People within the Shire of Kent will receive a survey this week asking them to indicate a preferred option should the Shire be forced to amalgamate.
This has come about from information that came out of Local Government Week. Cr's Skipsey, Grant-Williams and I attended this year. Both the Minister for Local Government and the Premier indicated that VROC's were not acceptable as a structural reform option. Much discussion was had with some of our neighbouring shires. The general feeling was that some form of amalgamation was inevitable. Therefore it was in our own interest to indicate where our preferences for amalgamation lay.
This was further galvanised when the Shire of Katanning released their draft submission which looked at including the town of Nyabing in its 75km radius sweep.
The Shire of Kent is still committed to upholding it's constituent's wishes that we do not amalgamate. What we are requesting from the survey is, that if we are forced to amalgamate, which current Shire/s would you prefer to join?
I'm still totally against amalgamation for our Shire. I can't see the benefits at all. We are in a healthy financial position and since we are a farming community, our rate base is stable. Our communities are full of strong, forward thinking people. I believe we are perfectly capable of taking our community into the future without the need to join another shire or group of shires.
To me, amalgamation means huge expense with little result. The main beneficiary seems to be the major town in the group. Amalgamation won't mean we'll have more people living in our towns, it won't create employment in our towns (in fact, jobs will be lost!), there won't be more services in our towns, so what's the point?
For the 'Other' option, in our shire survey, I'm putting "No other option - no amalgamation".
I urge you to do the same.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Independent Public Schools
Nyabing Primary School has the opportunity to be a pilot school for the new Independent Public Schools Programme being trialled in WA.
WOW! What an opportunity!
As a small country school, we can show how proactive our community is - a small town with big ideas! We're not stuck in the past, but we're looking to securing our future. We can have more of a say in how we run our school because, as a community, we will own it. We will have the ability to shape our school to match our unique requirements, not other people's ideas of our requirements.
One of the Primary Schools in the Shire of Kent is looking at leading the way with change and allowing it's community to be a part of that process.
What does this tell our neighbours and our State Government? Yes, we will embrace change only if we are able to see major benefits from making those changes. We want empowerment, not subservience.
I urge the Nyabing community to get behind this great opportunity and fill out their surveys. Please return them to the school ASAP before Monday 31st August.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Blog may have to close...
I'm getting some legal advice from our local government association, WALGA on the legal aspect of having a blog as a councillor.
It was brought up at our monthly council meeting this week about whether I'm liable because I'm making public comments considering my position as a local government councillor.
It's sad when it gets to this. I thought we had a right to free speech no matter what position we hold in society. I've not made any comments on behalf of council, only my own thoughts on issues of council that affect us all as a community.
I sincerely hope that WALGA are able to clarify the issue and I can be allowed to continue keeping you all informed in this manner.
It was brought up at our monthly council meeting this week about whether I'm liable because I'm making public comments considering my position as a local government councillor.
It's sad when it gets to this. I thought we had a right to free speech no matter what position we hold in society. I've not made any comments on behalf of council, only my own thoughts on issues of council that affect us all as a community.
I sincerely hope that WALGA are able to clarify the issue and I can be allowed to continue keeping you all informed in this manner.
Monday, August 17, 2009
How to annoy, aggravate and alienate your neighbours
The Shire of Katanning have now presented their Draft Structural Reform Submission and are advocating boundary changes within the Shire of Kent. (Since writing my blog, I've had a comment from a reader who found it interesting that no community consultation was mentioned in the Shire of Katanning's submission. Interesting indeed!)
In their submission, the Shire of Katanning laments the lack of interest from its neighbours in progressing the issue of structural reform. The Shire states, "Despite undertaking substantial discussions with our neighbours there has been little if any progress towards an agreement on structural reform".
Their overall concept of their proposal is to
'form a new "Upper Great Southern Council", centred around the established regional centre of Katanning with a boundary radius of approximately 75km'.
The arguments behind this proposal include the belief that a Local Government's service area should match it's rating area. As a 'donut' council, Katanning is considered to provide services to a population that lives outside of their 'ratable' area.
A good sounding argument you would assume. However, if I look at the services that our family personally accesses, I would say that the cities in Perth provide most of the services we use that our immediate local area doesn't provide. Of course, I use banking and shopping facilities in Katanning, but these are not provided by the Shire. I would also say, that without the support of the surrounding shires, the shops and banks in Katanning wouldn't be doing so well...
