text:
Daniel M. Parkman, Sr. BlogUeber Global Luxury
Archive for Madoff
Blagojevich 19 Count Federal Indictment on Corruption Charges
Blagojevich indicted on federal corruption charges
59 mins ago
CHICAGO – Ousted Gov. Rod Blagojevich was indicted Thursday on charges of trying to auction off President Barack Obama's vacant U.S. Senate seat along with new corruption allegations that he tried to extort a congressman. A sweeping 19-count federal indictment alleges that Blagojevich discussed with aides the possibility of getting a Cabinet post in the new president's administration, substantial fundraising assistance or a high-paying job in exchange for the Senate seat.
Obama's deputy press secretary, Josh Earnest, said the White House would not comment. The indictment does not allege any wrongdoing by Obama or his associates.
Prosecutors also accused Blagojevich and members of his inner circle of scheming to line their pockets with millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains, squeezing contractors, hospital owners and others seeking state business for kickbacks they planned to split after the governor left office.
"I'm saddened and hurt but I am not surprised by the indictment. I am innocent," Blagojevich said in a statement. "I now will fight in the courts to clear my name. I would ask the good people of Illinois to wait for the trial and afford me the presumption of innocence that they would give to all their friends and neighbors."
His brother, two former aides, a former fundraiser and a lobbyist were also indicted. Blagojevich's wife, Patti, was not indicted.
The indictment alleges Blagojevich told an aide he wanted to stall a $2 million state grant to a school that was championed by a congressman until the lawmaker's brother held a political fundraiser for the governor. The congressman's identity wasn't released.
It also says Blagojevich was involved in a corrupt scheme to get a massive kickback in exchange for the refinancing of billions of dollars in state pension funds.
Convicted fixer Tony Rezko paid Blagojevich's wife, Patti, a $14,396 real estate commission "even though she had done no work" to earn it and later hired her at a salary of $12,000 a month plus another $40,000 fee, the indictment said.
And, according to the indictment, Blagojevich told an aide he didn't want executives with two financial institutions getting further state business after he concluded they were not helping his wife get a high-paying job.
Others charged were former chief of staff Alonzo Monk; another former chief of staff, John Harris; brother Robert Blagojevich; onetime chief fundraiser Christopher G. Kelly; and Springfield lobbyist-millionaire William F. Cellini.
Prosecutors said Harris has agreed to cooperate.
Blagojevich was indicted on charges of racketeering conspiracy, wire fraud, extortion conspiracy and attempted extortion, and making false statements. Most of those charges carry a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Blagojevich, 52, was arrested Dec. 9 on a criminal complaint and U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald had faced a Tuesday deadline supplant it with an indictment handed up by a federal grand jury. The Democrat's arrest led to his political downfall: The Illinois House impeached him Jan. 9. The Senate convicted him and removed him from office Jan. 29.
Blagojevich's administration has been under federal investigation for years and Kelly and Rezko already have been convicted of federal crimes and are awaiting sentencing.
Thursday's indictment said that in 2003 — the former governor's first year in office — Blagojevich, Monk, Kelly and Rezko agreed to direct big-money state business involved in refinancing billions of dollars in pension bonds as part of a deal with a lobbyist who promised a massive kickback in return. The lobbyist wasn't identified.
Rezko raised more than $1 million in campaign contributions for Blagojevich and also was a major Obama fundraiser.
G-20 & IMF as the Global Federal Reserve's Brokers/Bankers
G-20 gives $1 trillion to fight global crisis
By JANE WARDELL, AP Business Writer Jane Wardell, Ap Business Writer 21 mins ago
LONDON – World leaders pledged $1.1 trillion in loans and guarantees to struggling countries and agreed Thursday to crack down on tax havens and hedge funds — but failed to reach sweeping accord on more stimulus spending to attack the global economic decline.
At the end of a highly anticipated one-day gathering, leaders of the Group of 20 nations said they would upgrade an existing financial forum to serve as an early warning monitor to flag problems in the global financial system.
They did not, however, satisfy U.S. and British calls for new stimulus measures. Nor did European politicians get their goal of a global financial superregulator.
The leaders did bridge several gaps between the United States and some European nations over how far to regulate the market and how to curb the excesses that sparked the global economic crisis.
President Barack Obama, in his first major venture into international diplomacy, failed to get U.S. trading partners to spend more money on job-creating stimulus programs, as the U.S. and Britain have done. The proposal was opposed strongly by France and Germany.
However, it had become clear long before the gathering began that there was little support for more such stimulus spending outside the U.S. and Britain.
"I think we did OK," Obama told reporters afterward. "We have agreed on a series of unprecedented steps to restore growth and prevent a crisis like this happening again… We have created as fundamental a reworking of resources to these international financial institutions as anything we've done in the last several decades."
Obama's words echoed comments by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the French and German leaders.
Thursday's gathering was called in hopes of restoring faith in the global financial system — and in one possible gauge of success, European and U.S. markets surged ahead as the outcome of the summit came into view.
The biggest headline figure was the new money for the International Monetary Fund, which helps out governments that run into financial trouble from the crisis, and other development organizations to send credit to countries that have seen it dry up.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who earlier had threatened earlier to walk out if unsatisfied with the outcome, also praised Obama for helping to create consensus and persuade China to agree to publish lists of tax havens.
"There were moments of tension," Sarkozy said. "Never would we have thought to get as big an agreement."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel called the measures "a very, very good, almost historic compromise" that will give the world "a clear financial markets architecture."
"For the first time we have a common approach to cleaning up banks around the world to restructuring of the world financial system. We have maintained our commitment to help the world's poorest," Brown said. "This is a collective action of people around the world working at their best."
The G-20 leaders also said that developing nations — hard-hit and long complaining of marginalization — would get a greater say in world economic affairs. They said they would renounce protectionism and pledged $250 billion in trade finance over the next two years — a key measure to help struggling developing countries.
The leaders also agreed to new rules on linking executive pay to performance, Brown said.
Despite the announcement of a global supervisory body to flag problems, Sarkozy lost his bid for a global regulatory czar that could actual enforce regulations inside U.S. and other countries.
Obama said that the comprehensive deal was just the beginning, and the world's problems "are not going to be solved in one meeting, they're not going to be solved in two meetings."
G-20 leaders agreed to gather again to assess progress on their commitments at the sidelines of the annual U.N. summit in New York in September.
Police were out in force for the G-20 summit Thursday, swarming the east London riverside site after demonstrations in the city's financial district on Wednesday turned spordically violent.
Police boats patrolled the Thames river as small groups of demonstrators protested world poverty and climate change. Over 110 people were arrested over two days, police said.
IMF's Global Bailout
G-20 leaders eye more IMF funds, tighter rules
By JANE WARDELL, AP Business Writer Jane Wardell, Ap Business Writer 1 hr 10 mins ago
LONDON – Global leaders made headway Thursday on tackling the world financial crisis, with new clampdowns likely on tax havens and hedge funds and more funds heading to the International Monetary Fund so it can boost loans to struggling countries.
Officials close to the negotiations said the Group of 20 nations could triple their funding for the IMF to $750 billion. The world financial body supports countries whose finances have been hard hit by the global slowdown, supporting their currency reserves and banking systems.
The officials, from a number of delegations, said the funds could include an overdraft facility worth some $250 billion for developing countries. They refused to be further identified because they were not authorized to speak to the media.
On financial regulation — a sticking point ahead of the gathering — two people close to the negotiations said that France and Germany had persuaded the Group of 20 leaders to back tougher language in the final statement on stronger rules to avoid a repeat of the current crisis.
Another official said the final deal will include proposals making sure companies more tightly link executive salaries to performance, a measure that reflects public outrage about the huge retention payments, bonuses and golden parachutes granted to banking chiefs before the sector collapsed.
Opening the summit in London's east Docklands district, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said there was strong unity among leaders upon the need for action.
"I believe that the text that has been circulated already reflects a very high degree of consensus and agreement between all of us," Brown told his fellow leaders.
Britain's Finance Secretary Stephen Timms said early discussions had been "lively," but added that countries would agree on sanctions against countries who refuse to sign up to new rules on regulating tax havens.
"The era of banking secrecy is over," Timms said.
As President Barack Obama and Brown joined other leaders at a working breakfast, protesters began gearing up for a second day of demonstrations, gathering outside the London Stock Exchange near St. Paul's Cathedral. Riot police took up positions as well, ringing the stock exchange.
French daredevil Alain Robert scaled Lloyds of London's high-rise headquarters as office workers below snapped photos. Robert, dubbed the French spider-man, has scaled dozens of tall structures around the world without ropes or harnesses to draw attention to global warming. He was later led away by police.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have been adamant that the G-20 meeting must take concrete steps to more closely regulate banks, hedge funds and other financial institutions.
Sarkozy had previously threatened to walk out if the summit didn't achieve a strong statement on new financial regulations, warning that he considered action on tax havens, hedge funds and ratings agencies as the absolute minimum the negotiations must resolve.
Sarkozy and Merkel want the G-20 to publish a blacklist of tax havens and announce sanctions at the end of Thursday's meeting.
The British official said the boost to the IMF would include significant pledges from China, and in return there would be increasing efforts to give China and other emerging countries greater clout on the IMF.
Obama has acknowledged that U.S. regulatory failures contributed to the crisis in the financial system, but urged a focus on solutions, saying "we can only meet this challenge together."
European leaders have balked at moving beyond spending measures already announced, arguing that their more generous welfare systems mean their spending levels will rise anyway as more people get benefits such as unemployment insurance.
As leaders met in the Docklands, a former shipping area on the Thames river that was redeveloped as an international business center, protesters began a second day of demonstrations. Security was tight at the summit venue; hundreds of police manned barriers and checkpoints around the security perimeter.
Near St. Paul's Cathedral in the financial district, protesters played a giant Monopoly game.
"The question is of course who has got the monopoly? It is fairly obvious the G20 are the global financial elite," said protester Clare Smith, 27. "Meanwhile the poor are getting poorer."
More than 100 people have been arrested.
Unemployment @ Record Levels since 1982 in USA
U.S. jobless claims highest in more than 26 years
42 mins ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The number of U.S. workers filing new claims for jobless benefits surged to a nearly 26-1/2 year high last week, data showed on Thursday, indicating that the pace of job losses was yet to peak.
At the same time, the number of laid-off workers collecting state unemployment benefits jumped to a record high in March, the Labor Department said, as the recession now in its 16th month makes it tough to find a new job.
New applications for state jobless insurance benefits rose 12,000 to a seasonally adjusted 669,000 in the week ended March 28, the highest since the week ending October 2, 1982, from an upwardly revised 657,000 the week before.
Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast 650,000 new claims versus a previously reported count of 652,000 the prior week.
U.S. stock index futures pared gains after the data, while government bond prices held steady at lower levels.
"We have been seeing not just an elevated trend but an increasing trend. That is not good. We know the labor market is going to be a lagging indicator, but we need to see the pace of job losses moderate soon if we are going to get a recovery," said Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James & Associates in St. Petersburg, Florida.
Highlighting the difficulties of getting a new job, the number of people staying on the benefits roll after collecting an initial week of aid surged 161,000 to 5.73 million in the week ended March 21, the latest week for which the data is available, from 5.57 million the previous week.
This was the highest on record and lifted the insured unemployment rate to 4.3 percent, the highest since a matching 4.3 percent in the week ending May 21, 1983. The insured unemployment rate was at 4.2 percent in the week ended March 14.
"What it says to me is the persistence of unemployment," said T.J. Marta, chief market strategist at Marta on the Markets in Scotch Plains, New Jersey.
"It's more of a structural reallocation of resources, which could be worse than anything we've seen since the Great Depression," he said.
The four-week moving average for new claims, considered to be a better gauge of underlying trends as it irons out week-to-week volatility, climbed 6,500 to 656,750 in the week ending March 28, from 650,250. That was the highest reading since October 1982.
AIG Bailout Failed
Former AIG chief says bailout 'failed'
Former AIG CEO Maurice "Hank" Greenberg says the bailout has "failed" and he's proposing a 10-point alternative focused on saving, not breaking apart, the mega-insurer.
Greenberg will reveal his plan during a hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today, slated to start at 10 a.m.
His proposal includes pressuring the counterparties at the other end of AIG's toxic financial transactions to reinvest in AIG some of the $100 billion in taxpayer money they received as part of the firm's bailout, according to a copy of Greenberg's prepared testimony obtained by POLITICO.
Critics have blasted the feds for not forcing AIG counterparties to take a loss on the complex financial contracts, but rather allowed them to be paid off in full. Particularly galling for some is the fact AIG paid out billions of U.S. taxpayer money to Europe's largest banks.
"The plan has also been highly controversial and in some respects downright puzzling," Greenberg says of the counterparty payments.
But Greenberg's mere appearance before the committee is controversial, too.
He was forced out of AIG in 2005 in the wake of an accounting scandal. The house oversight panel's top Republican, Rep. Darrell E. Issa of California, Wednesday asked Chairman Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) to reconsider allowing Greenberg to testify, raising concerns about the witness' credibility given he's at the center of several lawsuits, including charges securities fraud charges by a U.S. Attorney.
"News reports indicate SEC action against Mr. Greenberg on these securities fraud charges could come at any day and there are good reasons to believe he could face even more significant legal problems involving the alleged misappropriation of shares from Starr International Company, a trust fund to be used solely for the purpose of providing long-term deferred compensation for AIG employees," Issa wrote in a letter to Towns.
As for his alternative rescue plan, Greenberg says that "AIG's problem was a liquidity problem, not a solvency problem. In such circumstances, the goal of government should be to provide temporary liquidity to save jobs and keep the gears of the financial system operating smoothly. The goal of government should not be to liquidate large companies that have demonstrated that they can succeed if properly managed; it should be to restore them so that they can be employers and taxpayers."
Elements of the Greenberg plan include reducing the government ownership to a 15 percent equity stake from the current 80 percent, injecting new capital in the form of common stock, and installing a new board and management team.
The real fireworks in the Greenberg hearing, however, may not come from his complex proposals, but from House lawmakers still eager to find villains in the AIG meltdown.
Madoff's Seized Palm Beach $9M Manse by the U.S. Marshals
Feds seize Madoff's mansion, yacht, small boat
By BRIAN SKOLOFF and By TAMARA LUSH, Associated Press Writers Brian Skoloff And By Tamara Lush, Associated Press Writers 25 mins ago
PALM BEACH, Fla. – Federal authorities seized disgraced financier Bernard Madoff's Palm Beach mansion, his vintage yacht and a smaller boat Wednesday, part of an effort to recoup assets to pay back investors he swindled. Barry Golden, a spokesman for the U.S. Marshals Service, said about five U.S. marshals arrived at the 8,753-square-foot, five-bedroom mansion late Wednesday afternoon, hours after marshals seized the boats.
Authorities planned to enter and secure the mansion, change the locks and conduct an inventory of the property, which Palm Beach County records show had a taxable value of $9.3 million last year.
Golden said marshals will spend about three to four hours filming and photographing items in the house that might be removed at some point. The mansion was unoccupied when federal authorities arrived.
"It's not an April Fools' joke," he said.
Palm Beach County property records show the mansion was purchased in 1994 under his wife Ruth's name for $3.8 million. The 2008 property tax bill was $157,298. Golden said the estate would be "monitored and maintained" and is no longer considered Madoff's property.
"Once the judge signed the order, it stopped being Bernie Madoff's home," Golden said.
Earlier in the day, Golden said Madoff's 55-foot yacht named "Bull" and a 24-foot motor boat were taken from marinas on Florida's east coast. The yacht, a 1969 Rybovich, is worth $2.2 million.
"A lot of money was put into maintaining this boat," Golden said. "This boat was extremely well kept, extremely clean. Engine compartment was spotless. It looked like somebody took a bottle of 409 and scrubbed it every day."
Madoff, 70, is in jail in New York awaiting sentencing after he pleaded guilty to swindling billions from investors in what could be the biggest scam in Wall Street history. He faces up to 150 years behind bars.
Prosecutors are seizing as much as they can of Madoff's personal fortune, and have begun demanding millions of dollars in payments from his relatives. Roughly 6,700 people have filed claims for a share of whatever is recovered. Thousands more — some who lost in excess of $1 million — are expected to come forward.
Court documents filed by Madoff's attorneys indicate Madoff and his wife had up to $826 million in assets — including the boats — at the end of last year.
If prosecutors get their way, Madoff and his wife, who has not been charged, will have to give up all their assets, including a $7 million Manhattan penthouse bought in 1984, the Florida home, a $1 million home in Cap d' Antibes, France and a $3 million luxury home on New York's Long Island. The government also wants Madoff and his wife to forfeit $10 million in furnishings for all the homes and luxury cars, among other items.
Defense attorneys have indicated they may try to keep the Manhattan apartment, as well as about $62 million in securities, for his wife.
"We have no objection to the seizure or to the assets being sold," lawyer Ira Sorkin said in brief remarks Wednesday. "The proceeds of the sale will be put aside for discussion at a later date."
Also Wednesday, Massachusetts' top securities regulator accused a major feeder fund for Madoff's investment scheme of misrepresenting its lack of knowledge about Madoff's operations.
Secretary of State William Galvin accused Fairfield Greenwich Group of Connecticut of civil fraud charges, saying company officials were coached by Madoff on how to answer questions about his investment practices and misrepresented how much they really knew.
As far back as April 2008, Galvin said, Fairfield Greenwich principals began discussing the risk that Madoff would "blow up," but didn't disclose that risk to investors. He also said that Fairfield Greenwich kept a database of standardized responses to investors' questions, designed to reassure them that the firm had adequate controls to supervise assets at Madoff's company.
The administrative complaint seeks restitution for Massachusetts investors for losses from Fairfield Greenwich.
Fairfield Greenwich said in a statement the allegations are false and misleading and it intends to "vigorously" contest them. "FGG is appalled by the Madoff losses suffered by its investors, including its employees and the three investors who reside in Massachusetts," the statement said.
GM's Bankruptcy Planned
U.S. plans to ease GM into bankruptcy: report
2 hrs 7 mins ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration is seeking to ease General Motors Corp into a "controlled" bankruptcy by persuading some creditors to agree to a plan that would divide the company into two pieces, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.
Citing people briefed on the matter, the Times said the plan is to push GM into a structured bankruptcy "somewhere between a prepackaged bankruptcy and court chaos," using taxpayer financing for leverage.
The administration is drawing in part from its experience with troubled banks, seeking to create a new, healthier GM, but leaving behind its liabilities and less valuable assets, possibly for liquidation, the Times said on its website.
Under the plan, GM would file for prearranged bankruptcy, the report said, and would then use a sale authorized under Section 363 of the U.S. bankruptcy code to sell off desirable assets to a new company financed by the government.
These more valuable assets might include Cadillac and Chevrolet, as well as assets the company needs to run its business, the Times said.
Plans are still under discussion and details are subject to change, the report said.
GM officials warned on Tuesday there was a rising chance it could file for bankruptcy by June.
One plan under discussion would be to form a new company of the automaker's best assets, while laggard brands and money-losing assets would remain under bankruptcy protection, a person familiar with that strategy told Reuters.
President Barack Obama's thinking on the crisis facing GM has not changed since Monday, a senior administration official told Reuters on Tuesday.
"Nothing has changed on this," the official said when asked about a Bloomberg report that the president has determined that a prepackaged bankruptcy is the best way for GM to restructure and become competitive. "This report is not accurate."
The White House wants the 60-day period for GM and a 30-day period for Chrysler to play out, as announced by the president on Monday, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
AIG Bailout or Blackmail
GAO: Treasury should take a harder line with AIG
WASHINGTON – The Treasury Department should deny American International Group Inc. a $30 billion "contingency" bailout until the company agrees to take back millions in bonuses and negotiate cheaper exits from its financial contracts, congressional auditors said Tuesday.
The Government Accountability Office report also found that payouts from the $700 billion financial system bailout nearly halted over the past two months. The slowdown occurred as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner came under fire for moving too slowly to announce financial rescue plans and assemble a team to oversee the largest government market intervention ever.
Treasury should withhold the latest $30 billion of bailout money it committed to AIG until the failed insurer agrees to "seek additional concessions from employees and existing derivatives counterparties," the GAO report recommended.
Congress and the public grew so outraged this month over AIG's awarding $165 million in bonuses that some called for Geithner's resignation. The Treasury and Federal Reserve have committed more than $182 billion to save AIG. Treasury now owns nearly 80 percent of the New York City-based company, and experts warn it may require even more money.
The Fed also took heat for refusing to name the indirect recipients of billions of dollars AIG was spending to wind down financial contracts. Despite warnings that such revelations would threaten the global economy, AIG eventually released the names, but the news was overshadowed by the bonus controversy.
At a Senate Finance Committee hearing Tuesday, Neil Barofsky, who audits bailout spending as special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, said his office is investigating the issue, including who approved the payments.
As of March 27, Treasury had disbursed $303.4 billion from the TARP, according to the GAO report. That's only $9.7 billion more than Treasury had paid out by Jan. 23, at the start of Geithner's tenure.
The review by government auditors adds to criticism of Treasury's failure to manage expectations and move quickly to roll out its rescue programs.
"While articulating its plan was an important step, Treasury continues to struggle with developing an effective overall communication strategy that is integrated into TARP operations," according to the new GAO report. It says that could make it harder to build support for additional funding requests.
In the law authorizing the TARP money, Congress required the GAO to produce reports on the program's condition and internal controls at least every 60 days. The law also created a bipartisan Congressional Oversight Panel to report on Treasury's actions, the financial markets and the regulatory system. Besides conducting audits and investigations, Barofsky's office promotes transparency.
A Treasury spokesman, Andrew Williams, said in a statement that transparency and accountability are key concerns as the department tries to maximize its use of taxpayer money.
He said Treasury has made "significant progress in implementing every GAO recommendation" from previous reports, including hiring more staff for the new financial stability office and expanding a bank survey on lending and other activities.
At Tuesday's Senate hearing, Barofsky for the first time gave some clues about how banks were using their bailout dollars, including some that identified specific loans made possible through the TARP.
Despite questions from the oversight bodies, Treasury has not yet satisfied concerns that it runs the programs behind closed doors and doesn't require enough disclosure about how banks are spending billions in bailout money, the GAO report says.
To help the department meet standards for accountability and transparency, the report includes recommendations. Among them:
_Reporting the dividends Treasury has received from TARP participants.
_Hiring a communications officer to work in the office overseeing TARP.
_Scheduling regular meetings between Treasury officials and congressional leaders, and holding "town hall meetings with the public across the country."
GM's Bankruptcy is More Probable
GM's new CEO says bankruptcy is 'more probable'
DETROIT – General Motors Corp.'s new chief executive said Tuesday that more of the automaker's plants could close and bankruptcy is "more probable" as GM works to meet new, tougher requirements for government aid. In his first news conference as CEO, Fritz Henderson said he expects the company would "need to take further measures" beyond the five plants the company said it would shutter when it submitted a restructuring plan to the government last month.
GM also is likely to offer another buyout program to workers as it looks to cut labor costs, Henderson said.
President Barack Obama said Monday that GM's initial plans to become viable didn't go far enough. He gave the company 60 days to make more cuts and get more concessions from bondholders and unions or it won't get any more government help.
The Obama administration also asked former CEO Rick Wagoner to resign, and Henderson took over as CEO on Monday.
Henderson said that although GM would prefer not to use bankruptcy protection to save itself, it is "certainly more probable" than in the past.
The company, he said, has until June 1 to accomplish changes sought by the government, or it will be in bankruptcy. The 60-day deadline should be enough time, but if it becomes evident that the changes can't be made by the deadline, GM could go into court sooner, he said.
"It doesn't have to take 60 days. If it's quite clear that we're not able to accomplish what we need to do in terms of operational restructuring, reduction of debt on the balance sheet and what we need to do to accomplish these broad parameters of having a viable business, this will be a management judgment" reviewed by the Obama administration's autos task force, he said.
Henderson also said GM is still talking with potential buyers of the Hummer brand, and a decision on the brand's fate will come in the next few weeks. GM said in a viability plan filed with the government in February that it would make the decision in the first quarter, which ends Tuesday.
In an effort to increase sales, GM launched a program called "Total Confidence" that will make car payments for customers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own.
GM will make up to nine payments of $500 each to qualifying customers. Consumers must qualify for state unemployment benefits to be eligible for the program.
The program starts Wednesday and runs until April 30.
Ford Motor Co. announced a similar program Tuesday, which will take over customer's payment of up to $700 a month for a year in the event of job loss.
Shares of GM fell 32 cents, or 11.9 percent, to $2.38 in midday trading. Ford shares fell 6 cents, or 2.2 percent, to $2.70.
Unemployment Olympics
Christopher Dawes tosses an office phone during the Unemployment Olympics in New York, Tuesday, March 31, 2009. The lighthearted competition was only open to the unemployed, and included a such games as 'Pin the Blame on the Boss' and 'Office Telephone Toss'.


text:
We are real Australia owned private company who base in Sydney. Buy with confidence!
Google map is the easiest way to find or navigate to us. Don't forget to leave us a feed back! Thank you.
Phone: 9:30 to 5:30
Pickup: 10:00 to 12:00 & 4:00 to 5:30
Other hours: Appointment Only
We open on Saturday to save you a weekday!
Because time is limited, we highly recommend you make your order beforehand.
1 Item(s)
View as:
Add to Cart
Copyright © 2019 Biz Supplies - Your Sign & Sublimation Supplier. All Rights Reserved.

subset: commoncrawl


text: HIP-HOP Beyonce's 'Best Thing I Never Had' Wedding Dress for Sale Online 1/18/2013 by Gregory DelliCarpini Jr. FACEBOOK TWITTER EMAIL ME Beyonce, Wedding Dress Beyoncé enthusiasts rejoice- today the dazzling, gold and white wedding dress Bey wore in her 2011 video for "Best Thing I Never Had" can be purchased for the price of $30,000 via PreOwnedWeddingDresses.com. The official listing can be viewed here. The size four ball gown was designed by Baracci and features a delicate sweetheart neckline, a hand-draped beaded and embroidered French lace bodice with gold embroidery and glittering Swarovski crystals. It's being sold by its original Malibu-based designer/manufacturer, and though the asking price may seem a bit hefty, it's a 64% reduction from the original $85,000 tag. According to the site, Beyoncé "reportedly stumbled on the dress while walking by the designer's Beverly Hills boutique, and asked to wear it in her video." The lush and decadent gown is quite different then the simple number Bey wore to marry Jay-Z in 2008. For the singer's real wedding dress, she opted for a glamorous and refined strapless gown with a gorgeous layered train. Potential buyers are allowed to view the gown and alterations are available "upon request." Interested in submitting an offer? FACEBOOK TWITTER EMAIL ME


text:
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 12:00 AM
Town Square
Superintendent search limited to insiders
Original post made on Mar 12, 2010
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 12:00 AM
Comments (25)
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Mar 12, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Hats off to Chris Thomsen. The voice of reason in the Sequoia Union High School district. He is the only board member to stay true to his mission (the written mission of the SUHS) to represent all students in the district. He is not afraid to go againt the other members who care little about the students and more about pleasing the superintendent. He is the only member who seems to know that things must change and that it is possible to improve and make the education of all students better. Keep up the good work Chris Thomsen.
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Mar 16, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
The saga continues:
Begin forwarded message:
Subject: Sequoia Union High School District Issue
Dear Mr. Peterson,
Thank you for your interest in ensuring that the provisions of the Brown Act are followed. I have had the opportunity to review your concerns, as well as the applicable law, and based on that review, I do not believe that the actions of the Board violated either the spirit or the letter of the law.
As we discussed in our telephone conversation last week, case law interpreting the Brown Act confirms that discussions relating to personnel decisions can be done in closed session. These cases interpret this exception rather broadly, finding that it extends to "all employer consideration of an employee, up to (but excluding) 'discipline' or 'dismissal' of the employee." Duvall v. Board of Trustees (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 902, 909. The Duvall court found that "evaluation" encompasses "consideration of the criteria for such evaluation, consideration of the process for conducting the evaluation, and other preliminary matters, to the extent those matters constitute an exercise of [the board's] discretion in evaluating a particular employee." Ibid.
Opinions of the Attorney General further support the broad parameters of the personnel exception. "Opinions of the California Attorney General have consistently interpreted the personnel exception's use of the term 'employment' broadly.... [T]he Attorney General interpreted the term 'employment' to include 'all personnel matters relating to an individual employee at executive sessions and not simply matters relating to initial employment or final discharge,' thereby permitting a closed session to evaluate a school superintendent's performance." Travis v. Board of Trustees(2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 335, 344-5. The court in Travis concluded, based on this review, "a more flexible interpretation of 'employment' is permitted when it is consistent with the purposes of both the Brown Act and the personnel exception." Travis, supra., at p. 346
The principle that can be distilled from these authorities is that a Board can shield from public scrutiny matters that are inherently likely to risk "undue publicity and embarrassment" to persons under consideration for employment. Applying this principle to the Board's action, it appears that discussions relating to the performance, abilities and criteria for selection of candidates for superintendent fall squarely within the closed session exception. In other words, the Board could have simply selected a new superintendent based on a closed session review of candidates without violating the provisions of the Brown Act.
I have also had the opportunity to review the Agenda and Minutes of the February 17 and 24 meetings. From these sources, it is apparent that the Board was mindful of the preference for transparency, beyond what was technically required by the Brown Act. On February 17, there was a discussion of the utility of doing an in-house search before looking outside, as well as a discussion about obtaining public input via the internet. The Agenda for the February 24 meeting appropriately listed the closed session relating to appointment of the superintendent and allowed for public comment as the agenda item immediately preceding retiring into closed session. As the letter of Mr. Beiers makes clear, the February 24 reporting out was not a final personnel action and was therefore not necessary under the law. This too appears to be consistent with a desire to keep the public involved in the process.
In sum, while I appreciate the vigilance that you have brought to this process, it appears that the actions taken by the Board are consistent with the requirements of the Brown Act, in that consideration of the qualities of potential candidates and the process for making the selection are appropriately conducted in closed session. If you would like discuss this further, you may contact me directly at (650) 363-4823.
Albert A. Serrato
Deputy District Attorney
my email to the District Attorney:
Mr. Fox,
The personnel exemption only applies to agendized discussion regarding specific individuals. As Mr. Serrato very correctly notes " this exception rather broadly, finding that it extends to "all employer consideration of an employee, up to (but excluding) 'discipline' or 'dismissal' of the employee." Mr. Serrato further cites ""Opinions of the California Attorney General have consistently interpreted the personnel exception's use of the term 'employment' broadly.... [T]he Attorney General interpreted the term 'employment' to include 'all personnel matters relating to an individual employee at executive sessions." These very citations by Mr. Serrato clearly contradict his conclusion.
The School Board's minutes clearly show that they took an action with regard to filling a position - without the mention of even a single individual employee.
I urge you to reverse Mr. Serrato's incorrect interpretation of the Brown Act with regard to the School Board's closed session action.
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Mar 17, 2010 at 3:39 am
The saga continues as the government officials circle their wagons:
On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:43 PM, "James Fox" <[email protected]> wrote:
Mr. Carpenter
I have read Mr. Serrato's memo to you and I am in agreement with it. There is no mandated process for selection of a Superintendent set forth, so the Board of Trustees can choose to evaluate current employees without initiating a broader search. In fact, if the Board chose, they could evaluate and interview current employees and then make a selection. There is no requirement that an agenda list who they are considering, unlike acquisition of real estate.
If you are not satisfied with the decision to evaluate current employees, you have a right to address the Board in a public meeting to urge them to adopt an alternative process, but they are not obligated to do so.
Jim Fox
From: Peter Carpenter <[email protected]>
Date: March 16, 2010 8:36:35 PM EDT
To: James Fox <[email protected]>
Cc: tom gibboney <[email protected]>, Dave Boyce <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Sequoia Union High School District Issue
I will seek the wisdom of the courts since you are unwilling to interpret the law in the interest of the citizens and instead have chosen to protect secrecy by elected officials.
Peter Carpenter
Sent from my iPhone
a resident of Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks
on Mar 17, 2010 at 9:26 am
This case may ultimately have to be settled in the courts. However, in a time when government should be heeding the need to be more open than secretive, it would seem prudent that the School Board act accordingly. Perception plays a big role in an elected official's life. Even if it's decided that the Board didn't technically violate the Brown Act, they are now viewed as hiding something. Maybe the School Board needs to review their Brown Act responsibilities. This is the kind of act which damages the public's trust in their elected representatives.
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Mar 17, 2010 at 11:01 am
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
The saga continues - my email this date:
Dear President Martinez and Fellow School Board Members,
Be advised that the decision of the Board as to the scope of the search for a new superintendent, having been made in closed session, is in violation of the Brown Act and California Code 54957.1.
This action was confirmed by your President and by your own lawyer, John Beiers: "On February 24, the Board met in closed session under Public Employee Appointment: Superintendent. At the conclusion of that session, the Board announced a decision, on a 4-1 vote, to essentially confirm the original public direction to continue the selection process in house before contemplating an outside search." Mr. Beiers further states that "One should surmise from the vote taken by the Board that the Board discussed the strengths and weaknesses of internal candidates and arrived at a conclusion that it needed not to conduct an external search."
If that was indeed what transpired, then the Board had the obligation to report the closed session conclusion 'that it needed not to conduct an external search' in public session and then to vote on the motion to do a closed search in such a public session. While any purported discussions regarding specific individuals would fall under the personnel exception the subsequent motion, made without any reference to said individuals, to conduct a closed search is not a permitted exception to the requirement that the public's business be conducted in public and with the public being given the opportunity to comment.
The personnel exemption in the Brown Act applies ONLY to actions regarding a SPECIFIC individual and not to decisions regarding general personnel policies. Thus your closed session action is a violation of your public trust and an insult to the citizens of the district. The citizens elected you to do our business; we did not elect you to do that public business in secret.
Since this decision has not been rescinded and then agendized for a public meeting, I will file suit against the School District and each Trustee. The Court will also be asked to 1) issue a temporary restraining order prohibiting the School District from taking any action pursuant to this illegal motion, including any action to search for or select a new superintendent, until this matter can be fully adjudicated or has otherwise been resolved, 2) void the closed door action to pursue a closed search and 3) pay all of my legal expenses incurred until such time as this matter is resolved. (REMEDIES AND SANCTIONS - Individuals may file civil lawsuits for injunctive, mandatory or declaratory relief, or to void action taken in violation of the Act. 54960; 54960 Attorneys' fees are available to prevailing plaintiffs.)
To assist you in deciding to reverse course and to address this issue in open session prior to my filing a civil suit, let me quote from the recent correspondence from the San Mateo District Attorney which clearly confirms, contrary to the DA's interpretation but consistent with the later cited California Attorney General's opinion, that the personnel exception allowing closed session action applies ONLY to personnel actions which relate to a SPECIFIC individual:
"These cases interpret this exception rather broadly, finding that it extends to "all employer consideration of an employee, up to (but excluding) 'discipline' or 'dismissal' of the employee." Duvall v. Board of Trustees (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 902, 909. The Duvall court found that "evaluation" encompasses "consideration of the criteria for such evaluation, consideration of the process for conducting the evaluation, and other preliminary matters, to the extent those matters constitute an exercise of [the board's] discretion in evaluating a particular employee." Ibid.
Opinions of the Attorney General further support the broad parameters of the personnel exception. "Opinions of the California Attorney General have consistently interpreted the personnel exception's use of the term 'employment' broadly.... [T]he Attorney General interpreted the term 'employment' to include 'all personnel matters relating to an individual employee at executive sessions and not simply matters relating to initial employment or final discharge,' thereby permitting a closed session to evaluate a school superintendent's performance." Travis v. Board of Trustees(2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 335, 344-5."
And here is guidance from the California Attorney General:
"The Brown Act authorizes a closed session "to consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, discipline, or dismissal of a public employee or to hear complaints or charges brought against the employee.
The purpose of this exception – commonly referred to as the "personnel exception" – is to avoid undue publicity or embarrassment for an employee or applicant for employment and to allow full and candid discussion by the legislative body; thus, it is restricted to discussing individuals, not general personnel policies."
Frankly, I am at loss as to why the decision to do a closed search was done in closed session - what was there to hide, which individuals were you ostensibly attempting to protect? Was this simply a procedural error or was it done intentionally to hide something from the public? Note that if it were an intentional act to "deprive the public of information which the member knew or had reason to know the public was entitled to receive" then that would be cause for criminal action. Will not a closed search be inherently discriminatory if the internal applicant pool is not representative of the community that you serve?
Should the School District wish to avoid the expense and the extensive discovery and time consuming depositions which may be required in conjunction with a civil suit, you have the very simple option of rescinding your closed session motion decision and then properly agendized this matter for a public meeting.
Your attorney states:" I can tell you based on personal experience with this Board, that Brown Act compliance is important to them".
I challenge you to meet that standard.
My motivation in this matter derives from the beautifully worded Preamble to the Brown Act:
"In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards,
and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's
business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations
be conducted openly."
"The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The
people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good
for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining
informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created."
The people reconfirmed that intent fifty years later at the November 2004 election by adopting Proposition 59, amending the California Constitution to include a public right of access to government information:
"The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's
business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and
agencies shall be open to public scrutiny."
While I may not prevail on this matter, I can assure you that to continue down this road will be very expensive and time consuming for the School District and will result in a significant amount of negative publicity - is it worth it, what are you hiding?
Please do the simple thing and rescind this closed session motion.
Peter F. Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Mar 17, 2010 at 11:15 am
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
an interesting footnote - the above email was rejected by the recipients server as I have been blacklisted by the school district's email server. A very interesting response given their stated interest in citizen input.
I suggest that those of you who are so motivated might send them the above message with whatever comments you wish.
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Mar 17, 2010 at 11:34 am
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
Dear School Board members,
The below email was sent to you from my normal gmail address and was uniformly rejected with the comment - The error that the other server returned was: 554 554 5.7.1 Blacklisted by dbl.spamhaus.org. The same email has been sent to you from another of my email addresses and was accepted.
Clearly you have decided that you do NOT want citizen input. I am amazed at your arrogance.
I also think you may end up getting copies from other citizens who share my outrage at your behavior.
a resident of Woodside: other
on Mar 17, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Regardless of whether you feel the SUHSD board of trustees is doing a good job or not, voters must certainly be concerned that the board lacks transparency. There is no reason they needed to hold a general discussion about the boundaries of a job search behind closed doors.
Our community deserves better and I call upon the trustees to override their attorney's opinion when these recommendations are made. We elected you, not your attorney. The attorney works for you. Elected officials should ALWAYS error on the side of sunshine.
Voters should remember this little episode when Trustees Gibson, Martinez and Rumley stand for re-election in November 2011. We pay the bills and we deserve transparency from our TRUSTees.
a resident of Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Mar 17, 2010 at 1:00 pm
C'mon Peter, give it a rest. Is this THAT big of an issue?? There are so many other much larger problems and concerns right now with school budgets, city budgets etc. What is costing us taxpayers more, the decision to keep the selection process in-house, or the ridiculous benefits, pensions and salaries that you helped approve during your tenure on the Fire District Board? Seriously.
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Mar 17, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Secrecy in local government trumps ALL other issues. If they operate in secret then we cannot trust whatever they do or say.
a resident of another community
on Mar 17, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Right on, POGO! And my sincere compliments and gratitude to Peter. Anyone reading this string of posts, I encourage you to email the Trustees as Peter suggested - I have. The real issue here is a school board that feels no obligation to the public it serves. This has been a long standing issue under Gemma, and it will be perpetuated unless something changes. Unfortunately, none of the trustee positions come up for election until 11/11. Too long to wait. To C'mon Peter, and others that are only thinking of this in terms of the specific issue of the replacement search, it is a big deal! This school district NEVER asks for public input on any issue if it doesn't HAVE TO. That is B.S.
a resident of Woodside: other
on Mar 17, 2010 at 7:50 pm
C'mon Peter makes a reasonable point and I could actually overlook this issue if it weren't for the fact that the SUHSD has done this MANY times before.
When asked about specific budgets, cost overruns at performing arts centers, student statistics like drop out rates and test scores, the district consistently refuses to disclose details.
This is what happens when there is a culture that "they" know better than the public... the trustees resort to their old ways even when the issues are relatively inconsequential. They like their secrets.
I will write to the trustees expressing my disgust for their lack of transparency. But I plan to show my full contempt by supporting their opponents in the fall 2011 elections.
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Mar 17, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Actually, I don't really care about whether the board made the decision to limit their search in closed session. What I care about is the outcome, and I think it severely damages the credibility of the new Superintendent if they have not been selected through a full search. Going through a full search would ensure that the district is selecting a person with full knowledge that he/she is their best option. And it is also best for the person selected so that he/she doesn't always have a question mark hanging over their head. The internal candidate that is being fast-tracked into this job is being set up to fail if they are selected in a process where people will always question whether he was really the best person for the job.
a resident of another community
on Mar 18, 2010 at 8:35 am
Another View--you make an excellent point, BUT, this Board (with the exception of Thomsen) has consistently demonstrated that THEY DON'T CARE. Now, given the latest announcement about the appointment of the new superintendent last evening, its obvious to me that he doesn't care either. I have to give credit where it is due, Gemma did a masterful job of creating an empire that can be sustained--who wants to bet that his influence will end on June 30th?
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 18, 2010 at 8:41 am
Another View, I believe we should care about the outcome AND the process, because if public agencies flout the law that is meant to ensure transparency and public participation, what kind of trust can we have in them? And I firmly believe, based on much familiarity with the Brown Act, that the district and our elected officials did indeed violate the law when it made its decision to limit the search in closed session.
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 18, 2010 at 9:12 am
Oh, ok, so the board didn't violate the Brown Act because they were discussing a specific employee -- in this case, whether the heir apparent should be anointed to the throne. But don't we members of the public have any input as to whether there should be a search or not?
