Practicing What I Preach, and Street Crossing

Time to practice what I preach. Open mindedness, tollerance, looking for what’s fact not fiction, no matter the source.

I have posted hundreds of articles about actions of people that I do not agree with. Some of those activities I have felt were unconscionable, and despicable, but I have always said it wasn’t about personal hate, or malice toward any of those individuals. Do I personally dislike many of them? Yes, but It was simply about spreading the truth. Spreading facts to try and dispute the non-facts of others. Getting information out that could help to change a bad situation into a better one, But what happens when one of the people you have spent the most time in complete disagreement with shares something that is a valid and a serious concern. Are we adult enough to have more concern for the greater good then our own personal distaste for that person? Can we let down the wall of separation and find a common ground? In this particular persons case I would answer absolutely not, but yet I find myself writing this post. Struggling to figure out a way to share the info without crediting the original poster. How can I share the information he has without lending any sort of credibility to him? I am not adult enough apparently to accept some common ground with a man I have spent a decade being disgusted by, yet here I am still typing. My distaste doesn’t change the fact that he has raised a concern that if I had to guess many of us have been taking for granted, or overlooking because of other more current issues.

Lately we have discussed safety concerns around our schools. Specifically the flashing stop signs and their removal, for what appears to be nothing more then making a single voter happy. It may seem to have gotten some greater focus then it normally would have, but Isn’t it human nature to focus so directly on something that you completely miss something at least as serious? Of course it is, it happens every day in every subject. Specifically during a political cycle. It’s also not uncommon that we forget about something that has been discussed before at length.

Lightning may strike me down, and I may be damned to an eternity of ridicule and hate for simply saying I agree with the person who sparked this post, but he has a valid point on this specific subject.

Pedestrians safety is in jeopardy at scott and irving in Schiller Park

Scott and Irving is a major street crossing used by Schiller Park residents going to and from the pool all summer and to a lesser extent numerous pedestrians cross there on a daily basis the remainder of the year.

The crossing is unmarked and does not comply with IDOT regulations because there is no continuation of sidewalk from one side of Irving Park Road to the other side; the crossing provides no continuity for the pedestrians.

The intersection is at a location where drivers going east bound on Irving Park Road are reducing speed from 40 mph to 35 mph; while west bound traffic is being permitted to accelerate from 35 mph to 40 mph with many cars accelerating to merge on to the northbound TriState 294.

Eastbound traffic is distracted by the traffic lights at Judd and Irving just a half a block from pedestrians crossing at Scott and westbound traffic attention is drawn to the traffic light overlooking the pedestrians crossing at Scott Street.

East and west bound on traffic on Irving Park road have no regulatory signs warning of pedestrians crossing at Scott and Irving, let alone vehicular cross traffic.

Easily east and west bound traffic on Irving Park Road are usually operating at a minimum 10 mph over the speed limit; meaning pedestrians are easily facing at times 55 mph traffic as they attempt to cross Irving Park Road.

Drivers are warned about the cemetery entrance and the divided highway ahead; but drivers are not warned about pedestrians.

There are marked crossings at Stalica Park and at the Recreation Center BUT NOT at Scott and Irving.

Scott and Irving has seen a number traffic accidents each year, with some having resulted in serious injuries and fatalities, but little has been done to identify the crossing and warn drivers of pedestrians.

The Village provides a crossing guard most of the time that the Montana Water Park and Memorial Pool is open. But the Village employee faces the same disadvantages that the pedestrians encounter.

I personally was hit twice while crossing children in the 1970’s and ironically hit again in 2014 as I tried to divert a car from hitting a mother crossing with her children. As circumstances would be had no drivers license and left the scene only to be apprehended later.

The deficiencies are as unfair to the drivers as they are dangerous to the pedestrians.

What remains confounding is the outrage and pursuit of concerns regarding flashing stop signs around the schools, that have no accidents and no injuries reported at Village Board meetings and school board meetings; but the SD81 and Schiller Park have allocated thousands of dollars in grant funds for flashing stop signs. Yet there is no mention or pursuit by anyone to improve the safety at Scott St and Irving Park Road.

What will it take to engage the full participation of the elected officials, school district and Village administrative staff and residents to pursue a responsible safety solution at this intersection. So far it has been almost 50 years since the pool was opened and no one has provided the leadership to resolve this safety quagmire.

