As a parent who volunteers in the schools and has learned the hard way just how complicated school finance is, I want to share my personal analysis of the two education initiatives on this November’s ballot — Prop 30 (a.k.a. Governor Brown’s Initiative) and Prop 38 (a.k.a. Molly Munger’s Initiative). If you need some basic background about each proposition, you can find good links at my “homework” post.

I based my analysis on one simple principle: Children should not be made to pay for the mistakes of grown-ups. With that in mind, this is what I decided.

Since parents are a busy bunch, I’ll give you my answers in three forms: the 15-second answer, the 1-minute answer, and the 3-minute answer (they build off each other, so read all the answers before it if you want the 3-minute answer).

The 15-second Answer

To make sure that schools don’t have to make do with billions less in funding, vote yes on BOTH Prop 30/Brown and Prop 38/Munger.

Prop 30/Brown needs to pass to prevent an additional $5 billion of cuts to education (the “trigger cuts”). Also vote yes on Prop 38/Munger as a safety net for education, because if Prop 30/Brown fails and the trigger cuts occur, Prop 38/Munger monies will still be available to help schools.

The 1-minute Answer

If both Prop 30/Brown and Prop 38/Munger pass, it is likely that only the one with the most votes will prevail, but that depends on how the courts interpret the law.

Prop 30/Brown is tied to the state budget, so in addition to education, your vote will also be helping to prevent millions in cuts to state universities and local governments that need the funds for law enforcement. Prop 30/Brown raises $6 billion in revenue each year from two temporary tax increases:

  • a 1/4 percent increase in the sales tax, which is paid by everybody, and
  • a small increase in the tax rate for incomes above $300,000/year.

In a situation where Prop 30/Brown fails, the trigger cuts will take effect whether or not Prop 38/Munger is passed. Therefore, a YES vote is needed on Prop 38/Munger as a safety net for education. Prop 38/Munger will make a projected $10 billion available for education and early childhood education programs such as Head Start. These funds may be used to replace funds lost by the trigger cuts. Prop 38/Munger also allocates funding to pay down bond debt; by paying down this debt, the State will have more General Funds available for use in the budget (not just restricted to schools).

Here is a chart showing what many experts think will happen under various voting scenarios:


The 3-minute Answer

A $5 billion cut to schools is scheduled to occur this year unless Prop 30/Brown is passed by voters this fall. This cut will mean even more teachers will be laid off, class sizes will grow larger, and parents will be asked to volunteer and donate even more than we already do.

Schools take the hardest hit in budget cuts because it is the largest part of the budget (41%) and it is one of the few parts of the budget the State can control. Here is a chart showing the “trigger cuts” that will be averted if Prop 30/Brown passes:

Source: LAO Analysis of Prop 30 (link can be found on “homework” post)

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (a nonpartisan office of the California Legislature that provides fiscal and policy analysis to legislators of all parties), the vast majority of Prop 30/Brown’s revenues will go primarily to pay the State’s existing obligations to schools since the State has accumulated $9.4 billion in late payments to school districts, a practice of both Democratic and Republican governors.

Therefore, if Prop 30 passes, per-pupil funding will essentially stay the same as it is now; but if it does not pass, per-pupil funding will fall by 6% from the 2011-12 level. In other words, if we vote for Prop 30/Brown and it passes, we can expect things to stay as they are, not necessarily get better. But we will prevent things from getting worse and protect our children from mistakes grown-ups have made.

Prop 38/Munger’s emphasis is more on boosting funding for schools, but it also includes elements that can help the state budget crisis generally. If passed, it would be in effect for twelve years. In the first four years, 60% of the Prop 38/Munger funds would go towards K-12 public schools, 10% to early childhood education, and 30% will go to pay back school bonds.

Prop 38/Munger is expected to raise $10 billion annually through raising the State’s Personal Income Tax for twelve years. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that 60% of Personal Income Tax payers will be affected.

In conclusion, as a parent who cares about the education of our children, I want to be sure that schools have enough money to do their jobs and do them well. It is important for Prop 30 to pass because if it does not, the trigger cuts will go into effect. However, we also need to vote for Prop 38/Munger as a way to prevent education funding from falling dramatically.


FAQs about Prop 30 and Prop 38


Q: Our education system is broken. Why should we continue to pay for something that doesn’t work? If we stop paying for it, maybe the problem will get bad enough, they will eventually fix it.

