No. 12260 INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1972

THE STATE OF MONTANA, ex rel. OSCAR S. KVAALEN, Relator,

LEO GRAYBILL, JR., JOHN TOOLE, DOROTHY ECK, etal., asMembers of and comprising a Committee purporting toactpursuant toResolution No. 14 $7. of theMontana Constitutional Convention, et al., Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For Relator: Risken and Scribner, Helena, Montana. A. W. Scribner argued, Helena, Montana. - Amicus Curiae PhilipW. Strope argued, Helena, Montana. Joseph P. Monaghan, Butte, Montana. For Respondents: Harrison, Loendorf and Poston, Helena, Montana. Jerome T. Loendorf argued, Helena, Montana. Marshall Murray argued, Kalispell, Montana. Ben E. Berg argued, Bozeman, Montana. Thomas F. Joyce appeaf&Rutte, Montana. Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena,

Montana. John Connor, AssistantAttorney General, argued,

Helena, Montana. Lawrence D. Huss, Deputy Attorney General, appeared,

Helena, Montana.

Submitted: April 18, 1972PER CURIAM:

This is a class actionby taxpayers seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against nineteen Constitutional Convention delegates comprising its voter education committee, the state auditor, and the state treasurer. Relator,by an original proceeding in this Court, seeks (1) a judgment that the voter education committeehas no right or authority to receive, expend, or obligate any public funds forvoter education purposes, and (2) an injunctionprohibiting the committee from receiving, expending, or obligatingpublic funds for such purposes. The factualbackground of this controversywill illuminate the legal issues before the Court in this proceeding. The Constitutional Convention was duly convenedpursuant to the provisions of the Montana Constitution (Art. XIX, Sec. 

### 8); this Court's decision in Forty-second LegislativeAssembj.yv. Lennon

(156 Mont. 416, 481 P.2d 330); and the Constitutional Convention Enabling Act of the Forty-second LegislativeAssembly (Chapter 296, 1971 Session Laws, as amended by Chapter 1 of the Laws of the First Extraordinary Session of the Forty-second Legislative Assembly). Also to be noted is our decision inMahoney v. Murray, Mont, 9 P.2d 

## , 29 St.Rep.289, a companion case. Its plenary session commenced on January 17, 1972 and continueduntil noon on March 24, 1972,when it "adjourned sine die". Prior to adjournment sine die, the Constitutional Convention inplenary session adopted Resolution 14which is the focus of the present controversy. This Resolution adopted onMarch 16, 1972,was quoted inMahoney and is herewith set out again in full:"WHEREAS, The Montana Constitutional Conventionhas nearly completed its substantive activities and is making arrangements for adjournment sine die in order tomeet its electiondate commitment of June 6, 1972; and "WHEREAS,prior to adjournment sine die the Convention will not be able to complete its procedural, administrative and voter education affairs, all of which must be concluded in an orderly and responsiblemanner; and "WHEREAS, the Convention anticipates that it will need to establish an appropriate committee tomanage and conclude all of its procedural, administrative and voter education affairs after adjournment sinedie; "NOW,THEREFORE, IT ISRESOLVED BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONOF THE STATE OF MONTANAAS FOLLOWS:

n

### 1. The Convention hereby creates a committee to act with the President of the Convention on its behalf after adjournment sine die, delegating to it full authority tomanage and conclude all of the convention's procedural, administrative and voter education affairs, and to spend the Convention's funds therefor, but only within the limits of its appropriation and such other funds as the Conventionmay have. "2. The Conventionhereby appoints to said committee the President, Leo Graybill, Jr., who shall act as its chairman,and the following delegates: John Toole, Dorothy Eck, Bruce Brown,Jean Bowman, Margaret Warden, FredMartin,Robert Vermillion, Katie Payne, Betty Babcock, Marshall Murray, Catherine Pemberton,John Schiltz,Thomas Joyce,George Harper, Bill Burkhardt, Jerome Loendorf, Oscar Anderson, Gene Harbaugh. "3. No delegatemay serve on the committeewho shall seekpublic office in the primary election to be held on June 6,1972. The President,as chairman of the committee, shallhave authority to substitute other Convention delegates for any committee members named herein who may decide to seek public office. "4. The Convention hereby delegates authority to the committee to receive,disburse and account for all Federal fundswhich the Conventionmay receive. "5. The Convention also delegates authority to the committee to supervise and edit any and all voter educationmaterials prepared on behalf of the Convention or by other persons relative to thework of the Convention. "6. The committee shall terminate itswork at such time as all of the Convention's procedural, administrative and educational affairs have been completed,and all requirements of the EnablingAct have beenmet."Although the exact amount the committee proposes to expend for voter educationpurposes cannot be precisely computed at this time, it is clear that the voter education committee proposes to receive and expend approximately $45,000 and that some of these public fundshave already been spent or obligated. The source of this $45,000 is $15,000 in anticipated unexpended funds appropriated to the Conventionby the 1971Legislative Assembly, plus a $30,000

