Infrastructure and Resilience–Or Lack Thereof?

February 28th, 2011 - Arthur (Andy) Felts

In this blog, I am pushing the limits of my knowledge—and hope that any kind readers would correct me if I’m wrong.

One of the most resonant statements we have made throughout the entire CARRI experience is that a community’s trajectory before a disaster will likely be exacerbated. Not something hard to understand. A community that has been experiencing an economic boom will likely do better post-disaster, and one that is not, vice-versa. Ditto for crime or housing problems.

So much of our attention on disasters has been focused on physical devastation that I think it is time to put the record straight. We need our water systems, roads, water treatment facilities, public buildings, bridges, to be in the best shape possible to increase community resilience. Out of sight does not mean out of mind.

So, I ask this question: Where are we, as a nation, heading on our infrastructure? When I Google “America’s decaying infrastructure,” I get myriad hits. Am I searching under the wrong street light?

Many years ago I had a wonderful point made to me by a woman working in transportation planning in Kingsport, TN. As we were talking about the need to plan for capital expenditures, she very gently pointed out to me that sometimes the unseen things in our infrastructure are neglected because they are precisely that—unseen.

In the face of that fact, it is easy to see why major stakeholders would favor a new coliseum over repairing a bridge. But if the bridge is necessary to carry people to the new coliseum, is it any less necessary?

I can make my point here quickly. If we as a nation are on a downward trajectory with respect to our infrastructure, then we are slowly becoming less resilient. Facilities that might have survived a natural or manmade event may show their age. Part of the interesting part about participating in CARRI has been how much it has expanded my vision. A viable neighborhood or community that becomes cut off as a result of decaying infrastructure has experienced its own manmade disaster. Only in this case, we have met the enemy, and he is us.

More on this topic to come, including some hard data…

Comments (2)

Vulnerable Populations or Assets?

January 27th, 2011 - Arthur (Andy) Felts

My graduate advisor and I were once talking about Marx and the fact that the spontaneous proletarian he predicted would occur was obviously not going to. He looked at me and said—“Look at how Marx described the proletariat. It was always in negative terms. They lacked this or that; they used religion as an opiate, and are reduced to an animal-like existence. Who would want to be a member of such a group?”

As I keep wrestling with the idea of “vulnerable populations” that has become so ubiquitous in disaster literature, I wonder out loud if the very term “vulnerable” is a good one to use. I doubt that anyone would like to be characterized as such and probably don’t think of themselves that way either.

In 1993, John McKnight and John Kretzmann published Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community’s Assets. They were specifically reacting to the growing practice of doing “needs analyses” in our poor, vulnerable communities. In doing needs analysis, we concentrate on what the communities don’t have. In doing what they called “asset analysis or mapping,” the focus on what they do have.

Most of the analyses of vulnerable populations tend to incorporate negatives—implicitly saying what they need. Income is likely low. Educational achievement is lower than average. There may be large numbers of single-parent households and a large number of renters. It is easy to see what they don’t have—more difficult to see what they do have.

A few years ago, Rev. Bill Stanfield moved his wife and kids into Chickora Cherokee, a North Charleston neighborhood, and founded a nonprofit called “Metanoia.” He looked at what the community did have—the capacity to become more self-sufficient. He followed John McKnight’s observation in The Careless Society that large numbers of social service providers meeting “needs” in a community tended to weaken it rather than strengthen it. Slowly, Metanoia has promoted grass roots, community engagement and has built a much stronger and more resilient community by building on assets, not meeting needs.

The point here is relatively simple. As long as we focus on a community’s needs or vulnerabilities, we neglect to see what it has in the way of assets. Many poor, rural communities may be wealthy in social capital—and more and more analysts are seeing how critical this asset is in disaster recovery. Social capital may exist in the form of tight bonds among a group, the presence of extended families, and frequented “third places” like a barbershop, beauty shop, or diner.

Where social capital is created, it can be used as a building block to improve lives. Neighbors might begin to use neighborhood handymen rather than outside contractors. Metanoia provides daycare where the caregivers are community residents and operates a farmer’s market where residents can sell vegetables and crafts that they grow or make.

There can be little question that these steps have all increased Chickora Cherokee’s resilience even though it still has many needs and would be characterized as vulnerable. I’m sure that the residents are looking at what they do have rather than what they don’t

CARRI is all about promoting more community self-sufficiency. You can’t do that by constantly looking at what you don’t have.

