Right Cause Searches for Right Path: Part III

Right Cause’s problems started early. Shortly after it was formed, Yevgeny Chichvarkin, the flamboyant young founder of Russia’s largest mobile phone retailer, was accused of kidnapping in what many see as trumped-up, politically-motivated charges and since fled to England. Chichvarkin was expected to lead the Moscow branch of Right Cause.

Continued from Part II.

In the Moscow City Duma elections in October 2009, the first major election Right Cause participated in, polls and political commentators predicted that the party would win between 5-8% of the vote. However, the party only managed to register one candidate and that candidate was then soundly defeated. While this was assumed by many to be part of a politically-motivated effort by officials to keep all opposition parties out of the elections, many within Right Cause blamed the party leadership for not properly organizing the registration and campaign.

Right Cause party leaders vote to form the party at a constitutive congress in 2008. From left right are Georgy Bovt, Leonid Gosman, and Boris Titov.

While the party has fared better since and gained seats in several city legislatures (though still lacks representation on a regional level), the future of the party is still in question due to its political infighting and disgruntled minorities.

Perhaps the most promising prospective for the party is President Medvedev’s stated plans to build “a political force” to further his modernization agenda. This may mirror in some ways Vladimir Putin’s engineering of United Russia as he came to power. Current reports state that Right Cause, Titov’s “ForModernization.ru,” at least one faction of ruling United Russia, and individual members of several other parties may be swept up into this new force. As of March 2010, plans do not entail the “force” to be a true “party,” but perhaps instead a coalition of parties and organizations.

In any case, if Right Cause is picked by Medvedev as the foundation of the new force, it would likely give the party a clear central leader (if only unofficially at first), and greatly improve its fundraising potential by putting one of Russia’s biggest political names behind it.

However, such a move is also likely to cost the party even more from constituents who want to support an opposition party. Finally, most commentators also note that no political force or party will be truly successful so long as it is engineered by the Kremlin and not at the grassroots level.

