While I watched the Red-necked Grebes diving for fish, the young bird climbed on the back of a parent. Colonel Sam Smith Park on Lake Ontario, Toronto, 15 September 2014.
The chick was a late hatch, but is growing quickly.
Both Red-necked Grebe parents care for the young.


Home / Deals / Online Deals / Coupon Codes / HOT! Black Friday Sale on NuMe Curling Wand AND Straightener | $59 Shipped!
HOT! Black Friday Sale on NuMe Curling Wand AND Straightener | $59 Shipped!
It's Black Friday in July! I have 2 HOT deals for you on the NuMe Curling Wand and Straightener! Starting THIS Friday, 7/29/16 through Sunday, 7/31/16 you can grab both items for a fantastic deal!
I've learned that having the right tools can really make or break the look of your hair. Both the NuMe Curling Wand and Straighteners are fantastic.
Don't forget to use Promo Code PASSIONBF34 at checkout!
My daughter just got her hair cut and styled last week at a Beauty School. It was something fun we did on a Mommy/Daughter Date. She loves to have her hair curled, but her hair is SO HARD to curl. It has a really soft texture and every time I try to curl it, it falls right out.
Her stylist used a Curling Wand, and it looked gorgeous! I highly recommend these. I love mine and use it all the time!
Shipping is normally $12, so that's a great savings even by itself!
If you get the Straightener and the Wand they are only $30 each shipped so this is even cheaper! I love this deal!
Don't wait, this deal is only good for 3 days! You have from 7/29/16 to 7/31/16 to purchase at these great prices!
Speaking of Black Friday, why not grab a couple of these for a family member or friend that doesn't have one? You can save it until Christmas and then your list will be that much shorter come November! I love finding great deals before Christmas and having some of my shopping already complete!
Disclosure: This is a sponsored post written by me on behalf of NuMe. I was compensated for this post, however all thoughts and opinions are my own.
National Cheesecake Day 2016 | Half Price at Cheesecake Factory!
Sony PlayStation 4 only $279.99 + Free Shipping!


The Anglican Church of Saint Stephen, the First Martyr, was situated on the corner of Clowance Street and George Street, Devonport. It no longer exists.
The remains of the Anglican Church of Saint Stephen, Devonport.
© Plymouth City Museum and Art Gallery.
The ecclesiastical parish was formed on August 27th 1846 from the parish of Stoke Damerel.
The foundation stone was laid on the Octave of Ascension Day, 1852, by Mr E Saint Aubyn. It was built at a cost of £7,000 to the designs of Mr J Piers Saint Aubyn. The building was in stone and in the Middle Pointed style and at the time of its construction could accommodate a congregation of 764, all free and unappropriated. It consisted of chancel, nave, aisles, and a central tower with lofty spire, 160 feet tall, containing one bell.
Saint Stephen's was consecrated on September 21st 1858 although it required a second aisle to be erected before it could be said to be completed.
Saint Stephen's Vicarage was an architectural gem in itself.
Only the walls and spire were left standing after the Second World War, as can be seen in the first photograph above, and during the 1950s services were held in the Anglican Church of Saint Aubyn, into which parish Saint Stephen's was later amalgamated.
The Anglican Church of Saint Stephen was demolished in 1958.


Drastically reduces bags and dark circles.
DESCRIPTION: Capture Totale Soin Regard Multi-Perfection from Christian Dior is a treatment that corrects all visible signs of aging in the area of the eyes more intensely, like wrinkles and loss of firmness and luminosity.
Formulated especially for the most delicate face area, this rich, silky fluid is instantly absorbed, leaving the skin feeling full and with a lasting comfort effect.
Apply morning and evening around the eyes.


text:
You Are Here: Home » Copyright, Government Documents, Legal Research, Legislation, Libraries » Copyright Law of the United States (Title 17) and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code
Copyright Law of the United States (Title 17) and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code
by Sabrina I. Pacifici on May 10, 2021
"This week, the Copyright Office posted an updated edition of Circular 92, our publication that contains Title 17 and related laws. This new edition adds copyright legislation enacted since the last printed edition (June 2020) — specifically the new section 2319C to Title 18 regarding criminal penalties for copyright infringement, and a new chapter 15 to Title 17, the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act of 2020. This publication contains the text of Title 17 of the United States Code, including all amendments enacted by Congress through December 27, 2020. It includes the Copyright Act of 1976 and all subsequent amendments to copyright law; the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984, as amended; and the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act, as amended. The Copyright Office is responsible for registering intellectual property claims under all three. The United States copyright law is contained in chapters 1 through 8 and 10 through 12 of Title 17 of the United States Code. The Copyright Act of 1976, which provides the basic framework for the current copyright law, was enacted on October 19, 1976, as Pub. L. No. 94-553, 90 Stat. 2541. The 1976 Act was a comprehensive revision of the copyright law in Title 17. This edition adds copyright legislation enacted since the last printed edition of the circular in June 2020: provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, that added section 2319C to Title 18, United States Code, regarding criminal penalties for copyright infringement, and a new chapter 15 to Title 17, the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act of 2020. This legislation was signed into law in December 2020."
Subjects: Copyright, Government Documents, Legal Research, Legislation, Libraries
← Facebook can track your web activity. Here's how to stop it
Google v. Oracle: Supreme Court Rules for Google in Landmark Software Copyright Case →

