Blatant Dishonesty in Bramble/Snowbird's Corroon Bashing

Rolly:

Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, said he is sponsoring a bill that would allow Sandy to annex Snowbird Ski resort away from the jurisdiction of Salt Lake County because of the mean and nasty taxes and fees imposed by that mean and nasty Democrat, Mayor Peter Corroon.

If Bramble lived in a community so poorly treated, he would look to the heroic Utah Legislature for help, too, the senator told The Salt Lake Tribune recently.

And Snowbird general manager Bob Bonar told The Tribune that its temptation to be rescued by Sandy has nothing to do with future development, or zoning issues, but the desire to be under "an efficient, cost-effective government for our area."

However, even though I dislike the public safety fees from the County, using them as a basis for leaving doesn't exactly hold melted snow:

Cities are permitted by the Legislature to impose a utility franchise tax on its residents. The unincorporated county is not permitted to do that. So by moving to Sandy, Snowbird would be saddled with a new tax that would be more than the new $120,000 law enforcement protection fee being imposed by Salt Lake County, which both Bonar and Bramble cited as a reason for the move.

So, why does Snowbird really want to leave the county?

Bramble's bill was filed three days after Bonar met with Salt Lake County Council members Randy Horiuchi and Joe Hatch in which he asked for their support for Snowbird's plans to build a chairlift linking Hidden Peak to American Fork Twin Peaks. Hatch told me the meeting was "truly bizarre."

The problem is that the planned lift would drop skiers off right next to White Fork Canyon, an environmentally sensitive piece of Forest Service land that is being considered for wilderness study area designation.

Hatch said when he and Horiuchi didn't commit to Bonar's request, Bonar was miffed. A few days before the Horiuchi/Hatch meeting, Bonar met with Corroon, who also failed to do back-flips over the proposal.

And if you are a developer and get turned down by Randy Horiuchi, your plan must really suck. Either that or that's one developer that failed to donate to Randy's campaign.

And, of course, because Bramble is involved, a certain lobbyist isn't far behind:

Lobbyist Paul Rogers lists both Snowbird and Sandy as his clients. Rogers and Bramble are known by Capitol Hill observers to be extremely tight, with their families having vacationed in Europe together.

From the Plaintiff's Attorneys in the Grag Hughes Case

I stole this from Utah Amicus, because I thought it needed to get out there. It shows several things, including the scam that is the entire ethics complaint process.

I have highlighted the most important parts.

By David Irvine and Alan Smith

We are the attorneys (registered Republicans) who recently were not allowed to put on our clients’ case for ethics violations against Rep. Greg Hughes before the House Ethics Committee. The public may not be aware that, under the House rules of procedure governing ethics hearings, neither the legislators who petition nor their attorneys who have prepared the case for them are given any rights of participation in the ethics process once a complaint is filed. Hence, the committee members, who have no background, information, or knowledge respecting the charges presented, and with no training as investigators or prosecutors, must figure out what evidence might bear upon those charges, determine how to gather and hear that evidence, and adjudge a respondent’s guilt or innocence. In Hughes’s case, moreover, the committee was forced to do all of this on impossibly short notice, secretly, and within an extremely compressed time-line.

Notwithstanding these procedural biases which favor the accused legislator, all 8 members of the ethics committee, Republicans and Democrats, found that Hughes was guilty of “conduct unbecoming a legislator.” This rebuke was seconded with an admonition to apologize for his wrongdoing.

As to the ethics charges themselves, the committee gave Hughes a pass, not because it found him innocent, but because, in the Committee’s view, the legislature’s current ethics standards were too vague to be applied.

Putting the question of ethics aside, and looking at the evidence of crimes, former Republican legislator, Susan Lawrence, testified credibly and forcibly that Hughes had offered her a bribe. This testimony was corroborated by two other Republican legislators, Sheryl Allen and Paul Ray. Many if not all of the key witnesses who testified respecting the misconduct of Hughes, namely, Lawrence, Allen, Ray, Kim Burningham, and Margaret Bird, are Republicans. What is more, our Republican Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff, has announced that a criminal docket might be opened to investigate the Lawrence bribery charge, and many believe that Hughes may be a co-conspirator in the Mark Walker bribery scandal and a subject of the grand jury proceeding recently instigated by two county attorneys, one a Republican, the other a Democrat. In the face of so much inculpation by fellow party members, it is no wonder that the Republican chair of the ethics Committee, Todd Kiser, closed the hearing by stating that he had seen exhibited, through days of evidence, a very “unstatesmanlike” exercise of enormous power by Hughes.

