Jeffrey L. Seglin's Blog, page 50

Delivering old newspapers to a good home

For years, B.H. and his family had stored old keepsakes in their attic. After years of pledging to do a thorough cleaning out of the space, B.H. finally got around to doing so. The agreement among the family was that if no one claimed the goods being stored, they would be donated, recycled, or in some cases left out for the municipal trash collection.
Boxes of prized notebooks B.H. kept from some favorite college classes, an assortment of slightly mildewed camping equipment, nonworking electric trains he'd picked up at a yard sale years ago and meant to try to fix, and dozens of mismatched coffee mugs found their way out the door.
Tucked in the back of the attic was a box B.H. didn't recognize. When he opened it, he found stacks of old newspapers. At first he thought that he or some other family member had tucked away newspapers on dates when something momentous happened. But on closer inspection, he found that the box was full of at least 40 years' worth of newspapers from the local public high school, starting in the 1930's and going up to the 1970's, years before he and his family had purchased the house.
While the newspapers were from the high school he and his wife had gone to, B.H. had no recollection of where these newspapers came from. Neither did anyone else in his family.
"Did he or one of the kids pick them up at a local garage sale?" he wondered. "Or were these there when they moved into the house and they never noticed them?" The attic is unfinished, dark, and only accessible through a set of pull-down stairs.
Given the completeness of the years accumulated in the box, B.H. didn't know if someone had walked off with some of the school newspaper archives with or without permission.
Since he didn't know where they came from and had no desire to keep them, B.H. wondered what the right thing to do with them was now.
"I don't want to get anyone in trouble, including me, if these were taken without permission," B.H. writes. "But if someone could use these, I'd like to see them used. Or is it OK to simply recycle them to avoid having to face any potential hassles?"
B.H. should trust his instinct to try to get the newspapers to someone or some institution that might find them useful. He can start by asking his local high school's librarians -- or the principal -- if they would like the box of newspapers. If there's a local historical society, it might have interest as well. So might a local library. Trying to get the newspapers back to their place of origin seems worth the effort. B.H. need only tell them that he found the box in his attic and thought they might be of local interest.
If none of those places shows interest, B.H. should feel free to offer them up via a Craigslist ad to see if someone in the community wants them. If none of these efforts works, then offering them up as yard sale items could work. After exhausting these avenues, if B.H. decides to recycle the newspapers, he can do so with the clear conscience that he tried to do the right thing in finding them a good home. 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues. 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
F ollow him on Twitter: @jseglin  
(c) 2015 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Should I accept a job offered by name-caller?

When P.D. was offered a job recently by the person who would be her supervisor, something she thought unusual occurred. Her prospective supervisor described the job, mentioning that P.D would be assigned to work with a senior employee on her first project. In passing, the supervisor said that P.D.'s new partner was a stickler for punctuality and attention to details and could be mean if you fell short on either category.

Great, P.D. thought, I'm being paired up with someone who's considered mean.
P.D. needed a job and this was the first offer she'd had from the many companies to which she applied. But her prospective supervisor's off-hand comment about another employee at the company gave her pause. Office gossip may be an unfortunate norm at many companies, but P.D. didn't even work there yet!
The "mean" comment left P.D. wondering two things. First, should she take the supervisor's comment as a sign that this might not be a place at which she wants to work and continue her search? And second, if she does take the job, should she tell her new senior colleague about the supervisor's comment?
It's too easy for me or anyone else to advise P.D. not to take the job if it's not the perfect fit. P.D. has a family to help support and this is the first job offer she's had in some time. If the work itself is something for which she's qualified and she enjoys doing such work and is good at it, then it could be a good choice. Maybe not the perfect choice, but then there's an old aphorism that warns that allowing perfect to be the enemy of good can result in inaction. If P.D. needs a job and wants this job, she should not allow this one comment from her prospective supervisor to keep her from taking it.
P.D.'s second job is tougher. Once she's on the job, her immediate task will be to fit in and to learn about the work she'll be doing on the project with the senior employee. As she is trying to build rapport, it might not show the best judgment nor be the most prudent thing to dump the supervisor's comment onto the senior colleague. "You know who thinks you're mean?" is rarely the best opening line to build a healthy workplace partnership.
Besides, P.D. doesn't know if the senior colleague really is mean. It could be that the supervisor simply didn't appreciate the importance she placed on showing up on time and being prepared with details when needed to get the job done.
If P.D. accepts the job, the right thing for her to do is to get to know the senior employee, find out how they can work together to get the job done, and then do the best work she can. She can decide for herself how mean the senior employee is, but she should not let her curiosity about this get in the way of doing the best job possible.
As for the supervisor, insulting an existing employee, while making a job offer is wildly inappropriate. It exhibited a lack of kindness to her colleague, and risked losing a potentially strong employee in P.D. She might not be mean, but she certainly showed poor judgment. 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues. 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
F ollow him on Twitter: @jseglin  
(c) 2015 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Am I my colleague's grammar corrector?

