Town Square

Post a New Topic

Palo Alto's plan to "retain" illegal summer school tuition violates state law

Original post made by Curious on Jun 6, 2013

PAUSD is offering refunds for summer school tuition that it charged parents illegally -- but the method the district has chosen for refunds itself violates state law. The district is keeping the tuition payments unless parents contact PAUSD to request a refund, according to an email sent to parents last week. The law requires, however, that the district immediately reimburse parents for unlawful charges, regardless of whether they write to PAUSD for a refund.

The district's decision to withhold refunds unless parents request them puts the City of Palo Alto in a difficult position. The City acts as PAUSD's "fiscal agent" by collecting summer school tuition and processing refunds. The City now must decide how to respond to the fact that hundreds of parents are owed refunds of illegal fees it collected on behalf of the school district. The large majority of the parents involved are residents of Palo Alto.

The district email, sent by Chief Business Officer Cathy Mak, tells parents that if parents do not explicitly request a refund the district "will retain your payment as a donation." (see Web Link). The school district collected $368,000 in summer school tuition in 2012 (see Web Link).

For background on the district's decision to offer refunds, see Web Link.

The statute, part of the California Education Code, requires that a district that has charged illegal feels must make "reasonable efforts...to ensure full reimbursement to all affected pupils, parents, and guardians." The State Board of Education is scheduled to adopt regulations at its next meeting in July that define "reasonable efforts" as including "sending reimbursement by first class mail to the pupil's last known primary address." (see Web Link). The regulations do not provide for retaining illegal fees as a donation.

Comments (35)

Posted by Curious fan, a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 6, 2013 at 9:57 pm

Yeah, I wondered about this. Seems like reading the law ahead of time would make sense, instead of just reacting to it when somebody else points out the rules. I suppose at some point that idea will penetrate over at 25 Churchill, but not just yet.


Posted by clarification, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 6, 2013 at 10:11 pm

Regulations that have not yet been approved are not yet law.


Posted by Curious curious, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Jun 6, 2013 at 10:27 pm

Curious, please take a chill pill and relax.


Posted by Curious about "Curious curious", a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Jun 6, 2013 at 10:35 pm

Seems as if curious' postings are very spot on and that if we had every member of the community "take a chill pill and relax" that this district would have relaxed itself into oblivion.

What I am wondering if F, F, and F (district's legal cousel) is ever consulted with prior to misssteps by Dr. Skelly and the district. Seems like the Supe gets himself into an inordinately high number of illegal predicaments. Can we afford to have Dr. Skelly at the helm any longer? Especially in light of the escalating legal costs that we tax payers are having to foot the bill on. I would much rather that my hard earned tax dollars be spent helping the students and not so much for hurting our students. It is time for Dr. Skelly to be given his walking papers. Perhaps he will resign. That would certainly be a gift to us all!


Posted by sure, a resident of Barron Park
on Jun 6, 2013 at 10:45 pm

::yawn:: tempest, meet teapot.


Posted by Curious about "Curious curious", a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Jun 7, 2013 at 12:13 am

@sure: compared to the district's neglect of the disabled middle school girl this may seem to you to be a tempest in a teapot but just remember that many tempests stir up gale force winds and I think the district has been cruising towards a shipwreck unless they change course. Changing course can start with something as little as admitting their error and correcting it ASAP. A little honesty goes a long way. It might restore a tiny bit of confidence in the people at curchill.

It is unlikely that your attitude will capture many people's imagination!! I think you are just trying to make it appear that there are a bunch of crackpots out there complaining about trivial matters and you are wrong on this one.


Posted by sure, a resident of Barron Park
on Jun 7, 2013 at 8:17 am

"It is unlikely that your attitude will capture many people's imagination!! I think you are just trying to make it appear that there are a bunch of crackpots out there complaining about trivial matters and you are wrong on this one."

The only quarrel I have with your description of my view is that "a bunch" may overstate the number of citizens concerned about the structure of summer school fee refund policies for non-core classes. It might be the "tempest that stirs up gale force winds" (nice!), but I'm doubting it.


Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 7, 2013 at 8:51 am

The problem here, as I see it, is that the practice may well be "illegal", but the practice has served this community well for years.

We have had a wonderful summer school program with plenty of enrichment offerings which have funded the core subjects. The enrichment programs are affordably priced compared to the private offerings out there which means that there have been interesting things for kids to do which have given families who can't afford the more expensive offerings a great experience for their kids. As a result, those who need the intervention classes of math and English have been getting them for free and these are quite often families who would not be able to pay a fee to get their kids caught up.

Now that it is shown to be illegal (at whatever way it has been done) the middle income families no longer will have interesting options at reasonable cost and the intervention classes which are sorely needed by some will have no source of funding.

So really what we have here is that affordable enrichment classes will go and it is doubtful if the intervention classes can continue without this funding.

So who wins here? Certainly not the lower income families, their kids, or those working parents who struggle to find something worthwhile for their kids to do for the long weeks of summer.

What will be the result? More kids left at home alone during the day, more bored kids getting up to mischief around town, more struggling students falling further behind, are some of the downsides. The other way of looking at is there will be many more expensive private offerings willing to take up the slack for those with the money to pay for them.

Oh, and I suppose if the school district rent out school space to the expensive privates, they just might make enough money to offer a few classes to those students who really need it - and summer school will get the reputation of being something for dumb kids! Mark my words, wait and see.


Posted by A different take, a resident of another community
on Jun 7, 2013 at 9:15 am

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Who loses here?

The answer to this is obvious as well: the kids lose.

The whole thing is a travesty and makes this community look petty and mean-spirited.


Posted by Palo Verde Parent, a resident of Palo Verde
on Jun 7, 2013 at 9:33 am

Well said "Resident" and "Different Take". It would have been nice if the people who have the legal expertise and interest to call out the district for not following this law would have instead spent their time writing the lawmakers to create a law that really helps the lower income families. I understand that equity is what is the spirit of this law, but the reality is that the divide will just get bigger. As I have said before, these enrichment programs will now be offered by the private sector (at considerably more money) and no "scholarships" will be available for lower income families and middle income families will not be able to afford the increased price of these programs.


Posted by disobedience, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 7, 2013 at 9:43 am

Resident,

If what you say comes to pass, lots of folks will want to know who put the wheels in motion that ended affordable summer school in Palo Alto.

Based on prior posts, it looks to have been Edmund Burke and Curious who have been very vocal about the Office of Civil Rights complaints too.

Their line in the sand is clear: "This is not about fairness. It is about the rule of law."

It's a curious tack for those who care about civil rights to take. If they remember their US History, they'd recall that the 1960s civil rights movement made advances by challenging and breaking laws/civil disobedience.

Would those two have upheld the Jim Crow segregation laws because they were "the rule of law" too?


Posted by the public is not the problem, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Jun 7, 2013 at 10:00 am

@sure posted "::yawn:: tempest, meet teapot."

The district has illegally collected approximately $350,000 per year from families for summer school in 2012 and 2013. That is $700,000, during the past 12 months that has to be refunded to families right now as of today. That is not a "teapot" level tempest -- it's three quarters of a million dollars of the money of PA citizens that has to be refunded. The administrative cost of the refunding process will also be substantial. This is an epic screw up.

@sure, resident, and different take -- all posted comments that essentially boil down to three points: 1. Our system was good even if it was illegal; 2. now we won't have our good system any more; 3. there won't be any more summer school. All of these points are unproved panic peddling.

1. Our system wasn't good or working well. It was an unconstitutional, illegal mess. We did charge people for classes who were poor. We charged everyone. We did not automatically give anything to anyone for free -- everyone had to apply for a fee waiver if they wanted one. Many people either did not send their kids to summer school or did not apply for the waiver because they were embarrassed or didn't know it was possible to get a waiver. The California Constitution guarantees a free public education. If you want to sponsor a proposition that amends the California Constitution to make public school a private tuition based offering, please knock yourself out. But until then, we have a constitutional right to a free education in this state, including all classes.

Summer school classes cost between $235 an $470 each. That is a lot of money. If a family has three children, that could be $1500 per summer. Maybe that's nothing to you, but it's a lot for most people. It's outrageous that our district is spending money on a PR officer while bilking PAUSD families to pay for something that they have a constitutional right to have for free.

On that note, let me just point out that PAUSD has a bloated administrative staff, and spends money on stuff that is totally unnecessary. Do you think that there is no fat anywhere at 25 Churchill? In addition to the aforementioned PR officer, how about the legal fees for the various misdeeds and escapades? Could we not spend that money more profitably on our students? I think that is the point of CCC above.

2. There's no evidence that the "fun" classes were subsidizing the remedial courses, or that the remedial courses are going away. That is all conjecture. But the chance that PAUSD will eliminate all of its courses including credit recovery courses, is very low. In addition, the chance that PAUSD will eliminate its middle school math classes is also very low. Much of summer school at that level is comprised of kids trying to qualify for a higher math track in PAUSD's overly-rigid multi-track math program so that they can be positioned for the correct math lane in high school. Some of summer school exists to make this possible and if it was eliminated, parents would howl so loud you could hear it in the admissions offices of private schools around the Bay Area. In other words, nope that will not go away. And the idea that these classes hurt the poor -- yes that's true. You can read the other thread to see evidence of it. But that's not new or different. That is business as usual in PAUSD. Upper income, white and Asian kids get Algebra 1A or above in 8th grade. Poor and black and brown kids don't. That's what has been happening and the modification of summer school won't change it.

That's happening because the high scoring, mostly Asian kids in this district have created a lot of wealth for homeowners. They have served as an engine of prosperity. So long as the district is comprised primarily of white and Asian students, and those students continue to be so high scoring, the inept and somewhat dishonest district administration and the feckless school board will continue to have a free hand. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

3. Of course there will be summer school. But it won't be the same. Resources will be focused where they are needed. The fact that you call those who need to catch up "dummies" just shows how little you understand or care about those kids.

PAUSD has to stop ignoring the law as if we are special and above it. What we were doing was wrong. It took resources from families who could have used that money for vacations, or home repairs, or to spend in the local economy at local businesses, or to invest or to save for college, or just for whatever they wanted. It deterred families from even signing up. It was a system of preserving advantage for those with money and those in the know and those who long ago lost their embarrassment at asking for "scholarships." It is unconstitutional.

Start processing those checks, City Recreation Department!



Posted by the public is not the problem, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Jun 7, 2013 at 10:04 am

"If they remember their US History, they'd recall that the 1960s civil rights movement made advances by challenging and breaking laws/civil disobedience.

Would those two have upheld the Jim Crow segregation laws because they were "the rule of law" too?"

This is hilarious! There is not even any way to parody the essential wackiness of ths post. Thanks!


Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 7, 2013 at 10:37 am

I definitely do care about those kids.

I have a kid who has needed math intervention most of the time he has been in PAUSD. These classes have been necessary to keep him at grade level. These classes have been offered to me for free but I would have paid for him to do them had we needed to.

This kid who has struggled in math has happily every summer gone along to summer school. He has been able to go on his bike, to a school he is familiar with and sometimes even with a teacher who he has some familiarity with. I have not had to fill in forms, get progress reports from summer school to regular school, it has happened within the efficient administration of our school system. He has happily ridden his bike with some friends who are also attending the same summer school session even though they may have been doing an enrichment program which had to be paid for by parents. There has been no stigma, he hasn't felt dumb, he has been with his friends outside the math classroom. He has improved his grade and his skills and managed to keep up with his grade. It has been a win/win situation for him.

