Dear Editor:

I've heard it said: "Careful. Don't wish too hard 'cause you might get it." Proponents of Proposition H, the Central Freeway retrofit proposal on the November 4th ballot. might heed this warning. Supporters of the initiative want an end to the delays in traffic as well as in the Central Freeway replacement process. However, Proposition H, if passed, would do nothing to speed things up. In fact, it would add to the delays. The proposition requires that yet another traffic study be added to the pile of those already done. In addition, if Proposition H passes Caltrans, which completed an environmental review of the Central Freeway replacement alternatives just last April, would be required to conduct yet another Environmental Assessment of the project. This would add additional delay.

Proposition H won't give us traffic relief either. Instead it would return gridlock to the Laguna/Fell Street intersection where southbound Gough Street, westbound Fell Street, eastbound Oak Street and northbound Franklin Street traffic more efficiently have already received environmental review and are ready to go.

Ironically, voting for Proposition H would give the initiative's proponents just what they don't want--further delay of the process and traffic congestion. We all want traffic relief and a speedy replacement of the Central Freeway. That's why I'm voting NO on Proposition H.

Yours Sincerely,
Robin F. Levitt,
Architect

Safety Proposals for Valley Should Work Together

Following is an abridged version of a letter sent Aug. 28, 1997 to Margine Sako, director of the San Francisco Enterprise Community (SFEC) in the Mayor's Office of Community Development from Visitacion Valley Bilingual Education, Supportive Services and Training (VVBESST) appealing rejection of their safety proposal for Visitacion Valley. Copies of the full version of this letter were first presented to members of the Visitacion Valley Task Force and SFEC outreach worker during a regular monthly meeting on Sept. 27, 1997.

Dear Ms. Sako:
On behalf of the 2,000 people who signed the petitions to support the proposal of the Visitacion Valley Bilingual Education, Supportive Services and Training (VVBESST), we are appealing the decisions of the Visitacion Valley Enterprise Community Review Team for:

1) initially rejecting our proposal even though it has: the overwhelming and expressed support of our community; the current support letters from the captains of our two police precincts, as well as from the current president of the residents of Southeast Sector (ROSES).

2) not providing real opportunities for concerned residents (especially to those who are English-handicapped but form the majority of the constituents in Visitacion Valley) to be well informed and be meaningfully involved in the decision making processes.

3) not considering the fact that it was a large group of these residents who initially came to the Enterprise Community (EC) meetings and especially on May 6, 1997 (the EC flyer was translated by my group) with written notes both in English and Chinese that identified the safety and communication needs and problems in Visitacion Valley.

4) ignoring the fact that neither the Visitacion Valley Task Force nor the EC Review Teams has adequate ethic/ratio representation and real community support of our community. (Attendance records of most meetings indicated few resident participants, and especially inconspicuous are Asian attendees). Therefore, how can a few EC members represent the interests and needs of our neighborhood when they won't listen to facts I tried to present to them on behalf of the predominant bilingual community on August 23, 1997? In other words, most of the EC meetings have been unintelligible to these monolingual residents (It's also unreasonable to expect Ms. Artina Lim of the Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and Their Families (MOCYF) to record the minutes and provide simultaneous translation) because there is no real attempt to provide oral translation during the meetings, and the minutes are only in English. Is their due process denied? In the past, when I did provide the translations, some Task Force members openly said it took up too much time and there was even completely unfounded rumors that I had deliberately distorted the translations! Judging from the intolerance of some members and participants, I could only translate the essence and the pertinent information because some speakers took 10-30 minutes to express themselves when I could only use half or one-third of the time to translate. Even paid professional court interpreters could not work with this limitation. Besides, too many non-English monolingual residents have complained to me that since their presence has not been welcomed, they didn't want to doubly humiliate themselves by sitting there "like deaf and mute" because they already suffer when they can't articulate their needs in English in their daily lives.
In the beginning, when the Task Force was first formed, Gwen Henry (MOCYF) welcomed translations for the attendees, so both Samson Wong and I took turns to provide this free service. It was good that the meetings were audio recorded at my request (to avoid unreasonable disputes and rumor mongers). The diverse ethnic attendance reflected very good turnouts at most meetings. I even have photos of most of these meetings. Later, Samson dropped out because of undue pressure amongst some overly aggressive Task Force members. Even I was also verbally attacked several times during, before and after these community meetings. As an educator, instead of succumbing to these hostile advances, I wrote to Mr. Tony Lincoln (former MOCYF director) and talked to his assistants, Gwen Henry and Deedra Jackson to find ways to minimize the problems. Since everything I have done has been open and fair, I have nothing for anyone to use against me.

As you can see, the seed of the hostility was already planted by some of these so-called community leaders since 1993, so it has been extreme challenging for me to help bridge communication between the ethnic groups and work towards racial harmony. There has always been such a charged atmosphere whenever there were powerful decisions of public and private funds to be made to our community groups. It is also a fact that some prominent Task Force members are conspicuously absent and uninvolved in meetings that address community park improvements, public safety and requests for Muni buses Why? Aren't there also very important for the well-being of most of the residents of our community?

5) failing to provide adequate official oral and written translation before, during, after and relating to the Enterprise Community meetings, therefore denying proper access and input for the majority of the bilingual residents in Visitacion Valley (This problem is repeated in other communities with a similar population).

6) having a faulty and inadequate review process that allows some EC proposal readers (and even non-proposal readers) to make wild speculations about the proper intent of our proposal. It is unfair and malicious that at least one individual (who was not assigned to read a proposal) to use his status and position, not only to unduly influence a parent by calling him at work, but his wild accusations are tantamount to character assassination on me and subjecting our proposal to suspicion and ridicule. As usual, I have concrete evidence in the form of videotapes, photos, and very creditable witnesses to prove myself. Also, at the same meeting, no one would allow me to present my list of special considerations.

For this reason, I suggest the SFEC immediately draft a Code of Ethics for its members to safeguard all proposals and their representatives from any such open attacks and, possible legal complications. Members who acted irresponsibly and with malicious intent against another member or to any proposal should be chastised and expelled. This will protect the integrity of the SFEC and other members of good standing who provide their valuable time and expertise for the benefit and improvement of their community.

All information should be confidential and not be leaked out or given to other parties, especially to those who can work behind the scene to manipulate and exert undue pressure to influence certain outcome. Good faith EC members should always give fair considerations to all proposals they are assigned to read. No caustic remarks should be allowed to discredit and unduly influence other reviewers (especially vulnerable are those who have not carefully read their assigned proposal). Questions about proposals should be phrased in a professional manner preferably to avoid any clouded intent.

7) for not giving more weight and attention to the fact that the problem of safety has plagued our community for so many years that it was clearly addressed in:

a) the Visitacion Valley Community Plan of 1994

b) the 1995 Memorandum of Understanding between HUD and the City of San Francisco

c) even underreported police statistics show a high percentage of Asian victims and, all police officers whom we have contacted in our meetings reinforced the same facts.

d) the safety reports that Dr. John Flores, principal of Visitacion Valley Middle School, wrote on behalf of the safety sub-committee of the Visitacion Valley Task Force. The regular members were: Julie Kavanagh, director of Visitacion Valley Community Center; Ralph Oroquita, Little Hollywood Association; Dr. John Flores, principal of Visitacion Valley Middle School; Rita Adrian, S.F. Community Boards; Marlene Tran, spokesperson of Visitacion Valley Asians' Alliance.

e) the 1995 survey that was conducted on 148 ESL students (who were mainly non-and limited-English speakers) in Visitacion Valley indicated that 40 percent had been victims of crime (some, for at least once!)

f) the research (forthcoming) on public safety (especially along San Bruno Avenue) conducted by the staff of Ms. Denise Collazo, executive director of the San Francisco Organization Project (SFOP).

g) the complaints and reports that Ms. Pam Moy of San Francisco's Office of Citizen Complaint received, especially relating to the gross inadequacy of bilingual officers for our Bayview and Ingleside stations, therefore creating great hardship for victims to make actual reports. This results in the underreporting of crimes especially from amongst the non- and limited English speakers.

h) a fair percentage of residents who were forced to leave our community and/or to undersell their properties because of social, cultural and crime problems. A Spanish-speaking Task Force member and resident (who was initially recruited by me) was robbed three times in our community and was so fearful of future attacks that she had reluctantly sold her house this year.

