When Louisiana State Troopers Association (LSTA) legal counsel Floyd Falcon defended political contributions in the 2015 gubernatorial campaign by LSTA, he cited a 1992 legal precedent which he said permitted the activity.
Apparently he had not counted on being outmaneuvered by a retired state trooper who was perfectly able to do his own legal research to counter Falcon’s argument at last week’s hearing before the State Police Commission.
Several retired state troopers, represented by spokesman Scott Perry, a retired captain with 26 years’ experience with LSP, appeared before the commission on Thursday (Jan. 14) to voice objections to the funneling of LSTA funds through its executive director David Young.
Perry was joined by retired Lt. Leon Millet who said more than $45,000 in political contributions were made without the knowledge or consent of the LSTA membership and that the action appeared to be a violation of the state constitution and State Police Commission regulations.
Perry, on Friday, followed his Thursday verbal request for an investigation with a written request. “Please accept this correspondence as a formal request pursuant to State Police Commission Rule ‘Chapter 16, Investigations,’” he wrote. Perry asked that the commission “investigate the allegation of Prohibited Political Active, 14.2 (A) (1), 14.2 (A) (4), 14.2 (A) (8), in regards to political endorsements and contributions.
“This request is made specifically against classified members of the Office of State Police acting in their capacity as elected officers of the Louisiana State Troopers Association.”
Following Perry’s address to the commission on Thursday, Falcon told the commission it had no authority to investigate LSTA because it is a private organization not subject to oversight by the commission.
Commission members agreed but pointed out that it is empowered to investigate illegal or questionable activity by individual state troopers. The commission is the equivalent of the Louisiana Civil Service Commission which serves the dual purpose of protecting the rights of state employees and investigating illegal or improper activities by state employees.
Falcon cited the 1992 case of Cannatella vs. the New Orleans Department of Civil Service. In that case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal overturned a 30-day suspension handed down to police Sgt. Ronald Cannatella for violation of a city civil service rule prohibiting political activity. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=718580336782666189&q=cannatella+v.+department+of+civil+service&hl=en&as_sdt=8000006&as_vis=1
Cannatella was president of the Police Association of New Orleans (PANO) in January 1990 when PANO decided to endorse a candidate for mayor. PANO had polled its membership beforehand and Cannatella subsequently appeared at a public forum to announce the endorsement. The appellate court noted that Cannatella believed he was acting “pursuant to what he believed was a function of his position as the president of PANO.”
The court said that while the prohibition against political activity is “exclusively limited to commissioners and classified civil service employees and officers,” the prohibition “does not extend to a labor organization such as PANO, or its spokesperson, merely because its members are classified civil service employees.”
No sooner was Falcon finished citing the Cannatella case than Perry, who now works as an investigator for the Office of Inspector General, was on his feet. Perry presented a copy of a 2001 ruling by a three judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal. The ruling he held, while not a legal precedent, nevertheless differed significantly with the Cannatella case and was identical to the circumstances of the LSTA action.
In the case of Kenner Police Department vs. Kenner Municipal Fire & Police Civil Service Board, five officers who signed off on a contribution check in their capacity as members of the executive board of the city police association were fired.
In the opinion written by Judge Clarence McManus, the Fifth Circuit said that while Cannatella held that members of PANO had the right to endorse a candidate without exposing the members to penalties under the civil service laws, “…Cannatella is not controlling or binding on this court, as counsel for appellants seems to suggest.”
It said Cannatella is distinguishable because it involved a different statute governed by a different provision of the constitution. “In this case the appellants are indeed classified civil service employees. Therefore, the prohibition against political activity clearly applies to them,” the decision said. But, the court noted, the officers claimed they did not individually make any campaign contributions, but rather PACK did. (PACK is an acronym for Police Association for the City of Kenner.)
The court said the appellants’ assertion that the contribution and endorsement were actions taken by PACK and not the fire appellants individually “is simply untenable. As for the contention that being members of a labor union exempts them from any and all responsibility under the civil service laws, we find this argument unpersuasive. To allow the appellants to do indirectly through the union or an association that which they cannot do directly as classified civil service employees will permit them to circumvent the statute’s prohibition.” (Emphasis ours)
The civil service board held that the campaign contribution check “was personal action taken by the officers individually, and not an action of the association,” said the appellate court in upholding their termination. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1285153.html
LouisianaVoice broke the story of the LSTA contributions on December 9. https://louisianavoice.com/2015/12/09/more-than-45000-in-campaign-cash-is-funneled-through-executive-director-by-louisiana-state-troopers-association/
In the LSTA case, Young acknowledged that he made the contributions in his name and was subsequently reimbursed by the organization.