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
package store

import (
	"math/rand"
	"time"
)

func shuffleOne(values []int32, i int) {
	// choose index uniformly in [i, N-1]
	r := i + rand.Intn(len(values)-i)
	values[r], values[i] = values[i], values[r]
}

type it32shuffleIter struct {
	rng    *rand.Rand
	pos    int
	values []int32
}

func NewShuffledIterator(iter ItemIterator) ItemIterator {
	values := IteratorToList(nil, iter)

	result := &it32shuffleIter{
		rng:    rand.New(rand.NewSource(time.Now().UnixNano())),
		values: values,
	}

	result.advance()
	return result
}

func (it *it32shuffleIter) advance() {
	if it.pos < len(it.values) {
		shuffleOne(it.values, it.pos)
		it.pos += 1
	}
}

func (it *it32shuffleIter) HasMore() bool {
	return it.pos < len(it.values)
}

func (it *it32shuffleIter) Peek() int32 {
	return it.values[it.pos]
}

func (it *it32shuffleIter) Next() int32 {
	// but return the "current" previous
	it.advance()
	return it.values[it.pos-1]
}

func (it *it32shuffleIter) MaxSize() int {
	return len(it.values)
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
19 September 2019 - 1:00am | posted by Shawn Lim
AIA CMO on how it is preparing for the future of marketing
Hong Kong-based insurer AIA wants to ensure that as it prepares for technological changes and disruptions, it does not lose its core philosophy of being customer-centric, says Stuart Spencer, the insurer's group chief marketing officer.
He says the group is deeply committed to delivering its brand promise of empowering "Healthier, Longer, Better Lives", which is a reflection of what AIA stands for and what it does as a company.
"Even as the digital, financial, and insurance industries undergo rapid changes, it is crucial that our brand promise remains a constant, and we will never relent in our mission of being there for our customers every step of the way," explains Spencer.
"This is especially relevant today, because Asia is getting wealthier but definitely not healthier, and we see this in the rapid rise of lifestyle-related diseases across the region."
He points to propositions like AIA Vitality as evidence that the insurer is committed to addressing this trend.
Ho Lee Yen, the chief customer and marketing officer at AIA in Singapore had previously told The Drum about how AIA uses health and lifestyle initiatives like the AIA Vitality Weekly Challenge, AIA Family Fest, Fitness Fest by AIA, and AIA Glow Festival to go beyond the traditional insurance model and invests in its customers' health.
"We are constantly expanding our online presence as customers today are very likely to do their own research online before buying insurance offline. Our role as marketing professionals is to support our team both online and offline," says Spencer.
"We use technology to help our agents become more efficient, more effective and more productive which results in a trusted, caring and experienced agent experience for our customers."
AIA also recently joined forces with Singtel to incentivise healthy behaviours and grow customer loyalty through the launch of wellness platform StepUp.
With 2020 fast approaching, Spencer says it is important for advertisers to realise that the world is changing more rapidly than ever.
On its part, the insurer recently extended and expanded its partnership with Tottenham Hotspur, which it began sponsoring in 2013. The partnership was first extended in 2017 when AIA became the club's global principal partner.
The new extension will be until the 2026/27 season and will see AIA continue to appear on the front of the club's Men's, Women's and Academy team's shirts in all competitions.
Spencer says together with Spurs, AIA has been able to co-create a proposition for their customer that goes beyond the business of insurance and ensuring that its customers' protection needs are adequately met.
He points out that Spurs has a huge following in Asia and the insurer's partnership with the football club has enabled it to demonstrate the power of the "Healthier, Longer, Better Lives" slogan.
"The partnership with Spurs' goes beyond football, the Club, including its players, coaches, and fitness staff, work with us to bring to our markets a broad range of health and wellness campaigns," he says.
"For instance, with the recent 2019 International Champions Cup (ICC) Singapore Presented by AIA Singapore matches, we worked with Spurs to leverage the entire country's attention and excitement for the ICC to rally local communities and make a real impact on the lives of our customers and the beneficiaries of our CSR programmes."
He claims that through this partnership, AIA has reached millions of people with the aim of supporting health and wellness through engaging content across multiple touchpoints including digital platforms, as well as community events such as football clinics and youth football development programmes.
"These initiatives demonstrate AIA's strong commitment to promoting the benefits of healthy living, and they are great examples of how AIA is leading the way in encouraging people to take control of their health and make changes that benefit themselves, their families and society at large," he says.
This is part of The Drum's Marketer of the Future coverage for 2019. You can read our coverage here.
AdvertisingDigitalMobileSingaporeMarketer of the Future
Up next in Advertising
Disney drops Fox name from production studios
s3-news-tmp-10557-fox1-2x1-940.jpg


