Confusion in GOP LD-4

Sonoran Alliance received this message from Lyle Tuttle detailing problems in the recent GOP organizational meeting in LD-4. There are also two YouTube videos following the proceedings.

Maybe some of the LD-4 participants may want to comment.

Please bear with me on this — I will show you how 180 Elected PC’s in LD-4 have been robbed of their vote.

1.  FACT:  The organizational meeting for LD-4 was held on Monday, November 17, 2008.

2.  FACT:  LD-4 Chairman Burges hired a Certified Parliamentarian for $100 per hour to assist in any procedural ruling that might come up during the meeting.

3.  FACT:  There were 151 votes represented at that meeting.  73 in person, 76 by ‘accepted’ proxy and there were 7 proxies in question at the time of the credentials report.

4.  FACT:  Prior to the credentials report, a question was raised by a PC, stating that she had brought two notarized proxies with her to the meeting from elected PC’s who knew they would be out of state on the date of the Nov 17 meeting.  They filled out our usual proxy, and inserted the proper meeting date, had it notarized and gave it to the PC to carry for them.  Because the location of the meeting had changed after the date the proxy was given, the location was wrong.  They denied her proxies on the basis of the wrong location.

5.  FACT:  When the credentials report was given — after committee deliberation over those proxies, they upheld their original ruling, thus denying the proxies based on ‘special rules’ for the meeting that had yet to even be voted on — they were not in force.

6.  FACT:  When the motion for a vote on the credentials report was proffered, confusion reigned, as there was little direction or control by the chairman.  After some confusion, the chairman repeated the motion, stating that we would be voting on the “RULES”…..then credentials, and some debate followed.

7. FACT:  A vote was held, and the motion (which motion??) was defeated handily.

8.  FACT:  More confusion, as it was announced that the motion to pass the rules failed.  (At least the vote outcome was correct)

9.  FACT:  After more confusion, it was determined that the actual vote had been on the motion to accept the credentials report.  (Even the Parliamentarian misstated the motion after the vote, and was corrected.)  He then asked that since we had voted down the credentials report (many voters, myself included, thought we were voting on the rules), what did we want to do?  Confusion, but one Elected PC moved that we vote again as there had been so much confusion over what we were voting for.  The chair failed to recognize her motion.

10.  FACT:  The Chairman announced that the meeting was adjourned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwCEd-G87QY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHqVS-hVyYc

At that point, most in the room said “NO!”, but to no avail.

Here are my thoughts on what happened In LD-4 at our organizational meeting, and what I feel is still happening:

1.  FACT:  There are two opposing factions within LD-4, each looking for officer and delegate positions.  (That is called competition — good for business and for leadership)

2.  FACT:  The faction currently “looking for positions” suddenly became very visible at the October LD-4 meeting by running a slate of people for the nominations committee, which they won by a large margin.

3.  FACT:  When the current leadership saw that, they recognized that they might not be able to win the November election.  PC’s were appointed to other committees who were favorable to the current leadership — certainly no crime if no shenanigans are attempted…..

4.  FACT:  When the call was sent out, it contained proposed “special rules” for the November meeting, and also had a “special’ proxy, with some small changes contained thereon.  (The rules were in conflict with our bylaws, and therefore not in order, as per Robert’s Rules.  They would be voted down by the majority — it would take a 2/3 majority to approve them, anyway.)

5.  FACT: Now, after the meeting was closed down (umm, an “error”?), the LD-4 Chairman seems now to be in ‘hiding’ — will not answer the phone nor emails — at least not for those who opposed his slates’ election

6.  Conjecture on my part:  I feel our Chairman is stonewalling — he knows that he and his team can’t win a fair election, and he also knows that if he waits long enough, it will be impossible for LD-4 to hold another meeting under the bylaws, and at that point, the officer and delegates are APPOINTED by the State Chairman, the County Chairman and the District Chairman.

7.  This afternoon, I ran into our Chairman at a local store.  I asked him what was happening, and he told me that they were “negotiating”.  I asked who with, and he said the State.  I asked who on the “other side” were they talking to, as I was in close contact with them, and no one had stepped up yet…..  I also want to know WHY you would even WANT to negotiate Elected PC’s votes away from them?  Why not just hold a meeting, and allow the PC’s to vote — that is what they were elected to do.  I also told him I thought he was “stonewalling”, and asked him to stop it, and do the job he was elected to do.  In response, he walked away.

