See where in Tennessee student loan forgiveness has been most popular
Close to half a million Tennesseans applied for President Joe Biden’s student loan debt relief program, according to an analysis of data obtained by Politico under the Freedom of Information Act.
About 486,500 state residents submitted applications — about 2% of the nationwide total — during the four weeks the program was live last year before being halted by federal court orders. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide in the coming months over the fate of the initiative seeking to provide up to $20,000 in debt relief to borrowers earning less than $125,000 per year.
Here is a breakdown of how many applications were filed in each county and what percentage of the adult population submitted paperwork:
[UPDATE: Due to a spreadsheet sorting error in an earlier version of this story, Maury and Madison counties ended up with a much higher percentage than they actually had. The correct figures are 11.1% and 10%, or fifth and sixth in the state, respectively).
| County | Applications | Percentage of Adults |
| Anderson | 4,355 | 7.2% |
| Bedford | 1,972 | 5.3% |
| Benton | 612 | 4.8% |
| Bledsoe | 316 | 2.5% |
| Blount | 7,017 | 6.5% |
| Bradley | 6,727 | 7.9% |
| Campbell | 1,529 | 4.9% |
| Cannon | 446 | 3.9% |
| Carroll | 1,329 | 6% |
| Carter | 1,827 | 4% |
| Cheatham | 2,589 | 8.1% |
| Chester | 730 | 5.4% |
| Claiborne | 1,762 | 6.8% |
| Clay | 110 | 1.8% |
| Cocke | 1,030 | 3.6% |
| Coffee | 2,789 | 6.4% |
| Crockett | 581 | 5.5% |
| Cumberland | 1,851 | 3.7% |
| Davidson | 68,775 | 12.1% |
| Decatur | 304 | 3.4% |
| DeKalb | 650 | 4.1% |
| Dickson | 2,944 | 7% |
| Dyer | 1,955 | 7% |
| Fayette | 2,360 | 6.9% |
| Fentress | 440 | 3% |
| Franklin | 1,317 | 3.8% |
| Gibson | 3,305 | 8.7% |
| Giles | 1,388 | 5.8% |
| Grainger | 737 | 3.9% |
| Greene | 2,478 | 4.4% |
| Grundy | 128 | 1.2% |
| Hamblen | 2,973 | 6% |
| Hamilton | 28,940 | 10% |
| Hancock | 139 | 2.6% |
| Hardeman | 1,332 | 6.5% |
| Hardin | 716 | 3.4% |
| Hawkins | 2,079 | 4.6% |
| Haywood | 1,273 | 9.2% |
| Henderson | 779 | 3.6% |
| Henry | 1,521 | 5.9% |
| Hickman | 885 | 4.5% |
| Houston | 415 | 6.4% |
| Humphreys | 908 | 6.1% |
| Jackson | 242 | 2.6% |
| Jefferson | 2,735 | 6.2% |
| Johnson | 394 | 2.6% |
| Knox | 34,323 | 9.1% |
| Lake | 120 | 2% |
| Lauderdale | 1,477 | 7.6% |
| Lawrence | 1,955 | 5.9% |
| Lewis | 396 | 4% |
| Lincoln | 1,302 | 4.8% |
| Loudon | 2,614 | 5.9% |
| Macon | 738 | 3.9% |
| Madison | 7,842 | 10.2% |
| Marion | 1,375 | 6.1% |
| Marshall | 1,725 | 6.6% |
| Maury | 8,584 | 11.1% |
| McMinn | 2,438 | 5.8% |
| McNairy | 1,168 | 5.8% |
| Meigs | 679 | 6.7% |
| Monroe | 2,018 | 5.5% |
| Montgomery | 21,606 | 13.4% |
| Moore | 111 | 2.1% |
| Morgan | 599 | 3.5% |
| Obion | 1,297 | 5.4% |
| Overton | 554 | 3.1% |
| Perry | 228 | 3.5% |
| Pickett | 142 | 3.4% |
| Polk | 472 | 3.3% |
| Putnam | 5,332 | 8.5% |
| Rhea | 1,548 | 6.1% |
| Roane | 1,970 | 4.5% |
| Robertson | 5,263 | 9.5% |
| Rutherford | 29,770 | 11.6% |
| Scott | 854 | 5.1% |
| Sequatchie | 569 | 4.5% |
| Sevier | 4,384 | 5.6% |
| Shelby | 95,224 | 13.7% |
| Smith | 392 | 2.5% |
| Stewart | 737 | 6.9% |
| Sullivan | 8,439 | 6.6% |
| Sumner | 12,934 | 8.6% |
| Tipton | 4,350 | 9.4% |
| Trousdale | 411 | 4.3% |
| Unicoi | 698 | 4.8% |
| Union | 562 | 3.6% |
| Van Buren | 159 | 3.2% |
| Warren | 1,687 | 5.4% |
| Washington | 9,450 | 8.8% |
| Wayne | 310 | 2.3% |
| Weakley | 1,717 | 6.5% |
| White | 1,177 | 5.5% |
| Williamson | 12,458 | 6.9% |
| Wilson | 10,019 | 8.9% |
Supreme Court finds Lee’s school voucher program doesn’t violate home rule protections
Three years after lawmakers narrowly passed Gov. Bill Lee’s signature school voucher program, the state Supreme Court has overturned lower courts’ findings it violated home rule protections against laws targeted at individual counties by applying only to Nashville and Shelby County.
The 3-2 decision released Thursday came after the high court decided to rehear arguments following the death last year of Justice Connie Clark. Court of Appeals Judge Skip Frierson sat in on the case and sided with Chief Justice Roger Page and Justice Jeff Bivins. Justices Sharon Lee and Holly Kirby dissented.
UPDATE: When the voucher bill passed it was tied to moving dollars calculated through the Basic Education Program to cover private school tuition. Lawmakers this year approved an overhaul of the school funding formula called Tennessee Investment in Student Achievement, which funds individual students rather than districts as a whole. The Lee administration included a provision in the law to change the funding mechanism for the voucher program from the old formula to the new one:
SECTION 53. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 49-6-2603, is amended by deleting the language “basic education program” wherever it appears and substituting “Tennessee investment in student achievement formula (TISA)”.
Here’s the release from the Administrative Office of the Courts:
In an opinion released today, the Tennessee Supreme Court determined that, while two Tennessee county governments had standing to challenge the Education Savings Account Pilot Program (the “ESA Act”), the Act is not rendered unconstitutional by the Home Rule Amendment, article XI, section 9, of the Tennessee Constitution.
In 2019, the Tennessee General Assembly enacted ESA Act. The Act establishes a program allowing a limited number of eligible students to directly receive their share of state and local education funds, which would ordinarily be provided to the public school system they attend, to pay for a private school education and associated expenses.
The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Shelby County Government, and Metropolitan Nashville Board of Public Education filed a declaratory judgment action that named as defendants Governor Bill Lee, the Tennessee Department of Education Commissioner, and the Tennessee Department of Education. The trial court also allowed additional parties to intervene and participate as defendants. The complaint alleged that the ESA Act violates several provisions of the Tennessee Constitution, including the Home Rule Amendment, the equal protection clauses, and the education clause.
Defendants filed separate motions challenging Plaintiffs’ standing to pursue the claims presented and the legal sufficiency of those claims. Plaintiffs, in turn, filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to their Home Rule Amendment claim. The trial court determined that the two county plaintiffs had standing to pursue the claims, but it dismissed the Metro School Board as a plaintiff for lack of standing. The trial court also granted the motion for summary judgment concluding that the ESA Act violates the Home Rule Amendment and enjoined the State from implementing the Act. The trial court reserved ruling on Defendants’ challenges to the equal protection and education clause claims.
The trial court granted Defendants permission to seek an interlocutory appeal, and the Court of Appeals granted Defendants’ applications for appeal. The intermediate appellate court affirmed the trial court, holding that Metro and Shelby County had standing to challenge the ESA Act under the Home Rule Amendment and that the Act was unconstitutional pursuant to the Home Rule Amendment.
The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Defendants’ applications for permission to appeal. Because it is an interlocutory appeal, the issues before the Court were limited to the constitutionality of the ESA Act under the Home Rule Amendment and Plaintiffs’ standing to bring that challenge. The Supreme Court agreed with both the trial court and the Court of Appeals that Plaintiffs Metro and Shelby County had standing to bring their Home Rule Amendment Claim. However, the Supreme Court, after reviewing the applicable constitutional language, held that the ESA Act is not rendered unconstitutional by the Home Rule Amendment because the Act is not “applicable to” the Plaintiff counties for purposes of the Amendment. The majority concluded that the ESA Act is not applicable to the Plaintiff counties because the Act regulates or governs the conduct of the local education agencies and not the counties. Thus, the Act does not violate the Home Rule Amendment. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for the dismissal of the Home Rule Amendment claim and for consideration of Plaintiffs’ remaining claims.
Justice Sharon G. Lee and Justice Holly Kirby joined in a separate opinion, concurring in part and dissenting in part. They agreed with the Court that Metro and Shelby County had standing to challenge the ESA Act but concluded that the Act violates the Home Rule Amendment. In their view, the ESA Act substantially affects Metro and Shelby County’s ability to self-govern and decide school funding issues. Under the ESA Act, only Metro and Shelby County and no other counties in the state must pay for students who leave public schools and use their vouchers for private school tuition. Because the ESA Act is local in effect and application, and because the Act gives Metro and Shelby County no choice in the matter, it violates the Home Rule Amendment.
To read the majority opinion in Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, et al. v. Tennessee Department of Education, et al., authored by Chief Justice Roger A. Page, and the separate opinion authored by Justice Sharon G. Lee, visit the opinions section of TNCourts.gov.
Abortion law must take effect before judge considers injunction
The Tennessee Senate meets on June 1, 2020. (Erik Schelzig, Tennessee Journal)
U.S. District Judge Chip Campbell says he won’t decide about whether to impose an emergency injunction on sweeping abortion restrictions passed by the General Assembly until Gov. Bill Lee signs the legislation into law.
Despite earlier assurances that the Senate wouldn’t take up the abortion bill in its return from a 75-day coronavirus hiatus, the chamber abruptly brought the measure up for a vote after midnight on the last night of the session. It passed 23-5 in the Senate and 70-20 in House.
Neither House Speaker Cameron Sexton (R-Crossville) nor Senate Speaker Randy McNally (R-Oak Ridge) has yet signed the engrossed bill. Once that occurs, the governor has 10 days, excluding Sundays, to sign, veto, or allow the bill to become law without his signature. Lee, who originally proposed the measure, is expected to sign the bill quickly once it reaches his desk.
The bill seeks to enact a nearly universal abortion ban once a fetal heartbeat is detected. If successfully challenged in court, the bill seeks to automatically impose successive abortion bans eight, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 weeks of gestation.
Planned Parenthood, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block the law the same day the bill gained final approval in the General Assembly.
The plaintiffs asked Judge Campbell to take up their motion for an emergency temporary restraining order without waiting for the state to file its response, which is due by Friday. Campbell said he won’t rule on the injunction until the bill has been signed into law and that he will consider the state’s response if it is filed by the time the governor puts his signature on the bill.
Supreme Court turns down state’s effort to halt expanded absentee voting amid pandemic
The Tennessee Supreme Court has declined to immediately halt a judge’s order that the state must allow any voters concerned about being infected by COVID-19 to cast their ballots by mail. But the state’s highest court did agree to directly take up the full legal challenge of the ruling, bypassing the intermediate Court of Appeals.
Tennessee high court keeps mail voting expansion amid appeal (from @AP) https://t.co/ULFvvxjkWO
— Jonathan Mattise (@JonathanMattise) June 24, 2020
Nashville Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle earlier this month found the state’s position that fear of coronavirus infection was not a sufficient reason to request an absentee ballot presented an “unreasonable burden on the fundamental right to vote guaranteed by the Tennessee Constitution.”
When state election officials responded by creating a new category on the application form for those worried about COVID-19 rather than have it covered by the existing medical exception, Lyle called out the state for failing to adhere to her original order.
“Shame on you for not following that procedure and just taking matters into your own hands,” Lyle said in a recent hearing.
While the expedited appeal will speed up the state’s legal challenge, it appears unlikely the high court will decide the case before the Aug. 6 primary. Absentee ballots are already being sent out, and in-person early voting begins on July 17.
[TRANSCRIPT] Judge says ‘shame on’ state for not following absentee ballot order
Secretary of State Tre Hargett speaks with Rep. Curtis Johnson (R-Clarksville) on Jan. 29, 2018 in Nashville. (Photo credit: Erik Schelzig, Tennessee Journal)
Davidson County Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle on Thursday found the state had failed to follow her order to make absentee ballots to anyone concerned about the coronavirus. But the judge stopped short of finding the state in contempt of the court.
“Shame on you for not following that procedure and just taking matters into your own hands,” Lyle said. “So, I’m calling the state out on that, for not adhering to the standards of a legal process, and not adhering to the order.”
Read the judge’s whole ruling from the bench here:
Before the court is the motion of the plaintiff under Tennessee Civil Procedure Rule 65 for me to enforce, compel, require the state to comply and adhere to the injunction order that was entered by the court of June 4, 2020. And in addition, the plaintiffs have asked the court to order sanctions asserting that the state has acted willfully in not complying with the court’s order.
The court’s ruling is that it grants the part of the motion concerning enforcement. The court denies the motion for sanctions. And the court’s reasoning is as follows: With respect to enforcement of the temporary injunction, the court finds the state did violate the court’s order, and did not adhere to the order, and did take steps which were in direct contradiction of the court’s order.
No private litigant or business would take a court’s order where they had been told to do something and say, well, I think I’ve got a better idea about how this should be done and just do it their way in derogation of what the court has said. And that’s what the state did in this case. They took my order — I did not segregate COVID voters from other voters who had that excuse No. 3, and they changed and modified my order and added a step and a nuance and maybe even a chilling effect, it’s not clear, that the court had contemplated and determined was not correct.
I just have to say that it’s a matter of standards of legal process that the way that’s done and has always been done, is that you file a motion to modify, you file a motion to alter or amend, you ask for a conference to discuss the remedy. And that’s done every day in this court. And if you think you know a better way to do something, then you come in with a motion and you the court and give the other side an opportunity to have input. And that’s not just the practice, that’s the rule. And it’s followed daily by all attorneys and parties and litigants in this court.
I just really have to say to that point, you know, shame on you for not following that procedure and just taking matters into your own hands. So, I’m calling the state out on that, for not adhering to the standards of a legal process, and not adhering to the order.
What I’m now going to have to do to straighten it out I’m going to have to take down that form they’ve put together and issue a new form along the lines we discussed today, to change Boxes 3 and 4. I’ll get that order out this afternoon and the state will be ordered to change the forms and post them and require election officials to post these new forms by noon tomorrow, and then to change their instructions to comply with this new form, and that will be done by 5 o’clock tomorrow.
In light of the declarations that had been filed with the court about comments and instructions that are being made to voters about voting absentee, the court will look at the compliance order for these state officials to give direction or instructions to the county officials so they will know what to do and what to say. That order will take me longer. And I hope to have that out tomorrow.
Finally, with respect to the awarding of attorneys’ fees or coming up with some dollar amount by the state, we’re in a time of some budget issues and a time of a pandemic when people have got a lot of concerns. So the court is not going to issue the sanctions. However, there always is the specter of criminal contempt if after today’s orders. If there’s still noncompliance and there’s disobedience, then that’s a route that the court can go.
Plaintiffs in absentee voting case file contempt motion against state
The plaintiffs in a lawsuit over Tennessee’s absentee voting law have filed a contempt motion against the state for alleged violations of the judge’s order to immediately begin supplying mail-in ballots to anyone who asks for one.
Following last week’s ruling, State Election Coordinator Mark Goins sent an email to local officials telling them to “hold off” on sending absentee voting applications until the state could revise its forms or seek a stay in the judge’s order. The state then created a new category on its ballot application form that states voters are requesting to vote by mail because they have “determined it is impossible or unreasonable to vote in person due to the COVID-19 situation and therefore qualify as hospitalized, ill, or disabled and unable to appear at my polling place.”
The plaintiffs argue that the creation of that category wasn’t permitted by the court order, that it includes no definition of the “impossible or unreasonable” standard, and that there is no provision for someone to certify they can’t vote in person because they are caring for someone else.
