The editorial states:
“FOR TOO LONG and to ill effect, the Davis City Council has gone behind closed doors to bargain with the city’s employees. The agreements produced in these sessions have not served the fiscal health of the city. Our council must end this practice and negotiate on behalf of the public in front of the public.
The people who are paying the bills have a right to not only know how much a labor contract will cost them, but the people should be permitted to express their views on each deal before it is a fait accompli.
Most of the budget of the city of Davis goes to its workers. By concealing themselves in locked rooms with labor negotiators, the members of the council don’t get the input from citizens they need to make fully informed decisions on the most financially important decisions of the city.
To date, this lack of input and oversight has been costly.”
The Enterprise then questions the practice of using recent labor agreements from other nearby communities as benchmarks to help determine Davis’ wages and benefits in an effort to remain competitive.
As the Enterprise writes:
“Unfortunately, some of our neighbors have been overly generous and, like lemmings, we have followed them over the cliff’s edge.”
From the city’s perspective, here is Finance Director Paul Navazio’s staff report from October 14, 2008 that he offered at the budget workshop.
“First, the City Council has expressed a desire for a more transparent process leading up to formal negotiations with each of the City’s employee bargaining groups. To that end, the presentation will review organizational goals related to employee compensation, summarize the various elements that comprise the city’s compensation package, and discuss the role of comparative market studies in establishing appropriate levels of compensation.
In addition, the City – as well as most other public agencies – has come under heightened scrutiny over the level of compensation paid to employees. Over the past year, selected elements of City personnel costs have been the subject of numerous news articles and editorials. Moreover, the City continues to receive an increased number of formal public records act requests from various entities, ranging from main-stream news organizations, governmental watch-dog organizations, as well as private citizens. As a result, staff believes that much of the information being presented to the general public fails to provide a complete (and sometimes accurate) picture of the City’s compensation structure, and is rarely provided within the context in which the City tackles important policy questions related to employee salaries and benefits.
It is important that the City provide a competitive compensation package in order to recruit and retain qualified city employees, while managing overall personnel costs. At the same time, it is equally important that the public have a clear understanding of the City’s overall compensation structure, and the process by which the City determines appropriate compensation levels.”
As the Enterprise makes clear, one of the key failing of this policy, is that if one city goes over a cliff fiscally, it takes all city’s over the cliff with them. On the news just last night was the prospect of four major area cities including Sacramento facing possible severe fiscal crisis and possibly bankruptcy.
As they write:
“THAT IS HOW DAVIS ended up with unfunded retiree medical benefits, extremely early retirements and spectacularly expensive pension plans. The other cities gave them to their workers, so we did, too. No one on the outside was paying attention, because no one in the public was allowed to participate in the process.
A cop or firefighter who retires from the city at age 50 takes home up to 90 percent of his final salary plus cost-of-living increases for the rest of his life. If he’s married and has a child age 22 or younger, the taxpayers of Davis continue to pay his full medical and dental insurance, now $15,860 a year. Even without the current economic downturn, there is no way the city can afford these lavish promises. “
While we appreciate that the Enterprise has come around on this issue calling for full transparency and a public process, we would be remiss if we did not point out that the Enterprise endorsed those candidates last election who promised to continue more of the same. They endorsed the three candidates also supported by the Davis Firefighter Association who have pledged to continue this unsustainable fiscal practice. And they opposed the member of the council, namely Sue Greenwald, who has been fighting for changes to this policy for five years.
The key question is how we get out of this mess.
The Vanguard joins our Davis Enterprise counterparts in the call for transparency:
“The council needs to invite the public into the process and prove to us in the full glare of the sunlight that the salaries and benefits we promise city employees won’t drive Davis into insolvency.”
But transparency alone is not enough.
The Vanguard offers three additional suggestions.
First, a freeze on pay increases other than normal step and column increases that have been negotiated into the collective bargaining agreement.
Second, the City Council and Finance Director Paul Navazio need to get innovative. We cannot realistically cut salaries, but what we can do is look for creative ways to scale back and rollback other benefits, particularly retirement benefits to those employees who are due to get 3% at 50 or 2.5% at 55.
Third, the Davis Enterprise is right, we need to stop basing our labor negotiations on the standard practice of surveying “recent labor agreements in nearby communities to determine what wages and benefits.” That practice simply drives all cities into fiscal crisis. This is the heart of the problem from the Vanguard’s perspective. On a regional basis, all cities are hurting. The city is engaging in a hiring freeze right now as it is, so recruitment is not the most pressing issue, fiscal responsibility is.
Even if we were hiring, would fiscal conservatism harm us in recruitment efforts? We know for example when a fire fighter position opens up, there are hundreds of qualified applicants, that clearly suggests we can slow down the rate of growth in salaries and still get good prospects. Police are more problematic, although there is a suggestion that this is a professional issue as opposed to a local issue. Regardless, one suggestion would be to examine our ability to hire field by field and make determinations of salaries and compensation on a field-by-field basis.
The one good thing is that not only are we not alone, but we are probably better off than some other localities. We will talk more about this later however because things are catching up with the latest fiscal reports suggesting an increasing deficit in Davis as well.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“First, a freeze on pay increases other than normal step and column increases that have been negotiated into the collective bargaining agreement.”
What “step and column increases” are you talking about? To my knowledge, the increases in salaries in the existing MOUs have no effect on the 6 forthcoming contracts. As such, the city council can freeze (or even reduce) the pay levels of any of its employees, per the new contract agreements.
For what it’s worth, if you read my column in tomorrow’s Enterprise, I have a few suggestions for how the council can save a lot of money in the coming contracts with regard to its near-term and long-term pension costs. Although these ideas are subject to collective bargaining, I think they are so important (and reasonable) that if the council doesn’t push for them, they will be derelict in duty.
“First, a freeze on pay increases other than normal step and column increases that have been negotiated into the collective bargaining agreement.”
What “step and column increases” are you talking about? To my knowledge, the increases in salaries in the existing MOUs have no effect on the 6 forthcoming contracts. As such, the city council can freeze (or even reduce) the pay levels of any of its employees, per the new contract agreements.
For what it’s worth, if you read my column in tomorrow’s Enterprise, I have a few suggestions for how the council can save a lot of money in the coming contracts with regard to its near-term and long-term pension costs. Although these ideas are subject to collective bargaining, I think they are so important (and reasonable) that if the council doesn’t push for them, they will be derelict in duty.
“First, a freeze on pay increases other than normal step and column increases that have been negotiated into the collective bargaining agreement.”
What “step and column increases” are you talking about? To my knowledge, the increases in salaries in the existing MOUs have no effect on the 6 forthcoming contracts. As such, the city council can freeze (or even reduce) the pay levels of any of its employees, per the new contract agreements.
For what it’s worth, if you read my column in tomorrow’s Enterprise, I have a few suggestions for how the council can save a lot of money in the coming contracts with regard to its near-term and long-term pension costs. Although these ideas are subject to collective bargaining, I think they are so important (and reasonable) that if the council doesn’t push for them, they will be derelict in duty.
“First, a freeze on pay increases other than normal step and column increases that have been negotiated into the collective bargaining agreement.”
What “step and column increases” are you talking about? To my knowledge, the increases in salaries in the existing MOUs have no effect on the 6 forthcoming contracts. As such, the city council can freeze (or even reduce) the pay levels of any of its employees, per the new contract agreements.
For what it’s worth, if you read my column in tomorrow’s Enterprise, I have a few suggestions for how the council can save a lot of money in the coming contracts with regard to its near-term and long-term pension costs. Although these ideas are subject to collective bargaining, I think they are so important (and reasonable) that if the council doesn’t push for them, they will be derelict in duty.
Rich:
When Navazio presented the city financial data, I believe the graphs show various categories of job designations. For instance the differentiation between Firefighter I and Firefighter II.
Rich:
When Navazio presented the city financial data, I believe the graphs show various categories of job designations. For instance the differentiation between Firefighter I and Firefighter II.
Rich:
When Navazio presented the city financial data, I believe the graphs show various categories of job designations. For instance the differentiation between Firefighter I and Firefighter II.
Rich:
When Navazio presented the city financial data, I believe the graphs show various categories of job designations. For instance the differentiation between Firefighter I and Firefighter II.
I see what you’re saying. You mean if someone is promoted from one level or job to another, then that person deserves the higher salary at the new job level. I agree with that.
Also, upon reflection, I am sure there will be some increases in salary in 2009 based on the terms of the current contracts.