The Shire of Katanning appears to believe that banks, shops and schools are a part of the service that they provide to the community.As for the services they do provide, I believe that there is a 'user pays' system. I have been told that people who are not in the Shire of Katanning pay more than locals to use the swimming pool, for example.
So, I'm not sure that this argument holds water. Perhaps a lot of people outside the Shire use the Katanning Library (I use their toilets!) and tramp through the Art Gallery?
The Shire of Katanning have presented a number of options for the Minister for Local Government to consider in their submission.
Option 1 is the "amalgamation of 8 shires around a 75km radius of Katanning and another amalgamation in an arc around Albany".
The Shire of Katanning is currently working with the City of Albany in planning groupings of "regional centres". In a proposal to our Local Government Minister, Katanning have the view that the current structure of local government in WA 'hinders effective governance in the region'. Their preferred option for the Minister is to "remove present local government boundaries and form new larger Local Governments based around established regional service centres of Albany, Katanning, Narrogin, Northam, Merredin etc."
Option 2 is to "reduce the number of Local Governments in the Great Southern Region".
The submission provides a suggestion that the region be divided into 'zones'. Southern, Western, Northern (2 options), Eastern.
Option 3 is the "algamation of all 11 Shires in the Great Southern Region".
This option has come from the City of Albany and many councils questioned the viability of effectively delivering services to such a diverse and unwieldy collection of regions.
Option 4 is to "do nothing - Katanning stands alone and requires that all grant funding recognise Katanning as providing services to the area and provides compensation accordingly".
This option then goes on to discuss the 'inequity of grant funding', in particular, the Financial Assistance Grants which are provided to the State Government by the Federal Government for distribution. A table is provided showing $ per head of population, but not per acre of land the Shire is servicing.
Another table shows the 'inequity' of the Rudd Economic Stimulus Package Allocations, again as a $ per head figure.
The comment is made, "Although the Shire of Katanning provides many of the regional services to the smaller Local Governments, the grant allocations serve to 'prop up' the smaller shires". (How to win friends and influence people)
The Shire of Katanning have indicated that their "preferred solution" is to "encourage the Minister to completely rethink the current Local Government boundaries". A radius of 75km around the town is discussed once again. This would take in all or parts of Kojonup, Wagin, Gnowangerup, Broomehill-Tambellup, Cranbrook, Dumbleyung, Kent and Woodanilling.
This is essentially splitting the Shire of Kent. The Shire of Katanning suggest that the eastern portion could be taken up by Lake Grace.
This resultant new "Upper Great Southern Shire" would have a combined population of around 12,000 with a rate base of about $11m and a staff of 232 in an area of 17,500km2 . The proposal is to have 12 councillors to begin with and eventually reduce to 8 elected members.
The issue of smaller towns is addressed under the following headings:
"Potential loss of employment and consequent eventual loss of population".
The Shire of Katanning has assured the "townships" of Woodanilling, Broomehill, Nyabing and Dumbleyung that "service levels...could and should be maintained, at least in the short to medium term , to ensure that the residents of these towns suffer no substantial loss of services".
This is interesting. Why do our towns only receive good service levels in the short to medium term? I guess it would be easier to have a town close down, then there's less grumbling about why the ovals are looking shabby and the pool needs maintenance. Or, am I just being cynical?
The submission also reports that our towns would not be able to justify an administration presence. The Shire of Katanning would maintain 'shopfront services' in these locations if the community supports and uses them.
"Loss of local Representation and Community Identity".
Mention is made in the Shire of Katanning's submission of an elected member ratio of 1:700. That would leave the western end of the Shire of Kent (the area the submission is considering) with about one third of a councillor!
"Loss of location specific services, ie, medical services"
Although the example given does not necessarily relate to our shire, the submission indicates that if the community wishes to keep such services, then Specified Area Rating would be used to pay for the service.
The submission also includes a "Transitional Timeline" which is as follows ("in an ideal world"):
In a discussion under the heading, "Regional Grouping", further comments are made about the lack of interest in neighbouring shires in forming an alliance with Katanning. The City of Albany has apparently also experienced the same issue. The two have endorsed a Memorandum Of Understanding recently.