Part I Part II Part III Part IV
Мы выступаем за то, чтобы: We campaign for:
Борьба с бедностью строилась не на массовой раздаче единообразных и обезличенных пособий, а проводилась целенаправленно на поддержку конкретных социальных групп, нуждающихся в защите, стимулировала бы не иждивенчество, а стремление к росту, строилась на принципе развития человека. Вывести уровень расходов государства на развитие «человеческого капитала» – на порядок не ниже, чем в развитых странах.  – A war on poverty, based not on the mass distribution of uniform and impersonal benefits, but rather conducted with the support of those specific social groups that need protection. This would stimulate not  dependency, but a desire for growth built on the principle of human development. We are also in favor of adjusting the level of government spending on the development of “human capital” to a level close to that of developed countries.[1]
Провести реальную пенсионную реформу. В рамках этой реформы: обеспечить достойный уровень жизни сегодняшним пенсионерам за счет государства, будущим пенсионерам – базовую часть пенсии обеспечить за счет работодателей, а основную часть через добровольную накопительную систему, формируемую за счет работника, работодателя и государства. Новая пенсионная система должна основываться на простоте, понятности и неизменности правил. Пенсия не должна «начисляться», а должна зарабатываться. Carrying out real pension reform. These reforms should include: providing an adequate standard of living for today’s pensioners at the government’s expense; for future pensioners, a substantial part of their pension will be from their employer, while the main portion will be through a voluntary savings program formed from contributions by the employee, employer, and the government. The new pension system should be based on simplicity, clarity, and immutable laws. A pension should not be “assigned,” but rather earned.
– На всей территории России должны быть гарантированы единые минимальные, достойные, социальные стандарты бесплатного доступа к услугам образования, здравоохранения и культуры. Финансирование этих стандартов должно быть обеспечено, прежде всего, из местных бюджетов, а в необходимых случаях – за счет публично контролируемых субвенций из федерального бюджета. – Guaranteed common, minimal, adequate social standards of free access to education, health care, and culture should be instituted in all Russian territories. Financing for these standards should come mainly from local budgets, and when needed, by subsidies from the federal budget with public oversight.
Пересмотреть систему разграничения полномочий в социальной сфере между центральной властью и местным самоуправлением. Именно на муниципальном уровне, под пристальным контролем избирателей должны решаться основные вопросы жизнедеятельности человека, его семьи и домохозяйства: дошкольное и школьное образование, медицинская помощь, жилищно-коммунальная сфера, организация общественного транспорта, пользование услугами библиотек, музеев и других учреждений культуры. Налоговая система и межбюджетные отношения должны быть пересмотрены с тем, чтобы органы местного самоуправления могли иметь собственные устойчивые источники финансирования для полноценного исполнения своих обязательств перед гражданами на уровне, не ниже предусмотренных общенациональными – едиными – стандартами. The system of separation of powers in the social sphere between the federal and local governments must be reviewed. Especially at the municipal level, voters should decide the most important issues affecting their daily lives, families, and households. This includes pre-school and elementary education, medical care, housing and utilities, public transportation, and utilizing the services of libraries, museums, and other cultural establishments. The tax system and inter-budgetary issues should be reexamined so that local governments can have their own stable income sources to properly fulfill their obligations to their constituents on a level provided for by national – unified – standards.
– Мы выступаем за реформу высшего и профессионального образования. Повысить эффективность образования – прежде всего за счёт перехода в высшем образовании от принципа бюджетного финансирования вузов на систему финансирования лучших студентов и предоставления грантов вузам на реализацию конкретных проектов, необходимых обществу. Предоставление частным вузам равных прав и обязанностей с государственными. Мы за развитие разнообразных форм получения образования, при этом считаем, что каждый человек имеет право на качественное образование, вне зависимости от доходов семьи и места проживания. Российская система образования должна стать конкурентной и привлекательной в международном масштабе. – We campaign for reform of higher and professional education. We need to improve the effectiveness of education, first and foremost by transitioning from state financing of institutions of higher education to financing the best students and awarding grants for socially significant projects. Private universities deserve the same rights and responsibilities as state institutions. We support developing various forms of education and believe that everyone has the right to a good education, regardless of their family’s income or their place of residence.[2] The Russian education system should become competitive and appealing on an international scale.
– Мы за развитие и совершенствование прозрачной и объективной системы оценки знаний, создающей равные условия для детей из различных социальных групп и регионов. Мы за предоставление лучшим выпусникам школ образовательных сертификатов, которые дадут им возможность получения бесплатного образования по любой выбранной ими профессии. – We support developing and improving transparent and effective testing based on equal conditions for children from various social groups and regions. We support granting educational vouchers to the best graduates, which will give them the opportunity to receive free education towards any profession they choose.[3]