i) While a Project SAFE outreach worker was assigned to Visitacion Valley (Because of the widely-known safety problems) he is English-monolingual, therefore there has been no known or ongoing communication between him and the predominant non-English speaking residents so far. I have extended my invitation to him to talk about safety measures during the ESL classes, but we haven't seen him in our classes at all.

j) The two community meetings in April and May, 1997 arranged by S.F. Community Boards on Respect attempted to bridge communications, build racial harmony and improve public safety in Visitacion Valley.

k) while residents of the southeast sector (Visitacion Valley and Bayview) have more Asians than even Chinatown, there have not been any relevant bilingual services to residents from the local organizations. Help in safety measures is especially needed. But, organizations have leveraged public and private funds using the low economic status of these residents. Is this fair?

l) The Neighborhood City Hall at 1800 Oakdale Ave. is totally unapproachable by non- and limited-English residents because:

a) there is no bilingual staff

b) the site is not safe for non car drivers

c) the door is not always open at designated times

d) there are no bilingual complaint forms available
The aforementioned are just some of the reasons we cited to show you how challenging it has been for the predominant number of non- and limited-English speaking residents to function and fit into a very trying physical, cultural, linguistic, social and psychological environment.

While I have continuously urged and recommended other bilingual residents to participate in the Task Force and the SFEC, they have great apprehension about joining because of the difficult climate and conflicts they may be subjected to confront. Therefore, it is truly an awesome responsibility and burden to help such a sizeable but underserved population in Visitacion (Asians are 50 percent of the population).

Why do we need to appeal?

Since there was no initial written reasons given to me on August 16, 1997 for rejecting the VVBESST safety proposal, this opened up opportunities for speculations and rumor mongers to discredit our safety proposal and the integrity of the people involved. We are making this appeal to reveal the overwhelming problems and biased nature of some Task Force and Review Team members to create hardship for this much-needed safety program to be implemented. We want to know:

a) How can these members really know what the needs of the major Visitacion Valley constituents are when they have little or no communication with them?

b) How can they claim to represent Visitacion Valley residents when the very groups they represent don't even show up at major meetings to express their own needs?

c) How is it possible to avoid conflicts within community groups when funds that are intended for the good of the community do not have specific guidelines to ensure proper and direct input/involvement of and benefits to its constituents?

d) How can anyone viciously claim I was "controlling" this community when I have volunteered to work so sincerely and tirelessly for eight years in Visitacion Valley? I frequently send the news media or appear in their programs (Channel 26, KEST radio program, newspapers, flyers and personal contacts) to inform and involve residents with upcoming community events. I have chartered Muni buses to bring residents to safety meetings so they could have direct opportunities to express their concerns. I have demanded oral and written translations about all relevant matters for the non- and limited-English residents so that they could be physically present to understand, react, respond and read about all the issues.

On the contrary, those who are against timely translations are definitely denying just opportunities, and, to curb access to communication for the majority of Visitacion Valley residents, making them ignorant, vulnerable and certainly easier to manipulate and control!

Why I was willing to collaborate with the Beacon starting last year?

I offered to collaborate with Lisa Wichser from the Visitacion Valley Middle School because I appreciate her integrity and hard work. by working together, there have been more class offerings at more locations for more ESL students.

Another reason was that I also appreciated the unanimous decisions (with only one abstention) from the SFEC local team to fund the ESL as a collaboration between Beacon and BESS. The guidelines given were reasonable and the funding was operable after Lisa had to rewrite the whole proposal. Everyone in the ESL program worked very hard to make it a success. As a result, S.F. City College was willing to pick up the funding of the classes thereafter.

Why is this collaboration putting unreasonable demands on VVBESST?

After the reviews were given about the El Dorado School Neighborhood Betterment Council (ESNBC) and VVBESST proposals on Aug. 16, 1997, both sides felt some of the recommendations were unreasonable. However, Joel Tate, Bill Theadgill, Winnie Tsang and I agreed to meet the next morning (Sunday) at 11:30 to find ways to collaborate.

The night before, Winnie and I met to go over both proposals to find common grounds to collaborate. I typed up a list of questions for the ESNBC team. When Joel read the list, he threatened to walk out of that meeting several times. I explained that our safety program requires frequent contacts with the residents (about five days a week) but Joel only wanted to meet with our outreach worker once a month! Given this difficult atmosphere, I had to type up the conditions before Joel would agree. I faxed a copy to him and was waiting for his responses. Then I got a call from Gloria [Woo, of the Mayor's Office of Community Development] that Joel had faxed this preliminary proposal to her without confirming with me.

Recommendations by the Residents:

1) Since the other two accepted EC categories did not have to collaborate with other groups, it is totally unreasonable for our two combined safety proposals to be appropriated the same funding amount.

2) Everybody who heard about the equal allocation of the categories (recommended by Vincent Chao) said it is not within reason. Since public safety received the most support from the community, there should be more funds allocated. Everyone that we have approached said the decision-making process should be offered to the residents as well, and in the form of bilingual ballots. Every concerned resident should be allowed to cast his/her vote like in a general election. The category that gets the most votes should be given more funding priority.

3) The SFEC process must take into consideration the sizeable non- and limited-English speakers in Visitacion Valley and in other communities. Why are all the major decisions made by people who have no direct knowledge of what the community really needs?

4) The SFEC funds are supposed to help make improvements and benefit the community. However, since the rules, regulations and processes are not carefully thought out, this can cause more divisiveness and rifts amongst the groups. For this reason, the final decision cannot be made by the few community representatives. They don't have the direct input to represent community needs. SFEC must accept the responsibility to listen and accept real community needs and recommendations.

5) The SFEC and all other public and private funders must stipulate strict guidelines for fair and equitable input and funding allocations.

6) After the SFEC funding cycle ends next year, most of us still live in this community, so we must accept all such funding with our integrity intact and in a responsible manner. We care very much about "face saving" so by bending to unreasonable demands we are actually compromising our principle and honor, which we won't do.

Ms. Sako, even though I did not have the chance to meet you in person when I went to your office on Aug. 14, 1997, to seek help for my community, I have heard from different sources that you are very reasonable, forthright and fair. I hope you could find some time to see and hear from me about this appeal. As you can guess, the traditional Asian way is not to make big issues about many problems until it is totally unbearable and unresolvable. This present situation has come to this stage. We sincerely hope we won't have to test this case in the legal system.

We have enough of similar problems in this community. It's about time everyone understands that even the linguistic-handicapped have certain rights to decision-making, especially in their own community.

Thank you for your attention. We await your fair decision soon.
Yours sincerely,
Marlene Tran
VVBESST

Responding to Safety Collaboration

Following is a letter presented Sept. 30, 1997 to the Visitacion Valley Task Force by co-chair Joel Tate, also executive director of the El Dorado School Neighborhood Betterment Council (ESNBC).

To the Visitacion Valley Task Force:

Re: EC Funding of Safety Priority outcome.

The idea of VVBESST and ESNBC collaboration on the Safety Priority Outcome is an excellent one. It will help bring the community closer together. ESNBC has approached VVBESST twice to establish a working agreement on this priority outcome. To our regret, VVBESST has shown no interest in working with ESNBC. We are still open to a working agreement with VVBESST.
ESNBC is asking that funding for its community safety program is not denied because of VVBESST's refusal to collaborate.

ESNBC has been very successful in resolving community safety issues. We are a diverse organization reflecting the ethnicity of the community. Our boundaries in the Valley are as follows: north to Mansell, south to Leland, east to Bayshore and west to McLaren Park. We refuse membership to no one. The most recent outgrowth of our community safety effort has been the Community Street Patrol.

We presently have a membership of 208 members. Our member list can be made available to the Task Force on request.

Yours truly,
Joel Tate,
Executive Director, ESNBC

Response to Denial of Safety Proposal

Following is a letter sent Oct. 1, 1997 to the San Francisco Enterprise Community Board (SFEC) of the Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) concerning proposals for VVBESST and ESNBC.

Re: Priority Outcome--Visitacion Valley Safety Program (V3), Appeal by applicants for Visitacion Valley Bilingual Education, Supportive Services and Training (VVBESST) submitted by Marlene Tran and Winnie Tsang

Dear Board Members:

I am writing as a spokesman for the Review Team that evaluated the proposal that is being appealed and the other proposal that was also submitted in the same priority outcome. The other proposal was submitted for the El Dorado School Neighborhood Betterment Council (ESNBC) by Joel Tate and Bill Threadgill. The other two members of the Review Team are Marjorie Anne Williams and LaVergne Keppard.

