Author Archives: George Fergusson

26 May 2013: The rain has ended!

swimmingThat was quite a stretch of wet weather eh? This afternoon as the sun started to break through I marveled at how long it has been since I’ve seen it, and how much rain we’ve gotten this month. April was a very dry month and May started out just as dry with no rain for the first 8 days. Since then we’ve received 5.5″ of rain which has so far brought the lake up 21.6″ with most of the rise occurring in the last 5 days. This afternoon the lake level sits at 34.9″ right at the bottom of the hole in the dam. As of this afternoon there was no water coming through the hole but as the lake continues to rise over the next few days that will change.

In any case, get out there and enjoy the (relatively) high water while it lasts. The lake hasn’t been this high since late June last summer and there’s no telling what to expect as the summer advances. The State boat launch is usable now and if you’re careful you won’t have any trouble getting your boat in the water. There’s 2.1′ of water over the foot of the ramp which is just a little shy of the design specification of 2.3′. Be mindful of the rocks- the water is only about 12″ deep 20′ off the end of the ramp.

I thought Kelley was going to open the gate this weekend in an attempt to keep the water level below the hole in the dam as he did last summer but he hasn’t touched it. Surprise, surprise. Last year he was ostensibly concerned about the impact of high water on the integrity of the dam and he did everything he could to keep the level -40″ or more below the top of the dam. Now maybe everything has changed; he has been referring to the dam as the “breached dam that formerly impounded Clary Lake” as if he’s given up on the useless, broken relic. Still, he’s trying to sell it and you’d think he’d want to keep it from deteriorating further especially considering he’ll probably still own it, and have to fix it, when the lake level order goes on.

Happy Memorial Day everyone.

25 May 2013: Kelley finally gets around to notifying Clary Lake Shore Owners of his petition

bullshit6I received a letter in today’s mail from Paul Kelley on behalf of Pleasant Pond Mill LLC notifying me of his company’s intent to file a petition for release from dam ownership or water level maintenance. Sadly, this news comes 54 days after he actually filed the petition so it can hardly be called “notice of intent to file” but that’s what he’s calling it just the same. Presumably he’s sent copies of his letter to all the Clary Lake shore owners but for the benefit of those interested parties who aren’t technically lake shore owners (and there are quite a few of you) I’ve scanned and posted my copy here. First I should remind everyone that according to a May 17th letter sent by the DEP to Paul Kelley, his petition was found to be unacceptable because of his very failure to satisfy the statutory requirements for public notice:

PPM’s Notice of intent to file petition

All I can say is Paul Kelley’s chutzpah knows no bounds and his arrogance leaves me breathless and dazed. Since the purpose of this mailing was simply to provide notice of something we’re already well aware of, he could have spared us the first page entirely, and most of the second one as well: was his purpose to elicit sympathy? It failed: everyone knows all about Pleasant Pond Mill LLC’s epic failure to develop the Clary Mill property and all the reasons for it. We’re also sick and tired of hearing how hard he has tried to get rid of the dam and we sit here wondering, if he’s tried that hard, how is it that he still owns it?

I presume I am the unidentified “CLA board member” who objected to Mr. Kelley’s holding an “invitation-only” meeting with parties possibly interested in owning the dam and that my statement that I would boycott any meeting that wasn’t open to the general public has caused him to abandon his plans for such an exclusive meeting. No need to thank me folks! Just doing my job!

Instead of the originally planned invitation-only meeting, Mr. Kelley will now meet 1-on-1 with parties interested in owning the Clary Lake dam. First come, first served. Get in line folks.

24 May 2013: Lake Level is UP

It isn’t often that I update the water level charts more than once a day but I did this day, the water was coming up so fast you could almost watch it rise. The lake has come up a little more than 12″ since last Monday when it started raining, rising from -56.52″ below the top of the dam to -44.16″ earlier this afternoon and they’re forecasting rain for a couple more days too so the lake isn’t done rising by a long shot. Runoff was limited at the start because most of the rain soaked into the dry ground rather than running off into the lake the ground is now saturated and runoff rates are more or less normal now.

You’ll notice a new feature on the water level charts: a straight black line across the chart at an elevation of -34″ below the top of the dam which is the approximate elevation of the bottom of the hole in the dam. When the water rises above this level it will start pouring through the hole. Last year Kelley did everything he could to keep the lake level below -40″ to prevent enlargement of the hole, causing further damage to the dam. If he keeps up this practice this year, expect him to open the gate this weekend.