– Нам нужна реформа система здравоохранения на базе широкого развития добровольного медицинского страхования, при обеспечении государством качественного бесплатного медицинского обслуживания для социально-незащищенных групп населения.В самые ближайшие годы бюджетные расходы на здравоохранение в России должны вырасти не менее чем до 5-7% ВВП. – We need to reform the health care system based on the widespread adoption of voluntary medical insurance with state-provided, quality, free health services for socially at-risk groups. In the coming years, budgetary expenditures on health care in Russia should grow to at least 5-7% of GDP.[4]
– Мы считаем нравственным долгом общества и государства в отношении инвалидов вернуться к оценке степеней ограничения их жизнедеятельности, а не трудоспособности. Инвалиды должны быть обеспечены, без волокиты и бюрократических процедур, всеми необходимыми им средствами реабилитации и транспортной и социальной инфраструктуры. -We believe that the moral obligation of society and the government with regards to the handicapped should focus on restoring them to health, rather than focus on their work capabilities. The handicapped should be provided with all necessary means of rehabilitation, transportation, and social infrastructure, without red tape and bureaucratic procedures.
– Мы за то, что бы основой жилищной реформы стало стимулирование ипотеки, а также аренды жилья, прежде всего, социального. -We are for basic housing reforms to stimulate mortgages and also residential leases, especially for public welfare housing.
– Мы выступаем за упорядочение процесса привлечения трудовых мигрантов в Россию. Разрешать предприятиям формировать персонал на основе установленных законом квот на использование иностранной рабочей силы в зависимости от отраслей и регионов. Перейти к выдаче разрешений на работу не в России, а на родине трудовых мигрантов, в том числе в странах СНГ, при сохранении безвизового перемещения для туристов и бизнесменов в рамках пространства СНГ, при поддержке стремления к такому же режиму с максимально большим числом стран мира. – We campaign for a regulated process of attracting foreign labor to Russia and for allowing businesses to hire personnel based on foreign work quotas fixed by law for each industry and region.[5] We should transition to issuing work permits not in Russia, but in the home countries of the foreign workforce, including in the Commonwealth of Independent States. We should adopt a visa-free regime for tourists and businessmen traveling within the CIS and should strive to extend this relationship to as many countries as possible.
– Надо облегчить процедуру получения гражданства для соотечественников, для всех, кто разделяет наши культурные ценности; ввести балльную систему при получении вида на жительство или гражданства для остальных категорий мигрантов, экзаменов на знание русского языка; мы за предоставление гражданства преимущественно высококвалифицированным специалистам. – We need to simplify the process for granting citizenship to our fellow countrymen and for those who share our cultural values.[6] We should introduce a point system for receiving permanent residency or citizenship for other categories of immigrants, with tests on the Russian language; we support granting citizenship to specialists with especially high qualifications.
«Капитализм для всех»: государство для человека, а не человек для государства. “Capitalism For All:” government for the people, and not people for the government.
Стране нужно эффективное государство, которое выполняет функции стимулирования развития, регулирования экономических и социальных процессов, защиты и арбитража. Our country needs effective government that fulfills the functions of stimulating development, regulating economic and social processes, and providing defense and arbitration.
Но такие задачи не может решить «импортированная» из советской модели неповоротливая и неэффективная бюрократическая система. Эта система из-за своей неэффективности, непрофессионализма, а в условиях рынка – коррупционности, неготовности к обновлению, непригодна в условиях модернизации общества. However, such tasks cannot be completed by a sluggish, ineffective bureaucratic system “imported”[7] from the Soviet model. Because of its inefficiency, unprofessionalism, and the market conditions created through corruption and resistance to change – the system is useless in efforts to modernize society.
Нам нужно современное эффективное открытое государство, стоящее на службе у общества и работающее не на собственные интересы или на интересы отдельных корпораций или социальных групп, в том числе беднейших. We need a modern, effective, open government worthy of serving society and working not for its own interests or for the interests of certain corporations or social groups.
Все отношения граждан и юридических лиц с государственными органами и должностными лицами должны носить равноправный «контрактный» характер. All relations between citizens and corporations with government bodies and public servants should be of an equal, “contractual” nature.[8]
Работа государственного аппарата должна быть перестроена качественным образом с тем, чтобы повысить его эффективность при резком ограничении коррупционных возможностей. Вместе с тем, это должен быть постепенный процесс, а не революционная перестройка, которая может вызвать обвал старой системы государственного управления до создания новых механизмов и привести к дестабилизации экономической и социальной жизни общества. Мы за эволюционную «административную реформу». The government’s work should be qualitatively restructured to increase its effectiveness by sharply limiting opportunities for corruption. This should be a gradual process and not a revolutionary restructuring, which could cause the old government system to collapse before new mechanisms can be created and lead to economic and social destabilization. We are for evolutionary “administrative reform.”
