Michael Mitchell is among the rookies who recently got a real estate license to enter the trade. The Boston resident, a 30-year veteran of the restaurant industry, thought his customer-service skills would be helpful as an agent, but he has yet to land a single deal. The pandemic’s limiting of in-person interactions has not helped.“I’ve learned some aspects of the business, but it’s hard to connect with people…that you’ve never met,” he told the Journal.According to NAR, which represents the majority of active residential real estate agents and brokers in the U.S., the number of agents goes up and down with the housing market. In October 2006, shortly before the housing bubble burst, NAR membership reached 1.37 million. The number plunged to around 960,000 in March 2012 but has been increasing ever since.Nick Bailey, chief customer officer at Re/Max Holdings, told the Journal that a spike in number is partly because entry into the industry is relatively easy.“But the barriers to success are very high,” he said.[WSJ] — Akiko MatsudaContact Akiko Matsuda (iStock/Illustration by Alexis Manrodt for The Real Deal)For-sale home inventory is shrinking in the hot housing market, but the number of residential real estate agents is rising.Just 1.04 million homes were on the market at the end of January, down by 26 percent from a year ago. The figure is the lowest on record since 1982, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing the National Association of Realtors. In the same month, the NAR had 1.45 million members, up 4.8 percent.Read moreA housing “cattle call” as sleepy markets spring to lifeMore Americans are buying homes in Tel AvivBubble trouble? Canada’s hot housing market raises concern Full Name* Message* Share via Shortlink Email Address* Tags Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare via Email Share via Shortlink KnotelNewmarkWeWork
Attorney General Curtis Hill announced that Indiana has joined the United States, the District of Columbia and other states in settling two qui tam (whistleblower) lawsuits against Walgreens Boots Alliance (Walgreens).The agreements resolve allegations that Walgreens knowingly engaged in fraudulent over-dispensing of insulin pens to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries and billed Medicaid for certain prescription drugs at rates higher than its usual and customary rates. Walgreens, headquartered in Deerfield, Ill., and incorporated in Delaware, operates the largest retail pharmacy chain in the United States with 8,309 locations across all 50 states.Attorney General Hill, through his office’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, participated in the investigations and negotiations leading to these settlements.“It is troubling, to say the least, whenever companies overcharge the Medicaid program through fraudulent or otherwise improper tactics,” Attorney General Hill said. “Many Hoosiers find such conduct especially disconcerting when it comes from well-established companies they have come to know and trust. My staff and I are totally committed to holding businesses accountable whether they are large or small, known or unknown. Safeguarding the funds that are meant to provide health care to the neediest Hoosiers is one of our highest priorities.”Insulin Pens SettlementUnder the Insulin Pens Settlement, Walgreens will pay the United States and the states $209.2 million. Of this amount, $89.1 million will go to the state Medicaid programs to resolve civil allegations that Walgreens’ unlawful over-dispensing of insulin pens caused false claims to be submitted to the Medicaid health care programs. As part of the settlement, Indiana Medicaid will receive $2.9 million in restitution and another recovery.The investigation resulted from a qui tam action alleging that from Jan. 1, 2006, through Dec. 31, 2017, Walgreens knowingly over-dispensed insulin pens and overbilled government programs in violation of the federal False Claims Act and similar state statutes.Pursuant to the settlement, Walgreens admitted to programming its computer system to define a full box of five insulin pens as the minimum dispensing package size. This definition prevented Walgreens pharmacists from being able to dispense fewer than five pens even though a patient’s prescription called for fewer pens than a box of five. Thus, Walgreens repeatedly reported information to state Medicaid programs different from, and lower than, the correctly calculated supply according to standard pharmacy practice and as required by state pharmacy laws. This resulted in state Medicaid programs paying for a substantial number of claims that the programs would not have approved if Walgreens had reported the correct supply of medication based on the prescription. This conduct also opened the door to potential healthcare risks and abuse, such as the improper resale of insulin pens on the Internet.A National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units (NAMFCU) Team conducted the investigation and participated in the settlement negotiations with Walgreens on behalf of the states. Attorney General Hill thanked three of his staff members – Deputy Attorney General Steve Hunt, Investigator Diane Hedges, and Data Analyst Gwen Taylor – for their efforts in leading the NAMFCU Team in its investigation and settlement of this matter.Discount Drug Pricing SettlementUnder the Discount Drug Pricing Settlement, Walgreens will pay the United States and the states $60 million. Of this amount, $27.9 million will go to the state Medicaid programs to resolve civil allegations that Walgreens submitted claims to the state Medicaid programs in which the prices it identified as the usual and customary prices for certain prescription drugs that it sold through its Prescription Savings Club (“PSC”) program were higher than the prices it charged for those drugs under the PSC program. This practice allegedly enabled Walgreens to get more money in reimbursements from the state Medicaid programs than the amounts to which it was legally entitled. As part of the settlement, Indiana Medicaid will receive $953,742.96 in restitution and another recovery.This investigation resulted from a qui tam action alleging that from Jan. 1, 2008, through Dec. 31, 2017, Walgreens knowingly failed to follow statutorily prescribed reimbursement guidelines and misrepresented the usual and customary prices for prescription drugs. As a result, Walgreens allegedly overbilled government programs in violation of the federal False Claims Act and similar state statutes.A National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units (NAMFCU) Team including representatives from the Office of the Indiana Attorney General conducted the settlement negotiations with Walgreens on behalf of the states.FacebookTwitterCopy LinkEmail
