Hold on a minute...

Please wait while we transition from the Colorado Senate campaign to Barrett's personal website that will cover politics, community affairs, and local interest in Fort Collins.

The Three Candidates

John, Syndi, and me at a candidate forum sponsored by students from Poudre High School

(Photo by Dawn Madura/The Coloradoan)

Amendment 65 (Colorado Congressional Delegation to Support Campaign Finance Limits)

Generally this initiative will look and feel like a way to reform campaign finance laws, an effort we need to work on at the state and federal level. I would preface my position by pointing out that I am the only 14th Senate District candidate to accept voluntary spending limits for my campaign so I hope I have demonstrated that I think money plays a far too important role in politics. That being said Amendment 65 is a well-intentioned but ultimately problem-ridden initiative and I would encourage you to vote no on Amendment 65.

Here is on excerpt from the Colorado Blue Book in opposition to the Amendment:

•   A state ballot measure cannot require elected representatives in




Congress or the state legislature to support or vote for certain laws and




policies. Therefore, the measure will have no practical effect. Rather




than using Colorado law to make a political statement, those who




advocate for more restrictive campaign finance laws should instead




support congressional candidates who will pursue such changes.







We absolutely need to enact campaign finance reform but we should not give the movement a bad name by passing a law that cannot be enforced, has little or no effect, and may end up making it harder for challengers to defeat incumbents. 

Real campaign finance reform needs hard work and a lot of it. We cannot undo both a century of decaying political ethics and a generation of money corrupting politics in one fell swoop. We must be patient and work together for better electoral laws. Believe me, I'm an independent candidate for the state legislature, I know the system is far from perfect and does not serve the people very well - I still don't think Amendment 65 is the way to go about fixing the problem. 

Amendment S (State Personnel System)

Amendment S will be on the ballot in November and I would like to voice my support for this initiative and ask all Colorado voters to consider supporting it too.

In many ways it is not really controversial, multiple groups have endorsed it and labor unions have generally regarded it with neutrality.

Amendment S will update the state personnel system and, in particular, will do away with some overly cumbersome and unnecessary provisions in the state hiring process.

Click here for more information.

Parties, Independents, and Castles in the Sky

In the course of running for the state legislature most people have told me that they are excited to see a third option on the ballot, others have said that we need not an independent candidate but a new third party. Unfortunately the realities of generating a third party are more than daunting.

Colorado currently has a handful of efforts designed to bring a centrist, moderate party into the fold. The Unity Party exists under such a mission and the byproduct of the recent effort by Americans Elect to nominate a bipartisan/independent ticket for the presidency has left (if only on paper) an Americans Elect party in Colorado. There are also better known alternative parties that usually represent the radical fringes of policy platforms; Libertarians, Greens, and American Constitution among them.

Not surprisingly there is a problem for the loose coalition of independent candidates in Colorado up for election in 2012. Unlike the major parties, though more akin to the people of the state, independents do not always align on complicated issues. While we are working together for a common goal, better representation of the American people, we choose a nuanced and more difficult-to-package style of governance that allows for debate and expects compromise.

For those hoping to see a third, centrist party in the United States or just Colorado I would say that a more likely option is to simply split the Republican Party into a center/center-right GOP and a far-right Conservative major party. If you took the socially-conservative, anti-immigration, xenophobic, Tea Party, moral superiority-based elements out of the Republican Party and left the fiscally conservative, pro-business, state and local control advocates you would have not only three viable parties but also what would be a de facto moderate party in none other than the Republicans. If the Republicans also then adopted a more moderate energy and environment agenda that sought to expand sustainable energy futures while keeping energy affordable, while simultaneously protecting both the environment and the business community you would actually have a force to be reckoned with.

Third parties may only come if they split out of the existing party elements. Believe it or not more Democrats have defected from their brand to become independents and independent candidates than have Republicans, I find that interesting because moderates are more likely to be squeezed out of the GOP as it becomes increasingly hijacked by the far right. The trouble with generating a third party from the ground up is two fold: impatience and money. You cannot start such an effort at the national level and work your way down. For one thing the money required to do so is extraordinary and you cannot compete with the two parties we have, their addiction to the coffers of special interests has left them with a spending power akin to Scrooge McDuck. Second, it just does not make sense to build a castle in the sky; a national movement without state-level and local-level, organized support is doomed to fail. We are impatient in wanting to solve national problems while ignoring the hard work and political realities required to get there.