In addition to these adverse judgments by his Republican peers, the Democratic half of the committee membership found that there was clear and convincing evidence that Hughes was guilty of one count of bribery and two counts of extortion. On another charge, that Hughes had misused taxpayer monies, exercised undue influence with a government agency, and subverted the legislatively prescribed neutrality of that agency in a state-wide election, the Committee voted to absolve Hughes only because his Republican colleague, Senator Curtis Bramble, took the fall for him. Bramble testified that, although Hughes was in charge of the political organization which had perpetrated these wrongs, it was not Hughes, but Bramble, who had acted directly in relation to the agency involved. In other words, even though Hughes knew of the wrongdoing and was in a position to stop if not prevent it, he escaped conviction since he merely stood by, did nothing, and watched while Senator Bramble engaged in malfeasance on Hughes’s behalf. So much for “moral leadership.” (Indeed, the Republican leadership at the state legislature, notwithstanding some recent “noise” that they have “got religion” on ethics, isn’t rushing to bring charges against Bramble — even though, while “falling on his sword” for Hughes at the ethics hearing, Bramble virtually admitted to conduct that is criminal, and, since then, has bragged on a talk radio program that he would repeat that conduct if occasion arises).

Hughes now claims that he was vindicated by the committee’s judgment that he engaged in conduct unbecoming a legislator. This claim could be Hughes showing off his mastery of overstatement. But it more likely reveals, once again, that his moral compass has a hard time finding true north. He stubbornly refuses to take responsibility for his own misconduct, blaming those who merely report his wrongdoing. He is willfully blind to the constitutional requirement that those who run for office must remain accountable to the body politic. Hughes is so far from these qualities of responsibility and accountability that, upon hearing that the ethics complaint had been filed, he went to the state capitol to “get a piece of” and “punch out” one of the legislators who had filed it. The Highway Patrol was called to prevent Hughes from physically harming a fellow legislator.

Under the present ethics procedures at the state capitol, a legislator may not be found guilty of misconduct unless there is “clear and convincing” evidence that he has been unethical. For the Republicans on the committee, that would seem to require a videotape of Hughes handing over a bag of cash to someone. But this is not the traditional standard by which those who are given power to be exercised in trust for the benefit of others have been or ought to be judged. Under this time-tested, yes, conservative standard, all fiduciaries, including legislators, once accused, have the burden of persuasion to show that their conduct has been proper, that their actions are above reproach and beyond suspicion. The public, in other words, should not have to worry, wonder, or debate whether their representative has been above-board in his dealings – since this would never occur, after all, if that representative had avoided even the appearance of impropriety. We respectfully submit that Rep. Hughes, in his dealings, has not come within a country mile of meeting this standard. Indeed, the only thing “clear and convincing” about the Hughes case is that he was convicted, by a unanimous, bi-partisan vote, of conduct unbecoming a member of the people’s House. That finding is a vote of “no confidence,” and certainly is no “exoneration.” The public should echo this vote on Nov. 4th by replacing him.

Bramble Being Bramble

This speaks to a larger issue that I'm going to talk about later, but I held off getting this out yesterday, and then Paul Rolly hit it today.

First, these two posts from Senate District 16 Democratic Senate Candidate RaDene Hatfield:

The following is the text of an email I sent out early on Friday Oct. 17th:

Dear Friends,

I have just returned home from my local gym. On the way I saw that many of my opponent’s signs in our neighborhood had been vandalized. An expensive banner hanging on his fence was slashed and removed. Signs were taken off their stakes. Another was spray painted.

This action makes me sick. This type of vandalism should not be tolerated in our community. Please, on behalf of the Committee to Elect RaDene, spread the word: political sign vandalism is demeaning and unbecoming of our Provo Community. It violates the Christian principles of honesty, respect of property, and kindness.

If you know anyone who was involved in this activity, please ask them to do what is right: restore what they have damaged, and apologize.

Sincerely,

RaDene

OK, this first one makes a lot of sense. Nobody wants their campaign signs damaged, so you call on your supporters to stop doing it to your opponent's signs. It's called being the adult.

