, but we don't want to.

headdoctor 5 years ago

Wow21 (Anonymous) says… The only thing politicians understand are lawsuits and votes.


Umm, No. Politicians understand votes, power, and money for their selves. They could care less about lawsuits of this type. It is tax payer money that funds lawsuits and tax payer money that settles lawsuits. Most of the extra they might have to fork over as a tax payer was funded by tax payers and what they personally lose comes back to them 10 fold from the tax payers.

Jonathan Becker 5 years ago

State cuts to K-12 education will result in a lawsuit and the result will be the legislature loses. The stage is set for a showdown on 10th Street. The legislature will cut the court budget and the court will require the legislature to fund education. The odds on the legislature blinking first are 3-2, because the Court will order the KHP to round up the legislators and bring them back and hold them in session with stale bread and no Perrier, until they fund education.

Is this comment too cataclysmic?

gccs14r 5 years ago

We've had cuts, cuts, and more cuts, precipitated by ill-advised tax cuts.

notajayhawk 5 years ago

Wow21 (Anonymous) says…

"But weren't all the tax exemptions and tax cuts we've passed in the last decade or so to stimulate new jobs and new businesses? Where are those jobs and businesses? More importantly, where is the revenue they were alleged to generate?"

And, as leedavid asked, is the tax base growing in New York, California, New Jersey?

Here, let me help - Kansas has the 9th lowest unemployment rate, at 6.8% well below the national average. California has the fourth highest, at 12.5%. New Jersey is at 9.7%, New York at 9.0%. Yep, it sure looks like raising taxes is the way to go.

"My point is that we've given large tax exemptions and cut taxes without reducing spending."

And now they're cutting spending and what are you doing? B**ing about it! Seriously - is there ANY way to make you happy?


gccs14r (Anonymous) says…

"With rare exception, the red states had been riding on the backs of the blue states."

Say WHAT??!?!?!?!

Wow, gcc, I've seen you spout made-up, delusional partisan BS in the past, but WTF? You seriously believe that tax dollars are raised in places like New Jersey or Michigan and go to fund welfare programs in Kansas?!?!?!

gccs14r 5 years ago

Yes. I haven't seen recent figures, but that was true not very many years ago. The only red state that was a tax dollar exporter was Texas, and there was only one blue state that was a tax importer. This may have been before the BushCo tax cuts.

mdrndgtl 5 years ago

Invade Nebraska, steal education money...

Trilithon 5 years ago

State Workers are taking it in the behind for the State again, what else is new.

notajayhawk 5 years ago

gccs14r (Anonymous) says…

"Yes. I haven't seen recent figures, but that was true not very many years ago."

I was going to ask for some numbers, but after thinking about it, you are probably correct. My guess is that the blue states tend to have higher state and local taxes and also more industry to tax, while the red states, being more rural and having a lower population density, probably absorb more in highway taxes, even school aid. So while it seems counterintuitive at first, you're probably right. I stand corrected.

leedavid 5 years ago

Poor little kiddies suffer so in school because of the big bad republican tax cuts. Freestate has a world class swimming pool and a football field with an artifical surface that they play what, five games, six games on a year. Same thing over at Lawrence High, except they don't have a pool. If you don't get the drift, there was plenty of money, but how did we spend it? Now its time to pay for that.

Any explanation for why the democratic states are in financial ruin, yet they tax much more? How is there education doing? Oh about the same.

Hoots 5 years ago

Leedavid-Lawrence High had a pool when I went there in the 80's. I'm amazed at the things the High Schools have today. Pretty sweet I'd say.

As for the rest of this mess. What's so hard to understand about all this? We don't have the money and it's that simple. So why don't you folks go write a $10,000 check on an account that only has $2500 in it? When the economy suffers so does everyone. Broke is broke folks. Now where's that dang Money Tree? This issue belongs on the shoulders of both parties.

I just loved the fact the Senator from New Orleans got $300 million for her vote on health care. That would have covered our nut and then some.

TopJayhawk 5 years ago

I'm no Parkinson fan. But at least he is trying to lead. Something our former Gov. knew nothing about.
She never had a clue where to cut the budget, and always said: "It's not my job to cut the budget, it is the legistaltures job."

Brent Garner 5 years ago

Folks, the problem is the economy tanked. The economy tanked because banks made loans they shouldn't have because the Feds said they would buy up those loans--see Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Then those bad loans got bundled as securities and resold. Other organizations bought them because of the promised high interest rate the high risk securities offered. Result: toxic debt spread thoroughly throughout the entire economy, an artificial demand for new housing created, and the resultant bubble which finally burst. We are now dealing with the consequences. As a result we will build fewer highways, there will be an increase in the number of pupils per classroom. Neither of those are catastrophic. As for schools we are not going to go from 24 students per class to 36 students per class. We may end up somewhere around 28 students per class. Newsflash, when I was growing up it wasn't uncommon for us to have 30 students average per class and we all managed to learn to read, write, and do arithematic. Things I question whether the current crop of graduating seniors can do adequately.

saoirseglen 5 years ago

This is not a Democrat versus Republican issue nor a conservative versus liberal issue. This is an issue that affects everyone regardless of age, gender, socioeconomic level, or political affiliation.

