Because of the brutal attack that nine-year-old Cabrini-Green resident Girl X suffered, Chicago Public Schools officials decided to hold a march recently to raise money to help students and staff members that have been affected by violence.

The Chicago Public Schools (CPS) Foundation held its first walkathon in Grant Park on Aug.16 to raise money for the Crisis Support Fund.

THE WALK AND THE PARTICIPANTS

The walkathon was basically a 2 ½ mile walk around the perimeter of Grant Park that began at 9 a.m. Because it was early Saturday, I didn’t expect as many people as there were. To my amazement, there were many participants representing many schools across the city. In fact, some participants were also there representing the Chicago Board of Education itself, with its many departments. Here are just a few of the many participants: Englewood Technical Preparatory Academy, Cockrell CPC, CVS High School, Kenwood Academy, Nettlehorst Elementary, Parkside Academy, the Montefiore Special School, The Arab American Council-Alnmhajireen Mosque & School, Parents As Teachers First, and the Park Eddy Foundation. That’s just a few!

On route, the Percy L. Julian High School’s marching band greeted the walkers with some fabulous sounds.

THE VOLUNTEERS

There were volunteers stationed in various parts of the park. Some volunteers, like the ones from Robert Morris College’s Soaring Eagles club, served the thirsty walkers water as they walked with their banners in hand, while others (traffic marshals) guided the enthusiastic walkers on the right path to their final destination. Upon arrival, the walkers were encouraged by Avis Lavelle, a Board of Trustees member, saying, “A job well done, we made it!”

There were booths stationed within the park for many purposes. Some were serving the hungry walkers lunches. In other booths, the volunteers were handing out raffled T-shirts, caps, backpacks and tickets to certain restaurants. There was also a registration and a booth for a local TV station.

THE RALLY

After the walk, a rally was held. Two high school students and a second grader as well as other selected people read poems, talked about the coming school year and said how pleased they were with the outcome of the walk and what the walk meant to them. CPS Chief Paul Vallas was among the speakers and received a $5,000 check presented to him by Anil Shama, president of the Association of Indians in America, and his associates, who also invited the walkers to join them at their booth after the rally for some Indian food, music, free T-shirts and caps in celebration of their 50th Independence Day.

After all the speeches and congratulations, Mary Nell of 950 AM, a hip hop/rap radio station, announced the entertainment of the day, the Chicago Cheerleaders, the Percy L. Julian High School Marching Band and others.

The event ended at 12 p.m.

THE CRISIS SUPPORT FUND

The Crisis Support Fund is part of the Children First Fund. It was created after “Girl X” was brutally raped in January 1997. The Fund is designed to provide emergency financial support to Chicago Public Schools (CPS) students and staff who are victims of crime and violence in their time of need.

THE CHILDREN FIRST FUND

The Chicago Public Schools Foundation is an independent non-profit corporation that was first established in July 1996. Within its corporation is the Children First Fund. The Fund’s primary objectives are “to supplement, assist and aid the Chicago Public School district in its pursuit of excellence by providing funds for identified needs and programs.”

For further information about the Crisis Support Fund or about the Children First Fund, call the “Children First Fund” hot line at: 773-535-8672.

Public housing legend Mrs. Artensa Randolph passed away on Aug. 19, 1997. I have compiled a list of tributes and interviews to her. Let’s start with a passage from her memorial book:

Mrs. Artensa Randolph was born in Pine Bluff, Arkansas on October 1, 1915. Mrs. Randolph was a product of the old, southern Black work force, beginning her early employment picking cotton on the plantations in Pine Bluff. She moved to Chicago in 1937, in search of an improved quality of life and initially found employment in the stockyards. Eventually, she achieved her career goal as a community Representative for the Chicago Board of Education, a position from which she retired after 20 years of service. This position afforded her many opportunities to know the people and the communities of Chicago.

In 1962, Mrs. Randolph moved into the Chicago Housing authority’s (CHA) Washington Park Homes where she lived for the past 35 years. Upon her arrival she quickly became involved in the tenant’s rights movement, which, much like the civil rights movement of earlier years, was organized primarily to address the inequities faced by residents of public housing. Mrs. Randolph was at the vanguard, uniting residents to address the sharp decline in public housing upkeep and maintenance and pushing for affordable and decent housing; a movement which continues today. Mrs. Randolph determination helped change the face of Chicago public housing. Through her efforts, modernization funds for CHA were suspended until appropriate recognition was given to the resident organizations and until a Memorandum of Accord, outlining the residents’ partnership with CHA was signed.

