As part of Energy Week at Notre Dame, the “Policy for a New Energy Future” forum was held in Washington Hall on Thursday night. This forum focused on both public and private solutions to energy problems and putting these problems in the context of a governmental framework.Bruce Huber, associate professor of law at Notre Dame, began the forum with a discussion of the legal context of energy policy. Huber said energy policy is not an easily-defined topic.“It is really hard to talk about energy policy because we don’t have anything resembling a unified energy policy in the United States,” Huber said. “’Policy’ conveys the idea of some sense of governmental control. It would be far more accurate to talk about energy ‘policies.’”According to Huber, this lack of a coherent policy is a result of the institution of private property, which is ingrained in our governmental and legal system.“There are these background principles of law that delve even as deep as our constitutional text,” Huber said. “[The principles] establish certain defaults on energy policy.”After Huber’s discussion, James Mueller, chief of staff for the City of South Bend, talked about energy policy from the public sector’s perspective.Mueller said there is little debate over the necessity of energy policy.“The central question of tonight is whether policy is needed,” Mueller said. “I would say fundamentally that policy is absolutely needed.”In discussing the successes of energy policy, Mueller pointed to the national energy bills of 2005 and 2007. These bills were passed with bipartisan support and introduced renewable fuel and energy efficiency standards.According to Mueller, “the policies that have traditionally driven energy policy are tax policies.” These policies, which include production tax credits for wind and investment tax credits for solar and wind power, provide the basis for governmental action relating to energy policy and limiting the carbon footprint of the United States, he said.The final speaker at the forum, vice president and treasurer of ExxonMobil Corporation Robert N. Schleckser, presented the private sector’s view on matters relating to energy policy.Schleckser stressed the middle ground that could be reached between government and private goals in achieving effective energy policy.“While [Mueller’s] description of the problem and mine will feel like they’re coming from two different angles, the objectives of the process are the same from his side of the picture and mine,” Schleckser said.Schleckser said market-based solutions are the most effective way to implement an energy policy which limits the carbon footprint yet still produces an efficient outcome. Schleckser said he supported a revenue-neutral carbon tax.“The point of a carbon tax should not be to raise additional government revenue.” Schleckser said. “[It is necessary to] offset other taxes from what you raise with the carbon tax.”According to Schleckser, “technology and market forces will cause the right choices to be made.”Despite the fact that “there is no silver bullet in energy policy,” Huber said there is optimism from both the public and private perspective that given time, the United States can create a coherent economic policy which benefits both parties.Tags: energy policy, energy policy forum, Energy Week
Share:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window) Photo: Myles Cullen / White HouseBETHESDA, Md. – President Donald Trump is heading to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center following a positive coronavirus test , according to White House pool reports.“President Trump remains in good spirts, has mild symptoms, and has been working throughout the day. Out of an abundance of caution, and at the recommendation of his physician and medical experts, the President will be working from the presidential offices at Walter Reed for the next few days. President Trump appreciates the outpouring of support for both he and the First Lady,” Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement.On Friday afternoon, Dr. Sean P. Conley, the physician to the president, said ” the President remains fatigued but in good spirits .President Trump received a received a single 8 gram dose of Regeneron’s polyclonal antibody cocktail , Dr. Conley said “as a precaution measure.” While the severity of Trump’s symptoms remain unknown, the positive test raises questions about what would happen if he were to become incapacitated due to the virus.John Hudak, a senior fellow and deputy director at the Brookings Institution’s Center for Effective Public Management, outlined some of the scenarios designed to protect the continuity of government in the event of a positive COVID-19 test in a research note published in July.“In an unfortunate scenario in which the president were to contract COVID-19 and need therapies such as a ventilator and/or the use of other therapies that would impair his cognitive abilities and/or abilities to communicate, there are a few procedures in place to deal with that situation,” Hudak said. For transparency, the Brookings Institute is a public policy nonprofit based in Washington, D.C.Vice President Mike Pence, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Chuck Grassley (who is president pro tempore, third in line for the presidency), and members of the cabinet would all need to be isolated from the president, said Hudak.Pence’s press secretary confirmed Friday morning that the vice president and his wife, Karen Pence, tested negative for the virus.If Trump’s treatment were to impair his ability to perform his duties, the president could invoke Section 3 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution.This would allow the vice president to become “acting president” until the president notifies the House and Senate that he is able to perform his duties once again.President Ronald Reagan invoked Section 3 in 1985 and President George W. Bush did so twice in 2002 and 2007, all for medical procedures.If Trump were to decline rapidly, ruling out the possibility of invoking Section 3, Hudak said Section 4 of the 25th Amendment would provide a solution to such a crisis.In that scenario, the vice president and a majority of the cabinet would send notice to the House and Senate “that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” This would also see the vice president assume the role of acting president until the president recovers.“While presidential incapacity would be a serious national situation, the government would be able to function in a largely uninterrupted way until the president is recovered,” Hudak said.
