Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Vulnerabilities And Intentional Safeguards Michael J. Kendrick PhD Kendrick Consulting Intl Michael.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Vulnerabilities And Intentional Safeguards Michael J. Kendrick PhD Kendrick Consulting Intl Michael."— Presentation transcript:

1 Vulnerabilities And Intentional Safeguards Michael J. Kendrick PhD Kendrick Consulting Intl Michael J. Kendrick PhD

2 Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. The fearful are caught as often as the bold. Helen Keller Michael J. Kendrick PhD

3 The Term “Vulnerable” Derives From The Latin Words For WOUND (S) I.E. “VULNUS”, “VULNERIS” TO WOUND I.E. “VULNERARE” BEING “VULNERABLE” MEANS BEING “ABLE TO BE WOUNDED” Michael J. Kendrick PhD

4 Common Dimensions Of Human Vulnerability Mortality Poverty Illness Pain Tragedy Meaninglessness Devaluation Insecurity Rejection Loss Confusion Stagnation Loneliness Disruption Estrangement Dependency Violence Damage Waste Reputation Guilt Despair Michael J. Kendrick PhD

5 The Character Of Vulnerability Vulnerability is integral to human nature and the human condition People are vulnerable in multiple dimensions Vulnerabilities co-exist alongside other vulnerabilities and influence each other. Vulnerability is always a matter of degree i.e. it is usually portrayed relative to another stage of vulnerability Michael J. Kendrick PhD

6 The Character Of Vulnerability Vulnerabilities usually increase or decrease by linear increments; nevertheless they can radically alter their character under the right conditions Vulnerability can co-exist with great strengths, advantages and considerable resilience Michael J. Kendrick PhD

7 The Character Of Vulnerability Vulnerabilities are not only those “of persons”, they can also be those of culture, circumstances, environments, systems and mentalities. Vulnerabilities are not inherently good or bad; they are evaluated as such by persons and cultures Michael J. Kendrick PhD

8 The Character Of Vulnerability One can “vulnerate” (i.e. make vulnerable) or “in-vulnerate” a person or group depending on one’s actions Vulnerabilities can certainly be a component of the enjoyment of life and thus may be “life- giving” irrespective of the values of a culture Michael J. Kendrick PhD

9 The Character Of Vulnerability Vulnerabilities, properly appreciated, can lead to greater wisdom about what is important in life Intentional safeguards are part of the way we live with vulnerability, before, during and after wounding moments, though suffering may still be present even when we have managed it well Michael J. Kendrick PhD

10 Common Sources of Vulnerability for People Receiving Services Misunderstanding of the person and their needs Misplacement into an incorrect system Application of harmful treatments Disrespect of rights Institutionalisation/custodialisation Deprivation of valid treatment Indifference/neglect Low expectations Michael J. Kendrick PhD

11 Common Sources of Vulnerability for People Receiving Services (Cont) Negative role expectations/false stereotypes Dehumanisation(s) Segregation from community Loss of autonomy Loss of personhood/identity Involuntary poverty Use to benefit other interests Predation Abuse Denial of/ refusal to provide service Poor service models and theories Michael J. Kendrick PhD

12 Some Examples Of Common Vulnerabilities Of People Who Are Unusually Dependent On The Formal Health Care System Being perceived or valued negatively Being seen as diverting resources from more worthy uses Not being seen as meriting even normative levels of quality of care and attention Being perceived as probably being unresponsive to treatment i.e. not worth trying very hard on behalf of Not having powerful advocates amongst most professionals and managers Michael J. Kendrick PhD

13 Some Examples Of Common Vulnerabilities Of People Who Are Unusually Dependent On The Formal Health Care System Having needs that require flexibility, vision and responsiveness from medical bureaucracies Being misdiagnosed, misunderstood and possibly mistreated due to false assumptions or theories about such persons Very little role and credibility given to the voice and capacities of non-professionals Michael J. Kendrick PhD

14 Examples of Vulnerabilities That May Be Present For Person With Disabilities Reliance on others for critical life functions Non-recognition of dangers Inability to fully communicate their needs and wants A tendency to be patronised or be overlooked Neglect Exposure to agency failures and dysfunctions Sexual exploitation in isolated and controlled residential settings Michael J. Kendrick PhD