Several days ago as I was walking to work, I noticed a sign on a building that read: "Thank you for not smoking within 25 feet from this building." I immediately understood the sign's message, but I wondered why the sign writer had used the preposition "from" rather than the "of" that would have been expected in this sentence construction.
Since I write and try to teach writing for a living, I'm inclined to draw attention to questionable usage or grammar. But L.F., a reader from Washington, D.C., does not make her living primarily from writing or teaching others to write. She too is inclined to draw attention to such issues.
Over the past few years, she writes that she has noticed that many people, including President Barack Obama, news commentators, and well-respected academics, fail to use the article "an" before a word beginning with a vowel, such as "a issue" rather than "an issue."
"Has this grammatical rule changed?" L.F. asks. "These things drive me crazy."
She admits that she is "a bit obsessed" with the proper use of grammar.
"I've noticed in the workplace that several managers fail to use correct grammar when representing their office or their entire agency," she writes. But she observes that because poor grammar is often a reflection of upbringing, opportunity, or education, it might be too sensitive a topic to broach.
"Is it ever appropriate to provide this kind of unsolicited feedback?" she asks. "Do I need to lighten up or should I say something?"
Years ago, I wrote about how a librarian at my college who was French and learned English late in life was crushed when a student corrected her pronunciation. It wasn't the correction that crushed her, but the realization that she had been pronouncing words incorrectly for years and no one had said anything to her.
If colleagues in L.F.'s workplace are making the same grammatical errors repeatedly when they give presentations or speak to others, they could find themselves being perceived poorly. If people from outside the company are listening, they might also get the sense that the poor grammarian's colleagues don't care enough about him or her to offer a correction, or that they fear repercussions if they speak up.
The right thing is to let colleagues know when they're off in how they use grammar. They don't need to correct every incorrect usage of "I" for "me" or consider every split infinitive as a crime against humanity. But if the grammar mistake is obvious enough that it could prove embarrassing to the speaker, then the best thing to do would be to mention it to the speaker shortly after the first time you hear it. That you might show some discomfort bringing the topic up should suggest to the colleague that you're not trying to suggest that you're somehow superior to him or her because you know bad grammar when you hear it.
It could be better to suffer a little discomfort now by helping a colleague out than to wait until he or she discovers that how long the bad grammar has been going on and discovers you never set things straight. 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues. 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
F ollow him on Twitter: @jseglin  
(c) 2015 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

When old company emails still haunt your inbox

Five years after a reader, L.S. left her previous job, she is still receiving emails addressed to her old company's email address.
L.S. had always forwarded her old work email to her private Gmail address. It was simpler to manage all of her email from one account, she figured. She can no longer log on to her old company's server to turn off the forwarding, but she figures that her old company would have shut her email down after she left if it had wanted to.
"I don't receive any inner-office emails or anything that appears to be confidential," she writes. "But I have noticed that when someone occasionally emails me at my old company's email address, I still receive it. I also continue to get junk email addressed to that old address."
She also receives a weekly report from the old company of email that has been quarantined as spam, all of which is more junk email that didn't make it through to her.
When L.S. responds to those who write her at the old email address she reminds them that she has a new email address. She simply deletes the junk email that comes through.
L.S. wants to know if she was wrong to forward her work email to her personal email address and whether she has an ethical obligation to let her old company know that she's still receiving email sent to her old address.
If L.S.'s former employer had a policy forbidding the forwarding of work email to a personal email address, she was wrong to do so. But if the company condoned the practice and employees regularly forwarded their email to personal email addresses, she's in the clear.
If L.S. is only receiving email that is addressed directly to her old email address, it might not present a problem, unless that email is work related. Because there's a chance that she might be receiving email intended for her as an employee of her former company, the right thing would be to inform a representative from her former company to let them know that she still receives emails sent to her former address. The responsibility then falls on them to decide when to disable her former email address.
The right thing for the company to have done would have been either to let L.S. know that she would continue to receive email at her old address (although it seems odd that most companies would see this as a good practice), or to let her know that her email would be closed out at a certain point after she stopped working for the company.
The responsibility for figuring this out should not have fallen on L.S.'s shoulders. But now that it has, she'd be wise to let the former company know about the situation and give it the opportunity to set things right. A side benefit for L.S. is that she might receive far less junk email in her inbox than she has over the past five years. 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues. 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
F ollow him on Twitter: @jseglin  
(c) 2015 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Stopping office gossip before it spreads