Marlene Tran and Winnie Tsang were also participants in the development of benchmarks for the four priority outcomes for this funding cycle. Information that is given to Ms. Tran or Ms. Tsang is usually considered to be information for both as they share a household together.

(V1) Priority Outcome: Expanded and Coordinated Physical Improvement Projects did not have any proposals submitted.

(V2) Priority Outcome: Vocational Education and Training Program. Marlene Tran was a member of this Review Team.

(V4) Priority Outcome: Community Information Sharing Program. Winnie Tsang was a member of this Review Team.

During the meeting of August 16, 1997, of the Review Teams, it was decided that Priority Outcomes V2 and V4 would be recommended for funding. The Review Team for V3, the Safety Program, decided that the proposals that were submitted should not be funded as written and the two organizations would have to collaborate and submit a joint proposal.

The Task Force on August 23, 1997 voted to divide the SFEC funds into three equal shares for the three priority outcomes that had Requests for Proposal (RFPs) submitted. The three priority outcomes were recommended to be funded at $34,433 each.

It was recommended that $34,433 was set aside for the Safety Program priority outcome on the condition that the two organizations, VVBESST and ESNBC would collaborate and submit a joint proposal for approval and if necessary, additional conditions could be recommended.

I was on the Review Team, in 1996, that recommended $100,000 of SFEC funds to be allocated to the English as a Second Language priority outcome. This was a priority that required collaboration and had conditional guidelines. I advocated for a funding recommendation from the other Task Force members.

At the Task Force meeting of September 27, 1997 during the time this agenda item was allocated, Marlene Tran distributed a few copies of her nine-page appeal letter to a few of the Task Force members. Only three of the 21 Members and Alternate Members were absent from this meeting. The appeal letter, although quite long, did not specify exactly what were the grounds or basis for the appeal.

Examples of allowable appeals are:

*How was the applicant's proposal evaluated differently than other proposals in the priority outcome?

*Was there a priority outcome Review Team's conflict of interest (per SFEC RFP criteria) that prevented evaluation of the applicant's proposal fairly?

*Did the Review Team utilize an evaluation inconsistent with the Benchmarks established in the RFP?

These guidelines for appeal seem reasonable and should have been addressed in the appeal letter or at the presentation before the Task Force.

Marlene Tran, representing VVBESST, refused to collaborate with Joel Tate and Bill Threadgill (ESNBC) saying that the $34, 433 set aside for the priority outcome was not enough funding and it would not be feasible to initiate the program proposed in her RFP.

Twice Marlene was told that the RFPs submitted for this priority outcome were not recommended for the funding as written and that if no collaboration was to take place that the Safety Program would not be recommended for funding. The Review Team has already said that if there was no meaningful collaboration that it would recommend to the Task Force that the set-aside funds should be divided into equal shares and be given to the other two priority outcomes.

At the Task Force meeting of September 27, 1997,  it was the consensus of the Task Force (NPB) that it could not resolve the appeal or the collaboration of the two organizations at the NPB level. The appellant is within her rights to appeal to the SFEC Board. It is the responsibility of the appellant to write a letter of appeal. The letter must detail the grounds upon which the appeal is requested. The letter of appeal must be mailed or faxed within 5 working days of the date of the NPB meeting at which the appeal was heard, but in no case later than October 10, 1997. No action by the NPB would be necessary on the appeal other than the NPB Review Team making itself available to present testimony and present documents to substantiate their decision.

The two organizations worked and reached an agreement to a primary budget of $38,533. The appeal seems to be motivated by the $4,100 shortfall.

If face saving and egos are what is driving this appeal, then a great disservice has been done to the SFEC process, the Task Force, the Review Teams, and ESNBC. The disrespect and disruption of the Task Force meeting was shameful. If this was orchestrated by any members of the Task Force, then sanctions and possible expulsion from the Task Force may be necessary.

As spokesman for the Review Team, I am requesting the fact-finding committee and the SFEC Board to also agree that the appeal has no merit and should be denied.
The Review Team will make itself available and will provide documents to substantiate our position.

Thank you for your time,
Ralph Oroquita

Backup Beeper Disturbing Resident

Following was a letter sent Sept. 17, 1997 to Little Hollywood resident Richard Lucas from Sanitary Fill Company replying to his concern about an early morning disturbance.

