John:
Many thanks for enlightening the discussion from your inimitable
perspective.
My angst is not necessarily with the fact of Amendment (or "Alteration", as
per Part V) of the 1991 Constitution, but with the integrity of the current
and historical process employed, and the precedences set therein. Peter
Tucker in fact cited some precedences to justify the length and nature of
the work he was commissioned to accomplish. I will await your further
insights into the matter . . but meanwhile, I would like to point out the
primary cause of my anxiety.
You cited Part V (108) of the 1991 Constitution. The contents of this
document are not particularly odious, but its existence still begs the
question of why and how it was created. The 1991 preamble says:
"The Constitution of Sierra Leone, 1991.
Being an Act to make provision for a new Constitution of Sierra Leone, and
for connected purposes".
Why was a wholesale replacement of the 1971 Constitution (and its
Amendments) necessary? If there was a good reason to do so, it was not well
articulated, and the people certainly did not seem to have had a say in the
matter, even as they effectively did not have much say in the One-Party
Referendum of the Stevens era. The fact that the sum and substance of the
new Constitution might not seem objectionable should not diminish concern
for the processes employed. The populace is more vulnerable now to
politically motivated "Alterations" than it was in 1978.
If you recall, far too many voices were silent when concerns were voiced
about the legitimacy of the Special Court. As long as there were no
immediate consequences, and rogues were served some measure of punishment,
the many were willing to ignore the assaults on procedure and on
sovereignty that the court presented.
Best Regards,
JM Rose
===============================
jmusa10472@aol.co
m
Sent by: To
SALONEDiscussion@ SALONEDiscussion@yahoogroups.com
yahoogroups.com cc
Subject
04/11/2007 05:03 Re: [SALONEDiscussion] Re:
PM Constitutional Reform Ahead of SL's
Elections
Please respond to
SALONEDiscussion@
yahoogroups.com
Jonathan:
Let me take leave to file this reply to the gravamen of your question,
"Does any government have the right to summarily review and revise a
country's constitution?" Your laconic answer in the negative is
understandable if the verbs "review," and "revise," do not mean ALTERATION
of the constitution outside the procedure ordained in the organic law.
Given the foolish and extra-constitutional misconduct of the Kabbah
administration in many instances of re-making the existing constitution by
flights of fancy and absolute caprice, the dissentience attending the Peter
Tucker Constitutional Review Commission Report justly attracts the
disconsolate views everyone is expressing. Let me explain.
It is true that no government can amend the constitution save by an act of
Parliament. But an administration of government can review a constitution
by the agency of a commission and submit it for consideration. Government
in turn if it finds it necessary would prepare a White Paper that examines
the import of the review and revisions after Cabinet has weighed in on the
recommendations. The sum and substance of the White Paper are presented to
a Parliamentary Committee for consideration. When ripe, the document rises
from Committee to the well of Parliament for debate and then an up or down
vote ensues. If the majority so decides, it is submitted to the whole
country for a Referendum for approval. Twice our country has gone through
this process in 1978 for the One Party system of government and on the
morrow of the making of the 1991 constitution for return to pluralism in
political competition.
I am not sure what actuated the present review by Peter Tucker. But is
comes on the heels of several years too late into the offing of the July
eletions to make any sense. The Lome Accord warranted a rewiew as a
predicate for peace.
There, the parties to the peace Agreement joined in concord by ARTICLE X:
REVIEW OF THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION:
"In order to ensure that the Constitution of Sierra Leone represents the
needs and aspirations of the people of Sierra Leone and that no
constitutional or any other legal provision prevents the implementation of
the present Agreement, the Government of Sierra Leone shall take the
necessary steps to establish a Constitutional Review Committee to review
the provisions of the present Constitution, and where deemed appropriate,
recommend revisions and amendments, in accordance with Part V, Section 108
of the Constitution of 1991."
The Kabbah administration has been negligent since Lome in enforcing this
peace article. Notice that the Lome provision emphasized that part V of
Section 108 be followed. Part V is atually sub-section 5 of Section 108
that says at Section 108. (1):
"Subject to the provisions of this section, Parliament may alter this
Constitution.