Now let us see how this would change if summer school for him was necessary and his friends all went to camps somewhere else. He would very soon feel "different" because he would be doing summer school while his friends would be doing camps. He would be in one school campus while his friends would be somewhere else. He would not realize that his classes were helping him without him realizing it. He would know exactly that he was doing it because he was not "smart" enough to get a good enough grade to prevent him from repeating the grade. I wouldn't be telling him. His teachers wouldn't be telling him. His peers would be telling him, his conscience would be telling him.

Is this fair? Is this equitable? Not to me and my kid?

Has there been a problem before? I doubt it because any kid who has needed this intervention has gotten it for free. How do I know? Because that is how it has worked for us. We have not had to ask for it, we have basically been told that these summer school sessions were necessary for him to be able to enter the next grade.

And if you don't think kids will start calling summer school attendees dumb for free intervention classes when that is all summer school becomes, then you don't know kids very well. I hate to think how I would get my kid to do these classes happily when they get the reputation for where the dumb kids go. (Just like Saturday school has the reputation for where the troublemakers go).

This upsets me greatly. Just because the law is there does not mean the law is right. The spirit of the law has been upheld all along even if the letter of the law has been bent. Those who have needed intervention have gotten it. Those who needed scholarships for other classes, have gotten it. If people have not requested scholarships or realized that the intervention classes were free then they have not read the summer school material properly. If they have been too embarrassed about asking for scholarships, then they have put their embarrassment above their kids' welfare. Nobody knows who gets the scholarships, so where is the embarrassment other than the initial request.


Posted by Simple solution, a resident of Palo Verde
on Jun 7, 2013 at 10:51 am

How about advocating for free summer school in Palo Alto? It's not prohibitively expensive, and -- guess what!! -- it's actually legal.

I love this line: "The spirit of the law has been upheld all along even if the letter of the law has been bent." Sorry, the spirit of the law is that every child is entitled to a free public education, not the right to beg for a handout.

No wonder our school district seems incapable of reading the law and following it, without going through a process of asking, "Hey, it's the law, but should it really apply to us? After all, we're Palo Alto!!"


Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 7, 2013 at 11:13 am

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

It seems to me that the law is badly worded - if it had been intelligently phrased we would not be in this mess.



Posted by Simple solution, a resident of Fairmeadow
on Jun 7, 2013 at 11:19 am

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

The law is worded completely clearly. It is intended to ensure that every child receives a free public education. Full stop. Not, "as long as they read the fine print, or the PTA ladies sell enough brownies, or if the district staff decides to grant a fee waiver, or if they overcome their embarrassment to ask for a 'scholarship'."


Posted by the public is not the problem, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Jun 7, 2013 at 11:57 am

"If they have been too embarrassed about asking for scholarships, then they have put their embarrassment above their kids' welfare."

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] No one should have to swallow their pride in order to access a free, public education. What is a constitutional right anyway? Does the Constitution matter to you at all or is it just what's "fair and equitable" to "me and my kid" as you so transparently phrased it.

Rec Department, send those checks! And next time, consult your own counsel before you believe any representations from PAUSD about legality. [Portion removed.]


Posted by Landy Mowell, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 7, 2013 at 12:09 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


Posted by Palo Verde Parent, a resident of Palo Verde
on Jun 7, 2013 at 1:30 pm

If free summer school for all is such a good and fiscally possible idea then why do NO other districts do it? Check around and you will see that other districts offer ONLY remedial (credit recovery) classes and ONLY for high school. If PAUSD decides to offer a "free" program to all it will be very expensive and I for one will speak at a board meeting about the waste of money. Right now if kids want to advance to the next math class (bridge course) they PAY for it, if they want to study for the SAT they PAY for it, if they want to take a basketball class they PAY for it. I am absolutely not in favor of PAUSD paying for these opportunities given the budget constraints. I think it is fantastic that they offered the opportunity (at a cost or scholarship) but this is not something that should be universally funded. Money is much better spent on lowering class size in the high school, buying more textbooks so students have a set in class, expanding an after school tutoring program, creating a higher quality lunch program etc. The "extras" of summer school is not where I want my tax dollars being spent.