Chicago Mel B(Photo: Mike Windle/Getty Images) We’ll tell you what we want, what we really, really want! We told you “Scary Spice” is heading to the Great White Way; it has now been confirmed that Mel B is set to take on the role of the lady raking in the chips, Chicago’s Roxie Hart. Fresh face Veronica Dunne is currently playing Roxie through November 27. The America’s Got Talent judge will begin performances on December 28 and remain at the Ambassador Theatre through February 19.A chart-topping music artist, actress, author, TV host and entrepreneur, Mel B is currently starring on hit TV shows on three different continents (talk about a Spiceworld). In the U.S., she is a judge on NBC’s America’s Got Talent; she also hosts Lip Sync Battle U.K. and is a guest judge on Australia’s The X Factor. She made her Broadway debut in Rent in 2004, when she played Mimi.Chicago celebrates its 20th anniversary on the Great White Way on November 14. In addition to Dunne, the long-running revival currently stars Lana Gordon as Velma Kelly, Paul Alexander Nolan as Billy Flynn, Raymond Bokhour as Amos Hart, NaTasha Yvette Williams as Matron “Mama” Morton and R. Lowe as Mary Sunshine. Star Files Related Shows Mel B View Comments from $49.50
The second-quarter net income for Charter One Financial Inc rose to $166 million from $145.9 million a year ago. The increase is due in part by a 16% increase in retail banking revenue and increased mortgage business.Earnings rose 18% to 72 cents a share from 61 cents a share a yaer ago in the second quarter.The earnings-per-sharewere restated to reflect the 5% stock dividend that was issued September 30.The average annualized return on average assets was 1.5% and the average return on average equity was 19.86%.Charter One will increase its regular quarterly dividend by 2 cents, or 8%, to 26 cents a share from 24 cents last quarter. Charter one is also discontinuing its annual 5% stock dividend and said the cash dividend is in the better interest of stockholders.Charter One’s retail banking revenue was up 16.2% in the second quarter to $97.1 million from $83.5 million a year ago. Deposit-related revenue was a driver of the banking growth, as deposit revenue was up 18.9% to 84.9 million according to Charter One. Charter One said its plan to shift balances into noninterest-bearing products has accomplished its goal.Mortgage banking revenue, excluding mortgage servicing rights asset-related adjustments, was up 46.4% to $22.8 million from $15.6 million a year ago. The company has benefited from the continued record low interest rates.Charter One’s net gains of $108.5 million have been driven primarily by the sale of some $3.2 billion in mortgage-backed securities.As of June 30, Charter One has $206 million in nonperforming assets, or .81% of loans, leases and colateral owned.Charter One has raised its full year earnings guidance to between $2.72 and $2.75 a share based on the view that low interest rates will continue and that gians will remain at elevated levels for at least the next quarter. They had previously expected to earn $2.66 to $2.72 a share.Last year Charter One earned $577.7 million, or$2.45 a share.