Now, this next one, posted Monday afternoon comes off a little more cryptically:

I know, you probably don’t believe that it is possible to run a clean political campaign, but I do. And if it can be done anywhere - it ought to be in Provo! It’s simple. All you have to do is follow some very basic ‘Sunday School Rules’:

1) Be kind and respectful to those you are running against (be slow to judge)

2) Follow the Golden Rule (do to them as you would want them to do to you)

3) Respect personal property (do not steal or damage signs, banners, or brochures)

4) If you disagree with your opponent - reach out to them first. Do not write anonymous notes, threaten legal action, or gossip.

5) If you do something wrong, apologize.

Sounds simple doesn’t it? Sadly in this day and age we’ve become obsessed with ‘being right’ instead of ‘doing right’. Still, just think how much more productive our campaign season would be if we could really focus on the issues that face our community and put our time and collective knowledge to work on finding solutions instead of wasting our time on dirty politics.

That’s what I am trying to do.

When I read this, I knew something was up. But what?

Then came this post from UTGOP.net, sent from Mrs Hatfield's Husband Harlan to Senate Majority Leader Curt "Check" Bramble:

20 October 2008

Dear Mr. Bramble: I was deeply disturbed to learn that you and several members of your campaign team approached RaDene while she was campaigning alone on State Street and 800 South in Provo on Saturday. It was completely inappropriate for you to speak harshly to her and persist when she told you the conversation was over.

RaDene is basing her campaign on the idea that respectful communication is necessary for the good of our community. But for good reason, in contested elections, like in litigation, the parties involved keep a respectful distance. It is too easy, as was the case for RaDene on Saturday, for one party to feel threatened. Your aggressive and vague accusations while she was alone, away from her car and supporters, but while you were surrounded by yours, would be unsettling to anyone in her position. Please do not approach RaDene again while she is alone during this campaign.

The truth is that both campaigns have suffered from sign vandalism, threatening anonymous messages, and other practices that are regrettable. One of our workers reported observing Saturday three persons wearing your campaign shirts removing literature from houses our workers had visited but where no one was home. We have instructed our campaign workers to not disturb any other campaign literature they come across, and trust you will do the same. However, we do believe that much of the improper behavior comes from third parties—perhaps unthinking teenagers or disgruntled residents that do not know better how to express themselves.

Meanwhile, we expect you to conduct a campaign free of intimidation and other behavior unbecoming a trustee of the public’s welfare, including the wellbeing of the election process. We will do the same.

To help hold both our campaigns to this standard, we are sending this letter to the press.

Sincerely,

Harlan M. Hatfield

I stand with Urquhart -- the Dnews needs to release their tapes

I think Representative Steve Urquhart is right -- the Deseret News needs to release the recording of their editorial board meeting last Monday with Senator Bramble. The reason this needs to happen is that there is a discrepancy between what the Republicans say Bramble said and what the DNews reported.

Why am I standing with Steve on this?

Because at worst, it shows just how bad their political reporting is. At best, it shows what liars and crybabies Republicans are.

Either way, I win.

-Bob

Des News late to the Pizza Girl Party

So, I hopped on the net, and saw this at the top of the Deseret News Home Page:

'No check' policy at pizza place draws ire of Senate leader

By Josh Loftin and Leigh Dethman
Deseret News
Published: Friday, Aug. 22, 2008 12:47 p.m. MDT

Really, it took two people to write a story that we had on the blogs 72 hours ago?

What's next? Mitt Romney -- Utah's choice for VP.
Oh wait, you ran that story. About a billion times.

Thank you redundancy writiers.

-Bob

Pizza Girl's Reconcilliation/smackdown of Senator Bramble

She's ba-ack!

"Dear Senator Bramble,

"I am sorry if my blog about my recent experience with you caused you a headache. In my naivete, I thought that, since I am not a public figure, no one would notice anything I said on my blog or elsewhere. Clearly, I neglected to consider the possible ramifications of what I thought was the innocent telling of an interesting story to my friends and family. I guess I no longer deserve your praise for handling the situation professionally.

