AC VOICE

© 2014 ACVoice. All Rights Reserved.

Amani Ahmed Is Still AAS President

Amani Ahmed for AAS President

Amani Ahmed for AAS President

(Samuel Bell ‘11)– I have heard that there is currently a scandal in the AAS elections revolving around the AAS Constitution’s elections rules. As a recent alumnus and former AAS Senator who helped lead the effort to rewrite the AAS Constitution a few years ago, I thought I would offer some perspective on this issue.

I do not know either candidate, and I really have no idea which one would do a better job. But it is clear to me that President Ahmed has been treated unjustly. Through devious, underhanded tactics, her opponents have attempted to oust her, and they now have the audacity to claim she is no longer President. I am writing to assure the students of Amherst that she remains President.

President Ahmed won the election fairly, abiding by all rules and regulations. However, her opponents attempted to invalidate the results of the election through an elections complaint, arguing that she violated spending limits. She did not. Although she did spend literally tens of dollars on her campaign, her $39.40 total did not exceed the $45 limit. She did spend $20 printing out some posters that she later decided to redesign and not use, and her opponents argued that those unused posters should count against her total. Her opponents took their complaint to the Judiciary Council, which ruled correctly that she did not violate the spending limits. After this, the election results were certified, and Amani Ahmed became president.

President Ahmed’s antagonists were not yet done. Next, they went to the Senate to try to invalidate the JC complaint. They lost this vote. So they got dirty.

They proposed to have the student body vote on a constitutional amendment a few days later. The amendment would modify the definition of a campaign expenditure and symbolically invalidate the results of the JC complaint going forward. As the amendment’s backers made clear many times, the referendum would not invalidate the results of the election. As the Student put it, “there will be no impact on the election results.”

To put forward this amendment, President Ahmed’s antagonists gathered the signatures of 15% of the Freshman, Sophomore, and Junior classes and convinced their allies in the Elections Committee to go ahead with a vote, even though they had not collected the necessary signatures from Seniors. Even worse, the Elections Committee did not announce the election to Seniors, severely disenfranchising them. Numerous other proper procedures for constitutional amendments were also violated.

In a generous spirit of compromise, President Ahmed supported the referendum, wanting to move beyond this ridiculous controversy and get on with the business of representing the student body. She voted for it, and encouraged her supporters to do the same. With her support, it passed overwhelmingly. All of this was on the understanding that it would not invalidate her election.

However, before the results had been released*, former AAS Vice President Noah Gordon ’14 lodged a complaint to invalidate the referendum, listing numerous ways in which it violated the Constitution. Then, after the newly inaugurated Judiciary Council recused itself from proceedings, an alternate Judiciary Council composed primarily of members from the previous Judiciary Council issued a contradictory ruling*, which admitted that the complaint against the referendum was correct, noting that the petitioner “only collected signatures from three of the four classes eligible to vote.” Despite finding that the requirements for issuing a referendum were not met, they decided to uphold the referendum anyway.

It is important to note that this group was not the real Judiciary Council. A handful of the anti-Ahmed Judiciary Council members convinced the newly inaugurated Judiciary Council members to step aside and let them rule . However, they did not follow the proper procedure for appointing alternate Judiciary Council members. According to the Constitution, all Judiciary Council alternates must be appointed by the newly elected Judiciary Council Chair and confirmed by the Senate. These members of the rogue Judiciary Council were not appointed by the new Chair or confirmed by the Senate. They did not even bother to fully staff the full component of five members for this fake court, leaving the final vote 3-0.

At an acrimonious Senate meeting Wednesday night, the Senate asked the real Judiciary Council to convene informally and issue an opinion on whether a referendum to invalidate the results of the election would be constitutional. Two members recused themselves, and the Judiciary Council Chair had not submitted her list of alternates for Senate confirmation, so the body was not fully staffed. Because the body was not properly constituted, any rulings it issued should be treated as null and void.

Then the new Judiciary Council pulled a bold and audacious move. Without hearing a proper complaint, without the mandatory public hearing, they decided they had the ability to make a formal ruling. They decided to reverse the original ruling and invalidate the election, removing President Ahmed by fiat . Needless to say, they did not have the ability to do this. According to the Constitution, the Judiciary Council can only rule in the event of a formal complaint. It cannot rule on a complaint more than 10 days after the first hearing.