“This unilateral disregard of the Court’s Order is designed to place increased scrutiny on voters who wish to do nothing more than to rely on this Court’s Order, lead to voter confusion and intimidation, and enable the state to segregate these voters’ absentee ballot requests and refrain from processing them,” according to the motion.
“The State has made calculated decisions to act contrary to the plain text of the Order and has instructed county election officials to do the same,” the plaintiffs said.
Goins told The Associated Press the state is complying and the plaintiffs aren’t citing the most up-to-date guidance.
“We are disappointed that plaintiffs have chosen to pursue a false narrative by leaving out updated guidance we distributed to counties on Friday that is being implemented,” Goins told the AP.
A hearing before Davidson County Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle has been scheduled for Thursday.
Election officials instructed not to immediately comply with judge’s order on absentee ballots
A Nashville judge has ordered the state to start issuing absentee ballots to any registered voter who requests one, but State Election Coordinator Mark Goins is telling local officials not to immediately comply.
According to Goins:
Regarding the court’s decision, until we provide further instructions, do not send out any absentee applications. We may be sending a revised form. Do not update your own forms or language on your website yet. It is very important that we have uniform language. We are working on language for our website. In the meantime, we expect a request for stay to put the ruling on hold as soon as possible […]
If a voter calls and asks for an application because of COVID-19, go ahead and take their information so you can send them a form later with the revised language if we update the form or a stay is not granted.
That appears to conflict with Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle’s order, which enjoined election officials from enforcing previous rules and mandated that they “prominently post on their websites and disseminate to County Election Officials that voters who do not wish to vote in-person due to the COVID-19 virus situation are eligible to request an absentee ballot by mail or that such voters still have the option to vote in-person during Early voting or on Election Day.”
The decision to hold off on putting the order into effect is reminiscent of Gov. Bill Lee’s announcement that he would continue to urge parents to apply for school voucher while the state appealed a ruling that found the law unconstitutional. The judge later denied a motion to lift her stay and berated the Education Department for failing to inform potential applicants about the legal challenge on its website.
Voucher law ruled unconstitutional, Lee vows quick appeal
Gov. Bill Lee speaks at a press conference on Tennessee’s coronavirus response in Nashville on March 16, 2020. (Erik Schelzig, Tennessee Journal)
A Nashville judge has ruled Tennessee’s school voucher law violated the Tennessee Constitution because it was written in a way to only apply to two of the state’s counties and passed without residents’ consent.
Debate over the the school voucher bill dominated the 2019 legislative session, with the Lee administration starting out with a bill applying to at least five counties. The bill was successively whittled down affect fewer and fewer counties, ending up with just Nashville and and Shelby County in order for the bill to be narrowly approved.
Chancellor Anne Martin found that based on “the legislative history detailing the extensive tweaking of the eligibility criteria in order to eliminate certain school districts to satisfy legislators (rather than tweaking to enhance the merits of the Act) that the legislation is local in form and effect.”
Gov. Bill Lee’s office is promising a prompt legal challenge.
“We strongly disagree with the court’s ruling and will swiftly appeal on behalf of Tennessee students who deserve more than a one-size-fits-all approach to education,” Lee spokesman Gillum Ferguson said in a statement.
In-person Tennessee court hearings suspended until April 1
Tennessee courts are suspending in-person judicial proceedings until April 1 in response to the Coronavirus outbreak. Courts will continue to conduct business, Chief Justice Jeff Bivins announced.
Here’s the release from the Administrative Office of the Courts:
The Tennessee Supreme Court today issued an Order stating all Tennessee courts will remain open during the coronavirus outbreak, but suspending all in-person judicial proceedings through March 31, 2020. Chief Justice Jeff Bivins declared a state of emergency for the judicial branch, which follows Governor Bill Lee’s Executive Order and declaration of a state of emergency on March 12, 2020. The Order applies to state and local Tennessee courts, including appellate, trial, general sessions, juvenile, and municipal courts.