But yet the bickering continues over flashing red stop signs at intersections near the schools. Let’s move on address an intersection which children are crossing a highway with cars traveling at 55 mph, with no marked intersection and no regulatory signs warning the drivers of pedestrians.

These conditions at the intersection on a daily basis threaten the lives of our residents; and place unsuspecting motorists in an awful position which could result in a life altering tragedy for the driver.

I can not bring myself to share the link to the original post, and I apologize for that. It seems I may not be as noble as I felt I was, but the fact remains that the person who shared this is not wrong. This is a very serious issue to all residents of Schiller Park, and even more so to the Children who may not have the same experience crossing a street as an adult does. This particular crossing is a bad one, and presents another significant risk to all the residents of Schiller Park that has seemingly been ignored. It is also not the only one in our community, but who is responsible for improving the safety of those that cross these streets? IDOT? The village? Both?

I want to state again that this crossing at Irving and Scott st is not the only particularly unsafe crossing in this community, it should also not diminish the seriousness of reducing safety to residents simply for the purpose of pleasing one voter by removing a newly installed flashing stop sign. It’s an additional example of misplaced village priorities.

Additionally we can not ignore the other safety concerns that affect our community. Speeding in Schiller Park is another subject that I see brought up particularly often, and that is not the only other example. Yet we seem to be more concerned with the placement of a night club then the safety of our fellow Schiller Parkers. How many children and residents in this community need to get hit before something is done? That is what I want to know from our current mayor, and what she is planing to do about it. It is after all an election season, but I want to know what she will do right now not later to keep our community as safe as she can from these threats to our safety.

Stop Signs and Traffic in a School Zones

As I have said in the past I tend to stay away from village level issues, unless it pertains to the School, or in this case the safety of the students in Schiller Park. At times village level issues tend to have an affect on the School, and I have always found it disturbing that people in positions of leadership would play these types of games with the education and safety of your children.

This brings us back to the flashing stop signs, and the traffic concerns in Schiller Park around our schools that seems to be getting worse yet still not being addressed.

I discussed the flashing stop signs in a post a short time ago, and the program that put them in place (Flashing Stop Signs). The short of it is that the flashing stop signs were installed as a federally funded program to add safety to the walking routes around our schools. Mayor Piltaver, and her staff worked to get this program put in place in Schiller Park for a reason that we hoped was the safety of children, with no political motivation. One of the signs was removed and replaced with a standard non-flashing version, and coincidentally that took place shortly after a petition was circulated to have them removed. A petition that oddly only gathered 25 signatures before action was taken.

Why was the stop sign removed? The original reason for the removal was that a sign at another location was not working, and the village pulled the sign from the corner of Scott and Eden to use as a replacement, and that the one at Scott and Eden would be replaced when a new one arrived. As of the Schiller Park School District 81 School Board meeting on January 18th 2017 it was reported that the lighted sign at Forster and Linn had still not been replaced with the sign removed from Scott, and Eden. As of yesterday January 26th 2017 the lighted sign at Forster and Linn was still not working, and the sign at Scott and Eden was still a standard non-flashing sign. What makes the Sign at Forster and Linn so important that a village president would feel the need to remove one sign to replace another that is not working. Then replace the removed sign with the replacement when it arrives? Why not simply leave the non-operating sign in place waiting for replacement? Or as an alternative theory maybe the sign at Scott and Eden was removed to please a complaining voter, and the story about using that as a replacement to a broken sign was simply back pedaling on a bad choice? (EDIT- I was told recently, but have not verified Yet that the village had a meeting to discuss issues with the School Signs, and traffic, and at another meeting the Mayor asked the Director of Public works to explain and back up her position to have the sign switched that he himself may not have ordered, in essence put the Director of Public works on the spot for something he did not order done. He has since resigned). If that were the case the choice to please a complaining resident took priority over a program the Mayor herself advocated for as an increase in child safety. Who is leading who in Schiller Park? The mayor or the voters?

Who is leading who in Schiller Park? The Mayor or the Voters? It’s my belief that neither are calling the shots, and let me explain why? We have an arguably thorny complainer in the Mayors ear about a stop sign that is located in front of his house, and is a blight on his life and to the community. He presents a single 25 person petition to the mayor and suddenly the sign is gone (Interesting to know that the person who circulated the stop sign petition also had a petition to stop the installation of speed signs, and he had a petition for the Mayor to run for re-election, campaign favor?). It has been reported that the remaining speed signs have been returned and will not be installed.