The Senate first voted to overturn this bogus ruling, and then they voted to reconsider the vote to overturn. The reconsidered vote failed 10-9, garnering a majority but not the required supermajority. Because the Judiciary Council was not properly constituted and did not have the authority to rule, their ruling was not valid, and it did not need to be overruled. I was not present at the meeting, so I cannot be sure of the motivation for overturning the initial overturning of the ruling, but I am informed that the primary motivations were confusion and exhaustion.

At no point during any of these proceedings was President Ahmed ever removed from office. According to the Constitution, “only the Senate may remove an AAS member from office.” It requires a 2/3 vote.

During that Wednesday meeting, there was a vote to remove President Ahmed from office. It failed overwhelmingly.

Amani Ahmed remains AAS President. Her antagonists may scream that she is not. But she has the protection of the AAS Constitution.

A small number of ambitious AAS insiders have attempted to invalidate the result of a popular vote. Let’s not let them get away with it.

*Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to reflect the following changes:

  • The paragraph beginning with “Then, her opponents made their move” has been removed to avoid the false impression that Gordon filed his complaint after the results of the referendum were released.
  • The paragraph beginning with “However, before the results had been released” has been modified to more accurately reflect the actual sequence of events.
  • The sentence beginning with “Then, after the newly inaugurated Judiciary Council recused itself from proceedings” has been modified to more accurately portray the process by which the acting Judiciary Council was selected.

We apologize for any errors or misunderstandings.

About featurecreature

The editors of AC Voice use featurecreature to publish anonymous and guest submissions. If you are interested in posting to AC Voice anonymously or as a guest, feel free to contact us.

28 comments on “Amani Ahmed Is Still AAS President

  1. Go home
    May 10, 2014

    So Liya Rechtman, who claimed she has no personal affinity towards either candidate, brings in an alumnus trying to relive his glory days. Alright folks, AC Voice gets the last word and makes the final decisions, lets pack it up! No. We’ve reached a decision. It doesn’t matter if you were in AAS years ago. The rest of us aren’t returning to our high schools to regulate elections that don’t pertain to us. Get your life together.

    • Liya Rechtman
      May 10, 2014

      Hi, thanks for your input. To clarify: I in no way asked Sam to write this article. As a member of the editorial board, I was one of the people who helped edit this article, which the editorial board does with every guest post.

      I have never said I supported Amani. I spoke to both candidates beforehand about their campaigns, I did not vote (as a senior), and I did think that the JC complaint against Amani was a valid complaint.

      Amani and I have very little in common, outside of the fact that we are both women. If you had been paying closer attention you would have noticed that Amani is Palestinian and I am Israel-American. We have historically had a fairly tense relationship because of that, which came to a head two years ago when I was the VP of Amherst Israel Alliance and she was on the Budgetary Committee. People seemed to have confused courtesy, empathy, and the maintenance of human dignity with friendship or affinity, which is sad to me.

      • Anonymous
        May 15, 2014

        Way to uphold your colonialist bullshit against Palestinian people.

  2. Noah Roberts
    May 10, 2014

    Perhaps writing this article with less biased language would let me take it more seriously.

  3. Anonymous
    May 10, 2014

    THANK YOU!! I’m sick of all this AAS crap. Amani has my full support.

    • Anonymous
      May 10, 2014

      I voted for Amani and I am against the JC ruling, but come on… This article is just beyond ridiculous.

      “Through devious, underhanded tactics, her opponents have attempted to oust her, and they now have the audacity to claim she is no longer President. I am writing to assure the students of Amherst that she remains President.”

      There were no “devious, underhanded tactics” to “oust” the President. The JC does not “claim” that she is no longer President. They *ruled* that she was never legitimately sworn-in, in the first place.

      It’s ironic that the author holds up the constitution and at the same time proceeds to declare that because he personally interprets the JC to have acted unconstitutionally, therefore its decision now automatically invalidated.

      “I say, therefore it is.”

    • Anonymous
      May 10, 2014

      Just making it clear that the JC has removed her, or as this article seems to imply claimed to remove her, not the AAS.

