Low birthweight is defined as being less than 2500 grams (or 5.5 pounds) at birth, with premature birth being a common cause of such low birthweight babies.
Birthweight is one of the key indicators of the health and viability of a newborn infant. It is one of the leading causes of infant mortality. Low birthweight infants are 40 times more likely to die in their first month of life than normal birthweight infants. They are also twice as likely as other infantsto exhibit health problems and serious developmental delays during childhood.
Several factors contribute to low birthweight. These include teenage pregnancies, unwanted or unintended pregnancies, lack of prenatal care, poor nutrition during pregnancy leading to poor maternal weight gain, maternal smoking, and the use of alcohol and other drugs during pregnancy. All of these factors are preventable, and are called "preventable risk factors."
Maternal age, maternal health, fetal infection, ethnicity, multiple births, socio-economic status, genetic makeup, obstetric history, and a variety of genetic and metabolic disorders can also contribute to low birthweight. Women over 45 years and under 20 years of age are more likely to have a low birthweight baby. African American infants are twice as likely as infants of all otherracial groups in American to be born low birthweight. Poor families are at ahigher risk of having low birthweight babies. Multiple births also pose an increased risk of low birthweight. Despite that, the rate of triplets and other multiple births are on an increase because of the usage of fertility drugs.
The belief that a mother's psychological state can influence her unborn babyexists in many cultures all around the world. By the same token, it has beenshown that mothers who live in high risk neighborhoods and encounter crime, poverty, and violence on a daily basis are very likely to have low birth weight babies. This may be because of the stress in their lives. Stress has been shown to reduce blood flow to the uterus and that could possibly slow fetal growth.
The problems of being low birthweight do not resolve even if the infant survives the first year after birth. As a group, these infants have higher rates of developmental problems, subnormal growth, and health problems than other children. By school age, these children are more likely to have learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, developmental impairments,and breathing problems. Research has shown that low birthweight babies also have higher rates of psychosocial disabilities at adolescence.
There have been some studies which show that prematurity leading to low birthweight is associated with developmental speech and language difficulties as well as an increased risk for diabetes as adults. Researchers speculate that this may be because of some biochemical modifications being made in the body of the undernourished infant before birth.
The factors that contribute to low birthweight are complex, and hence low birthweight prevention is not an easy issue to address. Without doubt, however,it is problem worthy of a national effort. The overall social environment hasto considered and a community wide approach has to be adopted.
Life style behaviors such as cigarette smoking, weight gain during pregnancy and the use of alcohol and other drugs play an important role in determining fetal growth. Cigarette smoking is one of the biggest known risk factors for low birthweight. About 20% of all low birthweights can be avoided if women did not smoke during pregnancy. Reducing heavy use of alcohol and otherdrugs could also significantly reduce the rate of low birthweight babies.
Pregnancy and the prospect of motherhood provide an important window of opportunity in a woman's life to improve her health and bring about some life style changes. Adoption of healthy lifestyle behaviors such as ceasing to smoke,giving up drug and alcohol use, eating an adequate diet, and gaining enough weight during pregnancy could positively affect the health of the woman and the health of her children.
For expectant mothers of all age groups and income levels, the same advice holds true. Early and good prenatal care increases the chances of a healthy baby and provides an array of medical, nutritional and educational interventions. These should reduce the incidence of low birthweight and other adverse outcomes.


1. Season five of Orange Is the New Black premieres June 9. Can you give us a preview?
I think you'll definitely see what happens when people feel injustice. Do we stick together? Do we continue fighting the powers-that-be segregated, or do we unite?
2. What has working on this show been like for you?
It really has been life changing. I've been an actress for 20-plus years and ... I never in a million years thought that I would be part of something like this.
3. Has working in an image-dominated industry ever affected your self-esteem?
When I went to a performing arts high school, I was made to feel that there was something wrong with me for having curves. That brought up a lot of insecurities.
4. You have a 14-year-old daughter. What kind of self-image message do you try to get across to her?
I try to make sure that my daughter gets that beauty is not just when you look at yourself in the mirror and think, "Wow! I have great cheekbones." No, beauty comes from within and we should nurture that.
5. How has motherhood changed you?
This industry is all about waiting for the next gig, being told you're not good enough, being rejected. So when you have a different outlet, for me it's the best thing that could have happened.