A: While throwing money at a problem often doesn’t fix it, taking away billions of dollars isn’t any more likely to fix our education system either. In fact, it could make it worse:

  • Children/students will suffer the most from under-funding education. We need to minimize harm and damage to them while we fix the education system.
  • Withholding money to punish the system and correct it may backfire. Daniel Pink’s book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us shows how money is often ineffective as a “carrot” or “stick” to motivate people to solve complex problems and can actually “extinguish intrinsic motivation, diminish performance, crush creativity, and crowd out good behavior.” (p. 205) In other words, money used as an incentive or disincentive is more distracting and harmful than productive especially if the problem isn’t only about money.

So yes, let’s fix what’s wrong with our education system, including how we fund it, but let’s not do it on the backs of our children. Plus, by taking the fear of losing money off the table, we create better conditions for people to be able to work towards reasonable, rational solutions.

Q: Ballot initiatives are a bad way to legislate. I prefer to vote NO on all of them and put the responsibility back on our elected officials where it belongs.

A: I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, budgetary power has shifted from the legislature to the ballot box due to “supermajority” requirements for passing budgets (2/3 vote is needed instead of the usual 51% majority). Supermajority requirements allow minority parties to force concessions or stall budgets indefinitely. To get around these limits, elected officials increasingly have needed to use the ballot initiative instead of the usual legislative process. To learn more about this history, I highly recommend reading California Crack-up: How Reform Broke the Golden State and How We Can Fix It by Joe Mathews and Mark Paul.

So, Governor Brown has brought his budget plan directly to voters through the ballot initiative because he could not get enough Republicans to agree to tax increases. So while I don’t like these issues brought to voters either, the decision is in front of us anyway. And I don’t think our children should have to pay for the mistakes of a dysfunctional system. I believe that it is our responsibility to protect our children from harm while we adults work to fix the problems. So I will vote YES on both Prop 30 and Prop 38. And after November, it will be time to look at who is doing what for longer-term, structural changes in how California governs.


Q: How do these propositions address inequities in the public school system?

A: Prop 30/Brown contains no explicit language to address inequities in public school finance, an issue that California has frequently confronted over the years. It’s silence on this issue leads me to believe that it assumes inequities in school funding are already being addressed through other avenues.

Prop 38/Munger proposes a per-pupil allocation of funds that go to the specific school where the student is located. A portion of the funds will also be distributed as “low income student grants,” also on a per-pupil basis, as additional funds to the schools serving Title I students (Title I refers to the federal Free and Reduced Lunch Program and is often used as a proxy for low-income students).

Personally, I still think that resolving inequities in public school finance should be addressed by broader economic policies aimed at building the middle class and increasing upward mobility from low income families into the middle class, but those kind of policies are not addressed by these two propositions.

Q: Why does Prop 38/Munger use some of the funds to pay for school bonds?

A: The Prop 38/Munger proposal uses 30% of the annual funds raised until 2016-17 to go towards paying back school bonds. Bonds are a form of public borrowing, similar to a mortgage in that the State (with voter permission) borrows a large sum of money for infrastructure (such as a school building) that gets paid back over time.

The State’s General Obligation bonds still outstanding, which includes school bonds and other public infrastructure projects, is now $71 billion according to the State of California Debt Affordability report 2011. Debt servicing on those bonds, which is the amount of money we use from each year’s budget to pay back the borrowing plus interest, was estimated to be more than $7 billion this year. The portion of this debt servicing that comes from school bonds is $2.6 billion.

The faster we can pay back those loans, the less debt servicing has to be paid and the more we can free up general fund money to be available for other public priorities in the budget such as schools. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office’s analysis of Prop 38, Prop 38/Munger is estimated to save the state $3 billion annually by paying for this debt servicing. These budget savings can then be used for any public priorities determined by the state legislature, including lessening the damage of the threatened trigger cuts.

This provision is one of the strongest points for me in supporting Prop 38/Munger. Unfortunately, Prop 38/Munger’s win may not be a good long-term solution for school funding in the way it hopes to be (see next question).

Q: There’s a lot in Prop 38/Munger for me to like as a parent: a bigger role for parent oversight, input and accountability and measurable student outcomes, and money going directly to schools instead of to Sacramento. In contrast, Prop 30/Brown feels like we are being threatened with cuts to give our support. Why are you advocating Prop 30/Brown as the one that is important to pass?

In all honesty, I find a lot to like in Prop 38/Munger, too. Here are my two concerns with it:

Prop 38/Munger is untested. Various education policy expert bloggers point to the difficulty of implementing Prop 38 if it should become law, because there is not enough language in the initiative to provide guidance in the execution. This could: a) make us lose precious time to get resources to schools, and/or b) become another Prop 98 quagmire. Prop 98 was a voter proposition passed in 1988 to guarantee a minimum funding level for schools, but it has morphed into a de facto maximum level of funding for schools as the State never provides more than it is required to by law. Also, Prop 98 has become a complex set of formulas and fixes to those formulas over the years. Without a solid, tested process, Prop 38 could become an additional layer of difficulty in education funding.

Prop 38/Munger follows a dangerous trend of separating education funding from the rest of the budget through a dedicated tax. Advocates of Prop 38 point to the separate fund that is created and overseen by a Fiscal Oversight Board made up of the State Controller, State Auditor, State Treasurer, Attorney General and Director of Finance — “untouched” by legislators. That’s another way of saying that it will not be subject to the democratic process.

While it may sound good to have a “protected” fund for schools, what happens in practice is if education has a separate fund to support it, our legislature will be tempted to continue to underfund education in the general budget and let Prop 98 and Prop 38/Munger take care of paying for education. When Prop 38/Munger expires in 12 years, it may be more difficult to pull those costs back into the state budget than it was to take them out. (Prop 63, the Mental Health Services Act, was an interesting example of this trend, and while it hasn’t yet become the sole source of mental health funding in California, it is moving in that direction. There is a good scholarly article about the dangers of dedicated taxes and Prop 63 here.)

So while I also like aspects of Prop 38/Munger’s proposal, I’m inclined to keep education funding in the hands of a democratically-run legislature where it belongs and not subject our children to being guinea pigs in a policy experiment that could lead to drastic cuts to schools down the road.

Q: Isn’t it okay if just Prop 38/Munger passes? Sure, the trigger cuts will go into effect, but won’t the schools have money from Prop 38/Munger to cover that $5 billion loss?

A: Schools will continue to receive funds, but it would not just be a matter of exchanging $5 billion in cuts with $5 billion in Prop 38/Munger revenues. For one thing, Prop 38/Munger’s 30% to bond repayment could generate some savings that can help make some of the trigger cuts unnecessary (LAO estimates $3 billion). Second, it is hard to predict how the legislature will act to fulfill its Prop 98 minimum funding guarantee to schools.

My primary concern is how Prop 38/Munger follows that trend of separating education funding from the rest of the budget through a dedicated tax (see answer to question just above this one).

Q: Are there any other unintended consequences we can foresee?

A: If Prop 30/Brown fails, the cuts to schools could be even worse than most people predict because the budget includes an option called “rebenching.”

If Prop 30/Brown doesn’t pass, the State budget says that it can push the costs of the $2.6 billion in debt servicing for school bonds into the complicated calculations for Prop 98, which was passed by the voters in 1988 to set a minimum level of funding for schools. In practice, Prop 98 has become a maximum funding level instead of a minimum.

Prop 98 has become a complex formula to determine school funding (see EdSource guide to Prop 98), but if the $2.6 billion in debt servicing for school bonds were added into it, the debt servicing is so large that it would effectively further reduce the amount available to give to schools.

Rebenching has serious enough consequences that the California School Boards Association has already sued the State over it. A judge ruled in June that rebenching was okay, so now CSBA is waiting for the election results before it appeals the decision.

For more information on rebenching, please read these blog posts by John Fensterwald that are wonky, but helpful:

You can submit other questions to me through the comments section below. My post that takes a closer look at the two propositions’ tax proposals can be found here.

  • Pingback: Have You Done Your Homework on Prop 30 and Prop 38?

  • Pingback: Prop 30 and Prop 38: A Voter Guide for Parents | Income Tax Guide

  • Taffany Lim

    thanks, Kim! Your charts are beautiful!

    I need some more clarification. The KCET voter guides you recommended say that “Voting YES means that you approve of the new taxes and would like them to be allocated to schools, ECE programs, and state debt repayment. If Prop 38 prevails, then Prop 30 cannot, and a series of trigger cuts built into the state budget will go into effect.” So I’m surprised when your 15 sec answer suggests we vote for both…..what am I missing here?

    • kimtso

      Great question, and thanks for the opportunity to clarify. I’m not sure exactly which point is tripping you up, so let me know if this answers your question or not.

      Another way I could put my short answer is: “Vote for Prop 30/Brown to avoid the trigger cuts, but in case Prop 30/Brown doesn’t pass, you should also vote for Prop 38/Munger just to make sure that there is some money allocated to the schools.”

      Prop 30/Brown says that if it doesn’t pass, then $5 billion in cuts go into effect. Period. No Prop 30/Brown, then schools lose $5 billion.

      Both propositions can be passed by voters, but policy wonk/bloggers are predicting that they “conflict” since they both propose tax increases. The California Constitution already says that if they conflict, then the one with the most votes will prevail. Plus, both ballot initiatives contain language saying that if they both are passed by voters, then the one with the most votes will win completely and render the other null and void in its entirety. But whether or not they actually conflict will ultimately be decided by the courts.

      So if both pass and Prop 30/Brown has fewer votes than Prop 38/Munger, then the trigger cuts occur. Simultaneously, Prop 38/Munger will raise $10 billion for schools. The way the money is intended to be spent, it will likely cover the same things that the trigger cuts did, plus the $3 billion it is projected to save through the debt servicing may lessen the need for the trigger cuts in the first place. But I still prefer Prop 30 over Prop 38 because I think it is a dangerous slippery slope to set a large amount of education funding outside of the legislature’s control.

      Does that help?

      • Taffany Lim

        Thanks! I think I’m getting stuck on the possibility that they will ‘conflict.’ I’m concerned that if Prop 38 gets more votes, then we will have effectively nullified Prop 30……

        • Kim Tso

          Let’s pretend 90% of voters want to support education, but only pick one of the propositions to support. Then you could have a situation where 45% support Prop 30 and 45% support Prop 38, and they both lose despite overwhelming support for higher taxes for education. Yes, you might prefer one or the other, but if you want to support education, your best bet is to vote for both.

  • Susan Schwartz

    This is great! I love the 15-second, 1-minute, 3-minute answer approach. I already knew that I was going to vote yes on both, but now I feel better equipped to explain why, and to make a persuasive appeal to other voters. THANKS!

    • kimtso

      Thank you, Susan. I’m glad you found it helpful. I’ll post a more detailed look at the tax proposals next week, so stay tuned.

  • Chris Pepper

    Public schools are a disaster unless you live in an area with tremendous community support. Without this support they’re awful. The state cannot support the current system. Something’s gotta give. Perhaps Brown would consider rolling back the California pensions to pay for this.

    • kimtso

      Thanks for your comment, Chris. Schools do need deep reservoirs of community support to be successful, and not all of them have that. It would be a wonderful thing to have deep community support for all public schools and students.

      So, in the places where public schools have strong community support, what are the things that make up that support? What does strong community support look like to you?

      It also sounds like it is important to you that we have a sustainable education system. What makes any large system sustainable over time and through the booms and busts of economic cycles?

      What are some small things we can each do to be the sustainable support public schools need?

  • Pingback: How Will Prop 30 and Prop 38 Affect Your Taxes?

  • Sally Clark

    If you vote yes on both only the one with the most votes will pass….that is California law because they oppose each other. If you vote yes for 38 and Prop 30 loses, the so-called “trigger cuts” built into the current state budget would go into effect. Do we need these cuts? Also, Prop 30 taxes those who make more than $250,000 while Prop 38 starts increasing taxes for those who make as little as $7400. If you make from 7400-17000 dollars you are looking at a 4% tax increase. Also, there is no rewriting of this Prop 38…it will be in effect for 12 years. So I would determine which tax increase is more fair to citizens who are already hurting from a dire economy. Why would Molly Munger propose such an increase in taxes on the poor….perhaps to save an increase on taxes for the higher income earners such as herself or her clients….she is a civil rights attorney. Also, why is she showing a misleading commercial that claims PTA is backing her Proposition when she is the one who is funding it herself? I’m voting yes on 30 and No on 38!

    • kimtso

      Sally, thank you for your comment. Yes, it is true that ultimately only one will go into effect even if both pass; however, neither will pass without at least some voters who support education voting for both. As I explained to Taffany in the other comments, even if we had 90% of voters supporting education, if they only vote for one proposition, then the vote would be split and neither would pass. As a tactical move, it is important for as many people as possible to vote for both.

      The trigger cuts that go into effect if Prop 30 doesn’t pass are stacked against education overwhelmingly. I believe this is partly a function of education being the biggest chunk of the discretionary budget, and partly because the Governor believes that public support for education is high enough that he can win a ballot measure.

      As for the tax increases, as I explain in my post about the tax proposals, yes, the marginal rates do go up for more tax brackets under Prop 32, but the effective tax rate for someone at the income level you are describing is still 0-1% because of various deductions and credits. In contrast, Prop 30 levies a sales tax increase that cannot be avoided by anyone regardless of income.

      It is true that Prop 38 cannot be altered by the Legislature, but it could be done by another ballot proposition, which means the threshold of difficulty for changes is rather high.

      I cannot speak to why Molly Munger constructed her tax proposal the way she did, but those paying the most in taxes and taking the highest tax increases in her proposal are people in her income bracket.

      The California PTA did, in fact, endorse her Proposition. Their endorsement does not necessarily mean that they helped pay for all that was involved in the campaign.

      I hope these clarifications help. Thank you for voting in favor of education. At the end of the day, I sincerely believe that all of us want to see adequate levels of funding restored to education one way or another.

      • Bill

        Great info on here, but I think you meant Prop 38 when you said “Prop 32.” I can see how you became confused since Prop 30 and 32 are often discussed together. Yes on 30, no on 32, no 38!

        • kimtso

          Yes, I meant Prop 38. My mistake, thanks for catching it.

  • Kellie

    What are the fiscal impacts should it be passed/not passed?

    • kimtso

      Thanks for your question, Kellie. The fiscal impact if Prop 30 is not passed will be a $6 billion dollar cut to the budget, most of which would impact the schools. Likely this will mean teachers will lose more jobs, and California already has the largest student/teacher ratio in the country. Losing more jobs will likely prolong California’s recession.

      If Prop 30 passes, most of the tax burden will be borne by the top 1% of personal income tax filers. Some of it, but a far smaller percentage, will be borne through the sales tax increase. Please see my blog post that takes a closer look at the tax proposals for more detailed information.

      Prop 38 not passing has no direct effect on the budget since it isn’t trying to fix the budget problem; it’s trying to create new funding streams for schools. If it passes, it will impose higher taxes on 60% of income tax filers, but the vast majority of it will be borne by the highest income earners.

  • Kellie

    Are there any other unintended consequences of passing/not passing for prop 38?

    • kimtso

      Thanks for this question, Kellie. It’s hard to predict what the unintended consequences will be beyond what I have outlined here which are: 1) getting tied up in court or the legislature trying to implement the new program, and/or 2) taking education out of the democratic and budgeting process which may make it harder to bring it back in later. There are bound to be unintended consequences with any route voters take; such is the nature of public policy.

  • Bill

    While I appreciate the information provided here, this is not a 15-second problem and a cannot be properly resolved in a 15-second answer. I think it’s a bit short-sighted to advise parents that the best thing for their kids is to vote for yes on both Prop 30 and Prop 38. This is fine advice for parents who don’t intend to send their children to college in California. It is an unfortunate likelihood that, if both measures pass, the proposition with the most votes will be enacted. If Prop 38 gets more votes, it will result in increased college tuition costs in California and will be devastating to the California community college system. The problem will compound upon itself. If Prop 30 fails, state tuition will go up and community college class availability will be drastically reduced, leaving middle and low-income families with far fewer options for higher education. This is why I’m voting yes on 30 and no on 38.

    • kimtso

      Thank you for your comment, Bill. Certainly, it is not a 15-second problem. I reduced the answer to that time mostly for parents’ convenience. I prefer parents to vote for at least one of them rather than not vote at all because they don’t have time to research these complicated measures.

      At this point, it is unlikely that Prop 38 will succeed given its polling. However, from a tactical point of view, it is important for education funding for a significant chunk of voters to support both measures if either is to succeed. If you want 30 to win, some of the supporters for 38 will need to vote for 30 as well. (See my response to Taffany on this issue.)