24 May 2013: Whitefield Publishes Warrant for Special Town Meeting

town_meetingThe Whitefield Selectmen have published the warrant for the upcoming special town  meeting on May 30th at 7:00 PM at the Whitefield School. Article 2 addresses the matter of the Clary Lake dam:

To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Selectmen, on behalf of the Town, to negotiate an agreement to accept ownership of the Clary Lake dam, including all property rights owned by the dam owner and necessary to maintain and operate the dam, on such terms and conditions as the Selectmen deem advisable, subject, however, to final approval by the voters before the Selectmen execute the agreement.

While I think it is unlikely that the town will ultimately vote to accept ownership of the dam, the Selectmen should be commended for their due diligence in this matter. I sincerely hope they let the Selectmen pursue this initiative to it’s logical conclusion.

22 May 2013 Lincoln County News article: Jefferson voters reject ownership of Clary Lake Dam

ostrich2Shlomit Auciello has written another article in the ongoing saga of the “beleaguered” Clary Lake dam property, this one covering last night’s Jefferson town meeting at which the town voted to reject ownership of the dam. Ms. Auciello also spoke with Paul Kelley before the meeting about the May 17th letter sent by the DEP to him in which they state their opinion that his petition has been “found to be unacceptable at this time.” Auciello reports that Kelley said that they weren’t rejecting his petition the way he reads the letter, that he believes PPM’s petition was “processed and deemed to comply with the statute.” Whatever. Here’s the article:

Jefferson voters reject ownership of Clary Lake Dam

Kelley also stated that the letter did not address “the topic we’ve been discussing for the past 3 weeks.” That “topic” could only be the matter of the flowage rights and the fact that Kelley doesn’t own them, but I’m just guessing.

Paul Koenig of the Kennebec Journal also had an article in today’s KJ about the Jefferson town meeting:

Jefferson residents OK school budget, refuse Clary Lake dam takeover

21 May 2013: Jefferson Voters (almost) unanimously vote not to accept ownership of the dam

talking-heads-customAt their 21 May 2013 Special Town Meeting, Jefferson voters predictably voted not to accept ownership of the Clary Lake dam. Selectman Jim Hilton made a motion right off not to accept ownership of the dam, which was quickly seconded. He gave his reasons- basically that the Selectmen feel that the Clary Lake Association is the proper entity to own the dam and the town isn’t at all interested in being responsible for dam repairs and maintenance, and they don’t want DEP telling them they have to spend money. He also cited the letter they received today to the effect that Kelley’s petition is “deficient” and the town just doesn’t want to have anything to do with Kelley or the dam.

A number of Jefferson residents spoke up not so much in favor of the town owning the dam but to take an active interest in the proceedings and be supportive of the Association’s efforts to resolve this situation. Trudi Hodgkins specifically mentioned her support of a 3-way arrangement with the 2 towns and the Association. A Ms. Bond (didn’t get her first name) said she just wants a water level order on the lake! She said she was over at the boat launch and found it unusable. Ellis Percy spoke eloquently about the Association’s desire to own the dam and encouraged the town to “stay on board” with us.

Butch Duncan said he owns 3000′ of shore front mostly in Whitefield and spoke about how he likes the water low and that the dam should be removed.

As expected, the vote to not accept ownership of the dam was almost but not quite unanimous. The meeting was well attended. Paul Kelley was there. He didn’t say anything and wasn’t asked to speak.

21 May 2013: PPM Petition for release from dam ownership found lacking

oopsDEP has come to the conclusion that Paul Kelley failed to satisfy the Public Notice requirements of the statute and have given him the option of either voluntarily withdrawing his petition now or waiting for the Department to officially dismiss it at their upcoming consultation 180 days from when the petition was filed. At least that is how I understand it. Kelley has been notified and a letter has been sent to the towns of Whitefield and Jefferson. I’ll post it here as soon I get my hands on a copy.

Here’s a copy:

Letter from DEP Regarding Deficient Petition

Anyone expecting Paul Kelley to voluntarily withdraw his petition don’t know Paul Kelley. I predict he’ll fight this decision. To do otherwise would not be in character.

Ironically, I inquired of Kathy Howatt at the very start of this fiasco whether or not Kelley had satisfactorily complied with the statute’s public notice requirement. At that time the thinking at the Department was that the requirement for public notice could be met with a single notice being published in a newspaper not more than 30 days before filing the petition. Kelley did this, posting a notice in the Kennebec Journal on April 1st 2013, one day before filing the petition with the DEP. Now it appears the Department is of the opinion that no, ALL the public notices need to be made before the filing of the petition, which it the way I interpret the law. Here’s the verbiage from the statute. You decide:

2. Public notice. Not more than 30 days before filing a petition, the dam owner shall publish notice of intent to file a petition under this article at least once in a newspaper circulated in the area in which the dam and impoundment are located. The dam owner shall notify by certified mail the persons listed in section 902, subsection 3, paragraphs B, C and D. The dam owner shall notify abutting property owners as provided in subsection 3. The dam owner shall also make a good faith effort to notify local, regional and statewide private organizations interested in fisheries, wildlife, conservation, recreation and environmental issues whose interests may be affected by the dam.

I had hoped DEP would dismiss his petition on the basis that he lacked sufficient right, title, and interest in the dam to satisfy the statutory requirements for it’s transfer, but I’ll take this dismissal on a procedural basis if that’s all I can get. If Kelley resubmits his petition, he’ll still have that title hurdle clear.

20 May 2013: Town of Jefferson Public Meeting Reminder

reminder_smallJust a quick reminder that the Town of Jefferson is holding their public meeting to consider and act on the issue of dam ownership tomorrow night at 6 PM at the Jefferson Village School Gymnasium. Unlike the Town of Whitefield’s May 30th meeting which is being held solely for the purpose of addressing the dam issue, Jefferson’s meeting serves a dual purpose: residents will also be voting on school budget issues. The the dam question is #1 on the agenda and is worded as follows:

“To see what action the town will take regarding ownership of the Clary Lake dam located at 103 Mills Road in Whitefield.”

I will be there simply so I can report on the meeting. From what I can gather, this meeting is being held under duress and the outcome is virtually assured: the town will not take any action regarding ownership of the Clary Lake dam. I imagine the first and last question will be “How much do they want for the dam?” to which the Selectmen will answer “We don’t know. He won’t tell us.” The Selectmen have taken a hands-off approach towards this issue from the very start and I expect their recommendation will be to do nothing and move on. I wonder if Paul Kelley will be there to field questions? That would be entertaining.

19 May 2013: Jefferson Special Town Meeting Warrant

thumbs-down-customJefferson has sent out the warrant for the upcoming special town meeting to be held on Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at the Jefferson Village School Gymnasium at 6 PM. The article on the Clary Lake dam is #1 on the agenda and the wording is short and sweet:

“To see what action the town will take regarding ownership of the Clary Lake dam located at 103 Mills Road in Whitefield.”

Discussion should be lively and short-lived. I predict they will vote to take no action.

19 May 2013: Site Functionality Upgrade

exlamation_pointA month ago I installed some software that replaces the built-in user management functions on the site (user log ins, registrations, and lost passwords) with similar functions with enhanced features and functionality but it turned out to be a bit buggy so I uninstalled it. Now it appears they’ve fixed the bugs (or claimed they have) so I’m giving it another try. Here’s the original post about it the features and functions.

If anyone experiences any difficulties please let me know.

18 May 2013: Fun and games launching boats

launching_boatI stopped by the State boat launch this morning to see what was going on. As I was arriving some folks were getting ready to leave, having given up on trying to get their boat in the lake. Understandable given that there are rocks sticking out of the water 20′ off the end of the ramp. They had a standard fiberglass bass boat- not a chance they could have gotten it off the trailer no matter how far they backed it in. Then a pickup pulled in hauling a 14″ aluminum boat about the size of mine; even with the trailer backed in off the end of the ramp the boat wasn’t touching the water. Only brute strength and sheer determination succeeded in them getting their boat in the water.

Later in the afternoon I decided to take my boat out for a spin, it has been a while and the water had receded quite a bit from my little dry-dock slip and I had trouble getting it into the water. Finally got her launched and was tootling across the lake when I noticed some people over at Art Enos’s place trying to get their boat in the water. They had a typical bass boat, fiberglass with a big motor and they were having trouble. They finally succeeded by backing into the water fast and then hitting the brakes; each time they did this, the boat slid a little further off the trailer. After 3 such attempts the boat finally floated free. Not what you call a convenient way to launch a boat… and they’re lucky they didn’t get their SUV stuck in the mud. Wish I’d had my camera….

17 May 2013: Dam’s gate is closed.

kelley-headshot2Kelley finally closed the dam’s gate which has been wide open since last October 13th. Must have been done sometime today though I suppose it could have been late yesterday afternoon. I’m not sure what inspired this seemingly magnanimous gesture on Kelley’s part: concern over the drained wetlands? Not likely. Worry for lost wildlife habitat? Nah. Sadness over the unusable status of the State boat launch? Nope. You can be sure whatever reasons motivated him they were selfish and self-serving. He’ll get no thanks from me. The lake is down 56″ below the top of the dam and the crime has been committed. I suppose we should be grateful that Kelley has closed the gate but I’m still angry with him for draining the lake in the first place. Call me ungrateful but in my book it’s too little, too late.

16 May 2013 Lincoln County News Article: Pleasant Pond Mill asks for new dam hearing

paperYet another article has appeared in this week’s Lincoln County News  about Kelley’s request for a new hearing and my objection to it. Seems like every week there’s something in one paper or another. Shlomit Auciello is doing a pretty good job of reporting on a complicated and confusing situation:

Pleasant Pond Mill asks for new dam hearing

No comments on the article at this time.

15 May 2013: Clary Lake Water Monitoring Data Now Online

secchi_diskWe’ve finally gotten around to putting current Clary Lake water monitoring data online. It’s a subset of the data collected by David Hodsdon and Jack Holland and will be updated roughly every 2 weeks from early spring through late fall or as often as David and Jack get around to it. What’s online now includes all the data from 2012 and what’s been collected so far in 2013. That little thumbnail at left is what a secchi disk looks like- it’s used to measure the transparency of the water.

I hope to get some historical data online soon; there’s quite a bit of it. David has been collecting water quality data on Clary Lake since 1975, Jack Holland since about 2001. Both are certified volunteer water quality monitors. Here’s a typical data sheet from a data collection session and here are 3 charts based on the collected data. Graphing the data is helpful because it allows you to see trends in the data that aren’t necessarily obvious from just looking at it. One disturbing trend evident from the secchi disk chart is that the transparency of the lake water has deteriorated markedly in recent years. This trend also coincides with the increase in phosphorus evident from the Total Phosphorus chart. We’ll be talking more about these trends in the near future.

Last spring I accompanied David and Jack on one of their regular water quality monitoring sessions and have put together a short photo gallery of that session: “Our Water Quality Monitors at Work“.

14 May 2013: Kelley Responds to Town Request for Price of Dam

monopoly_manIf the Whitefield Selectmen are going to asking the voters of the town to consider purchasing the Clary Lake dam, they’re entitled to know how much it’s going to cost, right? You know, the price. That’s a reasonable request, no? Well to that end, the Selectmen handed a  letter to Paul Kelley at the 30 April 2013 Selectmen’s meeting, asking just that question. They asked for a response by the 10th of April. Many of us were there, that was the night the Selectmen held their informational meeting. Well we’ve all been dying for Kelley’s response. Here it is. Spoiler alert: Anyone who expected Kelley to provide an actual price on the dam will be disappointed 🙂

Kelley’s 10 May 2013 Response to Whitefield Selectmen’s request for price of dam

These 2 sentences towards the end of Kelley’s letter more or less sum up the situation for me:

“It is PPM’s understanding that it has the right, under the Abandonment statute, to request “compensation” for the dam. PPM intends to do so, in an amount equal to its associated “costs of ownership” since purchase of the dam from Mr. Arthur Enos in 2006.

PPM considers many of these “costs of ownership” to be proprietary business information, and should the Town wish to secure ownership of the darn via Purchase & Sale Agreement, PPM is prepared to enter a non-disclosure agreement with the Town to fully disclose that information and bargain as to price and terms of sale.”

A non-disclosure agreement? This is so not happening.