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Mar 18, 2010 at 9:47 am
I hope now everyone understands why challenging the first closed session motion's legality was and is so important. This Board is operating totally behind closed doors on a matter that has profound implications for the community and there has been NO public input on this decision.
I urge everyone to speak out on this issue and demand that this appointment be withdrawn until there is the opportunity for public input.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Mar 18, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Instead of continually critiquing and crippling the decisions of school districts, please, please oh please find a volunteer effort where you can put your energies, skill and time into. Maybe one where you might make a welcomed difference? Sitting behind a keyboard 24/7 and playing unsolicited advocate for "others" who are not asking of your opinion is so hard for the public to watch. It's especially concerning when you are now wasting the time and money of our schools which need all time focused and money carefully managed. Find a cause to support that is looking for your time and support. Or find a life. please. That alone would be a community service.
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Mar 18, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Posted by to Mr. Carpenter:"Find a cause to support that is looking for your time and support. Or find a life. please. That alone would be a community service."
Obviously you do not know that I served 8 1/2 years as an elected Director of your Fire District, that I am currently the President of the Atherton Civic Interest League and that I have spent more than 20 years in various forms of public service.
Your qualifications please.
a resident of another community
on Mar 18, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Peter, please don't go there! You didn't ask for it, your certainly do not need it, and you may not even welcome it, but your going to get it--my defense of your efforts on this issue or any other. Peter Carpenter, while I disagree with him on issues from time to time and have debated such issues in this forum, does not deserve anything but praise for his interest in issues of importance to the community/county/district. He has put his name, reputation, time and money into supporting those things he believes are important. Please, if you are a reasonable and interested person, disagree with Peter on this or any other issue that comes along, but please don't waste his time or ours, who have to read your crap, trying to cloud issues with personal attacks. Peter, on a personal note, I only wish I was in a position to share your passion (and I still disagree with you about fire sprinkler regulations).
Almanac staff writer
on Mar 18, 2010 at 5:19 pm
David Boyce is a registered user.
The governing board of the Sequoia Union High School District did seek community opinion as it worked through the process of seeking candidates to replace the outgoing Patrick Gemma.
The district posted a questionnaire on the web site on Monday, Feb. 22, and kept it up until Friday, March. 5. (Note that the board decided in closed session on Feb. 24 to limit the search to district employees only.)
The questionnaire results are available in paper format from the district office. They will not be available online from the district, as spokeswoman Bettylu Smith explained in response to my e-mail asking if they would be posted anywhere.
"As mentioned in my cover letter to you last week, the questionnaire was developed expressly for the trustees as part of their search for a new superintendent (as one means of informing that decision). Trustees are grateful to those who took the time to complete the questionnaire, and the responses and comments are being considered by the trustees as the search process progresses. The reports will be made available upon request."
The questionnaire is from 2003 and used during the recruitment of Mr. Gemma.
I am making arrangements to get the results ready for online posting in connection with a story that will go up at The Almanac's web site shortly.
Here is an excerpt from my story:
The bulk of the survey was 13 multiple-choice criteria. Respondents were asked to rate a candidate's view of priorities as either very important, somewhat important, or not too important.
The results showed 12 of the 13 items as "very important," including:
â– "Sustain and improve the performance of ALL students while closing the gap between higher and poorer achieving students." Very-important rating: 83 percent.
â– "Value and capitalize upon diversity in the schools and community as s/he addresses the unique needs of an ethnically, culturally and socio-economically diverse student body." Very-important rating: 53 percent.
â– "Address the multi-faceted issues associated with charter schools in an objective manner." Very-important rating: 68 percent.
Some respondents found this tedious, with one person writing: "All the questions are leading -- 'How important is it for the (superintendent) to do a good job on everything within their job description?'"
Said another: "I don't get it. How will this line of questioning be useful?"
That line of questioning is balanced by items asking for open-ended responses, Sequoia board President Olivia Martinez said in an interview. One part is quantitative and the other qualitative and, lacking a better method, the board uses the results as it may, she said.
The multiple choice items "reaffirm that there a consensus in the community as to the importance of what these things are," she said. "In a democracy, nothing is perfect."
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Mar 18, 2010 at 5:34 pm
David Boyce reports:"The district posted a questionnaire on the web site on Monday, Feb. 22, and kept it up until Friday, March. 5. (Note that the board decided in closed session on Feb. 24 to limit the search to district employees only.)"
Unfortunately,this process involved no outreach to the community encouraging participation, no online posting of the results, and no discussion of the option of inside vs outside candidates.
More important, it is very clear that the Board had already selected the new superintendent long before the closing date of this so called survey.
The survey was a cover story, a diversion and a sham.
The Brown Act does NOT recognize surveys as an acceptable means of allowing the public to be heard on a pending public decision. There is only ONE legally acceptable method - put the decision on a posted agenda and permit public comment in open session. The School Board made both the decision to restrict the search to inside candidates (illegally in a Closed Session) and the choice of a new superintendent (permitted in a Closed Session but by no means required)in Closed Sessions.
Here is what the Attorney General's Office says about public comment on Closed Session items:
- Every agenda for a regular meeting shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to DIRECTLY ADDRESS the legislative body on any item under the subject matter jurisdiction of the body.
- With respect to any item which is already on the agenda, or
in connection with any item which the body will consider pursuant to the exceptions contained in section 54954.2(b) )i.e. in Closed Session), the public MUST be given the opportunity to comment before or during the legislative body's consideration of the item. (§ 54954.3(a).)
What is not clear about the law???
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Mar 18, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Personally whether the letter of the law was broken or not, it's pretty clear the spirit of the law was. The goal is transparency and accountabililty and it is an unfortunate reflection of the state of government that it requires a law to try to get our elected officials to do the right thing. To continually improve our society requires an informed an engaged electorate. I can think of few topics more important than education and yet here we have a Board that appears to want to rule rather than govern. We deserve better. Peter, I have no idea about whether your legal position has any merit or not, but I appreciate that youare willing to spend your time on this issue as SUHSD BoT needs to know they can't continue business as usual. These are the same people who are going to come back and say they need more money and to trust them. Trust is earned and they have not earned mine.
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Mar 18, 2010 at 6:02 pm
I just saw the postings relating to the "survey". Things really don't add up. It looks as if the survey was almost an afterthought. How could it really be of use if a major decision was made two days into the survey? Aside from what sound like poor questions, the sampling would have to be suspect, hence the conclusions are perhaps even less valid than those from a Fox News poll. At least those are described up front as non-scientific.
The other thing that gets me about the wording is the presumtive language: "closing the gap between higher and poorer achieving students". Presumably lowering the scores of high achieving students would lower the gap, but that's not really what we want is it? How about all of us being in favor of improving the achievement of lower achieving students and improving the acievment of all students?
This whole process stinks!
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 5, 2010 at 1:34 pm
990 Marsh Road I Menlo Park, CA 94025-1949
650-815-2600 office I 650-815-2601 fax www.sheppardmullin.com
James M. Chadwick
Writer's Direct Line: 650-815-2605
[email protected]
April 5, 2010
President Olivia Martinez
Members of the Board of Trustees
Sequoia Union High School District
Board of Trustees
480 James Avenue
Redwood City, CA 94062
tel. (650) 369-1411
fax. (650) 306-8870
Re: Board of Trustees Meetings on February 24, 2010, and March 17, 2010
Appointment of a New Superintendent
Dear President Martinez and Members of the Board of Trustees:
I am writing on behalf of Atherton and District resident Peter Carpenter to request
that the Board of Trustees ("the Board") cure and correct two actions: the Board's February 24
decision, made during a closed-session discussion, to limit the search for a new superintendent to
employees of the Sequoia Union High School District ("the District"), and the Board's March 17
appointment of James Lianides as the District's new superintendent. Mr. Carpenter requests that
both actions be rescinded, and that any and all future actions with respect to the hiring of a
superintendent be taken in strict compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.
The Board's February 24 closed-session discussion violated the Ralph M. Brown
Act (Government Code section 54950, et seq., hereafter the "Brown Act"). In particular, that
discussion violated Government Code sections 54953 and 54957.
On February 24, the Board convened in a closed session to discuss the search for
a new superintendent. The Board apparently considered the relative merits of internal candidates
for the superintendent job. The Board went beyond that, however, to discuss the broader policy
issue of whether to limit the superintendent search to District employees, or to look beyond the
President Olivia Martinez
Members of the Board of Trustees
Sequoia Union High School District
Board of Trustees
April 5, 2010
Page 2
District. For this second discussion, the Board remained in closed session – an action which
exceeds the Brown Act's narrow exception for personnel matters.