8.  We have looked the bylaws over high and low, and we cannot see any way to FORCE him to call another meeting, nor for our 1st vice-chair to take over in his place in a timely fashion.  Without some action and assistance from YOU, 180 Elected Precinct Committeemen and Women are going to be denied their right to vote on this issue, simply because someone wants to take their ball and go home.  Please call or email Bob, and ask him to stop being so childish, and do his job!

SUGGESTIONS:
Elected PC’s in other Districts need to be aware of this, and make sure it does NOT happen in YOUR District.  In a meeting such as this, Robert’s Rules says that it requires a motion and a vote to adjourn such a meeting…..but…….if he says the words without a motion or vote, too bad for you…….IF you hire a certified Parliamentarian, make sure he has the integrity to step in without being asked if needed — after all, that is what you pay them for.

OTHER INFORMATION:
Just so you all know, the meeting was taped, and DVD’s of the proceedings are being produced.  I suggest that if you want a real-life lesson in how to NOT run a meeting, take a look at the DVD.  If you have any questions about what I have said above, watch the DVD.  I will also tell you that there is much more on the DVD than I have talked about here.  For example, I did not tell you about the proxy that was presented for a DEAD person……yes, is was disallowed, as it should have been.

There is a LOT more on the DVD’s, and I must say, it is a pathetic sight.

Shame on you Mr. Chairman, Shame on you!!!!

Lyle Tuttle
Surprise, AZ


Comments

  1. Who is the man running the meeting in the video? And why does he seem like such a bumbling buffoon?

  2. This is the Chairman! I would hide too after that debacle. Surely a new meeting is being scheduled so they can start over again — preferably with someone else at the helm. Power does not give up easily, but this is absurd. And we wonder why the GOP is going down the tubes.

  3. don haselhoff phoenix az says

    WHAT A SHAME

    On November 17 almost 80 good Republicans gathered to elect officers and state delegates and never got to vote. The agenda was laid out to consider proposed rules, a credentials committee report, a nomination committee report, and then the vote – in that order. The only report heard at the meeting was the credentials report which was voted down. I am personaly familiar with all the reports that were to have been submitted and the problems posed by the proposed rules which are not consistent with LD-4 bylaws. I am also aware that the credentials proceedures were based on these proposed rules. The ballots that were distributed were those prepared by the nomination committee which the parlimentarian had ruled were preferable to the ballots that had been prepared by the credentials committee and were in accord with the bylaws.
    So in the end a continued meeting was held by those that remained representing 75 votes (a quorum)of the 151 votes credentialed. This continued meeting elected officers and delegates. Many voters left the regular meeting after it had been abruptly closed by the chairman and did not attend the continued meeting. The election at the continued meeting has been informally challenged by those that left and who probably wish that the 75 would just go away.
    What a shame that truth is so hard to relate to the good people on both sides of the issues and the election process in LD-4.

  4. As someone who attended the LD4 meeting I want to comment on what actually happened at the meeting.

    Basically, the credential report was voted down 79-68. Under Robert’s Rules, the rejection of the credentials report means no one is credentialed to vote and the meeting lacks a quorum. Thus, without a quorum, Chairmen Burges adjourned the meeting.

    Phil Corbell and Lyle Tuttle instructed their supporter to vote down the report because the credentials committee rejected Phil’s proxies. The EGC had taken away Phil’s voting rights after he publicly and emphatically endorsed a third party candidate for President in an article in the Arizona Capitol Times. http://www.azcapitoltimes.com/story.cfm?ID=9612

    Bill Montgomery, the general counsel for the MCRC, issued a legal opinion that under the MCRC and LD4 bylaws, as a result of the EGC’s vote to take away Phil Corbell’s voting right, Phil could not vote, give a proxy, or carry proxies at any MCRC or LD4 meetings. Phil was given the legal opinion well before the meeting and knew in advance any proxies he carried would not be counted. Phil proxies were not rejected based on some “special rules” as Lyle claimed but based EGC vote and a legal opinion on the effect of Phil Corbell’s loss of voting rights under the MCRC and LD4 bylaws.