A call has been put out to employers to give their views on a new bakery qualification being developed by food and drink sector skills council Improve.The Bakery Proficiency qualification is being developed in consultation with a number of bakery firms, including Bettys, Cooplands, United Biscuits, Greggs and Morrisons. The proposal is for it to have three distinct pathways: craft, plant and retail/in-store bakery.”The units cover a vast array of subjects which employers and employees can pick and choose from to tailor the qualification to their particular line of work,” said Derek Williams, Improve’s development director.Credits will be gained for each unit of assessment allowing the final qualification to be built up step-by-step. It has also been designed specifically for assessment in and around the workplace and will be publicly accredited as part of the new Qualifications and Credits Framework (QCF).Employers will be able to view and comment on the proposed structure and units from 21 September on Improve’s website www.improve-skills.co.uk and Improve will continue its consultation period until Christmas.To have your say, contact Helen King on 0845 644 0448 or email [email protected]
Pret A Manger is to open a second permanent Veggie Pret site in London.Trading from 4 April on Great Eastern Street, Shoreditch, the opening is in response to high levels of vegetarian sales in the area, reported Pret CEO Clive Schlee.The firm opened its first permanent Veggie Pret site in Soho, London in September 2016 following the success of a pop-up store.As part of the launch, 20 new recipes will be added to the menu at Veggie Pret, including a vegan chocolate brownie.“We opened our Veggie Pret pop-up as an experiment last year, never imagining it would be around for more than a month,” Schlee said in a blog post to customers. “You’ve been asking for more vegetarian and vegan options and our chefs have been experimenting with new ingredients and flavours to meet the challenge. Our teams look forward to seeing you in our Soho and Shoreditch Veggie Prets and to reading your candid reviews of the new menu.”Pret is also looking to expand its vegetarian concept globally after launching the ‘Not Just For Veggies’ campaign in Hong Kong and plans to launch a new vegetarian range in all of its US shops by the end of April.
Greggs is developing its systems for supplying evening meals following ‘encouraging’ trials.The business is currently trialling evening opening in some of its stores, offering a range of post-4pm deals. These include the brand’s successful £2 pizza-plus-drink offer and a new hot menu meal deal made up of any hot sandwich or chicken goujons plus potato wedges and a drink for £4.“We are encouraged by customer demand for our delivery service trials, and are developing the operational processes to service this channel,” stated the business in a trading update for the 13 weeks to 28 September 2019Greggs reported a 12.4% hike in total sales, ahead of a 7.3% increase 12 months ago, with like-for-like sales in company-managed shops up 7.4%.In the year to 28 September the company opened 56 net new shops, opening 90 new shops and closing 34.Greggs passed the 2,000-shop mark in August with the opening of a new site at South Shields Interchange, and had 2,009 shops trading at 28 September.The business reported it was making good progress with the construction of a new southern distribution centre at Amesbury, Wiltshire, that will provide additional capacity for 250 new and existing shops.“Overall input cost inflation is in line with our previous guidance to the end of the year, with pressures on both labour and food input costs,” stated Greggs. “Operational cost control has been good and we are progressing selective investments in the strategic initiatives that we expect to deliver an even stronger customer proposition and further growth in the years ahead.”It added that it was preparing for the potential impact of Brexit by building stocks of key ingredients and equipment that could be affected by disruption to the flow of goods into the UK.The company said its financial expectations for the full year remain unchanged.
Dominique DeMoe | The Observer Three tickets.Two elections.Five rounds of sanctions.Four appeals filed.Two appeals heard.402 students’ votes invalidated.On Feb. 25 — after a month-long campaign process that included countless hours of allegation hearings and sanction appeals, a runoff election and several unsubstantiated rumors — juniors Gates McGavick and Corey Gayheart were elected student body president and vice president.However, due to two sanctions delivered by the Judicial Council Election Committee requiring McGavick and Gayheart and their runoff opponents — juniors Alex Kruszewski and Julia Dunbar — to forfeit 12 and 10 percent of the votes cast for them, respectively, 402 of the 3,592 students who voted for either ticket in the runoff election saw their votes invalidated.Furthermore, due to confidentiality requirements of the student government election process outlined by the Student Union Constitution, many students do not understand why this was the case.The Observer spoke with many different parties involved with the election process — directly and otherwise — in an attempt to piece together what just happened.Establishing the toneJudicial Council announced Jan. 31 that three tickets would be running for student body president and vice president: juniors Alex Kruszewski and Julia Dunbar, juniors Gates McGavick and Corey Gayheart and freshmen Andrew Gannon and Mark Moran.Kruszewski and Dunbar declined to be interviewed, answer questions via email or comment for this story other than to “reiterate how grateful [they] are to [their] supporters and team, who were absolutely incredible and ran a fantastic campaign.”Five days prior to announcing the three tickets, however, Judicial Council announced via a press release that McGavick and Gayheart would be required to suspend their campaign for five hours from the start of campaigning. This was because “the ticket was found to have petitioned in classrooms directly after class periods” when McGavick and Gayheart were gathering signatures to become an official ticket in the race for student body president and vice president, according to the release.McGavick and Gayheart appealed the Election Committee’s decision later that day, and over the course of a closed three-hour appeal hearing, the student senate reduced the ticket’s sanction from a five-hour suspension of campaigning to a two-hour suspension.This first allegation, sanction and hearing process, McGavick said, “set the tone” of the election before it officially got underway.