  4. Your Objection Should Be Against Senate
    May 10, 2014

    The overtly bitter and biased language used in this article has the predictable consequence of detracting from its arguments. The sense of authority that you believe you have just because you were once a senator and may or may not have “lead the effort to help rewrite the AAS Constitution a few years ago” is impossibly deluded. It matters not that you wrote it: it matters how the relevant persons in 2014 interpreted it, and according to the referendum results, 88.59% of voters understood the relevant Clause as meaning money spent throughout the course of one’s campaign. That’s not exactly a slight majority.

    I will not deny that there are individuals on this campus who don’t like Amani Ahmed. I also would not deny that there are some students who supported the referendum only because they wanted to act on that sentiment. But it’s an unjustifiable and condescending leap to assume that everyone who voted in overturning the JC decision and supported having a new election necessarily have this sentiment. If anything, the prevalence of articles like these can’t help but be contradictory. If we assume that those who supported the referendum only did so to remove Amani from office, then we should assume that those who dissent as vehemently as this only do so to desperately keep Amani in office. This is an impasse whose ending I cannot foresee, which is why this can’t be about Amani. It shouldn’t be about Amani. It’s not about Amani.

    To the best of my estimation, persons who brought the referendum cited plausible jurisprudental and pragmatic arguments about the negative consequences the initial JC ruling would have had. Articles like this one continue to debase these arguments as nothing more than anti-Amani sentiments. But you’ll notice, if you read the live-feed of the relevant meeting, none of the initial complainants were calling for Amani’s impeachment. In fact, Josh Ferrer, one of the two students who filed the first complaint, abhorred the thought of impeaching Amani: “Josh Ferrer just weighed in, saying that impeaching President Ahmed would be inappropriate. The language on impeachment says that impeachment can occur “on grounds of accusations of gross negligence, malfeasance, fraud, and/or serious violation of Constitutional duties as laid out in the bylaws.” Ferrer argues that President Ahmed has done none of this, she merely violated election rules, so today’s JC decision should be reinstated.”

    If the incentive was truly to run Amani out of office, or to rob her of her victory, these so called “antagonists” would have sought to disqualify her from the new election. She has not been denied the ability to campaign and run again if she pleases. The only thing this article points out is the incompetence and the fickleness of the AAS, not the “acrimonious” acts of those who just won’t accept Amani as their President.

    You yourself concede that, in the manner that 88.59% of voters understood the constitution, Amani was in violating of expenditure limits, which may or may not have tainted the election results. The larger point is that when it comes to a position like this one, we need to have a fair and honest election, which was the aim of the newest JC ruling (which, by the way, was deliberated and voted upon by Senate).

    • Siraj Sindhu
      May 10, 2014

      Just to clarify, ‘the so called “antagonists”’ (Joshua Ferrer and Pierre Joseph) did seek to disqualify Amani from the new election. They settled for the JC decision, which removed her from office but made her eligible to run again.

      • Anonymous
        May 10, 2014

        Maybe in the initial stage of the proceedings. But do you have evidence/proof that this sentiment recurred throughout the entire process? Or am I to merely accept your extrapolations of another’s state of mind? Josh’s comment from the live feed seems relatively antithetical to the claim you’re advancing.

      • Pierre Joseph
        May 10, 2014

        Siraj–

        To clarify, Josh and I filed a broad complaint against all candidates in the run off election. It was never about Amani. She just happened to be the only candidate found in violation of the rules.

        Had she followed the rules in the first place we wouldn’t be here today.

        It is unfortunate that this has happened but she has the option to run again in a new election, and I hope she does.

        Before we even get there though, the Senate needs to make a move on election reforms.

      • Siraj Sindhu
        May 10, 2014

        Since the minutes aren’t up yet (and even those are rarely comprehensive of everything that is actually said), I have only my memory of Wednesday’s meeting to rely on. I recall Joshua saying that the original complaint sought to bar a second Ahmed election campaign, and that since the JC decision was less severe, it should be an acceptable compromise. I’m sorry I don’t have anything more concrete.

        I’m not asking you to take me at my word, and forgive me if my first comment read like an attempt to put words into someone else’s mouth. I am only trying to contribute to discussion by putting forth what I remember hearing. Thanks!

