Judgment days

As exasperated as Teaneck residents are with the costly lawsuits filed by former Township employees, most knew better than to believe any Council candidate who campaigned on a promise to put a stop to them. The circumstances surrounding the latest fat payout to a disgruntled former worker demonstrate that the citizens and elected officials who together foot the bill for various past misdeeds are powerless to prevent themselves from being soaked again in the future.

As Brian Aberback reported in yesterday's Record, an ex-DPW employee and his lawyers are now several hundred thousand dollars richer at the expense of Teaneck's families thanks to the extraordinarily poor judgment of a DPW official who has not worked for Teaneck since 2004. Other recent outflows from our "self-insured" municipality to cover assorted settlements, judgments, and legal fees result from similarly avoidable self-inflicted wounds from the past. Having gained a reputation in a certain segment of the legal community as an easy mark, there's no reason to believe that anything other than more lawsuits await.

Those who campaigned on a platform of better labor relations realized this on some level. However, the measures they proposed to avoid these situations in the future did not address the root problem. An ombudsman dedicated to monitoring employee complaints would be nothing more than a costly early warning system for litigation coming down the pike. Commitment of non-existent funding for improved working conditions is infeasible and unlikely to placate employees who allege harassment, verbal abuse, and retaliation for whistle-blowing.

The real reason that the people of Teaneck have seen millions of their tax dollars go to line the pockets of attorneys and assorted aggrieved parties is that other paid Township employees have acted irresponsibly on the job. Unfortunately, the financial liability for the foolish behavior of a number of former superintendents and chiefs belongs to blameless taxpayers. Not only is it time to revisit the criteria for hiring and promotion decision and tighten their oversight, but we also must instill a culture of responsibility among senior departmental personnel in Teaneck (with penalties for infractions where legally permissible). After all, it is our money they're gambling with every time they open their mouths.

In demand

With all the 'For Sale' signs that have popped up throughout town, one could be forgiven for thinking that homes in Teaneck are not the hot commodity they once were. Indeed, with recent statistics pointing to a cooling residential real estate market nationwide and mortgage rates climbing, one might expect Teaneck to become strictly a buyer's market. With all the added uncertainty of the upcoming revaluation shaking the confidence of home shoppers, it could be extra difficult to sell properties in Teaneck.

Not so fast. While the total number of detached units in Teaneck currently listed on the Multiple Listing Service and a popular site for homes for sale by owner is 275, this represents a relatively low percentage of the available housing stock in that category at this time. In order to estimate these percentages for Teaneck and neighboring towns, I divided the total number of listings across the two services mentioned above by the total number of single family owner-occupied homes as recorded in the 2000 U.S. Census. As the numbers below demonstrate, there is not a glut of homes available in Teaneck right now, at least relative to the surrounding area.

Estimated % of homes for sale

Englewood 5.6%
Bergenfield 4.3%
Ridgefield Park 3.7%
Hackensack 3.5%
Bogota 3.3%
Leonia 2.9%
Teaneck 2.8%
Paramus 2.6%
River Edge 2.5%
New Milford 2.3%

Obviously such a simple analysis raises almost as many questions as it answers. Might these figures simply be a consequence of the fact that Teaneck has experienced more turnover over the past few years than the towns with a larger proportion of homes currently for sale? If so, these figures might just reflect pent-up supply that is just coming on the market. Indeed, if one juxtaposes this table to age group population figures from the 2000 Census, one sees that the towns with the smallest inventories of unsold homes are those who had the highest proportion of residents 65 and older in the 2000 Census. Those older residents may have taken advantage of the booming market conditions of the past half-decade to sell to younger people who are now unlikely to sell again for a while.

While I don't claim to have the information or the insight to know for sure, at least one other explanation readily suggests itself to me. It could very well be that it is not just a question of supply, but rather a question of both supply and demand. While the Township may have its share of problems, Teaneck residents are sticking it out. Even at a time when home ownership in Teaneck is not at its most affordable, the town's considerable charms are winning out. All the more reason to work extra hard to repay the residents' good faith with leaner, more efficient, and friendlier municipal government and services . . .

Changing of the guard

The Record contains a nice tribute piece to Councilman Paul Ostrow on the occasion of his departure from the Council after 16 years of service. The Council and the town as a whole owe a debt of gratitude to a man who tirelessly served the community for so long in a fashion that truly expressed the non-partisan and non-doctrinaire spirit of Teaneck government.

