Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Should we change Town Meeting to an Australian Ballot?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default Should we change Town Meeting to an Australian Ballot?

    An article in the 3/4/2010 Wayland Town Crier by the lead petitioner outlines an issue that will be discussed and voted on at the upcoming Annual Town Meeting. The petitioner (hmmm, if I included his/her name, would the DF remove it if requested?) is asking the town to replace the current TM structure with a bifurcated "deliberate at TM, vote at the polls" approach.

    The intent of the article appears to be to make voting more practical. One attribute of the proposed measure is that there would be no provision for making amendments to articles. Unfortunately, fixing this flaw is not as simple as letting the Session 1 deliberation serve as a forum for making amendments such that the final article could be posted to the Town's web site prior to the Session 2 vote at the polls, as all of the problems of participation and voting that the article seeks to improve come back into play.

    In my opinion, the inability to amend is a serious deficiency, one that significantly undermines the role that Wayland residents play as legislators and not 'just' voters. Article amendments allow the proposer to make corrections uncovered between the time that the Warrant was printed and Town Meeting. They also allow residents to alter (within limits) the nature of the article.

    I'd be interested to know how places using the 'Massachusetts Ballot' deal with issues such as a budget that doesn't pass or reconsideration.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Dieffenbach View Post
    I'd be interested to know how places using the 'Massachusetts Ballot' deal with issues such as a budget that doesn't pass or reconsideration.
    First a disclosure: I am the lead petitioner for Electronic Voting article for ATM May 2010
    The website I have developed to cover the many details of this proposal can be seen at www.ElectronicVoting.info

    The two major models of a town meeting / secret polling hybrid (Australian Ballot) is NH and VT. (In NH its called SB2).
    In both systems the deliberation night allows for article amendments and then directs the final product (Main Motion) to the polls within a designated time frame.
    In both systems, the essence of a legislative process is maintained because there is more than just procedural voting on the town meeting floor.

    The system which we will vote on in May is unique in its construction in New England.
    So a claim that this is like the systems of NH and VT is not accurate.

    A budget that doesn't pass would have to get a second try through their system. In the system that we have now, we can negotiate the budget on town meeting floor.
    Reconsideration would not exist for a poll type system and lastly, the rules of the OCPF would then apply to all town meeting articles at the polls since they would become ballot questions. This would have severe limitations of town involvement in disseminating information, maybe even the warrant because of the mixing of public money. This last issue was a major reason why the Mass Moderators association has rejected even the standard Australian Ballot for Massachusetts.
    Last edited by AlanJReiss; 03-06-2010 at 01:46 AM. Reason: My plug and disclosure

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    Reconsideration would not exist for a poll type system and lastly, the rules of the OCPF would then apply to all town meeting articles at the polls since they would become ballot questions. This would have severe limitations of town involvement in disseminating information, maybe even the warrant because of the mixing of public money. This last issue was a major reason why the Mass Moderators association has rejected even the standard Australian Ballot for Massachusetts.
    As this OCPF Interpretive Bulletin lays out in section II on page 3, there may be a relatively straightforward way around the current ban on towns sending residents information (not advocacy) about Ballot Questions. As of the posting of the OCPF's IB, 8 towns had successfully petitioned for the right to distribute such information.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Dieffenbach View Post
    As this OCPF Interpretive Bulletin lays out in section II on page 3, there may be a relatively straightforward way around the current ban on towns sending residents information (not advocacy) about Ballot Questions. As of the posting of the OCPF's IB, 8 towns had successfully petitioned for the right to distribute such information.
    I believe the distribution but not the advocacy. But people will always challenge (and its their right to do so) where the line is. This will cause undue legal expenses.
    Also, now imagine that the 40 articles of a town meeting all are now ballot questions and each petitioner must register as a BQC.
    That ought to help the flow of government !