      • Joshua Ferrer
        May 10, 2014

        Echoing what Pierre said, the initial complaint did ask for harsh repercussions. Due to the current way election complaints are set up, we did not know if any specific candidate overspent. But this was not by any means the focus of the complaint–if anything, it was the least important part. As you can see in the lengthy language in the middle of the complaint (now sadly ignored) and also the second repercussion of the complaint (https://www.amherst.edu/campuslife/aas/announcements/jc-ruling-on-april-15-elections-complaint) the focus of the complaint was on ensuring financial transparency and illuminating the need for election reform. I personally believe the ultimate decision by the JC is appropriate in this case, considering the circumstances and events surrounding this election.

        I must stress again the difference between what the JC did and what the Senate tried to do. I argued against impeachment because it is the harshest form of punishment available, and is used for serious offenses committed in office. Amani has not done anything wrong in office; the foolishness of the motion quickly become apparent in light of what the Constitution states. The JC, however, ruled that there had been problems in the elections which necessitated a new election. This is completely in the JC’s mandate to do, and is backed up by precedence. I also want to point out the dangerous precedent the Senate tried to set last night: that once someone is sworn into office, no matter how problematic the elections were, they can only be removed by impeachment. Thus, swearing-in becomes a self-legitimizing act, for only actions taken while in office can count as impeachable offences.

        Finally, the article does indeed focus on very stigmatizing language. This is unfortunate but not surprising, considering the stigmatized nature this debate has been transformed into. Yes, there are legitimate concerns with how the JC and Senate have acted, and yes, there are reasonable grounds for both sides of the debate. But such language sucks the intellectual concerns out of the debate and leaves only emotion. I am not an “opponent” or an “antagonist” of Amani (but if you wish to call me as such, please be forward about it and use my name). I am simply a concerned citizen. An activist, sure, not to harm any candidate but to try to ensure fairer, more transparent and open elections.

        I hope we can move beyond this current election and talk about the real issue: reforming the Constitution. I wonder what positive changes would come out of a five hour conversation on that subject.

  5. J
    May 10, 2014

    Shame on you ACVoice for even publishing this. Well, maybe not. Shame on you, alum, for even writing this.

    One. You don’t even go here.

    Two. You just crafted an outrageously sensational story based off of certain pieces of the story you heard, from a select few people. You don’t even go here. You don’t know what happened. You don’t have a clue what’s really going on.

    Three. Just because you’re the “founding father” of the AAS constitution, does not make you “God of AAS” or “Supreme Justice of AAS”. You cannot just swoop in here and unilaterally declare that after the JC had deliberated for 5 hours, after a referendum, after the AAS senate had voted twice on this matter, that YOUR interpretation alone is the one that is right.

    Who the fuck do you think you are?

    I don’t agree with the new JC decision in its entirety. But done is done. There will be a new election.

    If you want to comment on things, sure, go ahead. But you have zero right to make any stupid declarations, pretend as if you know what’s going, manufacture stories, and cast the real students who deliberated sincerely about the matter as “dirty”.

    Seriously.

    Let me make this absolutely clear, in case you missed it: You don’t even go here.

    • "J" is a gigantic chode
      May 10, 2014
      • Anonymous
        May 10, 2014

        I don’t think it matters at all that Sam Bell is intelligent, accomplished, successful, and progressive. I don’t doubt he is. Bravo for taking down the NRA! Ok- now does that make this article any better? No.

        I think “J”s point was that Bell clearly has very little idea of what actually took place on campus – and constructed a story from a very one-sided account of what happened.

        “J” may have been a little overly angry and aggressive with that comment (i.e. “who the fuck do you think you are?”). But in a sense she was rightfully indignant, and it’s (somewhat) understandable. And I partly agree with her sentiment. Just because Sam Bell has been successful, has taken down the NRA, or helped write the constitution does not mean he has the right to groundless accuse those honestly fighting an issue as Anti-Amani antagonists who were playing dirty.

        What Bell was trying to do with this article is essentially take the place of the judiciary council that we, the students who are actually here, elected. It’s not that his article doesn’t have interesting and plausible arguments. It’s that he asserts them forcefully, as if he himself were the JC and was competent to rule on the complaint. He declares that Amani did not overspend — how does he make this judgment? From what seat of power? From his computer desk all the way in Brown?