The new Township Council is in some ways operating at a significant disadvantage to the outgoing one. Gone are decades of experience and institutional memory. Loads of accumulated knowledge of the issues and the inner workings of Teaneck government are leaving along with Councilmen Ostrow and Stern. On the other hand, the Council's newcomers are unencumbered by the past. Will the fresh dose of energy and enthusiasm they bring compensate for the fact that they have a steep learning curve to climb?

The fact remains that despite the late attention paid to the stormy election campaign this spring, the four newcomers to the Council are largely unknowns. We have some idea of where they stand on select issues, and some insight into their overall approach to governing, but overall, we have as much to learn about them as they do about the new responsibilities they are assuming. Will we be missing Councilman Ostrow even more in a year's time?

Saturday night fever

Inquiring minds want to know whether the Council's recent suspensions of some local establishments' liquor licenses were really part of a scheme to limit competition for their own bash next weekend (corrected).

Thinking outside of the big-box

As another community grapples with the question of how to respond to the proliferation of large homes on relatively small plots of land, it seems worthwhile to revisit this issue in Teaneck. There are, of course, compelling arguments that can made in favor of limiting the ratio of living space to land or more strictly regulating the amount of permissible lot coverage. On the other hand, there is something distasteful and even alarming about municipal government further constraining the already limited rights of homeowners to improve their properties as they see fit. Township officials and residents alike recognize that there is a fine line to be walked between preventing individual homeowners from harming a neighborhood's character and infringing on property rights.

Perhaps it is time for a more creative approach to the issue. How about regulations that would impose an annual consumption tax on those who want to exceed certain levels of property coverage? Without removing the ultimate cap on the percentage of a lot that could be built upon, the town could assess properties at higher tax rates based on the amount by which they exceed certain levels of coverage or certain building heights. The extra revenue raised from these homes could be used partially for the municipal budget and partially to reduce the property tax bills of neighboring homeowners as compensation for the unpleasantness of living near one of these homes, using a predetermined formula.

Implemented correctly, such a policy could benefit the town by increasing ratables without encouraging overbuilding. It would protect the rights of individual homeowners to expand their homes or install amenities such as swimming pools, while at the same time making sure the neighbors do not suffer unduly. Might this be a good way to make the best of a vexing situation?

Hooray for volunteerism

It seems like all the best things about Teaneck are the ones we the residents do ourselves. Today's Record reports on the latest accomplishment of the Friends of the Hackensack River Greenway through Teaneck, whose efforts over the past few years have improved the environment while increasing recreational and educational opportunities in town.

If only we could figure out how to get similar results from those we pay to provide services...

Why sky-high school taxes are not a partisan issue

Amidst all the chatter surrounding the issue of Teaneck's relatively high school spending, a misguided strand of thought consistently emerges. There are those who seem to think that anyone who questions the necessity of outspending neighboring school districts is locked in some kind of Manichaean struggle with those who stand behind the schools and insist that all is well in the Teaneck public school system. Somehow, raising a few pointed questions about Teaneck's bloated school budget betrays a lack of commitment to the principles of public education, community engagement, and the welfare of Teaneck's children. Only a greedy person with ulterior motives and the wrong party affiliation could possibly question whether Teaneck taxpayers are getting a good value for their money, according to this line of reasoning.

Well, here is something to think about, even if you are convinced that every penny spent is absolutely necessary and that Teaneck's schools are performing at an elite level.

Property taxes, the major portion of which go to fund the public schools, are not assessed with regard to one's ability to pay them. This means that older residents who subsist on social security payments and reside in homes they acquired many years ago are shouldering a crushing burden (even after discounts and rebates for seniors) due to Teaneck's high educational expenditures. Similarly, any longtime resident whose home has appreciated significantly while his or her income has crept along at a much slower pace is facing significant financial pressure to leave Teaneck. This creates a situation, particularly given Teaneck's existing demographics, that almost guarantees that the next generation of residents are going to be less favorably disposed towards devoting resources to the schools.