"I do not excuse my actions, but I do not excuse yours either. I say this not as a pizza delivery girl who was intimidated and offended, but as the daughter of a man much like yourself. Too many times, I have been embarrassed to stand behind my father while he aggressively berated someone as you did last Monday evening. My father is a literal genius and internationally respected in his field. He is a powerful man and uses his power to do a lot of good. I imagine you are similarly intelligent, well intentioned, and influential for good. However, there are better ways to express frustration and displeasure than to rant and belittle others. There are better ways to get what you want than to wave your accomplishments and titles in front of others. Some people respond only to aggression, and I say be aggressive with them. Aggression has its place, but generally assertiveness is as effective and avoids alienating, offending, or degrading others. My boss might well have accepted your check after a calm, rational discussion. Unfortunately, because of your rudeness, my manager and I were upset, and I was uncomfortable, to say the least. Shame on you, Senator.

"Shame on me for my mistake. I think we would both be happier if we had acted differently.

"Sincerely,
The Pizza Girl

If we find out where this pizza place is, I head down and buy a bunch of pizzas from them!

-Bob

Real Campaign FInance Reform

This is an initiative that I have thought about for several years. That it comes from the opponent of the person who argues with the pizza girl, this makes it even better. From RaDene for Senate:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2008

PROVO—RaDene Hatfield, candidate for State Senate, announced today a campaign policy that promotes transparency and accountability in the financing of her District 16 race, and challenged her opponent Curt Bramble to do the same

The policy, as described on Hatfield’s website stipulates that the campaign will not accept contributions from any organization not headquartered in Utah. It also specifies that her campaign will update monthly on www.RaDene.com the names and policy interests of contributors who give $50 or more to the campaign.

“The realities of our political system require candidates to raise a lot of money from many different sources,” Hatfield said. “But that doesn't mean it has to be done obscurely or from organizations with interests and agendas dissimilar from Utah citizens. I want to send a message to Utahns that I will be accountable only to them.”

The campaign sent a letter to Bramble on Monday, inviting him to follow the same policy as the Hatfield campaign. If adopted by him, this reform would require Bramble to also post his relationship to contributors on his website, and to return funds raised from non-Utah companies such as the Miller Brewing Company and Altria, the parent company of Phillip Morris Tobacco. The most recent filings with the lieutenant governor’s office from June of this year show Bramble has raised close to $140,000 since the end of his 2004 campaign. More than $116,000 or 83 percent of the funds came from corporations or political action groups. Just 1 percent or about $900 came from individual contributors. In the same reporting period, Hatfield’s campaign had raised $13,740, 100 percent from individual contributors. When new fundraising numbers are reported at the end of August, she is expected to have raised close to double that amount.

Hatfield says she is enacting the policy to demonstrate her commitment to being accountable to Utah and its voters and to invite reform of the fund-raising practices of her opponent.

”I share the sentiments of many Utah voters that there is too much questionable money in politics,“ Hatfield said. ”As a Senator, I will give no special favors to any contributors at the expense of District 16 voters, even if the contributors are from Utah. But by creating clear ethical fund-raising standards, I hope to demonstrate that I am committed to accountability and dedicated to raising the standards of ethical campaign financing in Utah.“

To view Hatfield’s list of contributors and her explanation of the policy, visit www.RaDene.com, www.radene.com/contributors.php and http://www.radene.com/campaignfinance.php.

To contribute to RaDene, click here.

-Bob

P.S. -- She has the best campaign web site I've seen this year....

Bramble's Case Of The Mondays

Things must have been really bad at that meeting with the Deseret News' Editorial Board Monday.

Because, surely, a guy like Curtis Bramble couldn't possibly get his garments in a bunch over a check, could he?

Cartoon Brick Wall, with my usually expected snarkyness:

Work tonight was uneventful as usual, until my second delivery of the night.

I show up at this pretty house with a 3 car garage and lots of expensive camping equipment airing out on the front porch. A boy, maybe 12 years old, answers the door, asks the amount, and yells it to his parents who are in the kitchen. I pull the pizzas out of the bag as the father walks out to me.

"Can you take a check?"

"I can't take a personal check. We accept business checks, but not personal checks. Sorry."

He gets huffy. "Well, then you can take your pizzas back."

Because my family will starve if you can't take a check!

