Jump to content

Lowry Ineligible Candidate for BOE


Guest County Elections

Recommended Posts

Guest I Double Dare Ya

Wow, are you shaking !!!! Take your meds man !!!! Nobody said anything about "all", read the post dude !!!

You've got me wrong, pal. There's no shaking here, but the poster accused 6 figure administrators of not doing their jobs and I merely called the poster out. No meds involved, just looking for an answer, but I know I'll never get one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ear to the Ground

She is ineligible as a matter of law. It's only a question of who brings the challenge and when it will be done. Both sides are preparing for that outcome.

Two challenges have been filed. The first by the Castelli faction on the Board, filed in Trenton with the Commissioner of Education just before Thanksgiving. The other one just recently by Esteves in Superior Court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Guest In the Know

Game over. Ms. Lowry owes the voters an apology. For those of you who tried to play down the conflict, you did the voters a disservice. The judge has now ruled three times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Game over. Ms. Lowry owes the voters an apology. For those of you who tried to play down the conflict, you did the voters a disservice. The judge has now ruled three times.

That would be most unusual. Where did you get that "information?"

Debbie made a mistake. She wasn't aware of the law, which is understandable to a point because it probably never crossed her mind that the remaining payments on her contract would ever be an issue. She's probably right. But as they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

The bigger offense is that of the soon-to-be-former Board majority. They could have respected the people's will to have Debbie fill that seat. They refused because they didn't want her there, even though the people do. Meanwhile, one of them, Castelli, was a losing candidate in the election, and he didn't lose by a little. His vote total was in the 700s. Debbie's was in the 1800s. So we end up with the travesty of having a person who got creamed in the election effectively denying a candidate who trounced him the seat to which the people elected her. Democracies aren't supposed to function like that. Why isn't Castelli's position as a losing candidate in the latest election disqualifying for that vote, especially since he is probably trying to angle to keep his seat?

In the end, it isn't about Debbie, or any of the Board members. It's about the people of Kearny, who spoke very clearly in the November election. We saw that the five stooges were complete incompetents. All they did was cause turmoil and fail to keep the system running properly. They had it in utter turmoil. One of them ran for re-election and resoundingly we said "No!" The five stooges have no respect for what the people clearly voted to do. Stop playing your little games and think about what elections are supposed to accomplish in our system of government.

And don't think for one minute that we won't remember who did what. The five stooges will never hold another elected office in this town - ever - and they shouldn't. This behavior on their part is despicable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest In the Know

That would be most unusual. Where did you get that "information?"

Debbie made a mistake. She wasn't aware of the law, which is understandable to a point because it probably never crossed her mind that the remaining payments on her contract would ever be an issue. She's probably right. But as they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

The bigger offense is that of the soon-to-be-former Board majority. They could have respected the people's will to have Debbie fill that seat. They refused because they didn't want her there, even though the people do. Meanwhile, one of them, Castelli, was a losing candidate in the election, and he didn't lose by a little. His vote total was in the 700s. Debbie's was in the 1800s. So we end up with the travesty of having a person who got creamed in the election effectively denying a candidate who trounced him the seat to which the people elected her. Democracies aren't supposed to function like that. Why isn't Castelli's position as a losing candidate in the latest election disqualifying for that vote, especially since he is probably trying to angle to keep his seat?

In the end, it isn't about Debbie, or any of the Board members. It's about the people of Kearny, who spoke very clearly in the November election. We saw that the five stooges were complete incompetents. All they did was cause turmoil and fail to keep the system running properly. They had it in utter turmoil. One of them ran for re-election and resoundingly we said "No!" The five stooges have no respect for what the people clearly voted to do. Stop playing your little games and think about what elections are supposed to accomplish in our system of government.

And don't think for one minute that we won't remember who did what. The five stooges will never hold another elected office in this town - ever - and they shouldn't. This behavior on their part is despicable.

I got my information from the Office of Administrative Law. The administrative judge was twice affirmed by the Commissioner of Education. I did make a mistake since it's been 4 rulings, and not 3, that have declared Ms. Lowry ineligible to serve.