text:
Indiana Gov. Vetoes "Search Fee" for Public Records Requests
Friday, April 28, 2017 Julie Tappendorf
We write a lot about public records laws on this blog because the Illinois Freedom of Information Act affects so many aspects of government business and communications. Although not applicable to Illinois, it is interesting to see what our "neighbors" are doing in connection with their own state public records laws.
Recently, the Indiana state legislature passed a bill that would allow units of local government to charge the public an hourly fee to search for records in response to a public records request. The fee can be no more than (1) the hourly rate of the person doing the search or (2) $20.00. The first two hours of search time must be provided at no charge, and then an hourly fee could be applied to any search in excess of two hours. The bill also required governments to provide electronic versions of documents, if requested. Indiana House Bill 1523.
The bill was approved 63-27 in the Indiana House and 44-3 in the Indiana Senate. On Monday this week, Indiana Governor Holcomb vetoed the bill. It has been reported that although the Governor supported the provisions of the bill that dealt with the provision of electronic records, he opposed the search fee.
Post Authored by Julie Tappendorf
PAC Says Public Body Must Respond to FOIA
Thursday, April 27, 2017 Julie Tappendorf
The Public Access Counselor of the Illinois Attorney General's office issued its second opinion for 2017 last week. PAC Op. 2017-002. This opinion involved a FOIA request filed by a reporter seeking a copy of a police report of a police pursuit. The public body did not respond to the request, and the reporter filed a request for review. The public body's FOIA officer told the PAC that she had forwarded the FOIA request to the public body's attorney and police department for response, but neither the attorney nor the police department responded or provided the records to the requester.
Not surprisingly, the PAC found the public body in violation of FOIA for not responding to the request or providing the requested record.
So, public bodies must respond to FOIA requests. No new guidance in this binding opinion.
ABA Journal Article on Public Employee Use of Social Media
Wednesday, April 26, 2017 Julie Tappendorf
The ABA Journal, published by the American Bar Association, recently posted an article on its website about government workers' use of social media. The article is entitled "Public Employees, Private Speech: 1st Amendment Doesn't Always Protect Government Workers," and is authored by David L. Hudson, Jr.
The article offers some guidance to government employers in disciplining their employees for social media conduct, and discusses some of the legal issues in enacting social media policies. The examples of employees being disciplined for off-duty social media activities used in the article are a good reminder to government workers that their off-duty social media activities could result in discipline.
The author notes that although government workers have First Amendment and other rights to engage in social media speech, those rights do not extend to everything an employee might post on social media. The article sets out the general legal standard that applies to government employee speech, as follows:
For years, courts first asked whether a public employee spoke on a matter of public concern or importance. If the speech is merely a private grievance, a First Amendment claim fails, because the speech doesn't carry much importance for the public at large. If the speech touches on matters of public concern, then the court balances the employee's right to free speech against the employer's interests in an efficient, disruption-free workplace.
To determine whether a public employee's speech is too disruptive, a court asks whether it affects close working relationships, interferes with the employer's normal operation of business or impairs discipline on the job.
Although there are only a handful of reported cases on government employee social media conduct, they do consistently apply this standard to determine whether an employer lawfully disciplined or terminated an employee for off-duty social media activities.
You may remember that we reported on a 4th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion earlier this year that involved a disciplinary action brought against two police officers based on a police department social media policy that prohibited "[n]egative comments on the internal operations of the bureau, or specific conduct of supervisors or peers that impacts the public's perception of the department..." The court of appeals struck down the police department policy as overly broad because it would encompass the type of protected speech that falls within the legal standard discussed above. You can read our previous post about that case here.
The article on the ABA Journal's website can be accessed here: Public Employees, Private Speech: 1st Amendment Doesn't Always Protect Government Workers,
Court Upholds County Regulation of Employee Social Media Activities
Tuesday, April 25, 2017 Julie Tappendorf
From our sister blog, The Workplace Report with Ancel Glink: Employer May Regulate Employee Social Media Conduct
In one of the first cases of its kind in Illinois, the state appellate court found that a Cook County Sheriff's order regulating employee conduct on social media platforms was not subject to bargaining. International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, 2017 IL App (1st) 152993.
The "conduct order" in question regulated on and off duty conduct by employees and for the first time included language extending the rule to social media and networking sites. The order required employees to conduct themselves in a professional manner and not bring disrepute on the department. While a conduct rule had historically existed, the Sheriff's Office amended it to include the following language:
Be aware that conduct on and off duty extends to electronic social media and networking sites and that all rules of conduct apply when engaging in any Internet activity.
The union filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Sheriff alleging that the new rule was overbroad and violated employee rights under the Illinois Labor Relations Act. According to the union, the order had a chilling effect on protected union activity. For instance, employees often vent about working conditions on social media platforms with other employees and this communication may be protected union activity, but the union argued that an employee could be subject to discipline for legal activities under the new language.
The Local Labor Relations Board held that the conduct order was not substantively different from a 1998 order issued by the Sheriff regulating off duty conduct. The new order simply applied it to contemporary means of communication. Additionally the Board found that no employee had been disciplined under the rule for communications protected under the Labor Act.
The union appealed and the court agreed with the conclusion of the Local Labor Board but stated that this is a case of first impression as to whether any employer work rule violates the Labor Act because it is overbroad on its face. In interpreting the state law, the court looked to National Labor Relations Act for assistance. Under the NLRB decisions, a workplace rule that does not specifically prohibit protected communications may still violate the act if a reasonable employee believes protected communication is prohibited under the rule. However, in this case, the court said this is not a subjective test based on the employee's interpretation. Instead, the court stated: "We will not conclude that a reasonable employee would read the rule to apply to such activity (protected activity) simply because the rule could be interpreted that way."
Employers should consult with their attorney before implementing rules governing social media conduct. Even facially neutral rules may impinge on protected employee rights if not properly implemented.
Original Post Authored by Steve Mahrt, Ancel Glink
Personnel / Social Media
FOIA Fee Waiver is Discretionary
Monday, April 24, 2017 Julie Tappendorf
We have mentioned in the past that the Public Access Counselor's advisory (non-binding) opinions often offer public bodies and members of the public more insight on FOIA and OMA than the PAC's binding opinions. For example, the PAC recently issued an advisory opinion on how the fee waiver provision of FOIA is to be interpreted. 2017 PAC 47258.
A reporter for ABC7 News had filed a FOIA request seeking records pertaining to a public body's red light camera program. The public body compiled the records and informed the reporter that a fee of $30.60 would be owed for the records (that fee amount was calculated after providing the first 50 pages at no cost). The reporter disputed the charge by immediately filing a request for review with the PAC, claiming that the public body was obligated to waive its fee for the records.
The public body argued that section 6(c) of FOIA provides discretion to the public body as to whether to grant a fee waiver or reduction, citing the following language: "[d]ocuments shall be furnished without charge or at a reduced charge, as determined by the public body, if the person requesting the documents states the specific purpose for the request and indicates that a waiver or reduction of the fee is in the public interest." 5 ILCS 140/6(c) (emphasis added).
The PAC issued an advisory opinion finding in favor of the public body, stating as follows:
Under the plain language of section 6(c), FOIA does not require a public body to grant fee waivers; instead FOIA provides a public body the discretion to decide whether it will waive or reduce copying fees. See e.g., Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr 22787, issued July 17, 2013, at 2. Because the Public Access Counselor does not have authority to direct the City to grant ABC7 News' request for a fee waiver, we conclude that no further action is warranted as to this matter.
In sum, according to the PAC office of the Attorney General, the fee waiver/reduction provision of FOIA is discretionary, not mandatory, which is consistent with the express language of section 6(c).
Disclaimer: Ancel Glink represented the public body in this matter.
APA National Conference in NYC
For those of you who are planning to attend the 2017 American Planning Association (APA) National Planning Conference in NYC from May 4th to 9th, please stop by to say hi to Ancel Glink attorneys David Silverman and Dan Bolin who will be speaking at the following sessions:
Sunday, May 7, 9:30 a.m. - 11 a.m.
Ordinances: Best Practices to Follow, Pitfalls to Avoid
David Silverman is participating in this session
Sunday, May 7, 4 p.m. - 5:15 p.m.
ERR BNB - The Influence of a New Economy on Everything from Zoning to Market Analysis
David Silverman & Dan Bolin are participating in this session
Tuesday, May 9, 9:30 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.
Real Estate Law for Planners
Land Use and Environmental / Seminars
Court Addresses Ban on Citizen Contact with Government Officials
A federal court recently decided an interesting case which could have occurred in any governmental body in the United States. The case was decided by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and is called Mirabella v. Villard.
The Mirabella family petitioned their local township government for assistance in a dispute with neighbors and threatened to sue the government. The dispute revolved around a wetland owned by Montgomery Township and abutting the Mirabellas and neighboring property. The Mirabellas allege that their neighbors extended their backyards into the public wetlands by attempting to fence in the open space and place playground equipment there and landscaping it. The Mirabellas complained to the Township which removed the fence and required the neighbors to move their playground equipment and initially required the neighbors to stop landscaping the open space. The Mirabellas, however, alleged that their neighbors continued to cut and clear the open space and continued to complain about this, but the Township ultimately reversed course and gave the neighbors permission to mow the open space.
The Mirabellas viewed the Township's response as overly permissive and environmentally destructive. They notified the Township Board of Supervisors by email that they intended to sue their neighbors for encroachment and destruction of the open space. They criticized the Township for not protecting its rights in the land. They also indicated they would name the Township as a party in the lawsuit.
On the same day the Mirabellas threatened litigation, the Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors wrote to the attorney for the Township and copied the Mirabellas. The official claimed that such a lawsuit would be frivolous and wanted to let the parties know that the Township would seek sanctions if the case was filed. The Mirabellas, both lawyers, responded that they felt that they had a strong case. Later that night, the Chairperson of the Board of Township Supervisors replied to the Mirabellas as follows:
Please direct all further communications to the Township attorney. Please never contact me, the Board of Supervisors or the Township employees directly. Do not call me at work, email me at home or speak to me in public or private. The die is caste (sic).
The Mirabellas did attend one meeting of the Board of Supervisors at which they protested the destruction of the open space and expressed their "dismay and anger" over the emails.
The Mirabellas subsequently filed suit, alleging that the Township officials had violated their First Amendment rights by retaliating against them and cutting off their right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The district court denied the Township officials' motions to dismiss and said that Township officials were not entitled to qualified immunity.
The Township officials then appealed to the Third Circuit arguing they had done nothing wrong and were entitled to qualified immunity.
The Third Circuit first held that the email to the Mirabellas barring them from communicating directly with their local government, for any reason and indefinitely, "was sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising constitutional rights." The Court stated that the "no contact" email was a direct violation of their First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances, holding that citizens have the right to petition any department of government including the right to do so taken in anticipation of litigation. The Court pointed out that governments do have the power to place certain reasonable "time, place or manner" restrictions on speech, but governments may not restrict speech "in such a manner that a substantial portion of the burden on speech does not serve to advance its goals." The restrictions on speech must also "leave open ample alternate channels for communication of the information." The Court then pointed out that the government itself bears the burden to demonstrate that the restriction is constitutionally permissible, but the Township could not satisfy that burden because they imposed an absolute ban on contact.
Although the Court agreed with the Mirabellas that the Township's ban on contact with Township officials was a constitutional violation, the Court nevertheless held that the Township officials were immune from liability because a reasonable government official may not have known that imposing a "no contact" rule was unconstitutional.
Now that the court has indicated that this is an area where private citizens may be able to sue their government, it puts officials on notice that even angry citizens have substantial constitutional rights.
Post Authored by Stewart Diamond, Ancel Glink
Tattoo Artist Alleged Sufficient First Amendment Claim
A tattoo artist, James Real, wanted to open a parlor in Long Beach, California. However, Long Beach's zoning ordinance restricted the location of tattoo parlors and required a conditional use permit. Real sued the City arguing that its zoning laws restricted his First Amendment rights. The district court ruled in favor of the City and Real appealed.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court, and held that Real did have standing to challenge the zoning restrictions on tattoo parlors. Real v. City of Long Beach (9th Cir. Mar. 29,2017). The Court found that Real sufficiently alleged that the ordinance impermissibly restricts an activity protected by the First Amendment and that there would be a creditable threat of prosecution if he opens the tattoo parlor without obtaining the required conditional use permit. The Court held that he did not have to wait until he was denied a conditional use to challenge the ordinance.
