CFI Canada Members have a lot to be worried about

Secular organizations in this country have the tendency to implode. Although it’s not clear exactly why this happens, it my have something to do with the fact that people tend not to agree on the best strategy to garner new members. Should we be in everyone’s face? Should we employ a more gentle approach that doesn’t alienate certain groups? While we may not argue over dogma like our religious counterparts, our common disbelief is usually not enough to create a powerful consensus among members. More than likely our differing opinions often polarizes people in two basic camps: Accommodation, and Confrontation.

As the former National Director of the Center for Inquiry Canada,  Justin Trottier clearly fell into the Confrontationalist camp. From his early days as a student activist at the University of Toronto, Justin was instrumental in breathing life into CFI. In it’s early days, his personality and vision allowed the organization to grow. His management style, unfortunately, tended to make him few friends. Still, one of the main reason why the organization has been so successful as of late is because of his relentless activism and his ability to “get the job done”. The whole reason CFI even exists in Canada is largely his doing. Say what you will about him: Justin has drive, and the growth of the organization would have been impossible without his passion.

A few months ago, Justin took a leave of absence to run as the Green Party candidate, and it was understood that during his time away, the Board was to find someone who could manage the day to day operation in a way Justin could not. This would have allowed him to concentrate more on activism and on gaining visibility in the media while the organization would have a friendly face managing volunteers (the man does have serpentine qualities, I’ll admit). What occurred instead was a witch-hunt against Justin; it was clear that recent additions to the Board disliked Justin intensely and wanted to try and implement a new strategy or the organization.  It took little effort to further alienate Justin from disenfranchised Members, and without any due process, he was effectively terminated from his position before returning from his leave of absence.  The repercussions of this witch-hunt can still be felt; even as I write this, various members continue to email one another with poisonous accusations against Justin of corrupting or poisoning members, the childishness of which cannot be overstated.

While Justin has remained silent to avoid sparking panic among the members, there are a number of high profile individuals within the organization – including Board members who wish to remain silent – that have expressed their concerns over the way Justin was fired. Since he was on leave when he was terminated, it’s not even clear if what the Board did was actually legal or not. In any case, something fishy was going on, and an email sent by Board Chair Carol Parlow did little to ease concerns:

Since CFI Canada became a registered charity, it has been managed by a volunteer Board of Directors. The Board’s priority is to guide CFI to a position of national significance, but we must also ensure that the legal requirements of our charitable status are carefully respected…The Board of CFI Canada recognizes Justin Trottier’s tremendous contribution to the establishment of CFI Canada. We also look forward to the exciting times ahead as CFI Canada grows into the prominent and respected organization it will become.

The email is simply a whitewash for members who express surprise or discontentment in the sudden change of leadership, or anyone for that matter who questions their new “direction”. In the interim of Justin departure, the organization had managed to spend over $20,000 attempting to revamp their mission statement. It was a move the Board felt would help attract important and new members with deep pockets. Their current strategy aims to give CFI a more professional and corporate images, but their gambit has so far failed to pay off. Justin’s departure means that a number of significant contributors have vanished a well, and CFI’s big American brother – suffering economically from the recession- is threatening to pull their funding as well. Their new Director, Derek Pert, is admittedly not an activist; he’s a friendly enough guy with good management skills, but this isn’t JCPenny.  If they cannot find new members with deep pockets, then with the added pressure of lost funding, its hard to imagine how they could survive.

Not one of these concerns have been expressed to members. Instead, we get a white-wash from the Board Chair and this false narrative that Justin left on his own accord. We were also given the impression that the decision was unanimous, when there were a number of absences and one member who abstained from vote (presumably a diplomatic way to express doubt over the new direction). In any case, to claim that there is no conflict currently brewing within the ranks is a lie. The Board shows deep fragmentation, and it’s my opinion that due to this issue, it cannot function effectively in its current form.

I don’t want to suggest that Justin should be re-instated, or even that CFI’s new strategy is wrong. It’s simply my opinion that the Board is fractured; not only over the decision to let Justin go, but also whether or not the new focus of the organization is the right one. That members have been given absolutely no information on these recent developments is a sign of impropriety, and it’ time for them to knock on the board’s door and demand some answers. The process needs to be more open, so that the people who actually pay the bills can decide for themselves if they like this new direction.