A list of all the meetings and forums where the Shire of Katanning has been present shows there dogged persistence in pursuing their idea of structural reform.
Although I have been present at only one of the meetings where Katanning was present and reform discussions were had, the overall impression many have perceived from representatives of the Shire of Katanning is of arrogance rather than alliance. At this particular meeting, held in Dumbleyung in March 2009, the president, Mr Phil Rae, kindly told me that I needn't worry, Katanning had no interest in amalgamating with the Shire of Kent. I'm pretty sure that the town of Dumbleyung is about as far east as any representatives from the Shire of Katanning have ventured.
The remaining submission deals with proposals/submissions previously put to the Minister and WALGA on amalgamation and reform.
I find it interesting that the Local Government Advisory Board chose to ignore the Shire of Katanning when considering the amalgamation of Broomehill and Tambellup Shires. What does this tell us?
In their submission, the Shire of Katanning laments the lack of interest from its neighbours in progressing the issue of structural reform. The Shire states, "Despite undertaking substantial discussions with our neighbours there has been little if any progress towards an agreement on structural reform".
Their overall concept of their proposal is to
'form a new "Upper Great Southern Council", centred around the established regional centre of Katanning with a boundary radius of approximately 75km'.
The arguments behind this proposal include the belief that a Local Government's service area should match it's rating area. As a 'donut' council, Katanning is considered to provide services to a population that lives outside of their 'ratable' area.
A good sounding argument you would assume. However, if I look at the services that our family personally accesses, I would say that the cities in Perth provide most of the services we use that our immediate local area doesn't provide. Of course, I use banking and shopping facilities in Katanning, but these are not provided by the Shire. I would also say, that without the support of the surrounding shires, the shops and banks in Katanning wouldn't be doing so well...
The Shire of Katanning appears to believe that banks, shops and schools are a part of the service that they provide to the community.As for the services they do provide, I believe that there is a 'user pays' system. I have been told that people who are not in the Shire of Katanning pay more than locals to use the swimming pool, for example.
So, I'm not sure that this argument holds water. Perhaps a lot of people outside the Shire use the Katanning Library (I use their toilets!) and tramp through the Art Gallery?
The Shire of Katanning have presented a number of options for the Minister for Local Government to consider in their submission.
Option 1 is the "amalgamation of 8 shires around a 75km radius of Katanning and another amalgamation in an arc around Albany".
The Shire of Katanning is currently working with the City of Albany in planning groupings of "regional centres". In a proposal to our Local Government Minister, Katanning have the view that the current structure of local government in WA 'hinders effective governance in the region'. Their preferred option for the Minister is to "remove present local government boundaries and form new larger Local Governments based around established regional service centres of Albany, Katanning, Narrogin, Northam, Merredin etc."
Option 2 is to "reduce the number of Local Governments in the Great Southern Region".
The submission provides a suggestion that the region be divided into 'zones'. Southern, Western, Northern (2 options), Eastern.
Option 3 is the "algamation of all 11 Shires in the Great Southern Region".
This option has come from the City of Albany and many councils questioned the viability of effectively delivering services to such a diverse and unwieldy collection of regions.
Option 4 is to "do nothing - Katanning stands alone and requires that all grant funding recognise Katanning as providing services to the area and provides compensation accordingly".
This option then goes on to discuss the 'inequity of grant funding', in particular, the Financial Assistance Grants which are provided to the State Government by the Federal Government for distribution. A table is provided showing $ per head of population, but not per acre of land the Shire is servicing.
Another table shows the 'inequity' of the Rudd Economic Stimulus Package Allocations, again as a $ per head figure.
The comment is made, "Although the Shire of Katanning provides many of the regional services to the smaller Local Governments, the grant allocations serve to 'prop up' the smaller shires". (How to win friends and influence people)
The Shire of Katanning have indicated that their "preferred solution" is to "encourage the Minister to completely rethink the current Local Government boundaries". A radius of 75km around the town is discussed once again. This would take in all or parts of Kojonup, Wagin, Gnowangerup, Broomehill-Tambellup, Cranbrook, Dumbleyung, Kent and Woodanilling.
This is essentially splitting the Shire of Kent. The Shire of Katanning suggest that the eastern portion could be taken up by Lake Grace.
