Was the CSEA Endorsement Process Fair and Open?

CSEA Chapter President Jim Herrington announces appointment process at May 1, 2014 meeting
CSEA Chapter President Jim Herrington announces appointment process at May 1, 2014 meeting

On Tuesday, the California School Employees Association, Davis Chapter #572, announced that they have endorsed Tom Adams and Barbara Archer for the four-year seats on the Davis Joint Unified Board of Education.

“We chose to endorse Tom, Barbara and Alan because we felt that they showed the best knowledge of all aspects of our schools sites including the jobs that our members perform and how that fits into the structure of the district.” said Jim Herrington, the chapter’s president, in a statement contained in the release.

The question came up on the Vanguard article on Wednesday, why the CSEA endorsed only two for the three four-year seats. Anonymous posters seemed to suggest, for example, that Madhavi Sunder, who had already received the DTA endorsement, was never contacted by CSEA.

Others countered that she had been, but never responded.

The Vanguard contacted Jim Herrington by email and he explained, “I announced our process a couple of times at Board Meetings, around the time of the appointment process; said we were not endorsing any candidates for the appointed seat, but were planning on endorsing for the November election and if anybody was interested they should contact me in person or by email, and gave my District email address; Tom, Mike, Barbara and Alan all contacted me almost immediately and we set up an interview panel in the last few weeks of school.”

He continued, “(I) expected to hear from others over the summer, nothing; announced the vote at the little meeting at the welcome back breakfast and twice on District email to all classified before our meeting yesterday evening; nice turn out.”

“(There was) overwhelming support for Tom and Barbara…and that’s pretty much it; haven’t heard a peep from any of the other campaigns till just now; which is not unusual, which is frankly why we do the ‘ask’ criteria as it shows at least the candidate knows we exist and has an interest in (our) support other than just collecting endorsements…”

The video shows Mr. Herrington’s very brief announcement at the May 1, 2014 meeting. While the candidates did not want to comment on the record, one person involved with a campaign noted that, in the video, it shows that Mr. Herrington, while he announced very briefly within other comments that candidates interested in the support of CSEA should contact him, never gave any contact information.

As the person points out, it is a two-second sentence within the framework of a lengthy three and a half hour meeting.

This, the person said, does not count as “notice.” Moreover, while Mr. Herrington states that he thinks he mentioned it before, we found no evidence that that was the case. That was the one and only notice.

As another person indicated to the Vanguard that this was not a fair and open process. Most endorsement bodies reach out to all of the candidates. It is possible, first, that potential candidates might have missed his comment and, second, had new candidates emerged after the appointment process, they would not have been privy to that information.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts


  1. wdf1

    What this article doesn’t mention is that Herrington’s announcement here was at the meeting where the board heard presentations from all the candidates who applied to fill in the remainder of Nancy Peterson’s term. That agenda item was the very first discussion item of the meeting. Herrington’s announcement was just prior to that agenda item, so candidates should have been there. The only November candidate who wasn’t at this meeting was Mike Nolan, who contacted Herrington anyway. Here’s the Enterprise article of that meeting, showing a photo of some of those candidates.

    1. Davis Progressive

      “The only November candidate who wasn’t at this meeting was Mike Nolan, who contacted Herrington anyway. ”

      or maybe he asked herrington when they would be doing their interviews and it was by accident. if the only way that candidates knew was by that statement in the video, that’s an f-ed up way to do things.

  2. ryankelly

    I agree. Nonissue. Groups, especially employee groups, should not have to chase down candidates. If the candidates were attending meetings and were listening and interested, they would have contacted CSEA. The fact that several did indicates that there was sufficient notice. This is their process. You can’t criticize that. No more than can criticize your forum format.

    1. David Greenwald

      To extend the analogy, would you be okay with a Vanguard candidate’s forum if the candidates had to contact us to participate rather than us contact them?

      1. ryankelly

        If the process you created was to extend an invitation and wait to see who would respond, then no one could criticize you if someone didn’t. I assume that all candidates were given the same opportunity and some weren’t paying attention. That one candidate contacted the CSEA even though he was not present at the meeting where the invitation was given is also telling. School Board candidates have to pay attention when people come before them. A lesson learned.