Read more »

In the Bible, it states that the world will one day end in fire. With this prediction I concur. It will not be a forest fire, nor will it be a fire such as the one that Mrs. O’Leary’s cow started. Not even the fire that a bomb or any natural disaster can cause.

The fire of which I’m speaking of is GUN FIRE! So many of our young people are gone because of this fire. The average death in these past few years has not been from old age or any incurable disease. It is the simple destruction of our youth, our future in general.

I live in a low rent, high-rise public housing development. It’s bad enough to live there as it is without waking up to the sounds of shooting. Granted it’s not like this every day, which is marvelous. But when it starts, it seems to come without much warning. I do not stay in the house: I go outside, away from my development. It’s hard to go anywhere if they are shooting out there. Read more »

While attempting to read “Our America” for the fourth time, it was getting to be a bother. I had taken the wrong approach. I took the writings personally. So this time I focused on exactly what the authors were talking about.

In general, “Our America” refers to the people who got caught up in the system. In general, the book brought about truths that are not unknown but not talked about beyond the places it describes.

Written by teenagers LeAlan Jones, who lives around the corner from the Ida B. Wells development, and Lloyd Newman, who lives in Wells, with the help of journalist David Isay, give a vivid description of how lives get damaged by institutionalized living.

The photographs depict a grim and dismal yet real life truth about living conditions. To see children playing in grocery carts and other abstract items is not uncommon. They play in mud, on dirty mattresses or where ever, and they play hard. That’s just not public housing children, that’s all children.

The most touching and sad part about the whole book is when Lloyd Newman’s mother’s death is described by his sister, Sophia. I attended Doolittle East School with Lynn. I didn’t know she had died. I cried when I read how tragic the circumstances were surrounding her death.

The death of Eric Morse, the five-year-old boy that was dropped 14 stories by two other little boys. LeAlan never knowing his father. Chilli, Llyod’s father, and other accounts of a dysfunctional society make this book interestingly readable. For teen-agers, Lloyd and LeAlan did a fantastic job in showing just how much America needs to embrace all of its children.

“Our America” reads, “Regardless of how you ignore the problems, they won’t go away and if you let them fester, sooner than you think they will be in your backyard.”

This book is a must read for all young America. It’s for readers who have never ventured into public housing but wonder what life is like.

It’s for readers who live in the developments but refuse to address the internal problems that have become a way of life. This book is a wake up call to do something because it’s all of our problem, it’s all of “Our America.”

I moved into a Chicago Housing Authority senior housing development on March 30, 1996. I had never resided in CHA housing prior to my move last year and the move was the result of my becoming disabled and needing to use a wheelchair in April of 1993. I was age 60 when this occurred and was 63 when I made the transition from regular private housing to CHA housing; I was no longer able to be employed and being in a fixed income status made me unable to afford the private housing lifestyle I had been accustomed to prior to my disability.

I received a referral to senior housing in early March 1996 and the building I was sent to only had vacancies on the 14th floor, which the manager of the building believed to be unsatisfactory because of my wheelchair situation. I was advised that when an apartment on a lower floor became available (and some were vacant but not ready for occupancy), I would be able to move into one of these. As it stands, an apartment on a lower floor could not become available on a timely basis and I was referred a few weeks later to my current development where a vacancy did exist on the second floor.

The purpose for a lower-floor occupancy for persons who use wheelchairs is that in the event of a fire, it is easier to remove such residents from the premises if they are on lower floors. But routine problems of elevators frequently being out of order are not being addressed on a timely, consistent basis. At the time of the writing of this story, there were breakdowns of both elevators in my Eckhart Park Greenview building twice over a period of less than 24 hours. Residents who are able to walk were forced to use the stairs, which are located at one end of the building and therefore inconvenient for a large number of residents who are unable to walk.

On July 24, 1997, at Navy Pier in Chicago, Access Chicago, the first exposition sponsored by the Mayor’s Office on People With Disabilities, was conducted between the hours of 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. While attending this exposition, I was able to visit several of the exhibit booths and obtain much useful information, including certain requirements for accessibility of CHA buildings. According to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines, all CHA buildings and residences are to be accessible to occupants who may be in wheelchairs or use other means to transport themselves. This applies to closet spaces and other storage areas in the apartments. It should also apply to other facilities in the housing developments and an example might be mailboxes, etc.

In a previous story, I revealed that in the area between the two buildings of the Eckhart Park development, there are no ramps to accommodate residents in wheelchairs who may be traveling between the buildings. At a residents meeting on Sept. 26, the development manager announced that improvements this fall will include the replacement of those missing ramps along with such other improvements as the installation of handicapped accessible doors for the entrances into the buildings.

Other ongoing problems of inaccessibility have been the lack of availability of appropriate vehicles to transport disabled individuals to various activities as sponsored by CHA, the City of Chicago or other agencies.

As cited in an earlier story, I discovered that the availability of accessible vehicles to transport wheelchair-using residents is limited and only available when requests for such vehicles is made by a sufficient number of disabled residents. I also discovered that CHA has only a single accessible bus available to residents and that this is only used to transport residents who use wheelchairs from one development to any other development for a particular activity.

In my first story for RJ in the winter issue, I related some unfortunate incidents I had experienced in using CTA Paratransit Operations and as I write this story, I continue to experience these less than satisfactory incidents.

In preparing for this story, I talked to two residents who use wheelchairs in my Greenview Avenue building on this subject of accessibility. The first resident expressed general satisfaction in her five years as a resident of the development but has had no need to use other than medical transportation since she only travels for this purpose. When asked about CTA Paratransit Operations, she said she has never used the service but that all she has heard about it is on the negative side.

The other resident, an occupant of more than 15 years, complained about not being able to ever reach a CTA Paratransit carrier during her attempts to call in order to schedule trips. The resident said that a busy signal was all that could be received on those failed attempts and that a telephone with the automatic redialing feature was not available to her.

I explained her the procedure I have been following for over 2 years which involves dialing the direct number to the carrier I use and pressing the automatic redial button back and forth with the dial tone button until I am finally able to get through to an operator to request my trips. I explained that this procedure sometimes will require up to about 40 minutes but that I will eventually reach an operator and then schedule my trips for the next day.

CTA Paratransit Operations does maintain a 1-800 number which should eliminate the need to call a carrier directly and receive a busy signal and even when such calls are made when the service opens at 5 am weekdays and 6 am weekends. I recently tried to use this number and all I received was a busy signal. Some obvious improvement is needed here and in the entire system.

I was totally unprepared when I walked into the office of Alex Polikoff, the attorney who oversees the landmark Civil Rights housing case known as the Gautreaux Decree. First, when I pulled out my notes, I found out I had picked up the wrong notebook.

I suddenly couldn’t remember the questions that were so important when I wrote my notes. I pulled out my camera and Polikoff made it clear that he preferred I didn’t take any photographs. I agreed and told him that I already had a photograph of him on file.

Misinformed and mislead was how I felt. I had listened to different sides and stories about the Gautreaux Decree. And not one of those stories painted a picture of Gautreaux quite like Polikoff did. Strange as it may seem, I felt violated. I looked around the room and found not one hole to crawl in. But I faced up to my ignorance, swallowed my pride, shut up and listened.

Polikoff handed me a booklet explaining who Dorothy Gautreaux was. He gave me recent photo-copied articles from the Chicago Tribune about the Chicago Housing Authority and the new breed of subsidy housing that we are faced with, Section 8.

My concern was about Dorothy Gautreaux and the Gautreaux Decree. Dorothy only lived 41 years but she accomplished a great deal within her time frame. Had Ms. Gautreaux not sued the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and CHA, then someone else would have. Her name became the name of the decree but she was one of many who filed the suit in 1966. She died in 1968, long before the suit was finally settled.

Residents’ View on Public Housing

Ms. Gautreaux lived in Altgeld-Murray Homes and she asked the same questions that all public housing residents ask. I can safely say that as Dorothy looked at the public housing stock in the city, she said to herself as I say to myself upon occasion:

“If these complexes had been built in a white neighborhood, would they be more in tune with the times, more configured with the neighborhood and totally geared to aesthetically give one a feeling of pride?”

Nothing is wrong with building houses for the poor in poor neighborhoods. But when you mix poor design with poor material and place it in a poor neighborhood with poor people, you tell me how many people can rise from such rubble.

Ms. Gautreaux knew that if public housing was built in white neighborhoods, the design, structure and grade of material would be number one. Quality stock. Nothing but the best. She knew that it would be built to fit the scope of the community, not making a community fit into its structure, which is what has taken place within our developments.

It is true that public housing was only being constructed in the poorest of African American neighborhoods. The process of choosing which neighborhood received public housing became totally political in Chicago. Aldermen had the final say in where housing was to be placed. Knowing that the majority of aldermen did not live in Black neighborhoods and knowing that they didn’t want Black people in their neighborhoods, it was easy for them to place African Americans in existing African American neighborhoods. And there was never an objection until the target was Lake Shore Drive.

The lakefront has always been considered Chicago’s prime real estate. A few public housing buildings have been placed along Lake Shore Drive but for the most part, it has been preserved for upper-income development.

When the Gautreaux case was first filed, many people in Chicago were concerned that public housing residents would be placed in upper-income neighborhoods. Even the first federal judge appointed to the Gautreaux case, Judge Richard B. Austin, shared this concern. When he was first told about the case, Austin quipped, “Where do you want to put them (CHA residents) – on Lake Shore Drive?”

Polikoff explains

Polikoff, who administers the Gautreaux Decree as the executive director of Business and Professional Persons in the Public Interest, explained the legalities of the Gautreaux Decree concerning HUD and CHA.

Beginning in 1976, after the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was ordered to use its money to place African Americans in non-African American neighborhoods throughout the Chicagoland area, mainly in the suburbs.

CHA, meanwhile, must build scattered site units only in certain areas of the city. The Gautreaux decree, as Polikoff explained it to me, says that CHA can only build housing units in neighborhoods that are more than 30 percent African American if it builds the same number of units in non-African American units in a one-for-one ratio.

This one-for-one housing ratio means that if CHA were to build 71 units in my neighborhood, Darrow Homes on the south lakefront, they would also have to build 71 units in certain areas that are less than 30 percent African American.

Changes have taken place since the ratification of the decree. The original case order was a 3 to 1 housing ratio, meaning that three houses had to be built in predominantly white neighborhoods to every one in a Black neighborhood.

HUD Finally Fulfills Court Order

HUD’s part of the Gautreaux Decree is now over. Started in 1976, the program was run by the Leadership Council of Metropolitan Open Communities to give African American families a chance to live in decent and affordable housing outside of the parameters of public housing.

The Leadership Council Section 8 program was funded by HUD. The families who benefited from the program were moved to homes in mainly white suburbs. Last year in October, the mark of 7,100 families served -the original number sought by this part of the decree – was reached.

HUD is out of the red it has finally fulfilled its obligations to the public housing residents in Chicago.

I know the majority of families who moved to the suburbs through the Leadership Council’s program are happy with their new surroundings. I know they made the best of a bad situation. Their lives are happier now for whatever reason.

But you can’t convince me that they didn’t face discrimination along the way. Is it really necessary to move from the ‘hood to become a productive citizen? The answer is no. No wonder the developments are in such a mess. Somebody told them the only way for them to get ahead in life is to move away. Somebody told them they had to move into another neighborhood and embrace another people.

But I do understand their plight. They want better schools and better homes.

CHA’s turn

Now it’s CHA’s turn to fulfill their duties in constructing housing for its residents. As I was told by Polikoff, CHA failed for many years to build any public housing.

Even though CHA was first ordered to build scattered site units in non-African American neighborhoods in 1969, CHA never actually built any new public housing units. Finally, in 1987, Polikoff went back to court and won an order to allow the Habitat Company, a private development firm, to build scattered site housing. Habitat has built almost 2,000 units since that time.

The Darrow Homes Story

At Darrow Homes, $11 million is being put toward redevelopment on site. Where there once were 480 units in the four Darrow high-rises, now we want to place just 100 houses and duplexes on the same site. Even going through that, Polikoff had total control on deciding our future.