    In Phil’s and Lyle’s brilliance, they thought if they voted down the credentials report, the credential committee would have to relent and let Phil vote his proxies. The meeting ended, not because of some devious plan by Chairman Burges, but because of Phil Corbell’s and Lyle Tuttle’s arrogance and lack of knowledge of Robert’s Rules.

    Lyle also claims in his message that it was unclear that what we were voting on. He says some people including him though we were voting on the rules, not the credentials. If you watch these two videos, at least six times, Chairman Burges says this is a vote on the credentials (1st video: at 8:55 and 9:10; 2nd video: at 3:56, 4:04, 4:10, and 4:18). Also, at 4:14 of the second video, the Parliamentarian says we are voting on the credentials and the rules will be voted on after the credentials. Finally, Walt Opaska at 5:02 and 5:07 says that we are voting on the credentials report and everyone needed to use the first motion ballot. Accordingly, at least 9 times before the vote and after the motion was made, it was stated loud enough for everyone in the room to hear that the vote was on the credentials report. This confusion claim is just a guise to confuse the issues and try to draw sympathy. Lyle, Phil, and their supporters knew exactly what they were doing (but didn’t understand the effects).

    Chairman Burges did exactly what you are supposed to do in this situation; if the meeting lacks a quorum, no votes can be taken or any business accomplished so the only thing to do is adjourn the meeting.

    I will leave it to others to comment on Lyle’s, Phi’s, and their supporter outrageous actions that were conveniently edited out of the video.

  5. nightcrawler says

    Excellent post. This is the steak we all need to sink our teeth into despite all the smoke off the grill. Democracy is at stake.

    First off, I very rarely agree with the EGC on anything, much less Lyle Tuttle. In this case I agree with both.

    I do believe Republican PCs who publicly support a non-Republican in a partisan race (with a viable GOP candidate) need to be censured. In this regard, Montgomery got it right. Those proxies should not count. Those votes needed to be carried by someone else.

    On the flip side, it was bogus to adjourn the meeting just because it became apparent that old guard was about to be defeated. If PCs work hard and show up to vote, they should not be denied to do so on a convenient procedural issue.

  6. Average Joe,

    You claim you don’t know who is running the meeting sound funny to me since someone under the same pseudonym, “Average Joe” posted a blog on a Ron Paul website about the LD4 meeting three days ago.

    Please, if you are going to make ad hominem attacks, please have the guts to use your real name.

  7. LD$ PC’a interpretation of Robert’s Rules is just plain wrong.

    The report of the Credential Committee was rejected, which is NOT the same thing as a saying a quorum does not exist.

    There seems to be some dispute for the rationale for the Credential Committee for rejecting the proxy votes.

    It also seems clear that the country clubbers were trying to play games to avoid a sucessful meeting where they would lose.

  8. Glendale GOP says

    Early in the meeting, both Tuttle and Corbell tried to make a motion and they were told by the Parliamentarian that they could not UNTIL and AFTER the credentials report process was complete. Prior to that, no one had standing to make any motions or conduct any business. Then those two had their people vote down the credentials report that could have given them standing to conduct business. Idiots.

    At that point, there is nothing left but to adjourn and try it again another day, except that Corbell claims to have gotten himself elected chairman in the parking lot after the meeting was over. By who? Who knows. But not by the rules.

  9. If Phil Corbell was censored for allegedly supporting a 3rd party candidate, then the majority in the meeting should have been censored. Why? At the LD-4 October meeting, EVERYONE in attendance, with the exception of ONE individual, openly endorsed a non-Republican for the Sun City Fire Department. Read the Minutes!

    Further, in response to Post #4, above. Look at video 2 again. Even the Parliamentarian thought we voted on the Rules.

  10. One more point: This was a hostile meeting. As such, in order for the Chairman to adjourn the special meeting, a motion to adjourn needed to be made, seconded and voted upon. I can tell you that the vast majority in that room wanted the meeting to go forward — no matter which side they favorded. I can tell you also that many old timers are disgusted with the way the meetings are being run. Do you really expect these PC’s will take part in future meetings. The new and fresh faces of PC’s willing to run for office desparately want change in the GOP. They want to get back to the Party’s basic, core principles — and to have fair, honest and transparency in all that they do. But the Old Guard does not seem to understand those virtues. It threatens their power.