Comments (53)

  • avatar

    WCLPeter

    Hey Jake,

    I think the difficulty in getting a secular organization to gain traction in Canada is due to our culturally laid back approach to religion, you and Ryan have covered this on the show on multiple occasions stating that, with few exceptions, people finding out your an atheist is usually met with a “Meh, so what.” kind of approach.

    Even our politicians tend to shy away from discussing religion in politics because everyone will pretty much jump on them for even daring to bring up such a private matter in the context of their official government capacity.

    Without an apparent credible threat to our secular values, though you should *really* dig into Stephen Harper’s background (there is literally a whole show or two worth of content in there) with the Religious Right, I can understand atheists aren’t going to be in any kind of hurry to join up with a secular organization and spread the word. Religion seldom touches public life in Canada, its why you primarily focus on the crazed whack-a-doodles in the US trying to turn it into a knightmarish theocratic police state.

    Now seeing as Justin’s free, why not ask him to join the TGA family? You’ve been pussy footing around the whole “creating a community” thing for a while now, why not ask the guy who’s done that to help you set up yours? :-)

    I’d join a TGA-Kitchener/Waterloo chapter. :-)

    Pete…

  • avatar

    Alan

    Henry Kissinger once said “University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.” If all secular origanizations imploded today, there would still be no god.

    Alan

    P.S. Given Henry’s history I think there is probably a corollary “Global politics are vicious because psychopaths don’t mind blood on their hands.” Many thousands died but he still got to keep my Nobel Prize.

  • avatar

    SkepticalCanadian

    Not the most skeptical report I’ve seen…for the record I’ve seen one of the emails Justin sent to donors that you don’t seem to think exist.

    Energy or not, Trottier was an embarrassment to CFI Canada. Between his “equalism” nonsense and worse, his childish behaviour at public places like that silly alt-med expo in Toronto, he was a VERY poor figurehead. It seemed to me that CFI was ego-boo for him, and the hell with actually trying to be a credible educational organization. He couldn’t even ensure competently organized membership lists!

    Derek will be a boon to CFI if he’s allowed to do his job. If he leaves, and Justin comes back, that will be what pushes the self-destruct button.

  • avatar

    gtr200

    I believe the board’s vote to dismiss Justin was unanimous, as was their vote to replace him with Derek…

  • avatar

    Haveanotherdrink

    You need to get more than one source of information for your stories so they won’t be so one sided.

  • avatar

    Jacob Fortin

    ^ There were two absences (who coincidentally were on Justin’s side) and one abstention. That’s not unanimous, and as i indicated in the article, what they did may have been illegal. You cannot dismiss someone without due process, and not while they are on leave.

    Besides, they just lost 3 big contributors, and CFI in the US isn’t happy either. Not liking Justin is not a valid reason to simple dismiss him. All I’m asking for is that the process be open and members get to see what happened rather than whitewash the whole thing

  • avatar

    Kate

    What the board did was absolutely not illegal. Justin was not fired for cause – the majority of the board felt that, given Justin’s personality and track record, he was not the right person for the job of National Executive Director. He was given the appropriate notice and severance mandated contractually and by the common law, and he was replaced by Derek Pert. Members who were fans of Justin might not like it, but it was NOT illegal. There is no such thing as “due process” in a circumstance like this, other than giving appropriate notice or payment in lieu of notice. There’s no reason to believe that legal advice was not sought before making this decision.

    You say that Justin has “kept quiet”, but this is anything but true. He’s been spreading lies about board members and lobbying his friends to send complaints on his behalf. It’s fine if members want to express their displeasure for something that the CFI board is doing, but don’t try to act like Justin hasn’t been behind the majority of the shit that’s gotten stirred up over this. The board is made up of intelligent professionals who are all committed to the secular cause. They have no interest in sabotaging CFI or bringing about its demise for whatever reason, quite the opposite. Their decisions are made in good faith based on the goal of making CFI a prominent, professional organization of significance in Canada, precisely to attract more “deep-pocketed” donors. Under Justin, CFI was unprofessional, poorly managed, and lacking an active membership of people with money. There were precisely two “major” donors, one of whom was a close relative of Justin. The other pulling his donation had nothing to do with the change in leadership, as this was done before Justin even took his leave of absence.