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default Upcoming events

    Our moderator, Mr. Peter Gossels, Selectman Steve Correa and a number of town residents have formed a town meeting study committee which meets on Thursdays. The email that was sent to the participants of this committee and the petitioners by Mr. Gossels is as follows:

    The Wayland Town Meeting Procedures Review Committee, which consists of David Bernstein, Dennis Berry, Steven Correa, Peter Gossels, Miranda Jones, Richard Stack and William Steinberg and meets every Thursday in the Selectmen’s Room at the Town Building at 7:30 p.m., will hold a public hearing in the large Hearing Room at the Town Building on the following evenings to hear presentations concerning the following articles in the Warrant for the Annual Town Meeting scheduled to begin on May 13, 2010:

    March 11 at 7:30 p.m.: Article 22: Australian Ballot proposal
    March 25 at 7:30 p.m.: Article 20: Electronic voting proposal
    April 8 at 7:30 p.m.: Article 30: Town website proposal to allow the public to post arguments and information concerning articles in town meeting warrant.

    Proponents and opponents of each of these articles are invited to submit a written presentation to the Committee by mailing, delivering or e-mailing the same to MaryAnn DiNapoli at the Town Building or at mdinapoli@wayland.ma.us at least three days prior to the meeting at which their article is scheduled to be discussed and considered.

    The proponent of each such article will have an opportunity to make an oral presentation (with audio/visual assists if requested) at the beginning of each hearing to consume no more than ten minutes. After members of the Committee have had an opportunity to put questions to the proponent, an opponent will then be given an opportunity to make an oral presentation similarly supplemented to consume no more than ten minutes, followed by questions from members of the Committee.

    Members of the public will then be given an hour to ask questions and to offer comments or arguments concerning the merits of the article under consideration that evening. The Committee may vary the format of each meeting based on its experience and needs.

    The Committee plans to submit a report of its doings and recommendations concerning each of the aforesaid articles prior to Town Meeting.

    C. Peter R. Gossels, Chair
    Town Meeting Procedures Review Committee


    I am hereby posting my 'Con' presentation on the 'Wayland Australian Ballot' to the 11-Mar-2010 meeting.

    If you have any questions you can email me at AlanJReiss@Verion.net and/or you can visit www.ElectronicVoting.info
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by AlanJReiss; 03-09-2010 at 09:03 AM. Reason: Added 'Wayland Australian Ballot'

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Jeff,

    As the lead petitioner on the Australian Ballot proposal, I want to let you know that we have modified the proposal in three important ways, which may (or may not) address your concerns:

    First, we are allowing amendments to all articles at Town Meeting. This provision was added since many felt our proposal would drastically reduce turn-out at Annual Town Meeting, which already averages only about 400 voters over the last 10 years (Special Town Meeting Attendance is higher, around 1000, because of the large turn-out in 2006 and 2009). In this way people would be able to still come out and debate and amend articles. This is how New Hampshire does it (Vermont does not allow amendments). There are pros and cons to both approaches. One of the down-sides to this is approach is that somebody could Amend an article in a way that destroys its integrity, so that it would have no chance of passing at the polls. New Hampshire addresses this by asking the moderator to prevent amendments that destroy the original intent of the article, so we have added that language to our proposal. We have a more detailed discussion on our website www.waylandvotes.info for those interested. See Point - Counter Point.

    Second, only significant articles to go to the polls, but other Articles can still be voted on right at Town Meeting. Significant articles would be the ones with financial impact, zoning changes, or land use matters. The exact language is on our site. We could adjust this language so that the Town Feels they get the right things going to the polls....those should be the critical things that really affect all citizens.

    Finally, we added a provision to revisit this question after 5 years. Some were concerned that once we changed Town Meeting, we could never go back. This provision calls for revisiting after 5 years and deciding if we continue with Australian Ballot or rescind it. Of course, the Town could decide to revisit sooner than 5 years, but this provide a built-in check point.

    Also, there are many ways to handle the situation of the budget not passing. We've posted on our website, waylandvotes.info, the way New Hampsire handles this (they essentially fall back on a default budget). We are researching how Vermont handles this and will share that shortly. Finally, we can leverage a similar structure for what happens when a Prop 2 1/2 measure fails. So there are best practices from other states on handling this issue.