Instead independents will need to focus on recruiting moderates in local and state legislative races to build the foundations required to stage offensives for state-wide races. If those efforts are replicated across the Union then a national campaign could be possible, instead efforts in this year’s election cycle looked to put a presidential ticket together without grassroots support.

Americans are not built to be complacent creatures. Though we have let our guard down too long and let our politics deteriorate into an entertainment sport, the time is fast approaching when the circus performers we call leaders are swept aside in favor of actual governance and problem solving. 

Health Care and the Role of Personal Responsibility

Today the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, and while that is a pivotal milestone in U.S. health policy we must not think that we have somehow solved health care issues. The politics of health care will remain heated and there are more long-term solutions that are less controversial that we need to consider.

There is a great deal of friction when we point to personal responsibility for health as a factor in health care policy. Wellness and disease prevention need to be at the forefront of Colorado's health policy and we cannot hand down government mandates to individuals to address personal choices. Although there are circumstances that make it harder for many people to make good individual choices with regard to health habits we should look at wellness in our health care policy as leadership by example instead of government intrusion.

What I mean is that Colorado's government must work creatively (not something any government is particularly good at) to address wellness. Reducing the costs of compliance with medical directives, educating the public on existing programs and services, encouraging better disease prevention policies, better urban planning, and incentivizing healthy lifestyles will pay dividends for the state.

Colorado must also do more to encourage regular preventive care and wellness exams; we must also work to establish good preventive care habits from infancy to adulthood. To lead by example we should work to incentivize and reward personal wellness within the framework of our state's massive public employee health care benefits programs.

Our motivation for proactive health care policies should come from two sources: (1) it is the right thing to do and shows that we are an efficient, innovative government and (2) we will save money. By preventing diseases and promoting wellness there will be less drain on our health care system for treatment of things like heart disease, diabetes, cancer, strokes and numerous other conditions that are avoidable through long-term wellness.

Health care policy deserves continued attention. Whether you felt like the Supreme Court's decision today was a victory or a defeat, we cannot afford to lose focus on these issues.

Crossing that bridge now...not when it crumbles beneath us...

According to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) over 52% of Colorado’s state highways are rated in “poor” condition, up from just 40% in 2006. While that may not seem like a striking figure consider this: 33% of our highways have deteriorated so badly they need $8.6 billion for full reconstruction. In an already tight state budget we need to address our infrastructure needs sooner rather than later so that we invest in Colorado instead of shelling out billions just to repair it.

In Larimer County alone we have 43% of our state highways, about 316 miles worth, rated in poor condition. We also have about 10% of our state highways rated as being too congested for their vehicle loads.

None of this is particularly riveting until you start looking at the damage we are doing to Colorado by delaying answers to our current and future infrastructure needs. CDOT estimates that, under current funding, in the next 25 years we will only increase our lane miles by negligible amounts, far less than even 1%. Meanwhile we will increase our population by 50% and increase our demands on the state highway system by 61%. That means we will not have the funds necessary to pay for the demands on state roads, but we will nonetheless overwork them. When we place burdens on state infrastructure that it is not designed to withstand we also deteriorate roads and bridges more quickly; this becomes the worst kind of double-edged sword for the state: we do not adequately fund our infrastructure development only to find that the costs of maintaining it become extraordinary.

If you are looking for an even more alarming number, CDOT has identified about 750 rockfall sites that threaten motorists around the state, a problem unique to states with mountainous regions. CDOT only has funding to provide mitigation (nets and planned blasts) for about five of those locations each year.

Over the next 10 years, just to reach a moderate level of infrastructure quality for bridges, pavement, and maintenance, we need to come up with $390 million/year, or $3.9 billion over 10 years, just to keep Colorado from looking like a zombie movie.

None of this includes what we need for snowplow removal, preparing the Front Range corridor for the needs of I-25 and I-70, or CDOT operating in a state that routinely sees blizzard conditions and has the highest average elevation of any state in the Union.

There are ways to fix this problem but the worst thing we can do is wait. If we wait we will not have to spend money now - even though we are delaying projects that do need funding this instant – but that just means we will have to spend even more later than if we behaved responsibly today.