If you don't meet the qualifications, then you're PROHIBITED from serving. Ms. Lowry has a contractual interest to $112,000 in accumulated sick time paid out over 5 years post-retirement from the Kearny school district. That's precisely the kind of conflict the law prohibits by requiring a candidate for Board of Education to swear on her petition to be a CANDIDATE that she doesn't have an interest in a contract with the Board of Education.

I find it totally amazing that you think it'd be okay to make an exception for Ms. Lowry and pay her in full so she can serve on the Board of Education. You can't make an exception for just one employee under a labor contract! That would mean everyone entitled to that benefit can get paid in full too. So you take a very, very, very expensive retirement benefit that the district can't afford (Ms. Lowry's benefit of $112,000 is typical of what a retiring administrator gets) and you make it even MORE expensive by having it paid all at once instead of over 5 years? Just so you can get your preferred candidate on? That's an outrageous misspending of tax dollars. The will of the people was not to misspend money like that.

By the way, I too hope that most of the five members you dislike never get re-elected either. That doesn't give you license to ignore the rules to run for office nor does it allow you to waste tax dollars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Barbara Cifelli-Sherry

That would be most unusual. Where did you get that "information?"

Debbie made a mistake. She wasn't aware of the law, which is understandable to a point because it probably never crossed her mind that the remaining payments on her contract would ever be an issue. She's probably right. But as they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

The bigger offense is that of the soon-to-be-former Board majority. They could have respected the people's will to have Debbie fill that seat. They refused because they didn't want her there, even though the people do. Meanwhile, one of them, Castelli, was a losing candidate in the election, and he didn't lose by a little. His vote total was in the 700s. Debbie's was in the 1800s. So we end up with the travesty of having a person who got creamed in the election effectively denying a candidate who trounced him the seat to which the people elected her. Democracies aren't supposed to function like that. Why isn't Castelli's position as a losing candidate in the latest election disqualifying for that vote, especially since he is probably trying to angle to keep his seat?

In the end, it isn't about Debbie, or any of the Board members. It's about the people of Kearny, who spoke very clearly in the November election. We saw that the five stooges were complete incompetents. All they did was cause turmoil and fail to keep the system running properly. They had it in utter turmoil. One of them ran for re-election and resoundingly we said "No!" The five stooges have no respect for what the people clearly voted to do. Stop playing your little games and think about what elections are supposed to accomplish in our system of government.

And don't think for one minute that we won't remember who did what. The five stooges will never hold another elected office in this town - ever - and they shouldn't. This behavior on their part is despicable.

If the majority thought for a second that Mrs. Lowry would fall into line and vote with them, they would trip over themselves to find a remedy and void the impediment. That sentiment is furthered by the fact that they are dragging their feet in going to the next logical candidate, Daniel Esteves. It's not about fulfilling the wish of the voters, it's about maintaining the status quo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Criminals

That would be most unusual. Where did you get that "information?"

Debbie made a mistake. She wasn't aware of the law, which is understandable to a point because it probably never crossed her mind that the remaining payments on her contract would ever be an issue. She's probably right. But as they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

The bigger offense is that of the soon-to-be-former Board majority. They could have respected the people's will to have Debbie fill that seat. They refused because they didn't want her there, even though the people do. Meanwhile, one of them, Castelli, was a losing candidate in the election, and he didn't lose by a little. His vote total was in the 700s. Debbie's was in the 1800s. So we end up with the travesty of having a person who got creamed in the election effectively denying a candidate who trounced him the seat to which the people elected her. Democracies aren't supposed to function like that. Why isn't Castelli's position as a losing candidate in the latest election disqualifying for that vote, especially since he is probably trying to angle to keep his seat?

In the end, it isn't about Debbie, or any of the Board members. It's about the people of Kearny, who spoke very clearly in the November election. We saw that the five stooges were complete incompetents. All they did was cause turmoil and fail to keep the system running properly. They had it in utter turmoil. One of them ran for re-election and resoundingly we said "No!" The five stooges have no respect for what the people clearly voted to do. Stop playing your little games and think about what elections are supposed to accomplish in our system of government.