In addition, the Court held that the City's conditional use process gave government officials too much discretion over protected activity (expressive speech) and did not provide any procedural safeguards, which amounted to a prior restraint on speech.
The Court remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings on Real's claim that the City ordinance was an unlawful time, place, and manner restriction.
Post Authored by Amanda Riggs & Julie Tappendorf
Constitutional Issues / Land Use and Environmental
Illinois House Introduces "Airline Passenger Protection Act"
Yesterday, Illinois HB 4034 was introduced. If enacted, it would create the Airline Passenger Protection Act, which would prohibit any state or municipal employee or contractor from involuntarily removing a ticketed passenger from an aircraft by force unless the following exists:
1. The passenger has committed a breach of the peace;
2. The passenger presents a danger to himself or herself or others; or
3. A public emergency exists.
The Act also prohibits the state of Illinois and Illinois units of local government to make any travel arrangements with or do any business with any airline that has a policy allowing involuntary removal of a passenger from a plane to accommodate an employee who is traveling on a non-revenue ticket.
The bill was just introduced, so there is no history on it yet. Since this bill would affect government police department activities, as well as government employee travel, we will keep an eye on it.
Court Ok's Prayer at School Board Meetings
A federal court of appeals recently held that student read invocations at school board meetings are allowed under a very limited exception to the Establishment Clause called the legislative prayer exception. American Humanist Association v. Birdville Independent School District (5th Cir. Mar. 20, 2017).
From 1997 to 2015, the Birdville Independent School District (BISD) has allowed elementary or middle school students to deliver statements at the opening of each board meeting. In some cases, the students read poems or essays, but on occasion, a student read a Christian prayer. In 2015, American Humanist Association (AHA) and a BISD alum Isaiah Smith, filed suit claiming the invocations violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The district court ruled in favor of the school district, finding that the legislative prayer exception applied. AHA and Smith filed separate appeals.
The legislative prayer exception allows prayers to be given at legislative proceedings and town-board meetings. However, as a general rule, prayers in public schools did not fall under the exception. The issue before the court was whether a school board meeting is more like a legislative proceeding or a school activity. In the court's view, school board meetings (which took place away from school grounds, dealt with administrative issues, and did not involve students as mandatory deliberative participants) were more like legislative proceedings than school activities. As a result, the court of appeals agreed with the district court decision allowing student invocations to be read at school board meetings.
Surveillance of Employee Facebook Activities
From Ancel Glink's sister blog, The Workplace Report: NLRB: Facebook and Surveillance, and Concerted Activities, Oh My!
In a recent decision from the National Labor Relations Board, an administrative law judge addressed whether a laid-off employee's Facebook photos and comments, which were critical of her employer's pay and workplace condition policies, could be used in the employer's decision not to rehire the employee.
Strain, a former sales employee at Natural Life, claimed the company engaged in unlawful surveillance by checking her Facebook page. A company manager (Guggia) had heard that Strain was posting "horrible things" about her on Facebook. Guggia, who was Facebook friends with Strain, looked and saw that Strain had made negative comments about the company and its owner. Guggia specifically recalled Strain commenting that "she had something for their ass." Strain made other comments in which she claimed that her employer was racist and stealing from her paycheck. Based on those negative Facebook posts, Guggia chose not to rehire Strain, and Strain's complaint went to the NLRB.
The case included a number of claims, including that the company (1) engaged in unlawful surveillance of Strain's Facebook page; (2) unlawfully listened to employee phone calls; and (3) improperly terminated Strain and co-workers for engaging in protected concerted activities.
First, the administrative law judge dismissed Strain's unlawful surveillance claim, finding that Guggia looked at Strain's Facebook to determine what Strain was saying about her individually. Guggia's action was not enough to establish that the company had engaged in surveillance of its employees in an effort to discover their protected concerted activities.
The case also included an allegation that the company unlawfully listened in and recorded phone calls between its employees. In contrast to Strain's Facebook claim, the administrative law judge found that the company did engage in unlawful surveillance when it snooped through the phone calls since the employees were discussing taking legal action against the company. In his opinion, the administrative judge reminded the company that "[t]filing of an employment—related class or collection action relating to terms and conditions of employment is protected activity."
Finally, the administrative law judge held that the company had improperly terminated Strain and several of her colleagues because they engaged in protected concerted activities. At a meeting prior to the employees' discharges, Guggia made several comments about the employees' conversations in regards to filing a lawsuit and their complaints about the terms and conditions of their employment. The company failed to set forth persuasive, lawful reasons for the terminations. Strain, as well as several other employees, was awarded reinstatement and back pay due to the unlawful terminations.
This decision serves as a good reminder for what constitutes as unlawful surveillance of concerted activities under the National Labor Relations Act. Observing employees engaged in protected conduct in a manner that is "more than ordinary or casual," can be considered coercive. The decision also provides some further insight regarding the how the NLRB is addressing workplace-related comments published on various social media platforms.
Click here to read the entire decision.
Original Post Authored by Katie O'Grady, Ancel Glink
Verification of Official Government Social Media Pages
I just returned from the third annual Government Social Media Conference (#GSMCON2017), where government officials and employees from across the country discuss new strategies for engaging their citizens and constituents. There were so many great sessions and I was pleased to participate in a session on legal issues with government use of social media. Some of the discussion at that session centered on strategies for dealing with impostor sites - i.e., Facebook or Twitter accounts that deliberately mislead the public into believing they are the official site.
One strategy that any government site can implement very easily is to "verify" their page. Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram all offer verification - you know an account is verified when you see the blue check mark. That check mark is not just for celebrities - these social media platforms offer verification for government entities. (Facebook was even offering to verify government pages on-site at the conference).
If you are concerned about impostor sites or just want to make sure your visitors know they are on your "official" page, verification is a relatively painless process. Look out for the blue check mark.
Installation of New Municipal Elected Officials
Every two years, we receive a lot of questions about when newly elected municipal officials (city council and village board) take office. There is a statute that governs this, and it provides as follows:
(65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-15)
Sec. 3.1-10-15. Commencement of terms. The terms of elected municipal officers shall commence at the first regular or special meeting of the corporate authorities after receipt of the official election results from the county clerk of the regular municipal election at which the officers were elected, except as otherwise provided by ordinance fixing the date for inauguration of newly elected officers of a municipality. The ordinance shall not, however, fix the time for inauguration of newly elected officers later than the first regular or special meeting of the corporate authorities in the month of June following the election.
Under this statute, the general rule is that new elected municipal officers will be sworn in at the first board or council meeting after the county sends the certified election results to the municipality. While timing for each county's certification process will be different, historically, most municipalities receive results in mid to late April, and install their new members at their first meeting in May.
Don't forget, however, to check your own local ordinance or code to see if your municipality has adopted a local rule on when new members should be installed. That ordinance will control unless it establishes an installation date later than the first meeting in June. So, for example, if you receive certified election results on April 20th, and your ordinance sets the installation of new members at the 2nd meeting in May, then that ordinance controls and new members should be sworn in at the second meeting in May and not the first meeting.
Because this varies from municipality to municipality, if you have any questions, you should run them by your village or city attorney.
Court Rules that 7(1)(a) FOIA Exemption Does Not Apply to Municipal Ordinances
A recent Illinois Appellate Court case found that municipal ordinances are not considered "state law" under Section 7(1)(a) of FOIA.
In City of Chicago v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2017 IL App (1st) 150870 (March 31, 2017), the City of Chicago sent a subpoena to Janssen to obtain documents relating to a false claims investigation regarding Janssen's marking of opioids. Janssen did not comply with the subpoena, and the City filed a lawsuit. The parties entered into a protective order, which provided that the information produced by Janssen could only be used in accordance with Section 1-22-050 of the False Claims Chapter of the Chicago Municipal Code ("ordinance"), or by court order. The protective order further provided that information produced by Janssen could be confidential and that Janssen considered it to be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
The City then withdrew its Petition to Enforce the subpoena and Janssen produced over 100,000 pages of documents to the City, many of which were marked "confidential." The City filed another suit against Janssen alleging violations of the ordinance. USA Today then issued a FOIA to the City to obtain copies of documents in support of the claims against Janssen. The City notified Janssen of USA Today's FOIA request and stated that it believed three documents were responsive.
Janssen then filed a motion to enforce the protective order, arguing: 1) that the order required the City to deny third party request brought under FOIA, 2) that the documents were exempt from disclosure under Section 7(1)(a) of FOIA as the ordinance qualified as "state law," which was prohibited from disclosure, and 3) that the documents were exempt under 7(1)(g) of FOIA as production of confidential information would make it more difficult for a public body to obtain similar information in the future, creating a "chilling effect." The circuit court denied Janssen's Motion, and Janssen appealed to the Illinois appellate court.
On appeal, the court affirmed. The court first evaluated Section 7(1)(a) of FOIA, which exempts information specifically prohibited from disclosure by federal or state law. Janssen argued that the ordinance qualified as state law, and was expressly prohibited from disclosure under 7(1)(a). Janssen argued that as a home rule unit, the City has the same power as the state to legislate FOIA exemptions. The court found that the phrase "state law" must be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which excludes municipal ordinances. Since "state law" does not include municipal ordinances, the court held that the documents were not exempt under 7(1)(a).
The court next analyzed Janssen's 7(1)(g) argument, that the disclosure of its documents would have a "chilling effect" on other organizations complying with a subpoena issued by the City. The court similarly rejected this argument, finding that Janssen failed to assert why the disclosure of information would cause it competitive harm.
Post Authored by Erin Baker, Ancel Glink
2017 Newly Elected Officials Handbook Available
Every two years, Ancel Glink publishes a Handbook for Newly Elected Officials to coincide with the election of many Illinois local government officials (which happens in odd years). We just released our 2017 edition of this Handbook, which you can download for free from Ancel Glink's website in the Resource Center.
This Handbook provides timely and timeless information about a number of topics of interest to elected officials. The following is a list of the articles included in the handbook:
The Open Meetings Act: Don't Leave Home Without It
The Freedom of Information Act: A Primary Duty of Public Bodies
The Rules Are the Game
Taxing and Spending
Understanding and Avoiding Conflicts of Interest
The Gift Ban Act and Prohibited Political Activities
You're The Boss Now! Labor and Employment Issues
An Outline of the Governmental Construction Process
Suing and Being Sued
How to Avoid Being Sued
Working Together—The Intergovernmental Cooperation Act
Technology: What a Tangled Web-Page We Weave...
Cooperating on Economic Development
ANCEL GLINK'S Top Ten List
25 Challenges and Opportunities for Experienced and New Mayors,
10 Lessons Learned by a Former Elected Official
The Magic Governmental Mix
The Ancel Glink Library
How to Choose a Governmental Attorney
Representing Smaller Governments
Distressed Developments; Addressing the Impacts and Recognizing the Opportunities
Land Banking and Nuisance Abatement Strategies: Municipal Tools for Revitalizing Abandoned Properties
Appellate Court Grants Group another Shot to Challenge Gun Shop Zoning Approvals
Last week, an Illinois appellate court held that "People for a Safer Society" ("PFSS") will be allowed another opportunity to file an amended complaint to establish the group's standing to challenge the Village of Niles' approval of a special use permit for "Howard Venture," a business with firearm sales, an indoor firing range, and firearms safety training.
After the Village approved Howard Venture's special use permit, area residents and PFSS filed a lawsuit claiming that the zoning approvals were unconstitutional as applied to them. The plaintiffs were not adjacent or adjoining property owners. The trial court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of standing, and for failing to identify any particular harm they suffered from the approval.
The appellate court stated that plaintiffs are required to assert a "special" harm that differs from the harm suffered by the general public in order to establish standing for their lawsuit challenging the rezoning of a third party's property. Although the four individual plaintiffs owned businesses in close proximity to the Howard property, the court held that they failed to establish how their harm differed from other individuals residing and working within a two-mile radius of the Howard property. Proximity to a rezoned property alone was insufficient to provide the individuals with an interest beyond that of the general public, so the individual plaintiffs lacked standing.
As to PFSS' standing to remain in the case, it had alleged that one of its members, New Hope Academy, would have to relocate its school if the gun shop is allowed to open. The court held that PFSS' conclusory allegation that the school would relocate was too speculative and remote but allowed them to file a second amendment complaint alleging more facts to support their cause of action.
To learn more about standing to challenge the zoning of a third party's property, you can review the appellate court's full opinion: People for a Safer Society v. Village of Niles.
Post authored by Daniel J. Bolin and Amanda Riggs
Illinois Supreme Court to Hear Appeal of Bike Path Tort Immunity Case