The law must govern our courts June 1, 2005 Regular News The law must govern our courts Donald H. Partington Special to the News In the spirit of Law Day it is timely to address the most unfortunate venom that has recently been directed at the federal and state judiciaries arising out of the Terri Schiavo sadness. The current attack on judges reflects a serious lack of knowledge about the independence of the judiciary, which is a part of the fabric of our society, and of the rule of law that governs how judges decide cases.After Congress intervened in the judicial system by extending federal court jurisdiction to a single case that had already been thoroughly considered in the Florida judicial system and rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, to my knowledge no writer or speaker has addressed exactly what issues were presented to the U.S. district court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Considering issues A fundamental point that must be understood is that courts consider the issues they are asked to decide, and only those issues. They must then apply existing law and precedent to resolution of those issues as they would to any other similar issue, and be consistent about it.What were the issues that were presented to the federal courts after the passage of the recent special congressional act?First, the special congressional act gave jurisdiction to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to “hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain life.” Congress did not say that the court could determine whether the parents or the husband or the state court judge were right or wrong concerning the withdrawal of a feeding tube.This limited grant of jurisdiction initially prompted five claims by the parents of Theresa Schiavo claiming the violation of 14th Amendment, Due Process, Equal Protection and Freedom of Religion rights.Based on these claims, a temporary injunction was sought requiring the invasive procedure of reinserting the feeding tube pending a final determination of these claims.The district court judge was required by his oath of office to consider these claims; to apply the law applicable to each of these claims; and to follow long-standing decisional precedent concerning when, and under what circumstances, a temporary injunction may be issued. To obtain such an injunction there must be a showing of a substantial likelihood of success on the merits on at least one of the claims. The district court judge carefully analyzed each claim and found that based on existing case precedent there was actually no constitutional right that was implicated, or if implicated, violated. Concerning the ruling of the Florida state court judge which the district court judge was called upon to review, he stated plainly:“fulfilling his judicial responsibilities the judge was not transformed into an advocate merely because his rulings are unfavorable to a litigant.. .. [N]o federal constitutional right is implicated when a judge merely grants relief to a litigant in accordance with the law he is sworn to uphold and follow.”In rejecting each of the claims, the district court judge was required to find under established law it could not be said that ultimately the claimant would prevail on the merits of any of them. He so found. So, the district court judge had no choice but to deny the request for the injunction. The judge followed the law he was required to follow and concluded with confidence that he was following the law correctly, even though the court acknowledged and concluded: “This court appreciates the gravity of the consequences of denying injunctive relief. Even under these difficult and time strained circumstances, however, and notwithstanding Congress’ expressed interest in the welfare of Theresa Schiavo, this court is constrained to apply the law to the issues before it.”The district court judge went further, kept the door open for a second chance and said he would consider any other claims that might be timely presented. The decision was affirmed by a majority of a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that, after its own careful analysis, ended with this conclusion:“There is no denying the absolute tragedy that has befallen Mrs. Schiavo. We all have our own family, our own loved ones, and our own children. However, we are called upon to make a collective, objective decision concerning a question of law. In the end, and no matter how much we wish Mrs. Schiavo had never suffered such a horrible accident, we are a nation of laws, and if we are to continue to be so, the pre-existing and well-established federal law governing injunctions as well as Pub. L. No. 109-3 [the congressional act that gave the federal courts jurisdiction in the Schiavo case] must be applied in her case.”The invitation of the district court judge to consider other claims was accepted by the parents of Mrs. Schiavo, who amended the complaint to make five more claims. These new claims were based on claimed additional violations of the 14th Amendment and various federal statutes, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act.As to each of these claims, the district court was required to, and did carefully, analyze existing case law and the wording of the statutes to determine who had a right to make such claims; against what parties such claims can be asserted; whether the claims came under the statute or Constitution at all; and most importantly, whether there was a showing that the threshold for issuance of a preliminary injunction and its requirement of a showing of a substantial likelihood of success on the merits had been met on any one of the counts. The court could not so find and denied the claims.The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals panel, conducting its own careful analysis of these claims, also could find no support in law for them. The judge who had dissented to the first decision of the three-judge panel of judges agreed, stating as to these new claims: “I concur in the result for the reason that the plaintiffs have been unable to come forward in their second amended complaint with any new claims palpably alleging the denial of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Ill-conceived ‘fix’ The district court judge and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals judges thus decided the case by (1) addressing the issues presented, and (2) applying the existing law and precedent they were obligated to follow, and reached a decision that was not based on their personal judgment as to who was right or wrong in the dispute. They were not empowered to, and were not asked to, decide whether the parents or the husband had the right to make the life-and-death decision that captured the attention of the nation.Sadly, some of our national leaders, who should know better, have taken these decisions as the proof that will justify an ill-conceived and misguided attempt to do something to “fix” the judiciary in order that they might make the “right” decisions.Several years ago I had the privilege of visiting the Soviet Union with a group of American lawyers. We met with Russian lawyers as well as lawyers from all over the Soviet Union. In one of our meetings the topic of the need for an independent judiciary was discussed. At one point, an angry Russian lawyer stood up and bravely stated: “We will never have an independent judiciary in Russia until telephone rights are abolished.”We pressed him as to just what he meant by “telephone rights.”He told us that it was the right of the local Communist Party official to call up a judge and tell the judge how the case should be decided in accordance with the party line. Stunned by such an aberrant concept, the American lawyers looked at each other and silently expressed their personal and communal appreciation for the independence of the judiciary so well embedded in our country.Those who advocate “fixing” decisions of judges that are not in agreement with the outcome an American party official determines should be the correct outcome, rather than one based on law and precedent, must understand that what they propose is nothing more and nothing less than the institution of telephone rights in America; this would be destructive of our judicial system that, warts and all, has served this country and its people with majesty and justice while giving the people reasonable assurance that the judgment in their case will, in the end, be based on the law and not the personal feeling of the judge or some political functionary.Our courts and judges must decide only the issues presented to them based on the law they must follow. To do otherwise would be to violate their oath of office.Judge-bashing ill serves us all and demeans and diminishes our rights under the Constitution and laws of this country. More important, it causes disrespect for the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary enshrined in our Constitution and accepted by our people for more than 200 years. Donald H. Partington is a senior member of the law firm Clark Partington Hart Larry Bond & Stackhouse in Pensacola.
I was not in the industry when credit unions pulled off one of the great lobbying feats in modern history and got Congress to pass the Credit Union Membership Access Act. By getting Congress to overturn a Supreme Court decision, credit unions were allowed to grow. Without its passage, membership restrictions would have continued to strangle the industry to death.Today, we are at another crossroads. We may not have a Supreme Court decision to rally around, but what we do have is an increasingly antiquated legal structure that, if not fundamentally altered in the next few years, could once again strangle the industry.What I’m talking about, of course, are Fields of Membership restrictions designed in an age when banking was limited to geographically defined communities and workers gathered in factories and buildings where they needed to be able to deposit and cash their paychecks on a Friday night. Today, paychecks are automatically deposited, checks are deposited remotely, bills are paid online and loans from anywhere in the country are a click away. The modern day financial institution is morphing from a brick and mortar location into a virtual platform. Fewer and fewer members are going to care about or understand FOMs and they are not about to give their local credit union a hometown discount.Fortunately, many people already realize this fact. The NCUA Board has an FOM Taskforce and at a recent meeting members Metzger and McWatters mused excitedly about the possibility of expanding the reach of credit unions by reinterpreting regulations to reflect modern realities.This is a great start, but NCUA can only stretch its regulations so far to accommodate greater flexibility. Community credit unions are limited by Congress to well-defined “local” communities. There are already credit unions serving associations and occupations on a national level, but as NCUA made clear by recently tightening associational membership requirements, associations are not the gateway to the type of charter flexibility all credit unions need.There is no other option but to start the long hard slog of advancing legislation to reshape the federal charter in a way that gives credit unions greater flexibility to serve a larger scope of members. Impossible, you say? In the immortal words of Rocco Lampone, the go-to henchman for the Corleone family, this would be difficult not impossible. Besides, the industry really has no choice.First, we have a good argument on our side. No financial institution should have to compete in a 21st century world with a charter designed almost eighty years ago. Second We have the advantage of viable state charters to prod Congress to act. It’s not a coincidence that NCUA is taking up FOM reform just as states like New York pass legislation giving credit unions greater flexibility to mix and matc FOMs. If federal law isn’t changed, more and more credit unions are going to have the option of flipping to friendlier state charters.One final thing for credit unions to keep in mind is that income inequality is getting more and more attention. All of the announced presidential candidates agree that income inequality is a problem even if they vehemently disagree about how to be deal with it. Our politicians need to be reminded that, in an age of squeezed incomes when every cent really does matter, consumers need access to the cost effective financial products offered by credit unions and credit unions need easier access to consumers.Difficult? Yes but not impossible. 3SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr,Henry Meier As General Counsel for the New York Credit Union Association, Henry is actively involved in all legislative, regulatory and legal issues impacting New York credit unions. Whether he’s joining … Web: www.nycua.org Details
In many ways, society is now looking at the curtain rising on a post-coronavirus environment. Most states are in some stage of gradual reopening, retail entities (restaurants, shopping, financial institutions, etc.) are following suit and the general economy is showing at least a few positive early signs of recovery.Your credit union has likely been operating under some kind of modified member experience delivery model for the last several months. However, as the reopening continues, while many things will return to what we call “normal,” others will not. One of these is the level of service consumers expect from retail providers. This absolutely applies to credit unions as retail entities, as well.According to information from the American Customer Satisfaction Index, “Consumers will get better service after the coronavirus crisis.” Consumers’ trust, your members’ trust, is critical, with 62% of respondents in a recent study indicating brands must play a pivotal role in addressing post-coronavirus economic and societal changes. Even more compelling, 55% of consumers say brands are responding more quickly and effectively than the government and 71% say if they perceive a brand places profit over people, they will lose trust in that brand forever.Forever. Let that sink in. Brands are forever, including the brand of your credit union and the way it ensures the delivery of consistently excellent member service.Credit unions did an amazing job rising to the challenges stemming from the pandemic, from operations and logistics