In a statement that would seem to conflict with LSTA’s own legal counsel’s argument, Young said there were questions about the ability of state employees making political contributions. “So in order to avoid any of that,” he told the Advocate, “if I make a contribution as a non-state employee, there could never be a question later that a state employee made a contribution.”
Except there now are questions. Commission Vice Chairman W. Lloyd Grafton of Ruston observed that it “almost makes me think there was something suspect here because of the check writing. Why wouldn’t the association have made the contribution? It looks like someone was trying to circumvent something.”
Prior to that date, on Dec. 4, LouisianaVoice broke another story that State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson attempted to prevail upon the LSTA board to write a letter to then Gov.-elect John Bel Edwards endorsing Edmonson for reappointment to lead state police for another four years.
On Nov. 30, the board voted unanimously not to write the letter. Edwards subsequently reappointed Edmonson anyway, largely on the strength of the endorsement of the Louisiana Sheriffs’ Association and the Louisiana Police Chiefs’ Association.
Edmonson twice denied that he had requested the LSTA board’s endorsement but LSTA Interim President Stephen LaFargue confirmed to LouisianaVoice, also on two separate occasions, that Edmonson asked him about the prospects of LSTA sending a letter to Edwards asking that Edmonson be reappointed.
“Col. Edmonson attended the board meeting and he told me he was going to apply for reappointment,” LaFargue said. “He then asked about the possibility of the LSTA board writing a letter of endorsement. I told him I didn’t know, that it would have to be taken up by the board.” Because of questions raised by LouisianaVoice, the board subsequently agreed unanimously not to write the letter to Edwards.
A meeting summary of a Troop I (Lafayette) affiliate meeting noted that LaFargue also “took responsibility” for the LSTA’s endorsement of Edwards in the Nov. 21 runoff election against U.S. Sen. David Vitter. Edwards defeated Vitter by a 60-40 percentage point margin.
Edwards also was one of several candidates who received contributions from LTSA. Edwards spokesman Richard Carbo told the Baton Rouge Advocate last Thursday that the governor had no knowledge that Young was reimbursed by LSTA and that Edwards would return the $8,000 received from LSTA through Young “if the contributions were made improperly.” http://theadvocate.com/news/14574305-124/head-of-state-police-group-says-nothing-wrong-with-his-political-donations-gov-edwards-said-he-will
Louisiana State Police Commission Chapter 14 to which Perry referred specifically says that no member of State Police shall:
- Participate or engage in political activity, including, but not limited to, any effort to support or oppose the election of a candidate for political office or support or oppose a particular political party in an election;
- Make or solicit contributions for any political purpose, party, faction, or candidate;
- Directly or indirectly, pay or promise to pay any assessment, subscription, or contribution for any political party, faction or candidate, nor solicit or take part in soliciting any such assessment, subscription or contribution, and no person shall solicit any such assessment, subscription or contribution of any classified employee in the State Police Service.
So in the end, we have:
- State police officers who comprise the LSTA board making a political endorsement in direct contravention of rules and regulations.
- The Superintendent of State Police leaning on the LSTA board in an effort to get the board to send the new governor a letter endorsing him for reappointment.
- The executive board of the LSTA, comprised of state police officers under the jurisdiction of the State Police Commission making the decision to make more than $45,000 in political contributions—contributions that were laundered through its non-state employee executive director—by the director’s own admission, and without bothering to poll its membership for approval.
All three of which were in violation of State Police Commission regulations.
Any questions?
Louisiana Voice 
To JBE, return the $8,000 political contribution and say you are sorry.
What is JBE supposed to be sorry for?
The State Police is supposed to enforce state laws and regulations, not break them. Who is going to investigate wrongdoing and sanction those who chose to behave outside those regs?