The Illinois Supreme Court has granted the Chicago Park District's petition for leave to appeal in a case that may have significant implications for units of local government that maintain bike paths.
In Cohen v. Chicago Park District, 2016 Il App (1st) 152889, the plaintiff was riding his bike on the Lakefront Trail near the Shedd Aquarium when his wheel became caught in a crack in the concrete. The crack was approximately three to four feet long, three to four inches wide, and two to three inches deep. Cohen was injured and sued the Park District for willful and wanton conduct.
At trial, the court granted the Park District's motion for summary judgment, finding the District was immune under Section 3-107(a) of the Tort Immunity Act, which grants absolute immunity from injuries caused by a condition of a "road which provides access to fishing, hunting, or primitive camping, recreational or scenic areas." Additionally, the trial court found that, even if section 3-107(a) did not apply, the Park District was immune under section 3-106, which provides immunity from injuries occurring on recreational areas, unless the governmental entity has engaged in willful and wanton conduct.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, finding, first, that section 3-107(a) immunity applies only to access roads to primitive recreational and scenic areas, and not to the Lakefront Trail. Additionally, the appellate court held that the question of whether the Park District may have engaged in willful and wanton conduct was a question of fact for a jury to determine. The plaintiff had presented evidence that the Park District was aware of the defect in the Lakefront Trail prior to the plaintiff's injuries. Consequently, according to the appellate court, it was not appropriate for the trial court to hold as a matter of law that the Park District was not willful and wanton.
The Park District appealed the appellate court's ruling, and the District's appeal will be heard by the Illinois Supreme Court. We will report on the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in this matter when it becomes available.
Post Authored by Jim Rock, Ancel Glink
7th Circuit Extends Title VII Prohibition on Sex Discrimination to Sexual Orientation
Yesterday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal circuit court covering Illinois, among other states) ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana (7th Cir. April 4, 2017).
The case involved a lawsuit filed by Kimberly Hively against her employer, Ivy Tech Community College. Hively was a part-time adjunct professor at the college who had applied six times, unsuccessfully, for a full-time position from 2009 and 2014. In 2013, she filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that she was being discriminated based on her sexual orientation. In 2014, after she filed her charge with the EEOC, her part-time contract was not renewed.
She received her right-to-sue letter and filed her lawsuit in the district court. That court granted the college's motion to dismiss, on the basis that sexual orientation is not a protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. She then appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Seventh Circuit first acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court and the other circuit courts of appeals have not recognized sexual orientation to be part of Title VII's sex discrimination protection.
The Court framed the issue before it as not whether the Court should "amend" Section VII to add a new protected category, but instead whether actions taken on the basis of sexual orientation are a subset of actions taken on the basis of sex, which is protected under Section VII. In the Seventh Circuit's view, that answer is yes, because, as the Court states in the Hively opinion, "it is actually impossible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without discriminating on the basis of sex..." As a result, the Court overturned the district court's dismissal of Hively's complaint against her former employer, holding that "a person who alleges that she experienced employment discrimination on the basis of her sexual orientation has put forth a case of sex discrimination for Title VII purposes."
There were separate concurring opinions that agreed with the majority decision finding in favor of Hively, but suggesting the outcome should be based on other grounds. The dissenting opinion argued that the majority's opinion effectively amended Title VII, and that power should remain with the legislative branch rather than the courts.
Employee Time Off to Vote on Election Day
Today, is Election Day in Illinois so we offer a "Q&A" about employees and voting rights.
Question: Several of my employees have indicated they want to take an hour off during Election Day to vote. Do I have to allow them to use time off to vote?
Answer: Although there is no federal law that requires employers to give employees time off to vote, Illinois has adopted a law that requires employers to give employees two consecutive hours of paid time off on the day of an election in order to vote. The time off can only take place during the time polls are open - in this case, from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
The law does not apply to early voting, and also does not apply to employees who are not required to work for a two hour period after the polls open or before they close. So, an employee who works a 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift would not be able to request two hours off to vote. Employees must request the time off prior to Election Day (not on Election Day), and employers can generally specify which two hours their employees can take off to vote.
PAC Releases Annual Report for 2016
The Public Access Counselor of the Illinois Attorney General's office recently issued its Annual Report for 2016. The report provides information about the number of inquiries and requests for review received by the PAC office, and summarizes the binding opinions for 2016. Here are the highlights:
In 2016, the PAC received more than 4,500 requests for assistance from members of the public and the media. 4354 related to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and 366 related to the Open Meetings Act (OMA)
The PAC issued 15 binding opinions in 2016.
The PAC fielded between 15 to 20 questions per day through its FOIA phone hotline, and responded to more than 300 inquiries through the PAC email.
The PAC conducted 15 training sessions.
The Annual Report includes a summary of all 15 of the binding opinions issued in 2016. As long-time readers know, we report on all of the binding opinions throughout the year and then summarized all 15 opinions in these two posts: here and here.
The Annual Report also includes a summary of a few of the PAC's non-binding determinations (i.e., advisory opinions) issued in 2016. Interestingly, the PAC only chose a handful of advisory opinions that ruled against the public body. In this author's opinion, this type of one-sided reporting misleads the public to believe opinion that public bodies are generally not transparent. As we have reported in the past, many of the advisory opinions issued by the PAC rule in favor of the public body. Unfortunately, because the PAC refuses to publish these advisory opinions on its website, the public is not made aware of these opinions. Instead, the PAC releases an Annual Report that is silent about these "other" opinions - those in which the public body followed FOIA or the OMA - and instead focuses exclusively on opinions that rule against public bodies.
In the future, I hope that the PAC can be more transparent in its reporting. That would seem to be in the best interest of everyone, as full disclosure of all of the PAC's determinations could assist public bodies in complying with these two laws and provide the public with a fuller picture of the PAC's rulings and determinations.
Indiana Gov. Vetoes "Search Fee" for Public Record...
ABA Journal Article on Public Employee Use of Soci...
Court Upholds County Regulation of Employee Social...
Court Addresses Ban on Citizen Contact with Govern...
Tattoo Artist Alleged Sufficient First Amendment C...
Illinois House Introduces "Airline Passenger Prote...
Verification of Official Government Social Media P...
Court Rules that 7(1)(a) FOIA Exemption Does Not A...
Appellate Court Grants Group another Shot to Chall...
Illinois Supreme Court to Hear Appeal of Bike Path...
7th Circuit Extends Title VII Prohibition on Sex D...