You also have a significant portion of the community complaining about speeding around the Schools, and busses for months if not years, and still no solution has been attempted. Yes flashing stop signs were installed, but the reports of severe speeding around all three schools continue with almost no enforcement at all. Other parents post to Social Media with complaint after complaint of difficulties with the new traffic arrangements at Kennedy School yet the village blames traffic control on the School, its procedures, and its staff. The standard passing of unloading School busses, and what has been described to me as “The Soreng Drag strip” by Lincoln Middle School have been problems for years. I have witnessed first hand the staff of all three of these schools often putting themselves at risk to try and deal with this issue, an issue that is 100% a village level issue, and not School District staff. How many children have been hit in Schiller Park? How many more have to get hit before the village president will stop pandering to campaign supporters, and listen to the voters? Because that seems to be who is actually in charge of Schiller Park, the Campaign supporters not the voters or the Mayor.

That is in fact what it looks like to me and many others. It gives the appearance that the Mayor of Schiller Park only cares what is best for the people who support her campaign. If you circulate one of her petitions you have her ear type of situation. These are very serious issues regarding the lives and safety of children at a minimum, but truly affect every person that lives in or passes through Schiller Park.

Stop governing based off of your supporters needs and start governing towards what the community needs.

Some Helpful thoughts for Mr Stachura, and Mr Kowalski

David Stachura, and John Kowalski I want to share with you a few tips on coping with the loss of your partner in miss-guided activities, Patricia Godziszewski.

1. Face the loss. After a serious loss, we sometimes want to do something – anything – to dull the pain. Submitting to a harmful habit like drug use, alcohol abuse, oversleeping, Internet overuse, or wanton promiscuity threatens your well-being and leaves you vulnerable to addiction and further pain. You’ll never truly heal until you confront the loss. Ignoring the pain caused by the loss or sedating yourself with distractions will only work for so long – no matter how fast you run from it, eventually, your grief will overtake you. Confront your loss. Allow yourself to cry or grieve in another way that feels natural. Only by first acknowledging your grief can you begin to defeat it.

• When a loss is fresh in your memory, your grief deserves your full attention. However, you should draw a line on prolonged grieving. Give yourself a period of time – perhaps a few days to a week – to be profoundly sad. Protracted wallowing ultimately keeps you stuck in your sense of loss, paralyzed by self-pity and unable to move forward.

2. Let your pain out. Let the tears flow. Never be afraid to cry, even if it’s not something you usually do. Realize that there is no right or wrong way to feel pain or to express it. What is important is that you recognize the pain and try to work through it. How you do so is entirely up to you and will vary from person to person.

• Find an outlet for your pain. If you’re compelled to do a certain activity as you grieve, do it (provided it doesn’t involve hurting yourself or others.) Crying, pummeling the pillow, going for a long run, throwing things out, going for a long drive, screaming at the top of your lungs in a forest or other solitary place, and sketching your memories are just some of the ways that different people find outlets for their pain. All are equally valid.
• Avoid doing anything that might result in harm to yourself or to others. Loss isn’t about inflicting harm or making things worse. Loss is a time for learning how to draw on your inner emotional reserves and learning how to cope with pain.

3. Share your feelings with others. It’s healthy to seek out people who will take care of you when you’re suffering. If you can’t find a friend, lean on a compassionate stranger or a priest, counselor, or therapist. Even if you feel that you’re rambling, confused and uncertain, talking to someone you trust is one form of allowing yourself to start dumping out some the pain you’re experiencing. See talk as a form of “sorting” your emotions – your thoughts don’t need to be coherent or reasoned. They just need to be expressive.

• If you’re worried others listening to you might be confused or upset by what you’re saying, a simple warning up front can alleviate this concern. Just let them know you’re feeling sad, upset, confused, etc., and that, although some of the words you say aren’t going to make sense, you appreciate having someone listen. A caring friend or supporter won’t mind.