        1. anonymous

          “That one candidate contacted the CSEA even though he was not present”–suggests only that there are people who are “inside” and those who are “outside.”

          Outsiders will consistently lose in this process.

          1. Davis Progressive

            “Outsiders will consistently lose in this process.”

            that’s the biggest concern. and its borne out (is that proper english?) by the fact that the people who would be considered most insiders are the ones who showed up and contacted csea.

        2. David Greenwald

          So twenty years ago this fall, I was a candidate for school board down in San Luis Obispo, I’ve managed campaigns, my wife ran for office six years ago. The thing I think most people don’t appreciate is how much gets thrown at you on a campaign – questionnaires, meetings, debates, etc. I never can recall a process where the group hasn’t sought out the candidates, and set an appointment and the process.

          This was too informal, too easy if you were out of the room or focused on something else to miss. It doesn’t seem to be in CSEA, the candidates, or their memberships best interest.

          1. Matt Williams

            David, in the recent City Council election process I was approached by several very knowledgeable political minds and advised that the Robb Davis campaign should proactively reach out to the Sacramento Bee Editorial Board and ask for an interview. The advice came with the caution that there was no guarantee that the Bee would take the proactive step to speak to each Council candidate in person (or alternatively through a formalized process). I had no experience in such matters, so after discussion Robb’s campaign team did reach out to the Bee and information was shared; however, it is not clear what would have happened if that outreach by Robb’s team had not occurred.

      2. DavisVoter

        To continue the analogy: If you declared at the end of the forum that X, Y, and Z were the three “best” candidates, I’d certainly want to know whether they were the best of the four who contacted you and participated or the best of all eight candidates in the field.

        From reading the stories here and in the Enterprise, it looks as though Herrington left that out of the announcement.

          1. Davis Progressive

            remember their purpose is to get people who are sympathetic to their cause, if they end up alienating future board members, that seems illogical.

    2. anonymous

      Do you know that those who contacted Herrington did so based on that single sentence in a meeting that was more than 3 and a half hours long? Or might they have been, say, advised to do so by others, such as those already familiar with local school board politics? Whether intentional or not, this process favors incumbents.

      The seven candidates for the 3 seats are very easy to find–3 of them have websites (Poppenga, Sunder, Archer), all 7 of them have made public filings that this paper has put online, as has the Elections office. The Davis Teachers Association actually reached out to all the candidates who were running. So did the Vanguard, and the Sac Bee, and the local Democrats. And by reached out, I don’t mean buried a single sentence in a ten thousand sentence meeting for the public.

      The real question, of course, is whether this process best serves the interests of the CSEA employees–From everything I’ve seen other candidates might actually be some of the strongest employee advocates. Cruz Reynoso–who has led on issues of worker rights in California and the nation for a half-century, endorses Sunder.

  3. DavisVoter

    How credible is this endorsement when they didn’t talk to half the candidates?

    Speaking of credibility, if Greenwald is right that the board meeting clip shows the one and only notice, that fact will help us evaluate statements like “I think Sunder didn’t respond to requests by CSEA to show up for the interview” from wdf1 in the future.

    1. Matt Williams

      DavisVoter, in the recently completed City Council election the Yolo County Democratic Party (YCDP) endorsed one of the candidates after following their time-honored endorsement process. Do you think the YCDP endorsement was credible?

      There were two Council seats open but only one candidate was endorsed in the YCDP process, while in the Davis Chamber of Commerce endorsement process for the same two seats, three candidates were endorsed. Do you think the three Davis Chamber of Commerce endorsements were credible?

    1. DavisVoter

      There are two different questions here: (1) Was it “fair” enough to the candidates? (2) Should the public care about this endorsement? The “it’s their process” argument addresses (1) (inadequately) but not (2).

      If Mike Herrington whispered into one candidate’s ear that she needed to show up in black robes at the gate of the Davis Cemetery at 11:57 p.m. on All Hallows’ Eve to be considered for the CSEA endorsement for dogcatcher (and didn’t say anything to anyone else), that would be “CSEA’s process” and you could argue that candidates should “adapt.” However, Davis voters might not care that CSEA then proclaimed that solitary, stygian figure “the best” candidate for dogcatcher.

      Maybe they can have whatever process they want, but the outcome isn’t persuasive if the process isn’t inclusive.