Comments (0)

Cascading Events Redux

January 3rd, 2011 - Arthur (Andy) Felts

The late, great Senator Everett Dirksen is reputed to have said, “A Billion [dollars] here, a Billion there, and pretty soon you are talking real money.” This pronouncement, by the way, was made in the 1960s when he was criticizing what he thought was the profligate spending style of Lyndon Johnson.

I suppose we could change the billion to trillion and the quote would be more accurate for today’s times. I think a billion is still pretty accurat

The massive snowstorm, a natural, anticipatable disaster, that hit the US NE last week is said to have likely cost retailers a billion dollars in lost holiday revenue.

A few blogs ago, I wrote about cascading events in terms of the old adage, “for want of a nail, a horseshoe was lost, for want of a horseshoe, a rider was lost….”

In this case, the reality is a lot of small businesses rely on holiday spending for as much as half their annual revenue. The battle will not be lost for a while. Many will struggle for a few months before collapsing. When they do, it will not be readily apparent that a snowstorm a few months ago was their loss of a nail.

In resilience thinking, this leads me to ponder two things and put them out as a challenge for thinking about slow motion disasters.

First, it would behoove us to think about the role that small businesses play in our own communities.

There is an obvious economic impact. The business will have to let go of employees that will, in turn, cause other employees to lose jobs and lead to predictable outcomes. This affects tax revenues and so on.

Another impact might be structural. A closing small business that anchored a neighborhood enclave with others might be a tipping point, causing a downturn in that specific place and result in more negative effects.

But there are human impacts as well.

That small business might have been the sponsor of a little league baseball team or an active member of the Chamber and participated in Rotary.

It might have been part of our sense of community. I just finished watching one of myriad food shows on TV that seeks out small restaurants/businesses that are great places to eat. They are often unique structures, as eclectic in style as possible—old barns, basements, bars, etc. Compare that with the programmed, theme-style look of chain restaurants. Are you in Kansas or California?

To extend that idea, high-end chair retail stores that can pay top dollar rents are, increasingly occupying downtown Charleston, once populated by unique small businesses. They occupy the same buildings, but they have lost a sense of location. I think that Charleston’s old core is changing.

The real heart of Charleston has moved further north —and that is where you find Charlestonians frequenting. On the food shows, patrons comment that the “come here all the time.” The small boutiques, art shops, clothing stores can become community gathering places.

In all those ways, a small business in a community is everyone’s business. But it’s “just a nail.”

Comments (0)

Back To The Future: Was That Back To Normal or a “New Normal?”

December 17th, 2010 - Arthur (Andy) Felts

When the CARRI Charleston team first started traveling around the area meeting with community stakeholders and explaining the concept of community resilience, I sought some simple ways of explaining what we are about. One catch-phrase that I used to describe when a community beset by a disaster was clearly on the road to recovery was when a community member could drive to Barnes and Noble and shop. Even in those days, we discussed whether community resilience might mean getting back to a “new normal” rather than the “normal” that implied things were restored and life was as it had been before the disaster. In that context, recovery from a disaster might offer the opportunity for a community to rectify past mistakes or weaknesses in the community. Recovery could mean making a community more resilient.

Of late, I have begun to think that in many ways disaster recovery will always mean getting to a “new normal” in even more complex ways than we initially thought. To illustrate: I note with some chagrin that many now think Barnes and Noble (one of the original “killer B’s”—along with Borders and Blockbuster Video) is struggling on the verge of bankruptcy. It may not be there in the “new normal” that will inevitably unfold as time passes, disaster or not.

The point here is relatively simple. We live in a dynamic environment. What we think of as normal at any given point in time is always undergoing change into a new normal. Sometimes that change is incremental—sometimes less so, as when we drive by a favorite business and see it is closed.

We should think of disaster recovery as part of a normal process of community evolution. To be sure, we want for it to be expedient and fair, but natural disasters (and, I hesitate to say, but it likely is true that manmade ones are as well) are themselves part of a “natural” cycle of things, not unlike the impact of forest fires on the life cycle of ecosystems.