How to do better:

Because we have not updated our fuel taxes in twenty years we are effectively bringing in about 42-cents on the dollar for infrastructure spending compared to the early 90s. In addition, tax revenues slated for infrastructure are dependent upon the number of gallons sold and not the fluctuating price of fuel, so when we spend money to encourage alternative-fuel vehicles and carpooling we are inadvertently making the infrastructure problems more difficult to solve.

For that reason, and many others, we must support changing Colorado’s gasoline taxes to be based on the price of fuel and not the amount sold. Making gas taxes proportionate to gas demand will have the rare quality of pleasing both liberals and conservatives, to say nothing of moderates.

For conservatives: proportional fuel taxes do not engage us in social engineering or burden families or businesses that consume more fuel.

For liberals: proportional fuel taxes do not punish the state for encouraging sustainable transportation.

For moderates: Colorado will be able to pay for its needs and not waste money in the future, our infrastructure will be competitive, and our state’s roads will not become a disaster zone.

We avoid debating issues like this because there are more controversial topics we want to discuss…we must make procrastination from our state legislators a controversial topic because right now we are giving them license to delay until our only option will be to do too little, too late.

High Park Fire

Please routinely check the Coloradoan list of ways to help those affected by the High Park Fire.

Nominated for the Colorado Senate!

On June 11th we received certification of our nomination to Colorado Senate District 14. This is the independent candidate's equivalent to winning a primary. We are all very excited and are looking forward to the general election.

Thank you to everyone who helped make this possible!

Op-Ed in the Coloradoan: Do not extend term limits for Fort Collins City Council

Follow this link to an op-ed listing a few reasons why we should not extend term limits for the Fort Collins City Council.

Behind the scenes blooper...

I do not like getting my photo taken so naturally I decided to run for public office... in the meantime we needed a new campaign photo and so I reluctantly took to the apple tree in our backyard and let my wife snap away. Along with a new photo the highlight is really this photo of our younger dog, Winter, providing a little photo blooper for us.

Hard hitting politics here I know but it's too cute not to share.

Pleasantly surprised...

First let me apologize for my lack of posts on the campaign blog and other media. Right now the campaign is focused on gaining a nomination to appear on the ballot in November, the independent campaign's version of a primary season.

While we have been out meeting voters I must say I have been encouraged by the positive response; people are genuinely thirsting for a candidate that represents the moderate center of American politics. I must also admit that even the die hard Democrats and Republicans have pleasantly surprised us. The people of Fort Collins never cease to amaze and I am very happy to be working for such a district.

As soon as we complete our petition to get on the ballot in early June we will set our sights on winning in November, but until then please look at the recently updated policy section on the campaign website. After listening to people's concerns about where our state is headed I wanted to go more in-depth about policy for those who crave better answers and are tired of the rhetoric they get fed year after year.

On a personal note I wanted to say thank you to all those who have opened your doors to us, it has been an unexpectedly inspiring journey and with any luck we will continue to bring out the best in each other.

In support of Ranked Voting...

I wanted to take the time to write in support of ranked voting in every election and for every level of office.

Ranked voting is essentially an electoral reform that allows voters to rank their preferred candidates in an election. It may come off as complicated but it is actually as “simple as 1-2-3” as supporters of ranked voting in Fort Collins like to say.

In short, a candidate that receives a majority of first choice votes will win the election in the same way that we elect candidates now. What ranked voting does is allow for a contingency if no candidate wins a majority. Second choice votes are distributed from among the votes of the “last place” candidate and, more often than not, would go toward a candidate who would then have a majority of the vote.

It may seem confusing at first but it’s actually elegant and simplistic. Let’s say 100 people in a room are voting for their favorite flavor of ice cream, they can vote for Chocolate, Vanilla, Strawberry or Mint.

Vanilla receives 48 votes

Chocolate receives 45 votes

Mint receives 5 votes

Strawberry receives 2 votes

Luckily everyone got to rank their preferences for ice cream and the two people who voted for strawberry got to select a second choice. One of them voted for Chocolate and one Vanilla as their second choice. Those 2^nd choice votes are now distributed to the candidates still remaining - so now Vanilla has 49 votes, Chocolate 46, and Mint still has 5. No candidate has a majority.