### HUD grant of federal funds for the purpose of providing financial assistance to the Montana Constitutional Convention. It should also be noted that the 1971Legislative Assembly appropriated the sum of $41,000 to the secretary of state "for the elections relating to the constitutional convention". The sum of $24,000 from this appropriationhas been budgeted forvoter information concerning the proposed constitution, with comments and report to the people pursuant to the requirements of subsections 

### (4) and (5), Section 17,of the Constitutional Convention EnablingAct and Resolution 11 of the Constitutional Convention. Section 17

### (4) of the Constitutional Convention Enabling Act provides:

11Each proposed revision, alteration,or amendment, togetherwith appropriate information explaining each revision, alteration,or amendment, shallbe published in full and disseminated to the electors upon adjournment of the conventionbut not later than thirty (30) days preceding the election and in such manner as the conventionprescribes.II Section 17(5) of the Constitutional Convention Enabling Act reads:

IIThe convention shall also publish a report to the people explaining its proposals." Resolution 11 of the Constitutional Convention provides inpertinent part:"Section 2. (1) The Secretary of State is hereby requested to requisition the Purchasing Division of the Department of Administration to call for bids for the printing of the proposed Constitutionwith comments and report to the people as requiredby subsections 

### (4) and (5) of Section 17 of the Constitutional Convention Enabling Act,which shallbe printed in the form prescribed by the Convention.11 Attached to Resolution 11 is a requisition formprescribing the form,number of copies, and distribution of the copies required. Pursuant to the foregoing authority, the secretary of state has caused to be printed and distributed 400,000 copies of the proposed constitutionwith comments and report to the people. The costs incurred to date for this item are $12,016.89. This publication similar in size to the family supplement contained in the Sunday editions of our dailynewspapers,,consists of 

### 24pages, in color,and contains the following: sample ballot;history and highlights of the proposed constitution; the proposed constitutionwith comments; the preamble; the verbatim provisions of the proposed constitution, articleby articlewith comments, and a comparisonwith the existing constitution indicating what provisions are retained from the present constitutionand what newprovisions have been added in the proposed constitution;a transition schedule from the present constitution to the proposed constitution in the event the latter is approved by the people at the constitutional referendum election; the adoption schedule;deletions from the present constitution in the proposed constitution;the officers and delegates of the Constitutional Conventimbydistricts with mailing addresses;and the places where additional copies of the publication canbe secured. Relator does not attack the expenditure of public funds by the secretary of state for publication and distribution ofthis publication forvoter information. 

### i el at or's attack is directed solely at expenditures of public fundsby the voter education committee for employing an advertising agency,newspaper advertisements, radio and television programs, production and distribution of a 15-minute film on convention activities and proposals relative to the proposed constitution, a slide presentation, administrative expenses, and other voter education expenditures, The original proceeding now before this Court was filed by relator Oscar S. Kvaalen onApril 7, 1972, with supporting brief. It is a class action by relator on behalf of Montana citizens and residents who are payers of state taxes against nineteen Constitutional Convention delegates who comprise the voter education committee of the Constitutional Convention pursuant to Convention Resolution 14. The state auditor and state treasurer, whose official duties encompass the expenditure of public funds,are named as nominal defendants. Relator seeks a declaratory judgment of this Court that:

(1) The powers and authority of the Constitutional Convention became functus officio and ceased to become effective upon its adjournment sine die at noon on March 24, 1972; (2) Resolution 14 of the Constitutional Convention is in

excess of the Convention's jurisdiction and power, and is illegal insofar as it purports to delegate to the voter education committee any powers or authority of the Convention; (3) The voter education committee has no right, standing, power, or authority to receive or expend any federal funds received for the purposes of the Convention; 

### (4) Thevoter education committeehas no right, standing, power or authority to incur liabilities or obligate state or federal funds for any purpose whatever;

### (5) It is unlawful to incur liabilities or obligations from state or federal funds for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting the work of the Convention;attempting to promote voter approval of the proposed constitution;or attempting to influence the outcome of the proposed constitution referendum election. Relator also seeks ancillary relief by injunctionprohibiting the voter education committee, the state auditor and the state treasurer from receiving or expending public funds forvoter education activities of the committee. Following ex parte oral argument on behalf of relator, this application was set for adversaryhearing before this Court onApril 18, 1972, and appropriate notices of this hearing

were directed to be given to the parties and to the attorney general. Prior to such adversaryhearing, the members of the voter education committee of the Constitutional Convention filed their answer. In substance it admitted the facts contained in relator's application, but denied the committeewas doing or proposed to do anything unlawful, or that the committeewas exceeding its powers or authority. The committee filed an extensive documentation of the proceedings of the Convention and the committee's own proceedings, togetherwith a brief of legal authorities supporting its activities. 

### A brief was also filed by the attorney general on behalf of the state auditor and state treasurer, the import of which

was that these officials have no interest in the substantive merits of this controversy and stand ready to abide by any decision rendered by this Court herein. Additionally, an amicus curiae brief was filedby Joseph P. Monaghan, a Butte attorney, supporting an equal division ofpublic funds left over from the Constitutional Convention between advocates and opponents of the proposed constitution. We need not discuss this because (1) amicus curiae cannot raise separate issuesnot raised by the parties, and (2) our holding here, as hereafter appears. Prior to the adversaryhearing, written interrogatories

were propounded to Leo Graybill, Jr., president of the Constitutional Convention and chairman of the nineteen delegate voter education committee andwritten answerswere filed by him. From these interrogatories and answers, it appears the voter education cornitteehas adopted a proposed budget of $45,657 for voter educationpurposes consisting of $30,650 for film, television time, television spots,radio advertising, newspaper advertising, slides,and citizen participation; the remaining $15,007 is budgeted for administrative expenses consisting of staffwages, employeebenefits,postage, telephone, supplies, printing, contracted services foruse of a Xeroxmachine, etc., and travel. The source of the funds for payment of the budgeted amounts is $15,000 from the Constitutional Convention appropriation, and an anticipated $30,000 froma federal

### HUD grant for which the contract is not yet signednor the grant finalized, andwhich is contingent on the $15,000 statematching funds from the Constitutional Convention appropriation. As far as we can determine from the record before us, this anticipated $15,000 inunexpended funds appropriated to the Convention to be used as statematching fundsmay be more fictitious than real. In order to arrive at this surplus, it appears that the Conventionmust ignore the $18,000 deficit of the Constitutional Convention Commission established under the same Enabling Act,which will have to be paid from taxpayers' fundsby deficit appropriation or otherwise. Also it appears that the cost of printing and distribution of the 400,000 copiesof the proposed constitution with comments and report to the people required of the Conventionby Sections 17(4) and 17(5) of the Enabling Act is to be paid from the secretary of state's budget and appropriation and not the Convention's budget and appropriation. This itemhas been budgeted at not to exceed $24,000 of which $12,016.89 has already been spent. We mention thesematters simply to show that, at least on the record before us, this anticipated surplus appears to be the result of a bookkeeping transactionproducing a "paper surplus" in the Convention's own budget and appropriation. Referring now to the anticipated $30,000 from a federal HUD grant,heretoforementioned, apparently as of March 24, 1972, the date of adjournment, the State Department of Planning and Economic Developmenthad a verbal commitment from the Denver Regional office. 

### A contract apparently between a state agency, the Constitutional Convention operating through its committee under Resolution 14,and the federal government is still to be negotiated. The machinations of this contractual relationship

are not clear. It only serves to point up the continuingnature of the Convention's activities after adjournment sine die. The interrogatories and answers further disclose that the staff consists of two full-timeemployees, a coordinator and a secretary receiving $30 and $22.50 per day respectively, whose term of employmentwill run to the date of the election,June 6, 1972;a part-time employee performing bookkeeping and financial services two days aweek at $30per day, whose term of employment will likewise terminate on June 6, 1972;and a temporary secretarial replamentpaid $20.78 per day, whose duration of employment is not indicated. The voter education committee has also engaged by contract the services of an advertising agencywhich is to be paid for time spent at itsscale per hour which is estimated at $2,500, with about half its services already performed. It is unknown at this time whether the voter education committeewill engage the services of other persons or organizations to assist in its activities. The advertising agencyhas earned and billed to date the sum of $4,844.71 for film and $405.60 for slides,which is unpaid. Various other sums in an undetermined amountmay be due for partially completedwork. The voter education committee anticipates spending approximately $30,000on media and services through the advertising agency. The adversary hearing on relator's applicationwas held before this Court onApril 18, 1972. Oral argumentwas heard on behalf of relator, amicus curiae Philip

### W. Strope, the attorney general,and the respondent voter education committee. Followinghearing, the case was taken under advisementby this Court. The ultimate issue to be determined in the instant case iswhether the voter education committee of the Constitutional Convention can receive and expend public funds for voter education in connectionwith the forthcoming referendum election on approval or rejection of the proposed constitution. Two underlying issues control: (1) Can the Constitutional Convention delegate its powers and authority to a committee and empower that committee to exercise such delegated powers and authority following the Convention's adjournment sine die? (2) Does the Constitutional Convention itselfhave the power and authority to receive and expend public funds for voter education? Summarizing the basic contentions of the parties,we note that relator argues the Constitutional Convention cannot act through a committee after the Conventionhas adjourned sine die because (1) such delegatedpowers can last no longer than the powers of the delegating authority, and (2) the Convention'spower and authoritymust be exercised by the Convention itself and cannot be delegated to a committee. Relator further contends that the Constitutional Cdnvention itselfwas granted no power and authority concerningvoter education and particularly in regard to expenditure of public funds for this purpose, and accordingly the expenditure of public funds for this purpose is unlawful. Respondent members of the voter education committee, on the other hand, contend that the Constitutional Convention possesses plenary power to carry its product to the people; that voter education concerning the proposed constitution and the expenditure of public funds therefor is necessary and desirable to accomplish this purpose as determined by the Convention;and that the power and authority of the Convention in this respect

was 

### duly delegated to the committeeby Resolution 

### 14. Respondent committee members further argue the Constitutional Convention has the authority to conclude itsministerial, administrative, and procedural affairs after its adjournment sine die, and this can be done through a committee empowered by the Convention to accomplish these activities, which include voter education on the proposed constitutionand the expenditure of public funds for this purpose, We note that some of the arguments of the parties herein have been laid to rest by our decision inMahoney, the companion case,whichwe handed down three days after oral argument in the instant case. InMahoney,we held that a Constitutional Convention delegate's term of office runs untilrepgal of the Constitutional Convention Enabling Act on June 30, 1973,and accordingly such delegatewas not eligible to file for another public office this year. Our decision inMahoneywas based on the Montana Constitution, the Constitutional Convention Enabling Act, thecase of Forty-second Legislative Assembly v. Lennon, 156Mont, 416, 481 P.2d 330,and Resolution 14of the Constitutional Convention. We held inMahoney that although the adjournment sine die of the Convention terminated its function of proposing revisions,alterations or amendments to the Constitution, all other powers of the Convention continued thereafter. Accordingly,

we have omitted the arguments of the parties in the instant

case bottomed on the proposition that all powers and authority of the Convention expired upon its adjournment sine die; that the office of Convention delegate terminated simultaneously transforming each from a public officeholder to a private citizen; and that a committee of private citizenswas prohibited from receiving or expending public funds, Directing our attention the first underlying issue for review,noted above,we hold that our decision inMahoney

answers relator's contention that the committee's delegated powers can last no longer than the powers of the Convention, the delegating authority. InMahoney,we held that all powers of the Convention,other than the power to propose revisions, alterations or amendments to the Constitution,continued after the Convention's adjournment sine die. Accordingly, relator's argument fails. We hold,however, that any power and authority the Convention may possess to receive and expend public funds for voter education purposes must be exercised by the Convention itself and may not be delegated to a committee. All state funds were appropriated to the Conventionby Section 21 of the Constitutional Convention l~nablin~ Act. After adjournment of the Convention sine die, neither the state of Montana or any state agency possessed the absolute control over the appropriation requiredby Montana Constitdon,Art. 