  11. Note to “Suspicious”. My post (above) was my first on this website. I’ve read before but not posted. Since the vast majority of posters use pseudonyms, as did you on your attack on me, I assume that was the norm.

    Since you’ve given us all my name…how about being man or woman enough to give us yours?

  12. Glendale GOP says

    Sorry Quincy, but Tuttle/Corbell’s people knew exactly what they were voting on and they insisted on it, out loud. In the video, you see a member of the “old guard” asking to revote, suggesting that folks didn’t know what they were voting on. She was shouted down by the “new blood” who proudly proclaimed that they knew EXACTLY what they were voting on. Too late now to pretend there was confusion on that side. They blew the vote and drove the meeting into a dead end. Parliamentary mistake, but the mistake was theirs, not anyone else’s. Now they’ll have to redo the meeting, that’s all.

  13. Quincy S. made some very good points in his posts.

  14. Interesting that “Suspicious” removed my personal name by editing his entry above (a feature on this website that doesn’t appear to be available to the “average Joes” of the world), rather than telling us who he/she is, but at the same time he/she has linked my seudonym to a website (another feature of this website that doesn’t appear to be available to the common man) for which I have written some blog entries. Everyone here is invited to read those bogs. I stand behind them, while “Suspicious” continues to stand behind the curtain of anonymity.

  15. Wooden Teeth says

    Hilarious. Without a quorum, there is no meeting to adjourn. Let us know what happens at the next meeting when the minutes of the previous meeting (this one?) are voted on.

  16. Glendale GOP: Look at the video again at 6:40. The “Old Guard” was NOT shouted down when, in a clear voice, she moved to do a re-vote. Instead, the motion was ignored. Also of interest, watch Judy Burges approach her husband and whisper in his ear (at 7:22). He then walked immediately to the microphone and adjourned the meeting.

    I agree with you that a new meeting needs to be called. However, Bob Burges is in hiding. If he stalls until December 4th, then the State, County and District Chairmen will decide who the new LD-4 officers will be, AND who the 57 delegates will be at the State Convention. Do you think this is fair? Is this democracy when 180 PC’s have their vote taken away by these men!!! It’s an outrage. They should be mindful of “unintended consequences.”

  17. As a guy standing on the curb (who is a registered R) watching all this, all I can say – if this is the level of leadership and decorum in the GOP this state is in a sorry mess.

    I guess the state is in a sorry mess – and we get the leadership we deserve.

    I keep hoping some statesmanship will show up some day.

  18. One of the things not discussed is what a power of attorney actually does. People show up in court frequently with a power of attorney for someone and believe that it somehow magically makes them an attorney or somehow authorized them to represent someone else in a proceeding. The term “attorney in fact” is both unfortunate and confusing. Even though a power of attorney is perhaps the most powerful legal document someone can sign, all it does is allow someone else to sign your name to something. It does nothing more.

  19. So how much did the Certified Parliamentarian end up making? It sure seems like he/she was worth every penny to us Dems.

    God knows it sure is fun watching your side.

  20. Methinks “Observer” should observe the difference between a ‘power of attorney’ and a ‘proxy,’ which is what was at issue here.

  21. In response to Me Says, the bottom line is that everything Bill Montgomery said was correct. If someone cannot vote, then they cannot hold a proxy. Having a power of attorney and claiming that doing so trumps everything else is an invalid position. Once again, a power of attorney authorizes one person to sign legal documents for another. It does nothing more and does not authorize someone to appear on behalf of someone else in any forum.

  22. It is not entirely true that voting down the credentials report means no other business can be conducted. For example, a motion to reconsider with a 2/3 vote in favor of the motion would be IN ORDER. The parliamentarian advising Bob was one of the worst (or most corrupt) parliamentarians I’ve ever seen. I do not carry that statement over to Bob. Bob is a very nice man. But he’s not a strong chairman. He doesn’t know the rules well. Nor, actually, do Lyle or Phil Corbell. It was a bad scene all around. Anyone who did know rules (well) would have cleaned up in that meeting.

  23. If good, honest Republicans, don’t know what is going on, I will spell it out to you. We have a new breed, Called Constitutional Republican Reformers, who are trying to take over and mold our party into a very Liberal, childish form. They are very vocal and very deceptive. They have wormed their way into LD 4, without most of us even noticing. After all we do not think there is a traitor behind every tree! They maybe even one, you thought was your friend. How misguided can one be? Look out all you other Districts. They are everywhere and growing.

  24. Mouse, You’re being hysterical. Besides, isn’t that what the left-wing neocons did when they got YOU to believe they were conservatives? And you supported them!

  25. Mouse:

    Where do you get your info!!! You represent the type of Republican who thrives on scare tactics. Scare everyone to keep the “status quo” in power. Well…let me SPELL IT OUT to you what the so-called Constitutional Republican Reformers (your name for us) represent:

    We are the people who recognized years ago that the country was headed in the wrong direction with the Bush Administration.

    We are the people who recognized that the neo-cons stopped being the party of limited government and had veered away from the U.S. Constitution.

    We “Reformers” are the people who recognized that the concern for the future of the Republican Party had not been seriously addressed in the year 2000 when the Republicans gained control of the House, Senate and the Presidency. The goal of the neo-cons was only that of gaining and maintaining power — with total sacrifice of the original Republican belief in shrinking the size of government.

    We “Reformeres”, as you refer to us, want limited government power and size, LESS government spending and a balanced budget; i.e., the goal of “traditional” Republican values.

    The Republican Party NEVER stood up to the Bush and Rove machine that demanded support for unconstitutional wars, attacks on civil libeties here at home, an econominc policy based on more spending, more debt and more inflation — while constantly preaching that deficits don’t matter as long as taxes aren’t raised.

    We “Reformers” saw that party leaders concentrated only on political tricks in order to maintain power — and neglected the limited-government principles on which they were elected.

    And you dare say we are Liberals! We are Childish! people should be afraid of us!!!! We who believe in the core principles of the Republican Party of old” and wish to get back to those principles.

    We are offering a new crop of PC’s whose goal is to regain the credibility needed to redirect the Party. We understand the stakes involved — and feel we have a responsiblity to energetically get involved. Why would you not want to join us??? And, yes, I do hope you are right. I hope we are growing everywhere. Otherwise, the Party is doomed.

    Lastly, may I point out that it is well known throughout Arizona that rich and powerful businessmen want and encourage open borders so underpaid illegal aliens can bring them greater profits.

    LIBERALS WE ARE NOT. CONSERVATIVE, TRADITIONAL REPUBLICANS WE MOST DEFINITELY ARE!!!

  26. The Other Side? says

    Sometimes it is good to stop and think. As the AZ Rebublic “Today’s Chuckle” says November 24th – “A good marraige requires communication, but most people’s transmitters are better than their receivers” A quote from an e-mail I recieved also expresses this well.

    ” I’m a long-time Republican but not involved in any of your political groups. A friend suggested I start reading this blog site so I’ve been lurking and learning recently. This is certainly a lively subject about what’s going on in LD-4. Are you sure all of these people are in the same Party?

    As for what I’ve read on this discussion, I agree quite a lot with what Rweetheer has written. There’s not too much to be proud of or take pleasure in with the current crop of Republican leaders in Washington, DC. I’ve always thought we were better here in AZ. Now I’m beginning to wonder.

    I’ll keep watching and reading to see where this stuff goes. A healthy discussion of both the issues and the policies is beneficial to us all. I hope that in the end we’ll all end up on the same page and turn our collective attention against the Democrats and socialists who have taken over all of Washington. And I do believe by the way that we Republicans need to clear our heads of all this bickering and start treating each other with more respect. New blood and new energy is certainly needed in our Party. That’s what swept Obama into the White House from the Left. If we don’t start valuing and accepting those new to our Party, we’ll become even more of a minority than we are now.”

    Keep an open mind and a happy heart.

  27. Yes! We certainly do need to unite, but not on the half assed ideas, the Reformers have.You need to have common sense, which seems to be lacking. They don’t think the terrists are real, and we blew up our own twin towers. If they had gotten behind our Republican Candidate, we might not have a foreigner in the White House! They left us!We did not leave them! I got the Reformers name off the article by D.R. thats what he called themselves when they showed up at the meeting, from Hell!

  28. It’s so wrong to lump all newcomers with one broad brush. Many don’t give a second thought to or a tinker’s damn abount who blew up what, when or how. It happened (sadly) and we’re still looking for the bad guys. End of story.