And don't think for one minute that we won't remember who did what. The five stooges will never hold another elected office in this town - ever - and they shouldn't. This behavior on their part is despicable.

Democracies also are about following the LAW. Something you and your idiots never want to follow, just want it your way all the time. You speak of Castelli keeping her off the Board how about Doran, her running mate, Viscuso, MacDonald and Schalago names signed to her petition to run, wanting to open up the BOE check book to effectively pay her off to seat her....... oh right that is ok because that is what the people want. Go $hit in your hat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got my information from the Office of Administrative Law. The administrative judge was twice affirmed by the Commissioner of Education. I did make a mistake since it's been 4 rulings, and not 3, that have declared Ms. Lowry ineligible to serve.

If you don't meet the qualifications, then you're PROHIBITED from serving. Ms. Lowry has a contractual interest to $112,000 in accumulated sick time paid out over 5 years post-retirement from the Kearny school district. That's precisely the kind of conflict the law prohibits by requiring a candidate for Board of Education to swear on her petition to be a CANDIDATE that she doesn't have an interest in a contract with the Board of Education.

I find it totally amazing that you think it'd be okay to make an exception for Ms. Lowry and pay her in full so she can serve on the Board of Education. You can't make an exception for just one employee under a labor contract! That would mean everyone entitled to that benefit can get paid in full too. So you take a very, very, very expensive retirement benefit that the district can't afford (Ms. Lowry's benefit of $112,000 is typical of what a retiring administrator gets) and you make it even MORE expensive by having it paid all at once instead of over 5 years? Just so you can get your preferred candidate on? That's an outrageous misspending of tax dollars. The will of the people was not to misspend money like that.

By the way, I too hope that most of the five members you dislike never get re-elected either. That doesn't give you license to ignore the rules to run for office nor does it allow you to waste tax dollars.

Is it possible that she made a mistake because she wasn't aware of the rule?

Is it possible to cure a defect by removing a conflict of interest, and do it in such a way that it isn't more costly to the taxpayers?

The answer to both questions is yes.

Do you have any evidence that it was anything other than an honest mistake? I suspect the answer to that questions is no. We've seen no evidence to the contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democracies also are about following the LAW. Something you and your idiots never want to follow, just want it your way all the time. You speak of Castelli keeping her off the Board how about Doran, her running mate, Viscuso, MacDonald and Schalago names signed to her petition to run, wanting to open up the BOE check book to effectively pay her off to seat her....... oh right that is ok because that is what the people want. Go $hit in your hat.

Are you completely out of your mind? Do you realize what you just wrote? According to you, Doran, Viscuso, MacDonald, Schalago and Lowry cooked up a conspiracy to put her on the ballot illegally so she could win the election, so she could then be declared ineligible to serve, so they could then have an excuse to pay off her contract in full.

You're crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got my information from the Office of Administrative Law. The administrative judge was twice affirmed by the Commissioner of Education. I did make a mistake since it's been 4 rulings, and not 3, that have declared Ms. Lowry ineligible to serve.

Yeah, well I checked their site and I can't find it at all, either searching by name ("Lowry" and "Kearny") or searching by date (11/1/2012 - 12/15/2012). Maybe you could provide a link. I'll bet you dinner that there's only one decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Horrible Judgement

If the majority thought for a second that Mrs. Lowry would fall into line and vote with them, they would trip over themselves to find a remedy and void the impediment. That sentiment is furthered by the fact that they are dragging their feet in going to the next logical candidate, Daniel Esteves. It's not about fulfilling the wish of the voters, it's about maintaining the status quo.

Dear Ms. Deputy Mayor,

You have lost all dignity and are inserting your foot into your mouth every time you post here. My advice to you, as you stated in a prior post, "I have not been on this site for a long time", is you should go back to not coming here.