6. Your sister is transgender. What was it like to watch her go through the transition?
I saw her at such an early age -- at 17, 18 -- begin her transition, when that was not something that was talked about. And when I saw that she, even with all those obstacles, said, "I am who I am. I'm going to step out of the house today as who I was born to be" -- that to me was so courageous.
7. What kinds of advocacy work have you done for the transgender community?
I work with the Stonewall Community Foundation. I've been working with The Anti-Violence Project. I'm going to set up a tour where I'm going to visit a lot of facilities that cater to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth community.
8. You star in Spider-Man: Homecoming, which comes out this summer. What was it like to act in a superhero movie?
To be part of the Marvel world is incredible. I play Ms. Warren. She's the physics teacher. In the comic books she's Mr. Warren. I love the fact that they made her a woman and gave it to a Latina actress.
9. What is your personal health philosophy?
Everything in moderation makes me happy. I make sure I exercise just enough, I eat just enough, and if I need to have a drink every once in a while, I do so.


text:
Design Process & Cost
President Biden Signs Legislation Approving "Area 1" Location for the Fallen Journalists Memorial
10 Jan President Biden Signs Legislation Approving "Area 1" Location for the Fallen Journalists Memorial
Posted at 14:51h in Memorial News, News by asullivan
WASHINGTON (January 5, 2023) –
Marking an important step forward for the Fallen Journalists Memorial, President Biden signed, as part of the 2023 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, legislation on December 29, 2022, approving the future construction of the Memorial in a coveted "Area I" adjacent to our nation's iconic National Mall in Washington, D.C. It will be America's first memorial on federal land dedicated to press freedom and to those who have lost their lives in service to that cause.
"Thanks to President Biden and my former colleagues in Congress for approving the location of the Fallen Journalists Memorial adjacent to the National Mall in Washington, DC," said Fallen Journalists Memorial Foundation Founder and Chairman David Dreier. "For the past three years, sponsors Ben Cardin, Grace Napolitano, Tom Cole, Rob Portman and Chris Van Hollen have led this effort. This will allow us to build the memorial at the center of the nation's capital. It will commemorate our country's commitment to a free press by honoring journalists who have sacrificed their lives. This memorial will educate and inspire current and future generations to come."
With continued resistance, disinformation, censorship, and threats to press freedom increasingly growing in America and around the globe, the Fallen Journalists Memorial will serve as a beacon for all who support press freedom.
"Journalists often work in dangerous situations to share important stories and critical information with the global public. With the number of deaths of journalists and threats against them on the rise, it is more important than ever to create this public monument," said Fallen Journalists Memorial Foundation President Barbara Cochran. "We thank the President and our Congressional supporters for helping to pave the way to make this memorial a reality."
The Fallen Journalists Memorial Foundation is collaborating with Pulitzer Prize winning architecture critic and consultant Paul Goldberger as the Foundation works through its final site selection process within "Area I." Following the approval, the Foundation will begin to accelerate it efforts around design, construction, educational programming, fundraising, and other aspects of the memorial project.
About Fallen Journalists Memorial Foundation
The Fallen Journalists Memorial Foundation was authorized by Congress in December 2020 to build a memorial on federal land in Washington, D.C. to commemorate America's commitment to a free press by honoring journalists who have sacrificed their lives in service to that cause. The Foundation is led by former U.S. Representative David Dreier and former news executive and journalism professor Barbara Cochran. The Foundation is supported by numerous leaders from all segments of the journalism community who serve on its Board of Advisors, including editors and publishers, news anchors, and photojournalists. To learn more about the Fallen Journalists Memorial and how to support this work at www.fallenjournalists.org and follow us at @FJMemorial.
The Fallen Journalists Memorial Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.
8905 Higdon Drive Vienna, VA 22182
© Fallen Journalists Memorial Foundation. Rights Reserved.
Website design & development by Ironistic

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Adaptive BC
Book & Articles
Adaptive Business Continuity
Adaptive Business Continuity is an approach for continuously improving an organization's recovery capabilities, with a focus on the continued delivery of services following an unexpected unavailability of people, locations, and/or resources.