    Finally, on a philosophical note, we believe that the role a resident plays as a voter is distinct from the role he or she may choose to play in the legislative process on any particular issue. This proposal does not change the legislative role of Wayland residents, but only changes the process by which we vote on certain issues. This proposal also recognizes that the debate at Town Meeting is but one way among many that voters become educated on and participate in the legislative process on the issues before the town.

    Thanks for raising the discussion topic. This is an important debate.

    Mark

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Hi Mark.

    These are some useful improvements, and I appreciate your efforts to make your proposal more attractive. But, a question for you: how would you suggest we deal with the inherent interdependencies built into the collection of warrant articles? Maybe I'm for the Route 30 Recreation Center and the Wayland Community Pool, but don't think we need both (completely hypothetical example - I think both sound great!). Let's assume these were both articles that would fall into the ballot category -- perhaps I'd support one financially, but not both at Town Meeting. So my vote on the second depends on the outcome of the first. Town Meeting handles this smartly, but it cannot be dealt with at the ballot box.

    Thanks for your input.

    (Actually, just thought of a better example -- maybe I like the idea of your proposal, but if so, then we don't need the electronic voting. And maybe my support of the Australian ballot would depend on us having the electronic online forum. Anyway, you get the idea...)
    Last edited by Kim Reichelt; 03-15-2010 at 01:37 PM. Reason: to add second, more relevant, example

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default These proposals are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    Hi Mark.
    (Actually, just thought of a better example -- maybe I like the idea of your proposal, but if so, then we don't need the electronic voting. And maybe my support of the Australian ballot would depend on us having the electronic online forum. Anyway, you get the idea...)
    The issues to me are these

    1. What is your philosophy of having a legislative arm of the town government. Keep it as a traditional town meeting or make some portion of it go to the polls.
    2. What are the chances of changing all of the necessary laws to have the legislature enact Australian Ballot for the entire state on behalf of the request of one of it towns.
    3. and.. These proposals are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

    What is clear to me is that the more voting and legislative activity you place on deliberation night, the more you will make deliberation night look like traditional town meeting and then all of the problems of vote counting come back.

    If we can amend an article then those who support that article will have to show up to defend it. This will cause large numbers of people to show up and defend and we are back to the problems associated with counting the votes of large numbers of people.

    If we pass Australian Ballot then we are not guaranteed of its actual enactment and not guaranteed in any reasonable period of time. During that time we will still have traditional town meeting.

    If we ended up with both Australian Ballot and e-voting then that would still work together.
    If we never got Australian Ballot then e-voting would still solve the vote counting problems sooner rather than later.

    Some people want internet voting or cell phone voting. Although not legal now, if it was; it would solve all of the problems which Australian Ballot tries to cure in terms of attendance. (but... Some believe that showing up in person is the only way to go.)

    Ponder the fact that if we were to ever go to a remote voting scheme statewide...
    -- Would it go from where we are now in one giant leap?
    -- Or would it go through a stage where people get used to relying on electronics and wireless voting locally to the arena?

    I suspect it would happen in stages - it would be evolutionary.

    My thanks to all of the petitioners for bringing their ideas forward and having the guts to stand up for them and having the wisdom to be flexible in their design.

    This is too important to not have a robust debate.

    Alan

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Kim,

    You ask a very good question about dependency between articles on the warrant, and how the outcome of a ballot vote might be different from the outcome of articles debated serially in a Town Meeting Forum.

    First, I think that the number of times articles are interdependent is relatively few, but it can happen, and your example of the three articles in the Warrant regarding Town Meeting (Australian Ballot, Electronic Voting, and Debate Website) provides a useful case study. There is no simple or right answer to this, and there will be trade-offs between doing things as we do today vs. moving to Australian Ballot. We feel the most important goal is to increase voter participation so that the will of the people is heard on these large issues that affect all residents. In our opinion, a ballot vote, with the convenience of having the full day to vote and the option of using an Absentee ballot, achieves that goal. But, it does force one to make choices when there are interdependent articles on the Warrant. Let’s examine the scenario you laid out using the three articles appearing in our current Warrant affecting Town Meeting (but it could easily be a series of questions around land use, for example).