“To be as vague as I can, the recommendation for punishment … would have seriously, seriously affected our future careers and times at Notre Dame,” McGavick said. “I think that set the tone for us pretty early. We went into that office kind of knowing that there could be some minor thing we could mess up on, and we were happy to accept the penalty for the first thing. But when we came out of the office having seen the recommendation for punishment from whoever filed the allegation, then Corey and I were pretty stunned.”The follow-up to these allegations occurred Feb. 2, when the Election Committee sanctioned the Kruszewski-Dunbar ticket after junior David Carmack — who identified himself in a Letter to the Editor published Feb. 6 — brought forth allegations claiming the Kruszewski-Dubar ticket appeared to be implying it was endorsed by members of the University administration on one of its platform points.As an “appropriate sanction” for what the Election Committee determined to be a violation of Section 17.1(f)(6) of the Student Union Constitution, Judicial Council announced in a press release, Kruszewski and Dunbar had to rewrite the platform point in question — a promise to decrease tuition.While Carmack declined to comment for this story, he said in his Letter to the Editor that he filed an appeal of the decision with the student senate in order to “ask for a harsher penalty” and raise his concerns that McGavick and Gayheart had been punished more severely for a lesser offense.This appeal, however, was not heard because the student senate failed to meet quorum — the minimum number of voting members required to be present in order to hold a meeting — by one member. As a result, and per the Student Union Constitution, the appeal was cancelled and the Election Committee’s original decision was upheld.This instance of the student senate not reaching quorum to hear an appeal, senior Judicial Council president Matt Ross said, was one moment in which Ross identified an area of the Student Union Constitution he would like to see revised after election season ends.“Obviously, the senate — we try as hard as we can to get quorum if an appeal is filed. And I know from Judicial Council, from my perspective, there is certainly a lot of work I want to do looking at the appeals section of the constitution over the next few weeks that we still have in office,” Ross said. “That’s certainly something that I’ve talked to a few people about, and it’s definitely a place where we think we can improve the constitution and make it more effective.”These two initial allegations and subsequent sanctions meant that by the time the first student body presidential debate took place Feb. 5, the only ticket to not have any allegations filed against it was the Gannon-Moran ticket.Despite running as part of a Zahm House tradition, Gannon said he and Moran were careful to not violate any election rules specifically laid out for them. In addition, Moran said he believes no one felt the need to file allegations against their ticket because students weren’t taking their candidacy seriously.“I think that people didn’t think we were a threat, so they didn’t really feel the need to really come out and damage our standing in the election,” Moran said. “But also the fact that we didn’t do anything that directly attacked one of the other candidates — if someone attacks you, obviously you want retribution for that. But we didn’t attack anyone.”Gannon said the ticket’s primary goal was to introduce a lighthearted aspect to the student body presidential elections, a mindset with which the two approached the first debate.“The student body debate we thought was a huge success — the first one at least,” Gannon said. “We tried to bring some levity to the situation, show people that student government is a great option for people, but let’s not take it too seriously.”Despite the added humor Gannon and Moran introduced to the election, however, the tone turned negative again in the early hours of Feb. 6. Judicial Council announced in another press release that McGavick and Gayheart were required to publicly apologize on behalf of one of their supporters due to “Election Regulations based on Section 17.1(g)” of the Student Union Constitution, which the press release said read, “You are responsible for your actions as well as the actions of your supporters.”The supporter, senior Devon Chenelle, had posted a comment to a post on his personal Facebook page endorsing McGavick and Gayheart and used an offensive term in the process of responding to a Kruszewski-Dunbar supporter. Chenelle did not immediately respond to The Observer’s request for comment. Editor’s note: Chenelle is a former columnist for The Observer.In compliance with the Election Committee’s sanction requiring them to post a public apology, the McGavick-Gayheart campaign posted a statement to its Facebook page Feb. 6 requesting that students “remain respectful at all times when demonstrating any sort of support for [the] ticket, whether it be on social media or in person.”“There is no place for any sort of division or disrespect during a student body presidential campaign,” the statement said. “We are all part of the Notre Dame family, and should remain united as brothers and sisters.”McGavick said this moment, to him, was a cut-and-dry aspect of the campaign process.“It was the acts of a supporter that we publicly apologized for, and it was really important that we apologized,” McGavick said.After delivering their apology, McGavick and Gayheart intended to remain positive during the final days leading up to the election.“Moving forward, we want to finish this campaign on a high note with a focus on positivity and respect, especially for all those who have in some way dedicated time to this election,” their Feb. 6 statement said. “This election is important, but absolutely nothing is more important than maintaining the University’s core values.”The first forfeiture of votesIn addition to an article recapping the debate and candidate profiles for all three tickets, The Observer released its endorsement of the McGavick-Gayheart ticket the morning of Feb. 6.Later that day, senior Ryan Brickner said he received text messages from Kruszewski asking Brickner to recruit “some rogue xahmbies,” referring to Brickner’s Zahm House dormmates, to post comments on social media posts with the endorsement congratulating McGavick and Gayheart on “promising [The Observer Editorial Board] positions” and claiming that doing so “worked in getting [McGavick-Gayheart] the endorsement.”Senior and former Editor-in-Chief of The Observer Ben Padanilam denied the claims Kruszewski expressed in his text messages to Brickner.“The claims contained in the text messages that The Observer Editorial Board received bribes from a ticket in this election and that those bribes were in exchange for our endorsement are categorically false,” Padanilam said. “The members of our Editorial Board who voted for which ticket to endorse sat through hours of interviews with all three tickets, discussed the merits of each ticket and spent hours composing an editorial which laid out in detail why it felt the McGavick-Gayheart ticket offered the most reasonable and feasible plan for the student body. It is a shame that the work of all the individuals involved was even brought into question by such baseless allegations.”Brickner, who chose to go on the record with The Observer as the one who filed the allegations against the Kruszewski-Dunbar ticket, said although he didn’t feel particularly strongly about the outcome of the election, he became more uncomfortable with the messages he received the longer he thought about them.“At first, I thought it was kind of funny — like, ‘This is so bold, I’m certainly not going to do that. But also, I’m pretty sure this is very unethical,’” Brickner said. “ … This is instructing someone to defame another candidate and instructing somebody to get other people to defame another candidate.”After sending a screenshot of the text messages to many of his friends — causing the messages to circulate throughout the student body over the course of the day — Brickner filed an allegation with the Judicial Council and presented his case in a hearing that night.“It was a pretty clear, cut-and-dry case, I thought. And part of [what the Election Committee wanted to know] was what my intentions were in filing the allegations,” Brickner said. “I told them, at first I didn’t think much of it, I thought it was a joke. But just the more I thought about it, the more it started bothering me. Again, I really didn’t care who won. But at least have a fair and clean election, at the very least.”Ross spoke to the general process of allegation hearings, confirming that members of the Election Committee confirm the validity of any evidence brought forth in hearings.“As the Election Committee, we have to make sure it is verifiable, make sure it is legitimate, make sure the claims in there are accurate and we try to do that to the best of our ability,” Ross said. “We do that with any evidence, text messages — we ask them to make sure this hasn’t been tampered with. So across the board … we definitely do the due diligence to make sure the evidence we are presenting before the Election Committee is legitimate to the best of our knowledge.”In the early hours of Feb. 7, election day, the Election Committee announced what it had determined to be an appropriate sanction through a Judicial Council press release: The ticket would be required to forfeit 10 percent of the votes it received because it was found to have engaged in unethical behavior, which Judicial Council defines as including “monopolization of limited bulletin board space, covering or defaming of any other candidates’ posters, insulting or defaming other candidates, and harassment or misconduct toward any election officials.”This sanction, Ross said, was determined partially due to the precedent set in the 2017 student body presidential election, when seniors Rohit Fonseca and Daniela Narimatsu were required to forfeit 7 percent — reduced to 5 percent after the student senate heard Fonseca and Narimatsu’s appeal — of votes they received in the election.“Last year, there was a precedent for that — and one example in a hall election a few years back — where a certain percentage of votes were forfeited for that hall,” he said. “But as far as using it in a student body election, I think last year, to my knowledge, was pretty much the first example of that. And then as we moved forward this year, using last year’s precedent that we established certainly informed our decisions with the sanctions that the Election Committee came up with this year.”Part of the reasoning for this, Ross said, comes down to timing. He said it is difficult for the Election Committee to come up with an effective and appropriate punishment for a ticket on the day of an election.“One of the things we really have to look at is if it’s feasible as an Election Committee,” Ross said. “ … So the Election Committee has to come up with what is the most appropriate sanction for the violation they have found the ticket to be in.”Kruszewski and Dunbar filed an appeal of the Election Committee’s sanction, which the student senate heard during a closed hearing after its regularly-scheduled meeting, after voting in the election had closed at 8 p.m. The group upheld the Election Committee’s original decision, and the 10 percent deduction of votes stood.The first results and runoff campaignJust after midnight Feb. 8, Judicial Council announced that the election would move to a runoff between the Kruszewski-Dunbar ticket and the McGavick-Gayheart ticket.While Judicial Council kept the official breakdown of votes private after the initial election and neither the Kruszewski-Dunbar nor the McGavick-Gayheart ticket revealed the number of votes they received, Gannon and Moran said they received 18 percent of the votes cast in the election.“We were really proud of that, cause I guess no one really expects that from a joke campaign,” Gannon said. “Considering we got a fifth of the student body vote, we’re pretty proud of that. I think without us there probably wouldn’t have been a runoff. … But us taking that 18 percent I feel like kind of prolonged the process, and that was what we set out to accomplish, was kind of to screw things up.”This breakdown of votes did prolong the election, as not only did the process move to a runoff election, but the remaining tickets — with the student senate’s approval — also chose to postpone campaigning until Feb. 19 and delay the runoff election until Feb. 23 in order to allow time to properly mourn Sister Mary McNamara, the rector of Breen-Phillips Hall who died Feb. 7 due to complications from a stroke.When campaigning did resume Feb. 19, Kruszewski posted a public apology to Facebook for his actions during the initial campaign, in which he took responsibility for the violation and absolved Dunbar and their campaign team of any guilt in the situation.“Our mission and platform address real issues on campus from sexual assault and mental health to diversity and inclusion and everything in between, and it pains me that my personal actions may have impacted our ability to make those real, positive changes for the betterment of student life here at ND that so many of you voted for, and I apologize for any harm my text may have caused,” Kruszewski said in his apology.No additional sanctions were issued between the announcement of the first round of results and the runoff debate, which took place Feb. 22.The second forfeiture of votesThe morning after the debate and the day of the runoff election, Feb. 23, Judicial Council released a press release announcing a sanction against the McGavick-Gayheart ticket, requiring it to forfeit 12 percent of its votes.According to the release, McGavick and Gayheart were “found to have supporters releasing confidential information from previous Judicial Council allegation hearings, as well as engaging in a continued pattern of unethical behavior,” which violated Judicial Council’s Election Regulations and Sections 13.4(e), 17.1(g) and 17.1(h) of the Student Union Constitution.While no one involved in the situation would speak on the record about the specifics of the allegations and hearing, the press release said the aspect of the Election Regulations the ticket violated mandates that candidates are “responsible for [their] actions as well as the actions of [their] supporters.”As to the other violations the ticket committed, the press release said Section 13.4(e) of the Student Union Constitution states that, aside from information included in Judicial Council press releases, “all other information pertaining to hearings and appeals shall be considered confidential,” and Section 17.1(g) reads, “Candidates may not be involved in or instruct others to engage in any unethical behavior as detailed in 17.1(h).” The final section Judicial Council found the ticket to have violated, Section 17.1(h), states that “Candidates are expected to behave ethically at all times.” While he would not elaborate on the nature of the allegations, McGavick said he felt confident that he and Gayheart could present a strong enough case to the student senate upon appeal for the group to overturn the ticket’s 12 percent deduction of votes.“This final decision, the 12 percent sanction we got, we don’t feel that was a fair penalty at all, and we had a very long counter-argument to back that up with multiple witnesses, multiple phone calls, multiple screenshots,” McGavick said. “Just frankly, I am almost certain that if we had gotten to present to the senate, that we would have gotten our penalty greatly removed or drastically, drastically reduced.”The ticket did not get to hear its appeal, however, as the student senate once again did not meet quorum and could not hear the appeal. As a result, the 12 percent forfeiture of votes stood.Junior and current student government chief of staff Prathm Juneja said he remained confident in the commitment of the senators in spite of the two unheard appeals.“I would hate to say — and I hate for people to assume, rather — that senators didn’t show up because they were frustrated,” he said. “I’m not saying that about every senator — there might have been some, but I believe in the strength and the dedication of the senators, many of whom had legitimate excuses for [senior and student body vice president Sibonay Shewit].”While McGavick said he understands that scheduling conflicts may play a role in whether or not senators are unable to show up to unexpected hearings, he believes the constitution needs to be revised in order to ensure appeals are heard in the future.“I understand people have commitments, the meeting was held on Saturday — that’s tough, but at the same time, if our system gives that level of power to the senate, where that’s our only real means of appealing a punishment we feel we have evidence to effectively disprove, that’s a problem,” McGavick said.Shewit said the areas of the constitution that determine the proper procedure for senate appeals are among the current student government administration’s top priorities in terms of revising the Student Union Constitution throughout the rest of their time in office.“Overall, that section of the constitution is somewhat vague, and a lot of it is left up to interpretation,” she said. “And in those cases, we tend to rely on precedents, but we’re now starting to wonder if we should be putting in set rules.”Although McGavick and Gayheart were unable to present an appeal, however, Ross said the Election Committee did its best to ensure the 12 percent vote deduction was as fair as possible, not only to the ticket, but also to voters.“I think the way that we do it in that it’s a forfeiture for percentage of votes — it’s not, you know, I’m not coming up to you and saying, ‘Your vote didn’t count,’ right?” Ross said. “So that is kind of our way making sure we’re not feeling we’re disenfranchising voters, in that it is truly a sanction on the ticket rather than something that the campus or, you know, voters must really bear.”Juneja also posed the question of feasibility, noting that there are not many options available to the Election Committee in determining an appropriate punishment for a ticket on such short notice.“If you guys follow me outside of student government, you know I care a lot about voter enfranchisement,” Juneja said. “That’s the thing I work on, and I love voting and I think it’s really important, but what is the alternative punishment? What is the alternative if there is an allegation the night before that someone is found guilty?”Due to the requirement that everyone involved in a Judicial Council hearing keep any information from the hearing private, McGavick and Gayheart were unable to offer any clarification about the allegations to voters. Gayheart said this encouraged antagonistic behavior from students not involved with the campaign.“There was one instance where I was followed around in the dining hall with someone holding up The Observer with the 12 percent article,” he said. “I was literally going table to table in the dining hall reminding people to vote, and I was literally being followed around by someone holding up the 12 percent article saying we were unethical.”Many of the confidentiality requirements in the Student Union Constitution are intended to protect the anonymity of anyone who comes forward with an allegation. While Juneja said this will most likely not change due to the value of anonymity throughout these processes, he is open to seeing the rest of the hearing and appeal system become more transparent.“I think there’s something to be said that there could be some more transparency on the allegation process,” he said. “In terms of instead of just listing the rule, we could maybe get more information there and it’s a conversation we’ll have in senate, but for us, I think the anonymity of persons, whether it’s in closed senate meetings or in hearings like this, we care about our students more than anything else and if they’re vulnerable, we will protect them.”As someone who has been through the process of bringing forth an allegation, Brickner said he understands and agrees with the anonymity requirement, despite the fact that he was comfortable sharing his experience.