Despite tremendous revolutions in technology, organizational practice, and global business in the last fifteen years, traditional BC methodology has become entrenched. It has made only small, incremental adjustments, focusing increasingly on compliance and regulations over improvements to organizational readiness. This has led to a progressively untenable state of ineffectual practice, executive disinterest, and an inability to demonstrate the value of continuity programs and practitioners.
Adaptive BC transforms or eliminates the majority of traditional activities in the continuity planning industry. It focuses the discipline and its practitioners on proven practices and away from outdated and ineffectual "best" practices. Adaptive BC better equips continuity practitioners by enhancing their ability to limit potential damage to organizations' brand, capital, functions, and revenue following an incident or disaster.
While the principles of Adaptive BC may have implications for IT Disaster Recovery, Emergency Management, Crisis Management, and related fields, they are targeted for the discipline of Business Continuity. Drawing from the definition, the scope of Adaptive BC:
Differentiates Adaptive BC from resilience, sustainability, and other related initiatives;
Establishes boundaries and guidance for discipline, practice, and critique;
Provides a framework for ongoing involvement with leadership and executives; and
Allows for immediate, innovative, and valuable improvements.
There are ten principles of Adaptive BC. No single principle takes precedence over any other, nor is there an expected sequence; together the principles should be applied as holistically as possible.
They appear below in alphabetical order. Click on a principle to view details.
Deliver Continuous Value
Practitioners should not wait to deliver value all at once, at the conclusion of their preparedness efforts (even if this were possible). Instead, work should build upon itself so that practitioners are continually providing deliverables that are useful to the organization. Adaptive BC adopts relevant practices of agile, lean process improvement, and other proven practices to enable continuous incremental value.
Practitioners should create deliverables that can stand alone in manageable chunks. Practitioners should segment work into business relevant outcomes, producing frequent, shorter-term, additive, customer-informed deliverables that provide value early and often.
Strict methodology and predetermined deliverables should not dictate the creation and delivery of value. Deliverables must be informed both by the direct needs of individual executives and department leaders within an existing situation, culture, and mission, and also by the expertise of the practitioner.
Adaptive BC discourages a sequential approach. Continuous value, coupled with the core mission of continuous improvements in response and recovery capabilities, leads to the adoption of a non-linear approach that adjusts to ongoing feedback from all participants. The order in which the practitioner delivers value should be dictated by the situation, not the methodology.
Document only for Mnemonics
The goal of Adaptive BC is the continuous improvement of response and recovery capabilities, not the accumulation of documents.
Evidence clearly demonstrates that most people cannot pick up an unfamiliar and complicated plan at time of disaster and use it for an effective and efficient response. Documentation alone must not be the primary guide, desired deliverable, or measure of preparedness efforts.
Documentation serves only to support thinking and discussion involved in preparedness. Each responder must have as much of a visceral, immediate, and intuitive understanding of the roles, responsibilities, and actions required of him or her as possible. Documentation is effective only inasmuch as it provides a reminder of the processes that participants developed and practiced over time.
Employ Time as a Restriction, Not a Target
How long an organization can cope without a particular service will almost always depend on an integrated combination of factors too numerous to identify and too complex to quantify. Moreover, the changes that result from the exact timing and actual impact of a disaster on a service will dictate different judgements about applicable recovery strategies, priorities, and time. Definitive changes to a service's holistic "ecosystem" cannot be foreknown.
In this context, forcing a single answer for a recovery time target is often impossible, inaccurate, and ill-advised. Realistically, the best answer to, "How soon does service X need to be recovered?" is, "It depends." Therefore, only static, precise, predetermined, and significant time restrictions should be specifically incorporated into recovery preparations. Such restrictions are likely to relate to immediate threats to health and safety, violation of laws and regulations, and/or failure to meet contractual obligations and service level agreements.
Engage at many Levels within the Organization
Traditional planning methodology focuses on gaining executive (and only executive) support. This exclusivity of focus follows from the fallacy that the majority of necessary information, resources, and support for a successful continuity program are known and controlled by executives.
Many individuals from many levels of the organization greatly influence preparedness outcomes. The continuous improvement of recovery capabilities requires identifying and gaining the support and ongoing engagement of these key individuals and not just executives.
The practitioner must obtain meaningful information in order to effectively prepare the organization for disaster. Most times such information can only be obtained from front line staff or subject matter experts, and often only after having first built a relationship of trust.