I'm thrown off a little. At worst people are a little annoyed that they can't pay with a check, but no one has ever told me to take their pizza back. I don't really want to go back to the store with $30 worth of pizza wasted. (It wouldn't have been entirely wasted--the employees would have eaten it for dinner, but Nick wouldn't have charged us for it, so it would have been a loss to him.) I'm deciding what to say, but he doesn't wait for me.

"Look, I'm the majority leader of the state senate, I've lived in this house for 30 years, and I've never bounced a check." He's gruff. I am uncomfortable, my eyes pleading, but I say nothing. "Do you know what that means? I'm a public figure. If I bounced a check, it would be all over the papers. I'd lose my reputation!"

Like living there for 30 years makes a difference.

Oh, and you see that object flowing down the street? You'd better wave, cause that's your "reputation."

My jaw drops as though I will say something, but I can't figure out what words are supposed to come out. He starts to walk away. "If you don't have cash, you can call the store and pay with a debit or credit card, and you can still have the pizza," I manage.

"What's the number?" He sounds angry enough to become abusive at any moment. Even taking my anxiety disorder into account, I believe this is a rational fear. "Who should I talk to?"

"Whoever answers the phone will be able to help you," I say, assuming he is just going to pay the bill. I give him the number.

The phone call: "I'd like to speak to the manager...Good. What's your name, ma'am?...Oh. What's your name, sir?...My name is _____. There's a nice young lady here who says she can't take my check."

From the tone he's been using, I'd never have guessed he thought I was a "nice young lady" or even a human being with feelings.

Um, this is a Utah Republican Legislator we're talking about, remember?

"Look, I'm the majority leader in the state senate..." etc., everything he told me.

"No one told my wife you don't take checks when she made the order."

I was not about to step in and tell him I took the order and had given her the option of cash or credit, saying nothing either way about checks. Luckily, the wife spoke up and said what I was thinking. She and her daughters were clearly embarrassed.

Yeah, cause he can hear phone conversations when he isn't on either end of the line....

"Look, I'm a CPA, so I know a check is the same as cash."

Yeah, if it's a cashier's check.

Where did he go to school to be a CPA? What's that? BYU? Oh, OK.... he's excused then, everything's explained.

"Where are you from? I'm from Chicago. You're probably from New York, right?"

How is this relevant?

"You're from Massachusetts? We're both Easterners."

Since when is Chicago considered the East?

"Then you must understand that a check is the same thing as cash. I'm from an old school of thought and I'm a CPA, so I understand that a check is as good as cash...Yes, I understand--trying to build a business and everything, but it's all money in the bank...Yes, you can talk to her."

What kind of John McCain/Mitt Romney guy is this that doesn't know that most places don't accept checks anymore. And surely, even at BYU, they learned the concept of having to track down bad checks.

Mr. Logical Fallacy hands me the phone, and I'd like to say, "Nick, I'm sorry I sicked this long-winded bastard on you," but I just say, "Hi, Nick." He tells me I can take the check as long as the man shows me his driver's license and I write the license number on the check. I hang up the phone and tell the Mr. Impressive Title what Nick said.

Taking the phone back, "What's that number again?"

Why is he still pissed? He's getting his way. I really hope the restaurant's not busy right now because Mr. Doesn't Know When to Stop has been keeping Nick from making pizza or doing anything else for several minutes, and who knows how long he'll talk this time.

The second phone call: "Nick? This is ____ again. I'm going to give you my American Express number, and pay for it that way."

Huh? Why have I been standing in this guy's front hall for the past 10 minutes?

"Look, why should I give my credit card number and the security number on the back when some unscrupulous business owner could make fraudulent charges on it?...A check is the same as cash--"

First, give the guy an idea why don't you? And, you also insulted a local business owner by calling him unscrupulous. And apparently, he's never heard of check cashing. Or PayPal.

"--but with a check you get the amount I give you. Don't you know what someone could do with the account number for a card with no credit limit?"

1) Is he accusing Nick of being a corrupt business owner? I thought people were supposed to distrust politicians, not the other way around. 2) Is he bragging about his credit?

An embarrassed daughter emerges from the kitchen and tells me I can put the pizzas down if they're getting heavy. I thank her, but hold on to the pizza. Somehow, having the boxes in my hands is giving me a sense of security. Without them, I would feel naked and vulnerable.

