Forest Park Forums Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > General Discussion > Main Discussion Board
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 2x2
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

2x2

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
Message
logic View Drop Down
Local Authority
Local Authority


Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5290
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote logic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: 2x2
    Posted: 01/September/2007 at 1:18pm

Didn't watch the whole VC meeting on cable last night, just caught bits/pieces. No longer a big no-no in accordance with the Open Meetings Act, 2 of our VC members can meet to discuss public business. A 3 member meeting is not OK, would constitute a majority VC. What do you think of this? business or monkey business? Could keep the discussions going indefinitely by changing partners.

There was also discussion on signage stating strict enforcement of the speed limit (but only during school hrs?) on Roosevelt Rd, IDOT codes, empty police car, empty with lights, etc....listening to the contributors of that discussion really left me scratching my head. Huh?
Back to Top
piehead View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 11750
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote piehead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01/September/2007 at 1:37pm
Originally posted by logic logic wrote:

There was also discussion on signage stating strict enforcement of the speed limit (but only during school hrs?) on Roosevelt Rd,

 
And are they really going to enforce it or just put a sign stating they will
Back to Top
citizen View Drop Down
Local Authority
Local Authority
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 9659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote citizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01/September/2007 at 2:20pm
logic, re: open meetings - did the council say there was a change in illinois law? or some new case law?
 
lisa madigan's web site says the last amendments were made in january 2004.
 
fyi...
"The intent of the Illinois Open Meetings Act is to ensure that public business is conducted in public view by prohibiting secret deliberations and actions on matters that should be discussed in a public forum."
Back to Top
logic View Drop Down
Local Authority
Local Authority


Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5290
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote logic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01/September/2007 at 2:37pm

It was during Mr Sturino's comments, something was said about a change regarding 2 VC members meeting to discuss public business as it relates to the Open Mettings Act.   Then a comment believe from the Mayor, "if you see 2 VC members talking to each other...." (not verbatim). Don't believe it was a change in the law.  Sorry, I can't remember more, minutes will be available, the session was taped. Maybe one of our posters can be more specific.

Back to Top
MikeCurry View Drop Down
Resident
Resident


Joined: 31/October/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 107
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MikeCurry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06/September/2007 at 11:12am
Public Act 095-0245...
Back to Top
logic View Drop Down
Local Authority
Local Authority


Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5290
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote logic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06/September/2007 at 11:32am
Where can we find the text ^?

Edited by logic - 06/September/2007 at 11:33am
Back to Top
watcher View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Active here since 2001

Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 6284
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote watcher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06/September/2007 at 5:08pm
Originally posted by logic logic wrote:

Where can we find the text ^?


text of provisions

Basically it allows "attending" meetings by phone or other electronic means, but only if a quorum is physically present.
"It is a wreave belief that we already are in Hell."- Tuluk in Frank Herbert's "Whipping Star"
Back to Top
citizen View Drop Down
Local Authority
Local Authority
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 9659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote citizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07/September/2007 at 9:22am
Originally posted by watcher watcher wrote:

Originally posted by logic logic wrote:

Where can we find the text ^?


text of provisions

Basically it allows "attending" meetings by phone or other electronic means, but only if a quorum is physically present.
 
 
mike, would you take a minute to explain the vc discussion on this amendment (1/07). was it brought up for informational purposes? or was there larger discussion?
thanks in advance.
Back to Top
KPO'M View Drop Down
Local Authority
Local Authority


Joined: 04/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 3031
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote KPO'M Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/September/2007 at 9:27am
Originally posted by logic logic wrote:

Didn't watch the whole VC meeting on cable last night, just caught bits/pieces. No longer a big no-no in accordance with the Open Meetings Act, 2 of our VC members can meet to discuss public business. A 3 member meeting is not OK, would constitute a majority VC. What do you think of this? business or monkey business? Could keep the discussions going indefinitely by changing partners.



We seem to have been side-tracked a bit.  Can we discuss this further?  2 VC members constitutes 40% of the village council.  It does seem that relaxing the Open Meetings Act in this regard could lead to more back-room deals and it isn't something I'm enthusiastic about.

That said, if we've now established that it's OK legally, and there's little we can do to stop the mayor from meeting frequently with another VC member to discuss official business, then perhaps we could and should use this to attempt to get a real opposition going.  If Marty still reads these boards, consider it open season.
Back to Top
logic View Drop Down
Local Authority
Local Authority


Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5290
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote logic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/September/2007 at 9:50am

A previous VC took some heat when a majority met over a meal at a local restaurant some yrs back. They were insistent no public business was discussed. Do any of us really believe discussions are limited to open/closed sessions with so many ways to communicate other than face-to-face?

Back to Top
citizen View Drop Down
Local Authority
Local Authority
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 9659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote citizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/September/2007 at 10:48am
hmm. the link curry posted doesn't indicate that 2 officials can meet & discuss business. does it?
 
so, what exactly was discussed at the vc meeting? anyone watch tv last night? or any commissioner want to fill us in on the discussion?
Back to Top
logic View Drop Down
Local Authority
Local Authority


Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5290
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote logic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/September/2007 at 11:26am
Originally posted by citizen citizen wrote:

hmm. the link curry posted doesn't indicate that 2 officials can meet & discuss business. does it?
It was unclear to me also, but that's the way it's being interpreted.
Back to Top
KPO'M View Drop Down
Local Authority
Local Authority


Joined: 04/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 3031
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote KPO'M Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/September/2007 at 12:24pm
Originally posted by logic logic wrote:

Originally posted by citizen citizen wrote:

hmm. the link curry posted doesn't indicate that 2 officials can meet & discuss business. does it?
It was unclear to me also, but that's the way it's being interpreted.


It's a subtle change.  The underlined text is new.  Previously, any gathering of a majority of a quorum was a "meeting" subject to the act.  Now, for a body of 5, only a gathering of a quorum constitutes a "meeting."  Since 3 is a quorum, 2 is a majority of a quorum, and thus was prohibited by the earlier act.
Back to Top
citizen View Drop Down
Local Authority
Local Authority
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 9659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote citizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/September/2007 at 3:45pm
hmm. did 5 member boards feel discriminated against?
 
so on a 7 member board: 4 is a quorum, 3 is a majority of a quorum, so 2 members can meet w/o being a meeting? yes?
 
who do you suppose lobbied for this change? if anyone comes upon intelligble public debate on this issue, please post.
 
it looks like this was amended in january - why did it take this long to filter down?
Back to Top
Mr. D View Drop Down
Resident
Resident


Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1332
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mr. D Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/September/2007 at 5:03pm
Public Act 095-0245

HB1670 Enrolled     LRB095 03848 HLH 23879 b

    AN ACT concerning local government.

    Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
represented in the General Assembly:

    Section 3. The Open Meetings Act is amended by changing
Section 1.02 as follows:

    (5 ILCS 120/1.02) (from Ch. 102, par. 41.02)
    Sec. 1.02. For the purposes of this Act:
    "Meeting" means any gathering, whether in person or by
video or audio conference, telephone call, electronic means
(such as, without limitation, electronic mail, electronic
chat, and instant messaging), or other means of contemporaneous
interactive communication, of a majority of a quorum of the
members of a public body held for the purpose of discussing
public business or, for a 5-member public body, a quorum of the
members of a public body held for the purpose of discussing
public business.
    Accordingly, for a 5-member public body, 3 members of the
body constitute a quorum and the affirmative vote of 3 members
is necessary to adopt any motion, resolution, or ordinance,
unless a greater number is otherwise required.
    "Public body" includes all legislative, executive,
administrative or advisory bodies of the State, counties,
townships, cities, villages, incorporated towns, school
districts and all other municipal corporations, boards,
bureaus, committees or commissions of this State, and any
subsidiary bodies of any of the foregoing including but not
limited to committees and subcommittees which are supported in
whole or in part by tax revenue, or which expend tax revenue,
except the General Assembly and committees or commissions
thereof. "Public body" includes tourism boards and convention
or civic center boards located in counties that are contiguous
to the Mississippi River with populations of more than 250,000
but less than 300,000. "Public body" includes the Health
Facilities Planning Board. "Public body" does not include a
child death review team or the Illinois Child Death Review
Teams Executive Council established under the Child Death
Review Team Act or an ethics commission acting under the State
Officials and Employees Ethics Act.
(Source: P.A. 93-617, eff. 12-9-03; 94-1058, eff. 1-1-07.)

    Section 5. The Illinois Municipal Code is amended by
changing Section 3.1-10-15 as follows:

    (65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-15) (from Ch. 24, par. 3.1-10-15)
    Sec. 3.1-10-15. Commencement of terms. The terms of elected
municipal officers shall commence at the first regular or
special meeting of the corporate authorities after receipt of
the official election results from the county clerk during the
month of May following the proclamation of the results of the
regular municipal election at which the officers were elected,
except as otherwise provided by ordinance fixing the date for
inauguration of newly elected officers of a municipality. The
ordinance shall not, however, fix the time for inauguration of
newly elected officers later than the first regular or special
meeting of the corporate authorities in the month of June
following the election.
(Source: P.A. 93-847, eff. 7-30-04.)

    Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon
becoming law.


Effective Date: 8/17/2007
Back to Top
KPO'M View Drop Down
Local Authority
Local Authority


Joined: 04/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 3031
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote KPO'M Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09/September/2007 at 9:21pm
Originally posted by citizen citizen wrote:

hmm. did 5 member boards feel discriminated against?
 
so on a 7 member board: 4 is a quorum, 3 is a majority of a quorum, so 2 members can meet w/o being a meeting? yes?
 
who do you suppose lobbied for this change? if anyone comes upon intelligble public debate on this issue, please post.
 
it looks like this was amended in january - why did it take this long to filter down?


That's my understanding (i.e. on any board larger than 5, 2 members could have met privately to discuss business under the old law, so the change was made to accommodate smaller boards).  The commissioner form of government is pretty rare, and I don't know how many manager/trustee villages have boards of 5.  7-9 is usually seen as ideal in a trustee setup where the role is entirely oversight, as opposed to a commissioner setup, where the role is partly administrative as well as oversight.   Anyway, this would also apply to other governmental bodies, such as township boards, committees, and subcommittees, so perhaps a larger group lobbied for this change to facilitate back-room dealing.

A more charitable explanation for the change is that it is unrealistic to expect all planning and discussion regarding public policy to take place in public.  Larger legislative bodies, such as the state legislature, organize into caucuses for the purpose of internal discussion.  Needless to say that the recent state budget was decided in private discussions between Madigan and Jones outside the public eye.  A board of 5 was unable to have any sort of "caucus" or private discussion without risking violating the act, and thus the change accommodates this type of discussion.

Of course, since 2 of 5 is 40% of the village council, it does mean that now, quite a bit of public policy discussion can and will now take place behind closed doors, particularly when the mayor has not two, but three allies on the village council.  Perhaps something to consider is whether it would be wise to expand the size of the village council to 7 as a check on the power of any 2 commissioners.

As for why it took so long to filter down, my guess is that no one mentioned it until it became effective.
Back to Top
Mr. Deeds View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 3656
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mr. Deeds Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10/September/2007 at 12:01am
Did Marty reveal that he's not an ally, or is that something we're just supposed to assume?

Those who can make you believe absurdities have the power to make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire~
Back to Top
KPO'M View Drop Down
Local Authority
Local Authority


Joined: 04/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 3031
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote KPO'M Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10/September/2007 at 11:15pm
Originally posted by administrator administrator wrote:

Did Marty reveal that he's not an ally, or is that something we're just supposed to assume?



It's more of an assumption, based on the 4-1 votes.  Rumor also has it that certain members of the village council are more likely to be seen at functions with the mayor than others.
Back to Top
MikeCurry View Drop Down
Resident
Resident


Joined: 31/October/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 107
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MikeCurry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/September/2007 at 5:55pm
KPOM,
 
What 4 - 1 votes are you talking about?  I can not think of any 4 - 1 votes since we took office.  However, the first 3 - 2 vote was Marty and the Mayor voting together...
 
Thanks,
 
Mike
Back to Top
MikeCurry View Drop Down
Resident
Resident


Joined: 31/October/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 107
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MikeCurry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/September/2007 at 6:13pm

Citizen,

 

Hi. 

 

Prior to the revised rule, the Open Meeting Act defined a "Meeting" as a majority of a quorum gathering to discuss public (Village) business.  Therefore, the Act must be followed and proper notice must be given per the Act.   In Forest Park this prevented any elected official from talking to other elected officials about Village business.  (i.e. I could not talk to Marty about certain Zoning issues). 

 

Under the revised rule when 2 people (on a Board of 5) discuss Village business a "Meeting" has not occurred.  Accordingly, the requirements of the Open Meeting Act do not need to be followed.  (i.e., I can now talk to Marty about Zoning issues).

 

Thanks,

 

Mike 

 

Back to Top
citizen View Drop Down
Local Authority
Local Authority
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 9659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote citizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/September/2007 at 6:22pm
thanks, mike.
so, how does the vc feel about this? how will it make your work more efficient, or better serve your constituents?
i'm sure you know the concern will be that decisions will be made w/out public discussion. 40% of the board is significant. does the vc have a statement to make (or did it) to reassure the residents?
thanks in advance..
Back to Top
KPO'M View Drop Down
Local Authority
Local Authority


Joined: 04/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 3031
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote KPO'M Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/September/2007 at 1:12am
Originally posted by MikeCurry MikeCurry wrote:

KPOM,
 
What 4 - 1 votes are you talking about?  I can not think of any 4 - 1 votes since we took office.  However, the first 3 - 2 vote was Marty and the Mayor voting together...
 
Thanks,
 
Mike


I'll look back, but I recall the liquor license vote being 4-1, along with some other votes in the May-June timeframe.  I also think Roos wound up as a 4-1 vote, with Marty casting the lone dissenting vote.

http://www.forestpark.net/pdf/Minutes/Minutes%202007/minutes061107.pdf

I did notice the 3-2 vote with the mayor in the minority (on the PMSA issue).  Of course, the very next vote was a 4-1.

http://www.forestpark.net/pdf/Minutes/Minutes%202007/062507minutes.pdf

I recognize that, even in the past administration, most votes were 5-0, given the perfunctory nature of most of what a village council does.  That said, I do grant there does seem to be a bit less infighting on the current village council.






Edited by KPO'M - 12/September/2007 at 1:41am
Back to Top
Sentry View Drop Down
Resident
Resident
Avatar

Joined: 04/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1037
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sentry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/September/2007 at 8:59am
[QUOTE=KPO'M] That said, I do grant there does seem to be a bit less infighting on the current village council QUOTE]

Which has the result of less discussion as well. I would say with a four vote majority it is much easier to disregard one less than dynamic person like Tellalian than it was with two strong personalities like Steinbach and Doolin.
Back to Top
citizen View Drop Down
Local Authority
Local Authority
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 9659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote citizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/September/2007 at 10:11am
i think tellalian is plenty dynamic - thoughtful, thorough, too.
 
but i have heard from residents that there seems to be less public discussion with the new vc . i've only attended a couple, and one of them was on roos, so can't really say. i like to know what my elected officials are thinking - not just how they vote.
Back to Top
KPO'M View Drop Down
Local Authority
Local Authority


Joined: 04/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 3031
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote KPO'M Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13/September/2007 at 7:44pm
Originally posted by citizen citizen wrote:

 
but i have heard from residents that there seems to be less public discussion with the new vc . i've only attended a couple, and one of them was on roos, so can't really say. i like to know what my elected officials are thinking - not just how they vote.


I know what you mean.  It would be nice if more of them posted here more often.  They've been awfully quiet since the election.  Marty hasn't logged on since May.  Mike drops in once in a while.  The mayor lurks here fairly regularly but hasn't posted much.  Mark is still a no-show, as is Rory, unless the two of them are posting under pseudonyms.