Furthermore, it is not the practitioner or the executives who will be restoring systems and services at time of disaster. Response and recovery will require dedicated effort from people at every level of the organization. These are the people who most need to know the procedures and possess the competencies to continue the organization's services. Developing these capabilities requires appropriate and ongoing engagement.
Exercise for Improvement, not for Testing
Traditional BC standards called for measurements but were unable to offer examples. As Brian A. Jackson of the Rand Corporation notes, "The limits of many of the means of assessing preparedness have led to interest in the use of exercises… As a result, whether or not a plan has been exercised is frequently used as a proxy measure for assessing its preparedness value."
Business continuity tests are not reliable measures of recoverability. There are significant limitations in using a test to simulate a real disaster, and serious problems exist in using such an exercise to validate an organization's ability to hit its defined Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs) and Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs).
Exercises should be used to support the continuous improvement of response and recovery capabilities. They should neither be used as tests of recoverability nor as reviews of planning documentation. As such, the focus of exercises should be to:
Get comfortable working and making decisions in a (simulated) post-incident or post-disaster environment
Know the structure and practice the initial actions of designated response teams
•	Increase awareness of both existing and missing resources, procedures, and competencies needed to respond and recover
Identify areas and owners for short- and long-term improvements
Learn the Business
Traditional continuity planning focused practitioners more on strict methodology and prescribed compliance than on the genuine effectiveness of the work performed. Practitioners often did not understand the business and were unable to address the real concerns of executive leadership.
Adaptive BC encourages practitioners to learn the mission and culture of each department, and to understand the systems and services involved. Response and recovery processes cannot just be bolted on to a department's pre-existing structure and environment. Alien and artificial processes are not easily adopted and are likely forgotten or discarded at time of disaster. Processes that align with the day-to-day nature of the department will be more effective when most needed.
Practitioners must move beyond merely collecting data about the business, and instead improve their business acumen by learning the vision, mission, and operations of each area within the organization as well as the language of leadership within the context of continuity of services.
Measure and Benchmark
Measurement is crucial to Adaptive BC. Traditional continuity planning relied on the accumulation of deliverables or conformity to defined standards as metrics without regard for the effectiveness of such materials or activities. This oversight resulted in an inability to demonstrate the business value of practitioners' efforts to executives and other key stakeholders.
The final measure of preparedness is the effective response and actual recoverability of a system or service (or a holistic collection of both) at time of disaster. Organizations cannot afford to wait until time of disaster to know to what degree they are prepared to recover from a significant physical or staffing loss.
Measuring an organization's capability to respond to and recover from an unexpected unavailability is straightforward. Measurement should focus on the following three factors:
Resources: The degree to which resources that will be required at time of disaster will be available
Procedures: The degree to which each individual responder fully knows and has internalized his / her duties at time of disaster
Crisis Competencies: The degree to which each individual responder, operating in conjunction with other responders, will be able to function effectively throughout the duration of the disaster.
Measurements indicate where an organization can invest to improve its capabilities to recover. Benchmarking demonstrates that such investments have provided the intended results. Practitioners must benchmark existing levels of preparedness as early as possible within an organization, and then again at regular intervals.
Measurement and benchmarking provide a quantitative foundation for Adaptive BC. In this way the organization can be confident that the defined processes, additional resources, and improved competencies are contributing to the desired result – continuous recoverability improvement.
Obtain incremental direction from Leadership
Traditional continuity methodology insisted that the practitioner obtain formal support from executive leadership before any work could begin. Standards dictated that all program objectives be identified, documented, and approved by the executive team before the practitioner could even begin work to prepare the organization.
Adaptive BC believes that executive leaders know their business well enough to identify the most critical functions and put the right people in charge of them, thus providing a command and control structure for the preparedness program and its practitioners. Work can begin quickly within individual areas based on the specific needs and knowledge of the accountable and assigned leader in each area.
Using an incremental approach, the practitioner can consistently deliver value and make beneficial course corrections based on regular feedback. The successful practitioner of Adaptive BC must carefully navigate competing constraints while ensuring that Board members and senior leaders are aware of their risks for fiduciary accountability, loss of revenues and capital, inadequate or inapplicable insurance, and impact to brand. Practitioners should partner with individual leaders to determine the appropriate actions and investments that will improve the organization's capability to respond to and recover from disaster, while keeping such efforts aligned in the context of business priorities.