“Each day across the State of Tennessee, thousands of people attend court proceedings in-person when they come to the courthouse as jurors, witnesses, litigants, or in another capacity. Public spaces in courthouses tend to be small, tightly packed bench seats that provide the type of situations public health officials have encouraged people to avoid during the COVID-19 outbreak,” said Chief Justice Jeff Bivins. “However, judges, court clerks, and others provide essential constitutional functions that must be carried on. In issuing this Order, the Court struck a balance in limiting the public’s exposure to the virus with continuing essential court functions judges must provide to ensure the administration of justice.”
The Order includes a substantial list of exceptions including proceedings necessary to protect constitutional rights of criminal defendants, such as bond-related matters and plea agreements for incarcerated individuals; civil and criminal jury trials that are in progress as of March 13, 2020; proceedings relating to orders of protection; proceedings related to emergency child custody orders; Department of Children’s Services emergency matters related to child protection; proceedings related to petitions for temporary injunctive relief; proceedings related to emergency mental health orders; proceedings related to emergency protection of elderly or vulnerable persons; and proceedings directly related to the COVID-19 public health emergency. In addition, other exceptions to the suspension of in-person court proceedings may be approved by the Chief Justice. Any permitted in-court proceedings will be limited to attorneys, parties, witnesses, security officers, and necessary persons as determined by the trial judge.
“We are reducing the number of people physically in the courthouse each day while ensuring judges and court clerks have the ability to continue with their constitutionally required duties,” Chief Justice Bivins said.
The Court’s Order includes several other provisions to help alleviate hardships or unintended consequences caused by the suspension of non-essential, in-person proceedings. For example, deadlines set forth in court rules, statutes, and administrative rules, including statutes of limitations, that are set to expire between March 13 and April 6, 2020, are extended through April 6, 2020 and orders of protection that would expire between March 13 and April 6, 2020, are extended until April 6, 2020.
“This is new territory for everyone,” Chief Bivins said. “We encourage judges, court clerks, attorneys, law enforcement, and others to work together to develop creative solutions that work for their individual jurisdictions. The goal is to limit the number of people coming into court each day while continuing to meet our duty and administer justice. We may amend this Order as the situation evolves, and we understand more about the obstacles judges and court staff are facing.”
The order expressly does not prohibit court proceedings by telephone, video, teleconferencing, email, or other means that do not involve in-person contact. The Court’s Order also suspends any Tennessee rule, criminal or civil, that limits a judge’s or clerk’s ability to utilize available technologies, including telephone conferences, video conferences, and video arraignments, that can help limit in-person contact. The Order does not affect a court’s consideration of civil or criminal matters that can be resolved without oral argument.
Read the Order
Feds charge intelligence analyst with leaking classified material
A Nashville man has been arrested on charges of illegally obtaining classified information and passing it along to a reporter.
Daniel Everette Hale was arrested Thursday morning and was scheduled to appear in federal court in Nashville later in the day. Hale was enlisted in the Air Force between 2009 and 2013, assigned to the National Security Agency and deployed to Afghanistan. After leaving active duty, he was employed by a defense contractor. Prosecutors allege Hale passed along confidential material to a reporter whose outlet published at least 11 documents market secret or top secret.
Here’s the full release from the Justice Department:
WASHINGTON – An indictment was unsealed today charging a former intelligence analyst with illegally obtaining classified national defense information and disclosing it to a reporter. Daniel Everette Hale, 31, of Nashville, Tennessee, was arrested this morning and will make his initial appearance today at the federal courthouse in Nashville. Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, U.S. Attorney G. Zachary Terwilliger for the Eastern District of Virginia and Acting Special Agent in Charge Jennifer L. Moore of the FBI’s Baltimore Field Office made the announcement after the charges were unsealed.
According to the indictment, Hale was enlisted in the U.S. Air Force from July 2009 to July 2013, during which time he received language and intelligence training. While serving on active duty, Hale was assigned to work at the National Security Agency (NSA) and deployed to Afghanistan as an intelligence analyst. After leaving the U.S. Air Force, Hale was employed by a defense contractor and assigned to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), where he worked as a political geography analyst between December 2013 and August 2014. In connection with his active duty service and work for the NSA, and during his time at NGA, Hale held a Top Secret//Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS//SCI) security clearance and was entrusted with access to classified national defense information.
