In the 1976 movie “Network,” iconic news anchor Howard Beale galvanizes a frustrated citizenry with the battle cry: “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”
“Network” screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky and actor Peter Finch, however, had nothing on Park Ridge’s own Sixth Ward Ald. Tom Bernick, who claims to have “had enough” of his fellow aldermen texting and e-mailing during Council meetings. Bernick says he is going to file a FOIA request to find out what all that e-communication is about.
Bernick wants to get to the bottom of what he labels the “disturbing” possibility that aldermen are sending or receiving secret messages during meetings that might be affecting how they vote. The mind reels at the possibility of George Soros or the Koch brothers surreptitiously influencing some alderman or other right before a crucial roll call vote on whether or not the Council should approve the next installment of Meals on Wheels funding, or raise water rates.
In his nine months on the Council, Bernick has shown a propensity for proclaiming himself “a businessman,” usually right before he argues or votes for spending taxpayer money in a decidedly non-businesslike fashion. His most prominent legislative initiative to date has been an ordinance that would impose a dress code on taxi drivers – a proposal that produced a few humorous quips from his fellow aldermen about enforcement problems that so steamed Bernick, he accused them of mocking him.
Memo to Ald. Bernick: They weren’t mocking you, Tom, they were mocking your half-baked idea. And if it makes you feel even better, those football players huddling between plays aren’t talking about you.
Bernick’s incipient paranoia doesn’t appear to be limited just to himself. He recently suggested that certain aldermen’s objections to awarding a defective contract for the Taste of Park Ridge event might be motivated by “personal vendettas” against Taste Inc. and/or its operators. Bernick didn’t name names, nor did he suggest the source or nature of those “vendettas” – probably because such details would reveal his already questionable suggestion to be just plain silly.
We’re not quite sure what will be involved in the City’s responding to Bernick’s FOIA request, if he actually launches it. The only Illinois law on the matter is a November 2011 opinion by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan that governmental bodies are obligated to collect and treat as “public records” e-mails and text messages of public officials dealing with public business during meetings, even if that information is communicated through the officials’ private cell phones or computers.
We expect that opinion to be challenged in court by some public official or governmental body, if only because of privacy issues and the expense of compliance/enforcement. Until it is, however, we would expect any implementation by the City to involve City Attorney “Buzz” Hill’s spending a lot of time (and a lot of taxpayer money) sorting through hundreds/thousands of e-mails and text messages to determine which involve public business during public meetings.
We also expect that the most likely result of that exercise will be nothing more than the kind of things Ald. Marty Maloney (7th) quipped about: e-mails from his wife asking him to stop for milk on his way home from the Council meeting. Not surprisingly, Bernick didn’t see the humor in that, either.
Bernick’s recent displays of irritation with his fellow aldermen come in the wake of rumors that he was on the verge of resigning from the Council, ostensibly because of the demands of…wait for it…his business. Those rumors had become so rampant that Sixth Ward activist and O’Hare Airport archenemy Gene Spanos was soliciting recommendations for mayoral appointees as Bernick’s replacement once he resigned.
We don’t know whether Bernick will stay or go. But if he does stay, he should take a lesson from another iconic figure – the late, legendary UCLA basketball coach John Wooden – who famously instructed his All-American players:
“Don’t mistake activity for achievement.”
To read or post comments, click on title.
35 comments so far
I would expect, with your vigilent calls for transparency, that you would support the ability to view communications during open meetings. It is possible that aldermen are communicating to each other, or to members of the gallery, or to their supporters, about what is happening. Those communications should be out loud, in public, if thifey happen during a meeting.
At the very least, it is rude. Let’s ask these guys to stow the cell phones. There is important work going on. If Ald. Maloney needs to pick up milk, he can check that message after the meeting is adjourned.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Rudeness is, at most, a superficial “concern” that is substantively meaningless and irrelevant to the serious issues presented by this situation.
This is not just an issue of “transparency,” which we highly favor, but one involving the right of privacy – a right that predates FOIA by approx. 100 years and that shouldn’t be trampled on just because a nimrod like Bernick makes some wild, vague and unsubstantiated allegations when things aren’t to his liking.
Bernick makes those who came before him look like statesmen by comparison, and that is sad indeed.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Let’s not get carried away here. Most of “those who came before him” were sycophants and rubber stamp tools of the post-Marty Butler Homeowners Party, or were Democrats-cum-“Independents” who botched their initial terms in office and ended up “one-and-dones” – run off the Council after one term (or less) by then-mayor Howard Frimark.
Actually, Bernick would have fit in quite well with those crowds.
Sure.
My guess is that YOU would be pretty concerned if those text messages see the light of day.
Too bad Rosemary Woods passed on eh?
EDITOR’S NOTE: If by “YOU” you mean the editor of this blog, not at all.
But if that’s what Little Tommy’s witch hunt is all about, he should just say so – like he did when a certain former mayor made some silly and ultimately unfounded complaints about a certain editor’s appointment to the Library Board.
Have to disagree with you, PubDog. Yes, text messages are private. Maloney can get instructions to buy milk on the way home. Bernick’s point (and I know bupkes about Bernick) is that an alderman might be “discussing” via text how to vote on a pending matter. As a taxpayer, I’d rather hear the various points debated openly. I also wonder if aldermen, not having read in advance whatever briefing papers they get, are texting to clarify information or testing out a point they wish to make publicly. Look, the aldermen don’t get paid much, but if they knowingly sought the office, is it too much to ask for them to do their homework and then let us all in on the discussion?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Disagree away – that’s what we’re here for.
We want to hear the various points debated openly, too, but we have no reason at this point to even suspect that’s not happening; or that Ald. X is texting Ald. Y about how they should vote on an issue. And we doubt Bernick does, either. But if he does, then let him say so in public rather than make vague accusations that, if given any credence, are likely to send the City Attorney on an expensive goose chase reviewing what had heretofore been viewed as “private” e-mails and text messages looking for who knows exactly what.
Easy to clear up.
Let’s see the text messages.
EDITOR’S NOTE: “Clear up” what, exactly?
Before “Buzz” Hill’s meter starts running like a Manhattan taxi’s, we’d like to have Little Tommy publicly identify who he alleges was texting/e-mailing whom, when, and about what so that there can be some reasonable determination of whether there is even a scintilla of probable cause for his allegations.
Or, alternatively, Little Tommy should just launch his FOIAs and accept personal accountability for the costs of what appears to be his frolic and detour; and let the chips fall where they may.
Nothing but hypocrisy here. The bloggers here call for total transparency for all public business but then turn around and declare privacy for communications taking place privately while officials are at public meetings and are supposed to be discussing public business. I agree that YOU and Mayor Schmidt and Alderman Knight are very concerned about having your private messages during meetings exposed to the light of day.
EDITOR’S NOTE: What “hypocrisy,” exactly? That we dont’ believe “total transparency for all public business” includes Mrs. Maloney’s texting Ald. Marty during a Council meeting to pick up some milk? Or one alderman e-mailing another one about going out for a beer afterwards? Is that the kind of “public business” you’re interested in, or hasn’t your subscription to The Enquirer shown up yet?
If Ald. Bernick wants to launch a FOIA based on some vague accusations of aldermen texting each other about public business during meetings, or about getting input from unidentified persons during meetings, we’d like him to publicly call out those aldermen or other persons and what he thinks they’ve been doing, where, and when. That way, the public gets to know what he’s looking for, or whether he’s just sending others off on fishing expeditions for no good reason.
Do you have a problem with that?
I am the great and all powerful Mayor! Pay no attention to the blogger behind the curtain.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Frankly, Zippy, we pegged you more for the mayor of Munchkin Land, or a representative of the Lollipop Guild.
actually, you are a bit out of character here. For a guy who wants the City Hall men’s room door to be glass (since we have no women in office except for Betty, we can save the ladies’ room expense) you are strangely protective of the aldermen’s texting privacy. It’s not only plausible, it’s likely, that some are commenting to peers across the horseshoe, just as they’d whisper to one another if they sat side by side. What poor Tom is missing is that any two can conspire away. It’s when, to paraphrase Our Lord, three are gathered on one topic that it becomes an IOMA problem.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We categorically oppose glass bathroom doors, irrespective of gender and irrespective of whether the building is public or private.
As for the aldermen’s “texting privacy,” we think they are entitled to it – and so does A.G. Madigan, according to her November 15, 2011, Opinion in which she opined that messages that don’t discuss public business during meetings are not FOIA-able. Nevertheless, irresponsible and baseless FOIA fishing expeditions launched at the behest of folks like Little Tommy expose private messages to, at least, scrutiny by the City’s FOIA official (who we understand in this case to be Atty. Hill, with the expenses that entails).
But, Unto, let’s not confuse FOIA with IOMA.
Actually, I am not concerned. The others will have to speak for themselves.
A few observations.
1. I completely agree that many FOIA requests are wasteful. In talking with one of my daughters teachers, the related a story where a group not even headquartered in Illinois requested all e-mails for a teacher. This cost our district money and nothing ever came of it. Unfortunately, this is the cost of transparency. Are you willing to apply your suggestion to all FOIA requests?? Do you want everyone who wants information to be required to explain exactly or what they think has been foing on? Maybe next we could attach a fine if they are wrong, kind of like loosing a timeout on a challange in football. Now that will help transparency!!
2. Are their not already potential penalties in place on this particular FOIA? I mean this guy lives in PR. He is not some out of state group lurking in the shadows. This is already a public topic and if he were to choose to go forward it would become even more public. Ald. Bernick has to know that if he goes forward with this there will come a time when the information found will be compared to exactly what this cost the city – down to the penny!! Unlike most of the FOIA’s that take place, this one will be in the direct light.
Mr. B will have to weigh all of this and make a decision. My bet is he wion’t do it.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Bernick is not a typical FOIA requester, primarily because he’s on the public body he’s FOIA-ing. As a public official he has a higher duty to the public than does the ordinaery FOIA requester.
I would be surprised if Buzz Hill was the person who puts the foia responses together. Usually that is done by staff, probably the assistant clerk.
EDITOR’S NOTE: That is the case with the current situation, where all the records being collected for the FOIA response are indisputably “City” records. That will not be the case where someone will need to distinguish between “personal” and “public” correspondence.
It should be noted that the A.G.’s opinion is legally binding only on the City of Champaign and the reporter who requested the records, and not on all municipalities statewide. Nevertheless, it can be expected that the A.G. would rule similarly in any other similar case, which is why the City will need to formulate policies and procedures governing the use of personal equipment for communications about government business consistent with the A.G.’s opinion, and standards for screening private e-correspondence. We’re betting that’s going to exceed the job description of current City staff.
Yep, according to the website Cheryl Peterson, the Deputy City Clerk/ Sr. Administrative Assistant, is the FOIA officer for administrative department FOIA requests, not Buzz Hill. So that meter wouldn’t even be running. I’m shocked that a guy like this blog editor wasn’t more familiar with our city’s FOIA procedure.
And Ald Knight, if you don’t mind, why not save the city some time and money, and publish all the texts and emails you’ve received during the meetings? You could probably get a hard copy from your phone company, and create a pdf file available to any who ask.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Check out the Editor’s Note to your previous comment.
I have two comments to address some of the concerns above. First, all people deserve privacy, including public officials. I do not believe that Alderman Knight or any of our elected officials should even voluntarily release the records. These are personal phones and the assumption has to be that it is personal business being conducted. That said, if there is any evidence that any illegal communication is happening, the appropriate law enforcement agency should get involved and examine the records.
Second, the aldermen should voluntarily stop texting during meetings. At a minimum, this activity takes their attention away from official business. It also may create a bad perception among the citizens.
EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s the interesting part about this tempest in a teapot: Bernick doesn’t have the stones to say who was texting/e-mailing, when, and what he suspects the subject was.
As to your second point, we don’t see anything wrong with aldermen texting during meetings – or, at least, not anymore wrong than sitting there reading a magazine, a memo from work, or something else that would “take their attention away from official business.”
“…We don’t see anything wrong with aldermen texting during meetings – or, at least, not anymore wrong than sitting there reading a magazine…”
Really? You wouldn’t be bothered if one of them sat and read a magazine during a meeting? I would, because that would clearly demonstrate less than a full commitment to the business at hand.
And I think texting falls into the same category. It’s rude and disrespectful — in any setting — to text while other business is being conducted. And now that it’s become controversial, I think the quickest fix is for the aldermen to turn off their phones during meetings. End of controversy.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t consider some unsubstantiated half-baked comments by Ald. Bernick as constituting a “controversy,” although we can understand how you might.
Good point–they shouldn’t be doing anything of the sort during meetings. It’s rude, and sends a very clear message that the meeting isn’t deserving of their full attention.
Perhaps they are just killing time while Bernick goes off on one of his incomprehensible rants.
EDITOR’S NOTE: That could be, but only when he actually shows up.
I also think you’re being hypocritical in decrying this supposed infringment on the Aldermens privacy. This website is always carrying on about transparency in governance, so you’re seeming lack of concern that potentially backdoor conversations are being had during city council meetings by the very Aldermen in attendance is inconsistent and highly questionable.
Is it possible that your actual concern is that the Aldermen may be found to not only be communicating with one another via text during meetings but that they are communicating with you as well?
If it’s not true, then fine, the truth will out. But if you are going to continue claiming the moral high ground on all matters related to Park Ridge then you need to state unequivocally that you don’t have a personal stake in the outcome of this controversy.
EDITOR’S NOTE: “Transparency in government” is not rummaging willy nilly through public officials private e-mails and text messages simply because a semi-paranoiac like Bernick makes some wild and unsubstantiated allegations. But if Little Tommy is serious about this, let him file his FOIA request and the City will respond.
And if you want to look for conspiracies of un-elected people influencing government, check out the Trilateral Commission.
Thank you for your non-clarification. I and other readers of this blog will take that as confirmation that you are, in fact, receiving text and/or email communications from the Aldermen during City Council meetings.
As a city resident who credulously traffics in wild and unsubstantiated allegations on a near daily basis via this blog it is quite amusing that you now see fit to level such a criticism against others.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Take it as whatever you want. And if you accuse us of drowning kittens in Gatorade, you can take our non-answer to that any way you wish, too.
If/when you identify any “wild and unsubstantiated allegations” that have been published in any post or in any Editor’s Note to this blog, we’ll be happy to address them. Until you do, you’re engaging in Little Tommy Bernick “There goes Elvis” silliness.
Is the editor of this blog willing to admit or deny that he has texted a park ridge public official during a public meeting?
EDITOR’S NOTE: You must be confused about how this works: you file a FOIA request with the appropriate public body and it provides you with the non-exempt FOIA-able information.
As can be seen from the newly-added legend beneath the Park Ridge flag representation on our banner: “The City of Park Ridge Does Not Endorse This Enterprise” – which means this blog is not subject to FOIA. So if you want that information, you’ll need to FOIA it from an entity subject to FOIA…or you’ll just have to learn to live with your suspense.
Is the editor of this blog willing to admit or deny that he has texted an elected park ridge official during a council meeting whether or not the text concerned milk and eggs or city business?
EDITOR’S NOTE: As we responded to your previous comment of this type, if you want that information you’ll need to get it yourself. We suggest you try a FOIA request. Or you can wait for the results of Bernick’s, assuming he ever actually files one.
thank you for clearing up the confusion – but the point was simply to practice what you preach or if you desire not to do so because you are not an elected official then ask those elected officials to which you send texts (sorry I mean the ones you support without trying to influence during a public meeting) to practice what they preach – if they want transparency with appointees then they should want it with respect to non-exempt foiable texts they sent relating to city business during a city meeting. They should champion transparency in all aspects of government and since some wish to label themselves as fiscally conservative they should voluntarily submit the texts (easy enough to remove the one or two eggs and milk texts and disclose all others during the 2 or 3 hours of each council meeting) to avoid incurring the wrath of Buzz’s manhantan taxi meter.
EDITOR’S NOTE: You really are having trouble with this FOIA stuff, aren’t you? Let’s try it one more time: Whoever wants information that is subject to FOIA makes a request, which the appropriate governmental body responds to. It’s not up to the public officials to determine what’s FOIA-able and what’s not, for reasons that should be obvious even to you. So either you go with a FOIA request or you go without the information.
And if you need further elucidation, Atty. General Madigan has a guide to FOIA, just like she has a guide to IOMA. Try reading it.
thanks again for the useful tip, but again you miss the point…sounds like some people in city hall and on this blog have something to hide? sure you or the elected officials can refuse to turn over documents voluntarily and make those jump through the FOIA hoop and then complain about the expense it is causing the city with Buzz’s taxi meter (love that – do all lawyers have such meters?) – and then again we can make that same assertion as to the appointees …either make the FOIA request or go without the information.
EDITOR’S NOTE: No, the point is that elected officials have no obligation to make public their “private” e-mails and text messages under any circumstances. So if you and Little Tommy want to see any public-related e-mails or texts, you’re going to have to go through the FOIA process; and somebody from the City – whether Buzz or somebody else – will need to spearate the public “wheat” from the private “chaff.” We’re sure the City eagerly awaits your or his request.
so much for transparency if those elected officials are not willing to turn over text messages related to a public meeting (no one want to see the personal milk and eggs emails) but the “personal” texts or emails making comments on a public meeting or issue are fair game for a person that is dedicated to transparency. I have a brilliant idea (not sure where I first heard of it but I am sure you will agree with the logic): let’s put all of those texts onto the website to make them easily accessible to all that wish to use them for political purposes (again leave out anything not commenting on or related to city business surely some clerk can weed those out without wasting Buzz’s time on it – how hard is it to determine if a text is talking about a grocery list or about a park ridge zoning issue?) – oh wait a minute that great idea is only applicable to the personal information on board applications. Well I guess you have abandoned transparency in areas that might impact your cedibility (or it is “we” are you really more than one person or just like to refer to yourself in the plural and/or third person)
EDITOR’S NOTE: If you (or Little Tommy) really think these e-mails and text messages are so important, make the proper FOIA requests. In fact, we ENCOURAGE you to do so. And whatever e-mails and texts are determined to be “public” SHOULD be posted on the City’s website for all to see. C’mon, stop whining and make the request(s).
Sorry if you can’t grasp it, but applications for appointment to boards and commissions are not the same as e-mails and text messages. That’s why all FOIA-exempt info could be redacted from those applications in less a couple of minutes, tops.
Having no obligation is different from being prohibited by law to disclose. By definition, a system is “transparent” if it is easy for citizens to access and understand. If one uses the rules to say I am not obligated to turn over information that relates to my public service they are not being completely transparent? Am I wrong? In the government transparency dialog there is something called “proactive disclosure” which is the revelation of information that may be damaging to the one revealing it. When used in the terms of open government, it is the practice of the government publishing information, rather than for an individual’s public records request. Apparently you just admitted that those not wanting to turn over certain documents simply because THEY ARE NOT OBLIGATED to do so are not being transparent. You defending such a practice seems contrary to the principles you espouse on this blog. We are not obligated to video tape the city council meeting or school board meetings but it is allowable under the law. If the city council or school board said they are not obligated to video tape so we are not doing it would you defend that? …wait…I guess that issue has come and gone and you already committed to your position on it…so my question is why are you so admantly on the other side of the transparency issue as it relates to text messages? I agree there is no obligation but for those wanting complete transparency throw what is allowable to be viewed under the law on the website for all to see.
EDITOR’S NOTE: “Transparency” extends only to “public” matters, not private ones.
Public meetings are undoubtedly “public” matters which have no right to any sort of confidentiality or privacy, which is why “transparency” dictates their voluntary taping and broadcast. Private e-mails and text messages, on the other hand, are “private” and entitled to remain that way unless – according to the Atty. General’s recent opinion – they contain information about the subjects of a public meeting exchanged during the course of that meeting.
But until some City official with legal authority, in response to a proper FOIA request, reviews the relevant universe of e-mails and texts sent and received by the relevant public officials during a meeting to determine which are private and which are “public,” they are entitled to remain private.
So file your FOIA request already.
so i would encourage you to make a FOIA request for the appointee applications or simply attend a public meeting where you can get the information you seek directly from the individuals if you feel that information is so important. yes there is a difference with the emails and texts, unlike an appointee’s qualifications which you can gain insight to by attending an open meeting – emails and texts are concealed from public view. Maybe little tommy is waiting in the wings for those elected officials to publicly commit to saying they have no texts or emails that related to city business on city time so that he can FOIA the information after and have a “gotcha” moment. Maybe that is why the politicians (except for Ald Knight who reads this blog and said nothing to worry about) are mum on the issue? hmmm
EDITOR’S NOTE: You don’t even have the correct standard for FOIA disclosure or your (or Little Tommy’s) “gotcha” moment. Without a FOIA request on file, nobody will (or should) produce anything. Which is as it should be for baseless accusations which neither you nor Little Tommy apparently have the gumption to file a FOIA request over.