So from there we take the 2^nd choice votes of everyone who voted for Mint and distribute them. For illustrative purposes let’s say everyone who voted for Mint listed Chocolate as their second choice, giving Chocolate 51 votes and Vanilla 49 votes. A close election to be sure but more people indicated a preference for Chocolate and so Chocolate wins over Vanilla.

Without ranked voting Chocolate would lose even though more people prefer it because Vanilla received the most votes even though Vanilla does not have the most support. This type of voting creates an “instant runoff” election only in the event of their being no clear winner.

Ranked voting has many supporters and we believe this system of voting allows for a more representative process. One of the leaders of Fort Collins Ranked Voting, Eric Fried (a member of the Green Party), had this to say:

“The higher you go up the food chain of the Democratic Party, the more corporate it becomes. Because they figure they can move to the right – and who are people like us [Green Party members] gonna vote for anyway, I mean it’s the Democrat or Republican and we don’t want to elect a Republican – so we’re going to vote for the Democrat no matter how far to the right they get.” ~Eric Fried~

Mr. Fried’s point is that Green Party voters have an incentive to vote for a Democrat they don’t align with rather than vote for a member of their own party because, in a close election, if they don’t support the Democrat they may inadvertently help elect their last choice.

Of course he’s illustrating the point in the context of wanting to voice support of a progressive candidate over a candidate that receives large donations from special interests. His first choice candidate may not win the election so his second choice, the Democrat, will receive his ranked vote in the runoff, but Fried’s voice will be heard by showing support of progressive policies first.

Ranked voting will help break some of the undue influence held by the two major parties by providing more incentive for independent and third party candidates to get into a race.

It is a critical step toward ending hyper-partisan politics in the United States.

Promoting tourism

Just a very quick post today. Part of my plan for economic development is encouraging more tourism and so I was happy to see news today that ads promoting tourism will hit Dallas, Chicago, and Phoenix this week.

However, I think we should be investing even more in tourism and should not only continue our presence in those markets but expand to Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Omaha, and perhaps one or two other markets in neighboring regions. Those markets are cheaper, closer, and frankly have more reason to come visit the diverse landscape of Colorado.

I'm afraid the budget next year might see decreased revenues from tourism that are a result of a snow-less winter; investing in tourism now would be a wise choice so that we rebound quickly.

A brief summary of my energy policy positions...

Energy policy is going to become a little more controversial over the next year in Colorado so I thought I might take the time to elaborate on my energy positions.

First and foremost I believe we can reach a future with 100% renewable, low-emission energy sources, but I do not believe that future is going to come soon or easily. That being said we should do everything we can to promote the development and implementation of solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal energy.

We know that renewable sources cannot completely replace sources like natural gas, coal, and oil in the short-term so we must do two things: (1) restrain ourselves from demonizing the oil and gas industry and (2) reduce the amount of energy we need, thereby closing the gap between what renewable sources can provide and what we use.

We can reduce the energy we use by supporting conservation and waste-reduction efforts, by supporting energy efficiency programs for homes and businesses, by setting standards for energy efficiency in new public building construction (including schools), and by incentivizing responsible energy use.

We must also come to terms with the fact that our transportation and environmental policies are inseparable from our energy policies. For transportation we must invest in an intra-state transit network, build vehicle charging infrastructure for electric vehicles, and promote alternative transportation development. For the environment we must strive to have the best air and water quality, open space reserves, and emission standards.

Fracking is where the controversy in energy policy is and I support Governor Hickenlooper’s task force to broker compromise solutions between the oil and gas industry, environmental groups, local governments, and state interests. I do not want us to get to a point where we will not even discuss fracking because we are afraid of it, I think we should have a rational discussion with unbiased scientific information and pursue an energy policy that protects all Coloradans while giving business the ability to thrive, create jobs, and supply our short-term energy needs.

Energy policy is a broad topic so, as you might suspect, reaching our energy goals requires us to move forward on several different fronts. As much as is possible I want those solutions to come from private industry and local government, I do not think we can accomplish our long-term goals by having state or federal government take the lead alone and spend on the issue indefinitely. There are ways to encourage private industry to do things like add electric vehicle charging stations to existing gas stations, there are ways to give local government the freedom to decide how to support efficiency without a state-mandated program, there are ways to give the state a chance to launch pilot programs and lead the way on many energy solutions.