This resultant new "Upper Great Southern Shire" would have a combined population of around 12,000 with a rate base of about $11m and a staff of 232 in an area of 17,500km2 . The proposal is to have 12 councillors to begin with and eventually reduce to 8 elected members.
The issue of smaller towns is addressed under the following headings:
"Potential loss of employment and consequent eventual loss of population".
The Shire of Katanning has assured the "townships" of Woodanilling, Broomehill, Nyabing and Dumbleyung that "service levels...could and should be maintained, at least in the short to medium term , to ensure that the residents of these towns suffer no substantial loss of services".
This is interesting. Why do our towns only receive good service levels in the short to medium term? I guess it would be easier to have a town close down, then there's less grumbling about why the ovals are looking shabby and the pool needs maintenance. Or, am I just being cynical?
The submission also reports that our towns would not be able to justify an administration presence. The Shire of Katanning would maintain 'shopfront services' in these locations if the community supports and uses them.
"Loss of local Representation and Community Identity".
Mention is made in the Shire of Katanning's submission of an elected member ratio of 1:700. That would leave the western end of the Shire of Kent (the area the submission is considering) with about one third of a councillor!
"Loss of location specific services, ie, medical services"
Although the example given does not necessarily relate to our shire, the submission indicates that if the community wishes to keep such services, then Specified Area Rating would be used to pay for the service.
The submission also includes a "Transitional Timeline" which is as follows ("in an ideal world"):
- March 2010 - decision and announcement of new structure by State Government
- June 2010 - existing CEO's depart and Interim CEO and Commissioners appointed
- October 2011 - new councillor elections
- January 2012 - new CEO appointed
- October 2013 - reduction in Councillor numbers from 12 to 10
- October 2015 - reduction in Councillor numbers from 10 to 8
In a discussion under the heading, "Regional Grouping", further comments are made about the lack of interest in neighbouring shires in forming an alliance with Katanning. The City of Albany has apparently also experienced the same issue. The two have endorsed a Memorandum Of Understanding recently.
A list of all the meetings and forums where the Shire of Katanning has been present shows there dogged persistence in pursuing their idea of structural reform.
Although I have been present at only one of the meetings where Katanning was present and reform discussions were had, the overall impression many have perceived from representatives of the Shire of Katanning is of arrogance rather than alliance. At this particular meeting, held in Dumbleyung in March 2009, the president, Mr Phil Rae, kindly told me that I needn't worry, Katanning had no interest in amalgamating with the Shire of Kent. I'm pretty sure that the town of Dumbleyung is about as far east as any representatives from the Shire of Katanning have ventured.
The remaining submission deals with proposals/submissions previously put to the Minister and WALGA on amalgamation and reform.
I find it interesting that the Local Government Advisory Board chose to ignore the Shire of Katanning when considering the amalgamation of Broomehill and Tambellup Shires. What does this tell us?
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Royalties for Regions
Council will begin looking at projects which can be funded by Stage 2 Royalties for Regions grants.
What sort of projects would you be interested in undertaking in our communities?
The criteria for expenditure is as follows:
PINGRUP:
I'm planning to advocate that the Shire use some of the money to upgrade our asset management systems and perhaps join a structured assets and infrastructure program. As this is a very expensive undertaking which will require a large percentage of staff's time, we can use Royalties for Regions regional funding to employ a person to manage the three (or more) council's assets and infrastructure programs. Other councils in our region may want to be a part of this too, so it would be wise to consider our neighbours if we decide to investigate this project.
If you have any ideas on how we can best utilise our regional funding, please leave a comment.
Alternatively, you may phone or email me:
p/f: 0898291076
m: 0427 297 712
e: skinflint@skinflint.com.au
What sort of projects would you be interested in undertaking in our communities?
The criteria for expenditure is as follows:
- address infrastructure requirements
- improve asset management and capacity building
- encourage standardised asset management practices and improved regional governance in local government.
PINGRUP:
-
Assist with upgrade of one of the accommodation units at the Caravan Park with facilities for couples. This has already been funded by the PPA through a grant.
- Satellite Internet for the Telecentre, or upgrade the Exchange to ADSL2+
- New Community Building to include new Telecentre rooms and office for visiting professionals. Community members have said they'd like an office for visiting health professionals, IT specialist and the visiting Child Health Care Nurse.