“I don’t care if people know I filed the allegations, but I’m sure in different scenarios, the person may be afraid of getting targeted back or, for whatever other personal reasons, don’t want their secrecy unveiled,” Brickner said. “It’s definitely great they have this premium, this focus on secrecy. But I’m just like a different breed, and I couldn’t care less. The allegations I sent had a personal text message, so he’s going to know either I sent it in or somebody I sent the text to sent it in.”Still, Brickner said, he would like to see the option for people who bring forth allegations to choose whether or not to be anonymous.“I think I should have had the right, though, to waive my anonymity,” Brickner said. “In the way that it is, they’re getting sanctioned for unethical behavior, but if no one knows what the unethical behavior is, and if they can’t make their own independent decision on whether it was unethical or not, it’s almost like a moot point. I’m a very big fan of giving everybody the information.”The runoff results and aftermathDespite the 12 percent decrease in the number of votes they received, McGavick and Gayheart discovered they won the election Feb. 25, receiving 52.08 percent of valid votes cast in the election after the sanction was applied.Had neither ticket received 50 percent of the votes or more, the election would have proceeded to an electoral college-style system, in which votes would be broken down by hall and each hall’s vote would count toward one ticket or the other.After the number of allegation hearings and appeals — attempted or otherwise — he and McGavick went through, Gayheart said the two had an increased appreciation for what it took to make it through the election and the job for which they were elected.“Honestly, it made this process like an episode of ‘House of Cards,’” Gayheart said. “ … There were a couple of times when it was like, ‘Is this even worth it?’ Gates and I had a lot of heart to hearts about this, and especially when we were locked up in rooms on the second or third floor of [LaFortune Student Center] waiting for hearings. It really tested us in terms of what we were willing to go through to still be on the ballot.”The voter turnout in the runoff election was 47 percent of students, something Gannon said was most likely a result of voter fatigue after a long election process.“That’s another indicator, I think, of how crappy this election season was,” Gannon said. “Because people just don’t want to vote when they see all the crap flying around. After that, I think the statistic was that [the turnout] was 11 percent down from last year’s election.”Gayheart echoed Gannon’s sentiment and said he didn’t want this year’s election process to turn into the standard at the University.“That’s not what Notre Dame is and that’s not what it should be, but unfortunately, this election brought out the worst in people, and it definitely showed,” Gayheart said. “I think one of the direct ramifications of that was 47 percent voter turnout, down 11 percent [from last year’s election].”Senior and student body president Becca Blais said it was “disheartening to see” the election take a negative turn.“There’s been a fundamental shift both in the country and on this campus as negativity being a tying factor,” Blais said. “You saw it in the national election, you see it happening all the time and I think in many ways, it just happened on this campus as well. … I think those six allegation hearings and five rounds of sanctions were a product of the hate and negativity.”Having been through a student body election campaign before, Shewit said she was surprised to see the extent of the bad feelings in this election.“It wasn’t the norm to go through this process. It was very much kind of a last effort, I guess,” Shewit said. “You really thought for a long time about whether you wanted to put yourself through an allegation hearing and then if you want to put yourself through an appeals hearing, and I don’t know why, but this year I think that it was approached more as the standard way to go exactly. … It’s really hard to look at this and not feel a little disappointed.”Juneja said the allegations and resulting sanctions were the “product of a toxic nature of an election and building a campaign season on disdain” for the current student government administration.“I want to emphasize, our frustration isn’t with the work of student government, the nature of student government or anything,” he said. “It’s not even with the legitimate criticisms we had of student government. There is a legitimate criticism that if the senate doesn’t hit quorum, that just expires. That’s something we want to have a conversation about. I think that’s a legitimate criticism … but when we have to defend things we aren’t even responsible for or aren’t even true, I think that really hits us in an unfair way.”McGavick, however, said he feels that criticisms of student government processes weren’t the source of negativity in this election.“There are a lot of people who definitely think it was us that set the tone with this election — and I feel bad because there’s a level of passion and commitment to their work which is really incredibly impressive — but as a result, fair criticisms of student government are construed as personal attacks, which they’re not,” McGavick said. “ … There can’t be a stigma about criticizing your elected officials, because while this is a student government, it is a government system, and if we don’t feel like our representatives are doing a good job, and if there is criticism against us, we will never respond badly to fair criticisms of our policies and administrations, because we are elected officials, and we have to be accountable.”McGavick and Gayheart, along with others involved in the election and members of the student senate, have already begun to look for ways to improve the system for future elections.“What we’re getting at is the constitution was almost weaponized against us. And the fact that a constitution is able to do that is, first and foremost, a major problem,” Gayheart said. “I think a solution to this is, one, and I think we are going to — I mean, I know Matt Ross has already asked all tickets and all parties, ‘What are some election reforms we can work on? Because there are clearly flaws in the system.’ … We aren’t in office yet, but I think one of our big tasks ahead that we weren’t planning on is going over the constitution with a fine-tooth comb, especially the election section.”McGavick said his one regret from the election was whatever role he may have played in how bitter the process became.