As he was sitting at his desk several days ago, a reader, let's call him Larry, started receiving emails from current and former colleagues asking if he knew what happened to another colleague. Some of the emails provided no specifics. Others suggested the colleague was leaving the organization. Still others wondered whether the colleague's pending departure was a sign of turmoil within the ranks.


Larry knows the colleague. He also knows each of the email senders. But he hadn't heard anything about the colleague, nor about the news that was wafting in the air around the company corridors.
Larry writes me wondering what, if anything, is the appropriate response to these emails he's receiving, since he knows nothing about the colleague or his fortunes.
"If I respond, it might seem like I'm encouraging discussion about this colleague when I don't have any information," writes Larry. "If I don't respond, does it send some sort of message that I know something, but I'm unwilling to give it up?"
Because no official notice of anything concerning his colleague has been issued by his company, Larry doesn't know if something actually happened or if a rumor got started somehow and was beginning to spin out of control.
Larry has never been a fan of gossip. But he's at a bit of a loss about the right thing to do in response to the emails he's been receiving.
There are a few reasonable responses Larry might have to the emails he's been receiving.
He could simply ignore them, choosing not to engage in a discussion about which he knows nothing. He's right though that his silence might inadvertently send an unintended message, particularly since Larry is known for being quick and responsive when it comes to email.
Larry might also choose to respond with a simple, "I don't know." Or, "I haven't heard anything." And he could leave it at that. The challenge with this choice is that his response might result in follow-up emails, where the senders provide details about what they've heard, leaving Larry with the choice of whether or how to respond to those emails.
While not a fan of gossip, it's not in Larry's nature to instruct his emailing colleagues to stop spreading incomplete information or, in other words, to quit gossiping.
While it might be awkward, the right thing for Larry to do is to contact the colleague about whom the questions are being asked. If he's able to reach the colleague, he can let them know that he's been receiving emails asking if he knew anything about the colleague, and that there are suggestions in the air that the colleague might be leaving the company.
The risk is that the colleague might be embarrassed at the news. But by letting the colleague know there is discussion going on about them, it gives the colleague the opportunity to decide whether there's a way for to control the discussion so that misinformation isn't spread. If the colleague doesn't know that there's a buzz about them, then they don't have the opportunity to try to do anything about controlling that buzz.
If Larry ever finds himself on the receiving end of such a call, I'd hope that he'd be as appreciative as the colleague should be by hearing from Larry. 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues. 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
F ollow him on Twitter: @jseglin  
(c) 2015 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Repairing car now will make gift run more smoothly

Lil, a reader in Boston, is about to give her 12-year-old car to her daughter and son-in-law, once she buys a new car for herself. With a teenage son now driving and two parents driving in opposite directions to work each morning, Lil knew they needed another car, if for nothing else than to give them transportation to the nearest public transit station.
The car was purchased new and has more than 100,000 miles on it, but Lil has taken good care of the car. She's had the car serviced by the same mechanic for years.
About a week ago, the service light lit up on Lil's car's dashboard. She brought the car in to have her mechanic take a look. The car had a leak in the exhaust hose and needed a new thermostat. Her mechanic estimated that to fix the issues, it would cost about $500. The mechanic told Lil that the car would not pass its next inspection without the work being done.
"Am I obligated to fix the car before I give it away?" Lil asked.
When she offered her car to her daughter and son-in-law, she told them that the car might need some immediate work. "They're grateful for the car and know that down the line, it probably will need more work," she writes. "The car has been well maintained, but it doesn't feel right to me to give the car away when I know that it needs work right now."
Lil adds that an additional consideration is that she needs to drive her car for another week or so and she doesn't want to end up stranded anywhere.
If Lil is worrying about being stranded while continuing to drive her car, she should ask her mechanic if there is any danger in continuing to drive it when it needs a new thermostat and an exhaust hose repaired. (Full disclosure: I am not an auto mechanic and have no idea.)
But the bigger question with which Lil is grappling is whether to have the work done or to give the car as is to her daughter and son-in-law and let them take care of any immediate work that needs doing.
As long as she is not putting herself in peril on the road, it's perfectly fine for Lil to hold off doing any repair work before giving the car away. The right thing to do if she chooses this route is to tell her daughter and son-in-law exactly what the mechanic indicated needs doing and the estimate he gave her about the cost, so they know what they are getting into when the accept the gift of Lil's old car.
But Lil offered her car because she had taken good care of it and she figured it would be reliable transportation. Since she indicates that it's still her intention to pass on a car in good order and because she plans to drive the car for a few more weeks, the right thing to do would be to pay for the repairs to be done before she gives the car away. She'll rest easier at night having done so and her kids will be all the more thankful for her gift. 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues. 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
F ollow him on Twitter: @jseglin  
(c) 2015 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Supporting efforts to provide affordable, healthy food

Almost exactly three years ago, I wrote about some efforts to get affordable food to people who might be in need.
One was The Daily Table, a nonprofit grocery store founded by Doug Rauch, the former president of Trader Joe's. The Daily Table buys excess groceries from other suppliers and passes on the savings to its customers who have a wide variety of groceries and prepared foods from which they can choose to buy.
Fresh fruit, prepared foods, packaged goods, and other items can be purchased at well below the typical price a full-scale, for-profit grocery store (or a Trader Joe's) might charge. The goal is to provide nutritious food that is affordable regardless of the customers' budget.
At the time, I wrote about these efforts that if the desire is to help those who are considered poor, but does so in a way that doesn't stigmatize them, but instead emboldens dignity with businesses that attract all segments of the economy, then they're doing the right thing.
The first Daily Table opened in Dorchester, Mass., in June 2015, with plans to expand to other locations in the Boston area and other cities around the country.
Now that The Daily Table is in full swing, a reader, C.C., asks if it's wrong for her, a well-paid professional to shop there. She and her family can afford to buy groceries at full-price stores, so she wonders if she should allow others more in need to take advantage of the great buys at the store. In other words, is it wrong for her to take advantage of an initiative that seems to have been started to help those less well-off economically than she is.
C.C. should shop at The Daily Table with a clear conscious. If the store has any hope of survival and competing against full-priced grocery stories, it is going to need the support of the entire community. As long as C.C. pays the asking price and is pleased with the groceries she buys -- which she says she is -- she is doing the right thing.
In fact, if The Daily Table begins to be viewed as a place that is only for "poor people," then the risk of it becoming stigmatized as somehow inferior to full-price groceries is greater. That C.C. and other customers sing the praises not only of The Daily Table's prices, but also the quality of its food and its services bodes well for the venture.
I live in Dorchester, two miles away from the first Daily Table location. Three years ago, I closed my column by writing that when the first Daily Table opened that I hoped to be among the first to shop there and that I hoped others of all levels of income followed. My wife, Nancy, who, as part of her therapy practice counsels families on how to eat healthy, beat me to it and came home a few months ago with several bags of wonderful produce and groceries, as well as reports of a great and helpful staff. She's returned several times since. I hope C.C. and others do the right thing and continue to shop there as well. 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues. 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
F ollow him on Twitter: @jseglin  
(c) 2015 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

How wisely should I choose my recommenders?