Interesting that your baseless accusations of unqualified appointees demands transparency yet you don’t have the courage to ask the elected officials (not you – you can continue to hide your texts – unless during a library meeting) to turn over texts that they know they – can’t they determine which texts relate to public business or do they need Buzz’s help? Without a FOIA request the Mayor then should not turn over the appointees information – but I guess he is working for (I mean with) you?
EDITOR’S NOTE: What “baseless accusations of unqualified appointees”? We don’t care about seeing any alderman’s e-mails or texts – those are your (and Little Tommy Bernick’s) bogeymen. But, hey, just because you’re extremely paranoid doesn’t mean you’re not being watched.
there you go again with your obsession …there are 6 states in the U.S. in which same sex marriage is legal…please pick one, take Tommy, and get it over with already….PR will be better off with both of you out of state. As for your baseless accusations…you want to see those applications for “accountability” and to be able to see the appointees “qualifications” – certainly someone with your reputation of flaming individuals who disagree with your one man narrow and often angry viewpoint wouldn’t use those qualifications to accuse an appointee of being unqualified? (we will save your post for future reference)
EDITOR’S NOTE: He’s too short. Is there a substantive issue being discussed here?
About as substantive as this blogs history merits.
EDITOR’S NOTE: And yet you just don’t know how to quit us.
Sorta like the american public can’t find a way to quit sarah palin or can’t turn away from a car wreck.
EDITOR’ NOTE: Only the feeble-minded.
…Buy into sarah palin and your blogs dribble?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Since it’s not yet “March Madness,” we assume “dribble” was your attempt at articulating drivel.
In light of that assumption, your equating of this blog with the continuing attention paid by some people to Sarah Palin would appear to render your somewhat obsessive commenting here an admission of your feeble-mindedness. That’s quite sporting of you.
no…I meant “to issue in piecemeal or desultory fashion” – (I will give you a second to find your websters to look up desultory b/c I know with your educational background (wasn’t your law school sued recently?) you may need some help) – though I like your reference to “madness” – which also appropriately characterizes your blog.
and if I for trying to keep you honest – the way you in your lonesome delusional way think you are keeping PR governement honest I am feeble-minded – what does that say about you who spends the time to put up this “information” with a shiny colorful masthead thinking it is relevant to begin with? (and yes, I love to comment on irrelevant material – afterall this is the age of twitter and facebook and doing so is popular and entertaining)
EDITOR’S NOTE: Back already? You just can’t stay away, can you…obsessive, compulsive, or both?
coming from someone who enjoys beating up on seniors (btw: such self loathing behavior should be seen by your loved one – assuming you have one- as a cry for help) and charity groups – I don’t take much of your nickel store (not even worth a dime) psychology to heart, but as I said commenting on the inconsequential rants of those who take the time to put up elaborate blogs is entertaining and gives me something to do while my fiber is working its magic in the restroom. Have a pleasant day – don’t kick any kittens on your lonesome walk home from the office
EDITOR’S NOTE: Ouch!
Maybe you should go easy on the fiber: just because humans have millions more brain cells than they actually need doesn’t mean you should be cavalier about losing any unneccessarily.
Agreed and the process seems hastened when I combine it with reading your blog….thanks for the tip…I guess you are a prime example of experience being the best teacher
EDITOR’S NOTE: Sorry, but you can’t hang your further brain cell evacuation on us: you’ve been warned.
Since you fancy yourself a chmapion of truth, then maybe a disclosure to that effect “reading this blog will kill brain cells” should be added above or below the other disclaimer you were forced to place on your masthead…? Bold, underline and italics is warranted.
EDITOR’S NOTE: All we can say is: keep reading.
As Galileo said: I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn’t learn something from him….though you may be proving an exception to this rule….but for time being I will continue. thx for the invitation
EDITOR’S NOTE: Opinions vary, Zip, but we’re glad to provide you with the free psychotherapy.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>