“Look, I think any time, like how nasty this election was, I think you regret being a part of it in a sense,” he said. “ … I regret that people got so tired of this election in the end, because of how nasty it was. I regret these things being construed as personal attacks, because that was not my intention. When I say that student government needs to change, I’m not saying these are bad people who aren’t doing their jobs, I’m saying that we need to reorient the policy, and I regret that that got lost in translation.”Brickner said he hopes, moving forward, students keep in mind that some of the consequences of the process go beyond the results of a student government election.“I think the takeaway is you’ve got to keep everything in scope here,” he said. “You’re running for student body president, which I still don’t think has that much power. Just keeping that in mind, don’t start playing dirty, don’t start bringing people into it that don’t deserve to be brought into it. Keep in mind that some of these allegations you file have very real consequences on people’s lives going forward.”For Ross, as well as the current and future leadership of student government, the next steps require significant reform to the Student Union Constitution.“Every year, we go back and look at the constitution and figure out if there’s things we want to change,” Ross said. “This time we do.”Senior News Writer Ben Padanilam, Managing Editor Katie Galioto, Assistant Managing Editor Rachel O’Grady, Associate News Editor Lucas Masin-Moyer, News Editor Natalie Weber and News Writers Elizabeth Greason and Tobias Hoonhout contributed to this report.Dominique DeMoe | The Observer Tags: 2018 student government election, Election Committee, Judicial Council, Student government
Before circumventing the American continent and entering the 4th Fleet’s area of responsibility, the CSG-9 combat squadron within the George Washington conducted important bilateral exercises with the Peruvian and Chilean Air and Naval Forces as it moved up the South Atlantic to reach the Brazilian coast and the 5th Naval District’s area of responsibility for UNITAS. In November, the U.S. Navy’s CVN-73-class, nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington visited Brazil for the 56th edition of the multi-national Naval exercise UNITAS. As the flagship for Carrier Strike Group NINE, the George Washington was joined by the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers USS Chafee (DDG-90) and USS Mcfaul (DDG-74), in addition to the Henry J. Kaiser-class supply ship USNS Big Horn (T-AO-198). The highlight of the U.S. Navy’s participation was the execution of an unprecedented parallel air combat exercise with the Brazilian Air Force (FAB, for its Portuguese acronym), USABRA, during which there were trainings on interception and strike missions and air combats were conducted over the coast of the southern region of the Beyond Visual Range (BVR) and Within Visual Range (WVR) regimes between F-18 and F-5M fighter aircraft operating from Canoas Air Base and vectored by E-99 radar aircraft. A-1 fighter-bombers from Santa Maria and Santa Cruz trained on strike missions and were escorted by F-5M and F-18 fighter aircraft against surface targets vectored by P-95 Bandeirulha and P-3AM aircraft. They also conducted ground strike missions with the presence of air threats, which represented an opportunity to exchange knowledge, experiences, and operational doctrines with the possibility of simulating missions with a modern combat vector and learning, in practice, with veteran pilots of war. The high degree of complexity and realism of the missions impressed Brazilian and U.S. pilots alike, and represented the largest training ever conducted between the FAB and the U.S. Navy in more than two decades. The joint exercise also served to reinforce the already-established traditional ties of trust and friendship that bond the Armed Forces of both countries. By Dialogo December 17, 2015 I participated in several UNITAS operations when I was on active duty. Preparing our Armed Forces for a possible red Bolivarian-communist “invasion” is, more than anything, a show of force and of our repudiation of international communism. Congratulations to our Armed Forces. “Brazil waits for each person to fulfill their duty.” (Alte. Barroso, Hero of Our Navy) Very good. Brazil ought to be developing a well-trained army to combat trafficking in the country, strengthening Brazil’s borders, and operating with full force in the hills of Rio de Janeiro. Congratulations to all those involved in this brilliant undertaking. Congratulations. Very good Who knowsâ€¦maybe, with these joint exercises, our valiant Armed Forces will keep themselves out of and against the harmfulness of corruption. I believe it’s really important to test our pilots’ level of training. This would also constitute an excellent opportunity for the American troops to implant buoy markers, sensors, and radars throughout the continent for their own security and to geo-reference their espionage satellites. Very just, provided we can have access to the information. I find topics about national security and technology very interesting. We need to be good with good people. U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Lisa Franchetti commanded the strike group and was responsible for leading the Southern Seas 2015 deployment to Latin American and the Caribbean, beginning its trajectory southbound from the Naval Base in San Diego, California. Upon its return, the aircraft carrier headed to Norfolk, Virginia, where it refueled and is undergoing maintenance. The strictly Military multinational Naval exercise facilitated training in interoperability in conventional combat operations and maritime interdiction operations, and closed with the execution of the “Exercise Scenario Phase,” in which a simulated conflict between two opposing forces took place. The end result has contributed to maintaining the Brazilian Fleet’s level of training of Naval and air assets under the command of Rear Admiral Newton Calvoso Pinto Homem, Commander of the 2nd Fleet Division. It also served to increase cooperation and to strengthen friendship ties between the Navies of Brazil and other participating nations represented by the frigates Almirante Riveros of the Chilean Navy, and Quiñones of the Peruvian Navy, the Mexican ocean patrol vessel Baja California and the United Kingdom’s logistic support vessel Gold Rover, in addition to the U.S. Navy’s assets, which on this occasion included the participation of a modern Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft.
