Some members of Calgary’s arts community say the Art Gallery of Calgary (AGC) is a dysfunctional space, where art is physically compromised, working relationships are difficult and corporate events and fundraisers are considered more important than the work on the walls. The gallery counters that fundraising is a necessary exercise, accounting for 79 per cent of its budget, and denies allegations that art has been damaged or compromised. It is a serious rift in Calgary’s art community that artists say threatens the city’s reputation on the national arts scene.
ANGRY ARTISTS
A number of artists openly complain about problems they have experienced at the gallery. When Naomi London’s textile installation piece One Gargantuan Optimistic Metaphor was shipped back to her after an exhibition at the AGC last year, she says it arrived in Montreal without appropriate packing and was badly soiled as a result. Local media artist Joe Kelley is one of several artists who tried to protect his works during a large annual fundraising event. Kelley was worried that his work could be damaged by the steam and heat from the four temporary kitchens set up in the gallery for AGC Cooks, and covered his work with plastic sheeting. Then there is the splash of soda pop that conservators found on a painting featured in Alex Janvier’s 30-year retrospective at the gallery. Amidst rumours of damaged works, the AGC eventually paid to have all the paintings in the Janvier show professionally cleaned.
Sitting in the middle of Calgary’s historic Stephen Avenue, surrounded by chic restaurants and nestled within two old sandstone storefronts, the AGC, with its four levels and newly installed environmental controls, is a well-polished poster child for contemporary art galleries in the city. However, below its clean facade, white walls, and the Jugo Juice that rents a lower portion of the building, lurks a lingering art fight that is preventing the organization from working with many in the community it purports to serve.
Many artists who have exhibited at the AGC since 2004 as well as several former staff members are highly critical of gallery operations. One called their treatment by the gallery “unprofessional” and “disappointing.” They complain of breached contracts, late payments, unreturned and damaged work as well as a lack of communication between gallery administration, curators, exhibiting artists and the arts community at large. There is also the perception that fundraising and corporate gallery rentals are more important to the AGC than the art it exhibits.
One former employee describes working conditions as “Machiavellian” and “excruciating,” and past chief curators Alexandra Keim and Donna Wawzonek are involved in separate legal battles with the AGC. Both former curators were advised by their lawyers not to comment for this article, and the AGC declined to comment on the legal proceedings. However, artists critical of the gallery are careful to note their gratitude for the good work of departed curatorial staff. They are also cautiously optimistic about the new senior curator, Marianne Elder. However, as one artist laments “There’s something really at the core that is preventing good people from functioning."
The AGC is trying to distance itself from its troubled past, recently rebranding itself by launching a new website and a new curatorial direction. At a private event on October 9, a small group of AGC supporters and press were greeted with mimosas and cupcakes as AGC president and CEO Valerie Cooper publicly announced her renewed five-year contract and Elder’s appointment as the gallery’s third new senior curator in as many years. Cooper also addressed the gallery’s challenges: “There have been naysayers along the way that have doubted the credibility and role of the organization in the community, and I feel bad about that,” she said. “Because really what is happening is that they are missing out on an organization that is becoming a stellar organization nationally and internationally. And hopefully we will be able to do that in our own backyard in a way that people want us to be.” After four challenging years, “We are now at ground zero,” Cooper told Fast Forward in an interview one week after the launch. The AGC, she claims, is ready to put the past behind it and “lift off.”
TROUBLED HISTORY
The gallery has deep roots in Calgary’s artistic community. In 1977, the Muttart Art Gallery was opened in the old Memorial Park Library, the result of 14 artist associations coming together to provide a space for contemporary exhibitions in the heart of the city. Twenty years later, the growth in staff, exhibitions and community support led the gallery to purchase its two buildings on Stephen Avenue. It opened its doors in 2000 under a new name, the Art Gallery of Calgary.
By the time Cooper took over in 2004, the organization was well respected for its forward-looking contemporary art exhibitions, yet it was literally on the brink of financial collapse. Hearing of the gallery’s dire financial situation, its hired contractors abandoned their work in the midst of its multimillion-dollar renovation. It was an ugly time for the fledgling space. Cooper says the key challenge when she was hired was simply paying employees on time. She arrived to find 11 bank accounts with about $50 between them and two weeks to make payroll. “And there was over $1 million worth of debt that had been accrued by the previous two directors,” she says. The AGC’s troubles, however, were more than financial. The gallery’s detractors contend that while working to keep the building open and attempting to keep up with salary payments, lease payments, artist fees and promotion, its top decision-makers lost sight of the art they were supposed to focus on.
Some of these problems started before Cooper was hired, a distinction she is careful to highlight. Some incidents, however, occurred after she established a new board of directors and was entrenched in her current position. Regardless, the gallery must overcome a mountain of distrust. As one Alberta artist suggested: “If you don’t have the support of the artists that you’re showing, that’s a bad sign.”
BAD SHOWS
Naomi London exhibited at the AGC in 2006, and says her work was damaged and compromised to make way for private functions. London’s installation consisted of large, upholstered letters that spell out the word “hope” in four languages. She was shocked when she received a request from Keim, the chief curator at the time, to write a letter to the gallery, asking that her work not be misused during fundraising events. The letters that make up her installation were allegedly rearranged without her permission to spell out corporate names, threatening the safety and integrity of the work. “I assumed that all the artwork would be treated with due respect, and I thought it a bit odd at the time that I needed to write a letter," she says. “I was surprised this was even an issue for such a gallery. The letter stated that I wanted the work to be off limits during corporate events.” A former staff member says the e-mailed letter was read out loud by Keim during a general staff meeting when Cooper was in attendance, and Kein was “reprimanded for defending the integrity of the work.” Cooper says she was not aware that the letter was written, and that it is not normal for a curator to take this step.
“So, obviously, the curator was operating on her own accord,” says Cooper. “When you mention the year (2006), it’s probably part of what has piled up against those curators as inappropriate professional practice with artists,” she says.
Cooper also denies that there was a valid concern about compromising the work. “That might have been the way that the curator positioned it,” she says. “I would say that is something that that particular curator decided to do, for what reason, I have no idea.”
After the show was complete, the work was shipped back to the artist in Montreal. “The artwork was not [emphasis London’s] properly wrapped for the return trip, so the works were soiled upon their return,” says London. “The work was stained, soiled, they needed to be cleaned and repacked.” She adds that she had to pay approximately $400 to remove the stains. Cooper says she is unaware the work was damaged.
While London’s work was damaged in transport, another artist who showed at the gallery in 2006-07 faced another kind of shipping issue — her work wasn’t returned for over a year. Linda Duvall, a video installation artist who lives in Saskatchewan, says she tried several times to recover her lost work, Tea and Gossip, and made numerous phone calls. “There was some problem — it did finally get returned, and it was because of a particular staff [member]. They just took it on and did it,” she says.
Elder — who was not at the gallery for the Duvall installation — and Cooper were not aware of this problem. In fact, the pair were not aware that Duvall had even shown at the gallery. “No, that’s impossible,” says Elder, “because I’m not even familiar with that title.” The AGC lists the exhibition on its own website, in annual reports and in archived press releases.
Being missed appears to be a common thread in Duvall’s experience. In addition to the problem she had recovering her work, she also dealt with three AGC curators from inception to completion of her exhibition, something she describes as “very unusual.” “Because [my] show was organized three years ahead, I actually didn’t know that the first curator had left,” says Duvall. “The next curator knew nothing about it, so I actually had to send her the correspondence.”
Elder admits that “every time a curator left, our scheduling went into the pit,” and acknowledges that the community has been supportive of her predecessors. “They did the hard work to make my life easier.”
Still, Duvall holds no hard feelings for the gallery, and says she would show there again. She enjoyed her well-attended opening and working alongside the “hands-on staff.”
Elliot Mealia and Dayna Van Harten, artists who now live in Toronto, showed their work at the gallery in 2004 when its finances and organization were in chaos. “The gallery was closed by the city during this time due to construction permit violations and ended up pushing our show back,” says Mealia. Like most standard exhibition agreements, “the terms of the contract included artist fees, documentation of the show and invitations for the show.” When the artist fee was not received on time, he was told that the gallery’s accountant was out of town.
“After a week, I contacted her (Cooper) again in regards to the artist fees and she said that we were in breach of the contract, as we did not have the show installed on the date specified on the contract,” says Mealia. “This made me quite upset, as the gallery had been locked by the city and the show postponed due to the gallery’s actions.”
Mealia says he would exhibit at the AGC again, but would be more cautious. “I have learned from my experience there, and it is unfortunate that artists have to go through such experiences to learn how to protect themselves.”
Many artist complaints have arisen from the gallery’s fundraising efforts — gallery rentals, which pack partiers into the space, and AGC Cooks, where some of Calgary’s best chefs prepare food in the gallery. A former staff member who was responsible for facility management and curatorial work backs up many of the rumours circulating in the art community about dangers to art works. “During the first AGC cooks, there was open food and, yes some of the works got damaged. During the second one… stoves started coming in through the door,” he says, “and all of a sudden, half of the show had to come down because a catering company wanted [to use] that space.” Moving work compromises its safety and breaches the trust artists put in an institution to respect the integrity of the work.
Four years later, AGC Cooks is no longer held in the gallery while work is present. Cooper is quick to point out “we have stanchions (stands with ropes), security cameras, trained gallery staff that come in. We’ve got policies and procedures and processes that happen, it is all in the client… contracts.”
Elder says she “would love nothing more than to never have to hold another event in the space,” but they are a necessary function of the gallery’s fundraising activities. She says that fundraising events are now either held offsite or scheduled to take place when the gallery is between exhibitions without work in the space, and that the stanchions the gallery invested in after the Janvier incident are now used to protect artwork during rental events.
PAYMENTS
Timely payment of artist fees and negotiation of fair payment has been another sticking point for artists. All organizations that receive public funding from the Canada Council for the Arts and other levels of government are required to pay artists, but one current staff member says, “there was a time, to be perfectly honest, when they didn’t know they should be paying artist fees.” Cooper says the AGC has paid artist fees as long as she’s been with the gallery, adding “I sign every cheque here.”
Four artists interviewed by Fast Forward, however, claim they were not paid in a timely fashion. Like Mealia, two of them claim they were told the accountant was “away” or “out of town,” when they asked about their fees. One says, “I had to literally hound them on a weekly basis for four months to get paid.” Another artist, who exhibited in 2008, says, “[My] dealings with the directors of the gallery were unpleasant and involved a complicated negotiation process to get artist fees which were somewhere close to acceptable.” Elder now confirms that AGC is meeting the national standards for payment of artist fees outlined by Canadian Artists’ Representation, an organization that sets professional guidelines for artists and the organizations that exhibit their work.
A NEW BEGINNING?
When Cooper addressed the “naysayers” in her October 9 speech, she says she was referring to the gallery’s financial critics. Many thought the gallery should sell its space and try to salvage what it could of the organization. She is cautiously optimistic that those critics have been proven wrong.
She also acknowledges that there are critics in the arts community. “I think there was concern about the type of exhibitions that were being curated, and some of it tied to exhibition scheduling regarding… how many artists we showed here, those kinds of things primarily,” she says. While Cooper says she heard most of these complaints “through the grapevine,” the gallery’s 2006 annual report also stated that it undertook “a strategic assessment of the AGC’s position within the visual arts community.” The document was never made public, and Elder admits “I’ve never seen a full copy of that report.”
However, this report, compiled from direct consultations with prominent artists, curators, commercial art dealers, collectors and colleagues in other arts institutions, may have, at least temporarily, hit home. The gallery responded to it by appointing artist Brian Flynn to its board of directors, but he didn’t last long. He was later replaced by representational painter Janine Hall, who also left after a brief stint. No professional artist has been elected to the board of directors since. A past staff member who saw a copy of the report says that, like many of the recommendations it contains, “the information was absorbed by their administration to appear as though they were actually doing something to develop a working relationship with the community at large, but in reality, they were only paying lip service to this effort.” Elder says she “believes in transparency” and urges artists who have concerns to speak with her. “I cannot right past wrongs, but I can look and see what we can do going forward.”
THE FUTURE
Not all the artists who exhibit at the gallery, nor all the artists who spoke with Fast Forward begrudge the institution or had bad experiences while exhibiting there. Many commended the gallery’s curatorial staff for their dedication and for the great experiences they had there. Unfortunately, many feel the AGC is not living up to its potential.
Is the gallery’s rebranding a spin job that lacks substance? Or does it represent an important step in the evolution of the AGC? Artists express hope that the gallery will succeed in establishing itself as a significant local, national and international institution and truly incorporate itself into the community. A prominent Albertan artist who exhibited at the gallery in 2003 concludes, “…there’s some kind of internal problem there, whether that problem originates with the board or the mandate of the gallery even, with some sort of discrepancy between what their funding is and what their aspirations are, I don’t know. I hope that they can make something of it.”
Anthea Black is an artist, writer and cultural worker based in Alberta. She has served on the board of directors of several artist-run organizations and worked as the director of Stride Gallery.


Comments: 16
bazookajoe wrote:
kudos to anthea and drew
for bringing this to light
for the masses
on Oct 23rd, 2008 at 12:11am Report Abuse
Gallery Slave wrote:
Why is an institution that consistently demonstrates blatant disrespect for artists and the general public receiving public money – money that is mandated to support artists and enhance peoples’ experience of art?
Why is there such a high turnover of staff, especially in the crucial position of curator? The actual numbers are more damning that the article suggests: from August 2005 to August 2008 six individuals held the position of staff curator.
Why does the Board of Directors cling to a director more interested in world travel at the Gallery’s expense than in allocating adequate funds to support exhibitions and building positive relationships with the local arts community?
An article that investigates matters such as these might gain attention beyond the tightly knit arts community and raise questions in the minds of those who can actually facilitate change.
on Oct 25th, 2008 at 2:25pm Report Abuse
hotlips wrote:
Of course, I respect the tact used in this case. Undoubtedly, the out-lash to be expected from the rightly-paranoid administration, fearing the outing of their legions of skeletons, could make for a messy sight.
But it would be worth it to see the expression on Cooper's fuchsia-rimmed lips, should her abuse of public funding be fully exposed. I would eagerly pay money -my entire artist fee (the one that took eight months of persistence to obtain), to see a positive change in that beautiful building.
It would be a dream to see that space actually serve the community; and perhaps change is possible. As long as Cooper rules as President and CEO, that won't happen. Maybe we will see that day come, or in the least, AGC could just give up the name, and let it become the "Convention Centre of Calgary," it wants to be. Then public funding could finally be freed up, and re-distributed to Calgary's artist-run centers, who HAVE been serving the community for over 30 years, with there excellent programming, which HAS remained FREE and ACCESSIBLE for ALL!
on Oct 28th, 2008 at 3:39am Report Abuse
Martin wrote:
on Oct 28th, 2008 at 6:03pm Report Abuse
Drew Anderson wrote:
And yes hotlips, I suppose it could appear optimistic to those who are angry with the gallery, but it's not a lie to say that there are also those that still support it. Or, at least, aren't vehemently opposed to it. We're not puppets for one side or another, we're presenters of other's thoughts and opinions.
on Oct 28th, 2008 at 9:43pm Report Abuse
hilary wrote:
Was she (meaning The Gallery) in need of money to such a degree? Would my potential donation be spent towards the same ressources as the money raised by the many paush events I saw being set up everytime I came down? My concern that has now been itched by this article is, if she was unable to pay what she promised and owed, then why did she seem to be traveling to foreign destinations instead of being available to take care of gallery issues and my valid concerns, a similar experience as 'galery slave'. Would these trips not be expensive? Perhaps the accountant was unavailable because she was in travel as well? To date, this is my only explanation.
Obviously, Valerie Cooper was a negative force in the context of my experiences with The Gallery. Others I have spoken with expressed similar thoughts and by the looks on the faces of staff members and the tense atmosphere I experienced time and time again, I doubt there is an overwhelming warm and fuzzy feeling around those parts.
It upsets me that others have had identical issues with the Art Gallery of Calgary and it seems that there must not be many checks and balances or people looking very closely to how things are being done around there. It would seem that a gallery can become somebody's personal playground. I warn you all to be careful if you head into the belly of the beast!
on Oct 30th, 2008 at 8:18pm Report Abuse
sherah01 wrote:
Cooper and the Board DO NOT understand contemporary art, and have no right representing it. The total lack of professional artists within the board and administration, and the severe issues with maintaining a professional curator, are obvious indicators of this.
They hold no respect for contemporary art or artists. The art they show is nothing more than quirky conversation pieces for business parties.
The problem with the space is that it is a vanity project of Ms. Cooper's. Her ego has taken the reins and the gallery's direction is driven by her motives, which have nothing to do with art. Those who disagree with her are chased off by the lawyers who sit on the board.
To fix the space she and the board must go. This task is up to the gallery members at an AGM.
on Nov 3rd, 2008 at 3:26pm Report Abuse
Gallery Slave wrote:
on Nov 4th, 2008 at 9:54am Report Abuse
Cass wrote:
Congrates to Cooper, and the Board of Directors as they move the AGC forward!
Do your homework and get the story straight. The AGC has lunched many artists’ careers. It’s time to work together and support the AGC. Stop whining and start contributing to something great.
on Nov 4th, 2008 at 11:03am Report Abuse
sherah01 wrote:
This is the exact attitude that the community expects from the AGC; that we are envious and ungrateful.
As a young artist I showed there with no preconceptions about what the space was like. I was happy to have an exhibit and was looking forward to the experience. During the course of my exhibit my work was treated terribly, with complete disregard. What would have been a positive experience became a very bad one, I had no say in the matter. This has happened over and over again, to artists of every caliber.
This is a professional space purporting to represent contemporary art and artists in Calgary and nationwide. By professional standards, art and artists must be treated in a certain way to maintain the integrity of the work that the gallery represents. These standards have not been met. And it isn't just artists who see this, the gallery has lost standing with many major galleries nation-wide. I have personally spoke to several influential curators and directors of major spaces who regard the gallery as a space that simply doesn't know what it's doing. I also know several professional arts writers who refuse to cover exhibits in the space due to this.
Artists and art workers have tried to work within the constructs of the space, and for the most part, they are ejected for demanding professional standards.
The gallery has burned these bridges. It is the gallery's responsibility to earn back the respect of the community-- not just the local community, but the national and international community as well.
on Nov 5th, 2008 at 1:37pm Report Abuse
Anthea Black wrote:
To Cass, I must clarify for you the level of commitment and research - what you might be referring to when you say, “do your homework” - that went into this article.
After working as a professional artist and cultural worker in Calgary for over 6 years, and as the weekly visual arts columnist for FFWD for the last few, I have heard many rumours and much conjecture about the operations practices of the Art Gallery of Calgary. Many other arts professionals have approached me on their own accord to discuss their concerns. I felt that these concerns were worth looking into from a journalistic perspective.
I proposed the idea for this article to the paper more than one year ago, and in June, Drew Anderson and myself put out a broad call to artists, community members and past staff of the AGC for feedback about their experiences. We interviewed 20 people with a general set of questions and then discussed the issues in depth with those who wished to discuss more. I attended a press conference at the AGC and read the entire media kit front to back. I interviewed Marianne Elder, Senior Curator once and then myself and Drew interviewed Marianne and Valerie Cooper, President and CEO together, where we gave Cooper an opportunity to respond to the many questions, accusations and statements that our other interviews raised.
Cass, your charge to “stop whining and start contributing to something great” overlooks the need for informed critical discussion about the issues raised in the article, and further, the accountability of our public institutions. I hold accountability in high regard, which is why I am addressing your perception of our writing as a “one sided, inaccurate” article “fueled by unconstructiveness.” This is also why I was keen to hear what Cooper had to say of the Art Gallery of Calgary's perceived lack of accountability to the arts community, the public and the gallery's members. Her comments are in the article for readers to assess and make up their own minds. Curiously, neither Cooper nor the AGC at large has issued a public statement of any kind since this article was published.
Indeed, the press has a great role to play in ensuring informed and constructive debate, not to mention freedom of speech and opinion. The arts community and its institutions should likewise consider the protection of these freedoms among our highest responsibilities. As members of the press and as arts professionals, Drew and I have taken every effort to bring this issue to the public in an accurate and balanced manner. You are welcome to question our methods, but I believe that the above description reveals them to be more than fair.
I remain more than happy to take up a dialogue on this issue with anyone who wishes to write to the paper or speak with me directly.
on Nov 7th, 2008 at 1:49am Report Abuse
Calgary Boy wrote:
One might accept that financial and organizational challenges at the time of Ms. Cooper's selection into the role were likely very real. The article suggests that the two former CEO's racked up debt of $1M or more. Is it not surely more accurate for Cooper to state that the majority of past debt was attributable to the building cost itself? Can anyone else point to any other single operating cost that even comes close to the building itself? I doubt it. That decision hardly rests solely on the shoulders of former CEO's. Perhaps it is a good idea to consider selling the building, so that more operating expenses can be focused on things like staff (how about a well paid curator for starters, if it is true that there have been 6 in the past few years) and less on Ms. Cooper's international travels.
I do not accept that private fundraising events account for 79% of revenues (let’s check the % of revenue from government and foundation donations – yes, the public purse). There is a very real perception that showcasing the Gallery for fundraising purposes has become more important that art, which is a sad reflection on the AGC.
Much of the commentary has focused much on Ms. Cooper's and the Board's lack of accountability and transparency regarding some of the concerns raised. There are rumours about fundraisers during Cooper's tenure where free tickets for friends and relatives are commonplace.
Artist representation on the Board? Did not Brian Flynn once get his art shown at the AGC? Janine Hall - is she not a personal acquaintance of Cooper? Elder says she believes in transparency ... let's see some, along with some board independence.
As a member of the public, it bothers me to hear confirmation about the extensive travel. There are rumours of trips to the USA (Getty Foundation), Turkey, Italy and elsewhere. Just check the World Foundation of Friends of Museums website, where it is apparent that Cooper and her board chair attended a September 2008 conference in Israel to showcase the AGC’s three year strategic plan. What takes place during these trips, to the benefit of the AGC and the public? Should not Cooper's time be better spent at home to address the AGC's challenges rather than sounding remote and out of touch?
Then there is purported damage to art. This is no surprise, having heard myself of art getting damaged by drunken guests during fundraisers. Missing art? Who is in charge here? Just where is the art?
I would hope that the AGC and its Board respond more than it has to these issues. That is the role they represent - to oversee the good management of the AGC in a manner consistent with its mandate. So, if members of the public want to challenge the manner in which the AGC is run, they can raise concerns through forums such as this. They can raise concerns with the Alberta Foundation for the Arts and other public funding agencies. Most importantly, they can get involved and become members of the AGC. That provides a forum to have many of these issues discussed; if members are not happy, they can move to throw out the Board and CEO like they did before.
When one hears of the very successful contemporary art donation program by the Glenbow, it makes one wonder whether the AGC's time has come and gone.
on Dec 9th, 2008 at 6:31pm Report Abuse
eggontoast wrote:
Become a member and encourage others to do the same. this will allow you to attend AGC meetings and find out if the AGC is, or if it is not run as it should be. These meetings are very poorly attended and badly publicized. But they are publicized. As a member you have the right to vote at meetings. Fewer than 20 dissenting votes in the past would have been enough to remove Ms. Cooper from her position.
Once you have become informed, write a letter expressing your findings and c.c. individuals/groups like:
-Calgary Centre MP, Lee Richardson
-The premier
-The mayor
-Canada Council for the Arts
-Alberta Foundation for the Arts (Does the AGC meet AFA "Public Art Gallery Operating Grant" Eligibility Criteria 2.2c, di, dii? They have not historically met the CARCC fees mentioned in f. See http://www.tprc.alberta.ca/forms/TPRC0036.pdf)
-Tourism Calgary
-The Association of Fundraising Professionals
-Past sponsors, including media sponsors (this information is available on the AGC website and in the AGC's publicly available annual report)
-Current board members and the "Friends of the AGC." Some of those who are not long standing personal friends with Ms. Cooper (Ms. Gandossi, Ms. Randall) are well intentioned.
-If you care to do some research, c.c. past board members as well. Past board members are informed and well connected.
on Feb 3rd, 2009 at 12:18am Report Abuse
MuseumGirl67 wrote:
on Apr 3rd, 2012 at 12:58pm Report Abuse
Disappointed wrote:
I have worked as a consultant for the AGC and continually had difficulty obtaining payment for my invoices, including an invoice currently outstanding more than 8 months.
In a period of five months, staff were changed three times in one particular position, and I observed a strange discontent in the office. But as a consultant, working on our specific project, things seemed to be going along well for a while, and then a funny thing happened.
Weeks after Ms. Cooper requested a meeting to discuss our existing contract, with a specific request to renew and extend it, I received a call teminating the contract without cause. Odd, but really the joke was on me, for AGC refused to honour their financial commitment to me for work completed, and I now have a law suit outstanding with AGC.
There are clearly issues needing further investigation at AGC, and my view is the Board needs to look at themselves as much as looking their CEO.
on May 3rd, 2012 at 11:05pm Report Abuse
Drew Anderson wrote:
on May 4th, 2012 at 9:50am Report Abuse
Post comment: (Login or Register)