4. Distance yourself from people who aren’t compassionate. Unfortunately, not everyone you talk to while you’re grieving will be helpful to you. Ignore people who say things like “get over it”, “stop being so sensitive”, “I got over it quickly when it happened to me”, etc. They don’t know how you feel, so don’t give their dismissive comments any attention. Tell them “You don’t have to be around me while I’m going through this if it’s too much for you to bear. But I need to go through it, regardless of how you’re feeling, so please give me some space.”

• Some of the people who are dismissive of your grief may even be friends with good (but misguided) intentions. Reconnect with these people when you’re feeling stronger. Until then, distance yourself from their impatience – you can’t rush an emotional recovery.

5. Harbor no regrets. After you’ve lost someone, you may feel guilty. You may be preoccupied by thoughts like, “I wish I’d said goodbye one last time,” or “I wish I’d treated this person better.” Don’t allow yourself to be consumed by your sense of guilt. You cannot change the past by mulling over it again and again. It’s not your fault that you lost someone you loved. Rather than dwelling on what you could have done or should have done, focus on what you can do – process your emotions and move forward.

• If you feel guilty following a loss, talk to other people who knew the person or pet. They will almost always be able to help you convince yourself that the loss isn’t your fault.

6. Save things that remind you of your loved one. Just because a person or a pet is gone doesn’t mean you shouldn’t always remember them. It may be comforting to know that even if the person or pet is no longer here, the friendship, love and personal ties you have with them still exist. No one will ever be able to take that away from you, and the relationship you have with them will always be a part of you. Some mementos will always be worth keeping to remind you of your own courage, tenacity and ability to envision a better future.

• Keep the mementos that remind you of the person or pet in a box somewhere out of the way. Bring them out when you need a tangible reminder of your memories. It’s not usually a good idea to leave the mementos lying around in the open. A constant reminder that someone is gone can make it hard to move on.

7. Get help. In our society, we have a tremendously harmful stigma against people who seek help with emotional problems. Seeing a therapist or counselor does not make you weak or pathetic. Rather, it’s a sign of strength. By seeking out the help you need, you show an admirable desire to move forward and overcome your grief. Don’t hesitate to schedule an appointment with a professional – in 2004, more than a quarter of American adults had seen a therapist within the previous two years.

Soon I will share some ideas with you on “Working Towards Happiness”

Miss-Guided promises

Team 81 has no idea what is best for the performance, health, and safety of a school district. All they are concerned with is pandering to the tax paying voter with the promise of returning money that would put the education of every child in School District 81 at risk. Team 81’s promises would also put the tax payers of School District 81 at risk do to the increase in problems the School District would face do to its lack funds available.

Team 81 Opposes Any Further Tax Increases and Advocates the Return of $9,000,000 in surplus funds to the Schiller Park School District 81 Taxpayer

The above quote was taken from another local blog that has re-emerged recently speaking for Team 81, and those same candidates have made the promise of Tax relief in their own recent mailer.

This means Team 81 Does not want to have a Safe, Stable, environment were education can thrive, and prosper. Team 81 does not support a school system with the least possible tax burden on its stakeholders.

Building and maintaining an adequate fund Balance is a prudent fiscal policy with increasingly critical benefits for any governmental body. These include the ability of the body to:

• Stabilize year over year educational performance
• Minimize educational service disruptions
• Maintain cash on hand to counter unanticipated cash flow shortfalls
• Address emergency situations, particularly those that threaten health and life safety
• Fund educational growth and change opportunities
• Enhance credit rating strength and increase access to debt markets at lower interest costs
• Increase long-term fiscal performance
• Allow the government body to manage unforeseen expenditure demands and revenue shortfalls
• Highest possible Financial Profile from ISBE

The Government Finance Officers Association recommends a minimum fund balance of two months of either revenues or expenditures. It should be stressed that this is a minimum recommendation only and other local factors must be considered, including the timing and dependability of significant revenue sources (i.e. state, federal and county tax distribution and program funding).

ISBE gives only those districts with three months (25%) fund balance to expenditures its highest Financial Profile sub score. This is a minimum expectation to be qualified to receive a high score and does not take into consideration particular elements of local funding or educational/operational planning.

ISBE also requires any district budgeting a deficit to have three times the deficit in fund balance to avoid filing a deficit reduction plan.