15 Examples of Vulnerabilities That May Be Present For Person With Disabilities Utilisation as a pawn for vested interests Misunderstanding of their crucial needs by decision makers Stereotypes especially stigmatising ones Being forced into irrelevant and even life wasting programmes Rejection Segregation Death making, brutality and violence Poverty and powerlessness Michael J. Kendrick PhD

16 Common Vulnerabilities Of Groups Who Are At Risk Of Social Devaluation That May Need Safeguarding Risk of impoverishment and neglect Risk of social exclusion or isolation Risk of rejection Displacement from familiar surroundings and supports, eg. family, neighbourhood Lack of rights, autonomy, freedom Ignorance of their options, choices, possibilities Little say in the structures, authorities that control their lives Deprivation of supports crucial to their health and wellbeing, eg. food, medicine A misrepresentation of their needs, identities, wishes, etc. Michael J. Kendrick PhD

17 The Management Of Vulnerability Vulnerabilities can be “managed” either adaptively or not Vulnerabilities must be properly recognized and appreciated if they are to be managed well Many vulnerabilities cannot ultimately be eliminated though they can be sensibly offset or compensated for Michael J. Kendrick PhD

18 The Management Of Vulnerability Given that vulnerabilities are multi- dimensional, it is usually necessary to develop strategies which are equally multi- dimensional and properly targeted The potency of strategies used to safeguard people must match the potency of the vulnerability that is present to be optimal in their effect, though some beneficial effects can come from sub-optimal safeguards Michael J. Kendrick PhD

19 The Management Of Vulnerability Strategies to manage vulnerability need to be revised in accord with the changes that shape the character of vulnerability and in a timely manner The conditions that produce vulnerability are frequently ones that are beyond one’s immediate control and influence, and therefore must be “managed”, (from one’s position in the scheme of things), so as to “survive” them as best as may be possible Michael J. Kendrick PhD

20 The Management Of Vulnerability Vulnerabilities can be hierarchically ordered from the superficial to the profound, and therefore so can be the order of priority of strategies used to manage these The management of vulnerabilities requires the selection of priorities in order to marshal available safeguarding capacity most effectively Michael J. Kendrick PhD

21 The Management Of Vulnerability All strategies to manage vulnerability operate within the context of (usually multiple) limits, and the conscious and adaptive management of these limits is a necessity The development of safeguarding strategies will greatly depend on how important such safeguards are to the key parties involved Michael J. Kendrick PhD

22 The Management Of Vulnerability Otherwise valid strategies to safeguard people or other assets may not be practical in many situations, and lesser remedies may have to suffice “Best possible at present” strategies are what is sought not wishful speculations Michael J. Kendrick PhD

23 The Management Of Vulnerability Safeguards are only effective when they actually adaptively manage vulnerability in practice The overall available capacity to safeguard people or situations is not usually a fixed “given”, but can be developed to some degree notwithstanding the inevitable limits that are present Michael J. Kendrick PhD

24 The Management Of Vulnerability Safeguarding people properly will routinely require that other parties be challenged and confronted, whether and how well this is done will predict the outcome It is quite common that reducing the vulnerability of one group may heighten the vulnerability of another acting on their behalf e.g. advocacy may incur costs for the advocate Michael J. Kendrick PhD

25 The Management Of Vulnerability It is to be expected that “safeguards dilemmas” will exist indefinitely and a new set of dilemmas will emerge from the resolution of earlier dilemmas The resolution of “safeguarding dilemmas” will normally occur by increments of change in each dimension of the dilemmas rather than be “solved” for once and for all Michael J. Kendrick PhD

26 The Management Of Vulnerability Otherwise good safeguards can be implemented poorly or even harmfully The safeguarding parties may themselves be in need of some measure of safeguarding if they are to be effective Poor safeguarding may well make people more rather than less vulnerable i.e. Weak safeguards or “safe-guarders” may actually increase vulnerability Michael J. Kendrick PhD

27 The Management Of Vulnerability The quality of safeguards approaches will derive from the solidness of the assumptions about people, vulnerabilities and the actual character of circumstances It is possible to learn to manage vulnerability better and to educate others about what has been learned thereby improving the “state of the art” Michael J. Kendrick PhD

28 The Management Of Vulnerability It is possible to learn to manage vulnerability better and to educate others about what has been learned, thereby improving the “state of the art” It is also possible to manage safeguarding in a vacuum of guidance, support and inspiration such that the quality of safeguarding is much less than might have been possible. Michael J. Kendrick PhD

29 Common Constitutive Elements Of The Capacities Of Those Who Might Undertake Safeguarding Roles Their capabilities to properly recognize and attend to vulnerabilities Their degree of weakness due to various conflicts of interest they may be in Their enduring resolve to engage in painful, committing and costly safeguarding and the supports needed to do so Michael J. Kendrick PhD

30 Common Constitutive Elements Of The Capacities Of Those Who Might Undertake Safeguarding Roles Their ability to imagine and negotiate often novel and innovative safeguards Their degree of vision for the person and their potentials Their status and legitimacy to act in a safeguarding role Their skilfulness and finesse Michael J. Kendrick PhD

31 Common Constitutive Elements Of The Capacities Of Those Who Might Undertake Safeguarding Roles Their experience with the role and their ability to learn and master what is needed Their dependability and fidelity to people’s best long-term interests Their organizational, emotional, moral, technical and financial support Michael J. Kendrick PhD

32 Common Constitutive Elements Of The Capacities Of Those Who Might Undertake Safeguarding Roles The degree to which they can accept and operate within their limits The degree to which they have the specific talents to match the safeguarding problems at hand Their ability to muster and maintain crucial alliances in support of safeguarding Michael J. Kendrick PhD

33 Common Constitutive Elements Of The Capacities Of Those Who Might Undertake Safeguarding Roles Their ability to renew themselves; particularly if the roles they play are demanding Their ability to reliably stay focussed on the right things. Their accountability for their actions in the safeguarding role. The quality of their judgment calls. Michael J. Kendrick PhD

34 Some Examples Of Useful Safeguards For Safeguarders Various ongoing opportunities to be oriented to and clarify their role Occasions to recognize, examine and resolve the potential conflicts of interests they may have Opportunities to define and create the supports that might help strengthen them in their role Michael J. Kendrick PhD

35 Some Examples Of Useful Safeguards For Safeguarders Opportunities to develop the skills they need and which they are capable of improving upon Mentorship, consultation and guidance from trustworthy persons Deliberate occasions to examine, reflect upon and better manage the weaknesses and limitations that are present in their context of safeguarding Michael J. Kendrick PhD

36 Some Examples Of Useful Safeguards For Safeguarders Exposure to innovative strategies Contact with others who share a safeguarding role Assistance with deciding what safeguarding issues ought to be set as a priority and why Regular occasions for renewal and inspiration Michael J. Kendrick PhD

37 Why Intentional Safeguards May Be Needed? Some Examples Of Some Common Limitations In Addressing Human Needs Inherent In Organizations Michael J. Kendrick PhD

38 Examples Of Some Common Limitations In Addressing Human Needs Inherent In Human Beings Who Attempt To Do So People may not want to serve others There may be to many to serve It may not be clear what needs to be done What may need to be done may be too difficult It may be that one cannot serve well It may be that one loses interest in serving Michael J. Kendrick PhD

39 Examples Of Some Common Limitations In Addressing Human Needs Inherent In Human Beings Who Attempt To Do So One may serve erroneously One may dislike those who need to be served One may have conflicts of interests One may too weak to withstand temptations to serve insufficiently One may be encouraged to serve by many of the wrong motivations Michael J. Kendrick PhD

40 Examples Of Some Common Limitations In Addressing Human Needs Inherent In Human Beings Who Attempt To Do So One may not be aware that one serves poorly One person may have too much pride to seek help from others One may overlook or discredit the wishes of those to be served The needs of others may be insatiable The needs of the server may be unhelpful to those to be served Michael J. Kendrick PhD

41 Examples Of Some Common Limitations In Addressing Human Needs Inherent In Human Beings Who Attempt To Do So The complexity of understanding others may outstrip the ability of the person to do so The server cannot get along with other crucial servers The server lacks ambitiousness in terms of “imagining better” The person may give up too easily too often. Michael J. Kendrick PhD

42 Examples of Some Common Limitations In Addressing Human Needs Inherent In Organizations The organisation may not wish to serve others There may be too many who have been chosen to serve It may not be clear what is to be done What needs to be done is too difficult for the organisation Michael J. Kendrick PhD

43 Examples of Some Common Limitations In Addressing Human Needs Inherent In Organizations What needs to be done cannot be done by an organisation It may be that many in the organisation dislike those being served The organisation may be filled with conflicts of interest The organisation may put other needs first Michael J. Kendrick PhD

44 Examples of Some Common Limitations In Addressing Human Needs Inherent In Organizations Those being served are not well understood by the organisation The organisation’s own bureaucratic functioning dissipates its potential to be of good service The service organisation is unprepared for its role Michael J. Kendrick PhD

45 Examples of Some Common Limitations In Addressing Human Needs Inherent In Organizations The serving organisation cannot gain the cooperation from both within and without for what is needed The serving organisation lacks leadership The service acts incorrectly and harmfully The service has too few of the needed strengths Michael J. Kendrick PhD

46 Examples of Some Common Limitations In Addressing Human Needs Inherent In Organizations The serving organisation was established for another reason The service lacks steadfastness and fidelity to those being served Michael J. Kendrick PhD

47 Examples Of Issues That Can Serve As Points Of Struggle For Competing Vested Interests In Service Control of service users Designation of who is a service user Access to authoritative decision making Setting of policy Priority setting Control of resources Distribution of resources Access to “perks” Hiring/dismissal of personnel Location of services Character of services Status assignments Michael J. Kendrick PhD

48 Examples Of Common Limitations Individuals May Exhibit In Taking Advantage Of Genuinely Empowering Opportunities Indecision Naivete Inexperience Timidity Impatience Lack of finesse Poor judgment Lack of appreciation of consequences Confusion Intimidation Anxiety Lack of information Weak vision of potentialities Willingness to settle for less Underdeveloped ideas Lack of clarity re goals Fear of change Poor advice/ conflicting advice Michael J. Kendrick PhD

49 Key Areas To Consider In Evaluating Areas Where Targeted Agency Safeguarding May Be Helpful Agency values Agency goals Agency priorities Personnel selection Personnel preparation and supervision Coherency of the agency’s model The consistency between values and practice Michael J. Kendrick PhD

50 Key Areas To Consider In Evaluating Areas Where Targeted Agency Safeguarding May Be Helpful Clarity and regularity of planning Administrative thoroughness External influence on the agency’s practice Coordination of effort Programme intensity Peculiarities of “agency culture” Renewal of personnel and mission Michael J. Kendrick PhD

51 Key Areas To Consider In Evaluating Areas Where Targeted Agency Safeguarding May Be Helpful Leadership Integrity of personnel Conflicts of interest Decision making and judgement Accountability and transparency “Right relationship” issues Sharing of authority, decision-making and influence Michael J. Kendrick PhD

52 Activities Involving People Are Always Dynamic And Shall Always Require Human Judgements Such As: How much? When? By whom? Under what conditions? Which action? In which order? With which aim? At what cost? With what hope in mind? What is to be valued? What is to be sacrificed? What might be lost or damaged? What consequences? Who is best for this task? Michael J. Kendrick PhD

53 A Definition Of Intentional Safeguards Intentional safeguards can be thought of as conscious design or practice features that can variably be added on, built in or strengthened in order to preserve or enhance something of value in a situation and thereby better manage the vulnerabilities of people and situations” Michael J. Kendrick PhD

54 General Features Of Intentional Safeguards Oriented Thinking Safeguards can be thought of as intentional adaptive design features that can variably be added on, built in or strengthened in order to preserve something of value in a situation Recognition that there are desirable elements in situations/services that should be preserved or enhanced Michael J. Kendrick PhD

55 Features Of Intentional Safeguards Oriented Thinking Recognition that all human activities are vulnerable to failure, perversity, entropy, goal displacement, etc. Recognition that many such shortcomings can be consciously anticipated Michael J. Kendrick PhD

56 Features Of Intentional Safeguards Oriented Thinking Recognition that conscious safeguards can be deliberately installed in advance to minimise likely anticipated shortcomings and to detect and counterbalance new emerging ones as early as possible. Recognition that a proper understanding of vulnerabilities can guide the thinking about what might be appropriate safeguards to respond to these. Michael J. Kendrick PhD

57 Features Of Intentional Safeguards Oriented Thinking Recognition that safeguards themselves can default and hence the value of: Multiple safeguards Independent safeguards Safeguards “redundancy” Safeguard renewal External as well as internal safeguards Safeguards evolution Michael J. Kendrick PhD

58 Features Of Intentional Safeguards Oriented Thinking Recognition that intensive safeguarding, while valuable is not in itself, as valuable as doing the job well in the first place. Hence preventative safeguards should be given greater weight than corrective ones Multiple safeguards can combine to either complement each other for greater effect or dysfunctionality constrain each other Michael J. Kendrick PhD

59 Features Of Intentional Safeguards Oriented Thinking The presence of seemingly potent safeguards can, in itself, lead to a relaxing of the need to be alert to dangers as can long periods of favourable conditions – the potency of safeguards may be revealed in whether they will work when crisis tests them Michael J. Kendrick PhD

60 Many safeguards occur “naturally” in cultures and society in the form of values, alliances, customs, structures, etc. These can be recognised and protected even if at the outset they go unappreciated Michael J. Kendrick PhD

61 Features Of Intentional Safeguards Oriented Thinking Recognition that taking shortcuts with safeguards will often succeed because good luck has favoured those involved. Nevertheless, this cannot be counted on (good luck) and it models carelessness to novices Recognition that high consciousness of latent possibilities for error/perversities is the most fundamental of all safeguards Michael J. Kendrick PhD

62 Features Of Intentional Safeguards Oriented Thinking Recognition that individuals, groups, organisations and even systems require different orders of safeguards Recognition that safeguards must be as potent and ingenious as the evils they are anticipating attempting to engage and manage Michael J. Kendrick PhD

63 Features Of Intentional Safeguards Oriented Thinking Safeguarding need not be seen as a separate or additional activity but can be embedded in the process of constructing/managing activities Safeguards are not just to oversee or protect, they may also be oriented to the enablement of underdeveloped positive potential to emerge, i.e. they may be a spur to constructive efforts or renewal Michael J. Kendrick PhD

64 Features Of Intentional Safeguards Oriented Thinking Some individuals and organisations may wilfully resist valid safeguards to their detriment Basic assumptions concerning human nature need to be examined as essential underpinning vulnerabilities of many projects and activities as well as systems strategies. Michael J. Kendrick PhD

65 Some perverse and largely unforeseeable aspects of human conduct may be very difficult to fully safeguard against, e.g. drive- by shootings, manipulation by sociopathic persons, self-destructive conduct, rare events etc. Complacency is universally worrisome from a safeguarding point of view Michael J. Kendrick PhD

66 Examples Of Safeguards That Are Embedded In Everyday Life The care, knowledge and commitment of a family to its member with a disability The inclusion of a disabled family member in all aspects of the family life The tradition of hospitality and welcome by community groups The relationships that come from “growing up” together Michael J. Kendrick PhD

67 Examples Of Safeguards That Are Embedded In Everyday Life The presence of well placed friends and acquaintances The tradition of respect for human rights, especially those of minorities The espousal of values which emphasise the equality and worth of all people A public tradition of critique, dissent and pluralism Michael J. Kendrick PhD

68 Examples Of Safeguards That Are Embedded In Everyday Life An unwillingness to turn over responsibility and obligation to unknown others or systems A tendency to check with the person before decisions are made that affect their lives Values and networks of mutual obligation that permit shared and beneficial personal and community action e.g. Neighbourhood Watch, Citizen Advocacy, Habitat for Humanity etc. Michael J. Kendrick PhD

69 Some Common Reasons Why Internal Safeguards Are Often Weak Or Ineffectual Those implementing them ultimately work for the organisation and are loyal to it The cost of fomenting internal conflict can be substantial for the perpetrator The organisation may be blind to the danger it transacts The organisation’s ideologies and mythologies may prohibit or inhibit contrasting assumptions and values Michael J. Kendrick PhD

70 Some Common Reasons Why Internal Safeguards Are Often Weak Or Ineffectual They may bring no particular advantage to the organisation to compensate for the difficulties they may create The safeguards may be due to external requirements and lack agency endorsement and commitment They may be denuded of requisite authority, talent, leadership, resources and status vis-à- vis mainline operations, i.e. seen as “a frill” Michael J. Kendrick PhD