13 May 2013: How Low Can It Go?

Some of you will remember seeing a table something like this last year, on the old site:

Lake Rate of Fall With Dam’s Gate Full Open
Inches Below Top of Dam  Rate of Fall in 24 Hours
 0″ to 36″  1″
 36″ to 48″  3/4″
 48″ to 62″  1/2″
 Below 62″  1/4″ or less

These figures were derived empirically which simply means these are based on measurements we made and recorded. They are what they are. They’re averages and on any given day they will likely vary a little or (even a lot) due to changing conditions: lake surface area, the shape of the lake, and most important, the amount of runoff from rain or snow melt. But all things being equal, these numbers should be pretty close most of the time.

Which brings me to the reason for this post: the question of how low can the lake get. I have in the past come to the conclusion that the rock-bottom low water level was from-hydrographic-surveysomewhere around 6 feet (-72″) below the top of the dam. This figure was arrived at after measuring the water depth at the mouth of the channel at the northwest end of the lake. I also came across a fascinating book entitled “The Water Power of Maine” by Walter Wells, first published in 1869. In it I found a table that I’ve reproduced the table at left. It estimates the additional storage in Pleasant Pond (now Clary Lake) as 4 to 6 feet. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

Yesterday afternoon Colin Caissie and I went over to look a the narrow gauge rail road abutments to assess their suitability for the construction of a coffer dam. To get the colin_at_rr_abutmentdistance between the abutments, I waded across the channel (and filled my boots in the process) while dragging a tape measure and found the center of the channel to be 2′ deep. The water level at the time was -54″ below the top of the dam. Adding 24″ to this gives you an elevation of the center of the channel between the abutments of -78″ or -6.5 feet below the top of the dam. The average distance between the abutments by the way is 16.5′. There are more pictures from this adventure in the Spring 2013 gallery.

And there you have it folks. The lake can’t possibly fall more than 6.5′ below the top of the dam and chances are, since there is a gentle slope to the channel on the order of about 1/2 a foot over it’s entire length, the limiting factor likely is the elevation at the entrance of the channel. So if anyone asks you how far the lake can fall, tell `em “6 feet.”

The lake is down -54″ now. It can fall another 18″. Last spring it reached -63″ below the top of the dam. At the rate the lake is dropping, we’ll get there again in 10 days.

13 May 2013: Petitioner’s Response to Pleasant Pond Mill LLC’s request for a new hearing

just-say-noI have just sent my response to Kelley’s request for a new hearing to the Service List. It’s short. DEP has already defended their decision to conduct the bathymetric survey and have decisively ruled on Kelley’s repeated objections to it. Kelley apparently can’t take no for an answer. DEP was not willing to revisit and revise the survey at my request and I see no reason now why they should approve Kelley’s request to reopen the hearing which would only waste valuable time, resources, and money.

Petitioner’s Response to Pleasant Pond Mill LLC’s request for a new hearing

As usual, Since Pleasant Pond Mill LLC is not on the service list, Kelley will learn of my response by reading this post unless someone cares enough to send him a copy of my email. Far be it from me to add his address to the Service List. That’s DEP’s job, they maintain the list and publish it. I just post to it. One of these days DEP will wise up to the fact that Pleasant Pond Mill LLC is still represented by PretiFlaherty in name only.

Incidentally, today is the drop-dead day for Kelley to supply the State with proof that he has sufficient right, title, and interest in the Clary Lake dam to satisfy the statutory requirements for transferring the the property under the Petition for release from dam ownership or water level maintenance. As I understand it, if he can’t show that he owns the flowage rights, they’ll dismiss his petition. What are the chances Kelley has been able to come up with the flowage rights in the last couple of weeks? I’m guessing slim to none. Stay tuned.

12 May 2013: Clary Lake Dam Fund Update and Information

eyesI’ve received a few questions from people about how, when, and under what circumstances the Clary Lake Dam Fund monies will be spent. I’ll try and clear that up in this posting. First, I’m happy to report that Bill Donovan from over on the west shore of Clary Lake donated $100 to the Dam Fund bringing the balance of the fund to $1402 which is almost 1/3 of the way to our $5000 goal. Have no fear, when we are close to achieving our $5000 goal we will simply raise it; the $5000 goal was just an initial target. Bill’s donation was a good-faith gesture; he and a few other people that have donated money have said they will donate more money when the time comes to actually spend it. Yeah.