Those who are unemployed may be less than desirable workers, at least some, but there are also good hard working people that simply received a lay off notice or had their employer go belly up. Either way, those people have limited funds to put toward living expenses. Taxing more does not help any of them out.

People with jobs in the private sector have to deal with trying to be as productive as possible with fewer resources and coworkers because the economy is not in the best condition. Taxing their employers more makes little sense as that increases their overhead and could also pass on the higher costs to customers or clients depending upon the type of business if not make a business cut employees. Taxing the employed more makes little sense when many are already overextended even if they aren't spending beyond their means.

Taxing people more gives people a signal that for certain things the more they purchase or use, the more they have to pay. That encourages people to spend less or use less. The less people spend the less money that goes to the private economy such as grocery stores, gas stations and other businesses. That feeds upstream and gives businesses the signal to cut expenses, generally by cutting employees.

Having the government receive higher taxes makes the entity believe they can continue to fund existing programs without thinking about efficiency or value per dollar. Unlike my family, the government can pull more money out of the hat, out of our pockets, when they run short. My family can not take money from another place to make up for shortfalls. My family has to budget. It is no different than any government entity. Somewhere, somehow, they have to begin living within their means.

Budget cuts generally are not desired by anyone, however, if that is what it takes to balance income with expenses that is what needs to be done. Taxing people more to keep the same level of government when the economy and taxpayers are already against the ropes is not a sustainable solution. If government entities cannot sustain their current expenditures with the funds available cuts will need to be made wherever they are needed.

I have friends that work for KDOT and Lawrence Public Schools. I don't want them to lose their jobs any more than I want my friends and family who work in private sector jobs to lose theirs. I don't want to have zero funding for infrastructure either. However, somewhere there must be a balance and priorities. With limited resources hard choices must be made. There is no way around it.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

"It's pretty simple, if you have more money in your pocket (Less taxes) you will spend it, thus help create or keep jobs from some guy in a factory"

These tax breaks are not about giving the average Joe more money in his pocket. These tax breaks are to the wealthiest among us, purportedly for the purpose of creating jobs in the businesses they invest in.

Creating jobs requires expenditures for equipment and facilities and for wages, salaries and benefits. All of those are deductible. But that isn't enough for Chambers of Commerce. They want a double set deductions. They want deductions up front on the promise of creating jobs, and then further deductions for making investments theoretically leading to job creation, whether or not jobs are ever actually created.

Groups like Americans for Prosperity of Kansas want accountability for government (actually, what they want is to starve government with their self-fulfilling prophesies) but they don't want accountability for businesses.

boltzmann 5 years ago

gccs14r (Anonymous) says…

“Yes. I haven't seen recent figures, but that was true not very many years ago.”

The relevant numbers for Federal Taxes Paid versus Federal Spending by state from 1981 to 2005 can be found here

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html

KSManimal 5 years ago

"Newsflash, when I was growing up it wasn't uncommon for us to have 30 students average per class and we all managed to learn to read, write, and do arithematic."

But, apparently, not spelling......... :)

newmedia 5 years ago

Most of private industry has done for years whatever it takes to remain viable. Pay cuts, layoffs, freezes on hiring. Ironically, it's usually not a crisis unless it happens to government. Hope and Change.

gogoplata 5 years ago

Lets just get rid of public education.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

"Lets just get rid of public education."

Good idea-- and then all we need to do is read a Charles Dickens novel to find out how to structure the rest of society and the economy.

yourworstnightmare 5 years ago

This is all about Grover Norquist's parable about making government small enough that you can drown it in the bath tub.

These nihilists have only been waiting for a recession for their plan to succeed.

These are greedy, selfish folk who care not for education or a secular society. They see non-religious public education as brainwashing.

Sounds like the Taliban to me.

trinity 5 years ago

according to the memo sent to judicial employees this morning-that lovely 12 day thing is in ADDITION to the already talked about/planned 6 week furlough. and what people need to realize-the very highest paid folks in this judicial system mess, the judges? they are NOT in line to suffer the pay cut. their courtrooms will be dark, they will not be working-but THEIR pay remains the same. as does retired judges, who pull in almost the entire amount that they made while still active on the bench.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

Sounds like you're looking for some illiterate drones to carry you around in your litter, dresden.

Sean Livingstone 5 years ago

Has anyone thought that this mess is really created by us? We all want lower tax. But we all want good facilities. We vote for those who give us lower tax, and then provide us good facilities. We don't want to pay politicians good money, so it's not easy to attract people like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates to give up their jobs and join the government. Well, we want to downsize government, or probably eliminate it. We only care about abortion, guns, choice, freedom. Our largest expenses are military and senior healthcare, where the Republicans only care about strengthening the military by cutting tax. I don't know how they can do it...