How can you make such FALSE statements, which are your OWN personal thoughts and not any accurate position of any Board member. What proof do you have that the majority would void the impediment if Lowry would vote with "them" and where do you come off stating "they" are dragging their feet regarding Esteves? I will tell you.....NONE !!! This is your opinion. A person involved in politics as long as you should know better than to spread RUMORS and FORCE down peoples throats your own view on issues as being Gospel. Nobody has tossed Esteves to the side as well as any other person who would like the thankless job of being a Board member. Esteves stands a pretty good chance...........if you don't blow it for him.

There is procedure to follow, as you well know, or are things done different in the Council Chambers?

Hank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Fact Checker

Yeah, well I checked their site and I can't find it at all, either searching by name ("Lowry" and "Kearny") or searching by date (11/1/2012 - 12/15/2012). Maybe you could provide a link. I'll bet you dinner that there's only one decision.

3 of the decisions were issues the week before Christmas, one on Christmas Eve. Ask Lowry, she knows.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stop Spinning It

Is it possible that she made a mistake because she wasn't aware of the rule?

Is it possible to cure a defect by removing a conflict of interest, and do it in such a way that it isn't more costly to the taxpayers?

The answer to both questions is yes.

Do you have any evidence that it was anything other than an honest mistake? I suspect the answer to that questions is no. We've seen no evidence to the contrary.

First question: No. On the petition for board of education, the rule is printed in block letters just above the signature line that Lowry signed.

Second question: No. The Judge ruled that the ONLY ways to eliminate the prohibited interest is either the Board paying her in FULL (the judge rejected a third party assignment ruse Lowry proposed) or Lowry relinquishing her right to the unpaid money.

Bottom line: Lowry can't serve - the Board and her union don't want Lowry prepaid in full. And Lowry won't give up the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First question: No. On the petition for board of education, the rule is printed in block letters just above the signature line that Lowry signed.

Second question: No. The Judge ruled that the ONLY ways to eliminate the prohibited interest is either the Board paying her in FULL (the judge rejected a third party assignment ruse Lowry proposed) or Lowry relinquishing her right to the unpaid money.

Bottom line: Lowry can't serve - the Board and her union don't want Lowry prepaid in full. And Lowry won't give up the money.

Those are claims. Can you provide links to support them? Please provide links to the decision and to the petition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First question: No. On the petition for board of education, the rule is printed in block letters just above the signature line that Lowry signed.

Second question: No. The Judge ruled that the ONLY ways to eliminate the prohibited interest is either the Board paying her in FULL (the judge rejected a third party assignment ruse Lowry proposed) or Lowry relinquishing her right to the unpaid money.

Bottom line: Lowry can't serve - the Board and her union don't want Lowry prepaid in full. And Lowry won't give up the money.

I don't believe what you say is entirely true. From my understanding the Judge never rejected the third party assignment but stated it would have to be brought up in a separate hearing that would have cost Mrs Lowry additional thousands of dollars in lawyers fees! Dirty politics plain and simple. I have heard the judge urged the current board to resolve this conflict so if Mrs Lowry really did something wrong would the judge encourage this present board to resolve this conflict? I don't think so!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Procedure calls for the Board to approach the union concerning ANYthing to do with an issue that comes under negotiations, which the Board perceived this issue to be. The union was prepared to call for a vote but was never approached by the Board to consider it. So don't insinuate that the union "didn't want Lowry to be prepaid" the money already earned and budgeted for. The only way anyone would know for sure is if the union was asked and they voted. The board majority at the time chose not to approach the union. As a matter of fact, at the January 3 rd meeting when asked which board member approached the union there was no answer given.

Another thought.... strange that the former Board president, King, directed the Board attorney, Rubin, to research "charges against board candidates" for which the Board was charged in October. Former board president King knew about the information and withheld it. Why? Wouldn't it have been in everyone's best interest to share the info so Ms. Lowry could have withdrawn from the race? It took a practiced and experienced school law attorney to dig up this TR case which he apparently wasn't aware of in all his extensive dealings with school boards, but we're expected to believe Ms. Lowry knew that her sick leave benefits were an impediment to running for the board.