    We can compare two scenarios, one where I vote on the 3 articles at Town Meeting, and the second where I vote on them at the polls. Let’s assume for both scenarios that there is interdependency between the Australian Ballot and Electronic Vote articles (let’s set aside for the moment the idea that these are not necessarily mutually exclusive). Let’s also assume the hypothetical voter’s first choice is to vote for Australian Ballot over Electronic Voting (since I’m writing this, that would be true). But, hypothetically, if Australian Ballot does not pass at Town Meeting, then I would vote for Electronic Voting since it would still solve many problems. And, irrespective of what happens on the first two Articles, I’ve decided I’m going to vote for the Debate Website since its inexpensive and can’t do anything but help the process.

    So in scenario one, where we vote on these at Town Meeting, I could make my decision on Electronic Voting contingent on the outcome of Australian Ballot, but ONLY if the selectman chose to order the articles with Australian Ballot coming first. However, if you modify the scenario slightly by making the Electronic Vote the first article to be voted on, then my decision-making is no longer inter-dependent. I simply vote No on Electronic Voting and vote Yes on Australian Ballot, and if the latter does not pass, there is no way I can go back and re-cast my vote the other way. And, regardless of how they are ordered, I vote for the Debate Website, since this hypothetical voter likes it in all cases.

    In scenario two, where this is done at the polls, I have to make all my choices up front, not knowing the outcomes of prior votes (as is the case with any ballot election).

    So you are correct that in one case, depending on how the Selectman order the items in the warrant, the outcome of a vote on one article could affect the outcome of the vote on another. Voting at Town Meeting might give the voter more voting strategies, whereas voting at the polls forces once to make all decisions at one point in time when the vote is cast.

    It’s an interesting trade-off, but our group feels the right for more people to participate in the vote outweighs this disadvantage, particularly since that disadvantage is entirely dependent on the order in which Articles appear in the Warrant and will vary greatly from voter to voter.

    I’m interested to hear other people’s views on this point.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Mark,
    Its interesting that you note about the ordering of the articles by the selectmen. In general, the selectmen will take a position and reflect that position in terms of a public statement in the warrant and through their ordering of the articles. This is a unique situation as you point out. One that may pose a challenge to the selectmen because being first may not be the most desirable position to be in.

    Here is an interesting tactic for the average voter...
    If the average voter wants a change to town meeting and not maintain the status quo then Aust Ballot and/or E-Voting are their choices.
    Aust Ballot is not totally under Wayland's control and E-Voting is.
    One might hedge their bets by voting for both.... belts and suspenders so to speak. If you don't get one, you will get the other. If you get both then there is still justification since the aust ballot article now allows substantive amendments on deliberation night... bring back the voting issues.

    I might even finding myself doing this (not sure yet) but if I did, I certainly would want to do it with electronic keypads.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default Default Budget?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Greenlaw View Post
    Also, there are many ways to handle the situation of the budget not passing. We've posted on our website, waylandvotes.info, the way New Hampsire handles this (they essentially fall back on a default budget). We are researching how Vermont handles this and will share that shortly. Finally, we can leverage a similar structure for what happens when a Prop 2 1/2 measure fails. So there are best practices from other states on handling this issue.
    Hi Mark,

    I looked at the New Hampshire information for the default budget, and am confused by it. They say:

    "What is a default budget? Is there a special default budget form? Can it be amended? A default budget is the budget that is adopted when the proposed operating budget fails if a special meeting is not called to reconsider the operating budget. The default budget is the same as last year with certain adjustments. The calculation must be disclosed on a special default operating budget form showing last year’s operating budget with adjustments made per RSA 40:13, IX (b). This form is available on our website at http://www.nh.gov/revenue/munc_prop/...alservices.htm . The default budget can be adjusted by the governing body (or budget committee under RSA 40:14-b), acting upon relevant new information. This can be done at any time before the ballots are printed, provided an amended default budget form is prepared."