Dear Mr. Lucas:

Recently you called Leonard Vinci of Sunset Scavenger concerning an early morning noise that appeared to be coming from a "backup beeper." Mr. Vinci forwarded the message to me for follow-up. It is my understanding that you have been awakened after 5 a.m. by a "beeping" noise.

Since early summer we have been routinely monitoring noise from our various operations using a sound meter that is the same type as that used by the City of San Francisco Bureau of Environmental Health Management. In response to your concerns, we investigated the noise levels near your home using our Type 1 sound meter over a several week period. Between 5 a.m. and 7 a.m., when our technical staff was stationed outside your home, they did not detect noise caused by backup beepers from the Tunnel/Beatty operations. However, some noise from the 101 freeway was recorded during that time. In addition, periodic jet planes caused the meter to register over 65 dBA and occasionally over 70dBA.

As you are no doubt aware, a new housing complex off Bayshore Boulevard (not far from your location on Tocoloma) was in the construction stage during the summer. The mobilization of equipment for that project might have been responsible for the noise that you heard. Other possible sources of backup beepers near your house might be deliveries to Piccolo Pete's or unloading of materials at Schlage Lock Company.

Thank you for calling attention to this matter; we will continue to monitor noise on a routine basis. Based on monitoring results, we will, as needed, modify our operations to further reduce noise.

Sincerely,
Gail Karpinski
Special Projects Manager
Sanitary Fill Company

Richard Lucas responded to Sanitary Fill Company on Oct. 4.

Re: Noise and Dust

Attn: Gail Karpinski
Special Projects Manager

I would like to thank you for the letter that you sent me dated Sept. 17, 1997 and for following-up with my complaint to Leonard Vinci regarding the early morning beeping noise that disturbs my sleep. I would like to stress to you that the beeping sound has beep occurring for the past several years. I have heard it as early as 3 a.m. and 4 a.m. The intensity of the beeping sound varies from low intensity and at times to moderate intensity. When it is of moderate intensity it is very piercing and disturbing. The beeping noise has a similar effect as an alarm clock. When it beeps, it wakes me up!

After trying to live with the noise for such a long period, it became more and more frustrating to me as I have lost much sleep over it. Therefore, before I  called Leonard Vinci regarding the noise, I investigated its source. I determined that the beeping noise was generated from a loader moving within the Sanitary Fill Company's plant site. While looking out my back windows from my house, I saw a loader moving in the area near the sort line. I also saw it moving near the ridge line adjacent to the Little Hollywood Park. When the loader moved, I could hear the beeping sound generated from its safety device.

I find it ludicrous to consider that the back-up beeper noise that disturbs my sleep could possibly be generated from deliveries made at Piccolo Pete's delicatessen or from the deliveries made at the Schlage Lock Company. For your information, ever since I lived here, I never heard any back-up beepers from any vehicles making deliveries to either of these locations even while I am awake outside in front of my house. during daytime hours. The sound would have to bounce over several rows of houses to get to my house. Due to the orientation of the houses in the neighborhood, it is more likely that the row of houses would obstruct any beeping sound generated from those locations. It appears to be that a beeping sound can easily travel down the row of houses to my bedroom windows especially if it is generated from a location near the sort line or the ridge line above the park.

I did hear occasional construction noise from the Hester Avenue housing development, however it was not during early morning hours and it was also temporary.

After I received your letter, I again heard the early morning beeping sounds coming from your plant. Two weeks ago, I heard the beeping noise around 6 a.m.; and a week ago, I heard it around 4 a.m. I would appreciate if you could find other locations for your operators and/or truck drivers to work or devise such routes that they could avoid using reverse engaging the back-up beepers in early morning hours. I feel that the beeping noise encroaching into our neighborhood in early morning hours is a disturbance and a nuisance.

I would like you to also follow-up on dust generated by the Sanitary Fill Company's plant operations. Last week I was visiting one of my neighbors on Peninsula Avenue and I noticed heavy dust plumes generated from operations at the public disposal and from trucks traveling along roadways within the plant. Would it be possible to install a canopy with dust collectors and/or water misting over the public disposal? It would be appreciated by our community if your company would occasionally use a water truck to wet down the roadways within your plant to minimize the generation of road dust. As you may know, breathing dust particles can be harmful to one's health.

Once again, we appreciate anything that can be done to mitigate these matters.

Sincerely,
Richard A. Lewis