to leadership and human resources (care of/for employees). Members came to us in a time of challenge and we were there for them. As the murky waters of coronavirus recede, however, credit unions cannot go back to “business as usual.” Members will continue to expect more from brands, including their credit union. What can your credit union do now to ensure it continues delivering this high rate of member experience delivery and not lose ground in the post-pandemic environment? Here are three growth opportunities to consider.TrainingNow is not the time to take your foot off the pedal when it comes to investing in brand and member experience training. As noted above, your members will expect even higher levels of wow-factor service from your staff as the virus passes. Pulling back now is like promising to take your kids to Disney World but instead taking the highway exit for the Antique Washing Machine Museum instead (yes, it’s a real place and no offense meant if antique washing machines are your thing).Adam Stewart, VP of Marketing with Belco Community Credit Union (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) said of the virtual member experience training his team conducted while the credit union operated under pandemic restrictions:“Remembering why we established the brand vision and why we are so focused on our internal culture, we didn’t want to lose sight of what we worked so hard to build. We’ve had great success with our overall member and employee experience as well as positive results from member satisfaction surveys. We realized we had to keep the brand vision and what we built with our member experience investment in front of staff so they, in turn, remember why we’re here and the foundation we built to better serve our members.”The world after coronavirus provides the opportunity to fine-tune and recommit to the investment in employee training. Don’t miss out.CommunicationCommunicate. Communicate. Communicate. Members will continue to rely on your credit union for enhanced communication on all fronts. This includes any modifications to the member service experience due to the virus (changed hours, social distancing, reduced lobby capacity, etc.). By all means, keep pressing ahead with your marketing and brand messages. This also applies to discussions about products and services (yes, cross-sales). Now is not the time to stop talking about the amazing benefits your products and services can provide in the lives of your members. If anything, in a sincere, unique and member-centric way, talk about them more. You do your members a disservice by not communicating these things.Ron Belle, President/CEO of AmeriCU (Rome, New York) said of the communication and member relationship dynamic while operating under pandemic conditions:“We believe that long-term relationships are the backbone of our brand and proactively reinforcing those relationships differentiates us from our competitors. Our members seem to agree. Across the organization, everyone quickly mobilized with an ‘all hands on deck’ mentality. It was exactly what you’d hope to see; a strong reminder to me that our brand, our brand promise and our commitment to each other as well as our communities is just who we are.”The world after coronavirus provides the opportunity to fine-tune and recommit to member communication and relationships. Don’t miss out.StewardshipCredit unions have always placed people over profits. That’s a key tenet of our industry and has been for over a century. It’s always mattered and matters now more than ever. Take a quick peek five paragraphs above for a refresher as to why. Post-coronavirus consumer sentiment says that 71% of your members will lose trust in your brand forever, if they perceive your brand placing profit over people. Let them know the many ways, both on individual levels and credit union-wide, that you are helping the people and communities you serve. The world after coronavirus provides the opportunity to fine-tune and recommit to advancing the message of credit union stewardship. Don’t miss out.In the classic film The Shawshank Redemption, the character Andy Dufresne reminds us “Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things and no good thing ever dies.” After months of pandemic clouds, the skies are clearing and your credit union stands as a beacon of hope for its members. Don’t let them down. Work now to not merely ensure your credit union’s post-pandemic recovery but boldly look at accelerating its relevancy and growth. 2SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr,Mark Arnold Mark Arnold is an acclaimed speaker, brand expert and strategic planner helping businesses such as credit unions and banks achieve their goals with strategic marketing insights and energized training. Mark … Web: www.markarnold.com Details