Forgot Password ? Linkedin Topics : Indonesians and Australians, despite their geographical proximity, still do not understand each other very well, says I Made Andi Arsana, an Indonesian scholar from Gadjah Mada University (UGM), who spent nine years living in the land down under.As neighbors, an acknowledgement of their importance to each other has come fairly recently, in the form of the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), which was fast-tracked by both sides amid warming ties.One side of the relationship both countries are looking to improve is people-to-people connectivity, which officials – at least on the Indonesian side – insist could be immediately addressed by easing visa restrictions for Indonesians looking to travel to Australia.During President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s visit to Australia earlier this week, visa reforms were one of the… Google Facebook LOG INDon’t have an account? Register here Log in with your social account Indonesia Australia CEPA employment visa-regime Youth
Arsenal will lose Aaron Ramsey on a free transfer to Juventus this summer (REX)‘There are not many great No.10s in world football but Arsenal desperately need someone who plays like the Leicester City man.‘The role was deemed a luxury in past, their job was to create chances and make a difference in attack.More: FootballRio Ferdinand urges Ole Gunnar Solskjaer to drop Manchester United starChelsea defender Fikayo Tomori reveals why he made U-turn over transfer deadline day moveMikel Arteta rates Thomas Partey’s chances of making his Arsenal debut vs Man City‘Mesut Ozil and Dele Alli are expected to deliver without the ball and to be a defender for their teams too.‘You have to be very gifted to do that and nine out of ten gifted players do not want to work without the ball. Maddison’s work-rate is good and getting better.‘There is no question about whether he is technical enough for the top flight.’More: Arsenal FCArsenal flop Denis Suarez delivers verdict on Thomas Partey and Lucas Torreira movesThomas Partey debut? Ian Wright picks his Arsenal starting XI vs Manchester CityArsene Wenger explains why Mikel Arteta is ‘lucky’ to be managing Arsenal Comment James Maddison has impressed at Leicester City this season (AMA/Getty Images)Unai Emery has been urged to sign Leicester City midfielder James Maddison as a replacement for Aaron Ramsey.Maddison joined the Foxes in a £20 million deal from Norwich City last summer but has had an impressive debut season in the Premier League.The 22-year-old has scored seven goals and registered six assists in 33 appearances so far, while his performances were rewarded with his first senior England call-up in October.Ramsey, meanwhile, is joining Juventus on a free transfer at the end of the season, and former Chelsea, Celtic and Marseille striker Tony Cascarino believes Maddison is the right midfielder to succeed the Wales international at Arsenal.AdvertisementAdvertisementADVERTISEMENT‘I look at Maddison and I think, ‘Arsenal is your team.’ Maddison should be the man to replace Aaron Ramsey,’ Cascarino told The Times. Advertisement Unai Emery urged to sign James Maddison to replace Aaron Ramsey at Arsenal Advertisement Metro Sport ReporterMonday 8 Apr 2019 2:07 amShare this article via facebookShare this article via twitterShare this article via messengerShare this with Share this article via emailShare this article via flipboardCopy link380Shares
This adoption of this aim was a result of the new AP Funds Act, she said.“Hanna’s previous experience from private equity supports this agenda and strengthens the existing team within alternative investments further,” the spokeswoman said.Ideström, who began work at AP4 on 9 January, has a background in mergers and acquisitions, and direct investments in private equity, the pension fund said, having started her career at investment bank Greenhill in London in 2008.Two years later, she moved back to Stockholm where she worked in the buyout team of Finnish private equity fund manager CapMan, focusing on the Nordic mid-cap segment.She then left in December 2018 to start up a VC impact fund focusing on Sweden and Finland.According to Ideström’s LinkedIn profile, the fund was called Vault Impact, but fundraising is no longer active.On 1 May, a second set of changes to the mandate for the big four buffer funds – AP1, AP2, AP3 and AP4 – are scheduled to come into force, which aim to increase the funds’ ability to invest in illiquid assets and increase cost efficiency.Over the last few years AP4 chief executive officer Niklas Ekvall has been one of the more vocal advocates of reforming the mandate in order to allow the funds to invest more in alternatives.In November, responding to the proposal’s passage to the Law Commission, he said the changes were steps in the right direction to give the AP funds investment rules that were comparable to other international investors.But he also said the amendments to the mandate were not as far-reaching as the Fourth AP Fund had recommended. Sweden’s AP4 has added a private-equity specialist to its alternatives team in the latest hiring designed to expand the buffer fund’s in-house capabilities as new possibilities open up following changes to its mandate.AP4 – one of the four main national pensions funds backing the Swedish state pension – announced the appointment of Hanna Ideström as alternatives portfolio manager.A spokeswoman for the Stockholm-based fund, said: “This is a newly-created position, expanding the alternative investments team further after several new hires in the last couple of years.“AP4 has an ambitious agenda to increase its exposure to alternative Investments, including private equity, over the coming years,” she said.