The personnel exception, Government Code section 54597, permits closed
sessions to "consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance or dismissal of a
public employee." The exception is to be construed "strictly and narrowly." (San Diego Union
v. City Council (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 947, 954.) It therefore plainly does not permit policy
discussions which go beyond the "appointment, employment, evaluation. . . or dismissal" of a
particular employee. (See, e.g., Santa Clara Federation of Teachers v. Governing Board (1981)
116 Cal.App.3d 831; 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen 153 (1980).) The Board's discussion of the broad
policy issue of whether to limit its search to insiders exceeds this narrow exception.
As all members of the Board well know, the Sequoia Union High School District
Superintendent holds a position of considerable power and importance in the community. The
position oversees the education of more than 8,000 students, and steers a large organization with
an annual budget of more than $100 million. The person who holds this position wields
enormous influence. More importantly, he or she holds a position of public trust. The
fundamental and critical decision of how to go about finding the best person for this job is
precisely the sort of decision the California Legislature intended to be conducted in the open.
The fundamental premise of the Brown Act is that "[t]he people, in delegating
their authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to
know and what is not good for them to know." (Brown Act, section 54950.) By excluding the
public from the decision-making process, the Board has shrouded in secrecy an important policy
discussion that should have been exposed to the light of day. Your decision to conduct secret
deliberations on an important policy decision—i.e., the decision not to conduct a search that
might have produced more highly accomplished and qualified candidates for the most critical
position in the District not only violates the Brown Act, but contravenes its central purpose: to
ensure public awareness of and participation in such decisions. Furthermore, this critical
appointment was made without the public even knowing who the candidate was before the
decision was made, thereby depriving all concerned of the opportunity for public comment on
his qualifications.
Therefore, Mr. Carpenter respectfully requests that the Board take immediate
action to cure and correct those violations by rescinding the decision to conduct an internal
search, by rescinding the appointment of Mr. Lianides, and by ensuring that any future actions
with regard to the hiring of a superintendent are made in accordance with the Brown Act.
Finally, the Board should take all necessary steps to ensure that hard-copy and electronic
documents or records relating to the search for a new superintendent are preserved, including
President Olivia Martinez
Members of the Board of Trustees
Sequoia Union High School District
Board of Trustees
April 5, 2010
Page 3
electronic communications or records that might otherwise be erased or expunged by automated
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to your prompt
response, as required by the Brown Act.
Don't miss out
on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Post a comment
Get fact-based reporting on the COVID-19 crisis sent to your inbox daily.
Palo Alto's Mayfield Bakery & Cafe permanently closes after 11-year run
By Elena Kadvany | 18 comments | 15,036 views
City staff is running Palo Alto
By Diana Diamond | 24 comments | 3,166 views
Couples: Are you Committed to your Vows or Dysfunction?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,479 views
Kids and sugar: A cautionary tale
By Sherry Listgarten | 9 comments | 1,393 views
Preparing for School
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 530 views


text:
WiMoSpeed lets you change the CPU-speed. In opposite to other tools, even to the predecessor OverClockTool (OCT), it manipulates the values WM uses for clock control. So it works reliable on battery and AC without any scripting or active components.
Windows Mobile Pocket PC 5 , 6 , 6.1
.NET Compact Framework 3.5


text:
Comprehensive Plan Update community workshops spur thoughtful discussions
During February and March, Portlanders attended seven community workshops to learn about and discuss the Comprehensive Plan Update goals and policies. In schools and community centers around the city, community members engaged with City staff and neighbors through interactive exercises and conversations about housing, transportation, urban design, infrastructure investments, growth scenarios, economic development, watershed health and industrial land supply.
Developing a comprehensive plan requires many conversations between community members, staff, technical experts and stakeholders. We're fortunate to have such highly engaged and committed participants and partners in the process, ensuring that the final product will be reflective of Portlanders' values and vision.
Policy Survey and Online Commenting
Portland's existing Comprehensive Plan was developed in the 1970s and adopted in 1980, when the city's primary concern was revitalizing downtown. But the 1980 plan doesn't mention watershed health, climate change or equity … major issues facing Portland today. These and other concerns around housing and jobs are complex and many layered, requiring thoughtful consideration and broad input from Portland's many different communities and interest groups.
To help address these issues and answer some larger questions, the project team developed a policy survey . Feedback from the survey will help staff refine the goals and policies in the Working Draft Part 1. Staff have been using the survey questions to prompt discussions at the workshops and other group settings, and solicit valuable input about the community's many preferences and opinions.
So far, nearly 300 people have filled out the survey online and another 200 have submitted comments via an online feedback form, correspondence and talking with City staff. Thank you to the hundreds of Portlanders who have taken the time to respond so thoughtfully.
The online survey is open until May 1. You can help us hit our goal of 500 responses by taking the survey here.
Other Outreach Efforts and Next Steps
Even if you missed the community workshops on the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, there are still several ways to get involved and share ideas about how and where the City should develop as it grows. In addition to the online survey, staff are meeting with several community groups each week, and will soon start tabling at community-wide events (e.g., Sunday Parkways, Portland Parks Summer Concert Series, street and community fairs) in the spring and summer. Feedback from the community during this time will help guide refinements to Part 1 as well as the upcoming land use maps in Part 2.
Coming next: Working Draft Part 2
Part 2 of the Comprehensive Plan Working Draft will be published in mid-summer. It will include a series of maps (including an updated Urban Design Framework, land use designations, etc.) and first drafts of the Citywide System Plan, including infrastructure project lists.
To prepare Working Draft Part 2, the City's District Liaisons will be talking with stakeholders during the spring to gather district-specific information, comments, preferences and ideas to shape draft maps and connect the policies with geographically specific mapping possibilities. For more information, please contact your District Liaison or call 503-823-7700.
In early fall, the City will hold another series of community workshops focused on mapping questions and infrastructure choices. The goal is to refine land use maps and infrastructure plans based on fall workshop input and publish a Proposed Draft Comprehensive Plan Map in December 2013, for Planning and Sustainability Commission and City Council consideration and discussion in early 2014.


text:
Ko Olina, Oahu, Hawaii (PRWEB) December 30, 2013
Ko Olina is offering exclusive room deals for those attending the Ko Olina Children's Film & Music Festival, Saturday, January 18, with special rates beginning at just $229 per night at JW Marriott Ihilani and $269 per night at Aulani, A Disney Resort & Spa. This Festival offer is valid for stays on January 17 and January 18 only (based on space availability). Luxury two- and three-bedroom residences at Ko Olina Beach Villas are also available from $350 per night (seven-night minimum).
Guests are encouraged to book early. For reservations:
- JW Marriott Ihilani Resort & Spa, 808-679-0079, Rate Code: LOCC
- Aulani, A Disney Resort, 407-939-4686 (8:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. EST), Group Code: G0650407
- Ko Olina Beach Villas, 877-333-3808, reference "Children's Film & Music Festival"
Restrictions may apply; rates are subject to change and availability
The Ko Olina Children's Film & Music Festival will include screenings of popular Disney and Hawaiian children's films, along with live performances by the Honolulu Theatre for Youth, Performing Arts Center of Kapolei Kids, Samadhi Hawaii and Disney characters, sing-alongs with Hawai'i's Sistah Robi Kahakalau, face painting, Hawaiian arts and crafts, strolling clowns & jugglers, magicians and a feature movie on the beach at sunset.
Festivities will be held beachfront at the resort's Kohola Lagoon and throughout the Aulani and JW Marriott Ihilani properties from 1:00 – 8:00 p.m. Tickets are $20 for adults; $10 for kids ages 4-12. For more information and to purchase tickets, visit http://www.koolinachildrensfestival.com.
The Ko Olina Children's Film & Music Festival is a benefit for Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children (KMCWC), Hawaii's leader in the care of women, infants and children. KMCWC is an affiliate of Hawai'i Pacific Health, the state of Hawaii's largest health care provider (http://www.kapiolani.org).
Guests of any of Ko Olina's luxury resorts will also have the opportunity to enjoy exciting outdoor activities and amenities including picturesque white sand swimming beaches, championship golf at Ko Olina Golf Club, snorkel and whale watching tours, a selection of popular restaurants and boutiques and more.