Omit Risk Assessments and Business Impact Analyses
The risk assessment (RA) and the business impact analysis (BIA) form the backbone of traditional continuity planning. They are considered fundamental components in virtually every best practice guide and industry standard. Employing these two practices leads practitioners along a trajectory that further entangles their work in the many related techniques of traditional continuity planning, along with the negative outcomes of these techniques. Practitioners should eliminate the use of the risk assessment and business impact analysis.
The results of a risk assessment may lead the practitioner, leadership, participants, and organization as a whole to prepare for and mitigate threats that never materialize while other non-identified threats materialize instead. Preparing for the wrong threats is a waste of resources and may lead to a false sense of security that further jeopardizes the organization.
Some threats, such as cyber attacks, disgruntled employees, and utility or infrastructure disruptions, are identified and mitigated but materialize nonetheless. It is precisely because bad things will happen, despite the best efforts of very capable risk managers to prevent them, that continuity planning is so critical. (See additional points in "Prepare for Effects, not Causes.") There are also significant liabilities for continuity practitioners who do not possess the training and expertise to properly implement and follow through on a risk assessment. Risk assessment is a technique of risk management, a discipline with its own body of knowledge apart from business continuity. Administering a proper risk assessment and implementing the resulting action items may necessitate deep knowledge of actuarial tables, information security, insurance and fraud, state and federal regulations, seismological and meteorological data, and the law. Typical continuity practitioners do not possess such deep knowledge; those who do are most likely specifically trained as risk managers. Adaptive BC practitioners as such should eliminate the risk assessment from their scope of responsibility.
Business Impact Analysis
The purpose of a formal business impact analysis is to identify an organization's services along with the potential daily or hourly loss, usually in terms of money, that a disruption of the service would have on the organization. Over time, the purpose of a BIA has changed, expanded, and become indistinct. The term BIA now often includes recovery time objective (RTO) and recovery point objective (RPO) data, response and recovery strategies, upstream and downstream dependencies, and other information.
The BIA as a measure of estimated losses should be abandoned. Its main purpose was to help leadership identify the most critical services and to set a prioritization for continuity planning efforts. The discipline should eliminate the BIA because:
The goal of quantifying the impact of disaster is likely a non-starter from the beginning. Numerous commentators have identified numerous deep flaws at the core of the BIA practice. Rainer Hübert's definitive paper, "Why the Business Impact Analysis Does Not Work," makes a compelling argument for the industry to abandon the practice of BIA work entirely because of the "very costly and even fatal misinterpretations and misrepresentations" inherent in the process.
Executive leadership can be trusted to identify critical services based on their experience and knowledge of the organization (as discussed in "Obtain Incremental Direction from Leadership") and therefore can set general direction and prioritization for preparedness planning.
The proper sequence to restore services at time of disaster will depend on the exact nature of the post-disaster situation, a situation that cannot be predicted ahead of time. Because the organization must be flexible and responsive to the situation as it unfolds in real time, recovery time targets and a prescriptive recovery sequence should not be predetermined.
Due to the increasingly nebulous and confused understanding of the term BIA, along with the many connotations and associations that the term has within traditional continuity planning, both the practice and term itself should be entirely abandoned in Adaptive BC.
Prepare for Effects, not Causes
Adaptive BC focuses on the three major effects of an incident:
Unavailability of location
Unavailability of people
Unavailability of resources (physical or virtual)
A vast number of circumstances and combinations of cascading events can lead to one or all of these effects. An organization cannot responsibly afford to plan for so many causes. Fortunately, a robust response and recovery strategy can be generated and effectively executed from a short list of intelligently combined options.
The organization can mix and scale a portfolio of response and recovery processes as the incident unfolds and the situation changes. Often the response to effects can be relatively simple if staff is trained to evaluate from among a short set of known options and then act as practiced in advance. This allows the organization to remain flexible and efficient in its management of the incident.
We should expect Adaptive BC to evolve.
This is neither a principle nor a corollary derived from the nine principles, though it should not be surprising given the nature of the Adaptive BC methodology and its focus on flexible and incremental approaches to produce continual value.
Adaptive BC should remain open for critique and improvement, serving as an ongoing proven practice, with hopes that an orderly, structured, and systematic approach can be established to support it.