The reality is that Teaneck's schools are not comparable to Tenafly's schools, yet the price of a home in Teaneck, as well as the annual tax levy on that residence, is very high for this area. As a result, those who purchase homes in Teaneck in the coming years are likely to be upper income families who are not planning to use the schools. Guess what? They are not going to stand for elevated public school spending unless it is can be well justified to them. That is a daunting prospect for those of us who want to see Teaneck's schools flourish. One way to prevent reaching a situation like this is to have an ongoing effort in place to cut the fat in order to rein in spending to more normal levels (sorry, but much as we'd like to dismiss the somewhat jarring statistics on Teaneck's educational expenditures, we are not there yet). It is also crucial that we have an especially open and accountable BoE that projects an air of fiscal responsibility as it strives to help Teaneck's students get the best education possible (we could improve on this front as well).

In sum, there are two problems that need to be tackled: the actual problem of Teaneck's high spending and the burden it places on many residents, and the perception problem that could lead to an erosion of support for the schools in the future. Defenders of the BoE continue to claim that these problems are invented by dyed-in-the-wool opponents of public education. Neither I, nor many others who have expressed concern, fall into that category, and yet we see these problems festering now and worry that they will get worse in the future if not addressed quickly. We ignore them at the peril of our school system and our community. Maligning those who bring up the issues is a sure route to disaster.

Miles apart

I don't think this was the response Dror Futter was hoping for. A letter writer in this week's Suburbanite inadvertently illustrated why attempts at fostering a meaningful debate about the high costs and relative performance of the Teaneck public school system are hopeless.

While Futter's letter in last week's edition (see below for the full text in the entry titled "Response required") employed a combination of quotations from officials, statistics, and his own personal analysis to question the effectiveness of the Board of Education leadership, this week's response consists of:

• idle speculation (private school test scores would probably be no better than Teaneck public schools' results, which are flawed anyway)
• a bit of anecdotal evidence (a Teaneck public school teacher has been honored recently)
• some outright silliness ("New Jersey private schools can easily run above $20,000 a year. How is it that one Teaneck child's education is worth 20 grand and up, but another Teaneck child's isn't worth $13,000?") and
  
• a whole lot of cheerleading for the Teaneck schools ("the children aren't just getting a good education they're getting a great education")

This is not to say that a persuasive and fact-based response to Futter's criticisms is not possible. There may well be good explanations for why Teaneck's per pupil spending is so high and why despite this, test results are middling, but the supporters of the BoE have not advanced them. The regrettable result is that those who feel pinched by their ever rising school taxes are likely to become increasingly frustrated in their search for answers, and the mistrust on both sides will only deepen, rendering the possibility of meaningful reforms to please all constituencies more and more remote.

The other side of the issue

Larry Robertson, planning officer of the Teaneck Volunteer Ambulance Corps, has a letter in Monday's edition of the Bergen Record expressing TVAC's opposition to bringing all emergency dispatching under a single countywide agency. Having joined the chorus of voices calling for increased use of shared services arrangements to improve cost efficiency, I found Robertson's letter to be a good reminder of how a concept that works well in the private sector does not necessarily translate well to government agencies. That's hardly a reason to abandon efforts to limit unnecessary overlap and infrastructre; but it is a good warning to proceed with caution and heed the lessons of the past from an organization that represents the best that Teaneck has to offer.

Can't buy me votes

Today's Record reviews the campaign finance filings of the 2006 candidates for Township Council. Not too many suprises there, though Charlie Gonzalez certainly stands out, for both the amount he raised and the relatively poor performance he put in at the polls despite the large budget he had. We now know who wanted him elected so badly, but why did they want it so much?

Gonzalez certainly did not come across as someone with an ambitious agenda for Teaneck, nor did he ever seem like a true contender who just needed a few dollars to put him over the top. It's baffling. Many will no doubt chalk it up to some behind-the-scenes county-level political wrangling given Gonzalez's position in Bergen County government, but even with that angle, it just does not seem to add up.

The incredibly shrinking district

According to state's Department of Education, from 1998 to 2006, total enrollment in New Jersey's public schools grew from 1,264,260 to 1,394,778, a gain of more than 10%. Over the same period, Bergen County added over 17,000 pupils, a rise of 14.6%. Teaneck, however, managed to buck the trend, as local public schools actually lost students even as the overall population of the town was rising. In fact, since peaking during the 2001-02 school year at 4,679 students, total enrollment has tumbled nearly 4% (using combined figures for both the Teaneck public school district and the Teaneck charter school). Other than Bogota's small school district, no other neighboring district has experienced anything like this (Bergenfield enrollment +13.3% since '98-'99, Englewood +6.0%, New Milford +8.5%, Leonia +4.9%, Hackensack +12.2%). These figures are even more remarkable when one considers that data from the 2000 census show that Teaneck had a significantly larger percentage of residents under the age of 18 than neighboring towns whose public school enrollments have grown.