    Here is how the default budget is described in RSA 40:13 IX (b):

    "Default budget" as used in this subdivision means the amount of the same appropriations as contained in the operating budget authorized for the previous year, reduced and increased, as the case may be, by debt service, contracts, and other obligations previously incurred or mandated by law, and reduced by one-time expenditures contained in the operating budget. For the purposes of this paragraph, one-time expenditures shall be appropriations not likely to recur in the succeeding budget, as determined by the governing body, unless the provisions of RSA 40:14-b are adopted, of the local political subdivision."

    I'm not clear on what the "certain adjustments" are that are allowable, but it is critical that they include Proposition 2 1/2 overrides. If the default budget cannot be adjusted for overrides, then we would effectively be changing the quantum of vote required to pass an override from 50% to 67%.

    However, I fail to see how a default budget that is likely to be a superior budget to the one amended by and voted on the Town Meeting members who do appear at the actual deliberation part of Town Meeting.

    I strongly urge you to remove the voting of the Omnibus Budget from the ballot portion of your article, and to leave that voting with the Town Meeting.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    I strongly urge you to remove the voting of the Omnibus Budget from the ballot portion of your article, and to leave that voting with the Town Meeting.
    Kim,

    I apologize for not responding sooner, but I wanted to research this a little more and provide a thoughtful response.

    There are trade-offs around your suggestion that we remove the budget from Australian Ballot (AB) voting. As you may be aware, our original proposal was to do all questions by AB voting with no amendments. This met the objectives of many of our supporters who feel the entire Town Meeting Process is fatally flawed since it excludes so many voters. But based on feedback we received along the way, we got the sense that this would be too radical of a change and could potentially reduce turn-out at the open meeting, which is already very low (average of 400 per Annual Town Meeting over the last 10 year).

    So we modified the proposal to 1.) allow amendments and 2.) only move “significant articles” to an AB vote (Significant Articles does include the budget). To remove the budget from this would further reduce participation on this very critical decision around the town’s budget. Some of our supporters might feel we are getting to a territory where nothing important is going out to be voted on by the people, so we really are back to status quo (which might be favorably viewed, if you happen to support the status quo). Like on many issues, sometimes moving to a compromise in the middle loses the base of the original supporters, yet still does not do enough to capture the support of those against change. We see this challenge on many big issues facing our country today, like healthcare reform and climate change.

    In thinking through this furthere, the reality is that if we allow amendments to articles, then effectively the Budget can be amended by the few who show up to Town Meeting, and one would assume any and all amendments are voted on, the people at the Open Meeting will be satisfied with the budget. Then when the budget goes out to AB vote, if those few in Town Meeting have done a good job representing the Town’s broader interests, it will easily pass at the polls. If not, it’s going to be voted down and we will have to address this by one of two avenues (having a default budget, as NH does, or doing what Vermont does, described below).

    Yesterday, I had a long call with the Kathy DeWolfe, the Vermont Director of Elections, who is in the Vermont Secretary of State’s office. She explained the history and evolution of AB in Vermont. Interestingly, the historical Town Meeting in Vermont had all business, including election of officials, being done by voice vote on the floor of the open meeting. When they introduced AB (a very long time ago), they allowed towns to move to AB for three different categories of votes: Election of Officers (which we already do by Australian Ballet), Passing of the Budget, and Questions. A town can choose to move to AB for one, two, or all three categories. She said that usually, a town first moves to AB for elected officials, and then for passing of the budget. She said that moving to AB for questions tends to be the final thing that moves to AB, and that nearly all towns over 5000 residents do all three by AB since they feel that the few hundred who turn out for the open meeting cannot represent the will of the people in a town this size. Additionally, Towns do not necessarily need to have all questions go to AB – they may introduce specific criteria in their Charter for what goes to AB. In some cases, the Selectmen decide which issues they feel deserve broader representation in the vote, or citizens can petition a question to go to AB by getting the signatures of 5% of the voters. We could adopt a similar approach.