For example, all Davis police officers (save a few higher ups*) will get a 5 percent increase in pay next year, beginning July 1. That comes on top of the 6% increase in salary the cops got this year. As well, the dispatchers are getting a 3% salary increase in July.
* The city has a different agreement with the lieutenants. If I am reading their contract correctly, they are getting a 10% increase in pay in July! And that comes on top of a 12% increase in pay they got this year! And that follows a 12% increase they got last year, a 12% increase they got the year before, and a 9% increase the year before that! If you compound that, beginning in 05/06 to 09/10 the lieutenants increased their salary by 68%! (Please note: this contract is written different than the others and I am frankly not sure if I am reading the increases in pay correctly. I hope I’m wrong.)
I see what you’re saying. You mean if someone is promoted from one level or job to another, then that person deserves the higher salary at the new job level. I agree with that.
Also, upon reflection, I am sure there will be some increases in salary in 2009 based on the terms of the current contracts.
For example, all Davis police officers (save a few higher ups*) will get a 5 percent increase in pay next year, beginning July 1. That comes on top of the 6% increase in salary the cops got this year. As well, the dispatchers are getting a 3% salary increase in July.
* The city has a different agreement with the lieutenants. If I am reading their contract correctly, they are getting a 10% increase in pay in July! And that comes on top of a 12% increase in pay they got this year! And that follows a 12% increase they got last year, a 12% increase they got the year before, and a 9% increase the year before that! If you compound that, beginning in 05/06 to 09/10 the lieutenants increased their salary by 68%! (Please note: this contract is written different than the others and I am frankly not sure if I am reading the increases in pay correctly. I hope I’m wrong.)
I see what you’re saying. You mean if someone is promoted from one level or job to another, then that person deserves the higher salary at the new job level. I agree with that.
Also, upon reflection, I am sure there will be some increases in salary in 2009 based on the terms of the current contracts.
For example, all Davis police officers (save a few higher ups*) will get a 5 percent increase in pay next year, beginning July 1. That comes on top of the 6% increase in salary the cops got this year. As well, the dispatchers are getting a 3% salary increase in July.
* The city has a different agreement with the lieutenants. If I am reading their contract correctly, they are getting a 10% increase in pay in July! And that comes on top of a 12% increase in pay they got this year! And that follows a 12% increase they got last year, a 12% increase they got the year before, and a 9% increase the year before that! If you compound that, beginning in 05/06 to 09/10 the lieutenants increased their salary by 68%! (Please note: this contract is written different than the others and I am frankly not sure if I am reading the increases in pay correctly. I hope I’m wrong.)
I see what you’re saying. You mean if someone is promoted from one level or job to another, then that person deserves the higher salary at the new job level. I agree with that.
Also, upon reflection, I am sure there will be some increases in salary in 2009 based on the terms of the current contracts.
For example, all Davis police officers (save a few higher ups*) will get a 5 percent increase in pay next year, beginning July 1. That comes on top of the 6% increase in salary the cops got this year. As well, the dispatchers are getting a 3% salary increase in July.
* The city has a different agreement with the lieutenants. If I am reading their contract correctly, they are getting a 10% increase in pay in July! And that comes on top of a 12% increase in pay they got this year! And that follows a 12% increase they got last year, a 12% increase they got the year before, and a 9% increase the year before that! If you compound that, beginning in 05/06 to 09/10 the lieutenants increased their salary by 68%! (Please note: this contract is written different than the others and I am frankly not sure if I am reading the increases in pay correctly. I hope I’m wrong.)
Whatever happened to facts first , then put pen to paper.
Clark Kent and Lois Lane you two aren;t .
Please go back to journalism school and this time pay attention.
Whatever happened to facts first , then put pen to paper.
Clark Kent and Lois Lane you two aren;t .
Please go back to journalism school and this time pay attention.
Whatever happened to facts first , then put pen to paper.
Clark Kent and Lois Lane you two aren;t .
Please go back to journalism school and this time pay attention.
Whatever happened to facts first , then put pen to paper.
Clark Kent and Lois Lane you two aren;t .
Please go back to journalism school and this time pay attention.
What are you referring to?
What are you referring to?
What are you referring to?
What are you referring to?