    Soooooo let me get this straight…it’s better to vote for someone you don’t trust or believe in and have him win than someone you do believe in and have him lose. Wonderful. Have you no principles left?

    Just because McCain decided to continue reaching across the aisle on nearly every issue rather than sitting across the aisle, as he considered doing all the long ago, does not increase his attractiveness to this Conservative Republican.

    There must be room for intelligent disagreement within our Party without name-calling or dirty tricks to quell the voices of those who don’t march in lock-step with the Party bosses. We can continue to fight each other or we can agree to disagree on some issues while keeping the same core values that made us Republicans in the first place. That’s the only way we’ll have half a chance to take back our govenment and our country from those who are totally ignoring our Constitutional protections and destroying our way of life.

  29. Don’t tlk to me about principles. You commited an act of fraud when you put your name on the ballot, to become a PC. You as a Pc could vote for whom ever you chose in the Primary election, however after you were elected as a PC it was your duty as a PC to get behind the nominated candidate, as well as seeing that every Republican in your Precinct, did the same. Your intentions, in becoming a PC were not good. Your mission seems to be one of mischief and disruption. You will be singled out as fools! Your acts have now help to promote socialism. Get ready to share your pay check with the half nots. Enough said, I’m done. We know who you are!

  30. Yes you know who I am, but you “Mr. Mouse” continue to hide behind the vale of secrecy, how pathetic. My principles are in tact. God, family, country, Party, in that order. Can you say the same? It is the Neocons in our Party who commit fraud and violate the underpinnings of our platform and our Constitutional Republic, not those that support and revere our Constitution. Lack of understanding and/or support of Constitutional principles brought us to this mess and they are what lost the election for Republicans.

    My intentions and my mission are most honorable, and not less so through your protestations; to help right a ship of state that is listing heavily to the left. As is easy to tell, it has been listing ever so slowly and steadily that those on board haven’t even noticed that it is no longer sitting true in the water. They appear hell-bent on saying all is well until even they must some day admit that the ship’s capsize is inevitable.

    You said it is me and millions like me that caused the defeat of John McCain? No one carries a heavier burden for the defeat than McCain himself. He’s reached so far across the aisle to champion bad legislation that violates our Constitution and our platform that I’m surprised his arms still return to their sockets. The American people could not and will never get behind such a candidate as this, no matter what changes to his former actions he espouses during the campaign.

    By the way, it’s “have nots”, not “half nots”.

    Have a happy and safe Thanksgiving.

  31. McCain’s a LIB. People who supported him were LIBs. McCain is a democrat-loving, big government spending program-voting, anti gun, LIB.

  32. The point is this:

    1. PC’s ran for office and were elected….if you did not like the politics of someone who ran, you should run someone you DO agree with and defeat the ‘other guy’….

    2. LD-4’s organizational meeting was adjourned prematurely….not to mention it did not follow Robert’s Rules…….

    3. Now the chairman of LD-4, Bob Burges, is hiding, and refuses to do what we elected him to do: Follow the law (ARS 16-823) and call another meeting

    4. Instead, he chooses to wait, and then appoint delegates of his own choosing. Apparently, he thinks the 180 ELECTED PC’s don’t need to have a say in the matter.

    5. The lesson learned here is this:

    “If you don’t have enough votes to win your re-election, just adjourn the meeting, go in hiding, and wait them out.”

    Pretty sad, IMHO

    Bob, send the call, and let the PC’s vote.

  33. Looks like someone out smarted themselves. Now that counterretaliations are being used, you are hollering foul! To bad your sad. You and your followers did this to yourselves. Please stick to the truth when telling your tale of woe!

  34. Mouse: You seem to be blinded by loathing for those who disagree with you and provide intelligent counterpoints. Let me give it to you straight. I am a PC. And…I would NEVER back a candidate — no matter what office he is running for — if I did not believe in him. Suggest you go to other conservative blogs. Look at the number of non-PC’s who disliked McCain. They saw him for what he was a long, long time ago — even calling him Republic-lite. Some people stick to their principles and that seems to bother you. Many people put Country First (not party) and really mean it. With you, it’s the Party, the Party, the Party — right or wrong. With people like you, it’s a good thing Hitler wasn’t running as a Republican.

    Lastly, please try to put a sentence together before firing off your hateful blogs. It’s very difficult to understand your rantings at times.

Leave a Reply