    In Vermont, anything that goes to AB cannot be amended on the floor of the Open Meeting (unlike New Hampshire). In Vermont, if the budget falls, the Selectmen get together, modify it, then the conduct another poll. This could obviously introduce extra expense in opening the polls again, but Kathy said it has proven to work. I lean more towards the adoption of a default budget, rather than this approach.

    There are two ways to address your concern. First, assuming there is enough support in the Town for some Articles to move to Australian Ballot, we could attempt to understand the preferences of the voting population through some form of survey. Alternatively, if the measure passes, the Selectmen could make the final decision on what would go to AB when drafting the petition to the legislature.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Mark, my specific concern is what to do if the budget fails at the ballot, since, of course, you need to have some budget.

    If the budget is not excluded from the AB, one thing that absolutely must be defined, before people can make an intelligent decision on how they feel about this, is what happens if the budget were to fail at the polls. You need to provide some information on what the fall-back default budget would look like, or at least what the process would be to determine it. My specific question about what would happen in the event of an override is particularly important. Without some definition on that, I cannot imagine how anyone who might ever support an override could possibly support the proposal as currently presented, and I would strongly urge a NO vote.

    Further, I know you and Alan have both argued that your proposals are not mutually exclusive, and while that is technically true (we could certainly do both), passage of yours obviously diminishes the benefits of his -- it is clear that with AB, attendance at TM would only drop, and in any event, far fewer votes would be taken. The value of counting those votes electronically would diminish considerably. (Somewhat less conversely, anything that makes TM run more efficiently reduces the pain of TM and, all things being equal, increases attendance at TM, reducing the benefits of AB)
    Last edited by Kim Reichelt; 03-19-2010 at 11:37 AM. Reason: to add a missing comma

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Kim,

    Thanks for your feedback on the budget issue.

    We have 10 days before the language of the article needs to be finalized. Last night a subset of our petitioners discussed your feedback along with the feedback we received from the Town Meeting Procedures Review Committee meeting held Thursday night. Based on this, we are considering changing the criteria for what would go to an Australian Ballot vote. In my opinion, that is one of the great things about the legislative process leading up to Town Meeting - petitioners can take input and iterate on the language to get it to the point where people might feel inclined to support the initiative. We will continue to adhere to our primary interest of increasing voter participation in the most important matters before the town, but are flexible on the means of achieving this objective.

    To some degree, it does not make sense to vote on the Budget by Australian Ballot if it can be amended on the floor of Town Meeting, since essentially, the budget is just an amount. So once it can be amended on the floor by voice vote, it may not make sense to bring it to a wider vote. And the procedures for a failed budget are messy, although I believe we could work that langauge out if others felt it was important to vote on the budget by Australian Ballot. And regardless, if the budget pushes us over the Prop 2 1/2 ceiling, its automatically going to go to an Australian Ballot vote, under current state law.

    If we were to eliminate the budget from going to Australian Ballot, and further tighten up the criteria for what goes to Australian Ballot, would that address your concerns? Our thought is to have three ways an Article can go to an Australian Ballot vote: If requested by the Selectmen, the Moderator, or by petition of 5% or more of the registered voters. In this way, if any given Town Meeting has no controversial matters, the expense of a ballot vote is avoided. But if something significant comes up, like a new school, major zoning change, new library, etc., the Selectman or Moderator could choose to bring it to ballot to enable more people to vote. Similarly, a citizens group could do the same thing via petition.

    I'd be interested in your views on this modification. I'd also like to hear the views of anyone else reading the forum.

    Mark

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Yesterday, we put together a proposed revision to the article incorporating the changes I mention above. To see the text of the revision we are proposing, please see: http://waylandvotes.info/OurBlog.aspx

    We would appreciate your feedback to the revised article here on this forum or directly on the Wayland Votes! website (using Contact Us page) or on our Facebook Fan Page at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Waylan...s/340590956938.

    Thank You!

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •