All the hoopla about take home vehicles has me wondering about goverment vehicles in general. I often see City/ County vehicles at various restaurants, shopping centers, DMV and other locations for extended periods of time, it is clear that the mission is personal from my observation. It is apparent that a 1 hour lunch is extreme but maybe they do allow this. Does anyone know when employees on the job can take breaks and lunch, how long these last and are they allowed to use the goverment vehicle to facilitate that break or lunch? I am not talking about picking up a cup of coffee, I am referring to obvious abuse of work time and the vehicle. Maybe the Mayor or Cromer can shed some insight here?

I do take offense to unproductive or lazy workers stealing tax dollars!

I believe that you are assuming much in your statement. To take your statements literally, I would have to assume that each time you have seen a government vehicle outside a restaurant that you made a thorough investigation which would include timing that individual's stay; verifying which establishment that person was visiting,; determining if that individual is with anyone else; determining if the visit is or is not work related (i.e. checking to see if restaurant is violating some ordinance, meeting with a salesperson, etc.); if the individual is eating lunch, asking where he or she just came from and where he or she is headed (could be he or she is working one block away); etc. There are just too many variables possible to assume that every government vehicle you see parked in the vacinity of a restaurant equates to a government employee wasting time or gas money. The other possibility is that you have verified such abuse once or twice and are grossly exaggerating the number of events and or the details.

It doesn't bother me too much to see city vehicles around. I'm not sure that it is wasting that much money. It is not like the person involved does not have another vehicle and must drive the city vehicle all the time. Even if they decided to drive it EVERYWHERE, I'm not that concerned about it. Does it really cost us that much money? That was one thing I didn't get from the other thread, just how much money WOULD it save us to get rid of these vehicles?

Is it only city vehicles we have a problem with, not other jobs like contractors that have take home vehicles? Is it because the city is paying for it? Probably, so I wonder how much it would save/cost to stop it, the pros and cons. A discussion without Cromer comments and drama would be appreciated

I don't know about City and County. I know with the Federal Government you can stop for lunch but only at a place that is on your direct route. You can't take the car off route and you can"t just use a vehicle to go to lunch. I don't have a problem with people following that type of policy.

I don't think that kind of abuse would add up to much.

I also don't think the take home expense is going to add up to much either.

What I do want to know though is when is this issue going to get back on the cities agenda.

I wont disagree with your argument and do consider all of those intangibles. I can however cite more than a dozen examples in the past month where this was certainly not the case. One man, County vehicle, was registering a motorcycle at the DMV. City vehicle grocery shopping on several occasions. City vehicles at a Chinese eatery for an hour plus. City vehicle, 3 men, shopping at the mall one man in a Public Works shirt was buying perfume at Bon Ton. City vehicle at Bulldog Credit Union applying for a loan. County vehicle in a local park with a female for at least 2 hours. City (I think)street sweeper sitting and running at a local shopping center for over 1 hour. These are just afew of the examples that I have witnessed. I am retired and do travel around the community a good bit but this seems like an acceptable practice.

I still would like to know what breaks and lunch periods are allotted and if the vehicle use is condoned to facilitate the breaks. If the employee is granted a half hour lunch does travel time to the local eatery count? Most private employees pack a lunch or punch a time card and leave in their own car, in these cases we pay for that gas and any lost productivity that results from these trips.

Tony, with the raise study considered how do you feel about this?

Sorta right on that one Tony.

Actually, I think they make up the Motor Pool rules as they go along.

I take my federally-leased truck EVERYWHERE, however, I'm kinda in a unique position. You're as liable to find it parked at WalMart as you are to find it at HQ.

Also, the "allowable stop" rule for uniforms and civilians are different when it comes to fed vehicles, at least here at my activity.

Can't speak to other activities' rules/regs.

Just to clarify a few things regarding Fed vehicles:

- must be licensed driver and take MULTIPLE, boring Driver Safety Awareness Courses and be recertified each and every damn year.

- must sign for and inspect vehicle for safety prior to use, and sign it back in and inspect for damage before turning keys in

- can't use it for "personal errands" (yeah, right)

- can't use it for "personal business", like moving your household goods (seen it done though!)

- no hitch-hikers (duh!)

- no drinking alcohol while driving (double duh!)

- NO SMOKING IN GOVERNMENT VEHICLES

I'm sure they are reams and reams of Rules/Regs governing Fed vehicles, but these are the ones we stress.

I don't knwo but The Department of Interior is pretty strict on vehicle use from what I have seen. Our Superintendent can't even take a vehicle home and the Law Enforcement Rangers have to park at one of our facilties also.

Well let's see, you knwo I am a letter of the law type person (but with compassion when needed). My feeling about it in associationw ith teh wage study is that the study was implemented, the employees and the unions wanted it, and the negotiated contracts based on it. Now those contracts spell out breaks and lunches I am sure so they should be made to follow what the contract says. you can't ahve it both ways. Either the contract applies to both sides or no one at all in which case it is time for a pay cut.

Now if the vehicle is assigned and that person uses leave to set in the bank for a loan or something it is no big deal under the current policy. They are using the vehicle anyway. Then again if we wouldn't give them the vehicles for personal use at all we wouldn't have to wrroy about it.

Now I do believe that some people are abusing it, I do believe that some have legitimate reasons for being where they are, each case is individual and up to the supervisors. I ahve been at Lowe's, Circuit City and Best Buy in a governmetn vehicle. I am sure people thought what are these guys doing? We were buying parts that we couldn't wait for overnight. No one could tell I am an IT guy so I am sure some people thought we were just in tehre goofing off. That is why isaid each case is individual.

I just don't understand this. How can ANYONE argue that operating a vehicle does not result in an expense? The only issue is how much of a draw it is for attracting employees yet in the annual bellyaching about low pay do we ever hear said employees qualify their salary by including this most beneficial perk? I once ran the numbers and for me it came out to about 8%. For those who live closer or farther this figure would vary.

As for the issue of (cops specificly) personal use, everyone gets a meal break. If your job entails riding around in a government vehicle then it only stands to reason said vehicle will be parked in front of a resturant at times. However how many of us have seen cruisers at the grocery store, Wal-Mart, or the ballpark??? How often do we see an un-uniformed man with an un-uniformed woman and even kids in cruisers? I even saw a deputy trying to load a dishwasher into the trunk of his cruiser at Lowes a few years back!

The arguement that allowing cops to take their cars home enables them to take calls on the way to and from work has some merrit - some, but not much. It is something we SHOULD be looking at very hard. Are we paying them during the commute because they MAY take a call? Are we obligating them to make discretionary stops during the commute? The idea that having a cruiser parked on your street somehow creates a safer neighborhood may have some pschological merit to the people next door but that's all it is, and then what of the people who don't live next to the off-duty cop? Are they getting a tax rebate? Then one must also consider that high-performance police cars typically aren't run on the same (cheaper) 87 octane most of us use.

Then there is the absolutely silly arguement that ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF are furnished take-home cars to enable them to respond in an emergency... BS!!! Last I checked ALL public safety staff are subject to emergency call-up. This arguement would justify furnishing transportation to every correctional officer at the prisons, all firefighters, public health officers, nurses, etc. at the health department... No, I'm sorry firends, this is an employment perk. No more and no less. It MAY have some merit in recruitment but that is a totally seperate matter and trying to disguise it with some BS line is a reflection on the official making the pitch. If it's justified why not simply be honest about it? In this day and age of high fuel, vehicle (purchase), maintainence, and insurance costs this is something that needs serious consideration. Of the hundred or so cars operated by the Sheriff's department how many could we do without if the deputies kept them at the department and traded off at shift change?

There ARE justifications for take home cars but I feel we could easily cut back considerably on the present situation and save the respective agencies some serious money.

Good post Aldo!!

I agree Tony, great post.

Well I guess the Mayor and Ms. Cromer have elected not to answer my questions here. So I called City Hall and asked the question, what are the allotted break times and lunches and are the employees allowed to use City vehicles to facilitate these breaks, is this such a hard question to answer. You would have thought I had asked for top secret information. I was told to file a request with the Clerks office, I asked to speak with the Administrator and was told he was in a meeting but if I left my name and number he would return my call. Why is this such a hard question to answer? I hesitate to say this but I felt as if they didnt want me to know and they were trying to hide something.

Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree, maybe nobody cares or there is a reason I cant get the answer. Who knows but it is a damm shame when a citizen cant get basic information about how our local goverment works. Why do they need my name, how is that relevant?

Ms. Cromer was wrong for several reasons but I must agree that someting is not right. I am starting to see a serious problem with City Goverment and how they operate.

You're rocking the boat ndano and the city doesn't like to have their boat rocked, next thing you know it might start sinking.

I do like the police department vehicles close by as I feel a lot safer, and I also think that a few of the paramedics/fire dept should be allowed to have them at their homes too. When my husband worked for the Metro Subway system he was allowed to have his work truck here as he could be called into work at any time of the day or night for emergencies. That was the only thing that he used it for too! There are those of us who are conscientious and those who are not.

Of course several things in the post so far are either incorrect or just all together wrong.
Tony, some of the employees you may see are management, or other personnel who are not in a union, so of course lumping everyone into that category is wrong.
ndano, so sorry to not have responded as quickly as you would have liked. Yes, you can file a request with the clerks office. Or, I am sure you didn't, you could have left your name and number with Dani and she would have gotten the message to the city administrator and he would have called you back, he's pretty good about that.
So, there is no conspiracy to keep info from anyone.
Since this subject has surfaced, our Public Utilities Manager has sent me info as how to cut 6 vehicles from his list July 8th.
I do want to mention one instance where I am sure you would have to agree that a take home vehicle was worth while.
Two weeks ago I called into the Public Works Manager and informed him of water coming up from the street at Prospect and Forest Dr., he called his on duty man, since it was at 8:00 PM and they decided that it was significant enough to warrant cutting the street and repairing it at that time. I was headed downtown at about 8:30 AM the following morning and they were there, finishing up what they had started on the previous evening. I stopped and was informed by one of the crew that he did indeed have a take home vehicle. That previous night he was called out three times. Once by me.
Now keep in mind, since our water lines run from Smithsburg to Funkstown to State Line, his call outs could have been anywhere.
Having the availability to have a take home vehicle meant that he had tools and could determine if anyone else should have been called in or not.
I also have in writing a policy that was adopted back in 2002 that allowed the street crimes unit to give up overtime and take home a vehicle instead. This was a fair trade. It has worked out well. It allows them to have their own vehicles at home and still respond if there is something that needs their immediate attention.
These are not vehicles that the city purchased. They are confiscated vehicles.
One other thing ndano, I don't know what your vocation is, but in your job I would probably think that if someone called you you would want their name and number to get back to them or even to speak to them to find out if the person you were speaking to really needed to speak to you or someone else.
Maybe not, I could be just like most on here, grasping at straws, making statements without fact, and my favorite, making WRONG statements and not even trying to find out the fact.

So here I am just trying to give the correct information. And Ud, we love having our boat rocked.

How tight do we make the screws on these people? How many self appointed efficiency experts will it take to straighten these rogue employees? Maybe I'm nuts, but when the power goes out, snow falls, a crime occurs, or whatever, I see swift action. I think that comes from the pride and ownership of what one does for a living.

I hope you have plenty of Dramamine then.

Mr. Mayor,I for one appreciate your response and you have made some VERY valid points.  As I stated in a previous post, there ARE cases where a take home vehicle is an asset to the citizens as well as the employee.  There's no doubt about that.  In the case of the street crimes unit - how much overtime is involved?  Are they required to work a set amount of OT to off-set the privledge?  OT can be frequent or rare as the situations merit.  If they had 500hrs the year before the prevledge was granted but turned in none after, is there an accounting for how much they actually worked?  I'm not accusing anyone but simply curious. My biggest peeve with this issue is administrative staff - department heads and such - not the guys actually out there working the streets, utilities, etc.  Almost always the reason cited is for "response during emergencies" when virtually everyone in their respective agency is similarly responsible to respond if needed. When you were a C.O.  who paid for your car, fuel, insurance, etc?  Did your warden have a state car?  Was he more subject to emergency call-up than you?  All I'm saying is these (administrative) cars are an employment perk. I did recenty hear the sheriff on TV I think mention that take home cars are a considerable recruitment tool. Are they a necessary one though? If they're needed to fill the jobs then just say so but please include such considerations when talking about compensation when somebody wants a raise!This has been a periodic issue coinsiding with high fuel costs or tight budgets. We saw it in the mid 70's, late eighties and again now.  Like going right back to big inefficient vehicles after the fuel crunch of the 70's, we Americans tend to have short memories when times are good.  Saving money is ALWAYS a good thing!  Whatever solution arrises from the present controversy, should conditions loosen in the future you can bet we'll be arguing this again one day. 

I see this as a reason to have take home plumbing vehicles or ambulances, but that's not what we are talking about. There are enough police officers around for someone to be on duty. About the closeness to the location, that is why police officers drive around. You don't see take home ambulances, because there are stations throughout the city.

By the way, this is what I asked for in the second post in this thread, seems no one cares though because I've already heard drama and seen Cromer's name:



If you want to bicker back and forth about how many cop cars there are do that in the other thread. I guess this thread is about lunches and seeing cars everywhere, maybe I should move my post to the other thread.

Why does it bother us so much that cops are going to wal mart? We don't even know how much money it costs us for them to do it. If it doesn't cost us anything then oh well let them go where they want.

At your job every time someone does something that is against the rules do you go question your supervisor as ask why they get away with it but you would get in trouble if you did it? It sounds extremely petty. If it would save us a lot of money for police officers to not be allowed to take home cars then fine, stop it, but if it costs us 2 cents and they want to go to wal mart then let them.

I still see no reason why we NEED take home vehicles. On call plumbers should take home their trucks with their tools, that makes sense. If the company is paying for their insurance and gas then no they shouldn't be allowed to go to wal mart, but then again someone will break the rules. Not our business. Rules say they can't go to wal mart, if they chose to go, that's on their conscience, that is their problem, why are you worried about it? Is it because it's the city vehicles and you feel you are paying for them to go to wal mart? You are mad and don't even know how much as a person you are actually paying. You are also paying for them to ride around town all day and do practically nothing, stop and spray a trash can with bug spray then drive around some more. (Well that is only what I've been told by some city workers, it's not to apply to ALL workers).

Excellent thanks

Are there really any pros for take home vehicles. Why is it necessary to have a take home cop car? The on call thing doesn't make too much sense for the reasons I posted in the other post.

Some say it is a crime deterrent in the neighborhood that its parked in.

No, Cromer said that, and I asked her for her facts, my research didn't come up with that, I posted the site that said that it's not much of a deterrent though.

I don't think Cromer is the only one to say that though.

Show me a study that proves it, because I don't believe that is a good enough reason or even a reason at all to have take home vehicles.

I'm not disagreeing with you, personally I don't think it does much good, but that doesn't mean some people think it does do good and a study saying it doesn't probably won't change their minds.

It wasn't just her. Just she was quoted mentioning that. I personnally don't think it does any good anyway.

No way and no how will we get real answers. The Mayor and Council if you couldn't tell have their minds made up and any numbers we get willl be questionable at best. Think about it even if it saved huge amounts of money the Mayor, Council and Zimmerman don't have the testicular fortitude to go up against the administrative employees and the unions (Happy there Bob I separated the two just for you, I usually lump them together because they are getting many of the same benefits and should be getting the same type of meal and break times).

My personnal guess is we will get no answers, the numbers won't be complete, or the real numbers will be buried against so much BS we won't be able to tell the truth.

Only when we get three new council members will we start getting answers. Then Zimmerman and the Department heads won't have their built in protectors.

No way and no how will we get real answers. The Mayor and Council if you couldn't tell have their minds made up and any numbers we get willl be questionable at best.



There you go again Tony, lumping everyone together. Why do you think the numbers that will be produced aren't the right numbers? If I ask you a question, will you tell me the truth????????? At what point do we stop believing in our department heads and have such little faith that we don't believe what they tell us? If that is the case, where every answer is questionable, it's time to get rid of all department heads and start over. But, what if they don't tell us what we want to hear? I guess we fire them and get more until we find the ones that answer us just exactly like we want. Talk about BS!!!!!!!

Get over it Tony, you're starting to sound a little questionable yourself. Unfortunately the truth is something that some people don't want to believe, and wouldn't know it if it jumped up and bit them in the azz!

On the question about OT for our Street Crimes Unit. They gave up their role call time. That's 15 min daily. I'll get you the numbers this week as to what the $ amount was and how it coincided with the take home vehicles. Remember, these are confiscated vehicles, we did not buy them, so the real cost is for fuel, insurance and maintenance. I don't know if they fill up at our gas boy or not, will check that out too. If so, the cost of fuel is $3.25 gallon.

What's going on there Bob a little touchy? Maybe feeling the heat? Maybe you just like the council feel that you all don't need to answer questions? You forget who you all are supposed to be working for evidently! Don't like people questioning what you say or what you do? Then all 6 of you can not run again or resign. Either way Hagerstown would be better for it.

Now to specifics what makes me think the numbers produced won't be right? Well let's see:

1. You all told us there were no numbers for individual vehicles. Worng now there are. Did they grow on a tree or come up from the depths of the ocean?

2. Al Martin was quoted in the paper giving a certain set of numbers and saying how the drivers of those vehicles were reimbursed. You flat out told me that he "never said that" the paper was wrong" you basically said the HM lied. Yet I ahven't seen you call them on that, no letters to the editor, no retraction demanded, nothing that would lend any weight to your implication the HM fabricated the story. I mean you said he never said that they get "$3 a or .505 cents per mile. That leaves one option the HM fabricated a false story about the City finaince director and the City does nothing to respond? Yeah right!

3. How about the conflicting numbers Kelly reported? So she was lying? There weren't different versions the last time?

4. How about the numbers given in the paper the last time not adding up to what Martin said they get reimbursed? Why the difference?

5. Why so long to get all the information together? We are in a technology driven age and the accounting systems of the Cuity are computerized aren't they? Must be one hell of a long report if it took weeks for someone to query and run.

These answers should be available in black and white and not taking anyones word for it. Actually the problem I see isn't the Department Heads. The problem right now is a City Council and Mayor who feel that we work for them and they do not owe the citizens any type of accounting to their actions or inactions. Maybe if we had true leaders sitting in City Hall the Department Heads would be more on the ball and people wouldn't question things so much.

Say what you want about me Bob at least I know where I stand and what for. I stand for honesty, openess and accountability of the government. I believe that you 6 work for us and it is about damn time you started acting like it.

What's going on there Bob a little touchy? Maybe feeling the heat? Maybe you just like the council feel that you all don't need to answer questions?

No, just telling it like it is. I don't have a problem answering questions. It really doesn't matter because it would be the truth and you still wouldn't believe it.

1. You all told us there were no numbers for individual vehicles. Worng now there are. Did they grow on a tree or come up from the depths of the ocean?

You need to show me where I said there was no individual numbers for vehicles.

2. Al Martin was quoted in the paper giving a certain set of numbers and saying how the drivers of those vehicles were reimbursed. You flat out told me that he "never said that" the paper was wrong" you basically said the HM lied. Yet I ahven't seen you call them on that, no letters to the editor, no retraction demanded, nothing that would lend any weight to your implication the HM fabricated the story. I mean you said he never said that they get "$3 a or .505 cents per mile. That leaves one option the HM fabricated a false story about the City finaince director and the City does nothing to respond? Yeah right!

Dan Dearth and I have talked about this. In due time, when all the information is available, information concerning all will come out. You seem quick to use that word lie yourself Tony.

3. How about the conflicting numbers Kelly reported? So she was lying? There weren't different versions the last time?

You'll have to be more specific. Many numbers have been used. One of the questions was how could two vehicles be on the same street and one of them is out of state? Simple to explain, a slip of a finger on the keyboard.

4. How about the numbers given in the paper the last time not adding up to what Martin said they get reimbursed? Why the difference?

Again more specifics please.

5. Why so long to get all the information together? We are in a technology driven age and the accounting systems of the Cuity are computerized aren't they? Must be one hell of a long report if it took weeks for someone to query and run.

We just replaced our hardware and software last July. Up until then we were working with the pc3000, the oldest known computer system to mankind. There are some things that can be readily available and some that takes more time. Patience is a virtue Tony.

Say what you want about me Bob at least I know where I stand and what for. I stand for honesty, openess and accountability of the government. I believe that you 6 work for us and it is about damn time you started acting like it.

You are not alone in your position. I too stand for the same. But unlike you, I would certainly like to wait for all the correct information before I begin to throw doubt on everyone.


On the question of the OT. Back in 2002 when that council agreed to this policy the cost was estimated to be $1300 in overtime that would not be paid out per officer. Given the salary advances in the years since, I am sure that number has also risen. I believe we will have a more concrete number for all the people in the weeks to come.

1. You all refers to the city. I won't dig up everything but I will say the HM reported information wasn't available in their first story. And then this "Martin said he doesn’t know how much money the city spends to operate take-home vehicles because those expenses — including fuel and maintenance — are not individually tracked. Instead, fuel and maintenance costs are shown in the budget as a line item for each department. "
http://www.herald-mail.com/?cmd=displaysto...amp;format=html

2. A lie is an untruth. An untruth is saying someone said something that they didn't. You told me straightout it was never said. By your implication not mine the HM lied.

3. Kelly said the reports handed her had discrepancies in the information. Since I am not Kelly and don't have things handed to me by the City I suggest you ask for them yourself. Of course you already have them don't you. "Cromer asked before Tuesday’s meeting that the discussion be pulled from the agenda because she had not received all of the information she requested, she said. The information she did receive included some discrepancies, she said.

“I don’t trust any of the information,” Cromer said."


4. More specifics. None of the dollar amounts and miles listed in the HM added up to $3 a day or .505 per mile. http://www.herald-mail.com/?cmd=displaysto...amp;format=html

5. Bob now come on it was a replaced a year ago and you couldn't provide the HM detailed information from their request for this fiscal year? That was in the first story on the subject from the HM. It doesn't matter if you were in the stone age before. You all could and should have had at least data from this year available to work from. A query is not that time consuming of a process. I will give you the records from before.


Bob and unlike you I wouldn't worry about covering the asses of anyone to save the city "embarrassment." You made it clear in our conversations you try to control what makes it to the public that could be embarrassing. Well if the public never learns how some of our council are complete scewups and wastes of time how are we going to know which ones to vote out? You like control that is fine, but the City belongs to the citizens not you and not the Council. You all are caretakers and are answerable to us. Your job isn't to help damge control the council or the screw ups of any employees. Your job is to give the citizens the best honest, accountable and open goverment there is.

Your job is to give the citizens the best honest, accountable and open goverment there is.

Which I do.

But of course you wouldn't believe that.

Got you posting on here again though didn't I? LOL

Yes you did.

Mr. Mayor, let me clarify that I am asking about the regular work day and all vehicles. If you read my topic starter I asked a question and placed it in bold, that is the question I would like answered. I do understand that I could make an official request via your office, but why? This information should be public knowledge and an easy question to answer.

In addition to the previous examples I could add more since that time. The most serious, IMO, is the police officers who sit for, and I am not embellishing, hours at a time with the motors running. I can and will cite examples if you wish! You see I have begun to record vehicle desriptions and numbers and the actions that I find questionable.

One more thing why I have your ear, please tell me why the Police in this town do not make the efficent flow of traffic a priority. When traffic backs up its the police officers responsibiltiy to alleviate... always.

The tax bill arrived today, that money is paying for these services and I feel I have a stake in the jobs I pay them to perform.

That sounds like a question for the Chief of Police.

OK, thanks for the answer but lets look at the numbers - and yes I'm basicly pulling this out of my... ah, hat, since I don't actually know the "average" pay or milage.

Using the figure of $20.00 per hr. X 15min. per day X 5 days per wk. = $25.00.

$25.00 / $3.25 per gal. = 7.7gal. per week.

At 20mpg X 7.7gal. = 154 miles per week.

154 / 10 (five round trips) = 15.4mi. distance from work.

I'd guess 15 1/2 miles (one way) is a fair allowance for most city cops. Farther than most actually! Of course this is only the wage figure and does not consider other costs such as fica, workers comp., etc. that are also paid by the employer. I assume you include these costs in OT hours. Which means these are costs the City IS NOT paying for these guys for 1.25 hours a week. Then again there is maintainence, insurance, etc. on the vehicles even without purchase expense but then you'd have those costs whether they took them home or not. What's more, since these are "dedicated" vehicles un-like the typical patrol crusier, hence of no use to anyone when the assigned officer isn't there... Yeah, thanks for explaining Mr. Mayor, I'd say the city is getting a pretty good deal on this one!

Oh and BTW - NO, I am not a city employee or even resident and I do not have a take home car where I work! I'd sure like to get $3.25 per gal. gas though!!!!!!!

HEADS UP--The City Council will discuss vehicle usage at their meeting tomorrow (Tues., July 15). Meeting begins at 4 pm.

Mr Mayor, I am still looking for my answer.