  4. ryankelly

    This is so much whining. Sunder, and others, should contact the CSEA and go speak with them if she is interested in gaining their support for her campaign and not make this a public issue that she misunderstood their expectations.

  5. Napoleon Pig IV

    Congratulations to the CSEA for landing squarely on the side of the Porcine Pinnacle of Power by taking sloppy, incomplete, but pig-friendly steps to preserve the self-interest of its members while ignoring completely the qualifications and merits of the candidates. Archer and her allies can do an excellent job of insuring a downward spiral in the quality of Davis education, a fine outcome for all porcine proponents of mindless, oblivious, and compliant sheep. Oink!

  6. ryankelly

    Is this indicative of the candidate’s behavior as a Board member? If a vote or issue doesn’t go their way, will that person’s supporters engage in bullying and public criticism of people? Do we need this continual drama?

    I asked some pointed questions about Sunder’s reasons for running, specifically her advocacy for the GATE program and her role as a public spokesperson for a group that was advocating for no change in this program. She still to this day has not communicated anything about this. However, her supporters on this blog have attacked and vilified me for even asking. I have ceased to complain about Sunder here, but every comment I make is turned into an attack on Sunder. I have to tell you, this is a real turn off in terms of voting for her. She has a long list of endorsements. She misses the boat on one and her supporters go into high gear to attack the fairness of the process of the endorsement.

    I am not complaining about Sunder. She is nearly absent, except for a few benign articles about how wonderful Davis schools are. I do not like the attitude and methods of her supporters. If this kind of drama consistently follows her, then I this is unfortunate and we can look forward to years of divisiveness and foment, which has been typical of Davis’ political environment.

    If Sunder wants the endorsement and votes of people and groups, it is up to her to reach out. Period.

    1. DavisAnon

      Ryankelly, I hate to even dignify your clearly one-sided posts with a response, but why is it that your posts always seem to begin by stating that you’re not complaining about Sunder, and then follow with several lines doing exactly that? In the last post alone, you accuse her of “bullying and public criticism”, lack of response to your inquiries, being “nearly absent”, and divisiveness. Are you just throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks?? I would actually like to hear more about the views of the other “lesser known” candidates that I need to make decisions about, but you seem to turn the discussion to some negative about Sunder every time. I have been trying to look more into the other candidates, but the lack of websites, etc. for some of them has made it difficult. Hopefully the upcoming candidate debate will be of some help. The little bit of information I have found, however, seems to indicate that Lovenburg is firmly behind the candidacies of Adams, Nolan and Archer. This does make me less inclined to vote for them, but I have not decided how I will vote.

      Perhaps you consider Lovenburg’s efforts to stack the board with her candidates a way to avoid divisiveness? Today on her Facebook page, Lovenburg is making comments about the numbers of lawn signs that I’m guessing is her disdain for the fact that Sunder is mounting a good campaign. To anyone paying attention, it’s quite obvious that Lovenburg is throwing her well-connected political weight toward electing Archer, Adams and Nolan. If they get elected, we certainly won’t have to worry about any discord on the School Board anymore, they’all be voting Lovenburg’s way.

      I would like to see this election be about who will improve the quality of public education in our town, not who knows how to ride best on an incumbent’s political coat-tails in order to get elected. I am very disturbed that the same incumbent Board member who only a few months ago told the public to “calm down and move on” after supporting Nancy Peterson’s efforts to get rid of Coach Crawford based on ‘factors’ (but failed to explain what they might be) is now telling the public who to vote for. Why does Susan Lovenburg feel that she knows what’s better for me than I do myself? It’s that kind of condescending to the public that gives the real public servants a bad name.

      The job of school board trustee should about listening to the public and serving their wishes, not about stacking the Board votes so that you can ram your views through even after the public has spoken up in opposition (loudly in the case of the volleyball coaching issue). I would not have a problem with Lovenburg being strongly involved in their campaigns if she were going to be leaving the board. But as the only real incumbent (Fernandes just got there), it looks to me that she is trying to leverage her political power to serve her own interests, not the public’s. The way that Lovenburg is not-so-subtly going after Sunder on FB for her number of lawn signs(!) makes suspect that Lovenburg must know that Sunder will challenge her and will not be satisfied with the status quo, a positive in my book. I certainly am not pro-discord on the Board, but the next time the administration tries to mount a witch hunt against a coach or teacher for something like they did with Crawford, you can be sure that I want someone on that Board who will stand up loudly and stop it. With the number of high-quality coaches lost from the high school in the last few years, something is wrong. And who knows how many high-caliber teachers and administrators have left quietly after seeing how our district works?? Enough is enough – we need a change.