– Мы за сокращение контролирующих, надзорных и разрешительных функцийсо стороны госаппарата, мы за то, чтобы вызванное этим сокращение численности госслужащих использовалось для повышения оплаты труда оставшихся чиновников. – We support cutting back the oversight, supervisory, and licensing functions of the government; we sugovernment pport using the cutbacks in the numbers of workers in order to raise the pay for those public officials who remain in office.
– Мы за то, чтобы ужесточение борьбы с коррупцией, вроде контроля за доходами чиновников, сопровождалось одновременным внедрением масштабных поощрительных мер: чиновник должен знать не только, чем он рискует, беря взятку, но и на какие социальные и материальные блага в перспективе всей карьеры, он и его семья могут рассчитывать в случае честной работы. Мы за повышение престижа профессии чиновника и уважения к ней в обществе. – We hope that the toughening of the war on corruption, such as the introduction of oversight of public officials’ incomes, will be accompanied by the simultaneous introduction of a large-scale rewards system: officials should know not only what they risk when they take bribes, but also what social and material goods as well as what career prospects that they and their families could count on if their work was honest. We would like to increase the professional prestige of public officials and increase society’s respect for them.
– Мы за введение принципа материальной ответственности чиновников за принимаемые (или не принимаемые вопреки законной необходимости) решения. Все решения чиновников, прямо или косвенно повлекшие материальный или иной ущерб для юридических или частных лиц, нарушение прав собственности, ущерб здоровью – должны влечь соответствующие материальные, административные или уголовные последствия для этих чиновников.
– Аналогичные принципы материальной ответственности должны быть разработаны в отношении действий работников силовых и правоохранительных органов: граждане и юридические лица должны иметь право на компенсацию убытков в случае, если они понесли ущерб в результате как злонамеренного, так и добросовестного проведения сотрудниками силовых структур оперативной работы в отношении невиновных и непричастных к совершению преступлений. – Similar financial liability should be developed for law enforcement employees: citizens and legal entities, which are innocent of and unconnected with a crime, should have the right to compensation if they sustain damages as a result of either malicious or well-intentioned operations of law enforcement officials.
– Мы за внедрение четких, понятных и однозначно трактуемых стандартов(регламентов) работы всех государственных служб, в первую очередь тех, которые непосредственно связаны с гражданами. Деятельность любых бюрократических структур (включая нормы приема посетителей, выдачи тех или иных документов, справок и т.д.) должна быть четко регулируема на основании регламентов, не подлежащих двойному толкованию и доступных всем заинтересованным сторонам; нарушение регламентов преследуется в административном и уголовном порядке. – We support introducing precise, understandable, and unambiguous standards (regulations) for the work of all government services, especially those that directly affect citizens. The work of any bureaucratic structure (including norms for receiving the public, issuing any type of document or permit, etc.) should be clearly regulated based on water-tight rules that are accessible to all interested parties; violation of these rules should be prosecuted under the administrative or criminal codes.
– Укрепить принципы прямого действия законов; нормы применения законовдолжны быть, по возможности, максимально подробно прописаны в самих законах, иное трактование законов в виде ведомственных инструкций, «разъяснений», директивных писем исполнительных органов незаконно. – We are in favor of strengthening theprinciples of direct effect in legislation;[9] norms for the application of laws should be written as precisely as possible in the laws themselves, so that any other interpretations, such as departmental instructions, “clarifications,” or directive letters from the executive bodies, are unlawful.
«Капитализм для всех»: независимая судебная система. “Capitalism For All:” an independent legal system.
Судебная система является важнейшим институтом, без которого невозможно развитие демократического общества и рыночных отношений. Несмотря на некоторую позитивную динамику, судебная система России по-прежнему зависима от власти, как наследство доставшееся от советской тоталитарной системы; при этом в рыночных условиях она приобрела уродливые черты неэффективности и коррупционности. The legal system is the most important institution, without which the development of a democratic society and a free market is not possible. Despite a few positive dynamics, the Russian judicial system is dependent on the government, as a legacy from the Soviet totalitarian system; because of this, the legal system, in a market society, has acquired the aberrant characteristics of ineffectiveness and corruption.
Сегодня необходимо обеспечить реальную независимость судей и судебного процесса. Today, we need to secure real independence for the courts and the judicial process.
– Мы за прямые выборы мировых судейи председателей судов общей юрисдикции всех уровней. – We support direct elections for all judges and court chairmen at all levels of general jurisdiction.[10]
– За открытость и независимостьпринятия решений о назначении судей на процессы. – We support openness and independencein the appointment of judges.[11]