The plan is that the dam fund should be used to repair the dam as soon as possible regardless of who happens to own the dam at the time. Our thinking goes that whomever owns it is going to need financial and technical assistance. We’re prepared to offer that assistance. Assuming the Association does NOT own the dam then there are some conditions that must be met to receive our money; the Association will not simply give the money to the dam owner to spend as they see fit. We will discuss the scope of the work and the nature of the repairs as well as the projected costs and if we approve, then we will authorize the work and we will pay the bills. These conditions should not constitute a serious problem for the dam owner; when it comes to repairs we’re open to suggestions and ideas but we must assure that money donated to the Association for repairing the dam is well spent toward that end.

We also anticipate and are willing to help with other unavoidable expenses associated with repairing the dam such as the costs of designing and building a coffer dam between the narrow gauge rail road abutments, State permitting requirements, etc. We have set up a discussion list to talk about these issues and kick around ideas. If anyone is interested in participating in the list, get in touch with me.

As for when all this might happen… I’m sorry to say probably not for a while. Mr. Kelley (perhaps understandably) has not acknowledged our offer to purchase the dam but sadly, he  hasn’t responded to our request for permission to get an engineering assessment done on the dam either though it’s been almost 2 weeks since the letters were sent. This is truly “cut off your nose to spite your face” behavior on Mr. Kelley’s part because he would benefit greatly from a current engineering assessment. Given how far relations between Kelley and the Association have deteriorated, it is extremely unlikely that he will entertain letting the Association get involved in dam repair planning and execution anytime soon. Perhaps as the reality of a DEP enforced water level order approaches, Mr. Kelley will become more willing to negotiate. In the mean time, we plan, we collect money, and we wait.

Perhaps people will remember this article in the Lincoln County News last August:

How soon we forget eh?

Dam Fund Progress: [progressbar url=”https://clarylake.org/data/dam.txt” rounded=”0″ width=”400px” color=”green”]

09 May 2013 Lincoln County News: Whitefield selectmen to look into so-called flowage rights

confused_0Yet another Lincoln County News article in this week’s paper, this one by Dominik Lobkowicz about last Tuesday night’s Whitefield Selectmen’s meeting. Good article. Worth reading. I was at that meeting along with Sue McKeen. We didn’t talk, we just listened. The theme of this post is “Confusion” which is what that thumbnail at left is supposed to represent. The article isn’t online so I scanned it and the photo of Mr. Kelley didn’t come out too well. Sorry.

Whitefield selectmen to look into so-called flowage rights

There’s really nothing confusing about it. At issue is whether anyone in their right mind would want to own a dam without also owning the right to flood upstream property that they don’t own. If you owned a dam without also owning the flowage rights, why you could find yourself being sued by any one of a 108 lake shore property owners (or all of them) for flooding their property without the right to do so. It’s really simple. If you own a dam, you need the flowage rights. And DEP agrees. And so does the AG.

09 May 2013: Clary Lake Dam Repair Fund Update

smiley-face_0With all the doomy and gloomy petition stuff I’ve been posting of late, it is a real pleasure (that’s me smiling at left) to be able to provide this update on the Clary Lake Association fund raising initiative. Don and Lucy Norman of Jefferson stopped by the other day to talk to me about making a donation to the Clary Lake Dam Repair fund. They hoped that by putting some “seed money” in the fund that it would encourage others to contribute. This afternoon, Lucy called to tell me that she had just dropped a check off with our Treasurer, Linda Gallion.

The check was for $1000.

I’m pretty much blown away by the Norman’s donation and wish to publicly thank them for their generosity. I’ve known this was coming for a few days and have been thinking in the back of my mind how I would acknowledge what they’ve done. Finally, I just decided to write this post.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Beverly D’Urbano for her generous donation of $50 to the fund and for being the first person (besides me) to try out our new online PayPal donation processing system! The dam repair fund, which a few days ago stood at $152 is now sitting pretty at $1202.

Make that $1302, Mary Shaw just donated $100 to the Dam fund!

Make that $1402, Bill Donovan just donated $100 to the Dam fund!

Dam Fund Progress: [progressbar url=”https://clarylake.org/data/dam.txt” rounded=”0″ width=”400px” color=”green”]

And….. we’re off! Remember: No amount is too big, or too small. Give Generously, and Give Often 🙂