There is a plausible, though not proven, explanation for this startling trend. The anomaly of Teaneck's diminishing enrollments may be explained by noting that a significant and growing proportion of the young families in Teaneck do not make use of the public schools. While a source of consternation for some who fear that support for the public schools is in danger of evaporating, the less emotional among us might simply view this demographic reality as a fact of life in a free society. Rather than lamenting the loss of what once was, we ought to consider how the new situation the Teaneck school district finds itself in ought to be handled. If recent trends are to persist for the foreseeable future, what steps should we be taking now to adjust to the fact that Teaneck schools are destined to be more sparsely populated down the road?

The future?

Perhaps the most obvious prescription is to ensure that all forward looking plans veer away from investment in expansion of the infrastructure and toward consolidation. Aggressive steps toward implementing programs for shared services, reducing administrative and support staff, and other such measures that decrease the fixed cost base are desperately needed. It stands to reason that one explanation for Teaneck's hyperinflated annual cost per pupil (see "Number crunching" post below) is the fact that rising costs for salaries, benefits, and maintenance of physical plant are being spread across smaller numbers of students while neighboring towns are able to distribute those costs across growing student populations.

The realization that enrollments are on the wane may be hard to take for those who are watching their fiefdoms contract, but ultimately, those who care for the future of the district must take these types of actions now. If per pupil spending remains seriously elevated while fewer and fewer residents have a direct stake in the system, support for public education in Teaneck surely will take a hit. If, on the other hand, officials are able to demonstrate that they are running a lean and efficient operation that is producing good educational and good fiscal outcomes for the residents of Teaneck, it is a safe bet that Teaneck's tradition of generous support for public education will continue for a long time to come.

What happens in Hackensack doesn't stay in Hackensack

As the ballots from yesterday's Republican Party primary have only just been counted, it's a little early to be handicapping the race for Bergen County Executive, but GOP nominee Todd Caliguire may actually have a shot at winning this thing. Democratic incumbent Dennis McNerney remains the prohibitive favorite thanks to his large campaign war chest and the tendency of county voters to lean toward Democrats, but a couple of factors may boost Caliguire's candidacy just enough to vault him into the leadership position he seeks.

Why should any of this matter to Teaneck residents? To be sure, county government is the ultimate insiders' game, full of intrigues and machinations, and most people in municipality-rich New Jersey pay it little heed. The fact is, however, that meaningful changes in the size and scope of county government and services can make a significant difference to the financial position of Teaneck families. Bergen County's 2006 budget totals over $400 million , and the revenues to fund that spending come out of the pockets of Teaneck taxpayers, even if it is less obvious to them.

As discussed in a previous posting, Republican nominee Caliguire has an ambitious, and most likely unworkable plan to slice a large chunk off of the county's expenditures that he figures could save the average homeowner approximately $600 a year. McNerney will certainly hammer away at Caliguire over the folly of his plan to shift the burden for many county services onto the state, but it may not harm him. Holding out the tantalizing prospect of reduced spending and tax reductions is likely to resonate particularly with voters in 2006. As evidenced by the historically elevated number of school budget defeats earlier this year and the heightened sensitivity of legislators in Trenton to tax concerns, the New Jersey taxpayer is once again reaching a breaking point and wants to send a message that change is needed. If McNerney promises more of the same, voters could punish him for it.

One other factor may work in Caliguire's favor: the tightness of the race for U.S. Senate, which pits Democratic incumbent Robert Menendez, who was appointed to the position by Gov. Corzine, against Tom Kean Jr. Early polls have the two running neck and neck, but the fact that Caliguire will be sharing a line with Kean Jr. and enjoying some of his name recognition could win him some votes. Add to that Menendez's rather ordinary record so far in the Senate and some of the ethics concerns that dog his candidacy, and it is possible that there could be a strong turnout for Kean Jr. that will spill over into support for Caliguire. Given that 16% of Democratic voters preferred James D. Kelly Jr. (who until recently lived in a group home for the mentally ill) over Menendez in yesterday's primary, you have to believe that the broader New Jersey electorate will be giving Tom Kean Jr. and the Republican line a closer look in November.