      As someone who has not been involved in politics before, I’m starting to understand why people say that only “insiders” have a chance at winning elections. I was naïve enough to think that a simple school board election could be fought based on the strengths and qualifications of the candidates. I have had enough of the political games and ‘status quo’ Lovenburg wants more of. It is time for new blood on that Board. I do not want another 4 years of what we have seen in our school district in the last few years. I am glad I have found this website as a way to learn more about the candidates and issues in our community. Thank you to the Vanguard for having this open forum.

        1. Davis Progressive

          but two of her surrogates are running – that’s what all this is making clear. i’m voting against tom adams and barbara archer on the basis of this and i had been planning to vote for barbara.

          1. Matt Williams

            Don likes to be associated with winners. He probably sees Madhavi as a likely winner in this election.

          2. wdf1

            i’m still trying to digest the fact that saylor is supporting her.

            Ah. So you’re having anxiety that maybe Sunder sold out by getting his endorsement? Or that maybe Sunder would become his minion on the school board? I mean, just let your imagination go wild, which one can do with endorsement speculation.

      1. Tia Will

        Davis Anon

        “If they get elected, we certainly won’t have to worry about any discord on the School Board anymore, they’all be voting Lovenburg’s way.”

        I do not believe that this is necessarily true and I think that if your intent is to criticize Lovenburg, you are making unwarranted assertions that the three candidates that she is endorsing do not have minds of their own. Being endorsed by someone does not mean that you become their puppet. If that were true there are many here in town who would have much more power than we actually do.

        “I’m starting to understand why people say that only “insiders” have a chance at winning elections.”

        I also do not believe that this is an accurate assessment. At the time of their elections, I do not believe that Lamar Heysteck, Joe Krovoza, Rochelle Swanson, Brett Lee or more recently Robb Davis could have been considered “political insiders”.

      2. wdf1

        D.A.: …Lovenburg is firmly behind the candidacies of Adams, Nolan and Archer.

        Where did you get your information that Lovenburg endorsed Nolan? Do you have some inside information?

      3. wdf1

        D.A.: As someone who has not been involved in politics before, I’m starting to understand why people say that only “insiders” have a chance at winning elections.

        That’s an interesting comment, and I’d echo Tia Will’s response. Sunder appears to have a very strong campaign and seems to be an odds on favorite to win a seat. Does that mean she’s an insider?

        You make a case against Archer based on the single endorsement of Lovenburg. Both Archer and Sunder have loads of endorsements, many of them the same (Saylor, L. Wolk, all five Davis CC members, Provenza, Yamada, Ortiz, Eastin, DTA, Yolo Dems, Torlakson). If I were going on endorsements alone, then I would think Sunder looks as much like an “insider” as Archer.

    2. Davis Progressive

      “I do not like the attitude and methods of her supporters.”

      wtf dude? i don’t like your attitude and i plan to take it out on any candidate you even hint you might support? is that appropriate or logical?

  7. Eskimo Pie

    I am a long time Vanguard reader, but this is my first time making a comment. This issue really bothered me when I found out about it, and the more I learn, the more it bothers me.

    First, the CSEA endorsement process was clearly not a fair or open one. That much is indisputable. In the midst of a 3.5 hour meeting four months ago, the head of the organization says “contact me” and gives no contact information. This does not count as notice. An attorney friend told me this is an old lawyer trick for hiding something. Put one sentence into a 1,000 page document and say “we notified you”. Too bad (for those attempting this maneuver) that any judge worth his or her salt would throw that out immediately and not consider it proper notice.

    Second, to the notion that “this is their process, so too bad.” Indeed any group or individual has the right to choose whomever they wish to endorse by whatever means they choose. But whether CSEA had the legal “right” to engage in this non-process is not really the point. The point is whether is serves their members or the community at large. If I were a CSEA member, which I am not, do I think snubbing candidates is a good way to ensure my organization will be listened to if one of the snubbed candidates is elected? This process was bad for CSEA and were I a member, I would demand a fair process be undertaken immediately.