“The executive board of the LSTA, comprised of state police officers under the jurisdiction of the State Police Commission making the decision to make more than $45,000 in political contributions—contributions that were laundered through its non-state employee executive director—without bothering to poll its membership for approval.”
To clarify the above comment, while the LSTA board members were not acting as state police officers in their official capacity, they are always commissioned officers whose job is to uphold the law. I did not mean to imply that wrongdoing was committed by the institution of the State Police. Alleged wrongdoing was committed by the board members who are first and always state police officers, even in their role as members of the LSTA board.
I’m still not convinced what we have in Mr. Edwards reflects his campaign rhetoric. His Transition Committee on Fiscal Matters Report certainly doesn’t help in that regard. I imagine Mike Stagg would be apoplectic knowing it contained a suggestion to do away with the severance tax on oil and gas. In this time of DINO’s, Blue Dog Dems, Conservadems, New Dems ,Schumercrats, etc. we would be well served to apply an extra measure of scrutiny. For more on this see http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/.
Our now Gov. Edwards isn’t a dog new to the hunt. He was quite aware of the advantage an endorsement would give him and accepted it in spite of possible entanglements with the commission and as such was a major legal faux pas. It was this sort of thing that got Tom Delay indicted in Texas, except that their election commission laws move through the criminal courts. Where was his legal counsel during this? What confidence does that give us in his appointments?
We supported him, voted for him and got him into office. The honeymoon is over. It’s now time for him to prove up.
While this situation, as earthmother clearly states, is not related to State Police operations, it is another example of unethical behavior by State Police officers.
Since Edmonson was re-appointed, I have wanted to suggest to the Governor that he should have a private session with Edmonson to clarify expectations. Edmonson should be put on notice that he MUST PROMPTLY take actions to show his troopers and us interested observers that unethical behavior will no longer be tolerated. This would include resolving the situations that Tom has previously reported.
OneStateWorker, I was disappointed when JBE reappointed Edmonson. But, like you, I would hope that he would have one of those “come to Jesus talks” with Edmonson.
What? If you look up unethical in the dictionary the first meaning would be Michael Edmondson followed by all the minions he has promoted in his last eight years. The man is dirty and his personality is that of a narcissist!
The man has no ethics, therefore how can he expect it.?? He surrounds himself with unethical staff. Wake up people, it’s not the LSTA staff, it is the Presidents that call the shots, not the ED.? Check that?
This whole thing is just one of many cases that define what has become our culture with regard to the law.
As public policy, we seem to have lost focus on how best to comply with the intent of state laws and regulations. Our leaders now, more than ever, devote the most attention to how to get around them and, too often, ignore them outright, implicitly (or explicitly) challenging somebody to sue if they don’t like it. This may be expedient for politicians and/or provide work for lawyers, but it does not serve the public’s interests.
We elected JBE in hope of a new day. Let’s hope we see one. He can set the example if he has the will to do so.
I’m afraid JBE has already picked up a few fleas from Edmonson. On the bright side, I haven’t seen any photos of our new gov with Edmonson posing nearby like he did with Jindal. I hated seeing our little thug dictator being “protected” by his lapdog.
I think we should start a petition to send to the governor asking him to relieve Edmonson of his duty. It is ridiculous that we have to keep hearing from this clown.
Reblogged this on tmabaker.
Come on now, did any of you not think Edmonson was going to get reappointed? In the history of the LSTA never has their been a political endorsement, especially for the guy who signs the troopers paychecks and appoints or replaces their boss. A couple weeks before the election the LSTA endorses Edwards and a couple weeks after the election Edwards decides to keep Edmonson on as numero uno. Welcome to Louisiana. Now Edmonson gets his $215K salary which he’ll retire on comfortably in a couple years, at your expense.
Just a little commentary to broaden perspective, except a couple of notes.
One being that the legal concept of ‘agency’ should not be overlooked. Just as the Fifth Circuit CoA stated that entities may not do severally what they are prohibited individually it also follows that one cannot do through an agent what it’s personally prohibited from doing. In the area of a membership whose primary purpose is not involved in electioneering, how substantive is any particular activity in divergence from their established purpose where they are individually prohibited? This would be a concern once a step has been taken into that arena. Also, a note for Scott Perry – I take it from the posting on this site that the law establishes administrative remedy through a commission. The legislative acts enabling that commission may well hold support in arguments as to legislative intent.