Most everyone is familiar with the decision made by the citizens of Greensburg, Kansas after it was leveled by a tornado in May 2007. The decision was that the “new normal” would be to rebuild “green.” In this case, the new normal is a new future. Currently, Newport News, VA is abandoning a city park that has been subject to tidal flooding as a result of sea level rise and land subsidence. It will be restored as the wetland it once was. In this case, the new normal was the old normal.

Oystermen in Louisiana will have to create a new normal after the BP Deep Horizon spill. Even though their oyster farms were largely undamaged by the oil and they will be ready for a harvest in February, they may have a hard time finding customers. Many restaurants that relied on them for a steady supply have found new purveyors and now have a loyalty to them. Lacking adequate supply when the Louisiana beds were closed, many restaurants across the country simply dropped oysters from their menu. It is doubtful that most of the oystermen “planned to recover,” but had they done so, they would have a strategy in place to deal with this “new normal.”

When disaster recovery is planned for in advance, it allows us to think about where we might like to be rather than having to think about where we have been.

Comments (0)

Resources, Resilience and Recovery Following Disaster

September 29th, 2010 - Arthur (Andy) Felts

I was doing some online searches last week and encountered an editorial by Columbia University’s Dr. John Mutter in Nature Vol. 466 26 August, 2010. The title was “Disasters widen the rich-poor gap” and focused on the fact that recovery from Katrina in New Orleans has been significantly slower for the urban poor than the middle and upper classes. Poorer neighborhoods have not rebuilt, the poor have lost jobs and had less access to basic services.

Mutter opines, “In many ways, this disproportionate effect is no surprise. Poorer people’s homes tend to be constructed to a lower standard, and occupy marginal areas such as swampy, low-lying land. But it is surprising that even in the developed world — where much effort and strategy goes into recovery efforts — the division between rich and poor is allowed to broaden in the wake of a disaster. The same thing happened after Hurricane Andrew in Florida in 1992 and the Chicago heat wave of 1995.”

This observation struck me because in many ways, the same logic was applied in developing the Great Society programs in the 1960s. How, many leaders argued, could the world’s wealthiest nation tolerate the fact that significant portions of its population lived in at least some degree of depravation? A War on Poverty was declared—we would use our wealth to eliminate poverty in a generation. I’m certain we have not yet won that war, but also hope that that is not taken as a reason we should stop fighting.

Looked at through that lens, we should critically examine Mutter’s base logic that we have placed much effort and strategy into recovery efforts just because we are a developed nation. From early on, we at CARRI have argued that resources are only one leg of a tripod of recovery with the other two being (a) the capacity to utilize those same resources and (b) anticipate (and mitigate) losses from disasters. Having resources (wealth) is a necessary but not sufficient condition for recovery.

To be sure, we spent a lot of money on post-Katrina recovery efforts. But we should keep in mind a comment Alesch made in 2001 after looking at several communities and their recovery from disasters—including those affected by Hurricane Andrew:

“[We have] . . . seen many anomalies in disaster sites, including immediate adjacent communities with markedly different post-event experiences. We have seen millions of dollars directed at activities with no apparent long-term benefits to the community. Some locales get better, some get worse, and a few wither away.”

Developing more community resilience seems a better way to address post-disaster issues such as those raised by Mutter and myriad other issues as well. As we have said all along, a community’s trajectory before a disaster will likely be echoed during recovery. And a goal to develop more resilience puts a community on a positive trajectory.

About a year and one-half after Hurricane Hugo hit Charleston many noted that the City had not looked as good since before the Civil War. But the city had its poor as well. What was the difference in this case? Resources were used in that recovery to buy paint, deal with ongoing drainage issues, clear debris, and myriad other problems and the end product was different than that observed by Mutter. Perhaps it is because area was more resilient. By the way, in Charleston swampy land is highly valued for its vistas.

Comments (2)

If Vulnerability is the Dark Side, Resilience is the Force

September 7th, 2010 - Arthur (Andy) Felts

Recently I had a conversation with a colleague who works at the National Science Foundation. I shared with him some of the work I’ve been doing with CARRI and community resilience. His response to me was interesting. He recognized that resilience was finding its way into researchers’ and practitioners’ lexicon and opined that he viewed it as the opposite of and a more positive take on vulnerability.

My colleague was following the logic of John McKnight and his research on poor communities. McKnight argued that rather than constantly talk about what poor communities need, we should focus on what they already have; rather than doing a needs analysis, we should do an assets analysis.

It is an interesting conceptualization—seeing vulnerability and resilience as two sides of the same picture. I confess to not being entirely convinced and that makes it a good topic to blog on, seeking input from readers of this.

Some researchers, especially social work academics and social psychologists, write about the resilience of vulnerable populations. Their arguments are cogent: disadvantaged, vulnerable populations can see each day as a stress test—they are only an illness or broken down car or temporary job loss away from personal disaster. Their ability to survive and even thrive is testament to their resilience.

This likely speaks to the building of social capital in some groups we see as vulnerable. But then, are they as vulnerable as we think they are, looking from the outside?

The biggest difficulty I have in seeing vulnerability and resilience as closely related is that what might not look like a vulnerable population may become one as the cascading and rippling effects of a disaster unfold. Small business owners may look to be in reasonably good shape pre-disaster. But they can quickly become part of a vulnerable population if they lose their businesses six months or a year after a disaster.

The same might hold for the underinsured. If they lose a business or home and the insurance settlement just pays off their debt, those that appeared to be middle class can quickly look very different.

Edmund Andrews, an economics reporter for the New York Times, wrote last year about his slow spiral into a $500,000 mortgage by borrowing constantly to pay off old debt. Andrews was finally unable to meet his debt obligations after paying his alimony and child support. It is doubtful that he would look vulnerable until the house of debt cards he constructed completely crumbled.

Interestingly, in a conversation with Dr. Dean Kilpatrick, a researcher at the Medical University of South Carolina, who looks at psychological effects and disasters, I opined that older people might be more vulnerable. He immediately said his data did not support that observation. Older people often don’t have many of the obligations of middle class workers—high mortgages, children to care for, jobs to worry about and even parents to look after.

It may be that populations vulnerable to disasters can be just about any place we look for them. That is why a more comprehensive view of a community, as we have consistently taken with CARRI, is a better way to see resilience than as the opposite of vulnerable.

Comments (0)

Cities and Resources

August 24th, 2010 - Arthur (Andy) Felts

Another breakout track at the July Hazards Conference in Boulder focused on Environmental Change and Patterns of Vulnerability. I wrote a bit about that in my first blog on the meeting.

In that blog I mentioned that Dr. Peter Wenger from NSF participated on the panel and talked about Dr. Peter Berke was researching the “new urbanism” and its impact on community resilience.

The panel, “The Maddening of Crowding: Urban Vulnerability,” was interesting in and of itself. It focused mostly on what were called “megacities,” those with 19 million plus residents. Wenger talked about the most vulnerable being “SINs”—Small Island Nations and the need for a global platform to look at vulnerability. He also referred to cities as having large “concentrations of resources.”

Dr. William Siembieda from California Polytechnic Institute—San Luis Obispo, echoed that comment. Only he also pointed out that these cities contain large poor populations and both the need to increase income for these as well as form international “insurance pools” where they can ensure the leverage of these resources.

All of this echoed for me Lawrence J. Vale and Thomas J. Campella’s edited volume, The resilient city: How modern cities recover from disaster (Oxford University Press, 2005). I highly recommend the book. Various authors in that book talk about how major cities are located in important places and there was a commitment to building them in the first place. That suggests that we don’t need to look exclusively at megacities, we could include a whole lot more on the list. New York City of course, Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, Atlanta and Charlotte all have a lot of resources at their disposal.

This predisposes (pun intended) most all big cities to be more resilient. While researching for a paper I’m just finishing up, I was quite surprised to discover that Hiroshima’s population returned to pre-atomic bomb levels by 1955. Undoubtedly, this is a good example of resilience, acknowledging that Japan is a small nation and enjoys cultural homogeneity.

The resilient city is an excellent read. It recounts, among other things, how Berlin was rebuilt after WWII, San Francisco recovered from the 1906 combined fire and earthquake, and Washington, DC after it was nearly destroyed by the British Invasion of 1814.

In all these cases, and many more, there was a huge will among the cities leadership (public and private) to restore and recover. In fact, Vale suggests it is an axiom of resilience that it is a test of the very legitimacy of those leaders. They have to inspire people and leverage resources to go on.

It was the fact that these cities had large numbers of differently skilled leaders that were able to leverage the resources they possessed.

“Large” is a relative number—what was large in 1500 AD might be small now—but I’d opine that in today’s world, most cities with 5 million or more residents possess that inherent resiliency that comes from making themselves unique and creating a sense of place and capitalizing on their economic engines. There are exceptions, of course. Pompeii was in no position to recover after Mount Vesuvius erupted.

It may come down to simply a large population, poor or otherwise that points to their inherent resilience. I’d say not. One of my favorite quotes from Charleston’s Mayor Joseph P. Riley, Jr. is that city “places”—parks, promenades, cultural venues, sports arenas, boulevards—are places where “memories are made.” People seek to preserve those.

Comments (0)

Resilience – additional feedback from the July 2010 Annual Hazards Workshop

August 13th, 2010 - Arthur (Andy) Felts

In my last blog, I commented on the Hazards Workshop in July. There is more news. One of the highlighted track plenary sessions —“Resilience—What’s That?”— featured our own Dr. Tom Wilbanks. It was moderated by, as Tom designated her, “the legendary” Clare Rubin. Clare has been doing recovery studies for longer than anyone I know. Dr. Michael Dunaway from DHS’s Science and Technology Directorate participated as did Dr. Lori Dengler from Humbolt State University.

The panel was standing room only. The discussion was in keeping with the workshop and there were two practitioner and two more academic discussions. I should tell you here that the panelists don’t get to use PowerPoint and don’t give formal papers. They give a brief presentation and then it goes open the audience, a truly refreshing way to bring academics and practitioners together for discussion.

Tom did a good job of summarizing what CARRI has been about all along, seeing mitigating, preparing and recovery from disasters as a continuous process that is interlinked. He acknowledged that defining resilience was still a work in progress.

Clare’s approach was interesting and refreshing. Though she has long been recognized for her research in disaster recovery she spoke from her position as an elected official in Virginia. In her standard straightforward fashion she said, more or less, ‘I’m not sure what resilience is, but people are beginning to talk about it and I think means I need to find out more.’

Dunaway offered some interesting comments, emphasizing resilience and the need to find funding for building our national deterrent capacity to meet the challenges we are facing. He argued we need to change our culture in the face of increasing populations and multiple threats. He saw becoming a more resilient nation as the path to accomplishing that. He concluded with a very nice quote that defined resilience to him—given to him by a private sector friend. Resilience, means finding a way to function normally in abnormal like conditions. As good start for thinking that everything is, in fact, getting back to normal (or a new normal).

A tsunami researcher, Dengler, echoed Clare’s statement and talked a bit about being in Malaysia after the huge tsunami a few years back.

One interesting thing she said was that one island tribe used the term “smong” when asked what happened. She actually found out that that meant a lot of things in one word when time was critical. Smong means “when the ground shakes and there’s a lot of things jumbled up and the sea starts to recede and you see gurgling out where the water is, head for the high ground.” So, this one tribe did just that, gathered up the kids, put grandmas in carts and trucked up about 90 meters–exactly where Dengler would have recommended they go–and they all survived. Not only did they do that, but they also had stockpiled critical materials, lumber, food, etc., up out of harm’s way as well. When was the last time a large tsunami hit the village? 1917.

Another village escaped the tsunami, but evacuated anyway. She asked the chief if they were disappointed to have gone through all the effort of getting everyone to high ground and waiting it out. He replied no, “Each time offers us a chance to practice.”

Dengler offered that she wasn’t sure, but thought those were two pretty good examples of resilience. I agree.

Comments (0)

New Urbanism and Disaster Resiliency?

July 28th, 2010 - Arthur (Andy) Felts

Attending the Annual Hazards Workshop, hosted by the Natural Hazards Center at the University of Colorado has been a privilege I have enjoyed since coming on board with the CARRI team. The conference, unlike most, is not discipline specific, but rather brings together a group of researchers and practitioners who are interested in learning more about hazards, meaning disasters, and how we can deal with them.

July 2010 was the 35^th time the group has met. It would be an interesting exercise to plot their themes/topics over those years, but I was most pleased to see that this year there was a concurrent session on Community Resilience and Recovery. I went to several of these sessions and each was extremely well attended. CARRI’s own Tom Wilbanks was a presenter at one that had standing room only.

Though I will have more to share about what I learned at the conference, one was actually fortuitous that I learned at a panel that Dr. Philip Berke (UNC-Chapel Hill) moderated in a different track on environmental change and patterns of vulnerability. The panel focused on large-scale urban areas with that idea in mind.

One of the panel participants, Dr. Peter Wenger of the National Science Foundation revealed that Dr. Berke was engaged in NSF-funded research on what we social scientists call the “new urbanism” and disaster resiliency. From the way the questions where handled, Dr. Berke’s research is in its early stages—but from my perspective, this is terrific news for our understanding of community resilience.

The new urbanism folks address a pretty consistent theme. They don’t like urban sprawl. They don’t like single-use zoning. They think we can live and would choose to do so in denser communities where we can walk to the grocery store or work. I know more than most about this since I directed the Joseph P. Riley, Jr. Center for Urban Affairs and Mayor Riley is at the forefront of leaders in the new urbanism movement.

How does this relate to community resilience? I don’t know the details of Dr. Berke’s work for NSF, but it is pretty easy for me to see. People who live closer to where they work—to the point of walking distance—are likely to find recovery from disaster easier. Ditto for whether schools and places to shop and seek entertainment are as well.

The new urbanism movement is all about core cities and multi-purpose nodes that, in the end, create not just easy access to employment or retail, but a sense of place as well. They like small parks, places where you can go and walk, talking to your kids or playing fetch with your dog.

Berke’s is the kind of resilience research that should be pursued—it has the portent to be path-breaking in that it gets us through the multiple layers of community connections that we know entail resilience. It is encouraging to see the NSF funding such efforts. I look forward to the conclusions from this way of scientifically researching community resilience.

Comments (0)

Successful and Best Practices

June 29th, 2010 - Arthur (Andy) Felts

Most are probably familiar with the maxims, “He who hesitates is lost,” or “seize the day.” It makes intuitive sense; don’t miss an opportunity. But how are we to reconcile that with “Look before you leap?” It makes intuitive sense as well but is certainly in disagreement with the former. Don’t rush in, take your time.

Such is the state today, I believe, with what are called “best practices.” They have proliferated in many practical areas to the point where you can find many that are in direct contradiction to each other.

As I write this, I have been watching from time to time the suggestions of different people who have thought of ways to clean up the oil spill. Some say spray it with dry ice, some say use pom-poms to soak it up, some say use hay or straw, and some say we should use more and different chemical dispersants while others suggest these may cause even more environmental harm. All may claim to be a best practices currently available, but at some point, they proliferate to the point such that they are just different ways of dealing with a problem or issue and may actually be at odds with each other.

To diverge just a bit, we can say the same about what we call a healthy diet. At one time dieticians and doctors suggested eating a lot of organ meats because they were rich in minerals. Then not, because they are also filters of bad stuff. Margarine was better for us than butter, but then we discovered trans-fats. Though long accepted as fact, there is absolutely no basis in scientific fact that we should drink eight glasses of water a day. Now, we are told there is some evidence that red meat may not be so bad, rather it is cured meats like bacon that cause harm.

Such are best practices—they reflect what we know about the world today in both practice and science. It pushes the point, but at one time the best practice to cure a very feverish patient was to bleed them to rid the body of bad “humors.” Think about that.

As a result of this, as we proceed with the CARRI work of helping communities recovery efficiently, effectively, and fairly from disasters, we changed our terminology to “successful practices” rather than “best.” When we discover policies or programs that have worked in the past we will label them as successful. The admonishment here is clear. Caveat emptor.

This is an admonishment to all that we should think of disaster recovery as a continuously unfolding body of knowledge where what we thought best today may not be tomorrow. Second, and more importantly, we should realize that successful practices are those that have shown results in particular circumstances. Since circumstances can vary—sometimes dramatically—then those who are looking for solutions should consider if their circumstances fit those where a practice was successful.

CARRI has steadfastly maintained that community resilience is created by planning to recover. But once a plan is in place, it should not be put on a shelf someplace and dusted off when a disaster hits. Rather, it should be continuously reviewed and updated to reflect changes in the community and in what we know now rather than then. It also assumes that what we thought was best might not have been that at all.

We may never find the one best way to do something, but we can and should continuously strive to do so—and keep in mind that what we know now are some things that have been successful in other communities. These should be adopted with thorough consideration.

Comments (0)