    Third, the quote from Mr. Herrington that they chose these candidates because they “felt that they showed the best knowledge…” definitely implies that all other candidates and their knowledge was considered. That is clearly a falsehood, and a more honest quote would be “we chose these candidates because they somehow found my email address despite my never giving it to them.”

    Fourth and finally, this all begs the question of “why”? Why engage in a half-hearted-at-best process that does a disservice to your members? Why these candidates? A quick google search of “jim herrington csea” gave me what I believe is, sadly, our answer. Multiple times does “Friends of Susan Lovenburg” come up in the top results. Jim supports Susan. And who does Susan support in this race? Surprise Surprise, it’s the two candidates CSEA endorsed for the four-year seat.

    Lovenburg’s endorsement of Barbara Archer is right there on Barbara’s website. Her support of Mr. Adams is a bit harder to find. Despite it being the year 2014, Tom Adams does not have a website. Luckily, however, I was at the Farmer’s Market on Saturday morning. Who was at Tom Adams’ booth? Susan Lovenburg. In fact, I was told by someone who was there earlier in the morning that Susan and Tom put up his pop-tent together. For the candidate without a website, it’s good to know someone is there quite literally propping and popping-up his campaign.

    Why does any of this matter? Because the school district is still reeling from the Nancy Peterson/Volleyball episode, in which school board members were hiding things from the public and creating their own “process” on the fly. Not to mention Susan Lovenburg telling us all to “calm down” or “move on” or whatever such pedantic nonsense. Now she has her hand-picked candidates, one of whom is barely going through the motions, and behind-the-scenes shenanigans are being orchestrated on his behalf to breathe life into an otherwise non-existent campaign.

    As a member of the public, I call on all CSEA members, for the sake of their organization’s credibility in our community, to re-engage in a truly fair and open endorsement process. I also highly suggest Mr. Herrington’s “leadership” of this organization be looked into. It is up to CSEA to right this ship.

        1. ryankelly

          Susan Lovenberg and Richard Harris are endorsing Tom, per his website.

          I don’t know Tom, but I thnk I know his wife and mother-in-law – but I know them as Mrs. Uriu and Janet Uriu. If I am right, Janet was born and raised in Davis on Elmwood Drive.

    1. wdf1

      E.P.: An attorney friend told me this is an old lawyer trick for hiding something. Put one sentence into a 1,000 page document and say “we notified you”. Too bad (for those attempting this maneuver) that any judge worth his or her salt would throw that out immediately and not consider it proper notice.

      This announcement came at the beginning of the meeting, with interested candidates in the audience, three minutes before they were to speak to the board. I can’t think of a better time to make that announcement — live, in-person, in front of the key folks one wants to reach.

      I did not attend this meeting but I watched the video feed at the time because of the candidate presentations. I remembered hearing Herrington’s announcement at the time, and actually thought, well, that’s a good time to say that.

    2. South of Davis

      Eskimo Pie wrote:

      > the CSEA endorsement process was clearly not a fair or open one

      At the end of the day EVERY endorsement just tells you who plans to give the group giving the endorsement more money (or give more money to something group likes).

      In all my years in politics I have never heard of even a SINGLE endorsement by a group for a candidate that publically plans to cut funding to that group (or a cause important to the group). Some groups go through the sham of pretending the process is “fair and open”, but we don’t need to bash the CSEA for not wasting time doing this and “pretending” to interview people who have no chance at getting their endorsement.

      1. anonymous

        Of course, no group should endorse anyone who they believe will be against their interests.

        Sunder has the endorsement of Cruz Reynoso, one of the strongest worker advocates in the history of California. There’s all reason to think that Sunder is exactly the right person to advocate strongly for school employees.

        Poppenga and others, too, deserve a chance to prove to school employees that they will work hard for them.

    3. wdf1

      For those complaining that only three candidates had websites, Chuck Rairdan’s website is here. Jose Granda has a website, but it appears that it hasn’t been updated from his 2012 campaign. I found all three websites (these two plus Tom Adams’) from just doing regular Google searching.