        The accusation “you don’t even go here” (Cf. Mean Girls) makes a lot of sense to me. Because Bell –as a matter of fact — has no idea what actually happened on campus. It’s clear, from the article’s updated edits, that Bell had written the article without even checking the facts–that he had written it with a very loose idea of what had actually happened–and was obviously outraged by what he *thought* had happened… It just puzzles me, why, years after graduating, he would get so passionate about something that matters so little, passionate enough to become so blindly biased…

      • Anonymous
        May 10, 2014

        I don’t think it matters at all that Sam Bell is intelligent, accomplished, successful, and progressive. I don’t doubt he is. Bravo for taking down the NRA! Ok- now does that make this article any better? No.

        I think “J”s point was that Bell clearly has very little idea of what actually took place on campus – and constructed a story from a very one-sided account of what happened.

        “J” may have been a little overly angry and aggressive with that comment (i.e. “who the fuck do you think you are?”). But in a sense she was rightfully indignant, and it’s (somewhat) understandable. And I partly agree with her sentiment. Just because Sam Bell has been successful, has taken down the NRA, or helped write the constitution does not mean he has the right to groundless accuse those honestly fighting an issue as Anti-Amani antagonists who were playing dirty.

        What Bell was trying to do with this article is essentially take the place of the judiciary council that we, the students who are actually here, elected. It’s not that his article doesn’t have interesting and plausible arguments. It’s that he asserts them forcefully, as if he himself were the JC and was competent to rule on the complaint. He declares that Amani did not overspend — how does he make this judgment? From what seat of power? From his computer desk all the way in Brown?

        The accusation “you don’t even go here” (Cf. Mean Girls) makes a lot of sense to me. Because Bell –as a matter of fact — has no idea what actually happened on campus. It’s clear, from the article’s updated edits, that Bell had written the article without even checking the facts–that he had written it with a very loose idea of what had actually happened–and was obviously outraged by what he *thought* had happened… It just puzzles me, why, years after graduating, he would get so passionate about something that matters so little, passionate enough to become so blindly biased…

  6. Anonymous
    May 10, 2014

    Hasn’t Amherst taught you to substantiate your claim/argument with evidence/proof at the very least? Did you party your 4 years away?

    • AA
      May 10, 2014

      http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2014/02/brown-student-takes-down-national-rifle-association/ Have fun never achieving even a fraction of the success that Sam has in a few short years over the duration of your lifetime.

      • Liya Rechtman
        May 10, 2014

        Hi AA, Thanks for reading and commenting! The editors have decided not to post your other comment since it constituted an ad hominem attack not integral to the discussion on the forum.

      • Anonymous
        May 10, 2014

        Very impressive accolades. All the more reason he should know better.

      • Anonymous
        May 10, 2014

        His past achievement does not change the fact about the quality of this article. Have fun trying to blindly confer his angelic halo onto everything he does and therefore missing out on the crux of the debate.

  7. anonymous
    May 10, 2014

    There are “technical” issues of procedure on all sides of this discussion, requiring further and possibly divisive interpretation. Yet it turns out the key issues have not been very divisive at all. Support for clarifying what almost everyone understood the spending rules to mean has been overwhelming at each step.

    Just the same, Bell’s essay argues that only rule interpretations and rulings favoring Ahmad should matter; namely that it was reasonable that her understanding of campaign spending was correct (though most everyone else disagrees), that it was reasonable for the previous JC to formerly adopt Ahmad’s personal version of that rule to avoid her disqualification, and that possible technical violations of constitutional procedures for the subsequent referendum and JC rulings aimed at resolving those disputes were unreasonable, however minor.

    The runoff election was close enough that any cutting of corners could have made the difference — a point Bell ignores — and thus be effectively unfair. So the central question was, were corners cut? And if so, how to proceed? The right answer was “very carefully,” iterating as necessary to get it right in the end.

    The other run-off candidate did not initiate or pursue these complaints, and did not participate in Wednesday’s Senate votes. Rather, complaints were filed by students troubled by what appeared to be divisive interpretations of the letter and spirit of election protocols, including — Bell’s claims notwithstanding — many supporters of Ahmad. They wanted the system fixed, with clear standards applied fairly.