Of all the city employee associations none have pushed the grossly generous pay & benefits envelope more than the fire department union followed by the police and management bargaining units. These folks symbolize the greed that has pervaded our city government, which past city councils have capitulated to by approving their excessive pay packages. These irresponsible actions are driving our City’s fiscal health to utter catastrophe.
In particular, Davis firefighters led by their longtime union president Bobby Weist have taken the city to the cleaners using their chuck wagon political skills. They know how to cook and they know how to eat at the taxpayer’s trough.
Of all the city employee associations none have pushed the grossly generous pay & benefits envelope more than the fire department union followed by the police and management bargaining units. These folks symbolize the greed that has pervaded our city government, which past city councils have capitulated to by approving their excessive pay packages. These irresponsible actions are driving our City’s fiscal health to utter catastrophe.
In particular, Davis firefighters led by their longtime union president Bobby Weist have taken the city to the cleaners using their chuck wagon political skills. They know how to cook and they know how to eat at the taxpayer’s trough.
Of all the city employee associations none have pushed the grossly generous pay & benefits envelope more than the fire department union followed by the police and management bargaining units. These folks symbolize the greed that has pervaded our city government, which past city councils have capitulated to by approving their excessive pay packages. These irresponsible actions are driving our City’s fiscal health to utter catastrophe.
In particular, Davis firefighters led by their longtime union president Bobby Weist have taken the city to the cleaners using their chuck wagon political skills. They know how to cook and they know how to eat at the taxpayer’s trough.
Of all the city employee associations none have pushed the grossly generous pay & benefits envelope more than the fire department union followed by the police and management bargaining units. These folks symbolize the greed that has pervaded our city government, which past city councils have capitulated to by approving their excessive pay packages. These irresponsible actions are driving our City’s fiscal health to utter catastrophe.
In particular, Davis firefighters led by their longtime union president Bobby Weist have taken the city to the cleaners using their chuck wagon political skills. They know how to cook and they know how to eat at the taxpayer’s trough.
Please go back to journalism school and this time pay attention.
This is probably in reference to what I wrote here:
“If I am reading their contract correctly, they are getting a 10% increase in pay in July! And that comes on top of a 12% increase in pay they got this year! And that follows a 12% increase they got last year, a 12% increase they got the year before, and a 9% increase the year before that! If you compound that, beginning in 05/06 to 09/10 the lieutenants increased their salary by 68%!”
If so, your criticism of me is fair. I looked closer at the contract and see I read it incorrectly. You would see it is written differently from the others, if you look at this contract.
What the city does — and makes no mathematical or economic sense — is it divides its pay increases in contracts into two parts: COLA and “market adjustments.” For example, the COLA for next year is 2% and the market adjustment is 3%. As such, the increase in pay will be 5%. It would be exactly the same if they arbitrarily made the COLA 4% and the market adjustment 1% or vice versa. I suspect the division of the increase is to make it appear like the city is being more frugal than it really is.
What tripped me up in reading the police lieutenants’ contract is there is a 3rd line under market adjustments (which doesn’t exist in the other contracts). I mistakenly added that to the market adjustment and COLA. However, that was dumb. The third line is simply the addition of the first two. As such, the increase this July will be 5%, not 10%.
The 68% calculation I made (based on my misread) is really 32.56%.
Please go back to journalism school and this time pay attention.
This is probably in reference to what I wrote here:
“If I am reading their contract correctly, they are getting a 10% increase in pay in July! And that comes on top of a 12% increase in pay they got this year! And that follows a 12% increase they got last year, a 12% increase they got the year before, and a 9% increase the year before that! If you compound that, beginning in 05/06 to 09/10 the lieutenants increased their salary by 68%!”
If so, your criticism of me is fair. I looked closer at the contract and see I read it incorrectly. You would see it is written differently from the others, if you look at this contract.
What the city does — and makes no mathematical or economic sense — is it divides its pay increases in contracts into two parts: COLA and “market adjustments.” For example, the COLA for next year is 2% and the market adjustment is 3%. As such, the increase in pay will be 5%. It would be exactly the same if they arbitrarily made the COLA 4% and the market adjustment 1% or vice versa. I suspect the division of the increase is to make it appear like the city is being more frugal than it really is.
What tripped me up in reading the police lieutenants’ contract is there is a 3rd line under market adjustments (which doesn’t exist in the other contracts). I mistakenly added that to the market adjustment and COLA. However, that was dumb. The third line is simply the addition of the first two. As such, the increase this July will be 5%, not 10%.
The 68% calculation I made (based on my misread) is really 32.56%.
Please go back to journalism school and this time pay attention.
This is probably in reference to what I wrote here:
“If I am reading their contract correctly, they are getting a 10% increase in pay in July! And that comes on top of a 12% increase in pay they got this year! And that follows a 12% increase they got last year, a 12% increase they got the year before, and a 9% increase the year before that! If you compound that, beginning in 05/06 to 09/10 the lieutenants increased their salary by 68%!”
If so, your criticism of me is fair. I looked closer at the contract and see I read it incorrectly. You would see it is written differently from the others, if you look at this contract.
What the city does — and makes no mathematical or economic sense — is it divides its pay increases in contracts into two parts: COLA and “market adjustments.” For example, the COLA for next year is 2% and the market adjustment is 3%. As such, the increase in pay will be 5%. It would be exactly the same if they arbitrarily made the COLA 4% and the market adjustment 1% or vice versa. I suspect the division of the increase is to make it appear like the city is being more frugal than it really is.
What tripped me up in reading the police lieutenants’ contract is there is a 3rd line under market adjustments (which doesn’t exist in the other contracts). I mistakenly added that to the market adjustment and COLA. However, that was dumb. The third line is simply the addition of the first two. As such, the increase this July will be 5%, not 10%.
The 68% calculation I made (based on my misread) is really 32.56%.
Please go back to journalism school and this time pay attention.
This is probably in reference to what I wrote here:
“If I am reading their contract correctly, they are getting a 10% increase in pay in July! And that comes on top of a 12% increase in pay they got this year! And that follows a 12% increase they got last year, a 12% increase they got the year before, and a 9% increase the year before that! If you compound that, beginning in 05/06 to 09/10 the lieutenants increased their salary by 68%!”
If so, your criticism of me is fair. I looked closer at the contract and see I read it incorrectly. You would see it is written differently from the others, if you look at this contract.
What the city does — and makes no mathematical or economic sense — is it divides its pay increases in contracts into two parts: COLA and “market adjustments.” For example, the COLA for next year is 2% and the market adjustment is 3%. As such, the increase in pay will be 5%. It would be exactly the same if they arbitrarily made the COLA 4% and the market adjustment 1% or vice versa. I suspect the division of the increase is to make it appear like the city is being more frugal than it really is.
What tripped me up in reading the police lieutenants’ contract is there is a 3rd line under market adjustments (which doesn’t exist in the other contracts). I mistakenly added that to the market adjustment and COLA. However, that was dumb. The third line is simply the addition of the first two. As such, the increase this July will be 5%, not 10%.
The 68% calculation I made (based on my misread) is really 32.56%.
Rich:
Mistakes happen. But the commenter lumped us together, so obviously I must have done something as well.
Rich:
Mistakes happen. But the commenter lumped us together, so obviously I must have done something as well.
Rich:
Mistakes happen. But the commenter lumped us together, so obviously I must have done something as well.
Rich:
Mistakes happen. But the commenter lumped us together, so obviously I must have done something as well.
I have said this before, and I’ll say it again. The city placed pension and health benefits, as well as road repairs into the “unmet needs” category, then pronounced the budget balanced. Members of the City Council, namely Saylor, Souza, claimed a balanced budget just before their run for re-election. Both are rotten to the core…
What we have is a City Finance Director who sees nothing wrong with creative bookkeeping. Cooking the books is no way to run a city! Another bad apple, rotten to the core…
I have said this before, and I’ll say it again. The city placed pension and health benefits, as well as road repairs into the “unmet needs” category, then pronounced the budget balanced. Members of the City Council, namely Saylor, Souza, claimed a balanced budget just before their run for re-election. Both are rotten to the core…
What we have is a City Finance Director who sees nothing wrong with creative bookkeeping. Cooking the books is no way to run a city! Another bad apple, rotten to the core…
I have said this before, and I’ll say it again. The city placed pension and health benefits, as well as road repairs into the “unmet needs” category, then pronounced the budget balanced. Members of the City Council, namely Saylor, Souza, claimed a balanced budget just before their run for re-election. Both are rotten to the core…
What we have is a City Finance Director who sees nothing wrong with creative bookkeeping. Cooking the books is no way to run a city! Another bad apple, rotten to the core…
I have said this before, and I’ll say it again. The city placed pension and health benefits, as well as road repairs into the “unmet needs” category, then pronounced the budget balanced. Members of the City Council, namely Saylor, Souza, claimed a balanced budget just before their run for re-election. Both are rotten to the core…
What we have is a City Finance Director who sees nothing wrong with creative bookkeeping. Cooking the books is no way to run a city! Another bad apple, rotten to the core…
Tired of Rotten Apples,
Don’t forget about the ROTTEN to the core Mayor Pro Tem we now are stuck with: Saylor. He along with Souza kept touting a “balanced budget,” and the Vanguard along with Rich Rifkin were touting otherwise.
