HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09081992 - MR.1 MR. 1
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
DATE: September 8, 1992
MATTER OF RECORD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Proposed State Legislation Relating to Budgets
Donald Fibush. J.D. , C.L.U. , Volunteer Advocate for Children,
2301 Pine Knoll Drive, # 10, Walnut Creek, CA 94595, appeared before
the Board, submitted the attached written comments, and spoke on
proposed state legislation relating to budgets, and requested the
Board to take a position in opposition to Proposition 165 . The Board
requested the County Administrator to review the concerns of Mr.
Fibush.
cc: County Administrator
County Counsel
DONALD H. FIBUSH, J.D., C.L.U.
i
VOLUNTEER ADVOCATE FOR CHILDREN
i 2301 PINE KNOLL DR.#10
e
WALNUT CREEK.CA 94595
PHONE:510.939-1019
i
i
r
VOTE "NO" ON PROPOSITION 165 WHICH WOULD CHANGE OUR STATE CONSTITUTION.
IT IS THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSITION WHICH HE CALLS TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND
WELFARE REFORM ACT.
THIS IS A MISNOMER BECAUSE IT WOULD RESULT IN COSTING THE STATE AND COUNTIES
MUCH GREATER EXPENSE AND IS NOT WELFARE REFORM BUT WELFARE PUNISHMENT! WE
ALREADY HAVE "GAIN" WHICH IS A SUCCESSFUL WELFARE REFORM PLAN ACCORDING TO THE
GOVERNOR'S OWN ADMINISTRATION.
THE TITLE DOESN'T EVEN INDICATE THAT IT ALSO WOULD EXPAND THE FISCAL POWERS
OF THE GOVERNOR FAR BEYOND THAT OF OUR PRESIDENT, THE GOVERNOR OF ANY STATE OR
THE EXECUTIVE OF ANY DEMOCRACY!
THE NOVEMBER 1992 BALLOT REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST PROPOSITION 165 ARE BEING
JOINTLY SIGNED BY LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, STATE
PTA, CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF HIGHWAY PATROLMEN, & CALIFORNIA CHILD, YOUTH, &
FMIILY COALITION OF AGENCIES.
THIS PROPOSITION REDUCES THE ENTIRE FUNDS UPON WHICH 943,755 ADULT AGED,
BLIND, AND DISABLED AND 1,689,952 CHILDREN MUST LIVE (CHILDREN NOW 30% BELOW
THE POVERTY LEVEL WILL THEN LOSE ANOTHER 25%). MANY OF THE ADULTS WOULD SOON
HAVE TO BECOME INSTITUTIONALIZED PATIENTS AT MUCH GREATER TAXPAYER EXPENSE.
MANY AFDC CHILDREN WOULD BECOME HOMELESS, HUNGRY, ILL, RUNAWAYS, SUICIDES, AND
CRIMINALS.
OUR GOVERNORS HAVE THE "LINE ITEM VETO POWER". THEY CAN REDUCE OR EVEN
ELIMINATE' THE APPROPRIATION IN ANY BILL BEFORE SIGNING IT, INCLUDING ITEMS IN
THE BUDGET BILL. PROPOSITION 165 ENABLES THE GOVERNOR TO DECLARE FISCAL
EMERGENCIES, AND THEN REDUCE VIRTUALLY ANY STATE SUPPORTED SERVICE BY ANY
AMOUNT. IF THE NEW BUDGET IS NOT. SIGNED BY JULY FIRST, IT WOULD CONTINUE THE
PRIOR-YEAR BUDGET UNTIL THE NEW BUDGET IS SIGNED AND THE GOVERNOR MAY MAKE THE
SAME UNLIMITED REDUCTIONS. THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE PROPOSITION FOR THE
LEGISLATURE TO OVER-RIDE THESE ACTIONS.
WITH THIS EXPANDED POWER OVER STATE SPENDING THERE IS NO NEED OR INCENTIVE
FOR THE GOVERNOR EVEN TO CONSULT WITH THE LEGISLATURE. THE GOVERNOR COULD FAIL
TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE LEGISLATURE, DECLARE A FISCAL EMERGENCY AND MAKE
REDUCTIONS IN THE CURRENT BUDGET WHEN THERE .IS A DEFICIT OF 3%, VETO ANY BUDGET
IF ONE IS RECEIVED BEFORE JULY FIRST, AND THEN MAKE MORE REDUCTIONS IN THE
CARRIED OVER PRIOR-YEAR BUDGET.
THE PROPOSITION DOES HAVE A- FEW GOOD "CARROTS ON THE STICK" SUCH AS
TERMINATING THE PAY AND OTHER PERKS OF LEGISLATORS AND THE GOVERNOR IF A BUDGET
ISN'T PASSED BY JULY FIRST AS PROVIDED .IN THE CONSTITUTION. HOWEVER, THE
INEVITABLE IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO THE LIVES OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AND THE
ENSUING ULTIMATE COST TO THE TAXPAYERS NECESSITATE ITS OVERWHELMING DEFEAT.
CCYFC LEGISLATIVE MEMO
Volume 1, Number 1 August 24, 1992
IN THIS ISSUE:
-New Law Allows Minors to Consent for Shelter Care
-CCYFC to Sign Rebuttal on Prop 165, Wilson's "Welfare Reform" Initiative
Movement on State Budget
-Recap of CCYFC Legislative and Budget Activities
NEW LAV ALLOWS MINOR CONSENT FOR SHELTER SERVICES
AB 12-142 by Nf-ku. G h D_cn.� Dies /!': T C .i S` 'G. 25.9N -tends ds the Hght- n4' n
.!✓✓✓ ;' �1111V Lf it t✓41 LIV�.aJ tVl�tl VVUV brV�l 11 L✓ / AV lulu Ulltr 1�6 J V. .1
minor to consent to residential shelter services without parental consent. Any minor
12 and over, who, in the opinion of the attending professional person, is mature
enough to participate in a decision to consent to residential shelter services and who is
in danger of serious physical or mental harm to him/herself or to others or who has
been the alleged victim of incest or child abuse, may give consent to the furnishing of
such services. Strong support from members of CCYFC and Western States Youth
Services, including Sharon Kalemkiarian of San Diego's Legal Aid Society, moved this
bill forward. It goes into affect January 1, 1993; preliminary information will appear
in the September 1992 "Issues & Strategies" with a complete analysis to follow in a
joint effort between CCYFC and Kalemkiarian. For more information, call Sharon, (619)
262-5557 x336.
CCYFC TO SIGN PROP 165 REBUTTAL
CCYFC joins the League of Women Voters, California Council of Churches, National
Council of Senior Citizens, PTA and California Association of Highway Patrolmen in
-T signing the November 1992 ballot rebuttal arguments against Prop 165. Remember, y
:.-this is the initiative that eliminates cost of living increases for foster homes, the needy,
E
aged, blind and disabled Californians. It gives the Governor power to declare a fiscal
emergency if state revenues fall by only 3%. In such an emergency, the Governor can t
f reduce virtually any state supported service by any amount. For more information,
call No on 165, (916)_ 449-965,5�_�
MOVEMENT ON STATE BUDGET
Several bills necessary to produce a state budget have been passed by the Senate &
Assembly. Wilson has vetoed the Assembly's Education budget bill, slowing down the
process again. Capitol insiders say there still may be a budget around Labor Day;
others say nothing will change until teachers are paid IOU's. Information on how the
state budget may affect youth services will be distributed to all members in the
September 1992 "Issues & Strategies" and in publications to follow. For more
information, call CCYFC (916) 739-6912.
DONALD H. FIBUSH, J.D., C.L.U.
VOLUNTEER ADVOCATE FOR CHILDREN
2301 PINE KNOLL DR.#10
WALNUT CREEK,CA 94595
PHONE:510-939-1019
August 10, 1992
FACT SHEET EXPLAINING THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSITION 165, WHICH
WILL BE VOTED UPON IN THE NOVEMBER BALLOT. IT IS THE PROPOSITION SPONSORED BY
GOVERNOR WILSON WHO GAVE IT THE MISLEADING NAME "TAXPAYER'S PROTECTION ACT".
In order to secure the funds to obtain the signatures to qualify this
proposition for the ballot, the Governor created the "Golden State 2000
Committee". This is like political office candidates creating what they call a
"Committee" for their election to receive contributions. Requests for
contributions are then sent to prospective supporters, asking that such
contributions be made payable to the Committee.
In this instance the requests for contributions were sent to many large
corporations, including quasi public corporations. Of course they were informed
that it was to qualify the "Taxpayer's Protection Act". The claim is that it is
intended to prevent a state deficit without raising taxes, but to have a
balanced budget and to guarantee much needed welfare reform. As a result of
those requests, substantial contributions were made by PG & E ($25,000),
Pacific Telesis ($20,000), Bank of America ($16,000), Wells Fargo ($20,000),
Lockheed Corporation ($25,000) , and AT & T ($10,000) and many others.
I have written to each of these in which I- included information of which I
feel certain they were not aware. I have received responses from several of
them. Each of them regularly make tax deductible contributions to non profit
agencies, as do their employees and stock holders. Their justification for
these contributions seems to be that they think the public ought to have the
opportunity to vote on such an important issue as one called the "Taxpayer's
Protection Act".
It is very unlikely that they knew the extent to which the proposition he
proposed would expand the powers of the governor, increase the homelessness of
an estimated additional 84,000 families with 168,000 children, cause an
additional 250,000 children to go hungry, and seriously hurt the aged, blind,
disabled, and handicapped.
THE NON PARTISAN CALIFORNIA JOURNAL CALLS THIS THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL BALLOT
INITIATIVE! IT DRASTICALLY CHANGES OUR LEGISLATIVE SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND
BALANCES BY CONSTITUTIONALLY EXPANDING THE GOVERNOR'S POWERS. IN ADDITION IT
SERIOUSLY HARMS MORE THAN ONE OUT OF EVERY FIVE CALIFORNIA CHILDREN!
ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAPER I HAVE PREPARED AN EXPLANATION OF THE TWO
DISTINCT AND UNRELATED PARTS OF THIS PROPOSITION. IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT
THAT YOU READ IT AND PASS IT ON TO OTHERS.
DONALD H. F1BUS11, J.D., C.L.U.
-VOLUNTEER ADVOCATE FOR C111LDnEN
e
i, 2301 PINE KNOLL DR.010
i WALNUT CREEK CA 14595
e.
PHONE-40
I
6
AFDC is not the only welfare plan! It is the most misunderstood and the most
needed if we are interested in children and their survival. We talk about the
necessity for and cost effectiveness of "prevention". That is what AFDC is!
Governor Wilson expects to have a so-called welfare proposition on the
November ballot and has bills in the legislature .to make the same changes.
These all pertain to AFDC, which is Aid to Families with DEPENDENT CHILDREN!
AFDC IS NOT FOR ADULTS, IT'S FOR CHILDREN, 1,643,661 CALT_ORNIA CHILDREN AS OF
JANUARY 1992! IT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE THEM WITH MINIMUM SUESISTENCE FOR BASIC
NECESSITIES. BY LAW TFE MINIMUM AMOUNTS NEEDED FOR FOOD, CLOTHING AND SMELTER
ARE SPECIFIED, AND ADJUSTED FROM TIME TO T12m_, IN THE WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS
CODE. WE HAVE NEVER FULLY PROVIDED THE AMOUNTS SPECIFIED, EVEN THOUGH IN MOST
INSTANCES, 50% OF THE COST IS PAID BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Reagan was Governor from. 1967 through 1973. Despite the annual increase in
the cost of living, for 17 years from 1953 to 1970 there was no increase
whatever in the amount of AFDC grants. A woman with two children received the
huge stun of $172 a month'. The- only states providing less than California were a
few in the deep South!
About that time, Federal law mandated states and counties to create citizen
advisory committees in order to continue to receive federal matching funds. The
mandate included the requirement that at least one third of the membership be
recipients. When those committees and the decision makers learned these facts,
legislation was passed to increase the grants and provide for annual cost of
living increases. Nevertheless full statutory "needs" amounts have never been
funded. The grants gradually rose to be -among the leading states as a result of
the cost of living increases.
Consequently the reduction of AFDC is constantly being proposed, even though
the cost to live in California exceeds eveiy state but Hawaii and Alaska. In
fact, last year legislation was passed to suspend the cost of living increases
for five years and to reduce the grants by 4.4% for the current year. This will
probably become a total reduction of 30% to 40%. Obviously, the safety, health
and development of our children are not a top priority. The Governor's plan
proposes to permanently eliminate the cost of living increase requirement and
to reduce the grants by an additional 25%.
Prior to Prop 13 the AFDC cost to the Counties was two to three times the
cost to the state. After Prop 13 the formula was changed to relieve the .
counties, requiring them to pay only 5% of whatever the federal government pays
with the state paying the balance. The C-3verror plans to require the counties
to pay a substantially nigher percentage even though they have no additional
sources of income.
Statements have been made that mothers continue to have more babies in.order
to receive more AFDC income. Actually the average number of children in AFDC
families continues to be about the same as the general population. The January
1992 average is 1.9 children (1.8 in single parent families and 2.6 in two
parent families). Most families are small and are only on SFDC a short time.
The reasons people apply for AFDC are: The father is deceased, has deserted
the family, or hasn't paid child support and the mother is not or never has
been employed; the mother is a single parent with small children and needs
training or employment; in a two parent family the bread winner is unemployed
and seeking employment; or a single parent mother needs c!Llld care in order to
secure employment or receive vocational training.
IT'S TI!E FOR ALL OF US TO SEE THAT THESE ONE OUT OF EVERY FIVE OF OUR
CALIFORNIA CHILDREN DO NOT SUFFER EVEN DEEPER POVERTY, APUSE AND NEGLECT!
Child ANews
M t
.-1 Publication of the Children's.Aduoccicy Institute
Volume 3. Number 2
Spring 1992 t
A Quarterly Forum for Child Advocctes
While our elected officials may publ:cly expres-s ccr:cern :*or c Adren and their
families. Lhe direction U!:t. '�"t:iat. ^lld�et.ne'.^flat:Gr der
families. trates the depth
of their denial abOUI the con ander which nam,Caiifarl:iL c::i:dren live. The
Le_islature and Governor continue to focus exclusively on c:ulna vita-I state
pro_rams and se^ices,even::'0uh t}e_.could e:°^ir.-Le:<u:!orphc1es and i or-aise
non-;eneral =es and re•.•enuzs- a5 a—weans of c:G:ln z :i:e S1 I bil:ion bud,Ie,.'-)aD.
This fixxation on ciecreasir._•_zr.ices r-n,her tr,ar,r::ala:;re:enue::,ii eXacerba:e the
marginal existence of man- California children.
-�lthou�h most o: Caliiorn'.G: t:;nt .iIlion child:e:, are sate ane. Sound. some are
not. The following luc[s revea'. the realin' for many lcire:l:
stateLast:•ear. 109 children tied from child abuse.
• Child abuse reports exceeded 570.000 in 1991. w•hlle state prorams aimed at
Lawmakers preventing abase reached only 55.000 children and 6.3.000 parents.
• Of the 600.000 children bornin 1990.over 25?b received little or no prenatal care.
in De • Over half of California's nvo-year-oid population.is not fully immunized against
preventable diseases. In 1990. over 404 of the nation's measies cases occurred
in California. including 3'_ deaths of children under ate 5.
• Over I million California children are without any kind of health insurance.
• An estimated 10.000 additional subsidized child care spaces will be needed each
year for the nett ten vear_ :o help low--income fa..-A lies become self-sufficient.
• Even•month.an estimated 610.000 California children ander a_e 12 ao hungry.
• Of the 2.1 million people recehina ?rd to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC) in California. 1.5 minion are children. Ater receiving the equivalent of a
100b cut last year. these families are now li+imi 3W,;bellow the poverrline.
• Over 200.000 children and:heir fr:milies sou_ht emerlenc•:*housing_ in 1991. If
AFDC :rams are CUL by 2J an es-•-nated 81.000 1'=-nlies•.til',' be unable to pay
their rent. This could resuit in a-nother 168.000 children liana on the streets.
• California has over 122.000 teen varents. E:-er:day 365 •vris t nci out thev are
pregnant and.of these. 110^.i112i+.e birth. Ove:7^_' of the i'aihers of these babies
are over a_e 2 Less .har•. 2&�:- , pre nant .ar,d paren—,_1 .e_ns rec-, :% .tate
sen ices :o hrt.D then titav in :choc•i.
• California s c;a�:is sizes aI:c.GrOUC UI rates remain nex-t,:ihZ Dorsi;n the nation.
• Cover 150.000 vauths xrre incarcerated last ve;tr at a crest of over Sa0.000 per
juvenile per•:ear.
• Each year. over 2.900 children die from prcvenmbie accidents invol in_ tire.
poisot:ir.-f. clron-n ink. _urshot. fhi:_. bic:c!es. and atttt t;:obiies. "::lis is equiva-
lent to wiping out the population of eight e!ementar: schools each year.
•
Over 80.000 rhilclren wens placed in foster care and :rnuD ho es i;tst year.
• Over 60.000 children are in need of fnental heaith pro_rams e:a+'h year.
• Over 270 children aril) COMMA suicide this +•car.
Californi;t doe;not.cur-entiv orovide the level of sappor;necessar:to address[hese
needs. Ifvou;ire ir.t.errstcc:ir.mvenue options as;u:ai;,_r ati:P:o(urtl;er pro�rtm
cu Ls. call the Calif-orrija Ta:; `.._:tli't:Association It ;` : ;l :•it;-1;t)t).
Val•-Julie 1992 Ibuth Lal, News 7
r Child welfare and poverty lawyers need to be alert to the pc)ten-
S,
tial application of Arris.M. to pending or contemplated litigation.
If the defendants raise.4rrisr M. in a pending case.various responses
r are available.An argument that state plan requirements only create '
a a right to"paper compliance" should be answered. first. by poin
ting* out that Artist M. did not overturn the Ions line of Supreme --j'
Court cases—from Rosado"to WilifertL-allowin�_enforcement of
. state plan provisions, so Artist Al. should be seen as holding only
t that the reasonable efforts clause is too vague to be enforceable.Many
other state plan requirements are much more detailed and specific.
and give the state agen+-+• much less discretion. For example. the
case planning and case review requirements of the AACWA.16 and
most of the AFDC state plan requirements,cannot plausibix be called
vague or amorphous. Also,some AFDC and Medicaid provisions
may be shielded from an Artist M. argument by comparing them
to provisions specifically round to create enforceable rights in prior
Supreme Court cases left intact by Artist M."
None of these responses to an Artist M. defense are foolproof..
however. so it is also important that advocates frame new- § 198;
lawsuits in a %%uy that precludes such a defense. Where possible, Report Finds Positive Impact
federal statutory claims should be based on specific, clear provi-
sions that are less vulnerable to a vagueness challenge than the from California's GAIN Program
"reasonable efforts"clause—and.where applicable,on provisions
that have actually been held enforceable by the Supreme Court in The Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation(MDRC)
has issued the first impact evaluation of a JOBS (lob Opportu-
prior cases. Also. to avert an argument that plaintiffs only have a
right to a plan,not to implementation of the plan, it may be possi- nines and Basic Skills, part of the 1988 Family Support Act)
ble to allege that the state plan,even on paper,fails to comply with program, and MDRC concludes that in the studied counties, "the
federal requirements(without, of course,conceding that plaintiffs program has led to decreases in welfare spending and increases
are entitled only to such ''paper compliance"). in earnings for both single parents and heads of two-parent
households,even though results were measured only one year after
In some cases the relief sought under a federal state plan require- people entered GAIN" (California's JOBS program—Greater
ment may also be available under another legal theorynot jeopar- Avenues for Independence). MDRC notes that these positive fin-
dized by Artist M., such as a constitutional claim. For example. a dines are significant because GAIN is a rood test of the human
child's right to placement in a licensed foster home that meets pro-
fessional welfare-to-work standards could be asserted not only under the.aAC'%VA, it emphasizes basic education.
but also as a constitutional due process right to safety and adequate The evaluation considered the impact of GAIN in six Califor-
care while in state custody.or a right guaranteed by the state's own nia counties and was limited to the first vear after entering the pro-
statutes and regulations governin: foster case!$Or, a mentally ill cram.Averaged across the six counties. first-vear earnings increased
child's right to preventive services that would allow her to remain 17% (S2711 for single parents while welfare payments were reduced
at home could be framed as a due process claim against needless 5 c (5281).As stated in the report, "given GAIN*s emphasis on more
state interference with family integrity.or an equal protection claim intensive.loner-terns services. first-year impacts might be expected
to sen-ices equivalent to those provided to non-mentally-ill children. to be lower than those reported for prior prog rami because
As advocates respond to the challenge of the Artist .11. deci- individuals who might otherwise have been working were still in
cion,the national legal ser ices support centers and other national education and training activities"
advocacy 2roups19 are working tovether to monitor the impact of The evaluation's finding is expected to Live a boost to the JOBS
Artist:ll. and to pr(n-ide advice and technical assistance to attorneys program. It will also encourage greater interest in the sequencing
in cases affected by .-Artist Al. of services.the role of job development. and the role of sanctions.
.11al;ha Mw11101's iS al staff anorneY in NCYL. This is because one of the studied counties.Riverside.had substan-
tially greater positive effects than the other counties. and there
imariably+vill be attempts to identify what made Riverside different.
Riverside's policies placed a treater emphasis on job search and
resulted in higher levels of sanction than the other counties, but it
w,•j,;o wrinan.?9-LIS. -N-;rvrol. also had a rigorous and effective job development component. The
"w:Wer wrreinia Ho,,p,t.,l Aorranon.'J6 C'S. 49S ONO).
•1_ta.0 ;; 6,-Mi. job development component should be of particular interest berau�e
Jcc.e.g..wilder s•.yir•mia Hi-PlUl Ass,vullon.496 U.S.19Y rl990f h+1,.i:,.n.(rur,.r: previous evaluations of wYlfare/work programs have all-e:ldy 1011nd
\Linc,ThiN,uun,1JSI'IS.I.Plkb iAf_DC;. t)usur;umnnr,urrhrrruyivn<.:..•eprr:i°il' that job search and sanctions do not have the kinds of Impacts ewl-
in.4Fl)(,ww,c•hrrarinrin;our dot•.congress has hero a„atre,!l thn sushi,.•:•::!run./„nr
:prim:e f„i•r,'rhrde§NS:,r+fl,ncmenf.See Merrill Lynch%.Curran.456 US :�+11982,. dint in the Riverside program.
and
rrer,i.:ri,mn n:.:r ;ire rice:a frdrnd ronsnmuianarl rlain:,�,rrrruu:e Reprinteil fr'onr "CL4SP Sfult'S(Ve'tu'[,r/ l'pa:rlt(. puhli.chrd hw
hi-erre and P"'perry mtnrofi rha:..;nnuf lh•m(err anal.uithara dor ton ne'.i
”Sul p,wt enrrr,•unranr.,r•rrhwle Ilanhu.%L:alms%a(rh;.V.ui,Nrrd Critter;-Ymth L.1” the C[vuer jnr L(nr and Social Puli(�•, 161b P Si. N11'. Suite 450.
c: .:;Fr.r,:rc,.'r•1115-`'.`-j:rli,.rim Ca.ict-arehe-Crirrr„nSravu/r6•/JareA,.:,.andLn, H('ithington.DC20036, (02)328-51.1(1. 7herrporl.entlrle'dGAIN:
ten”,and Cir., A m,en a.--he.-1(71 C7:rLlr,•r1 Ritthn Prr jenr:v\vise liv" program Strategies, Participation Patterns. any First Year impacts
I— •-- iSiib.Janr Pvidri,:,,r m, afiirna!!f•:..ii,i air Pru�nrm a9f9-"?_.a?-,l.
Hol, n:- •�
In�i.',1,?iii::..::.(S[ll'J!i(tl'•i• , �L: is urr;.i1DI1[ . . 'd!'1,.41'('.,iVelt'
.. ..........•C'i rr:,•rJ;,r i,::•.:,;..:.........••i„i t.....r, ,.t1:1 i6/7J,i/r(Xr::..trrri C:rr- -
:=•rid R,,'.:r r:r.r,. !lr' =rf2-9.� - 'r. �; NY
`// Ill ��/�� '•,...ta},•:.e', •
999999 ,�'�� i� � •; '�`• �
• I ISI ceS'`''o�sf�f�� ' ,;;�'�4�Z'•
•• i�� IVV1 f
,. jel
%;,;iii '. �?
• •' .1;51 d. � I� ..Y,,.�t.'1Y. .;;r�%
(' A 1.
1 �f'
�— ` • r. ,
Ultlj : '