Can't help but think that those on the board who so piously tout other's malintent should remember that those living in glass houses really should think twice about throwing stones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First question: No. On the petition for board of education, the rule is printed in block letters just above the signature line that Lowry signed.

Second question: No. The Judge ruled that the ONLY ways to eliminate the prohibited interest is either the Board paying her in FULL (the judge rejected a third party assignment ruse Lowry proposed) or Lowry relinquishing her right to the unpaid money.

Bottom line: Lowry can't serve - the Board and her union don't want Lowry prepaid in full. And Lowry won't give up the money.

What is the language on the petition? It doesn't say "you're not eligible to serve if you're party to a contract with the school district that may entitle you to future payments." So what does it say exactly?

The judge didn't say the Board couldn't negotiate a payout that would involve a compromise with her, did he. Because all the judge would care about is that all rights to future payments are gone. If the Board and Lowry had reached an agreement that she take a little less to reduce the value of her payouts to present value, that would come at no cost to the taxpayers, and the judge wouldn't care because all future rights would be extinguished. So without reading the decision, I know that you don't know what you're talking about. The judge wouldn't care whether she was paid in full. He would only care that she had no right to future payments. Because that's all the statute says that creates the legal conflict. If you think otherwise, then share with us the language that the judge used instead of just blabbering as though you knew what you were talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stop Spinning It

I don't believe what you say is entirely true. From my understanding the Judge never rejected the third party assignment but stated it would have to be brought up in a separate hearing that would have cost Mrs Lowry additional thousands of dollars in lawyers fees! Dirty politics plain and simple. I have heard the judge urged the current board to resolve this conflict so if Mrs Lowry really did something wrong would the judge encourage this present board to resolve this conflict? I don't think so!

The judge rejected the third party assignment in her last ruling just before Christmas. You should really read the decisions. Both the Board and Ms. Lowry have them.

You keep calling it a 'conflict' as if it's a minor thing. That's not accurate. You can recuse yourself with a conflict. What Ms. Lowry violated is a qualification to hold the office. Much more serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stop Spinning It

What is the language on the petition? It doesn't say "you're not eligible to serve if you're party to a contract with the school district that may entitle you to future payments." So what does it say exactly?

The judge didn't say the Board couldn't negotiate a payout that would involve a compromise with her, did he. Because all the judge would care about is that all rights to future payments are gone. If the Board and Lowry had reached an agreement that she take a little less to reduce the value of her payouts to present value, that would come at no cost to the taxpayers, and the judge wouldn't care because all future rights would be extinguished. So without reading the decision, I know that you don't know what you're talking about. The judge wouldn't care whether she was paid in full. He would only care that she had no right to future payments. Because that's all the statute says that creates the legal conflict. If you think otherwise, then share with us the language that the judge used instead of just blabbering as though you knew what you were talking about.

This is the exact language on the petition, all in capital letters on the petition:

NO BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBER SHALL BE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY INVOLVED IN ANY CONTRACT WITH, OR CLAIM AGAINST THE BOARD.

Ms. Lowry signed right below that.

Let me repeat, the Judge said either she gets paid in full by the Board or she gives up the money. The Judge rejected a third party assignment.