– За укрепление принципа несменяемости судей: судьи могут сменяться только по факту совершения ими уголовных преступлений. Решения об отстранении судей от должностей должны утверждаться в законодательных органах соответствующего уровня. – We support strengthening the principle of judicial irremovability: judges may be replaced only if convicted of a crime. The decision to dismiss a judge should be confirmed by the legislative body at the corresponding level.
– За развитие системы третейских судов и досудебного рассмотрения споров. Введение в практику арбитражных судов системы третейского назначения судей и практики рассмотрения дел. – We support developing the system of arbitration courts and pre-trial dispute settlement; introducing into practice a system for appointing judges to arbitration courts and the practice of examining arbitration cases.[12]
– За повышение ответственности за оказание давления на судей. Работа судов должна быть более гласной: протоколы заседаний судов по уголовным, гражданским и арбитражным делам должны быть доступна всем желающим, в том числе в интернете. – We support increasing judges’ accountability by exerting pressure on them. The courts’ work should be more open: court protocols for criminal, civil, and arbitrage cases should be accessible to all, including via the Internet.
– Практика применения судов присяжныхдолжна быть расширена. Пересмотр или отмена приговоров, вынесенных с участием присяжных, могут происходить только в исключительных случаях нарушения процессуальных норм, при этом сами нормы должны быть четко прописаны и не подлежать двойному толкованию. Оплата труда присяжных должна быть резко увеличена, а отказ от выполнения гражданского долга работы присяжным по немотивированным причинам – затруднен. – The use of jury trials should be expanded.[13] Review or repeal of sentences handed out by juries should happen only in exceptional cases due to the violation of procedural norms, which themselves should be clearly prescribed and not subject to double interpretations. Pay for jurors’ work should be dramatically increased and refusal to fulfill one’s civic duty as a juror for untenable reasons should be made much more difficult.
– Необходимо повысить заинтересованность судей в результатах своего труда и карьерного роста, ввести чёткую систему поощрений за долгую и честную работу. Зарплаты судей должны в два раза превышать зарплаты чиновников исполнительной власти высшего звена. Должны быть повышены и законодательно закреплены требования к кандидату в судьи. Эти требования должны быть максимально формализованы – образование, стаж адвокатской работы в суде, вводимый сразу после начала реформы юридического образования и постепенно увеличиваемый до 10 лет. – Judges’ interest in the results of their work and the growth of their profession must be raised by introducing a defined system of incentives for long-term, honest work. Judges’ pay should be twice as much as that of officials in the highest section of the executive branch.[14] Requirements for judicial candidates should be increased and legally formalized to the highest degree possible – education, length of experience working as a lawyer, etc. – and should be introduced immediately after reforms to legal education are begun and gradually increased for up to 10 years.
– Мы – за гуманизацию системы наказаний, за внедрение и расширение таких наказаний за мелкие преступления, как домашний арест, условные, отсроченные наказания. Мы – за резкое сокращение численности заключаемых под стражу на стадии следствия в качестве меры пресечения и за полное прекращение такой практики в отношении лиц, подозреваемых или обвиняемых в экономических преступлениях, а также беременных женщин и кормящих матерей, которые не представляют общественной опасности. Должны быть установлены предельные сроки предварительного заключения – не более года. – We are in favor of a humane system of punishment, of the introduction and expansion of such sentences as house arrest and conditional and suspended sentences for misdemeanor crimes. We are for sharply reducing the number of those taken into custody during the investigation to compel the defendant’s presence in court; we are in favor of the complete cessation of such practices being used on suspects accused of white-collar crimes, as well as for pregnant women and nursing mothers who do not pose a danger to society. There should be limits of no more than one year set for pretrial detentions.[15]
– Необходимо кодифицировать законодательство, минимизировав «вилки» наказаний. – Legislation must be codified to minimize “loopholes” in sentencing.
– Необходимо создать эффективный институт общественного контроля за местами исполнения наказаний. – An effective institution of public oversight over penal facilities must be created.
– Ввести институт выборности местных участковых милиционеров, участковый должен напрямую избираться населением. – We must introduce elections for district police; district police should be directly chosen by the population.
– Мы выступаем за частичную легализацию хранения и ношения оружия при жесткой системе критериев его выдачи; народ должен иметь право себя защищать от криминалитета, который уже вооружен. Ввиду неоднозначного отношения к этому в обществе, считаем необходимым вынести этот вопрос на общенародный референдум. – We campaign for the partial legalization of keeping and bearing arms under a strict set of criteria which regulates their issue; people should have the right to defend themselves from armed criminals. In light of the controversy toward this subject, we believe that this issue should be submitted as a popular referendum.[16]
Part I Part II Part III Part IV
[1] Russia currently spends about 4% of its budget on education. Germany spends about 4.5%, the US about 6%, and Norway about 7.5%.