Corollary: Adaptive BC is not Resilience
While commentators and academics will deduce many corollaries from the original nine principals of Adaptive BC, this one is of such particular import that it should be called out from the start.
Adaptive BC is not "resilience."
Resilience is an inter-discipline. Resilience does not represent a discipline in its own right; rather it connects theoretical and practical tools from a set of disciplines in a unique way and therefore warrants its own sphere of study, practice, writing, funding, and subject matter experts.
Organizational and community resilience is in an uncertain state at present. There is a great deal of debate as to which disciplines resilience should pull from and how to measure its effectiveness. Continuity planning is one discipline among many that will likely contribute to the inter-discipline of resilience. But business continuity should no more morph into resilience than should IT DR, cyber security, risk management, sustainability, or strategic planning become resilience.
One-page Handout (.jpg)
Click image to view and download
One-page Handout (.pdf)
One-page in Spanish (.png)
View the original Manifesto as a .pdf document
Summary Matrix
View a summary matrix of the ten principles
2-Page Summary
View a 2-page .pdf summary of the Manifesto
Full Document (Spanish)
View the Manifesto as a .pdf document in Spanish
Full Document (Portuguese)
View the Manifesto as a .pdf document in Portuguese
Full Document (Mandarin)
View the Manifesto as a .pdf document in Mandarin
Full Document (Japanese)
View the Manifesto as a .pdf document in Japanese
Full Document (German)
View the Manifesto as a .pdf document in German
2-Page Summary (Spanish)
Spanish translation of the 2-page summary
2-Page Summary (French)
French translation of the 2-page summary
2-Page Summary (Mandarin)
Mandarin translation of the 2-page summary
2-Page Summary (Japanese)
Japanese translation of the 2-page summary
This is a non-commercial website dedicated to the presentation and discussion of materials associated with Adaptive Business Continuity. All content is licensed under a Creative Commons BY NC SA international license. David Lindstedt, PhD, owns the original copyright to the website and all content, except the Manifesto (which is jointly shared with Mark Armour) and linked content hosted on other websites.
The Continuity 2.0 Manifesto was authored by David Lindstedt, PhD, and Mark Armour and first made available in September, 2015. The name was changed to the Adaptive BC Manifesto in late 2016.
David Lindstedt, Mark Armour, Adaptive BC Solutions LLC, and all other persons associated with this website make no warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, with regard to the Manifesto or any content on this site as to any matter including, but not limited to, warranty of fitness for purpose or merchantability, exclusivity, or results obtained from use of the materials. For questions contact info@adaptivebcp.org


text:
How we consulted
What's changing
Collaboration and planning
Some parts of this page may not display properly.
JavaScript is not available in this browser or may be turned off.
1 Continuing the Conversation
2 Summer 2016 Tour
3 2014 Province-wide conversation
3.1 Regional Engagement Sessions
3.2 Workbook
3.3 Written submissions
3.4 Emerging Themes
3.5 Stay informed
As part of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) Review process, all MGA-related regulations were reviewed to support a modernized MGA and to ensure alignment with the amendments approved by the legislature in 2015, 2016 and 2017. The review has resulted in the creation of several new regulations as well as updates to a number of existing regulations.
The first groupings of draft regulation were shared and feedback was collected from January 31 to March 31, 2017, from July 24 to September 22, 2017, and from September 18 to October 2, 2017, respectively.
Using the feedback received from Albertans, final drafts of the most of the groupings of regulations were developed and approved on October 26, 2017.
Learn more about the approved Regulations.
The discussions throughout the Summer 2016 Tour gathered their own momentum and led to thoughtful feedback, questions, and written submissions on other modernizations that could potentially be made beyond the items contemplated in the Modernized Municipal Government Act.
On November 22, 2016, the Continuing the Conversation discussion paper was released. This provided an opportunity to continue the conversation with Albertans about building an even stronger framework for Alberta's municipalities, and to flag some technical or clarifying changes that may be necessary to improve the Act's effectiveness. Feedback on the discussion paper was collected from Albertans between November 22, 2016, and January 31, 2017.
What We Heard
A What We Heard document has been prepared that captures the feedback received on the discussion paper consultation.