Apr 4, 2005 (CIDRAP News) – Sanofi Pasteur has won a $97 million federal contract to develop cell-culture technology for making influenza vaccines and to design a facility to use this technology to make a pandemic flu vaccine, federal officials have announced.Flu vaccines are currently grown in chicken eggs, a process that takes at least 6 months. Several companies have been experimenting with ways to grow vaccines in mammalian or other cells, in the hope of speeding up the process. The chance that H5N1 avian flu could lead to a human flu pandemic has stimulated these efforts.In the Apr 1 contract announcement by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said, “This action begins the process of speeding up influenza vaccine production, improving surge capacity and scaling up U.S. manufacturing capability.”Under the 5-year contract, Sanofi Pasteur (formerly Aventis Pasteur) will develop inactivated flu vaccines using human cells and manufacture enough doses for clinical trials, the HHS statement said. Sanofi was the main supplier of inactivated flu vaccine for the US market in the 2004-05 flu season.”In addition, Sanofi Pasteur will develop plans for a U.S. manufacturing facility capable of producing at least 300 million doses of a pandemic influenza vaccine using this technology,” HHS said.The statement said it takes nearly 9 months to make currently licensed flu vaccines. After health agencies select the three viral strains they think will be most common in the coming flu season, the strains must be adapted to grow in eggs. The adapted virus strains are injected separately into millions of fertilized eggs, which are then incubated. Finally the viruses are harvested from the eggs, killed, and blended into a vaccine that includes all three strains.HHS cited several advantages of using cell-culture technology to make flu vaccines. Viruses don’t need to be adapted to grow in eggs, and manufacturers can freeze cells in advance and then thaw and grow them in large volumes in the event of a shortage or pandemic. Also, the method is safe from certain risks associated with egg-based production, such as the chance of eggs being contaminated by various poultry diseases. Finally, cell-based vaccines could be used by people who can’t receive the currently licensed vaccines because they are allergic to eggs.The HHS announcement didn’t suggest how fast it would be possible to produce vaccines with cell-culture technology or how soon Sanofi might have a vaccine ready for clinical trials. HHS officials could not be reached in time to provide more information for this report.According to a Washington Post report published last November, officials at several companies that are developing cell-based flu vaccine technology said the production process would take about 5 months, shortening the conventional process by about a month.In November 2004 HHS awarded a contract to Sanofi Pasteur to ensure a year-round supply of eggs for flu vaccine production. The government also has awarded contracts in the past year to develop and test a human flu vaccine based on the H5N1 avian flu virus.See also:Apr 1 HHS announcementhttp://archive.hhs.gov/news/press/2005pres/20050401.htmlNov 9, 2004, HHS announcement of contract to provide egg supplies for flu vaccine productionhttp://archive.hhs.gov/news/press/2004pres/20041109a.html
GREENSBURG, Ind. – Decatur County Emergency Management has been awarded two separate grants from the Indiana Department of Homeland Security totaling more than $28,500.The grants were both competitive in nature and will provide further emergency equipment enhancements in Decatur County.The agency was granted $20,000 to enhance disaster communications.Decatur County EMA Director Robert Duckworth said, “During the tornado that affected Henryville and Holton in 2012 the States’ radio towers were affected and portable repeaters were needed to relay voice communication.“Greensburg experienced an overload of voice communications on regular channels during the 2011 tornado and both these situations were used a factual basis for the need explanation to Homeland Security.”This funding will support the repeater to relay communications and a 50 foot tower that will be mounted to EMA’s Emergency Response Vehicle so the communications need can be addressed anywhere in Decatur County.The second award in the amount of $8,486 will enhance the emergency operations center which also serves as a training facility for public safety agencies.Over the past five years the Department of Homeland Security has provided grants to enhance the operations center to better equip the county to organize people and resources during a disaster.This grant was awarded based on a competitive score from an assessment by Indiana Homeland Security Staff, with 90 of 92 Counties receiving funding.
INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. — A new scholarship is available for anyone wanting to go into teaching.The Next Generation Teacher Scholarship was created to help the next generation of Hoosier teachers pay for college.The State of Indiana will provide 200 scholarships each year to high-achieving high school and college students interested in pursuing a career in education.The scholarship pays $7,500 per year for up to four years to students who commit to teaching in Indiana after graduation.How to apply:Review the sample application and nomination procedures.Complete a nomination form and include it in the online application.Complete the online application for the Next Generation Teacher Scholarship before December 31, 2016 for the 2017-18 academic year.Submit a complete and corrected FAFSA. Please allow 5-7 business days for processing.The deadline for submitting the 2017-18 Next Generation Hoosier Educators Scholarship application is Dec. 31, 2016.Visit IN.gov/CHE for more information.