2] Another reference to the unequal development of Russian regions – the place a Russian is born is often highly indicative of his/her future economic and social standing.

[3] Russia currently grants free university education to many students, however, the education is alloted based on “spaces” at various universities which are then distributed by the universities. This plan would seek to create competition among universities for federal funds by allowing the student to choose where to spend it. However, it also allows for free education in a system that would have substantial price differences between, for instance, Moscow State University and Samara Agro-Technical Institute.

[4] The World Bank estimates that Russia already spends about 5% of its GDP on health care. Most developed countries, it reports, spend between 5-7%.

[5] This statement is in support, apparently, of the system currently in place.

[6] “Repatriation” has also been a long-standing policy of the Russian government, including encouraging the definition of “Russian” to mean those that “share cultural values” or even “consider themselves to be Russian.” This program has had some success in the past and was cited as a major reason that Russia’s population grew in 2009 – not through an increase in the birth rate so much as via immigration.

[7] The use of “imported” (импортированная) is interesting here, as one objection that Western-oriented politicians and activists in Russia face is that they are trying to “import” values into Russia. Here, Right Cause insists that that is at least no worse than importing from the Soviet system for the new Russian reality.

[8] The use of the word “contractual” (контрактный) is also interesting. Private contracts were essentially non-existent in the USSR and even today many Russians prefer to avoid signing contracts because of the cost savings in taxes and overhead by simply “coming to an agreement” with their landlords, doctors, etc. Thus, the word calls to mind a “social contract” but also the general undeveloped nature of contracts in Russia in general.

[9] “Direct effect” (прямое действие) is a technical legal term meaning that a law is implementable as written. Russian laws are often written essentially only as mandates with the actual implementation left to a particular ministry or agency. The ministry or agency may then further delegate parts of the implementation to lower offices and departments. This often leads to situations where the rules for completing a task differ from office to office, change regularly, and enforcement of the rules is inconsistent.

[10] “General Jurisdiction” (общей юрисдикции) is a legal term referring to courts that can hear all types of cases, from civil to criminal to family law. These courts, like most court systems are divided into local, regional, and federal levels. Russia also has several specialized court systems including arbitration (used to resolve contract disputes) and military courts.

[11] Federal judges are generally appointed by the president and confirmed by the Federation Council. Lower judges are appointed by the Ministries of Justice and confirmed by a legislature at the corresponding level.

[12] Arbitration judges are currently appointed by the president. The trials are generally dependent on the conditions of the contracts, etc. in dispute.

[13] As of 2010, all Russian regions practice jury trials (they were introduced to Chechnya, the last region to adopt then in January of that year. However, in 2008, trial by jury was scrapped for crimes against the state (including treason, sabotage, an instigating civil unrest). Juries do not hear civil cases or minor crimes – they hear mostly murder, racketeering, and first degree bribery cases. Russian juries try about 0.05% of all criminal cases and have a 20% acquittal rate, which is approximately twenty times higher than that of traditional courts. Because of this high acquittal rate, many in the Russian justice system distrust them. Lack of protection against double jeopardy and the right of prosecutors to appeal jury verdicts mean that many times cases are heard again and again.

[14] The Russian president earns officially about $60,000 per year and declares, unofficially, about twice that amount in total income.

[15] In the US, pretrial detentions can be lengthy, but usually amount to only one to two days before a judge reviews their case, determines the suspect’s “flight risk” and then decides whether to grant a pre-trial release or not. The US system generally favors release, while the Russian system generally favors detention.

[16] Gun ownership is currently legal in Russia, although the type of guns that can be owned by regular civilians is limited, requires registration with Ministry of the Interior, and their use and storage must be documented. Gun rights advocates argue that citizens should be given a wider variety of guns to choose and that requirement to report to the police every shot made from the gun should be dropped.

About the Author

Josh Wilson

Josh has been with SRAS since 2003. He holds an M.A. in Theatre and a B.A. in History from Idaho State University, where his masters thesis was written on the political economy of Soviet-era censorship organs affecting the stage. He lived in Moscow from 2003-2022, where he ran Moscow operations for SRAS. At SRAS, Josh still assists in program development and leads our internship programs. He is also the editor-in-chief for the SRAS newsletter, the SRAS Family of Sites, and Vestnik. He has previously served as Communications Director to Bellerage Alinga and has served as a consultant or translator to several businesses and organizations with interests in Russia.

Program attended: All Programs

View all posts by: Josh Wilson


Warning: Attempt to read property "ID" on null in /home/sras/geohistory.today/wp-content/themes/mh_newsdesk/content-author-box.php on line 15
Erin Decker

Erin Decker holds a BA in Political Science and International Studies (Global Security) from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. After completing SRAS’s Translate Abroad program in 2009, she went on to find employment as a translator and editor in Moscow and has lived there since.

View all posts by: Erin Decker