Fund Balances are an overly simplistic and inconsistent lens through which to measure a district’s financial strength. To be useful, a measure should mean the same thing from district to district and year to year. Fund balances are neither, as they are determined by a variety of accounting practices. Cash flow across districts varies due to the timing of liabilities, such as how summer payroll practices are implemented and due to how tax receipts are received and budgeted. The accounting of “early taxes” across school districts varies depending on the accounting practice used and the county resided in, and can have a very big impact on how fund balances are determined at the end of any given fiscal year. Cash on hand does not equate to fund balance in a full accrual accounting methodology.

Fund Balances are affected by when a county distributes taxes. Counties do not distribute taxes at the same times; therefore fund balances are not comparable from district to district. Should a county be late in distributing taxes, a district’s fund balance can be much less than expected, should a county distribute taxes early a district’s fund balance can appear inflated and distort cash flow reality.

Some counties do not distribute taxes at the same time from year to year; therefore fund balance comparisons year to year are inconsistent. Not only can fund balance and cash flow be affected by inconsistent tax distribution, a district may find themselves in a position of having to issue tax anticipation warrants to meet obligations should their fund balances decline based on a requirement to use fund balance in lieu of state contributions.

Other timing factors, such as receipt of State payments or disbursement schedules, make fund balance comparisons inconsistent from district to district and year to year. Late reimbursements for districts on an accrual or modified accrual basis are impacted differently than districts that use a cash based accounting method. Fund balance calculations can be misleading in such situations.

Fund balances can be temporarily affected by a district’s need to meet its obligations, such as by using interfund loans, abolishment of the Working Cash Fund, or by issuing Tax Anticipation Warrants or Working Cash Bonds. Such legitimate actions cause further inconsistency.

Fund balances are affected by the method of accounting (i.e. cash, accrual, or modified accrual) for funds on a given date each year.

Through Local Board of Education control, an appropriate level of Fund Balance is determined based on multi-year analysis of the district’s finances and with an expectation of consistent funding by the State. A change as described circumvents a Board of Education’s planning process and at the very least deserves both full public hearing and sufficient forewarning to allow a local Board time to review and adjust its determination.

Using Fund Balance to justify lower State payments to school districts decreases anticipated Fund Balance. Lower Fund Balance decreases interest income earnings and may cost the district more by having to break investments before maturity to meet obligations. Lesser Fund Balance may increase the need to issue more debt, thus increasing the amount of interest paid on that debt. This downward spiral has no impact on the State, but certainly impacts taxpayers and the local district.

Election time part 1

The question here is simple. Are you on the side of good government, and quality schools for our town? Or are you on the side of the continued dismantling of those schools, and the destruction of our school district, and community?

Edited – 12-17-14 @ 10:00 pm –  Paul Ohm, and Alex Giangrande did not attend this evenings School Board meeting. I work evenings so I can not attend the meetings myself, but I was informed that they were absent at the first meeting after their respective petitions were submitted. These are two people who have decided to run for our districts School Board to guid the people who educate your children and they have not attended a single meeting. I have also been told that Alex Giangrande does not attend school events at all, and could possibly have larger political aspirations. This is not the sort of information that should make the parents of School District 81 happy. These are two individuals who are being backed by the School Board president David Stachura, and Vise President Patricia Godizewski. The very two individuals who want to continue their agendas, and regain their control of the board. There is a lot at risk in April of 2015.

The bottom line is Patricia Godizewski has a continued track record of not making choices based off of what is good for our children, schools, and community. She stands firm on the side of bad education and government. Sadly those who have chosen to align themselves with her, and other individuals by default get the same opinion.

With one election season just ending, another begins. April 7th 2014 is a big deal for Schiller Park, and it’s local school district. This is the date we get the chance to change the current direction of our school system. At last count there was six potential candidates for School Board. Three members running for re-election and three relative newcomers. Two of those three newcomers have to my knowledge never attended a School Board meeting or made any public stance in any way, and one has been an active and vocal advocate of education, and educators for some time now. There is two very distinct sides in the upcoming election, and it should prove to be an interesting few months.

In a short Daily Herald article and video (linked with a picture in the article) you will notice our School Board president filing petitions for “his side” Patricia, Paul, and Alex. Not illegal at all but it makes a statement about who is supporting the previously mentioned three, and by pure association supported by Roy F McCampbell. One thing I can guarantee you is that the other two gentleman shown in the video to Mr Stachras right are not with him, and they both desperately want to restore this district, and the towns good name by ending the cycle of non-transparent bad government, and misguided leadership.