    The appearance that AAS became overly discombobulated is precisely because good governance is the hardest. It would not have served either Ahmad or the AAS to have an unresolved cloud of legitimacy over their heads, demonstrating they can’t or won’t sort out (or credibly enforce) their own rules when they actually matter. There were innocent missteps in doing so but none with anywhere near the weight to produce a different outcome. By contrast, Ahmed arguably violated a central, binding tenet, then made an unconvincing (and unapologetic) defense that the rule was open to flexible interpretations, where she favored the flexibility sufficient to keep her in office. She then tenaciously and flagrantly used her Senate vote to single-handedly block a procedurally appropriate reconsideration of a tortuous and widely contested JC decision — continuing to maintain that “reported spending” and “actual spending” are distinct fiscal and moral concepts. She supported the referendum removing that distinction only because she thought it would not apply to her past actions, not because she agreed. If she agreed, she would have stepped down or argued for a new election. And once it passed, indicating she had violated the consensus rules, how could it not fairly apply to the election in which it was violated?

    This sausage making shows, sensibly, that it is not up to each candidate to interpret the rules to fit their campaign strategy. It may have been frustrating in its length and tedium at times, but such is real life.

    To some, the take-away is that fixing this mess was messier at times that it was worth. As if someone else would somehow clean it up out of sight and mind. I don’t see how. Student government and the student body did their job; they constructed a fair and reasonable remedy after substantial and inclusive debate over what “reasonable” and “fair” mean at Amherst. Where it turned out most already agreed, making that part of the discussion largely unnecessary, and none of which would have been necessary if everyone applied the rules at face value to begin with.

    A new election resets the bar at zero and Ahmad can be reelected on the same level playing field where the other candidates play if she can make her case (a) that she behaved reasonably pre-runoff and/or (b) that she was treated unreasonably post-runoff. Either will give her more votes than before — and both needed to be addressed to establish the legitimacy of the next president and AAS conflict-resolution measures.

    Starting over with sufficiently more clarity to avoid this kind of misunderstanding on the part of a very few seems more than fair all around.

    • Concerned Student
      May 10, 2014

      Hi, first off, Amani’s vote opposing overturning the JC decision, actually didn’t affect whether of not the JC decision should have been overturned, if she had abstained, the same result would have occurred. Only yes votes count towards a 3/4 majority vote. So you’re wrong there.

      Two. Regardless of what you think of what the initial JC ruling should have been, Amani was sworn into office. She was/is president. It is unconstitutional for the JC to remove her from office. The only way she can be removed from office is by impeachment and Senate voted on impeachment and it failed because Amani did not do anything wrong as president. It’s ridiculous that this is even a conversation. She was President and the JC did something was constitutionally wrong and deeply problematic. If we’re concerned about precedent, the JC and the JC chair are now the most powerful group of students and can do whatever they want. There are rules in the constitution that limit that power, but the JC and the JC chair didn’t think those rules were important.

      • Problems with Referendum
        May 10, 2014

        Also, the referendum clearly states that the results of the referendum would not affect the presidential election–the referendum misinformed students.

        AND the referendum states that it would VOID the ruling. Why wasn’t the word “overturned used”?–that would indicate revisiting the case. Void means to nullify–it indicates that it would only affect future elections. Perhaps the authors of the referendum had something else in mind, but that wasn’t made clear to the student body.

        It’s interesting that people who claim to be so concerned about the constitution and the precedents these rulings will have, have manipulated the constitution to “right” the wrongs Amani has made. The actions of these so called arbiters of justice have been far more problematic in terms of precedent than Amani’s interpretation of campaign expenditure.

  8. anonymous
    May 10, 2014

    FINALLY!!! It seems to me that there is actually little logic behind the demand for a revote. I couldn’t have less to do with Peter, Amani, or the AAS, but I can’t help but wonder if jealousy was at play.

  9. John
    May 10, 2014

    “I believe that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled wrongly and unconstitutionally in Bush v. Gore.

    Therefore, I am writing to assure the people of America that Mr. Bush is not president.” -Samuel Bell, front page of the New York Times, 2000.

  10. joe
    September 3, 2014

    How many times is the JC allowed to rule on the same subject matter? Do you keep voting until you get the outcome you want? I vote to abolish the entire Senate and the JC body, your all a bunch of clowns and don’t deserve to represent the student body of Amherst.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,801 other followers

%d bloggers like this: