"He should reconsider his approach and clearly justify his position."
When I was a police officer in London's Metropolitan police I came across vulnerable people every day – rough sleepers, victims of domestic violence, those who were exploited by unscrupulous employers. These are some of the most vulnerable people in our society and they are often victims of multiple crimes. The primary purpose of the police is to prevent crime and to protect people 'without fear or favour', whoever they are.
That is why the mayor of London's pronouncement that police officers are "duty bound" to report victims of crime to the Home Office if there are "reasonable grounds" to question the victim's immigration status is so damaging. By essentially turning police officers into immigration enforcement officers, there is a natural erosion of the police's ability to protect and a confusion as to their role.
Reporting rates among the vulnerable - and for some crime types such as sexual offences and hate crimes - are already low. If vulnerable crime victims now feel that by reporting they have been raped, for example, they may open themselves up to immigration investigation, detention or even deportation, they will be even less likely to help the police. With the Home Office only yesterday admitting mistakenly sending deportation letters to EU nationals who are legally in the country, even those with regular immigration status could be put off.
This harms victims and makes us all less safe, because it allows serious criminals to evade justice. It also lets criminals know that they are less likely to be reported by these marginalised groups. They are likely to feel emboldened and may actively target those they suspect will not go to the police. We already know this happens in the informal labour market. Employers who pay cash-in-hand are more likely to bend employment rules, exploit workers and offer lower standards of care in the workplace. Now put this lever of power in the hands of hardened criminals and the consequences could be dangerous for the victims and for society generally, resulting in increased unreported crime and lawlessness.
This approach of turning police officers into immigration officers is nothing new. The Home Office has long pursued the creation of a "hostile environment" for illegal immigrants but this has had the albeit unintended consequence of making the UK an uncomfortable place for the non-British, non-white population as a whole. We have seen doctors being asked to check immigration documents, teachers being asked to collect information on the immigration status of their pupils and even private landlords being forced to ask for proof of residence or be faced with huge fines if they fail to do so.
When I was a police officer in the late 1970s, the police routinely acted as immigration officials, with black people being frequently arrested for being "a suspected overstayer". The practice was so damaging to police community relations it was abandoned. Of course, if someone is arrested for a criminal offence and there are grounds to check their immigration status, that is fair enough. But to routinely check victims is a step too far.
Conservative ministers have been obsessed with their ill-thought through immigration target of tens of thousands. Half of the Cabinet doesn't believe this target can or should be met and yet this has been the driving force behind policy ideas like the 'Go Home' vans. Now it seems like Labour's Sadiq Khan is getting on board.
This sort of tough talk only helps criminals and harms innocent victims. Instead of pandering to the right, more needs to be done to ensure that money is invested at the border, so that only those legally entitled to be in the country are here and everyone is checked to make sure they leave if and when they should. Despite the tough talk under the Conservatives, over 1,000 border guards have been lost and small entry ports go practically unstaffed.
Sadiq Khan claims that 'London is Open' but his take on what the police are "duty-bound" to do casts a shadow on that assertion. The mayor and others should be encouraging victims to come forward rather than encouraging perpetrators to target the most vulnerable. He should reconsider his approach and clearly justify his position.
Brian Paddick was in the Metropolitan police from 1976 - 2007. He was also the Liberal Democrat mayor of London candidate in 2008 & 2012.


text:
Dainius Zubrus (ur. 16 czerwca 1978 w Elektrenach) – litewski hokeista, reprezentant Litwy i Rosji.

Kariera

Wychowanek klubu SC Energija. Od 2007 zawodnik klubu NHL New Jersey Devils. W połowie 2013 przedłużył kontrakt z klubem o trzy lata. Zwolniony z klubu w lipcu 2015. Od końca listopada 2015 zawodnik San Jose Sharks. Później odszedł z gry w NHL.

W barwach reprezentacyjnych uczestniczył w turniejach Pucharu Świata 2004 (w barwach Rosji) oraz mistrzostw świata 2005, 2014, 2018, 2019 I Dywizji (w barwach Litwy).

Sukcesy
 Reprezentacyjne
 Mistrzostwa Świata w Hokeju na Lodzie 2018/I Dywizja: awans do Dywizji I Grupy A

 Klubowe
 Mistrzostwo konferencji NHL: 1997 z Philadelphia Flyers, 2012 z New Jersey Devils
 Mistrzostwo dywizji NHL: 2007 z Buffalo Sabres, 2009, 2010 z New Jersey Devils
  Presidents' Trophy: 2007 z Buffalo Sabres
  Srebrny medal mistrzostw Rosji: 2005 z Ładą Togliatti

 Indywidualne
 Mistrzostwa Świata w Hokeju na Lodzie 2014/I Dywizja Grupa B:
 Pierwsze miejsce w klasyfikacji asystentów turnieju: 7 asyst
 Pierwsze miejsce w klasyfikacji kanadyjskiej turnieju: 9 punktów
 Trzecie miejsce w klasyfikacji +/− turnieju: +7
 Najlepszy napastnik turnieju

 Mistrzostwa Świata w Hokeju na Lodzie 2018/I Dywizja:
 Pierwsze miejsce w klasyfikacji asystentów turnieju: 6 asyst
 Dziewiąte miejsce w klasyfikacji kanadyjskiej turnieju: 6 punktów

Przypisy

Bibliografia

 Dainius Zubrus – profil na stronie NHL

Hokeiści Philadelphia Flyers
Hokeiści Montreal Canadiens
Hokeiści Washington Capitals
Hokeiści Łady Togliatti
Hokeiści Buffalo Sabres
Hokeiści New Jersey Devils
Hokeiści San Jose Sharks
Litewscy hokeiści
Ludzie urodzeni w Elektrenach
Rosyjscy hokeiści
Urodzeni w 1978

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Our top picks are based on you spending £6,000 a year on the card, equivalent to £500 per month.
3 results for this selection displayed over 1 pages.
Representative 63.9% APR variable. Based on £160 annual fee, assumed borrowing of £1200. Rate of interest 22.9% (variable) annual.
Representative 76% APR variable. Based on £195 annual fee, assumed borrowing of £1200. Rate of interest 22.9% (variable) annual.


text:
Brands and Corporates	/ November 22, 2018
Safaricom to Give Customers Back All Mobile Data They Use on Friday and Saturday
Safaricom has today announced the "Asante Data Sunday" promotion in which customers will get back all the data they use on Friday 23rd and Saturday 24th November 2018. Customers will receive the free data bonus on Sunday 25th November 2018 for use the entire day starting midnight to 11:59 PM.
"This promotion is part of our 18-year anniversary "Nawe Kila Wakati" campaign and is designed to thank our customers for their trust and loyalty over the years. We remain mindful that the success we have achieved in building a world-class mobile broadband network has only been possible due to the immense trust of more than 17 million customers who use our data network every month," said Charles Kare, Director – Consumer Business, Safaricom.
Starting 23rd November 2018, customers can dial *444*20# to view their accumulated data usage and to check their bonus data balance. The bonus data will be consumed first before other existing or purchased data bundles.
The promotion is open to all Safaricom PrePay, Hybrid and PostPay customers with all eligible customers being automatically enrolled in the promotion and to receive the bonus.
As part of its 18th-anniversary campaign, Safaricom also recently announced a promotion where customers can call for KES. 1 per minute. Customers will similarly benefit from a free 1 GB data bundle and a special KES. 1 per minute call rate during their birthdays.
In the last 18 years, Safaricom has expanded its network to provide broadband 4G+, 4G and 3G coverage to 91 per cent of the population and 2G coverage to 96 per cent of the population. The firm was the first in the region to roll out a 4G+ network and the first in the country to deploy 4G and 3G networks.
Safaricom Achieves Global First with 400G Network Link
Safaricom hosts 2019 Safer Internet Day
Masoko Customers To Enjoy Up To 85 Percent Off On Black Friday
REVISION OF MOBILE TARIFFS BY SAFARICOM
Asante Data Sunday
Nawe Kila Wakati
Safaricom Customers
The launch of Nokia 5.1 Plus – super fast performance and powerful AI made accessible

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


riverhomes is pleased to present to the market this newly built, opulent, three bedroom apartment, on the top floor of Faulkner House. The property comprises three double bedrooms, three bathrooms, open-plan kitchen living area with a custom designed, fully integrated, fitted kitchen - housing Miele appliances and a stone kitchen worktop.Further benefits include; a southerly aspect, three balconies with views towards the River Thames over the landscaped communal gardens, engineered timber flooring to living room and kitchen, excellent built-in storage to bedrooms and hallway, ten year warranty from the date of legal completion and residents access to the Tamesis Club.Fulham Reach offers the ultimate in riverside living, with interiors by world renowned designer Tara Bernerd. A lifestyle of sophisticated elegance, the wide selection of bars and restaurants are the perfect places to unwind and experience river lifestyle at its best. Featuring the new Fuller's Blue Boat bar and restaurant, situated on the Thames Path, and Harris and Hoole coffee shop, Fulham Reach offers the perfect place to socialise, relax and enjoy this stunning riverside location. The excellent transport facilities provide swift and speedy access in to and out of London; Heathrow Airport within 30 minutes, South Kensington in 8 minutes and Knightsbridge in 11 minutes via four London Underground lines - Hammersmith & City, Circle, District and Piccadilly. The A4/M4 is also close by for the motorist. EPC rating B. Tenant fees apply.
By submitting this form you are agreeing to our website terms & conditions, and consenting to cookies being stored on your computer.


A UK resident detained at Guantanamo questions to him.
which he claims show government allegations of British collusion.
to the CIA in November 2002, at a the police.
the media here said, quoting the continual music while standing up.
in continual darkness for weeks on washing facilities.
end in a prison in Kabul, Afghanistan. "The toilet in the cell was a bucket.
which led to him falsely confessing to the paper.
them when they are made.
for him to be questioned further about stop, 24 hours a day.
The second telegram asked month.
as it did with some insurgency groups in Iraq.
told The New York Times.


The Business Foundations Graduate Certificate is granted to those who satisfactorily complete the required course work, carrying a minimum GPA of 3.0 or more. The certificate must be completed within five years of acceptance into the program. All students must contract for graduation.
Students must complete the entire certificate program in residence..
The Carl H. Lindner College of Business has held AACSB accreditation continuously since 1917. AACSB International business accreditation is an achievement earned only by programs of the highest caliber. Institutions that earn accreditation confirm their commitment to quality and continuous improvement through a rigorous and comprehensive peer review. Less than one-third of U.S. business school programs and only 15% of business school programs worldwide meet the rigorous standards of AACSB International accreditiation.


Cocoa Bean of Vermont, makers of fine chocolates, strives to produce the freshest and finest handmade chocolates for their customers.
With imported Belgian and domestic chocolate the company adds all natural ingredients to produce signature blends including Dark Chocolate Java Bark, White Chocolate Pecan Turtles and Chai Spice Truffle.
Cocoa Bean of Vermont adds the finest and freshest all natural ingredients to our signature blends, including Vermont cream, sweet butter, maple syrup, honey, seasonal fruit jams, and Vermont roasted coffee.
Truffle flavors include Red Raspberry, Mocha Java, Honey & Cognac, Classic Chocolate, or the more unusual flavors of Maple Cayenne. Customer favorites include Sea Salted Caramels, Peanut Butter Cups, Pecan and Cashew Turtles, Chocolate Covered Graham Crackers, Oreos, Barks of Java, Cranberry, Sea Salted Pistachio, and Wasabi Pea Bark.
Our favors range from traditional to customized. Customized packaging and truffle flavors can tie together the special details of your special event or wedding.
We can customize ribbons, packaging, and truffle flavors to match your theme. Is your event happening this Spring? Ballotin boxes filled with customized violet flavored truffles, wrapped in coordinating spring green and violet raffia would look gorgeous on your reception tables, and would be appreciated by your guests!
For your event call us today at 802-225-6670 to see how we can help.
Finer chocolates are available individually or in assorted gift boxes or packages for that special someone- or yourself! all year long.