  8. Napoleon Pig IV

    Very lucid and compelling comments, Eskimo Pie! If very many people pay attention to what you wrote, the pigs will be running scared. But is it really possible for the sheep to remain awake and focused long enough to keep the light shining on the Porcine Pinnacle long enough to make a difference? If so, it’s a bad time to be a power-mongering porker. Oink!

  9. ryankelly

    I truly dislike Davis election season. It is too bad that much of the social life of Davis revolves around elections and campaigns, with all of its political maneuvering and intrigue, focus on who was standing next to whom, who was sitting at which table, which endorsements were gotten. It is not really about kids or the community. It is about power and connection – who is in the popular group. It is hard to see the real people behind all of the campaign rhetoric. I think I’ll just bow out and vote for who I think will work to address serious issues within the District with regards to the achievement gap and discriminatory practices, and who will keep the students’ best interest in mind in dealing with budgets and distribution of resources.

  10. DurantFan

    I cannot imagine a contract being ultimately awarded using this (insider) process. Since the endorcement process began “fishily’ (not officially), it will end with a big stink.

  11. Ingrid Salim

    A few comments:

    First, regardless of process, I would be APPALLED that anyone wanting to run for the Board of Education in a small city such as ours would NOT figure out which unions exist (all of 2), who their leaders are and how to contact them. Whether it’s usual in other situations for unions to reach out is irrelevant, and whether candidates heard that brief announcement from Jim Herrington doesn’t matter.

    Second, union decisions do not serve the public. They only need reflect the interests of the members’ themselves. So it is also irrelevant whether their process is considered fair or just — it only matters that their members think it so.

    Third, in the case of CSEA, a union made up of classified employees for DJUSD, I’m pretty sure that an endorsement does not come with monies. I could be wrong, but I don’t believe they are able to pay for that. DTA, on the other hand, does make a small contribution. (Can’t remember the dollar amount).

    Fifth, this is an amazing dialogue for what should be a non-issue. Others pointed out that if Mahdavi, or anyone else, wants a chance at endorsement, she should just contact Mr. Herrington. He’ll say yes or no, done deal. I doubt these particular endorsements really inform how people will vote, in either direction.

    Note, there is so much to this thing we call ‘public education.’ People often come into it, or onto the Board, thinking they know more than they do, because so many of us spent years in public institutions. But the behind-the-scenes reality is complex, difficult, challenging, and sometimes at odds with itself. Regardless of the election outcome, we’re all going to need to support the four new (Alan is still new) people who will find themselves wrestling with budget, legal, curricular, sports, personnel and a host of other issues. It’s not an easy job, and they all take a lot of flack for decisions people disagree with.

    Even when I disagree with Board members, I have the utmost respect for their willingness to take on the job at all.

    1. wdf1

      I would add that from watching school board meetings for several years, CSEA typically plays second fiddle to DTA. I think that reflects the relatively low key approach Herrington took in making his announcement. I’m sure it must please CSEA that there is now suddenly nearly as much interest in custodians, secretaries, and groundskeepers as there is for the teachers (DTA). Maybe this bodes well for them (elevated interest in CSEA endorsement) for the next election cycle.

  12. Southie

    Ryan Kelly “I asked some pointed questions about Sunder’s reasons for running, specifically her advocacy for the GATE program and her role as a public spokesperson for a group that was advocating for no change in this program. She still to this day has not communicated anything about this. However, her supporters on this blog have attacked and vilified me for even asking. I have ceased to complain about Sunder here, but every comment I make is turned into an attack on Sunder.”

    First off, I’ve spoken to Sunder at length about her views on the GATE program. I strongly disagree with her on that particular issue. I’m about as concerned about disagreeing with a candidate on a single issue as I am about what candidate gets a union endorsement. Not at all. I haven’t finalized my vote, but Ms. Sunder’s intellect and her honesty with me (when she knows I disagree with her) puts her pretty high on my list. If I get that same feeling when I get a chance to speak with Archer, well she’ll get a vote too.

    Second, stop playing games. Stop trying to throw Sunder under the bus and then whine that everyone is picking on you. I think most of the readers of the Vanguard took the same rhetoric class in college. You don’t like Sunder, and you won’t vote for her. Got it. From now on more logos, less pathos.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for