About Ko Olina
Ko Olina is a 642-acre master-planned resort community on the western shoreline of the Hawaiian island of Oahu. Resort partners include the iconic J.W. Marriott Ihilani Resort & Spa; Marriott's Ko Olina Beach Club, Marriott's most successful vacation club product in the world; Aulani, a Disney Resort & Spa, Disney's first family destination resort in HawaiiI; the Ko Olina Beach Villas luxury condominium residences; Ko Olina Golf Club and the state-of-the-art Ko Olina Marina. The resort, known as Oahu's most engaging visitor destination, also features four pristine oceanfront lagoons connected by 1.5 miles of shoreline pathways, access to a diverse selection of ocean and outdoor activities and the island's best weather. For more information, visit http://www.koolina.com.


text:
There are a number of glaringly obvious problems with this competition.
Right off the bat, I can tell you that there are candidates listed there who have not raised $5000, period. However, if they left out candidates who hadn't accomplished that yet, there would only be three candidates listed. I'll get to those candidates in a moment.
There is no indication how many individual contributions each candidate received, and the competition is not set up to gauge support in that manner. This is important for several reasons, not the least of which is that there is no way to tell if the candidates received contributions from others, or if all their funds came from them. While at first glance it would seem unethical for the candidates to contribute to themselves in a competition, since that normally would be viewed as rigging the results, there is in fact nothing stopping the candidates from using their own funds. The rules quite specifically state, "Donations from the candidates will be counted towards funds raised".
Given that three of the candidates have a great deal of money (specifically the ones sitting in the top three right now) there is absolutely no way for anyone to tell if those candidates simply contributed to themselves, though it definitely appears that they have done exactly that. Furthermore, allowing candidates to contribute to themselves places the wealthy candidates at an unfair advantage, and explains the current results.
The current frontrunners are Wayne Allyn Root, Mike Jingozian, and Daniel Imperato. However, I have seen no indication whatsoever that those three have any significant following. Quite the contrary, since all three have been subjected to a great deal of negative opinion from libertarians.
Imperato in particular is a candidate who has no discernible support, and his "press releases" are met with a great deal of laughter and derision, including from Yours Truly. Many others across the blogosphere have voiced their concern that Imperato may not be completely sane, though he does have enough money to rig the competition with ease. He is now in third place, undoubtedly due to contributing to himself.
Root is new to the LP, and even still has a website called "Millionaire Republican"; as a result he is viewed with suspicion, and is considered to be a Republican by most. Furthermore, Root is running on what is primarily a pro-gambling platform, since he is a Vegas oddsmaker. While libertarians believe gambling should not be illegal, one cannot run a presidential campaign on that stance alone, and some of his other ideas are hardly libertarian. For example, he is pro-war (and as a matter of fact, regularly uses his initials, which spell "WAR", in place of his name), whereas libertarians adopt a strict non-interventionist policy. Root is currently in first place, also undoubtedly due to contributing to himself.
Jingozian is simply not very well known. I recall reading his site back when his candidacy first came to my attention, and I got the distinct impression that his views are a cross between the Greens and the Libertarians. Few libertarians will support a fusion candidate. By necessity Green goals require governmental intrusion upon our property rights, whereas libertarians believe the government's only proper activity is to protect our rights. A successful businessman, Jingozian is in second place, also undoubtedly because he contributed to himself.
That the three wealthiest candidates – who have no chance of actually gaining widespread support among LP members – would appear to be winning was a completely foreseeable situation, given how the competition is designed; and it is inevitable that those candidates will contribute to themselves, then use that poll to falsely state they are a "frontrunner" in the race for the LP nomination. It is equally strange that, based on my own estimate of those candidates' personal wealth, they are in exactly the order I would expect.
That's a very serious problem, not only because misrepresentations about their own support among LP members might mislead people who are not already familiar with the candidates, but also because as discussed, those candidates who are winning have some decidedly un-libertarian ideas which will undoubtedly reflect very poorly on the LP as a whole.
This poll may also have a very strange effect on the Libertarian Convention. If delegates vote pursuant to what their constituents want, they cannot in good conscience ignore an official LP poll, especially since they may not realize that the wealthy candidates are contributing to themselves, as that information is not available on the same page as the competition. The actual rules are contained in a PDF file.
As much as I disapprove of the LP keeping the majority of the contributions for itself, and stipulating that the other 40% must be used to the LP's advantage, that does explain why they are allowing candidates to contribute to themselves since there are three wealthy candidates who would get little if any support otherwise.
Another matter of concern is that, according to the rules, the poll counts funds raised since each candidate announced their campaign, including any funds raised by an exploratory committee. That gives an advantage to candidates who announced early, though as it is that early advantage is canceled out by the wealthier candidates who contribute to themselves. Again, it is impossible to ascertain the amount of actual support each candidate has during the course of the competition, which negates any possible usefulness the competition might otherwise have.
Last but not least, even in a poll where actual money is involved, "None Of The Above" rated fourth (for those of you not familiar with the Libertarian Party, delegates can actually vote for NOTA rather than to nominate a candidate). Quite honestly, I think it's a very popular choice in this presidential election, and if not for the three wealthy candidates contributing to themselves, it would be ranked firmly in first place. NOTA is almost $2000 ahead of the next most popular candidate, which is "Future candidate"; in other words, those contributing to this competition (not counting the first three who are obviously contributing to themselves) by far prefer none of the candidates. NOTA and FC, if placed into one category as it should be, would be roughly equivalent to the current third-place competitor who contributed to himself, and firmly in first place if the three wealthy candidates were discounted due to contributing to themselves.
That says a lot.
Can the serious LP candidates overcome this negativity, based in a lack of excitement about the announced candidates, and a great deal of excitement about Ron Paul, who is running as a Republican? I honestly don't know, but I somehow doubt it. The LP may end up not nominating a presidential candidate for 2008.
_______________________Sources: Last Free Voice Libertarian Party Originally posted on Adventures In Frickintardistan


text:
IF SHIPPING OUTSIDE OF THE U.S. PLEASE Click Here
2016 Holiday Schedule
Fusible Links
Globe Technologies offers the most comprehensive selection of Fusible Links available today.
View our Fusible Links
Fusible Plugs
Globe Technologies offers a full range of Fusible Plugs manufactured and tested to the exacting standards of Underwriters Laboratories (UL).
View our Fusible Plugs
Fusible Valves
Globe Technologies is the industry-leading manufacturer of Fusible Valves, specifically designed to handle pneumatic applications.
View our Fusible Valves
Fusible Chains & Loops
Globe Technologies manufactured Fusible Chains & Loops extend the range of fusible release operation and allow for flexibility of installation.
View our Fusible Chains & Loops


text:
Haha that is kind of creepy - awesome find, and it looks really cool, too!
Here's the relevant settings if you want to try something similar:
Comp: 1280x720 @ 23.97fps
"Vortex Point" is at 0,0,0
Vortex point rotates 360 degrees every 10 seconds
Attach to layer: Vortex Point
Position 250,0,0
Trajectory: Random
Particle Systems: (there are two--identical except Particles per second, Particle Color and Particle Scale)
particles per second: 200 ish
Life: 10 seconds
Emitter Attachment 0
Velocity from Emitter: 100%
Speed: 0
Mass: 5.8
Cuboid, 2000px X, 2000 px Y, 500 px Z
Attraction, Strength 50%
I don't think anything else in the particle sim is relevant (Particle textures and colors can always be changed), but this combination of rotational inertia and attraction seems to form a stable star (I'd originally set mass from 0 to 7 and got a near-star. When I saw what was happening, I finessed the Mass to get it to line up right).
Also, if you keep everything else the same, but play around with the mass settings, you can get different shapes. I've gotten a triangle and an uneven 6-pointed star.
I'm keeping this in mind for next Halloween--Attach another particle sim to the same rig with no gravity and I can get the circle to make a full rotating 3D pentagram, and THAT, my friends, is gonna be part of next year's Hoot logo.
Changed size of the planet just before render, forgot to change the explosion emitter to match, so it's a bit off, but proof-of-concept established.
I'll probably do a VFX breakdown for this soon. Also will render another pass of the particle fleet flying by, because I have the individual ships far enough away from the camera where it's hard to tell that the saucers are actually rotating.
This looks like a great experiment - and with the changes you have suggested it would be a great scene. Are you going to do another version with the updated ideas because I'd love to see a VFX breakdown of that!
This looks like a great experiment - and with the changes you have suggested it would be a great scene. Are you going to do another version with the updated ideas because I'd love to see a VFX breakdown of that!
That's a neat idea. But the flyby is a little fast. I couldn't see much detail on the ships. But it made me think of DS9, when the Romulan/Cardassian fleet went to destroy the Founders home world.