Cracking down on freeloaders

Not an actual Teaneck freeloader

In a letter published in the May 31, 2006 edition of the Suburbanite, Earl Sandor urges the Teaneck Board of Education to conduct a re-registration in the Teaneck public schools to weed out "non-resident students illegally attending...at enormous cost to the Teaneck taxpayers." Sandor cites the success of similar initiatives in Englewood and Fair Lawn* at identifying abusers of the system and removing them to achieve cost savings and smaller class sizes.

There is some history behind Sandor's public letter. As he states:

This proposal was part of an e-mail campaign to the school board this past summer. I formally presented this proposal at the October 2005 board meeting. At that time, it was announced that purely by coincidence, 78 non-resident students were newly identified. No differentiation was made between students prevented from enrolling under the new registration requirements or whether they were non-resident students already in the system. No action has been taken by the board on this proven, successful and highly cost effective proposal.

As advocates of re-registration attempt to return this issue to the front burner, a number of questions need to be addressed.

• Sandor alleges that "it should be common knowledge that a large number of non-resident students" are taking advantage of the Teaneck educational system, the proof being that "approximately 30 students per year" are discovered using current methods. What evidence is there that a significant number of students are slipping through current enforcement efforts? It is certainly possible that a more widespread problem will be discovered based on the results of Fair Lawn's re-enrollment, but what efforts was Fair Lawn undertaking to prevent abuse of the system prior to that? Might the incremental benefit of a re-registration actually be smaller in Teaneck?
• When presenting a cost-benefit analysis of a prospective re-registration, is it really appropriate to weigh the $30,000+ upfront cost of conducting it against a supposed savings based on the number of students ejected multiplied by the district's cost per student? This seems a bit disingenuous, as the district's cost per student is a statistic derived by taking the total education expenditure and dividing it by the number of students enrolled. It is misleading to suggest (Sandor does not explicitly do so) that removing 100 students at an average cost of $13,000+ per student could yield over $1.3 million in savings as most of the district's costs are fixed costs. The incremental cost of educating an individual student does not actually exceed $13,000 per annum.

That said, whether or not the savings are as great as proponents say they are, and whether or not there are as many violators as Sandor alleges, and without passing judgment on the efficacy of the BoE's current enforcement efforts, it seems that a very strong argument would need to be made against doing a periodic re-registration of all students enrolled in the Teaneck public schools. Dishonest abuse of Teaneck's scarce resources must not only be prevented after the fact, it must also be deterred.

Furthermore, there are two potential benefits to throwing up another serious obstacle to abuse of the system- the potential cost savings it could bring, and more importantly, the potential restoration of the taxpayers' faith in the stewardship of the Board of Education. A BoE that makes it clear that it takes a hard line aginast anyone who would ripoff the taxpayers of Teaneck (in this, and other areas) is a BoE that will deservedly enjoy more broad based support for the budgets it proposes.

*For more information on the costs and outcomes associated with Fair Lawn's re-registration, see here and here.

Response required

It should come as no surprise that we have not yet heard the last of the protests over the scant adjustments made to the defeated school budget. This week's Suburbanite contains a well-crafted letter from Teaneck resident Dror Futter that levels a number of pointed criticisms of both the actions and attitudes of the Township Council and Board of Education. Given that some of the issues Futter brings up have been discussed in this forum over the past few weeks, I am particularly interested in the response (substantive, not emotional) this letter will elicit from staunch defenders of the Council and BoE. Given that the Suburbanite has not yet entered the Information Age, the full text of Futter's letter is reproduced here*:

To the Editor:
Teaneck residents are justifiably outraged that the message delivered by their rejection of the school board budget was ignored both by the township council and the Board of Education. The largely illusory $550,000 in budget cuts they approved represent a reduction of less than 1 percent of the $80-plus million school budget.
The board's response becomes more understandable after reviewing recent statements by board trustees in the pages of your publication. In a May 24 letter, board member Barbara Ostroth (who curiously does not identify herself as a board member) states that the board represents "everyone" meaning "students, teachers, administrators, support staff and our neighbors all over town." Actually, it does not; the board represents town residents (including, obviously, students) - period. The other groups listed are employed by the board, not represented by it.
If the board were to stop viewing itself as a representative of the teachers, perhaps teachers' salaries would not be 25 percent or more above those in neighboring towns, and salary increases would be conditioned upon productivity enhancements.
In what appears to be the first salvo of the 2007 budget vote, Ms. Ostroth blames apathy and disinterest for the defeat of the budget. She calls upon the readers to reject "rumor and innuendo" through "information, investigation and facts." Over the past few years, I have published several letters in this publication providing a detailed, fact-based critique (complete with links to the relevant on-line information sources) of the Teaneck school district. I have demonstrated that contrary to repeated assertions of excellence by the board, student performance in the district is, at best, average.
Further, I have highlighted that Teaneck's spending per student has been in the top 10 percent of school districts in the state and that it was impossible to justify the most recent 13+ percent increase in teacher's salary. In my opinion, no member of the board has ever provided a factual response to my assertions.
While Ms. Ostroth's comments are disappointing, a recent statement by Board President Judy McKay is nothing short of outrageous. On the cover of this publication on April 26 (after the rejection of the budget) Ms. McKay stated: "Bergen County is a very expensive area in which to live, and our school population does not reflect the wealth of the township." In the midst of the irresponsibly rancorous and divisive Town Council campaign, Ms. McKay sought not to unite us, but to divide us based on wealth. This seriously calls into question her fitness to represent all of Teaneck as board president.
In case Ms. McKay has forgotten, the residents of Teaneck have supported eight straight years of increases of what was already among the most generously funded school districts in the state. Even if the school budget were cut by 10 percent, Teaneck would still rank in the top 25 percent of districts in terms of school spending.
School spending is not a form of wealth transfer. Town residents have a responsibility to ensure that students receive a good education. The fact that they have not been receiving a good education when compared with other school districts cannot be blamed on lack of funding - it can be blamed on the failed educational policies of the board.

Dror Futter
Teaneck

It is worth noting that Futter conflates the issues of school performance and school costs. I suppose his point is that given the relatively large sums Teaneck spends on education, residents have the right to demand superior performance. Given that the empirical studies done on the topic of school funding find little evidence of a statistical link between higher school spending and better educational outcomes, I would leave this issue aside and settle for a reasonable explanation as to why Teaneck taxpayers are being asked to shell out more than others even to achieve the same results. In any case, it is becoming clear that more taxpayers are losing patience with the BoE. The PR campaign to restore confidence in Teaneck's educational leadership would be bolstered by a clearly presented and factually supported explanation of where all the money goes and why it needs to go there.

*The letter is reproduced without express permission of the Suburbanite or the letter writer, relying on the fact that the Suburbanite's letters policy says that letters "may be published, reproduced or distributed in print, electronic or other forms" and does not state that letters become the property of the Suburbanite.

Beating a dead horse

This week's Suburbanite devotes its cover to a public spat between defeated Council candidate John Annillo and outgoing Councilman Rev. Randall Day. At the May 22nd Council meeting, Annillo justifiably raised concerns about the legality of Day's last minute campaign effort on behalf of Teaneck New Beginnings. The more interesting question, however, regards the propriety of the automated telephone messages recorded by Day.

To what extent should Day, who gained his position on the Council by uncontested appointment rather than popular election, refrain from full participation in political activity? Does the fact that Rev. Day's appointment was made as a conciliatory gesture after the stormy departure of Councilman Gallucci obligate him to maintain a more neutral stance on town issues than an elected official?

Defeated candidate Lenny Hennig appears to believe that Day overstepped the bounds by wading into the Council campaign. Mayor Kates, on the other hand, is quoted expressing the view that once appointed, no matter what the circumstances, a Council member has full standing with all the privileges and responsibilities that entails.

For his part, Day has attempted to deflect Annillo's criticism of his own missteps and refocus attention on the injustices of the anonymous campaign against the Teaneck New Beginnings. This only brings the question of his active political involvement into sharper focus. If community members had known that Day would make use of a position he had been granted without public debate to influence the choice of his successor, might they have scrutinized his appointment more? Many may feel that Day has violated the trust placed in him to serve out an unfinished term in a quiet and uncontroversial manner, and it is hard to disagree.