As with most policies we are not faced with a choice of one extreme or the other, but finding the best solutions will be hard work and require us to think creatively and not deal in absolutes of one or the other. We need an "all of the above" energy policy.

Never a good sign...

Senate President Brandon Shaffer is pushing SB12-019 which will suspend pay for legislators if the General Assembly fails to deliver a budget on time. In the case that the legislature does not agree on a budget and a school finance bill each member of the General Assembly will have their pay and reimbursements suspended until they deliver a bill (or until December 1) as a way to encourage them to come to agreement. 

This gets kind of complicated even if you are a regular follower of Colorado politics. The General Assembly is required (or "is limited"... depending on your preference) to be in session 120 days each year and this period occurs as a regular legislative session from January to May. Special sessions may be called beyond that but are rare. If the legislature fails to deliver the budget before its "120 Days Cap" then it must adjourn and reopen in a special session. If it does, and if Senate Bill 19 passes, then legislators will not receive pay or reimbursements until the budget is delivered. Along with pressing the urgency of the issue in a special session this would also give the legislators an additional incentive to get a budget passed in our current regular session.

It is also important to note two things: (1) that legislators receive $30,000/year divided into 12-month increments, so that salary gets paid out when the legislature is not in session, and if Senate Bill 19 suspends their pay it will apply to their salaries for the remainder of the year; and (2) they will receive that pay eventually as "back pay" when the budget is passed so it is not a forfeiture of pay but just a suspension.

My hometown newspaper, The Coloradoan, ran an editorial today that argued that legislation should not be required to enforce accountability, I agree. Our legislators should be able to do their jobs without us essentially taking out an insurance policy on them. Unfortunately that may be where we are headed and the most responsible choice in a sea of poor choices on the part of our elected leaders.  If they do fail to complete their work in the regular session I want them to at least feel the pain of that failure.

Initially I was very supportive of this bill, but there has been an amendment to it requiring a study of the Colorado budget process that is unnecessary and a strange addition in my opinion. Because of that I do not support the entire bill and I hope to see that study taken out.

It's never a good sign when the President of the Senate is already banking on the failure of the General Assembly.

Executive Order on Fracking

Yesterday Governor Hickenlooper signed Executive Order B2012-002 which created a task force to develop cooperative strategies between industry and government for oil and gas development, with particular regard to fracking.

The task force brings together members of the Cabinet, Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, oil and gas industry, local government, environmental groups, and the legislature to create real solutions to our energy future and address community concerns regarding the safety of fracking.

Pay close attention to this task force, with any luck a strong forum to address fracking will emerge and reasonable solutions will be found.

Mixed reviews for HB12-1279

HB12-1279 "Public Financing of Legislative Campaigns" has good intentions, it will help take the money  out of politics to a degree. Many who want electoral and campaign finance reform think public financing is the way to make our process cleaner and more representative of constituents instead of special interests, I agree. 

HB-1279 is a step in the right direction. My opinion of the bill is that it sets the threshold for receiving financing too high and unjustly favors major party candidates, if a few relatively minor adjustments were made to the bill I would vote for it in the Senate. Unfortunately the bill is unlikely to appear on the floor of the House or Senate this year, it is headed for death in committee. 

One major problem with the bill is the hypocrisy of its sponsors. Representatives Lee, Court, and Kefalas* all did not accept spending limits for their 2012 legislative campaigns. They seem to be all for electoral reform as long as they don't have to lead by example. 

Their motivations are admirable, their actions are not. Maybe that's part of the reason why the bill will not pass: partisan politics take precedence over good decisions these days. 

*Rep. Kefalas is also a candidate for the State Senate 14th District

HB-1125

I just wanted to write in support of HB-1125. This bill passed House Appropriations and is headed for a vote on the floor. It is a much needed step in modernizing Colorado's animal control policies and will have tremendous benefit for rescue animals. It has been endorsed by the Larimer Humane Society.

With any luck this bill will be on the Senate floor shortly and on the Governor's desk shortly after that.

This is one of those bills that can get lost in the shuffle of more controversial topics, but to me it hits closer to home as the owner of a rescue dog (pictured below).

Read the full text of the bill by clicking here.

Igloo 

On the calendar...