These issues and prohibitory legislation, at the federal level, reach historically back to Theodore Roosevelt and his rise politically during the time of machine politics which in a major way instructed his views. It was common at that time, through the ideology of ‘to the victor go the spoils’, to replace civil servants known to support the party of the political victor thus providing financially in return for their support. Another possible influence was the French Revolution, not too distant to be forgotten, and the turmoil about that time leading to the Russian Revolution. Certainly he was well aware of the rise of socialism. His reading lists often reached to and exceeded 1000 books a year. Though a business oriented Republican, he pushed for legislation that would prohibit this activity and also the establishment of a civil service merit system where civil servants could be certain that their employment would be secure in return for their being prohibited from political activity. Various similar measures of this were enacted among the states.
So let me make sure I fully understand. The Troopers can’t make political contributions or endorsements so they have their Executive Director do it. And just in case it’s a problem they have him do it in his name but it’s really coming from them so they reimburse him. (I bet his taxes are interesting each year). Now in a parallel reality, the State Police Colonel (who is the darling of the Louisiana Sheriff’s Association) wants to retain his job. The Louisiana Sheriffs Association has endorsed John Bel Edwards for Governor and made it clear they want to keep their buddy, the current State Police Colonel. Now the LSTA acting compete removed from LSP makes campaign contributions to Edwards and Endorses him… but it’s not really them (because that would be problematic) so their Executive Director does it. At the same time Edwards starts commenting he has been endorsed by the LSTA, but when it is noted that apparently only 7 or 8 people decided it for the thousand or so other members and forgot to ask them, Edwards drops the LSTA name and starts saying he is endorsed by Louisiana Troopers. During all this time the Attorney on retainer to the LSTA to defend Troopers against Department disciplinary actions is apparently also advising on the “totally unconnected to the Colonel and Department” political activities that just so happen to be exactly what the Colonel needs to garner support for his reappointment. So, again, just so I fully understand, does the LSTA Attorney represent the interests of the Troopers (the ones who knew nothing about this) against the Department/ Colonel, or the Department/ Colonel who this benefitted? If I were a Trooper facing disciplinary action I probably wouldn’t feel real comfortable with the LSTA attorney.
“The Troopers can’t make political contributions or endorsements so they have their Executive Director do it. And just in case it’s a problem they have him do it in his name but it’s really coming from them so they reimburse him.”
Well, yeah except that the general membership wasn’t aware of it which is an important distinction. If the disbursements aren’t a part of previously authorized payments as reflected in the articles of incorporation/bylaws or otherwise acknowledged and approved by the general membership, it brings into question a matter of embezzlement, which in a union is an element of the Federal RICO laws, which may be of interest to the US Attorney General.
In the earlier mentioned Cannatella case, the lawyers for the defendant effectively indicted the membership in front of the court by admitting that the disbursement had been approved by the membership. Well, this as far as I understand it. I’m not familiar with that law. It’s my belief that the Fourth Circuit CoA erred given that the whole history of these issues hinges on the forgoing of direct political electioneering activity by civil servants in exchange for job stability although it may be a technical error in the legislation. This may be one of the reasons the Fifth Circuit CoA stated it’s independence of the Fourth, there’s usually a reason for that either legal or ideological which can only be settled by the opinion of the La. S. Court. The issue of agency is still not answered either.
Certainly the laws shouldn’t inhibit a union to lobby on subjects in it’s own interests, even those that are argued primarily in the political sphere. But direct contributions and endorsements are another thing entirely.
Have I made this muddier for you?
No, I’d say you pretty much got the crux of it.
If it is ethical for an organization to have an “outside agent” pass on donations that are unethical for the organization to donate themselves, then what need do we have for the Louisiana Board of Ethics. Why not dissolve the Board of Ethics as a cost cutting measure. And while they are at it, throw in the Office of the Inspector General!
For the record, Edwards defeated Vitter 56-44 and not 60-40: http://staticresults.sos.la.gov/11212015/11212015_Statewide.html. Given his recent slate of tax increase proposals and fiascos like the Edmonson reappointment, he’ll be damn lucky to clear 35 in the 2019 race unless he decides to pull a Blanco and not even try.