text:
Naruto Workout Routine: Train Like The Jinchūriki Of The Nine-Tails
By ZingSid | July 7, 2021
Naruto Workout Routine: Naruto is an anime character from Naruto, Naruto Shippuden, and Boruto. He's primarily famous for his willpower and never-giving-up attitude.
I love the way Naruto had made himself strong when he was just a nobody at the start of the series. So many people get inspired by Naruto, and many people also want to know the Naruto workout routine.
Naruto Body Stats
Height 5 ft 11 inch
Age 32 years in the Boruto series
Also Read: Rock Lee Workout Routine
Naruto Workout Routine
Naruto is a character that you can see for real-life inspiration to watch. His journey from the start till the end was something incredible. I have seen all about his life and even took inspiration from how he works as the character. We know that in the Boruto series, Naruto is currently the most significant and Strongest ninja and Hokage ever born.
The reason that everyone respects him is nothing but pure hard work that Naruto has shown countless times while saving the Hidden Leaf Village. So how does the most excellent Ninja workout? What is the Naruto workout routine, and what are the abilities that he can control? Well, to find that, all we need to go back to his childhood.
When Naruto was a student, he was training hard every day, and that's why he was able to surpass Sasuke till the end of the series. During that time, we saw Naruto doing regular weapon training, ninja running, chakra meditation, and combat training, with some free-body exercises. However, once the series continued as Naruto Shippuden and then Boruto, not much has changed in training.
The only difference was the method used, and he learned much new Ninjutsu that made Naruto stronger. I even checked a few videos on Youtube where they were training like Naruto and didn't seem to be following what they should be doing. Like this video where this guy is training like Naruto for a month.
He involved running, shadow boxing, some free-body exercises, and fighting. However, the way he did that was not even enough to get a body fitness like Naruto. I won't deny the run's distance, but I think Naruto would be running at least equal to one punch, man. Then there are push-ups and other exercises, which are pretty straightforward and not enough to get a body like Naruto.
However, the biggest mistake was no combat training was involved in the whole workout. So you cannot just go out and fight random people and can be like Naruto. So I will give you guys a version of the Naruto workout that would be better than this workout and help you get a body shape like Naruto. We will work out and train six days a week and will be doing workouts twice a day.
Naruto workout includes:
Now the cardio routine will consist of running; you don't have to do the Naruto run if you don't want to, as it's not necessary. Instead, you can start with a regular running style and keep it up if that's more comfortable.
We will be doing 5km running for the first two weeks and then increasing the distance to 7km for the next two weeks, and after a month, you will be doing a 10km run six days a week. So now, if you are not used to running, don't worry; you can break it down into sets and take breaks in between.
The best way would be running half the distance in the morning and then half the distance at night before you sleep. That way, your dinner will also get digested, and you can also achieve your aim. However, if you have the stamina to do that in one go, then feel free to do that in one run.
Combat Training
Don't join a boxing gym for combat training, as Naruto's fighting style was nowhere near boxing. Instead of that, I would recommend doing four to five days of an hour of MMA training in your nearby MMA gym. If you don't have an MMA gym nearby, you can access the MMA app or watch videos on YouTube.
Free-body exercises
You can add the last thing by doing everyday push-ups, sit-ups, squats, burpees, jump squats, pull-ups, plank, leg raises, etc. Try doing them in a circuit routine to help you better body shape and burn calories while working out. Also stretching, don't forget to stretch after each workout that I have mentioned so far.
That's all for the Naruto workout routine.
Also Read: Itachi Workout Routine: Train Like Itachi Uchiha From Naruto
Category: Anime Workout Routine Workout
← Izuku Midoriya Workout Routine: Train Like Deku From My Hero Academia GFRIEND Sowon Diet Plan and Workout Routine →