  • Glass Joe

    I have my doubts about either proposition. Prop 30 doesn’t appear to guarantee the funds will be used for schools, they are just marketing it as such to get you to vote for it. Prop 38 may guarantee the money will be for hiring teachers, but that means our income taxes (all of our income taxes, not just those making over $250K) are increased. School funding needs to be addressed, but it needs to be related to public employee pensions. I can’t understand why they don’t switch to 401K’s like the rest of us.

    Of course reform is overstated because no one can figure out how to make it happen. Changing it to look like private sector practices (evaluate on performance, not tenure) is made to look like blasphemy.

    • kimtso

      Thanks for your comment, Glass Joe. Prop 30 doesn’t have to guarantee to use the funds for schools, because it is tied to the budget and the budget cuts are practically all to the schools, especially if you include higher education. It’s not just a marketing strategy; our schools will suffer if this doesn’t pass. Prop 38 will increase income taxes on more people, but the vast majority of the funds raised will be coming from high income households. As for pension reform, well, that’s another can of worms that won’t get addressed by these propositions, and I’m not willing to let this generation of children suffer for the fact that we adults can’t work out pension reform. My take is that we keep money in the schools, keep cuts away from impacting the kids, and work like crazy to fix what needs to be fixed. But kids need to be held harmless, and that’s why I’m supporting both propositions.

    • JazminBlue

      Prop 30 isn’t about more money for schools, it’s about no more cuts. And Prop 38 won’t provide funding until 2014, leaving schools to fill the gap, if Prop 30 fails, created by the loss of funds, which will be retroactive to July 1, 2012. That’s a long time with no funding!

  • Rukshan Fernando

    This is an excellent synopsis of the issues. Thank you for this well written blog post.

    • kimtso

      Thank you, Rukshan. I’m glad it was useful to you.

  • Pingback: prop 30 prop 38

  • perspective2

    The choices you make on Nov 6 will determine California’s
    course for years. We are kidding
    ourselves by believing that education funding shortfalls disappear with Prop
    30, Prop 38.

    Prop 30, Prop 38 both
    levy significant taxes on each one of us. The wounds that Prop 30, 38 are to heal have been self inflicted largely
    by our elected Sacramento politicians who simply do not say no to any influential interest group be they higher education, public employees,
    business, teachers, or other unions or lobbyists.

    And now Prop 30, 38 are used by Sacramento politicians and
    lobbyists to blackmail us.

    Save California for our children. Vote No on Prop 30, 38, 32. Keep the California dream alive.

    • JazminBlue

      The only “significant” tax increase would be for those making more than $250,000 per year. For the rest of us, it is an INsignificant 1/4% sales tax increase. Prop 30 isn’t about MORE money for schools. It is about not TAKING more money from them. They have already been cut to the point where there have been so many layoffs that class sizes are unmanageable and parents are having to provide many of the school supplies that should be provided by the schools. If 30 fails, it will result in significant cuts to schools, and almost guarantees that schools will have to resort to MORE furlough days than they have already had to take. This will have a significant impact on working parents (many of whom are already cash-strapped), as they will have to pay for additional days of child care. That will certainly be a more significant cost than the piddling 1/4% sales tax. Not to mention the fact that students will have fewer educational days in an already failing educational environment, much of which is a result of the previous cuts! YES on 30! No on 38, which won’t fund schools until 2014.

  • Pingback: Prop 30 Prop 38 Taxes

  • Cindy

    A correction to your statement “Prop 30/Brown says that if it doesn’t pass, then $5 billion in cuts go into effect. Period. No Prop 30/Brown, then schools lose $5 billion.” Prop 30 does NOT contain any language regarding trigger cuts. The trigger cuts only appears in the state budget; we are not voting on the state budget, but only on Prop 30. Pro 30 does not guarantee the legislatures will OR will not cut more or less funding. In addition, Prop 30 permanently realigns $6 Billion out of the general revenue into a special fund for local public safety. This mean $6 Billion will not be subject to Prop 98 (40% to school) requirement permanently. Remember, the Prop 30 tax increase is only temporary, but the shift is permanent.

    • Kim Tso

      Thanks, Cindy!

    • kimtso

      Thanks, Cindy.