### V, Sec. 35,which provides in pertinent part:"No appropriation shallbe made for

# **

# * educational JX

# * 9: purposes to any person

# *

# ** not under the absolute control of the state

# ** JX," Itmay be argued that because the committee is composed of Constitutional Convention delegateswho hold public office until repeal of the Constitutional Convention EnablingAct on June 30, 1973, the required "absolute control of the state1'over the appropriation exists. Likewise it may be argued that the statepossesses such "absolute control"

### by reason of the power of state officers and agencies to deny purchase requests from such appropriations, to disapprove expenditures from such appropriations, and to refusepayment therefor. But does such "absolute control of the state1'over the appropriation exist under the factshere? Not at all. The power and authority delegated to the committee under Resolution 14 is "full authority to manage and conclude all of the Convention's procedural, administrative and voter education affairs, and to spend the Convention's funds therefor1' within the limits of its appropriation; "to receive, disburse and account for all Federal funds which the Conventionmay receive"; and "to supervise and edit any and all voter education materials prepared on behalf of the Convention or by other persons relative to thework of the Convention". The receipt and expenditure of public funds derived from the state and federal government for voter education is delegated to the committee without substantial guidelines, other than that "moneybudgeted for public information" shallnot be expended for "anything but factual reporting of the proceedings of this convention", Other than this limitation the committee is free to expend these funds as it sees fit forvoter education activities under Resolution 14. The presumption of regularity attaches to the committee's acts and expendituresunder Section 93-1301-7(15), R.C.M. 1947,which provides a statutory presumption "That official duty has been regularlyperformed." The state auditor and the state treasurer indicate theywill act on this presumption of regularity in connectionwith their own official functions concerningpublic funds,absent a contrary ruling by this Court. Under the circumstances disclosed here, the required "absolute control by the state" over its appropriation of public funds ispneely fictitious. Respondent committee members cite State ex rel. Jamesv. Aronson, 132Mont. 120, 314 P.2d 849,as authority that the committee can conclude the Convention's ministerial, administrative and procedural affairs after the Convention adjourns sine die. We are not concerned here with the administrative and procedural matters to conclude the Convention duties through the electionheld. Rather,we are concernedwith

I1

voter education" contemplatedby Resolution 14which obviously involves the discretion of the committee. Therefore, James is not applicablehere. Thus we hold that under the factshere, the Convention cannot delegate to a committee whatever power and authority it possesses to receive and expend public funds forvoter educationpurposes to be exercised by the committee after the Convention's adjournment sinedie. Proceeding to the secondunderlying issue in this case,, respondent committee members claim that aside from the question of delegation of the Convention's power and authority, the Convention has the power to take its product, the Convention's proposed constitution, to the people, and to receive and expend public funds for voter education to this end. The source of thispower, they argue, is plenary arising from the Montana Constitution, Article XIX, Sec. 8;the Constitutional Convention Enabling Act, Sections 

### 9, 17(4) and 17(5); and the Convention's inherent plenary power and authority. Article 

### XIX, Sec. 8provides, in part, that the Convention shallmeet within three months after the election of delegates and prepare such revisions, alterations,or amendments to the Constitution as may be deemednecessary,which shallbe submitted to the electors for their ratification or rejection at an election appointedby the Convention for that purpose, to be held not less than two normore than sixmonths after Convention adjournment. We findnothing in this provision granting any authority, express

or implied, to the Convention to expend public funds forvoter education. The power or duty to hold an election does not, in itself, imply a correspondingpower to educate the voters and expend public funds therefor. Section 9of the Enabling Act provides that the Convention

I1

may make such other expenditures as it deems proper to carry out itswork". Section 17(4) provides that each proposed revision, alteration, or amendment, togetherwith appropriate information explaining the same, shall be published in full and disseminated to the electors upon adjournment of the Convention not later than 30 days preceding the referendum election in suchmanner as the Conventionprescribes. Section 17(5) provides that the Convention shall also publish a report to the people explaining its proposals. We do not construe Section 9of the Enabling Act to grant carte blanche power to the Convention to expend public funds for voter educationpurposes. If the Convention's work does not encompass voter education, Section 