Summer 2016 Tour
On May 31, 2016, the Modernized Municipal Government Act was introduced in the legislature. Municipal Affairs travelled to 20 locations across Alberta during June and July, 2016 to discuss the proposed changes to the MGA through public sessions. Each session included a presentation on the MGA Review, a question and answer period, and an open house to discuss the changes in more detail. Please see the draft Agenda and the Presentation for more details on what was presented at each session.
These public sessions provided Albertan's with the opportunity to review the proposed amendments and provide their feedback before the Legislature completes debate of the bill during the fall 2016 sitting.
Listing of Tour Communities
Two Hills Lac La Biche Athabasca Rocky Mountain House
Chestermere Calgary Cochrane Canmore
Edmonton Hardisty Hanna Red Deer
High Prairie Peace River Grande Prairie Hinton
Whitecourt Brooks Medicine Hat Lethbridge
Albertan's were also invited to provide their feedback to the changes included in the Modernized Municipal Government Act through an on-line questionnaire.
A What We Heard document has been prepared that captures the feedback received during the Summer 2016 consultation.
2014 Province-wide conversation
In 2014, we consulted with Albertans across the province to hear about how we can build better communities.
Please note that comments recorded in the summary reports and What We Heard documents do not represent the opinion of the Government of Alberta, nor do they indicate future policy direction.
Regional Engagement Sessions
From the beginning of February 2014 to the end of April 2014, our MGA Review team held face-to-face consultations in 11 communities across the province. We asked what is working, what isn't working, and what sorts of revisions you think would best support building better communities.
Each location hosted multiple sessions for different groups of stakeholders:
Public Open House Session where everyone was welcome to attend.
Business and Industry Session for those who play a role in supporting the local economies to discuss the MGA from a business perspective.
Three Technical Sessions intended for in-depth discussion of specific goals for the MGA:
Governance and Administration Technical Session was planned for municipal professionals and other stakeholders who are well-versed in municipal governance to provide input on how municipalities are governed and administered.
Assessment and Taxation Technical Session was an opportunity for stakeholders who are knowledgeable about municipal taxation and assessment processes to provide input on business competitiveness and support for municipalities as they fund the programs and services in their communities.
Planning and Development Technical Session was designed for planning and development professionals and other stakeholders with technical expertise to focus on how municipalities undertake planning and manage growth in a sustainable way.
The Municipal Elected Officials and Municipal Administrators Sessions were workshops for elected officials and those who play a role in support the operations of municipalities to provide input on the MGA.
Below you'll find detailed documents outlining what we heard during each session. These summaries include the comments and opinions of participants during the sessions and were considered by Alberta Municipal Affairs as part of a larger review of the MGA legislation.
Public consultations were held in Edmonton during February 5-7, 2014. A total of seven sessions took place over three days, with 330 total participants.
Governance and Administration Technical Session
Assessment and Taxation Technical Session
Planning and Development Technical Session
Business and Industry Session
Municipal Administrators Session
Public Open House Session
Elected Officials Session
Public consultations were held in Fort McMurray during February 12-13, 2014. A total of six sessions took place over three days, with 45 total participants.
Public consultations were held in Vermilion during February 19-21, 2014. A total of seven sessions took place over three days, with 65 total participants.
Public consultations were held in Lethbridge during February 26-28, 2014. A total of seven sessions took place over three days, with 144 total participants.
Public consultations were held in Edson during March 5-7, 2014. A total of seven sessions took play over three days, with 54 total participants.
Public consultations were held in Red Deer during March 12-14, 2014. A total of seven sessions took place over three days, with 215 total participants.
Public consultations were held in Brooks during March 26-28, 2014. A total of seven sessions took place over three days, with 48 total participants.
Public consultations were held in Grande Prairie during April 2-4, 2014. A total of seven sessions took place over three days, with 134 total participants.
Public consultations were held in Calgary during April 9-11, 2014. A total of seven sessions took place over three days, with 314 total participants.
Public consultations were held in Medicine Hat during April 14-16, 2014. A total of seven sessions took place over three days, with 55 total participants.
Public consultations were held in Peace River during April 23-25, 2014. A total of seven sessions took place over three days, with 66 total participants.
The MGA Review workbook was an opportunity for Albertans to dig deeper into the legislation and have their say on specific areas of the Municipal Government Act. The summary below includes the comments and opinions of Albertans who submitted their workbook inputs online or by mail. More than 1,000 submissions were received across all 13 chapters of the workbook.