71 Some Common Reasons Why Internal Safeguards Are Often Weak Or Ineffectual They benefit more from being weak, than being effective The organisation is corrupt to start with and thus corrupts its own safeguards There is no influential constituency outside the organisation calling for safeguards The difficulties created by conflicts of interest compromise persons who might otherwise act with integrity Michael J. Kendrick PhD

72 Some Reasons Why External Safeguards Can Be Stronger Than Internal Ones They are independent of the control of the agency They are usually better insulated from the agency’s self-serving ideologies They are often created by groups who are fundamentally wary of the agency They usually develop the capacity for legitimising points of view excluded by the agency Michael J. Kendrick PhD

73 Some Reasons Why External Safeguards Can Be Stronger Than Internal Ones They usually have less fear of reprisal if conflict is precipitated They usually have greater credibility due to their independence and externality Their livelihood is usually not beholden to the agency and its preferences Independent people are normally (more) able to draw upon greater depths of “free agency” in terms of their ability to act Michael J. Kendrick PhD

74 Some Reasons Why External Safeguards Can Be Stronger Than Internal Ones Distance can often provide greater clarity and objectivity External safeguards need not be quite as circumspect and can be more incisive of their naming of problems External safeguards often can obtain broad constituencies and advice outside the agency including the media Michael J. Kendrick PhD

75 A Variety of Dichotomous Dimensions Of Safeguards Intentional Formal Internal Potent Flexible Relevant Unintentional Informal External Impotent Rigid Irrelevant Michael J. Kendrick PhD

76 A Variety of Dichotomous Dimensions Of Safeguards Fundamental Natural Realistic Adequate Reliable Revisable Superficial Contrived Fantastic Inadequate Unreliable Fixed Michael J. Kendrick PhD

77 Suggested Criteria For Evaluating The Likely Potency Of Advocacy Or Safeguards Fit of the measure to the person/groups fundamental needs and vulnerabilities Thoroughness and rigour in the implementation of the measure Presence of the capacity to redefine the situation and the measure Appropriate resources to implement the measure Michael J. Kendrick PhD

78 Suggested Criteria For Evaluating The Likely Potency Of Advocacy Or Safeguards The value base of those implementing the measure Compromise of the measure through the conflicts of the people involved Fatigue, degree of renewal of the measure Extent/strength of the problem to be addressed Michael J. Kendrick PhD

79 Some Possibly Perverse Uses Of The Concept Of Safeguarding The presumption that life can be safeguarded so well as to eliminate (all) tragedy That people do not proceed with urgent and valid actions because not all negative eventualities can be safeguarded against Installation of weak safeguards as if they were strong safeguards, e.g. boards of visitors, advisory committees, internal complaint systems Michael J. Kendrick PhD

80 Some Possibly Perverse Uses Of The Concept Of Safeguarding Preoccupation with safeguards at the expense of doing things well enough so that safeguards may not be needed Non recognition that safeguards can have their own unintended dysfunctions Not linking the discussion or implementation of safeguards to a scrupulous examination of the actual dangers present Michael J. Kendrick PhD

81 Some Possibly Perverse Uses Of The Concept Of Safeguarding Emphasis on the mechanics of safeguarding at the expense of the cultivation of the “safeguarding mentality” Implementation of potentially valid safeguards by people who lack the proper perspective and will optimise them Michael J. Kendrick PhD

82 A Global Process To Prepare Safeguards For An Individual Being Served Discussion with the person about what is important to him/her and what is most needed from the service Clarification of the vulnerabilities the person may have Identification of both the immediate and remote dangers that are or may be present for the person Michael J. Kendrick PhD

83 A Global Process To Prepare Safeguards For An Individual Being Served Prioritise the dangers the person now or may face with a view to their vulnerabilities For each key area of concern, note the safeguards that may exist For each key area of concern that lacks safeguards, try to imagine measures that would lessen the danger for that person Michael J. Kendrick PhD

84 A Global Process To Prepare Safeguards For An Individual Being Supported Critically evaluate both the existing and proposed safeguarding measures Identify any possible non-adaptive effects that may inadvertently be present in the process of installing, operating, or strengthening safeguards Michael J. Kendrick PhD


Download ppt "Vulnerabilities And Intentional Safeguards Michael J. Kendrick PhD Kendrick Consulting Intl Michael."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google