### 9does not authorize such expenditure of public funds; nor is there any grant of power in the field of voter education contained in this provision. We must look elsewhere for such power if it exists.The provisions of Sections 17(4) and 17(5) of the Enabling Act are satisfiedby the printing and distributionby the secretary of state of 400,000 24-page,tabloid size, color reproductions of the proposed constitution,a comparisonwith the present constitution,appropriate comments, explanations, and voter information including a sampleballot, as previously noted. Thiswas printed and distributed by the secretary of state pursuant to Convention resolution, was paid for frompublic funds appropriated by the legislature to the secretaryof state,and constitutes compliancewith voter information requirements of the Enabling Act, contained in Sections 17

### (4) and 17(5). Finally the Convention claims inherentplenary power of voter education, including the expenditure of public funds for that purpose. It cites the 1945 Missouri case of State ex rel. News Corporationv. Smith, 353Mo. 845, 184 S.W.2d 598,as authority for this view. That case holds a constitutional conventionwith power to submit itswork to the voters has the power to appoint a committee of the convention, who in reality are agents of the state or of the public, to supervise the expenditure of public money legally appropriated for convention purposes. This decision is contrary to the factshere and can be explained in terms of a practical decision to enable the state to pay a just bill for publication of an "Address to the People" adopted by the convention. The logic of this decision

on any other grounds escapes us, and it is not persuasive in the instant caseunder our facts and law. There is some authoritative support for the doctrine of inherent,plenary, and sovereignpower of a constitutional convention;however it is derived from early cases during the American Revolution and in the reconstruction era following the Civil War where therewas no effective or established government to supervise the work of the convention. In our view,this doctrine is not applicable to present conditionswhere,

as here, the constitutional convention is called pursuant to the provisions of an existing constitution, and by enabling legislation enacted thereunder. See Dodd, The Revision and Amendment of State Constitutions,p. 92;Hoar,Constitutional Conventions, p. 166. Even in situations where the existing constitutionprovided nomeans for calling a constitutional convention, the Pennsylvania court refused to apply this doctrine of inherent plenary power. Woods's Appeal, 

### 75 Pa. 

### 59 (1874); Wells v. Bain, 75 Pa. 39 (1874). Accordingly, we hold that the Constitutional Convention itself possesses no power or authority to receive or expend public funds forvoter educationbeyond the specific requirements and authority found in the Enabling Act; that these requirements in the Enabling Act have alreadybeen satisfied; and that the Convention lacks power or authority to receive

or expend furtherpublic funds forvoter education in the manner proposed by the committee. The additional arguments of respondent committee that public policy supports a decision in its favor,and that the intent of the framers of the 1889 Constitution supports post adjournment voter education do not merit extended discussion. The public policy argument is valid to the extent that the legislaturehas enacted a public policy of voter education and expenditure of public funds therefor;but to the extent the legislaturehas so provided, the Conventionhas already completed its duties of voter information, as heretofore set forth. The argument that the intent of the framers of the 1889 Constitution supportspost adjournment voter education is drawn from tenuous, and perhaps nonexistent, facts. We find nothing in the cited conventionproceedings supportingrespondent's conclusion. We wish to make it clear that this decision does not in anymanner limit the right of any Constitutional Convention delegate to promote approval of the proposed constitution in any lawfulmanner. Emphasizing, so there may be no question about this holding, our decision is limited to proposed voter education activities of the committee acting under Resolution 

### 14,and the further expenditure of public funds forvoter education thereunder. 

### A declaratory judgment in favor of relator is hereby entered determining (1) thevoter education committeehas no lawful delegated authority to exercise any power and authority the Convention possesses regardingvoter education and the expenditure of public funds therefor, and (2) the Constitutional Convention itselfhas no further power and authority concerning voter education or the receipt or expenditure of furtherpublic funds, state or federal, for suchpurposes. 

### A permanent injunction ishereby granted against the nineteen members of the voter education committee, the state auditor,and the state treasurer enjoining further receipt or expenditure of public funds forvoter educationpurposes.

## / CWefJustice

Associate Justices.