(2) A Bill for an Act of Parliament under this section shall not be passed
by Parliament unless—
a. before the first reading of the Bill in Parliament the text of the Bill
is published in at least two issues of the Gazette:
Provided that not less than nine days shall elapse between the first
publication of the Bill in the Gazette and the second publication; and
b. the Bill is supported on the second and third readings by the votes of
not less than two-thirds of the Members of Parliament.
(3) A Bill for an Act of Parliament enacting a new Constitution or altering
any of the following provisions of this Constitution, that is to say—
a. this section
b. Chapter III,
c. sections 46, 56, 72, 73, 74(2), 74(3), 84(2), 85, 87, 105, 110-119, 120,
121, 122, 123, 124, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 140, 151, 156,
167,
shall not be submitted to the President for his assent and shall not become
law unless the Bill, after it has been passed by Parliament and in the form
in which it was so passed, has, in accordance with the provisions of any
law in that behalf, been submitted to and been approved at a referendum."
The long and short of this matter is that the recommendations to alter the
constitution have come too late on the threshold of the July elections with
nary a chance to be enacted if any reflection is desirable in the process.
As Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist Papers No. 1 on such matters,
"It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the
people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the
important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of
establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they
are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on
accident and force."
By many instances, the Kabbah administration has invariably chosen to
re-make our constitution by the bane of Hamilton's rebuke of the
consideration of good government by accident and force rather than good
government.
First the Kabbah administration relies on accident instead of reflection to
talk of constitution-Making within certain means. Then force drives in the
re-making of our onstitution. For instance, at Lome, Solomon Berewa agreed
to this provision in the Accord with a sneer, whimper or stir in ARTICLE V:
ENABLING THE RUF/SL TO JOIN A BROAD-BASED GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL UNITY
THROUGH CABINET APPOINTMENTS:
1. The Government of Sierra Leone shall accord every opportunity to the
RUF/SL to join a "broad-based government of national unity through cabinet
appointments. To that end:
2. The Chairmanship of the Board of the Commission for the Management of
Strategic Resources, National Reconstruction and Development (CMRRD) as
provided for in Article VII of the present Agreement shall be offered to
the leader of the RUF/SL, Corporal Foday Sankoh. For this purpose he shall
enjoy the status of Vice President and shall therefore be answerable only
to the President of Sierra Leone."
If there ever was any foolish and extra-constitutional conduct more than
this, I have not yet seen it. Imagime that Dr. Joe Demby was the sitting
Vice President by virtue of the constitution of Sierra Leone and Sankoh
subsisting at the same time as Vice president by fiat of the RUF quest in
the Lome Accord. The question that would impinge on any serious mind is
this: Which is the supreme law, the Constitution or the Lome Accord?
It says without reservation at Section 108 (15) the answer to my question:
"This Constitution shall be the supreme law of Sierra Leone and any other
law found to be inconsistent with any provision of this Constitution shall,
to the extent of the inconsistency, be void and of no effect. "
That Solomon Berewa, then Attorney General sitting on the horns of a
dilemma of choosing the RUF recommendation to enacted a new provision in
the Lome nAcord and sensing the imperatives of the Doctrine of Supremacy,
that the constitution overrides all other laws when it in conflict with
them, he wilted under the weight of complaency and yielded to an inferior
statute against the constitution.
Acordingly, the question you raised requires more than the present essay in
reply. But what do you expect from a lost administration now in the
twilight of its failures for which the voters ought to send them to the
limbo of oblivion?
As to the various recommendations contained in the Peter Tucker Review, I
shall address such when I have had time to consider them.
Best regards,
John Lansana Musa
-----Original Message-----
From: jrose1@mmm.com
To: SALONEDiscussion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [SALONEDiscussion] Re: Constitutional Reform Ahead of SL's
Elections
Mohm:
Thanks to Michael Sawyer, Amadu, and yourself for keeping this issue on the
table.
I believe that this discussion should start with the fundamental question
of: "Does any government have the right to summarily review and revise a
country's constitution?" My short answer would be: Absolutely Not!
It has been the bane of independent African (and other unstable) countries
for successive governments to amend constitutions at will. These amendments
are often implemented to allow leaders to continue in office for a longer
period than elective democracy or republicanism allows, or to enable some
other political benefit.
A constitution is the defining document of a nation, and a new
constitution hails the birth of a new nation. If the country is being
governed by the 1991 constitution, then Sierra Leone as a country is
effectively only 16 years old. In a democratic republic, any amendment
should be made only after what would constitute full consultation with the
people that own the document. The constitution is not the property of the
government, nor does any reading or interpretation of this supreme document
give the government or an individual the power to amend it with the casual
imperiousness demonstrated by this administration.
As we approach the anniversary of independence from Britain, the question
of who we are and how old the country is becomes valid: There was a
constitution at independence in 1961; there was another one in 1971, and
one in 1991. The precedence of revision imperils stability and the
safeguards against authoritarianism. The integrity of the constitution
needs to be re-established so that future generations of leaders would not
be able to reconstitute it with impunity.
Best Regards,
JM Rose
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
"onemohm"
<MohmJ@aol.com>
Sent by: To
SALONEDiscussion@ SALONEDiscussion@yahoogroups.com
yahoogroups.com cc
Subject
04/11/2007 08:02 [SALONEDiscussion] Re:
AM Constitutional Reform Ahead of SL's
Elections
Please respond to
SALONEDiscussion@
yahoogroups.com
In a message dated 1/31/2007 8:18:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
amadu.massally@gmail.com writes:
Is Peter Tucker the right man to lead this exercise? If so, would he
ensure the panel seriously consider implementing modern thinking
(which can be a vague term) and economical and social changes (land
tenure, taxation, property rights, etc?) to the citizenry of Sierra
Leone.
Amadu:
You asked me the above question just over two months ago. You may remember
my following answer:
In a message dated 2/2/2007 6:49:13 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
MohmJ@aol.com writes:
Your question quoted above is a cogent one. It can be conclusively
answered only by the actual results produced by the constitutional
review commission that Mr. Tucker heads.
ONEDiscussion/message/2347" target=_blank>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SALONEDiscussion/message/2347
Dr. Tucker's defense is easily rebutted: The fact that past constitutional
reviews have taken no "longer than three months to discuss" is not a reason
for continuing to short-circuit a fundamental constitutional process. On
the contrary, the predictable failure of those constitutional reforms make
the case for a far more serious effort -- not one, like Dr. Tucker's
commission's, which lasted merely about a month longer.
On the question of whether the National Electoral Commission (NEC)
will be able to conduct a referendum along with the elections slated
for July 28, Dr Tucker said "I think they should be able to but it is
left to them but my view is that it can be done" adding that "the
matter is between government and NEC."
MY RESPONSE #2: Since Dr. Tucker believes that a referendum can be
conducted simultaneously with the imminent elections, he is obligated to
duly set forth precisely how it can be done given the obvious resource
constraint which he himself explicitly acknowledged when he stated: "they
don't have to be held together if we can find money to do them separately –
so if the resources are available another date could be fixed"
Dr. Tucker's statement begs an obvious question that the SL journalist
failed to ask him and which also he failed to answer, namely: If Dr. Tucker
does not know whether the money needed to conduct a referendum
simultaneously with the elections is available, how does he know that it
can be done?
Questioned about the justification for a second chamber in
parliament, Dr Tucker explained that "on the first occasion it was
really not discussed it was rejected by cabinet and so we don't think
that the people rejected it and so we think we should try again to
bring it in."
MY RESPONSE #3: Even though Dr. Tucker apparently failed to notice it,
his above-quoted statement provides another reason for a much more thorough
approach to the effort to review the constitution than in the past. That he
is reduced to guessing about the intentions of the population regarding the
last constitutional review speaks volumes about the unreliability of the
past effort. It is that realization that should impel him to abandon his
current effort to unwittingly replicate the errors that marred the last
such attempted reform.
He explained further that "in most other commonwealth countries where
you have separation of powers they have this second chamber which
helps to moderate – it's a kind of check and balance situation – if
we have a group of experienced people in administration, religion
Paramount Chiefs sitting there they are more likely to moderate any
excesses coming from the House of Representatives by advice by
comment, than it is now."
MY RESPONSE #4: What Dr. Tucker fails to realize is that SL currently
is unlike most Commonwealth (or, indeed, other) countries -- its SLPP
government can not provide any of the basic services that the governments
of most commonwealth and other countries readily provide to their
citizens, such as reliable electricity, water, sanitation and medical
services. Therefore, it is inappropriate to seek to justify a second
chamber of parliament on the ground that other commonwealth countries have
it, as Dr. Tucker erroneously purports to do. The more relevant question is
whether this is an effective and efficient policy given the fact that the
government of SL, unlike those of other commonwealth countries, has failed
to meet the minimal expectations of a government in any country --
providing basic services to its citizens to enable them to avoid daily
deprivations of electricity, water, sanitation and medical services?
The answer to that question is clearly in the negative. There are already
existing in the constitution of SL provisions for providing some checks and
balances in government. They are found in the separation of powers among
the judiciary, the executive and the legislature. And then there is the
press. Most of all, there is the electorate. The checks and balances
underlying this system of separartion of powers will be enhanced by
strengthening the powers of the respective branches of government to
safeguard their constitutional powers to act in proper restraint and
balance of the other branches -- not by expanding the legislature, as Dr.
Tucker's commission proposes.
The issue of extending the immunity for the President to life is not
in the Preliminary report given to journalists, though reports say
the political parties have the same document where it is inserted.
MY RESPONSE #5: What Dr. Tucker proposes violates the most basic tenet
of the law in civilized countries -- that no man is above the law. Whereas
it is reasonable for presidents to be shielded from prosecution for lawful
actions pursuant to their duties as president while they are in office,
there is no basis for doing so after they leave office. There is even less
reason to continue to shield any president from the law for the rest of
his or her life.
Accordingly, the conclusion is inescapable that proposing such a patently
immoral policy for inclusion in our country's constitution validates the
concern that I had expressed here thus:
"Even then, a change should be carefully contemplated before its
implementation. It should also be free from any insidious motives, such as
political self-interest. Yet, sadly, that has been the case in our country.
For example, it was evident in the 1971 republican constitution that was
shamelessly championed by some of SL's finest legal minds, under the
characteristic unpatriotic cheerleading of its greatest beneficiary --
former President Siaka Stevens of the APC."
I hope the above information makes clear the reason why many different
civil society proponents, including myself, opposed Dr. Tucker's quest to
revise our country's constitution on the eve of the impending elections
when it was announced a few months ago.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SALONEDiscussion/message/2355
Best regards,
Moh'm
--- In SALONEDiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "onemohm" <MohmJ@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> In a message dated 1/31/2007 8:18:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> amadu.massally@... writes:
> Is Peter Tucker the right man to lead this exercise? If so, would he
> ensure the panel seriously consider implementing modern thinking (which
> can be a vague term) and economical and social changes (land tenure,
> taxation, property rights, etc?) to the citizenry of Sierra Leone.
> Amadu: I would like to join you in again commending our
> indefatigable Daphne Sawyerr-Dunn for her longstanding, unmatched
> efforts at keeping us abreast of developments affecting our homeland.
> As usual, you are at the forefront of action (in contrast to mere words)
> aimed at impacting, for the better, the lives of millions of our fellow
> S/Leoneans. In my humble opinion, that does not make you a "Borbor Pain"
> (someone who craves pain), as you characteristically, self-deprecatingly
> referred to yourself. On the contrary, it makes you what I have
> suggested, many times here, you have admirably shown yourself to be -- a
> dedicated, patriotic S/Leonean. Your question quoted above is a
> cogent one. It can be conclusively answered only by the actual results
> produced by the constitutional review commission that Mr. Tucker heads.
> However, I suggest that there is a much more fundamental question that
> begs for an answer, namely: Is the eve of national elections the
> proper time for the lame duck President Tejan Kabbah's SLPP government
> to launch a review of the constitution of SL? There are many people of
> goodwill, including well-meaning S/Leoneans, who answer that question in
> the negative. In addition, foreign donors who would be called upon to
> fund nationwide plebiscites such as the proposed referendum on a new
> constitution -- due to the pauperous state of the SL treasury -- have
> already expressed grave concerns about the wisdom of the SL government's
> insistence on changing SL's constitution only a few months before
> national elections. In particular, the U.S. ambassador to SL, Thomas
> Hull, is on record as having expressed such misgivings. There are
> additional reasons, beyond timing, for objecting to the current
> constitutional review commission's work. Primary among those is that, by
> its very nature, a constitution is supposed to be a device that largely
> withstands the test of time. Consequently, changing it should be a rare
> occurrence, rather than the much too frequent exercise it has become in
> post-independent SL. Even then, a change should be carefully
> contemplated before its implementation. It should also be free from any
> insidious motives, such as political self-interest. Yet, sadly, that has
> been the case in our country. For example, it was evident in the 1971
> republican constitution that was shamelessly championed by some of SL's
> finest legal minds, under the characteristic unpatriotic cheerleading of
> its greatest beneficiary -- former President Siaka Stevens of the APC.
> Moreover, any change in the constitution should be the product of a
> thorough review involving every interested party. At a minimum, that
> should entail methodically obtaining testimony from all interested
> parties in each and every region of our country, holding debates on the
> merits of any proposed changes to the constitution, including obtaining
> the opinions of legal scholars, explaining the proposed changes to the
> public, and only then, but not before, presenting them for a vote in a
> referendum. In my humble opinion, the timetable set by the Peter Tucker
> commission does not provide sufficient time for all of those important
> steps to be reasonably completed. Accordingly, rather than embracing
> the SL government's ill-advised initiative by participating in it, we
> should be advocating its abandonment. In its replacement, we should urge
> the government to dedicate the resources it plans to expend on the
> constitutional review exercise towards a comprehensive, non-partisan
> voter education and registration program that should hopefully guarantee
> that the results of the July elections would reflect the free and
> informed consent of the S/Leonean electorate. That would be a much
> more significant contribution by the SL government to the patriotic goal
> of good governance than its hastily cobbled and dubiously motivated
> quest to change our country's constitution on the eve of the very
> important impending national elections. Kind regards, Moh'm
>
>
>
>
> --- In SALONEDiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "Amadu Massally"
> amadu.massally@ wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Daphne for this very important information. I am glad I went
> back
> > to it as I was derailed yesterday and could have let it slip through
> the
> > cracks of my busy Google Mail box. As if I did not learn yesterday
> that
> > Sierra Leoneans cannot collaborate. Actually I did learn that we can,
> and
> > that is why I am back with more opportunity to prove to ourselves that
> we
> > can. Maybe we just have to find the right chemistry. If we are to only
> > adjust our egos a bit for example, and focus our eyes on the BIG
> prize, we
> > would be just fine. We were almost there in unison on the DFID/EC
> Strategy
> > Paper (but still we submitted our documents on time and if we here
> back from
> > them we will let you know).
> >
> > My comments are entered underneath the relevant pieces in the article
> that
> > was sent to us by our witty news finder, Daphne Sawyerr-Dunn. Let me
> know
> > what you think?
> >
> > Peter Tucker said the review of the constitution is starting "within
> days
> > ... so as to bring it up-to-date with modern thinking and economical
> and
> > social changes that have taken place since 1991."
> >
> > Is Peter Tucker the right man to lead this exercise? If so, would he
> ensure
> > the panel seriously consider implementing modern thinking (which can
> be a
> > vague term) and economical and social changes (land tenure, taxation,
> > property rights, etc?) to the citizenry of Sierra Leone.
> >
> > We are going to review the entire constitution," Tucker told a news
> > conference, adding the panel will gather public opinions from across
> the
> > west African country still recovering from a 10-year brutal civil war.
> >
> > Would the panel also solicit information from the Diaspora? If so, how
> > would this be done? Is it okay for someone (or better, an
> organization) to
> > coordinate the submission of such public opinions from the Diaspora?
