Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SailAway

Ohmvr Audit Report

Recommended Posts

The Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission (commission) provides avenues for public input, offers policy guidance to the division, and approves the division's grants and cooperative agreements with public entities that provide OHV recreation opportunity. The commission also approves the division's capital outlays. The governor and the Legislature appoint the commissioners, who represent varying interests in OHV recreation and serve staggered four-year terms

So the Commision is just the same as the TRT or Desert Advisory Commitee?

The Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Division (Division) is designated entity that oversees and implements the OHV program.  The Division is funded through the OHV trust fund.

It seems the commission is there to allow public imput and provide ploicy guidance fro the OHV prgram.

I'll take back some of the harshness to Ed. How long as Ed been on the Commission? Ed is suppose to be my voice to the Division, guess what, his remarks are nowhere near what I am thinking!

I have been doing some reading, and it seems (at least in regard to contracts) they have been trying to clean up the books?

1122944[/snapback]

"and approves the division's grants and cooperative agreements with public entities that provide OHV recreation opportunity. The commission also approves the division's capital outlays."

I'd say "No" not the same, the commission holds at least the above mentioned purse strings, maybe more. If you sign the checks, you've got the power.

Not TRT, not UDG, they don't spend our money as far as I know. I'll bet everyone knew about this stuff, if so, people on our side should be on record as crying foul when this stuff happens. I know, I know, you have to do what you do to "buy" cooperation.

Welcome to Porkville.

Edited by airkuld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone asked previously if there had ever been another audit and I responded that I didn't know of one.

Well, now I do.

Apparently there was another one... nearly thirty years ago.

But still very pertinent to our moment in time.

These are articles from Cycle News Magazine, retyped due to poor quality, and then forwarded to OHV leaders.

OHV FUND RIP OFF!

Cycle News – West  Volume XIII :Number 46  November 23, 1976

Audit finds Cal Parks & Rec mismanages “Green Stickie” money and gas tax

Sacramento, Cal. Nov. 5, 1976

According to a report released by the State Auditor Generals office, California’s Parks and Recreation Department has, in at least four documentable instances; drained the Off-Highway  Vehicle Fund of money which could have been used to purchase riding/recreation facilities. At a minimum, the “lost” funds total almost two million dollars; the true amount may never be known because of the accounting procedures used by the Parks & Rec Department.

On the very eve of the report’s release, the Department Director, Herbert Rhodes, had sat in a meeting with motorcycling representatives, stone-faced, telling us to “cool it, be patient….” That the Los Angeles area would have a state ORV park as soon as money was available. For details, see pages 2,8,37.

(This was on the FRONT page. No author listed on my paperwork)

The case of the leaking OHV Fund

Since 1972, $2,000,000 down the drain

By Lane Campbell

An audit ordered by the California Joint Legislative Audit Committee has revealed that substantial amounts of money were siphoned from the state’s Off-Highway Vehicle Fund due to questionable accounting practices on the part of the Department of Parks and Recreation.

The Auditor General’s office released on November 5, a report of the audit, along with Parks & Rec Director Herbert Rhodes response (signed by an aide).

  The overall effect of the many irregularities was to make available less money for new ORV park projects. Due to the kind of accounting techniques used, the full extent of the fund loss may never be determined. The audit did reveal, at a minimum, $1.5 million in Bond Act Funds approved by voters, but never spent; and over $450,000 in lost interest which could have been collected for the fund. In addition, the auditors findings revealed incorrect time charges, “double-dipping” and excessive operating costs budgeted to Hollister Hills recreation area.  An internal memo, circulated in June 1976, advised Director Rhodes:  “This situation may have occurred for a variety of reason, including at least, the lack of broad departmental interest in……the ORV field. This whole situation will not make us look very good, so this information should be more a matter of internal use and recognition of the situation and not something to publicize.”

    That memo, along with the audit and the Director’s attempt to explain the irregularities, are all a part of the public record. Following are the highlights from the report:

THE BOND DRAIN

In 1974, voters approved a $250 Million Bond act which provided that $1.5 million of that total would be used to acquire OHV parks. (The allocation was made in a 1974 Parks & Rec pre-election document, as required by law.) 

  The auditors found that as of August 1, 1976, all 1974 Bond Act funds had been disposed of and none had been spent for OHV facilities.  In addition, the audit found a $4 million Bond Act appropriation scheduled to be revetted (i.e., returned unspent).  The auditors recommended that $1.5 million of the revetted money be appropriated to aid in acquiring a Los Angeles area park, a project that could cost upwards of $10 million total.

  The Directors only excuse was that other projects of higher priority had claimed the Bond Act funds. No mention was made in the Director’s response of the philosophy that guided the setting of priorities, nor the identities of the individuals charged with setting priorities.  [Nov 23, 1976 Pg 2 Cycle News]

HOLLISTER HILLS boondoggle

  The audit found that attendance at Hollister Hills, one of the first “Green Stickie” acquisitions, was 75% below budget projections.  Reported figures indicate that the budget itself was grossly in error, causing the park to incur costs far in excess of what was actually necessary to run it.

    In 1973, the last full year when the property was still the Harris Ranch, an attendance of 35, 669 vehicles was recorded. California’s Department of General Services projected 40,000 in attendance for 1974. Somehow Parks & Rec managed to inflate that estimate to 150,000 vehicles, and budget accordingly. Even though the Departments own budget office squawked at the amount, $400,000 was approved for the first year of  operation (which began in 1975) including four house trailers for employees and 15 man-years worth of labor (equivalent to the salary of 15 full-time employees).  Actual park attendance was less  that 20,000vehicles, income was about $50,000.

  The net effect is to drain the OHV fund of money which could be better used.

The auditors recommended that the Department lower admission fees, open the “upper ranch” to organized competition, reduce staffing, and install directional signs on surrounding routes.

The departments response to the charges ranged from open admission of past mistakes to a modified form of “It’s no my job man.”

COST ACCOUNTING TRICKS

  You’d have to be a cost accountant to fully understand them; but the tactics used by Parks & rec in cost allocation would be familiar to anyone who has monitored the costing of defense contracts. High-ranking employee’s salaries were charged to the OHV Fund twice, then totally omitted in a subsequent transfer, as if to cover up. Employee’s time cards were filled out in advance, charging their time in a predetermined manner unrelated to  how they’d actually spent their time.  The OHV fund was tapped with such things as general administrative services (even though Parks & Rec was not billed for them): expenses of the Historical Landmarks Advisory Committee; and expenses of the Advisory Board on Underwater Parks and Reserves. Anyone for motorcycle snorkeling?

The Department, in admitting errors, blamed misunderstood instructions and inadequate supervision for most of it. The net effect (how much will never be known) was to shift money from the OHV fund to the General Fund, where it could be spent for anything but ORV facilities.

OTHER MISFILED MONEY AND PEOPLE

    According to both the auditors and the Legislative Counsel (legal advisor) delays in transferring gas tax money cost the OHV Fund nearly a half million dollars in income. A portion of each year’s gas tax (that part estimated as fuel used off-road) is by law reverted to the OHV fund. It is then banked until it’s spent and earns interest like any passbook account.  Because the transfer was not made monthly (according to law) buy yearly, much of that earned interest was lost to the OHV fund.  Finally, when the Brown Administration inherited the program, Parks & Rec had an Off-Road Vehicle unit as a focal point for OHV program activities. In July,1976, the Department reorganized itself, eliminated the ORV unit, and scattered its responsibilities throughout the Department.

According to the audit report, many ORV unit responsibilities wee still unassigned. Responsibilities unassigned means jobs undone, and the whole situation reveals a general reluctance on the part of management to see that the jobs get done.  The report contains no evidence of deliberate intent to gut the OHV Fund, but if the identities and organizational affiliations of Parks & Rec staff management were uncovered in subsequent investigations, it might shed more light on the whole subject.

FREE WHEELING – “Are you now, or have you ever been?”

Fund–swizzling for ideology’s sake

By Lane Campbell

My, my. When I quit my job as a welterweight flunky in the aerospace/defense industry in order to go broke selling motorcycles, I’d thought I’d seen the last of this. Double-dipping. Playing games with timecard charge numbers.

Charging company-wide overhead to a specific contract. Make no mistake – some of the outfits I used to work for wrote the book.

  They had a pretty simple motive, too. Greed. Nothing more sinister that old-fashioned, warmhearted human avarice. Pad the headcount so we can ask for more money next year. Pretend there’s more work to do than there is. Hire PhD’s, not because you need ‘em, but because all those degrees look good – and expensive. Hey, it was the perfect welfare system for white-collar unemployables; and everybody played the game. We played it so well we didn’t even know we were unemployable – until the bubble burst and we tried to get real jobs.  But that’s old bat now. And the tricks are old, old, old.  By now you’ve surely recognized the same old tricks in the recently released audit of California Department of Park & Rec’s handling of the Off-Highway Vehicle Fund; our dearly-beloved  Green Stickie program.  Old tricks, but with a new twist’ something I’ve not seen attempted on so grand a scale in a long, long time.  Yes, this particular swizzle of public money has a unique catch to it. Nobody lined his pockets. Nobody’s campaign for office was financed – or torpedoed – with the money. No, this one was for ideology. (continued page 39)

FREE WHEELING  from page 8

    I’d heard of this sort of thing in other countries – it’s a recurrent scheme in junior college Comparative Government courses. You know, the scenario in which the members of a single political organization form a “shadow government” to further their ideology as if no subversion had taken place. Not since the bad ol’ days of the McCarthy Era had such an idea been taken seriously in this country.  When the voters of California, in their infinite wisdom, replaced a bad actor with a good kid in the Governors chair, and that good kid pledged to put environmentalists in the government, a lot of us old cynics prepared ourselves for the worst.  When the Department of Parks & Recreation which administers the OHV Fund, became top-heavy with them, we swallowed hard, but took it philosophically. After all, what could they do to us?  They wee bound by the same laws as other men. They could delay, obstruct, and confuse issues; but we’d just have to stay on their cases and make sure they carried out the law.

“……a shadow government to further their ideology as if no subversion had taken place.” 

  Little did we know they’d become brave enough to use time-honored defense contract accounting tricks to gut the fund so they wouldn’t have to spend it buying ORV parks.  Pretty cute, huh?  Their excuses are even cuter. Like the $1.5 million in Bond Funds that never got spent. ”Other projects had higher priorities than OHV facilities.”  And who set the priorities? Or more to the point, what ideology guided them in setting priorities?  What would motivate a management to consistently charge phony overhead to the OHV Fund, then caught. Say “Oh, we didn’t know that was wrong?  Why would the Deputy Director, in an internal memo, admit “there is scant interest in OHV’s within the Department,” then caution against publicizing the memo’s contents for fear it would make the Department look bad?  How deep does the infiltration go I wonder?  These things take time. It starts at the top with political appointees. Then uncooperative second-level management is allowed to transfer, retire, or resign in a huff. OHV departments are eliminated.  Then in a couple years of normal attrition, carefully-selected new-hires begin to trickle down into the rank and file. Pretty soon, whole working groups become “secure” speaking one language to the outside world and family language within.  If it had only been a simple case of larceny, quickly punished or pardoned, quickly forgotten.  But no, this is new. This is different. This is BIG!

  Now the witch hunt begins. Now the questions start getting asked in earnest. How many members of the State Park Commission are card-carrying Sierra Clubbers?  Five out of eight? Or all eight?  How about the Director? The Deputy Director? How many staff department heads?

    Will the ugly specter of McCarthyism surface once again? Will some zealous committee of the California legislature begin calling people in, starting with the point of the organizational pyramid and working downward, to pop the question, “Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Sierra Club?”  And if they do, would we be the kind of yellow-rag, muckraking journalist that would print the results?

Edited by SailAway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the same complaints and issues, all those years ago.

And here we are now.

So why will this one be different?

Because WE are different.

We are smarter, more involved and more politically savvy than we were thirty years ago.

That's the only possible way things will ever be different this time around.

WE have to make the difference.

Vicki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

emailed the Gov, my assemblyman and state Senator, what's next, march on Sacramento? icon_ninja.gif

You read these reports and it sounds like an Enron or Worldcom book cooking contest....us and we are the shareholders of this fund and the board of directors have failed.... angryfire.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bandit.gif

WOW...... I don't know why I am acting shocked....... angryfire.gif

Thanks for the update.... I had to read it twice to make sure I read it correctly.

Any of us would have already been handed our heads as well as being locked up.

********************

NOTE *** Nice to see a Glamis Issue in here again.... THANKS.

beer.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an e-mail conversation with Ed about this very subject today, among other things.

Ed explained to me that when he spoke to the reporter, his remark was in reference to the 53 pages of comments submitted by the Commission. The remark was not about the audit.

I assured Ed that I would relay his message.

At my suggestion he has written to the Sacramento Bee seeking a clarification of his position, for his sake and for the sake of the OHV community.

So far, not one of the OHV leaders I have spoken to has condoned the behavior uncovered in the audit. And more importantly, there is a concerted effort to have all OHV leaders join forces for this issue, no matter how far apart their ideoligies may otherwise be.

Vicki

Ed Waldheim is the president of CORVA, and I am a member.  And he thinks it is OK for the commision to spend the money the way they did?  I want to slap him across the face for approving dove hunting trips, chartered flights, land purchases that have nothing to do with OHV's, and plain old theft.  In my opinion there is no way to sugar coat these actions.  As a member of CORVA, I am outraged, I thought he was on our side.

For the record, I too am concerned about the alleged remark quoted in the press.

But, I don't think the OHV Commission (or Ed for that matter) approved trips and flights. These actions were likely OHV Division (not Commission) actions. As to the land purchases, I'd suggest doing some more research on the how and why's of the same.

I know Ed very well. I'd suggest a series of questions be posted to this forum and I'll send him a e-mail for his response.

1122748[/snapback]

Edited by SailAway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So far, not one of the OHV leaders I have spoken to has condoned the behavior uncovered in the audit.  And more importantly, there is a concerted effort to have all OHV leaders join forces for this issue, no matter how far apart their ideoligies may otherwise be.

Vicki

1124318[/snapback]

bandit.gif

Notworthy.gif Now, that's what I'm talking about........ icon_ninja.gif GET UM......... hunter.gif

ph34r.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So far, not one of the OHV leaders I have spoken to has condoned the behavior uncovered in the audit. And more importantly, there is a concerted effort to have all OHV leaders join forces for this issue, no matter how far apart their ideoligies may otherwise be.

thumb.gif

The off road community has an excellent opportunity with what is appearing to be a shift in the momentum towards it's needs and not those of the GAG's. Set a common goal, measure the results, and just simply aggree to disagree on those interest and concerns that differ between the orgs, and great things will be accomplished. icon_biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So far, not one of the OHV leaders I have spoken to has condoned the behavior uncovered in the audit. And more importantly, there is a concerted effort to have all OHV leaders join forces for this issue, no matter how far apart their ideoligies may otherwise be.

thumb.gif

The off road community has an excellent opportunity with what is appearing to be a shift in the momentum towards it's needs and not those of the GAG's. Set a common goal, measure the results, and just simply aggree to disagree on those interest and concerns that differ between the orgs, and great things will be accomplished. icon_biggrin.gif

1124356[/snapback]

I couldn't agree more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laborde Canyon in Riverside County........... does this sound like a good use of our money??

WOW, this will be a big drain on our dollars

Purchase price $27 million for 2,640 acres, sounds reasonable? Only 600-1200 you will be able to ride on. Why?

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (conservation plan), as part of an integrated project, to conserve species and their habitats.

Of the 2,640 acres, only 600 acres can be initially used for recreation. Moreover, the conservation plan requires the division to purchase and conserve 3,000 additional acres to mitigate the negative impacts of OHV recreation on the 600 acres. The proposed SVRA can be expanded to a total of 1,200 acres under the conservation plan, but the division will have to purchase and conserve 5 acres for each additional acre it adds to the park for OHV recreation. The conservation plan states that the remaining 1,440 acres of the Laborde Canyon property that the division receives may not be used for OHV recreation or count toward mitigation requirements.

The Commission approved of this. So for 600 acres of riding, it will cost up front $27 million ($45,000 an acre for riding). On top of that, the Trust is responsible for managing all the mitigated lands, which could exceed $250,00 a year.

We are getting screwed when it comes to Mitigation, Caltrans pays 3-1 as opposed to the OHV division of 5-1. Meaning for every acre we buy for OHV use, we must purchase 5 acres to cover environmental issues and buffer zones. Developers pay less than both us and Caltrans! Which is more permanent, a 8 lane highway or a motorcycle trail?

In addition to this, The OHV fund gave Riverside County $4.1 million for a new OHV park 25 years ago, guess what, still NO park! And Riverside County still has the money collecting interest? They could have given it to me, I would have been retired by now!

Seems to me that this OHV proposed park might be a money pit. It might make more sense to expand existing parks than create a new one that will have every environmental agency's hand in it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex, on face it would appear you concerns has some validity.

But Riverside County really, really, needs an OHV "park" to direct uses who often trespass on private lands. Further, the writing is on the wall regarding riding on one's own private property.

At $ 45,000 per acre - and considering that this amount seems reasonable, in light of rising property values.

There are many issues that need to be resolved (if possible) to placing an OHV facility in a somewhat urban setting within Riverside "metro". But I'd suggest spending some time on the phone with the OHV Division person who is the lead on this proposal and get the real story before forming an opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is appropriate because it interprets the law to mean vehicle use on any unpaved road in the state park system is eligible for OHV program funding Well, heck, then my interpretation that I can ride on this roads with my OHV, since they spent the OHV Funds on it, should uphold in court. Right?......yea, right tongue.gif

Been reading and researching since this article came out, but actually, it's nothing new, like the audit 30 years ago. Surprise? Not really.

Why do we have an OHV Division and a OHV Commission? Good question.

OHV Leaders...hmm, again, like Vicki said, there are many, many concerns about differences in idealogies and priorities, part of the reason why the unification has been, and continues to be so difficult. Perhaps if the smaller groups joned forces with the larger groups to repel the issues over California/Glamis; then the CBD and their evil brethern might get the word. After all, if this fight is won, then the lessons learned from the ugliest and longest fight in OHV history can be used every where else with devastating results against the green movement.

'Course, there is the questions of how we get the word out to the OHV community.

I for one have campaigned for years that part of the funds should be used to allow the OHV access groups the ability to reach out to those who register vehicles. Should be, and according to the many interpretations of California law; perfectly legal. Imagine if OHV users statewide recieved a survey about potential issues, useage of funds, and upcoming changes to OHV laws and landuse. Sure, maybe only 50% read (bet more than that do) and 35% respond; but that is better numbers than what we get now.

Say it can't be done? BS!

Look at what the utility and phone companies do; the re-finance companies get your name and address from public record, I can pay a small fee and look up the name, address and driving record of some cutie I see on the Hi-Way (look at the DMV website for that one). It's a matter of perserverance, will and desire.

Personnally, I feel that the various OHV Interest groups should joing forces, and present a unified front at the Sand Show, and other OHV-related events. And perhaps share the member-data bases for a common survey; perhaps thru a third party pledged to confidentialty? Hell, if the groups decided to join up and produce a mutually beneficial survey to mail out and collect data and inputs from; I'd gladly lose all my sleep to produce, mail out and compile data. Be no problem keeping the names/addresses from you all icon_biggrin.gif

These are my thoughts. I want to see this fight ramp up, and ramp up hard. I feel that we are about a month or so away from OHV users chasing after legislators and greenies with baseball bats, and I know we don't we don't want to see that happen.

I'm in for the fight!!!! boxing.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the best way to reach the OHV community is to have the OHV groups "partner" with the manufactures. Each purchase could come with a free year membership to OHV organizations that meet the criteria of the manufacture/importer.

Then, the organization's duty is to retain this member after the "free" membership expires.

Right now, I don't think that this community has enough of a unified approach to resolve our problems. And, as history has demonstrated, a "coalition" presenting such a unified vision to resolve an issue much be formed. This would be much like the "California Desert Coalition" that was formed to defeat Senator Alan Cranston's desert wilderness legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know Ed very well.  I'd suggest a series of questions be posted to this forum and I'll send him a e-mail for his response.

1122748[/snapback]

I have a question.

Has Ed or anyone close to ED ever benifited monitarily or materially from any of the land deals and/or money that's been spent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps the best way to reach the OHV community is to have the OHV groups "partner" with the manufactures.  Each purchase could come with a free year membership to OHV organizations that meet the criteria of the manufacture/importer.

Then, the organization's duty is to retain this member after the "free" membership expires.

Right now, I don't think that this community has enough of a unified approach to resolve our problems.  And, as history has demonstrated, a "coalition" presenting such a unified vision to resolve an issue much be formed.  This would be much like the "California Desert Coalition" that was formed to defeat Senator Alan Cranston's desert wilderness legislation.

1127384[/snapback]

Good idea...except for the manufacturer's preference as to what organziation they would get a membership to. Again, this is where issues arise about priorities.

Let see, if I was in San Diego:

ASA

DUNERS

CORVA

SDORC

Blue Ribbon Coalition

Tread Lightly......and so on.

Which one is right? which one is doing the job...we have many opinions. I for one don't support multiple trips to the house of reps if nothing is being done to get the word out to the people. Just my .02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alex, on face it would appear you concerns has some validity.

But Riverside County really, really, needs an OHV "park" to direct uses who often trespass on private lands.  Further, the writing is on the wall regarding riding on one's own private property. 

At $ 45,000 per acre - and considering that this amount seems reasonable, in light of rising property values.

There are many issues that need to be resolved (if possible) to placing an OHV facility in a somewhat urban setting within Riverside "metro".  But I'd suggest spending some time on the phone with the OHV Division person who is the lead on this proposal and get the real story before forming an opinion.

1127326[/snapback]

I agree on the issues that face Riverside County, I believe they are still trying to decide the fate of riding on private property. But 600-1200 acres isn't very big for riding. This isn't going to be much more than some tracks. I grew up racing and riding at Indian Dunes (and that was small), do you perceive this to be roughly similiar in size and terrian?

$27 million to purchase, $250,000 a year just to manage the mitigated lands that we can't use, and who knows how much to operate and maintain the SVRA itself?

600 acres of land is going to see a lot of use, thus be a flat wasteland in no time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The proposed SVRA can be expanded to a total of 1,200 acres under the conservation plan, but the division will have to purchase and conserve 5 acres for each additional acre it adds to the park for OHV recreation.

Let me clarify, $27 million for 600 acres of riding. It could cost another $27 million to expand that to 1200 acres, that is the way I read it. So why are we getting hosed when it comes to mitigation (5-1 ratio). No other type of development pays that much in mitigation, so off-roaders are paying for conservation areas, that is the way I see it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a candidate that the offroad community can support and endorse. We also need to write and gather signatures for initiatives that will further our cause. Of course this is easier said than done. If there was an initiative at the ssss to make it manditory to use ohv funds for the actual offroad commuity I would sign it and collect signatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^Right on!.....note that the current trend in economic developments will cause a good drop in attendance at both SSSS and the OHV areas....if this continues, then the drop in revenue to the OHV Commission will make us another target for changes in the way funds are collected...i.e. increased user/registration fees to offset drop in fees/fuel taxes collected. Just a forethought on what may be coming up.

Edited by Desertdogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I did recieve a response from the Governator. Just a bunch of warm sunshine being blown up the wazzo written by some staffer.

Read on....

Thank you for emailing and sharing your views.

California was built by the ingenuity and hard work of people who had the

courage to put pen to paper and ideas into action.  Our great State continues to

thrive because of the involvement and commitment of its people. 

As your Governor, I greatly appreciate receiving input from my constituents. 

Taking the time to communicate your opinions and offer suggestions is essential

to good government.  Your concern shows that California's people are engaged in

the issues that affect the well-being of our State.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Here's an idea, how about a little less "blah, blah, blah" and a lot more "Git-R-Done"! popcorn.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Preview Post
Sign in to follow this  

More Links

©2001 GlamisDunes.com.
All rights reserved.

×
×
  • Create New...