- Assist with upgrade of Ladies Changerooms at Pavilion
- Build Accommodation Units at Caravan Park
- Employ consultant to plan the Historical School Site landscaping and building fit-out.
I'm planning to advocate that the Shire use some of the money to upgrade our asset management systems and perhaps join a structured assets and infrastructure program. As this is a very expensive undertaking which will require a large percentage of staff's time, we can use Royalties for Regions regional funding to employ a person to manage the three (or more) council's assets and infrastructure programs. Other councils in our region may want to be a part of this too, so it would be wise to consider our neighbours if we decide to investigate this project.
If you have any ideas on how we can best utilise our regional funding, please leave a comment.
Alternatively, you may phone or email me:
p/f: 0898291076
m: 0427 297 712
e: skinflint@skinflint.com.au
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Local Government Elections
Elections will be coming up on October 17th, 2009.
This year, instead of voting for nominees for your ward, you will be voting for all the people who put up for council.
That includes any incumbent councillors whose term is up and who are re-nominating. Thank goodness WALGA managed to persuade the Minister for Local Government to push through Parliament the change from the proportional preferential voting system back to first-past-the-post. This not only makes things easier for our staff, but is considered to be more transparent and less likely to be manipulated by anyone including the major political parties.
It is therefore important that as many people as possible vote on election day. This will ensure fair representation of our two communities. At present we have 4 councillors from Pingrup and 4 councillors from Nyabing. This has worked very well over the time I have represented our Shire and a continuation of this balance would be fair and equitable for all.
If you are not on the electoral roll, please make sure that you enrol. Rolls will close on the 28th August, so please get your name down before then. As taken from the Department of Local Government and Regional Development website:
"Local Government Elections
Enrolling to Vote
Enrolments for the next ordinary elections on Saturday, 17 October 2009 will close on 28 August 2009.
To be eligible to vote in local government elections, you need to be either a resident, an eligible non-resident occupier of rateable property in the local government district or a nominee of a body corporate that owns or occupies rateable property in the district or ward. You must also be correctly enrolled to vote in State or Commonwealth elections and be at least 18 years of age on election day."
More information, including definitions of the terms 'resident', 'eligible non resident' etc, can be found here.
Nominations for candidacy open on the 3rd September and close on the 10th September. Information about standing for council can be found on the Department of Local Government and Regional Development website: Standing for Council
If you are at all interested in keeping your community strong and vibrant and would like to make a difference, have your say and determine future policy, then I urge you to consider standing for council.
Council isn't just about Rates, Roads and Rubbish. There are many more issues and interests that affect your community. The Kent Shire Council is heavily involved in supporting community groups by allowing free use of our public buildings and recreation grounds, partnering with groups to assist with funding applications and working with groups to improve facilities in our towns.
Now, more than ever, Council are facing tough decisions on the future of our Shire. Structural Reform is the hot topic of the day and Council are advocating for our community.
Council have now signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Shires of Dumbleyung and Lake Grace, so regional matters will now be on the table more than ever.
This year, instead of voting for nominees for your ward, you will be voting for all the people who put up for council.
That includes any incumbent councillors whose term is up and who are re-nominating. Thank goodness WALGA managed to persuade the Minister for Local Government to push through Parliament the change from the proportional preferential voting system back to first-past-the-post. This not only makes things easier for our staff, but is considered to be more transparent and less likely to be manipulated by anyone including the major political parties.
It is therefore important that as many people as possible vote on election day. This will ensure fair representation of our two communities. At present we have 4 councillors from Pingrup and 4 councillors from Nyabing. This has worked very well over the time I have represented our Shire and a continuation of this balance would be fair and equitable for all.
If you are not on the electoral roll, please make sure that you enrol. Rolls will close on the 28th August, so please get your name down before then. As taken from the Department of Local Government and Regional Development website:
"Local Government Elections
Enrolling to Vote
Enrolments for the next ordinary elections on Saturday, 17 October 2009 will close on 28 August 2009.
To be eligible to vote in local government elections, you need to be either a resident, an eligible non-resident occupier of rateable property in the local government district or a nominee of a body corporate that owns or occupies rateable property in the district or ward. You must also be correctly enrolled to vote in State or Commonwealth elections and be at least 18 years of age on election day."