Mr. Ridiculously Pissed Off gives Nick the credit card number and angrily reiterates everything he has already said in both phone calls. After he hangs up, he takes the pizza from me. "This isn't your fault. You've been very professional about this."

Since when is staring uneasily at the pizza boxes I'm holding considered professional? Whatever.

"I'm sorry about this," he continues, but he still sounds like he's stifling profanity with great difficulty.

"Oh, no. I'm sorry for the confusion and inconvenience." Let's end this amicably. I turn to the door.

"Hold on just a second."

Ah! I just want to get out!

"Does anyone have any cash? I don't have any. Someone have a couple bucks?"

One of his daughters comes up with $2. Crappy tip, especially after making me suffer through that ordeal.

Didn't even pay for the gas to get her to your house, bucko. Next time, carry some cash on you like real people do.

And now, for my favorite part:

Aren't politicians supposed to be charismatic and stuff? I guess it doesn't matter what they're like in their private life. Maybe it should matter. Needless to say, now that I am registered to vote in Utah, I will not be supporting ____, current Majority Leader in the Utah State Senate. If you live in Utah, I hope you won't support him either. He is obnoxious and prideful. He argues illogically, citing irrelevant details as some sort of proof. I suspect his overly aggressive and defensive behavior masks some insecurity. And anyone who can be that rude to a complete stranger for no reason, could easily be pushed to become abusive in other situations. Not saying he is abusive, just saying it wouldn't surprise me. But what do I know?

I wonder how the rest of the Bramble's Family Night went....

GOP to Make Referendums in Utah Even Harder

Basically, the Utah Constitution has a provision to allow for the citizens to reverse the decisions of their Legislature. Current Utah Code makes this process near impossible.

It is a process that should be difficult, so as to save the process for when the legislature really oversteps the will of the people.

However, the current process is even more difficult than it should be. First, only bills that were passed by under 2/3 vote are eligible. Then the petitioners need to get signatures from 10% of the people who voted in the last Governors election. And they need to meet that 10% threshold in a majority of the counties (the number escapes me this morning). Oh, and you have a very limited time after the end of the legislative session to get it done. Then opponents of the referendum can go back and get people who signed the original petition to sign a new petition saying they had changed their minds about the first petition.

That's what makes last year's referendum 1 movement significant -- the effort it took to get it on the ballot (and that's before we get into the whole Supreme Court thing).

And, given the smackdown the legislature ended up getting, it's no surprise that they want to change the referendum law:

Monday, Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble, R-Provo, told the Deseret News editorial board that government doesn't work best when elected representatives are constantly, and frivolously, overruled by the citizens they are elected to make decisions for. In other words, the pure democracy of initiatives and referendums doesn't work well compared to the republican form of government of elected representatives.

Interesting word choice, Senator. "Frivolously?"

And, I wonder what would happen if they passed this law, and we ran a referendum against it. What rules would we have to play by?

-Bob

Bramble for Person of the Week

From Out of Context:

Alexis Miller, a 24-year-old Westminster grad who works at REI, was headed south on I-15 near 7200 South during Sunday's snow storm. Her Geo went into a 360-degree spin and slammed into a guard rail.

Uninjured but a little dazed, Miller climbed out of her totalled car to figure out how to get help.

"I could see in the distance the reverse lights of a huge SUV. It was reversing back up the Interstate towards me," Alexis remembers. "It backed up at least a half mile."

Out stepped [Sen Curt] Bramble. He and his family were returning to the Utah County Free State from a holiday event.

"He asked if I was OK," she says. "His family was welcoming and super nice. They were all dressed in church clothes, but they invited me into their SUV for 45 minutes to wait for a state trooper."

When she learned her savior was a state senator, she joked, "It was clear I wasn't a Republican."

Clear is an understatement. Miller's car was adorned with several bumper stickers, including, "Not My President!", with a photo of Utah's favorite president; "No on 3" (the anti-gay union amendment); and "Republicans for Lord Voldemort (Harry Potter's archvillain)."

But probably the most regrettable was, "Draft SUV Drivers First."

Miller, who even wiped off the snow off her bumper so Bramble could get a better look, not only lived to tell the tale, but, says, "He had a sense of humor about it. He laughed."

I just wish that care and concern for his fellow man carried into his politics a little more.

I hope his children learned a thing or two.

-Bob