It is hard to imagine what possible good for the state of Louisiana can be done by not even giving the governor a chance to d when he has just been elected to a 4 year term. I’m not saying give him a free pass. I’m saying give him a chance.
If there is no possibility our state can be lifted from the bottom of the national barrel, we may as well stop even having elections or anything else and just abandon the whole state and all move elsewhere. We wouldn’t have to go further than Mississippi or Arkansas – states we once proudly looked down on – to find states with better rankings than ours and Texas has done better for decades.
JBE clearly had a deal with the Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police and he has fulfilled his end of the bargain. Hopefully, he will have the fortitude to take appropriate action if the appointments to which he agreed clearly work to the disadvantage of the state – If he doesn’t, that will be a strike against him, but he’s still in the top of the first inning, so let’s not put him and his team out before they even get their first out.
C. B. Forgotston is gone, but Tom Aswell, Bob Mann, Lamar White and others are in ascendancy as the new fourth estate. They will continue to be effective and independent watchdogs. If the negatives mount up against JBE, I will be right there with you. But, if the legislature and those who have sour grapes over the election and wish to begin the next election cycle right now oppose his every move, how can it help anybody over the next 4 years? The fault for our continued failure to provide adequate services to our citizens will rest with all of us for accepting it, if not throwing up roadblocks every chance we get..
Having a state we can all be proud of is apparently an impossible goal. Trying our best to do better and support those who are in a position to try to lift us up is not.
Thank you Stephen. It took eight years to dig this hole, but yet you want JBE to fill it in and fix the problems, even before he has had his first session. What you naysayers should be saying is that you hope the republican controlled legislature will help him fill the hole. If they say “no” to everything that he is proposing, I hope they have a plan to offer.
Stephen, clifford,
Take a look at the Transition Committee on Fiscal Matters Report, http://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/TransitionTeam/Final-Report_Committee-on-Fiscal-Matters.pdf.
Almost the whole of the proposals are a shifting of taxes from corporations onto individuals by way of reductions for the former and increases for the latter. This is not a good beginning. Why would they be reducing taxes at all until the fiscal deficit is resolved? Doesn’t make sense, does it?
Corporate capture of the government did not occur through just one party via Citizens United donations. Both major parties are suspect. It’s not being a naysayer. It’s simple recognition of the facts. An extra measure of scrutiny is required.
You are correct. Don’t know where I got the 60-40 number.
AsYouLikeIt, I do not see it in the same light that you do. Though I worked for the House for 25+ years, my area of responsibility did not involve fiscal matters. There is one suggestion that I think is a great idea: “Assist local governments in finding ways to better fund their public services.” In other words lets cut the faucet off to local government. If it’s a service that the locals are supposed to provide, the locals need to find their own revenue streams. That industrial property tax exemption boggles my mind. However, Stephen is in quite a better position to speak to these things than I. Also, remember there is no tax JBE can increase, reduce, exempt, credit, enact, or repeal without the help of the legislature and in some instances the people. That’s all I am trying to say.
The industrial tax exemptions (bribes) have always been problematic for me. However, we do compete with other states for these projects and the ones that are so low in national rankings like us, in particular and they also bribe entities to locate there. So, if we didn’t provide these incentives, nobody would come here unless there were very compelling reasons (like abundant mineral resources) to do so..
I have no problem shifting more local things to local funding, but we all have to realize that, even if we do, most of these things are going to be done and funded with tax dollars whether they are state or local. Even the state supplemental pay for law enforcement (something unique to us – costs us $124 million per year) is really a significant part of these people’s total individual salaries so, without them, the salaries would often, if not always, be too low to get anybody to take the jobs.
We pay local sheriffs $157 million per year to house state adult and juvenile offenders in parish facilities. In most cases the sheriffs have used these subsidies to build jails and they have, of course, hired people to work there and they have other operational costs. Jails are a common economic development tool in rural parishes, in particular.
So, bottom-line, in almost every case we would be shifting the cost to local taxpayers. The parishes and municipalities could wean themselves from some of the subsidies, but they would have to do so gradually. Tangential to this is the fact we want to reduce our (highest in the nation) incarceration rate – If we do so significantly, won’t either the parishes and/or the state have excess jail capacity? Yes.