On March 29, 1996, Darrow residents first met with Polikoff about our plan. He rejected it because CHA would not be building at a one-for-one ratio in a non-African American neighborhood.

In the spring of this year, we (the Darrow residents) met with Polikoff again to discuss the construction of the new units. One of the four Darrow buildings had already been torn down and one more was on the chopping block. In the end, all four buildings will be gone.

Polikoff sat with us and asked the CHA officials who were helping us how they would make a one-for-one ratio with the new Darrow town homes. The CHA officials said that they were building units in two places on the North Side. Finally, Polikoff agreed.

How to Change Gautreaux

I think that the one-to-one ratio in the decree is unfair. After all these years, couldn’t the courts come up with a better approach to the problem? I find this solution selfish and unrealistic. How do we as residents approach changing the decree? To what degree will we feel comfortable? Should we abolish it or put in a new amendment? The choice is ours.

If CHA is to construct housing, it should be put into existing developments. Residents don’t(Continued on Page #) (Continued From Page #)want to move and the ones who wanted to move are gone or going. The rest of us want to make a change in our community. The public housing stock in the city is poor, unsightly, congested and infested but it’s where we call home. It’s where we live and grow and interrelate with one another. It’s where our children go to school and where families come home. Somehow history has repeated itself. Before the construction of public housing, we were living in the worst of tenements. Now, 50 years later, the same is true. Sure I would love to see cleaner surroundings; a greater respect for our women; a safer place for our children and our young men employed. We can only work towards a better tomorrow and keep the faith.

A New Direction

There is a new direction in public housing called Strategic Planning. It is the best implementation the federal government has ever offered the residents towards the betterment of public housing.

Under the new federal laws, any development that has 10 percent or more of its units vacant must come up with a plan or be torn down. The plan has to be developed of the residents, for the residents and by the residents. The residents are really in charge.

Now it’s the residents’ turn and we either put up or shut up. I know all of us will not be as successful as others but none of us will ever sink as low as the government did when it had total control over our community. The strategic planning procedures are going into effect as you read this article, so what role will the Gautreaux Decree play when the plan is finished? How will it benefit public housing residents when it becomes a fact that not a single resident wants to move into an integrated community or out of their own community.

The Gautreaux residents of old had a point to make and they made it. They entered the neighborhoods that were closed to us. But the minds of public housing residents changed with time.

The only way to approach change effectively is by the numbers. If 80,000 signatures were presented to Judge Aspen, what would his ruling be then? Would he rule in favor of the majority or would he wait for an answer from Polikoff, the host of the Gautreaux Decree?

Change is Inevitable

Alex Polikoff plays an important role in ratifying and modifying the Decree. I’m sure there are at least 6,000 public housing resident families out there who thank him dearly. I know he sleeps good at night knowing he has done a good deed to improve lives. But when I asked about changing the Decree so it would fit the times, he said, “It changes all the time.” Then he began to explain about the ratio of houses. I asked if there was a Gautreaux college fund set up for those children who moved out of public housing and into scattered sites. Polikoff looked at me with a question on his face and replied, “No, not that I know of.”

A scholarship fund would really give true meaning to Gautreaux Decree.

I misjudged the relationship between Alex Polikoff and Dorothy Gautreaux. It seems the main concern of the Decree as it stands is the number of houses to be constructed for us residents. It’s all about the Habitat Company – the development firm that is in charge of building scattered site units – keeping their contract. It’s all about Polikoff keeping an outdated dream alive. It’s all about Judge Marvin Aspen, the federal judge who oversees the Gautreaux case, continuing to play out the judicial role of upholding the law no matter how it has outlived its usefulness. All the advances that were made in public housing have been acknowledged.

Thank you, Polikoff, Habitat and Judge Aspen. But just like you listened to the residents over 30 years ago, now things have come to a full circle. It’s time to listen again.

The fact remains: Public housing is being changed by a new generation of residents. They will fight with the same tenacity that Dorothy and her entourage fought with.

During a recent visit to the Operation PUSH headquarters in Chicago, new U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Andrew Cuomo offered little concrete about his plans for public housing communities.

In a breakfast speech, radio broadcast and press conference on Sept. 6, Cuomo talked about his concerns for public housing issues but used words that the residents of CHA have been listening to since May 1995, when HUD took over the agency. That’s when residents first started being bombarded with words about what HUD’s plans for CHA were.

Like others before him, Cuomo said HUD now wishes to involve CHA residents in the redevelopment of CHA.

“It’s not for us to do. It’s for the people in the communities to do,” he said at the breakfast.

“It’s for you to build your community as you see fit. That’s what empowerment is all about.”

Cuomo seemed to say that redevelopment in many communities was going well. But he apparently is not aware that many residents in these communities are very suspicious that redevelopment really means land grab. I wasn’t put at ease when he said,

“Let’s not say we’re going to get out of the housing business. Let’s say we have to get into the housing business and do it right. That’s going to be the story of Cabrini, Horner, ABLA and other redevelopments.”

Cuomo said 87 percent of new jobs are in the suburbs and 97 percent of new businesses are in the suburbs. Well, I don’t think that is any surprise to the vast majority of public housing residents that are unemployed. Plus, when residents do go out on a job interview, they often are not hired. Cuomo did not provide specifics about developing new training or job placement programs:

“We just reformed welfare. Amen. But it’s not making them work, it’s about letting them work.”

Cuomo made another statement that the way public housing was set up, it was doomed to fail because of poverty in public housing along with crime:

“A good idea gone bad – that’s what public housing is. You should have known it was bad before you put that first brick down,” Cuomo said at the Operation PUSH breakfast and radio address.

“The mentality was ‘Let’s pack them in there because the more you can get in there, the better. Let’s build public housing and let’s put it all in one place and put it far away and then let’s build a wall between us and them.’

“Of course it failed. It was doomed to fail.”

Later at a press conference at Operation PUSH, Cuomo said public housing was “a good idea implemented by amoral leadership.

“The housing was a good idea but the leadership was perverted.”

But is it the buildings that are causing the problems in public housing or is it the way the buildings are run? Almost all of the residents of public housing are low-income and once a resident of public housing achieves a steady income in the mid range, you can bet that within a year, that person will have moved out. There is no incentive for someone to stay in public housing once their income increases. Why live in an area where your neighbor’s rent is 90 percent lower than yours and some may be selling drugs out of their unit or violating lease regulations by having illegal tenants or participating in other criminal activities?

The problems that go on in CHA are often fueled by people who come from other areas of Chicago and the suburbs. These people would not allow the type of activity in their communities that they support in public housing. CHA raises rent when income increases but living conditions are still deplorable. During the press conference, I asked Cuomo how he could convince the people who have been chased away from public housing by these conditions to stay there. He told me:

“We’re going to improve the community and make it a community that they want to live in.”

We heard the same lines from former CHA Chairman Vince Lane, former HUD Secretaries Jack Kemp and Henry Cisneros as well as President Bill Clinton. But you can tear down the building and the community will still exist along with the problems that are there. You can preach about how putting someone to work will help the community but what good does it do when that someone of good moral standards moves out and another resident who may have an anti-social background moves in? Then we are back where we started.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, founder of Operation PUSH, was more specific on how to create communities that house both low- and middle-income residents. The way to create these neighborhoods is keep middle-income families from leaving poor areas because they don’t want to be part of those communities.

“What we really want to do is end low-income areas. Isolation and poverty cause the anxiety,” Jackson said.

It can be tough living in the shadow of a famous father, especially when your father was well respected by most and held high marks among fellow politicians. When your father is former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, people will have high expectations of the offspring. Which puts Andrew Cuomo in an interesting situation: Does he become his father or break away and make a name for himself.

Though I am not going to compare him to his father or his predecessor, former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, and I am also taking into consideration that he’s been on the job for less than a year, I found his statements to be predictable.

I would advise Cuomo to get down to some serious business. The people of public housing know what has to be done. So let’s do it.

Under threat of being forced to leave their homes, residents in Stateway Gardens and Rockwell Gardens are fighting the City of Chicago’s efforts to condemn their buildings.

There are many buildings in CHA developments which are in need of immediate and serious repairs, so much so that the City of Chicago recently filed building code violation suits against buildings in several developments in circuit court and won. The city complained that some of the residential housing units were in such a horrendous state of repairs that the residents’ health, welfare and safety were in danger. The city cases were based upon the official building inspection reports that were submitted by the inspectors of the city Building Department. Read more »