Workbook Submissions
Written submissions
Organizations and individuals wishing to submit a report or recommendations for the Municipal Government Act were encouraged to send their input before June 13, 2014.
The following What We Heard documents include the comments and opinions of participants, and present an overall picture of what we heard from Albertans during public consultation between January and June 2014. They reflect feedback and ideas brought forward through the consultation sessions, workbook, and written submissions.
Emerging Themes: Municipal Partner and Stakeholder Considerations
Summary of Inputs and Identified Issues
Sign up for email notifications to hear when new content is added to this website as the MGA Review moves forward.
Contact us with the details.
MGA Review Change Management Resources
Resources to assist municipalities in managing the implementation of the changes to the MGA and associated regulations.
Modernized municipal laws for strong communities (October 27, 2017)
Province set to lead on municipal legislation (April 10, 2017)
Review the Modernized Municipal Government Act discussion paper
Public input strengthens municipal legislation (November 22, 2016)
Public feedback will help shape municipal legislation (October 21, 2016)
Alberta moves to empower local governments, strengthen community collaboration (May 31, 2016)
Save the date: Municipal Affairs Minister announces summer engagement on the Municipal Government Act (April 12, 2016)
Municipal Government Act to change how municipalities work together (September 25, 2015)
Government amends the Municipal Government Act (March 16, 2015)
View the Municipal Government Act in its entirety, as well as other technical documents
Alberta Municipal Affairs website
Alberta Municipal Affairs provides support and advice to assist municipalities in providing Albertans with strong and effective local government.
Learn more about the Ministry
Copyright and Disclaimer | Using this Site | Terms of Use and Policies | Privacy Statement


A list of Citizendium articles, and planned articles, about Continuum hypothesis.
See also changes related to Continuum hypothesis, or pages that link to Continuum hypothesis or to this page or whose text contains "Continuum hypothesis".
This page was last modified 21:28, 11 June 2009.


text:
The Secret of the Storm Country er en amerikansk stumfilm fra 1917 af Charles Miller.

Medvirkende
 Norma Talmadge som Tess Skinner
 Edwin Denison som Orn Skinner
 J. Herbert Frank som Ebenezer Walderstricker
 Niles Welch som Frederick Graves
 Ethel Grey Terry som Madelene Walderstricker

Referencer

Eksterne henvisninger

Stumfilm fra USA
Amerikanske film fra 1917
Dramafilm fra USA

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Continuing with their efforts to connect with and foster ties with locals in Jangalmahal, the CRPF jawans camping in the terrain have launched a unique mission to take a trip round the villages and train jobless youths on ways to crack competitive exams and school them on the nitty-gritties of applying for jobs or posts should they make it through.
The jawans have planned to mobilise the effort by way of an audio-visual presentation, said sources.
Buoyed by similar coaching efforts, which saw a significant number of local youths bag government jobs, the jawans have now pledged to scale up the efforts in a manner as to ensure that more jobless youths could draw the desired benefits of the initiative.
The primary aim of the effort is to raise the general living standards of the impoverished locals and tide over the grinding poverty and sense of disillusionment, which has caused many to take up arms against the state.
"The project was conceived as part of our social responsibility and a desire to empower local youths by helping them crack competitive exams and bag government jobs. We can take pride in our efforts, which has already helped many jobless youths become earning members of their respective households. We have now decided to step up our efforts to help more youths draw similar benefits. Our jawans have volunteered to offer coaching and training sessions free of cost," BB Vaid, the Commandant of the CRPF's 50 battalion, told Hindustan Times.
According to sources, jawans of the 50 battalion launched such training efforts in all seven pockets of the terrain they are camping in and of the 158 youths trained at their coaching centres since 2011, 84 have already been recruited in the CRPF, Air Force, Indian Railways and other defence and police services.
The beneficiaries include youths not just from the restive rebel stronghold of Lalgarh and its surrounding areas, but also from such neighbouring areas as Garbeta, Pirakata, Keshpur, Anandapur and the Jhargram area.
"We coach the youths in two batches and hope the success stories of the locals now employed, will help draw many more to our centres," AK Mondal, a CRPF jawan leading the training effort told Hindustan Times.