    Justin was a jerk who treated volunteers and other employees poorly during his time as NED at CFI, was disorganized, couldn’t manage the organization properly, showed contempt for the organization by running for a political party without informing a single person thereby putting the organization’s charitable status in jeopardy, and seemed to care about little more than getting his face on TV or his voice on the radio. Media appearances are an important part of making CFI successful, but they are certainly not the only, or even the most important factor. CFI requires competent, friendly, and professional leadership to become the prominent organization in Canada that it could be. To become this, it needs a leader who cares about more than yacking his face off on the Michael Coren show. If given the opportunity, Derek Pert is an excellent person to help make that happen.

  • avatar

    Jacob Fortin

    Then why not follow my suggestion and open up the process. When i talked to actual members of the board who expressed their concern, the solution presented to me, mainly that members demand to see what the process was and how the decision was made. Why is all of this being kept secret? Why have the objections of ACTUAL board members been ignored?

  • avatar

    Jacob Fortin

    ^ Kate, your response was simply: “Justin is a jerk, and treated volunteers poorly” makes your statement about it being done fairly seem less legitimate.

  • avatar

    Kate

    I have no idea what you mean by “open up the process”. I’m not a board member, but Justin’s shortcomings are well documented. Endless complaints from volunteers and employees, plus his decision to run for election and essentially leave the organization completely in a lurch by not informing anyone, plus his terrible record-keeping and general rudeness…most of these things alone would be enough to make the decision to terminate an employee in favour of more competent staff. I’m convinced, as someone who has been involved with CFI for a long time, that the organization is better off without Justin. I don’t know what the concerns of individual board members are, other than the fact that Justin’s own uncle is on the board and is not exactly an objective party. I can’t possibly understand what else about the process needs to be “opened up”. The board was elected to make decisions for the benefit of the organization and they used their power to do so. Supporting Derek in his new role with the aim of moving the organization forward must be their top priority at this point, rather than a childish back-and-forth about Justin. If you don’t like it, feel free to run for the board at the next AGM.

    “Kate, your response was simply: “Justin is a jerk, and treated volunteers poorly” makes your statement about it being done fairly seem less legitimate.”

    I haven’t a clue why. As I mentioned, Justin’s negative personality traits are well-documented. It isn’t beyond comprehension that someone be easy to work with, friendly, personable and encouraging of volunteers in a volunteer-based organization. Just was precisely the opposite. If anything, my opinion as a volunteer, which is echoed by many others, lends legitimacy.

  • avatar

    Kate

    Justin* was precisely the opposite

  • avatar

    Jacob Fortin

    Does it not bother you that I’ve spoken to board members who expressed their concerns in confidence? I feel like you aren’t listening to what I said because you found the outcome favorable. That’s why I said that the fact that you don’t like him may have clouded your judgement if they acted inapropriately, which i can at least say, based on my initial investigation, that there seems to be impropriety. I am asking members to open an investigation, even if they are happy with the outcome. I think the way the whole thing was handle stunk, and i think if everyone goes public, it’ll prove that.

    I’m not a member, which is why I’ve tried to stay impartial. I’m not saying that’s always possible, but I’m not inventing facts based on my own experience. I did interviews and talk to those that would respond to my queries. The very fact that this occurred and the reason i wrote this article is because i think this wasn’t done properly, and I’m asking members to request that the process be shown to the public.

  • avatar

    Kate

    I know which board members have a problem with the decision, and it was their prerogative to vote against the termination of Justin. At least 5 of the board members voted for termination in response to what they perceived as a lack of ability on Justin’s part. No one had a gun pointed to their head. I don’t know what you think that “opening up the process” would uncover. They had to respond to concerns about Justin’s performance and decide whether Justin would be the right person for the job going forward, and a majority concluded that he would not. It’s no secret what the decision was based on (Justin’s track record and competence), and those that abstained presumably had their reasons for doing so (for the record, no one actually voted against terminating Justin, only abstained). Doesn’t change the fact that a majority voted a certain way and now they have to live with their decision. There is nothing else to “go public” with, and I don’t know what you are imagining is being hidden. I do happen to find the outcome favourable, but I could understand if people voted against terminating Justin as well, that’s the board’s decision to make. You might have a different opinion on Justin’s track record and competence and that’s fine. Again, if you or anyone else doesn’t like it, feel free to run next year.

    People seem to be operating under the false assumption that employees must have the ability to defend themselves, but that’s not how the real world works. It’s not like the board made an arbitrary decision out of left field – Justin’s running of the organization has been problematic in many ways for a long time. Sure he had his strengths, just like anyone. But he he had so many weaknesses, to the point where the board lost confidence in his ability and did what they have the mandate to do as board members. If you’re unhappy with the board, vote them out.

  • avatar

    Kate

    Also, I can all but guarantee that if board members did “go public” with every nit-picky thing they considered about Justin’s performance in making their decision (which is absolutely not required), it would be extremely unfavourable for Justin. He wouldn’t come out of it looking good.

  • avatar

    Jacob Fortin

    ^ There are many reasons why some may have chosen to stay silent. This very fact is the one I was trying to mention without giving away any identities. I guess you answered my question about whether or not you do care if some of what happened was inappropriate.

  • avatar

    pasat4u

    I heard that there are two new Board members and they have no experience with the mandate of CFI but they wanted to change the whole structure to the point where CFI would gone bankrupt. They would have reduced the activism and the media among other things. The other Board members that know the biz were at odds with these two “geniuses”.

  • avatar

    Kate

    PASAT4U, that makes absolutely no sense. 5 board members voted to terminate Justin. It defies logic that 2 new random people would join the board and act recklessly and screw everything up. I know for a fact that all but one of the board members has an extensive familiarity with the work that CFI does. The board made no formal decisions to reduce activism and media. CFI was largely financially unsustainable under Justin, relying on the support of less than 5 major donors. It was glaringly obvious that this needed to be changed, to build an active member base across the country and attract people with money, so that the organization would be taken seriously. Your comment is a good example of rumour floating around to discredit the board that’s based on absolutely no evidence. So much for reason and skepticism.

  • avatar

    pasat4u

    Right KATE so much for your reasoning. You seem terribly angry. Whats up? It is no biggie.

  • avatar

    TheNews

    There was no new direction, nor any shortage of money at CFI. The only changes that were in the works had to do with professional management. There was plenty of money waiting to see if CFI could make something more of itself.

    The title of your article is the only thing you got right. Watch for the mass exodus. Four and counting.

  • avatar

    Pasta4u

    The rats can leave. The ship will stay afloat I am sure. What other group is there to go to.

  • avatar

    TheNews

    The ship will stay afloat as long as somebody’s uncle pays the bills, that’s true. The real money, that comes from people who know what a professionally run organization looks like, will never arrive.

  • avatar

    GTR200

    THENEWS +1

  • avatar

    Jacob Fortin

    Well, if Kate’s last name is Fairbrother, it would explain her comments (since that would make her the daughter of Chair Carol Parlow). Just a guess though. My full name is posted. Hers isn’t.

  • avatar

    TheNews

    If you spent any time around 216 Beverly, you’ll remember the sloppy disorganized crap heap that was Justin’s cubicle. It was an embarrassment that the membership and supporters saw that mess. How could you market CFI to anyone but a relative if you showed them the office of the person in charge and it looked like that.

    Add to that the unpleasant demeanour and the misguided notion that if you just keep talking long enough, you don’t have to worry about making sense, because people will just get tired of listening to you and leave and you don’t have much prospects for leadership.

  • avatar

    Jacob Fortin

    All I want is tranparency in terms of what happened. I want to see the email, I want to know how it happened, and what the process was. After that, I can make a full determination if it was handled properly. I don’t think that’s unreasonable to ask.

    I’m willing to bet no one wants to do that, since i hear the whole thing got kind of nasty. This is precisely why the process has to be so open because Justin was polarizing, and it doesn’t seem like things were handled on the up and up. Some of the emails I’ve seen indicate that there’s some dirty laundry up in there, and the only way to get rid of the stink is to air it out. If it’s so clear cut, why fight so hard against that idea?

  • avatar

    Kate

    You’re quite right, there’s a whole lot of “stink” and dirty laundry. I’ll let you figure out which side it’s coming from.

    As far as I’m concerned, the board is taking the high road for not airing the dirty laundry. Like I said, Justin wouldn’t be coming out of it looking good, that’s for sure.

    I have a strong opinion on what is best for CFI as an organization. I’m supportive of a board that votes in-line with that opinion. If you’re not, vote them out. That’s the way boards and organizations work. This concept apparently evades many people.

  • avatar

    TheNews

    When people don’t like a decision, they attack the process. It’s a childish protestation. “It’s not fair!”

    Employers fire employees when they don’t think they are doing a good job or don’t have the skills necessary to go forward. Boards of directors have that legal responsibility and charity organizations have Boards of Directors.

    The process was that seven people got together in a room and decided Justin wasn’t the right guy for the job. They decided that Justin didn’t fit into the organization. That’s how people are hired and fired. Not one of them voted against it. Ask to see the Board minutes. I’d be surprised if anyone even spoke against the idea.

    A few people who aren’t happy raise the only protest they can think of. It’s not fair! Sad.

  • avatar

    TheNews

    BTW, attempting to out someone on a discussion board without their permission is a dick move. Bully tactics don’t do anything to make a feeble argument any better. Attacking who a person is and not what they say shows that you either don’t have much of an argument yourself or you are just kind of an ass.

    If you decide to delete the post above, feel free to remove this one with it.

  • avatar

    Jacob Fortin

    I’m showing all my cards, and I’m acting impartially here. This whole “7 people decided he wasn’t right for the job” isn’t how it happened at all. Like I’ve already mentioned, I’ve talked to actual people on the board, and my conclusion was merely that there was impropriety. If you have something against this opinion, it surprises me to no end how much objection it’s caused.

    If you actually frequented this site you would know that i never delete posts that aren’t favorable to me. I don’t mind being criticized, because like I said, I’m showing all my cards (I’m not a CFI member nor am I representing anyone’s interest other than that of members who have expressed their concerns to me). Anonymous people don’t have the same luxury of appearing impartial.

  • avatar

    TheNews

    The Board members with a problem are either related to Justin and never attended a single Board meeting, or had a chance to speak up and didn’t. Childish protestations is all they have. If you are so impartial, have you attempted to contact the other Board members, or are you just printing the side you heard from Justin?

  • avatar

    Jacob Fortin

    i can’t release names, but yes, i talked to several members and emailed everyone on the board in hopes that they would answer my questions. If any others wish to do so, and share information with me, I would gladly listen. I’ll also protect the identity of anyone who does come forward. All I want is answers, and like I said, my preliminary investigation showed that there was impropriety and that a lot of this was a personal matter rather than business. That’s what I found so disturbing, enough to warrant me getting involved.

    My interests really are for individual members of CFI, and not for the Board. I could care less for who the leader is, but I care deeply if things weren’t done properly. The health of a fragile organization like CFI are of great interest to me, and since i receive no compensation from any org, I try to maintain objectivity on the matter. I don’t pretend to know the situation 100%, and I’m willing to listen if people return my messages.

  • avatar

    TheNews

    Well, if you have an actual concrete allegation of impropriety that would be different. By all means, lay out the details.

  • avatar

    Ian Bushfield

    If I wasn’t in the midst of trying to finish off my thesis I’d have posted my response to this… whatever you call this article… and Zak’s subsequent commentary on Canadian Atheist. Hopefully I’ll get it finished tomorrow afternoon, but I want to clarify one (among many) factual errors that’s at least popping up enough in the comments.

    CFI does not have members and never has. It has Friends of the Centre. The board is not elected and never has been. Part of this is from copying the USA structure, part is to ensure that semi-competent people sit on the board (since new board members are appointed by sitting board members). Calls for opening up CFI’s email exchanges are therefore almost guaranteed to fall on deaf ears since they don’t really owe you anything. Of course, if they’re interested in attracting new donors and volunteers they want to look professional and accountable.

  • avatar

    Jacob Fortin

    I’ll wait and see what Ian has to say before continuing. It sounds fascinating.

  • avatar

    pasat4u

    Bushfield, keep writing your thesis and don’t bother adding your nonsense. You made an error in your prelude to your much anticipated take on CFI.Didn’t KATE write to VOTE off the Board if we don’t like them? Appointments? No elections? Elections? What is it? Seems you write from some sort of bias and arrogance as usual.

  • avatar

    TheNews

    How does anything Ian Bushfield might have to say have any impact on the “impropriety” you claim to have found in your investigation. Why not post the details now? You can always issue a mea culpa later on.

    I doubt you actually contacted every Board member directly. I suspect you are a pal of Justin’s who just wants to stir up nonsense.