> Or
> > should we just go 'monkey-man-duniya' style (every one for himself /
> > herself)? I am sure everyone knows what I prefer! So with that said, I
> > will bring information back as to the medium we will connect with the
> panel
> > following the relevant protocol if the Diaspora thinks it makes sense?
> You
> > can say I am the male version of Helen Keller as in: *"I am only one,
> but
> > still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something;
> And
> > because I cannot do everything I will not refuse to do the something
> that I
> > can do." *And I am not trying to brag either. I am just making
> sacrifices
> > for my country. Why? Because some of us have to be around to bring
> > positive change to S/L! No doubt!
> >
> > Tucker, formerly head of Britain's now defunct race relations board,
> said
> > the panel plans to finish its task by April to allow time for the
> amended
> > document to be put to the vote in a referendum.
> >
> > How would the average Sierra Leone understand what it is being voted
> on in a
> > referendum? Is it the responsibility of government or civil society to
> > mobilize voters to a national referendum? Who would explain the ills
> of the
> > current land tenure system, without using the same strategies that
> they were
> > created around in the first place? If it is left up to government,
> what are
> > the rules of engagement to ascertain the activities to educate on the
> issues
> > will be free and fair? What role would the political parties play in
> > effecting voter turn out to encourage maximum participation?
> >
> > I really am appealing again to Sierra Leoneans in the Diaspora and at
> home
> > to get involved in this process. Some of us have been on Internet
> forums
> > for years and years and have passionately discussed issues that are
> very
> > relevant to the constitution of Sierra Leone. Well here is that
> opportunity
> > to strut your stuff… Even if we do not do a collective response,
> and I am
> > begging for one, we can do so individually at a minimum. So get
> involved…
> >
> > If anyone knows how to get to Peter Tucker and the panel can they
> please let
> > us know? Obai Taylor-Kamara, could I rely on you to help us out, in
> the
> > interest of YOUR country? Thanks bra, if you accept!
> >
> > I would like to solicit feedback from other compatriots. What do you
> guys
> > think?
> >
> > Borbor Pain - I keep coming back for more...
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Amadu Massally
> >
> >
> > On 1/30/07, dsawyerrdunn@ dsawyerrdunn@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > SLeone to embark on constitutional reform ahead of elections
> > >
> > > 30 January 2007
> > >
> > > 20:06 GMT
> > >
> > > Agence France Presse
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > FREETOWN, Jan 30, 2007 (AFP) --
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A government-appointed panel is to start a constitutional review in
> > > post-war Sierra Leone less than six months before general elections
> slated
> > > for July, its chairman said Tuesday.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter Tucker said the review of the constitution is starting "within
> days
> > > ... so as to bring it up-to-date with modern thinking and economical
> and
> > > social changes that have taken place since 1991."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sierra Leone has set July 28, 2007, for presidential and legislative
> polls
> > > expected to serve as a crucial test of its democratic credentials
> and
> > > establish whether the country is on the road to full recovery.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "We are going to review the entire constitution," Tucker told a news
> > > conference, adding the panel will gather public opinions from across
> the
> > > west African country still recovering from a 10-year brutal civil
> war.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tucker, formerly head of Britain's now defunct race relations board,
> said
> > > the panel plans to finish its task by April to allow time for the
> amended
> > > document to be put to the vote in a referendum.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The proposed referendum is to take place at the same time as the
> general
> > > elections in July.
> > >
> > > Government said the reforms will not affect the upcoming elections.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The government last year set up a commission to critically assess
> the
> > > constitution under which two previous elections have been held.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The current constitution took effect in 1991, the year Sierra Leone
> > > plunged into a decade of brutal civil war in which about 200,000
> people
> > > died.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The 35 commission members are drawn from civil rights organisations,
> > > students groups, the bar, professional associations and grassroots
> > > groupings.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > "There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I
> dream
> > of things that never were, and ask why not."
> >
> > ~ Robert F. Kennedy
> >
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
ussion-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:SALONEDiscussion-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from
AOL at AOL.com.