Thank you David and Rich for keeping the public current on our council’s “spending habits.”
Tired of Rotten Apples,
Don’t forget about the ROTTEN to the core Mayor Pro Tem we now are stuck with: Saylor. He along with Souza kept touting a “balanced budget,” and the Vanguard along with Rich Rifkin were touting otherwise.
Thank you David and Rich for keeping the public current on our council’s “spending habits.”
Tired of Rotten Apples,
Don’t forget about the ROTTEN to the core Mayor Pro Tem we now are stuck with: Saylor. He along with Souza kept touting a “balanced budget,” and the Vanguard along with Rich Rifkin were touting otherwise.
Thank you David and Rich for keeping the public current on our council’s “spending habits.”
Tired of Rotten Apples,
Don’t forget about the ROTTEN to the core Mayor Pro Tem we now are stuck with: Saylor. He along with Souza kept touting a “balanced budget,” and the Vanguard along with Rich Rifkin were touting otherwise.
Thank you David and Rich for keeping the public current on our council’s “spending habits.”
Um, hypothetically, say you are a person who is maybe thinking of running for city council yourself in 2010… would negative campaigning against certain city council members work? Not “negative” as in personal attacks – but just pointing out the record.
Um, hypothetically, say you are a person who is maybe thinking of running for city council yourself in 2010… would negative campaigning against certain city council members work? Not “negative” as in personal attacks – but just pointing out the record.
Um, hypothetically, say you are a person who is maybe thinking of running for city council yourself in 2010… would negative campaigning against certain city council members work? Not “negative” as in personal attacks – but just pointing out the record.
Um, hypothetically, say you are a person who is maybe thinking of running for city council yourself in 2010… would negative campaigning against certain city council members work? Not “negative” as in personal attacks – but just pointing out the record.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year !!!!!!!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year !!!!!!!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year !!!!!!!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year !!!!!!!
don’t be surprised to see the Enterprise make more principled stances. as their revenue declines, they need to start being less boring, and more interesting, i.e. their duty as journalists. the Enterprise has become so predictable in just about every position and every angle they take in every story that you really don’t need to subscribe to know what is in there. so, probably time to assert themselves a bit more, mix it up and start listening to what people (read: subscribers) in Davis are actually saying.
don’t be surprised to see the Enterprise make more principled stances. as their revenue declines, they need to start being less boring, and more interesting, i.e. their duty as journalists. the Enterprise has become so predictable in just about every position and every angle they take in every story that you really don’t need to subscribe to know what is in there. so, probably time to assert themselves a bit more, mix it up and start listening to what people (read: subscribers) in Davis are actually saying.
don’t be surprised to see the Enterprise make more principled stances. as their revenue declines, they need to start being less boring, and more interesting, i.e. their duty as journalists. the Enterprise has become so predictable in just about every position and every angle they take in every story that you really don’t need to subscribe to know what is in there. so, probably time to assert themselves a bit more, mix it up and start listening to what people (read: subscribers) in Davis are actually saying.
don’t be surprised to see the Enterprise make more principled stances. as their revenue declines, they need to start being less boring, and more interesting, i.e. their duty as journalists. the Enterprise has become so predictable in just about every position and every angle they take in every story that you really don’t need to subscribe to know what is in there. so, probably time to assert themselves a bit more, mix it up and start listening to what people (read: subscribers) in Davis are actually saying.
He’s a Jew – Happy Hanukkah!
He’s a Jew – Happy Hanukkah!
He’s a Jew – Happy Hanukkah!
He’s a Jew – Happy Hanukkah!