I think we all can agree that any state funding we take away from the locals will have to be replaced by a local revenue stream,i.e. local taxes. I heard treasurer Kennedy say yesterday that we don’t have a revenue problem, we have an expenditure problem. I might agree with him, but a lot of those expenditures came about when we were flushed with oil and gas revenue and it’s difficult to turn off the faucet now. We are in a deep hole and it will take us a while to dig out of it.
clifford55,
With the understanding that you’re no longer directly involved w/ the legislature, do you have a ballpark figure for the total sums being provided to the local level? Fertilizer for playing fields isn’t something of great consequence and could easily be taken up by the local boosters. Meeting halls and perhaps government offices are one time infrastructure expenditures without continuing need of expenditure. Most of the new govt. centers here are state offices and relatively quite new. They’ll definitely last long enough for fiscal matters to be brought into line. Also, I think everyone is quite aware of JBE’s relationship to the legislature, so no need to keep bringing that forward as an issue. The proposals did not come from the legislature, but from JBE’s transition team.
Now we have a discussion. Yet, there’s been only remarks to two items on the proposal list. Would both of you care to venture remarks as to the other items on the list? For one, I do not see shifting the tax base onto those least able to afford it while helping corporations maintain their profits, the most of which will surely be paid to stockholders out of state.
Hey, I am with you on that. I remember about 16 years ago there was yet another movement to place a new tax on the oil and gas boys. It might be the one that Foster Campbell is always pushing. Maybe Stephen can help me out. Anyway, a legislator went to the mic and said that the legislature needs to call the bluff by big oil. He said they always threaten to shutdown that refinery down the street every time the tax is brought up. He remarked that they would lose more money shutting down,what I believe, is the second largest refinery in the country.
Similar to Shell closing it’s refinery in California creating a scarcity of gasoline. California was able to force them to sell to another operator. Basically what you’re looking at is extortion of state governments. A 50-80% tax on non-operating industrial assets would put an end to that. The state could then seize the assets and sell to another operator at a reduced cost before the errant company could build replacement facilities thereby causing them to lose market share. This could be much more a topic of the Governor’s Association if only they would come together to prevent this general rapine of the states by mega-corps. They should also, together, lobby the Federal government for much greater enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission.
No disagreements here, either. Even with the exemptions, sales taxes are regressive.
I definitely don’t believe the oil companies would abandon their pipelines and other infrastructure if a reasonable processing tax was enacted on products passing through our state like the ones proposed since the Treen days (Coastal Wetlands Environmental Levy) and still pushed by Foster Campbell. Oil companies are in a slump right now so they could make an even more convincing argument than they have in the past, but prices will rebound and the proposal is a good one. Unfortunately, the industry has tended to look at even modest proposals the same way the NRA looks at any attempt at gun control, so getting them to agree to any compromise is problematic.
By the way, on the earlier topic of local government subsidies, look here for a listing of most of the recurring funding we provide them via state appropriations:
Click to access 20A_Other_Requirements.pdf
Look here for money that goes directly to them from the state treasury annually without being appropriated, including $90 million per year in general revenue sharing:
Click to access 22A_Non-Appropriated_Requirements.pdf
In both cases, you can go to subsequent pages for explanations of these and not all of the items listed are for local governments.
The things you seemed to focus on earlier (pet projects in the capital outlay bill and a few small ones in the operating budget) are in there to allow legislators to “bring home the bacon” as a trade for supporting the governor’s and/or fellow legislators’ proposals, but they actually represent a relatively small amount of the total state subsidy to local government expenses and they are usually one-time appropriations not tied to essential recurring expenses. In other words, they could be cut relatively easily and doing so would be great symbolically, but would accomplish little fiscally.
“We are in a deep hole and it will take us a while to dig out of it.”
Ok then. I’ve done the best I can. But do remember this –
We have a choice. To live under an unelected corporatocracy or a representative government. Search for your own solutions, but do not tarry. Time is running out. You may soon find that your situation is similar to that of the Greeks, whose daughters must sell their virtue for nothing more than a meal.
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/marylease.html
Since oil prices are predicted to drop to high teens a barrel in the very near future, its unlikely,”big oil,” will be negotiating with states right now. In Louisiana we will see massive layoffs before those bad boys cut any deals!