As high school students continue to receive letters from college admissions offices, I continue to receive questions from readers about recommendation letters. The latest is from a college student who is applying to graduate schools. Let's call him, Francis.
Francis is in his final year of college. He decided last fall to apply to graduate schools. He put together his list of professors he wanted to ask for recommendations. Among those was a professor, let's call him Professor Wilson, with whom he says he learned quite a bit and had a good rapport.
While an undergraduate, Francis was committed to working hard, but also to taking advantage of all his college had to offer in the way of extracurricular activities. Professor Wilson was well-known for his strict attendance policy and insistence that assignment deadlines be met.
On at least two occasions, Francis missed class to attend a special lecture on campus that conflicted with class time and so he could go on an out-of-town field trip. Francis did solid work for Professor Wilson's class, but he was a week late submitting his final paper.
Francis ended up receiving a B for the class -- not a terrible grade, but not the grade he might have received if he hadn't been absent or late.
Still, he had a good relationship with Professor Wilson and believed he understood him and his work well. So last fall he asked Professor Wilson to write one of his letters of recommendation. Professor Wilson agreed to get the recommendation letters in on time.
Now, Francis is having second thoughts.
"Was it wrong for me to assume that my professor would focus on my strengths in the recommendation letter and leave out the incidents leading to my lower grade in his class? Was it wrong to ask him to write me a letter?"
It wasn't wrong for Francis to ask Professor Wilson to write him a recommendation letter. But Francis should not have assumed that his professor would gloss over any of his academic shortcomings in his assessment on his student. Once he agreed to write the letter, Professor Wilson is obligated to write an honest and thorough assessment and to answer any questions posed by the institutions to which Wilson is applying.
As someone who has sat on graduate admissions committees at more than one college, I can make the observation that it seems curious to receive recommendation letters with negative assessments in an otherwise glowing letter, given that the applicant could have chosen anyone he wanted to write the letter. His choice of Professor Wilson suggests curious judgment on his part.
When asked in the past to write recommendation letters, I occasionally have reminded students of their actions or work that might come up in the letter that might not shine as favorably on them if I am one of their recommenders. Professor Wilson could have done the same thing for Francis, but he had no obligation to do so.
The right thing is for Francis to choose those recommenders he believes might write the strongest letters on his behalf, and to expect that they will be honest and forthcoming in those letters. 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues. 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
F ollow him on Twitter: @jseglin  
(c) 2015 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Harvard Kennedy School Library Virtual Book Tour

The Harvard Kennedy School Library features The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top By Playing Nice in its latest virtual book tour. The full tour appears here.

Below is the video that accompanies the Virtual Book Tour.

Should landlord point out rent overpayment to tenant?

A reader, let's call her Lil, owns a two-family house in the Northeast. She and her family live in one apartment. Lil rents the other apartment out to another family. The renters, who have lived in the apartment, are on a month-to-month lease.
Since they started renting, Lil has only raised the rent once, and even then it was a minimal amount to help offset the increased cost of city water that Lil pays. The tenants pay for their own heat and electricity.
Last month, Lil noticed that the renter include $50 too much in the monthly rent check. She emailed the tenants to let them know and asked if they would like the $50 back or if they just wanted to take $50 off of the following month's rent.
One of the tenants who handles the bill was embarrassed she had wrote the check incorrectly and seemed to feel terrible about causing any inconvenience. Lil assured her it wasn't a bit deal. The tenant chose to simply pay $50 less for rent the following month.
When the following month's rent check arrived, it was for the agreed-upon monthly rent. No $50 deduction had been made.
"She felt awful last time about making the check out incorrectly," writes Lil. "Should I just forget about it and not point out her error again this month?"
Lil's inclination is to not say anything, mostly because she doesn't want to make her tenant feel bad. But is that the right thing to do?
It's understandable that Lil doesn't want her tenant to feel bad. Lil considers her and family to be great tenants, ones she can rely on to keep an eye on the house when Lil is out of town, to take the mail in occasionally, to pull the rubbish bins back in from the curb on trash day, or to help out with shoveling snow when a storm hits. They've been tenants for several years now and, knowing how hard it is to find good tenants, Lil doesn't want to make the tenant feel stupid.
But while Lil's intentions are good, the right thing to do is to return the $50.
Sure, the tenant made a mistake writing the check two months in a row, but that doesn't remove the fact that she overpaid. The extra money is hers, not Lil's.
Lil doesn't need to make a big deal about the overpayment -- and, given her past response, it's unlikely she would. But she should alert Lil to it.
She can simply email or tell her in person that she overpaid and ask how she would like the money returned. The same offer she made the previous month of giving her back $50 or simply letting the tenant take it off of her next rent check would take care of business.
At some point, the tenant is likely to recognize that she overpaid once again. When she does, her feeling foolish could turn to resentment if Lil says nothing.
But that's not the reason Lil should point out the error. In a relationship built on honesty, such as theirs has been, doing the right thing is necessary even if it might create a bit of awkwardness in the process. 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues. 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
F ollow him on Twitter: @jseglin  
(c) 2015 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.