We all like populist presidents, and governors. Reagan ran us all into this mess, and we all voted for this stupid guy (sorry, he's dead, but he really knew nothing). We all don't like Al Gore, maybe he's not a nice guy, so we all voted for George Bush... that nice guy. We all abandoned Carter's investment in green technology, as we soon forgot how important they were during the oil crisis, and then got ourselves into another oil crisis again, while Brazil had already developed its own solutions by being persistent. Yeap, Carter looked like a disaster, but can you believe we're still using his idea today? Solar panel, recycling.... whatever! And we all voted for a Clinton to further weaken the government. And the Republicans blamed him for weakening the military? Well, do you need nuclear bomb to kill Al-Qaeda?

Giving that old man Reagan too much credit for pulling down the Berlin Wall, when Gorbachev didn't even hear him speak! Gorby was the one, not Reagan. Come on guys! Wake up, vote for a pragmatic president. Vote for a smart president, he/she may be boring, may not know how to talk. May look like a disaster, less insensitive. Carter lost because of the Iranian crisis. Remember that? And by trying to be a little more centrist.

Obama may lose the 2012 election, but if he lost, I can tell you... any Republican president will bring down this country further. Vote with common sense!

ralphralph 5 years ago

Great job by the State of Kansas: forcibly take over school funding, then fail to fund the schools. Swell.

HW 5 years ago

Boltzmann,

Thanks for the link. That is very insightful. Especially to see how much money is going to D.C. Talk about free loaders. For anybody that didn't see the link above, here it is again.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html

notajayhawk 5 years ago

livingstone (Anonymous) says…

"Has anyone thought that this mess is really created by us?"

Ding ding ding ding. We have a winner.

Can't agree with much else in your post, though.

kugrad 5 years ago

bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…

"Folks, the problem is the economy tanked. etc. etc."

No Brent, that is not the problem. This problem has been brewing for way to long to be the result of recent developements. The legislature wouldn't be in this pickle of their tax policy had been founded on sound fiscal policy instead of short-term political thinking. We have a legislature that doesn't value education that much A great number of the members, particularly in the house, never went to college (which I maintain is typically, though not always, a prerequisite for being a successful lawmaker in this day and age). As another poster pointed out, they cut taxes without reducing services, now they can't figure out why they are broke. Irresponsible fiscal policy and a lack of leadership coupled with a politically based agenda that places public schools as a low priority got us into this mess. The recent economic downturn has turned it from a mess to a crisis, but is not the cause of the problems we face now.

kitnkat 5 years ago

Thought: What if we made a law that no one could make more than, oh lets say, $2 million a year? So we take the excess of salary from the CEO's, sports, actors, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc. and put all that money into the economy. Then, we legalize oh I don't know, some of the more in demand drugs, start taxing the crap outta that (higher for those country's importing to here) and put that money into education. So what, by doing that we back in the black in 5 yrs?

MyName 5 years ago

What I don't understand is how many small government kool-aid drinkers are cheering this news on. I mean they are not talking about cutting taxes at all. The choices you are getting is alot less government for the same amount of money or slightly less government for more money (if they pass any kind of tax increase).

And it's not like this state is the destination for bright young people. Just ask yourself how many of the smartest people in your H.S. class are still living in Kansas? There is a reason for that, and alot of it has to do with a government that is run by a group of people that actually antagonize anyone with an education.

The other question we're going to have to ask ourselves is whether it's better to take a tax increase (which we can always cut later), or get in a situation where we lose alot of good people out of the government in favor of the old timers who have been there forever. That's what happens when you try and cut something that can't really get cut anymore.

gccs14r 5 years ago

"The other question we're going to have to ask ourselves is whether it's better to take a tax increase (which we can always cut later), or get in a situation where we lose alot of good people out of the government in favor of the old timers who have been there forever."

It's not just government employees, it's everyone else, too. Cut too many services, cut too many education programs, let the infrastructure crumble too much, and people who can will move to places that keep up on all of those things.

notajayhawk 5 years ago

MyName (Anonymous) says…

"What I don't understand is how many small government kool-aid drinkers are cheering this news on. I mean they are not talking about cutting taxes at all. The choices you are getting is alot less government for the same amount of money or slightly less government for more money (if they pass any kind of tax increase)."

Well, you're right. You don't understand.

You're correct they haven't cut taxes. They are, however, collecting a lot less - a lot less in income taxes, a lot less in business taxes, a lot less in sales taxes, because less people are working and less people are buying. What YOU are talking about is maintaining the same level of state services despite the lack of money by increasing taxes on the people that are still working. And you wonder why those folks might prefer less spending?


gccs14r (Anonymous) says…

"It's not just government employees, it's everyone else, too. Cut too many services, cut too many education programs, let the infrastructure crumble too much, and people who can will move to places that keep up on all of those things."

Whereas increasing taxes is a big draw for attracting new residents?

gccs14r 5 years ago

Depends on what the taxes purchase. A functioning society is a huge draw for people.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.