More information, including definitions of the terms 'resident', 'eligible non resident' etc, can be found here.
Nominations for candidacy open on the 3rd September and close on the 10th September. Information about standing for council can be found on the Department of Local Government and Regional Development website: Standing for Council
If you are at all interested in keeping your community strong and vibrant and would like to make a difference, have your say and determine future policy, then I urge you to consider standing for council.
Council isn't just about Rates, Roads and Rubbish. There are many more issues and interests that affect your community. The Kent Shire Council is heavily involved in supporting community groups by allowing free use of our public buildings and recreation grounds, partnering with groups to assist with funding applications and working with groups to improve facilities in our towns.
Now, more than ever, Council are facing tough decisions on the future of our Shire. Structural Reform is the hot topic of the day and Council are advocating for our community.
Council have now signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Shires of Dumbleyung and Lake Grace, so regional matters will now be on the table more than ever.
If you are interested in having your say at a regional level, please consider nominating for council.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Mr Ripper Admits He Comes from Nyabing!
The Hon Eric Ripper MLA, leader of the Opposition addressed the meeting following Mr Barnett. His first comment was that he came from the Shire of Kent and grew up in the town of Nyabing. Don't worry folks, I didn't sit there quiety!! I yelled out "Woohoo", and waved my arms, much to the embarrassment of my colleagues Cr Bruce Altham, Cr Neil Grant-Williams and Cr Lucy Skipsey.
Mr Ripper then went on to mention that he went to the small school of Nyabing Primary where his education became the grounding for his future life as a politician. Once again, the others ducked under their seats while I did the old "Woohoo!" and then yelled, "I still teach there!"
He vowed that he has serious reservations about the concept of Year 7 students being pushed to high school. He understood the pressures that this would place on people in rural areas and wondered what the educational outcome for such a move was. He received applause for this statement.
With respect to the issue of structural reform, he stated exactly what many of us at the meeting were thinking, that there has been secrecy, poor leadership and little consultation other than last minute whistle-stop tours to the regions. I like his analogy that the 'minister has sent the players out blindfolded, not having any idea where the goalposts are'. This is so true!
Mr Ripper felt that cooperation between councils with options such as resource sharing, including sharing personnel, was a significant way in which reform can be achieved. Other paths have been unexplored, which is my feelings exactly. He stated that local government reform should be about better services, not about disenfranchising.
We need to adopt common laws and practices between neighbouring councils so there's less red tape. He told the meeting that he didn't think the state government would be delivering the Royalties for Regions money in the coming years that Mr Grylls is promising. He said the Labour Government had a strong policy on investment in regions. I don't think the meeting agreed with him there.
I went out after his talk and caught him in the lobby where I shook his hand and introduced myself. He recognised the Tuffley name and I thanked him for his comments and discussed the Year 7 middle school debate.
Mr Ripper then went on to mention that he went to the small school of Nyabing Primary where his education became the grounding for his future life as a politician. Once again, the others ducked under their seats while I did the old "Woohoo!" and then yelled, "I still teach there!"
He vowed that he has serious reservations about the concept of Year 7 students being pushed to high school. He understood the pressures that this would place on people in rural areas and wondered what the educational outcome for such a move was. He received applause for this statement.
With respect to the issue of structural reform, he stated exactly what many of us at the meeting were thinking, that there has been secrecy, poor leadership and little consultation other than last minute whistle-stop tours to the regions. I like his analogy that the 'minister has sent the players out blindfolded, not having any idea where the goalposts are'. This is so true!
Mr Ripper felt that cooperation between councils with options such as resource sharing, including sharing personnel, was a significant way in which reform can be achieved. Other paths have been unexplored, which is my feelings exactly. He stated that local government reform should be about better services, not about disenfranchising.
We need to adopt common laws and practices between neighbouring councils so there's less red tape. He told the meeting that he didn't think the state government would be delivering the Royalties for Regions money in the coming years that Mr Grylls is promising. He said the Labour Government had a strong policy on investment in regions. I don't think the meeting agreed with him there.
I went out after his talk and caught him in the lobby where I shook his hand and introduced myself. He recognised the Tuffley name and I thanked him for his comments and discussed the Year 7 middle school debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