Yes, if the Board negotiated with her a payment in full in advance of the start of the term of office, then it would be acceptable to the Judge. If both sides, wanted to discount the amount due and agree in writing that it was payment in full, that would pass the Judge's test. Since the right arises under a labor contract, you have to do that by amendment to the labor contract that would apply to all. What a tremendous cost that would be to the Board since retiring administrators typically leave with sick time benefits in excess of $100,000. Even at a present value (negligible) discount of 1.5%, it would cause great harm if you had a year with multiple administrator retirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The judge rejected the third party assignment in her last ruling just before Christmas. You should really read the decisions. Both the Board and Ms. Lowry have them. You keep calling it a 'conflict' as if it's a minor thing. That's not accurate. You can recuse yourself with a conflict. What Ms. Lowry violated is a qualification to hold the office. Much more serious.
Your wrong the she would have had to re-petition the court regarding the third party payout costing her thousands more in legal fees.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The former Board entered into a sidebar agreement a few months back with the teachers union to award an increase in quite a few steps to Bobbi Lockhard who is now married to Ron Bolandi, former interim superintendent. The agreement stipulated that there would be no future grievances and anyone who would come forward on the issue of appropriate steps would do so on a case by case basis. That's the way the amendment was worded. Otherwise do you know how many teachers are entitled to what Mrs. Bolandi received? It was done quietly and discreetly...... Why did the board entertain that one but would not consider Ms. Lowry's request since the amendment could employ the same wording? Any request having to do with a negotiations issue must be addressed case by case. If requests were approved under generalities you'd have people coming out of the woodwork to claim whatever. Do all of us a favor and stop defending what the former majority chose not to do. You're trying too hard to make it sound like they were so concerned about taxpayers money and sticking to labor laws is really important to them. If that is so, then before they try to "recommend " a $250.00 stipend per diem for two VP's and a major jump on salary for the tech director, all of which totals approximately $70,000.00, I guess they better approach the union. Salaries and stipends are negotiable items. Did they forget that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Baloney on Rye

This is the exact language on the petition, all in capital letters on the petition:

NO BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBER SHALL BE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY INVOLVED IN ANY CONTRACT WITH, OR CLAIM AGAINST THE BOARD.

Ms. Lowry signed right below that.

Let me repeat, the Judge said either she gets paid in full by the Board or she gives up the money. The Judge rejected a third party assignment.

Yes, if the Board negotiated with her a payment in full in advance of the start of the term of office, then it would be acceptable to the Judge. If both sides, wanted to discount the amount due and agree in writing that it was payment in full, that would pass the Judge's test. Since the right arises under a labor contract, you have to do that by amendment to the labor contract that would apply to all. What a tremendous cost that would be to the Board since retiring administrators typically leave with sick time benefits in excess of $100,000. Even at a present value (negligible) discount of 1.5%, it would cause great harm if you had a year with multiple administrator retirements.

Do the words "non-precedent setting" mean anything to you? They're used quite often when negotiating with a union outside of a contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stop Spinning It

Do the words "non-precedent setting" mean anything to you? They're used quite often when negotiating with a union outside of a contract.

There is never a "non-precedent setting" negotiation with a labor union without a price to pay.

You're still try to defend a candidacy for office that should NOT have occurred. You ignored the language on her petition: "NO BOARD MEMBER SHALL BE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY INVOLVED IN ANY CONTRACT WITH THE BOARD". Ms. Lowry signed and filed her petition on June 6, 2012. Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is never a "non-precedent setting" negotiation with a labor union without a price to pay.

You're still try to defend a candidacy for office that should NOT have occurred. You ignored the language on her petition: "NO BOARD MEMBER SHALL BE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY INVOLVED IN ANY CONTRACT WITH THE BOARD". Ms. Lowry signed and filed her petition on June 6, 2012. Why?

If that's true, it's a very good question. But I also wonder why the five stooges jumped on this only after she won. After all, each of them had to circulate the same petition for themselves. And they certainly knew who Debbie is, and how recently she retired. So they must have known that she was involved in a contract with the Board. So why did they let the election happen, let the people vote, and then move to have Debbie declared ineligible after it was too late for those of us who voted for her to choose someone else? That's a good question too.

Here's another good question. Should the five stooges be allowed to profit from their own wrong? If they sat on this, knowing that Debbie was ineligible, should we have to worry that one of them is going to be appointed to the seat, after Castelli and Campbell both got clobbered by the people in the election?

And where was the "number one school board attorney in New Jersey" when all this was going on?

The most important question is: what about the people of Kearny? What about our kids and their education? What about our right to be represented by the people we want, and to have the Board behave in the way we want it to behave? Shouldn't those be the most important considerations? I would like to see a whole lot less drama and a whole lot more positive action from our BOE than we saw under the five stooges. Let's hope we don't have to put up with another year of their nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...