Thursday at 7:00 pm the League of Women Voters of Larimer County is holding a meeting at the Fort Collins City Council chambers (300 LaPorte). The meeting is the rescheduled Cross Currents Fracking Panel. League of Women Voters of Larimer County.

On Saturday former Colorado Senate majority leader Ken Gordon will be discussing money in politics and the Citizens United v. FEC supreme court decision. The meeting will be at 1:00pm at the All Saints Episcopal Church (3448 Taft in Loveland). Though the meeting takes place outside of the 14th Senate District I believe the issues that will be discussed have national, state, and local implications so it is a good opportunity for all of us to get more engaged on the issue.

Finally, the three members of the "Fort Collins Delegation" to the General Assembly are holding a community issues forum on higher education costs. Sen. Bob Bacon, Rep. Fischer, along with Rep. John Kefalas, also a candidate for the 14th Senate District, will be hosting the meeting from 2:00pm-4:00pm this Saturday at the ASCSU senate chambers in the Lory Student Center.

If you have the time these meetings are just some examples of the many conversations in our community that shape our lives. Decisions are made by those who show up.

Four instances of totally unacceptable...

The more frustrating of the four stories, all from the State House of Representatives, is that a bill raising daily pay for legislators outside of the Denver Metro Area was quietly passed last week without debate. The pay increase was not substantial, though it will cost six-figures to the taxpayer in an already strapped state budget. The real issue is that the people of Colorado were not represented because no debate was allowed. The bill passed by only 2 votes in the 65-member house, there was plenty of opposition that was never heard.

There are 31 candidates for the State House of Representatives running unopposed in 2012 thus far. A handful of unopposed races will happen, some districts are so clearly in the column of one of the major parties that finding a sacrificial lamb cannot be easy...but nearly half of the House? That does not bode well for Colorado seeing a balanced, moderate legislature interested in compromise.

Rep. Jones (D-Louisville) is having a hard time getting called on to speak. Jones served on the controversial reapportionment commission and many feel he is getting "payback" from Speaker McNulty. This is obviously a poor time for childish games on the floor of the House, but in fairness I'm not sure there's ever a good time for childish games in either the House or Senate.

Finally, two Democratic-led bills were killed off in the House as a clear preamble to the 2012 elections and to prevent democrats from touting accomplishments. One of the bills was designed to benefit members of the military and another was simply to clarify tourism grant requirements. It's a pretty bad day when supporting veterans and tourism has somehow become divisive in the Colorado legislature.

Partisan politics is not working very well in the General Assembly and we're only just over a month into the 2012 session. The state budget looms ahead.

More Fort Collins voices needed on state boards

Just a short post today.

The recent news of 174 gubernatorial nominations being held up in the Senate caught my eye and as I looked through the list of people whose nominations have yet to be confirmed I realized (too) many were from Denver.

Denver’s metro area obviously holds a great deal of the state’s overall population and so it may always have more representation, but people in Denver should not have the only voices on state boards and commissions.

As vacancies become available you can apply here on the Governor’s website. The 2012 vacancies will be open soon. We need more people from Fort Collins, northern Colorado, and outside the Denver area to apply, serve, and represent the interests of people outside of the capital city.

If elected to the Senate I would make sure Fort Collins is getting its fair share of representation, at the moment it is not. 

Harsher penalties for hit-and-run accidents...

On Thursday, February 16th the House Judiciary Committee will be considering a bipartisan bill (HB12-1084) to raise the penalties associated with hit-and-run accidents. The bill will raise hit-and-runs to be on the same caliber as drunk driving, a class 4 felony.

Right now an unintended consequence...even a loophole...exists where a drunk driver that is involved in an accident has an "incentive" to flee the scene because a hit-and-run is a lesser offense than drunk driving. If the driver waits to become sober, he or she will not face drunk driving charges because no proof will exist to bring those charges forward and they will only receive the lesser charge of fleeing the scene of an accident.

This can mean emergency services do not respond as quickly in some circumstances because victims in another vehicle may be unable to call for help. It also is just a much needed amendment to the criminal code.

I cannot stress enough how much this bill needs to find its way to the Governor's desk.

The contact information for the House Judiciary Committee can be found here, please contact them to show your support of HB12-1084.

The full text of the bill can be found here.