Edited by KPO'M - 13/September/2007 at 7:45pm
Back to Top
citizen View Drop Down
Local Authority
Local Authority
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 9659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote citizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13/September/2007 at 8:59pm
i think i'll take this opportunity (fall, 2007 - 6 months later) to ask the new vc to use the public technology - both this board and the fpreview.
 
think about it guys, we haven't heard from you since before the election. we gave you a pass to get up to speed, and we're sure you are booked w/village matters. but...
 
it's been pretty darn quiet. i see you at village social functions, but would really like to hear your thoughts on the state of the village and current issues.
what about the YMCA, what about your new freedom to talk to one other? and what the heck is going on at our police dept? what issues are you  struggling with, what's coming down the pike?
 
any thoughts?
 


Edited by citizen - 13/September/2007 at 9:01pm
Back to Top
MikeCurry View Drop Down
Resident
Resident


Joined: 31/October/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 107
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MikeCurry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18/September/2007 at 1:31pm

Citizen, KPOM and others,

 

If you ever have any questions just call me (708) 615 6205 or send me an e-mail mcurry@forestpark.net .  I will try and answer any question...well almost any question... :)  

 

Thanks,

 

Mike

Back to Top
citizen View Drop Down
Local Authority
Local Authority
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 9659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote citizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18/September/2007 at 2:01pm
Originally posted by MikeCurry MikeCurry wrote:

Citizen, KPOM and others,

 

If you ever have any questions just call me (708) 615 6205 or send me an e-mail mcurry@forestpark.net .  I will try and answer any question...well almost any question... :)  

 

Thanks,

 

Mike

 
thanks, mike. will take you up on it.
 
so, how's the new job going? what's the biggest challenge? are we going to tackle LNC in a comprehensive manner, or do you think the present adjustments (including monday's zba mtg) will take care of the problems?
Back to Top
Marty Tellalian View Drop Down
Nomad
Nomad


Joined: 10/March/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 30
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Marty Tellalian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18/September/2007 at 7:17pm
Hello everyone,

After not posting so long, it's probably appropriate that I comment on this post. The new law allowing private discussions between 2 members of a 5 person board passed on August 17th. At our first VC meeting following the change in the law, I asked Mike Sturino to discuss the change in his Administrator's report which he did. I think this change will be positive and will help the VC reach better decisions by allowing members to better understand others' points of view. In addition, this does not necessarily mean a less open government.

However, I think it is even more important now to have more meaningful discussions at the VC meetings, especially if VC members start talking privately. I have been a little disappointed in the lack of discussion at the VC meetings and will continue to do my best to keep my promise of open government.

Regarding the number of 4 to 1 votes, I have not kept a tally but there have been more than a few. Probably the most important vote taken by the new VC to date was the Roos approval which passed by a vote of 4 to 1. Parking pass rates were increased for residents by a vote of 4 to 1. A wine license for the French Market was approved 4 to 1. In fact, our first VC meeting included some 4 to 1 votes on department assignments. It must be easier to remember the 4 to 1 votes when you are the "1" as I was in all of these issues.

Feel free to email me either at my home e-mail, mtellalian@aol.com or at the village at mtellalian@forestpark.net or, especially if you need to reach me quickly, give me a call at my home phone which is 708-771-2326. Thanks, Marty       
Marty Tellalian
Back to Top
dogcatcher View Drop Down
Local Authority
Local Authority
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 7377
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dogcatcher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18/September/2007 at 7:46pm
I gotta say I applaud Mr. Tellalian for not only responding on the forum,but for giving out his home # and E-Mail few politicians if any would do that.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03
Copyright ©2001-2011 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.
A.Lange & Sohne Langematik Tourbillon Replica Watches ,and it must be a dream replica watches. Brand, style, visibility, features are absolutely assiduous, they not only added to their own sort of power in the rolex replica sale, and certainly can bear, "handed down" in the name. Now here is a fantastic choice for you, if you heard of Langematik Tourbillon rolex replica sale , this article will be much helpful to you. The function of a breitling replica sale is no longer confined to more of a symbol used to reflect personal taste. For men, the rolex replica uk is a symbol of their status; the contrary, a woman wearing a replica watches in addition to at the time, the greatest use is decorative, fashion Langematik Tourbillon breitling replica sale , elegance, style, simplicity, there is a pressing vulgarity temperament.