  • avatar

    Kate

    Board members are elected by associate members, not just existing board members. Friends of the Centre can become associate members pretty easily if they can demonstrate a meaningful connection to CFI. No one is in the business of secrecy, simply to ensure that things are done competently and efficiently. Anyone can run for the board and get more involved. In practice, no one actually attends the AGM or bothers to go through the process, so the same board continually gets elected because Ian is right, it’s not really a “membership” organization.

    Veiled allegations of impropriety against the board are cowardly and worthless. Whomever has them should be up front about it, otherwise there’s really nothing to take see here.

  • avatar

    Jacob Fortin

    I’m not in possession of any proof myself, but i’ve been told it’ll be made available in a few days. I’ll keep people posted with the details.

    As for the accusation that i’ve only talked to jutin, that just sounds like paranoid shit. As for what Ian has to say, I’m curious myself. This person is making claims That i would like to hear. Are you so afraid of any objection that you refuse to hear them? Weak.

  • avatar

    TheNews

    Hold on, you said you’d done an initial investigation and found signs of impropriety. Now you say you have no evidence and are just reposting rumours. What about this email to all board members you claim to have sent? Let’s see a screenshot with addresses and dates visible.

    You have already expose yourself as a liar by claiming you had evidence when you didn’t, why don’t we start digging down to see how deep they go?

  • avatar

    Kate

    “I’m not in possession of any proof myself, but i’ve been told it’ll be made available in a few days. I’ll keep people posted with the details.”

    You’re so full of it.

  • avatar

    TheNews

    Just a quick note on the lies in your podcast. The vote happened at a regularly scheduled Board meeting that was announced months in advance and then moved specifically to accommodate one Board member (the abstainer) who scheduled his own thing at the original meeting time. Another Board member who didn’t vote had probably never attended a single meeting of the Board for the entire time he was on it. If you want impropriety, read up on the duties of a Board member and see how that looks…

    You’d look like less of a fool if you actually checked your facts.

  • avatar

    pasta4u

    Whats with the two new Board members trying to screw the organization? Any facts on that? Words out one was a real crackerjack.The NED was in bed with the newbies – all of them had no idea what they were doing.

  • avatar

    TheNews

    There is nothing standing the way of Justin’s quick return these days. With the wave of resignations in the last two days, the field is clear.

    I wonder what’s with the cover-up by what’s left of the Board.

  • avatar

    Ian

    Here’s my take, it’s long because this issue is messy and complicated.

    http://canadianatheist.com/2011/11/25/cfi-canada-half-truths-and-scandal/

  • avatar

    pasta4u

    “waves” of resignations? Probably a good thing. Throw up your hands and say I can’t I can’t LOL

    Sounds like pathetic losers to me.

  • avatar

    Ian

    Here’s the Board of Director’s take: http://canadianatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/CFI-board-letter.pdf

    Apparently the “pathetic losers” are Derek Pert, former National Director, and three board members. I know more are on the way though. I find it less pathetic to stand for professionalism in an organization instead of hiding behind a tacky pseudonym.

  • avatar

    pasat4u

    Paying Pert 50K for a couple of months work? Now that is professional. Where does that money come from…the donors. Good to see those Board members are gone.
    Disgusting. And those are the facts. Extortion anybody?

  • avatar

    DR

    As a rank and file member, I feel that the infighting between Justin, the Board and the volunteers to be enough bs for me to simply not renew my membership. I expect better from people who claim to be rational.

    So sorry, CFI, but I won’t be seeing you until I see that you’ve cleaned up your act. And that means doing things properly, and certainly not fighting battles in the media. That goes for Justin, Derek and members of the board.

    All a bunch of f’ing children, and I’m really tired of it.

  • avatar

    Richard

    Kate, didnt you used to sleep with one of those board members?

  • avatar

    Katie Kish

    Richard: W.T.F. Even if CFI wasn’t shooting itself in the foot right now it’s people like you that keep women away from spaces like this. Totally uncalled for and SO irrelevant. This woman has greatly contributed to this conversation and you reduce her down to her sexual behaviour? What a dirtbag ad hominem.

    What have you contributed and who are you to throw out inappropriate and highly private insinuations in a public space?

    Gross.

Leave a Comment

Scroll to top