Posted by Mystified, a resident of Southgate
on Jun 7, 2013 at 3:35 pm

So having first ignored the law that prohibits charging summer school tuition (until they were caught), now our district employees are ignoring the law requiring that they send the money back (until they are caught again). Why does this keep happening? The district seems to lack basic management ability. That seems like a question that the school board might start to get a little more curious about.
And if the city is actually holding onto this money, they should also be interested in sending it back, otherwise they are also on the wrong side of the law.


Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 7, 2013 at 5:29 pm

Just ask for your money back already. Move on.

I agree that bridge classes or advancement classes are going to disappear from summer school. And I say that because if there is a budget for summer school, then the first place the funding should go towards is the remedial/make-up courses if they can do it.

For those who want to advance, they can go to Lydian, St. Francis, etc. And you'll have to pay...especially for Lydian!

And here's a prediction: We'll have another discussion in a couple of years about how it is unfair that some families can afford private summer schools while others cannot; that PAUSD shouldn't accept qualified coursework from those institutions. It's not fair, etc.


Posted by Bernie M, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 7, 2013 at 9:05 pm

Like CPD said. It's a small potatoes crime, nothing to see here.


Posted by sure, a resident of Barron Park
on Jun 7, 2013 at 9:13 pm

@the public is not the problem wrote: "The district has illegally collected approximately $350,000 per year from families for summer school in 2012 and 2013.... That is an epic screw-up."

This seems like a loss of perspective. Our school district budget is approximately $160M in revenue/expense, plus another $50M a year in bond-funded capital expense. $350K / $210M = 0.17% My sense is that most of the families happily paid, got what they paid for, and would have had to pay more elsewhere if PAUSD has not made the course available.

Our school district certainly has challenges and could improve in various areas. But the refund policy for non-core summer school program fees is small potatoes, and does not make my top 10 list. An "epic screw-up"? Tempest, meet teapot.


Posted by Collector, a resident of Barron Park
on Jun 8, 2013 at 8:32 am

Dear "Sure",
I will be coming by this morning to pick up the "rent" for the parking space in front of your house. I'm sure you won't mind paying it -- it is a very nice space and I am sure quite useful to you. And the amount will, I promise, be small in comparison to the budget of the City of Palo Alto.
Thank you in advance,
Collector


Posted by village fool, a resident of another community
on Jun 10, 2013 at 5:27 pm

I am very curious to know if there is any data from the recent years comparing the % of the kids who attended summer camp, free, after a fee waver to the % of the kids, per school, known to be low income and in need of remedial Math or English. I am especially curious to know if this type of data is available in the elementary level.

Curious - Thank you for your on going efforts.


Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 10, 2013 at 6:46 pm

Things that are free are often abused.

Today is the first day of summer school. In my son's free remedial class, 26 students are registered on the attendance list and 14 turned up. It is obvious that parents agreed to something but it is such a low priority that they either change their minds and don't let the school know, or don't ensure the kids get to school.

There is more value in something for which there is a charge.


Posted by the public is not the problem, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Jun 10, 2013 at 7:45 pm

or

The parents had to work and the kids had to go to grandmas or a neighbor's because summer school is two hours long and working parents may not be able to make child care happen. Not everyone has the luxury of dropping off and picking up from a 2 hour class or having household staff to do it for them.

Please send your comments on how paying for something is better to:

Committee to Amend the California Constitution to Charge Tuition for Public Education, at snowballschance@gmail.com. Be sure to include a large donation! I'm sure you will be more committed to the cause if you support it financially.


Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 10, 2013 at 7:49 pm

If that had been the case, then good manners would have meant that they would have turned down the opportunity for summer school or let the school know so that the child's name would not be called out in the classroom at attendance.

Good manners costs nothing, but perhaps you can explain that one away also.


Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 10, 2013 at 8:11 pm

Additionally, are you stating that summer school at only 2 hours is too short for many families? Do you think that the number of hours per day should be more? Or are you also advocating that not only summer school should be free, but that there is a case for providing free after school child care (summer or year round) for working families also?

If this is not what you are saying, then I completely misunderstand your point.


Posted by the public is not the problem, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Jun 10, 2013 at 10:10 pm

Yes you completely misunderstand my point.

My point is that people have a constitutional right to a free public education. Your moralizing and speculating about how the poor don't appreciate the fine gift of this free education completely fails to acknowledge that it is not a gift, it is a right. It's a right that the middle class, the rich, and the poor all have equally. It is the same right. Your posts about the unappreciative beneficiaries of this benevolence smack of noblesse oblige, of "takers" and "makers." And your willingness to speculate about why people may or may not be there for summer school is bizarre since you know absolutely nothing about the life circumstances of those who did not show up. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Palo Verde Parent, a resident of Palo Verde
on Jun 10, 2013 at 10:30 pm

@public is not the problem

I tend to agree with Resident. It seems to me, if a student is slated to attend a class (remedial or not) and then it is decided (for whatever reason) to not have the student attend the proper thing to do is to let the staff know. Maybe there is a waiting list for the class. Also, high school summer school is over 5 hours long. I agree that everyone is entitled to a free education but summer school is not really part of that package. At this point, I don't feel that PAUSD should offer any summer school. The law states that students should have equal opportunity so why should summer programs be limited to remedial or recovery classes? If we are going to give "equal" opportunity to all, then all students should have a summer class to attend. I don't think that this will happen so why should only some kids get the benefit of summer school? I think PAUSD should get out of the summer school business all together.


Posted by parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 10, 2013 at 10:32 pm

I haven't been able to find a singe school district in California that offers free summer school other than for students who are failing. It's a pity that there is no longer a low cost option for students to take classes during the summer. Sure, they can take them for free during the school year, but it will limit their options. Take a look at the SAT prep classes offered during the summer. They are half the price of private classes. Who does this affect? Those that can't afford the expensive private options.

The rich will always be able to afford the private options. We have just now eliminated those who have some means and those who are eligible for financial aid. Oh well.


Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 10, 2013 at 10:42 pm

I get your point. You are more concerned about the law than the people.

My son volunteered the information as part of his impression of summer school, his point being that the class was small and that a lot of people were absent.

You can call me a helicopter parent, I was just taking an interest in what he had to say.

You were speculating about the difficult circumstances that caused students to not turn up for summer school. You also speculate about my parenting and an attitude of noblesse obliges, talking about takers and makers. I have no idea of the background of those who didn't turn up because yes, everyone is treated the same. Yes, everyone is entitled to a free education but everyone does not treat the privilege of education in the same light. You are assuming a lot about the economic background of those that didn't turn up in the same way you are assuming a lot about me. The income of any family at summer school is not the point. The attitudes with which families treat summer school was my point.

You still did not answer me about whether you think two hours is too short a time at summer school and whether after school childcare should be included. It makes no difference to the free aspect of summer school as to how families make their arrangements for getting their children to and from the school and it is not up to PAUSD to take that into consideration unless they are the Tinsley students who need a bus. In other words, the 2 hours is a red herring in your argument.

Getting back to the point of a free education. A free education is fair, just and available to all. How people treat that privilege is a fair follow up, in my opinion, which is why I raised the point.


Posted by MT, a resident of Addison School
on Jun 18, 2013 at 12:01 pm

I heard today from Dr. Skelly that the district is actually going to refund these fees to everyone who paid them. That is good news.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Foothills Park: a world away
By Sally Torbey | 17 comments | 1,840 views

Universal Language
By Cheryl Bac | 4 comments | 1,510 views

On Tour at Selective Schools: Chapman, La Verne, Redlands, Whittier
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 1,478 views

The dress code
By Jessica T | 14 comments | 1,319 views

Two Days to Save This Dog?
By Cathy Kirkman | 13 comments | 846 views