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20141215/news/141219010/

Disclaimer  – the following has been written by me alone and is a statement of my observations in the past year. My comentary includes information gathered through F.O.I.A. requests, citizen tips, and board meeting videos. It has been written by me with no guidance by anyone other then me, and with no assistance from any individuals contained in this post. This has not been approved by nor was the information been given to me by any person contained within this article. (www.sd81.org is a Wealth of information from videos to meeting agendas).

Mary Ann Desecki – Current School Board member. First Year at Schiller Park School District 81: 2001. Mary Ann Desecki has 3 children who attended District 81 from Kindergarten through Eighth grade. Is a master Board Member of Illinois Association of School Boards (IASB). Board Member Training Includes: Professional Development Leadership Training for School Board Members, Open Meetings Act Training for School Board Members, and Rally for Public Education. A vocal advocate for education, a staunch defender of the schools, the teachers, and the administration. She Has the highest regard for the communities best interests, and strongly aligned with the realities of good education.

Richard Flanagan – Current School Board member. First Year at Schiller Park School District 81: 2011 Richard Flanangan has two SD81 graduates. IASB Leadership Academy Member, Board Member Training, Professional Development Leadership Training for School Board Members, Open Meetings Act Training for Board Members, and Basics of Governance. Along with Maryann Desecki Mr Flanagan has consistantly voted with the best interests of education, and financial responsibility at heart. Mr Flanagan is a strong advocate of transparent government and doing what’s best for the children of this community.

Jeremy Hargus – A military veteran, father, and an outspoken defender of the children and educators of School District 81, and adversary of non-transparent bad government. Has been actively taking part in School Board meetings for two years, and is a regular organizer, and volunteer with the ABC Parent Group. He has five children, two alumni of SD81, two currently attending district schools, and one young child who is a future SD81 student. Is devoted to keeping local government transparent, and honest. He has often spoken publicly at meeting in regard to his concerns with the current School Board environment, and how it is adversely changing the ability of the districts educators to do their jobs. has openly said he wants to help bring integrity back to the School District.

The next three are to be considered on the side of the architects of the current School District, and School Board problems. Not much is known about the second two on the list, but they have decided to run with a candidate that is in my opinion incredibly bad for education, and good governance. Patricia Godizewski consistently fights against transparency and allows our educators to be bullied from the outside. What the motivation is of anyone who knowingly chooses to campaign alongside her is a mystery, but it can not be good for education. how much could they possibly know about the needs of the School District? Mr Ohm had his first visit to our beautiful schools just yesterday, and neither have ever attended a school board meeting. 

Patricia Godziszewski – Current School Board member, and School Board Vice President. She is a teacher at West Leyden High School. First Year at Schiller Park School District 81: 2011 A Master Board Member of Illinois Association of School Boards (IASB), IASB Leadershop Academy Member Board Member Training: School Board Accountability: Monitoring District Performance, Professional Development, Leadership Training for School Board Members, School Board LeaderShop Symposium 2013, Basics of Governance, Basics of Law on Board Meetings and Practices, Basics of School District Finance, School District Labor RelationS, Introduction to Parliamentary Procedure, Superintendent Evaluation, Media RelationS, Making Meetings Matter, Performance valuation Reform Act (PERA) Training, School Board LeaderShop Symposium 2014. Do not let the long list of training fool you, she is a close friend and advocate of Roy F McCampbell (an individual who is under indictment for theft and official misconduct), and consistently votes in favor of anything related to Mr McCampbell, she has supported his complaints and accusations since the beginning. She is consistently hostile, and evasive with respect to answering questions directed at her during board meetings. Is regularly unprepared, and has displayed great contempt for the teachers and staff of School District 81. Most recently the co-author of the very unprofessional and “private” letter written to the school board legal council in regard to her and Mr Stachura’s disapproval of the very competent and capable superintendent.

Paul Ohm– ? I have heard that he has two small children and wants to run for School Board so he can see if the schools are right for his kids. Possibly a military veteran, and again has never attended a School Board meeting.

Alex Giangrande – ? I have been told he Has children in the district, and again has also never attended a school board meeting.

School Board meeting tonight at 7:00pm @ Lincoln Middle School

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20141215/news/141219010/