Mental health is everyone's business. There's a stigma attached to mental health problems. This means that people feel uncomfortable about them and don't talk about them much.
Enable Leisure and Culture, in partnership with Wandsworth Council are helping raise awareness of World Mental Health Day (WMHD), 10 October, by celebrating the many health and wellbeing activities and programmes that have been taking place in borough.
Over the past three years the Active Wellbeing programme has been running in the borough working with adults with severe mental health conditions. The bespoke, one-to-one physical activity programme is set up to engage adults who suffer with severe and enduring mental conditions including psychosis, schizophrenia, and bi-polar disorder. Through the programme, participants are provided with tailored one-to-one exercise support, funded by Wandsworth's Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and delivered by Enable Leisure and Sport, in partnership with Brent, Westminster and Wandsworth Mind (WWM).
It has been identified that people with severe mental health conditions have a 20 year lower life expectancy than the general population, largely attributed to cardiovascular conditions. Active Wellbeing aims to get participants physically active to reduce their risk of cardiovascular diseases.
Participants work with the same Exercise Instructor over 10 weeks with a programme tailored to each individual, this includes the time of day, venue/location, type of exercise and intensity. As the exercise activity can happen anywhere in the borough, many prefer to exercise outside in one of Wandsworth's tranquil parks and open spaces. To date, 172 participants have taken part in the programme, 33% being categorised as having 'Low' activity levels at the start of the programme, dropping to 12% by the end of 10 weeks, and just 18% by 6 months.
Those who took part, worked on increasing their activity, improving their confidence, boosting their self-esteem, and engaging with other forms of health and wellbeing, supporting residents to address other unhealthy behaviours. Participants frequently report feeling healthier overall, including sleeping better and improved mood and motivation to try other new things.
This unique project was designed with Dr. Coffey, the Mental Health Lead GP for Wandsworth, who wanted to create a bespoke programme removing the barriers to exercise for adults with severe mental health issues. The main barrier facing people with severe mental health issues is low motivation. Exercise Instructors began working across the borough to help motivate and support participants to remove as many barriers as possible. It has brought together mental health workers, and exercise professionals. Many of the mental health workers didn't know where or how to access services, since improving relationships between key organisations, Enable Leisure and Culture has been able to promote a wide range of opportunities to them.
You can be referred to the Active Wellbeing programme by a mental health professional, through support groups or self-referral by contacting Enable Leisure and Culture directly, as a participant of the programme you will meet with a professional to assess your physical or mental health conditions and anything the Exercise Instructor should be aware of, followed by an initial assessment with a mental health professional, and an Exercise Instructor.
Wandsworth's parks and open spaces play a huge part in positive mental health, Enable Leisure and Culture manages over 350 hectares of green places in Wandsworth on behalf of the Council.
There are 32 public parks in the borough, many of which feature leisure facilities such as Tooting Bec Athletics Track, Tooting Common; Battersea Park Millennium Arena, Battersea Park; Barn Elms Sports Centre and Barn Elms Boat House, Barn Elms all of which allow users to take full advantage of outdoor facilities such as running tracks, tennis courts and beach volley ball. Click here for a list of sports facilities.
View all the different places to exercise in a park or open space in the borough.
Trim trails and outdoor gym equipment are available in several parks and are free for anyone to use.
If you wish to offer your services as a personal trainer or fitness trainer in any parks you must apply for a permit to hold your activities. To apply for a permit, contact idverde on 020 8767 1830.
Get Active Wandsworth Festival, organised by Enable Leisure and Sport on behalf of Wandsworth Council toured around the borough allowing residents to take part in different physical activity challenges in parks and open spaces.
The event was a huge success with live music performances, mouth-watering food and appearances from local companies including housing developers, Redrow and Regenerate Youth.
Wandsworth Arts Fringe 2018 played an integral part in improving residents and visitor's mental health and wellbeing. This year, Espirit Concrete, bought audiences a parkour, dance and storytelling performance to explore issues around mental health and personal struggle.
Sound Minds, part funded by Wandsworth Council's, Wandsworth Grant Fund, was a week-long open house, installation event, taking temporary residence within a vacant space within the Winstanley estate. The main focus of the project was to improve people's mental health and wellbeing through the arts. Local people were invited to contribute to site-specific artworks, work alongside resident artists and musicians, to use music, words and art to celebrate life on the estate at this time of change.
Other mental health services include Talk Wandsworth offering confidential support for people experiencing common mental health conditions such as anxiety, low mood and stress. It offers face-to-face counselling and group sessions in a range of venues, as well as providing online help 24/7 via Skype and online mental health services SilverCloud and ieso.
It is also free for Wandsworth residents to access Big White Wall – a safe, anonymous online service for people experiencing emotional or psychological distress.
Information on local mental health services can be found on the council's Adult Care Information Service. If you are in urgent need of help, contact your doctor.
For a full list of leisure and sports facilities visit here.


text:
151 Wn.2d 226, State ex rel. Citizens Against Tolls (CAT) v. Murphy
[No. 73745-2. En Banc.]
Argued September 18, 2003. Decided April 8, 2004.
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON on the relation of Citizens Against Tolls (CAT) , Appellant , v. MICHAEL J. MURPHY , as State Treasurer and Chair of the State Finance Committee , et AL ., Respondents . [1] Judgment - Summary Judgment - Hearing - Shortened Time - Discretion of Court - Review - Prejudice. An order
Apr. 2004 State ex rel. Citizens Against Tolls (CAT) v. Murphy 227
151 Wn.2d 226
granting a motion to shorten time for hearing a summary judgment motion will not be overturned on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion. To prevail on appeal, the party challenging the order must show that the order was prejudicial. To establish prejudice, the party must show a lack of actual notice, a lack of time to prepare for the motion, and no opportunity to submit case authority or to provide countervailing oral argument.
[2] Judgment - Summary Judgment - Hearing - Shortened Time - Inability To Consider Reply Brief - Tardy Filing - Effect. A party opposing a motion for summary judgment is not prejudiced by an accelerated hearing on the motion by the movant's tardy filing of a reply brief on the same day as the hearing is scheduled to be conducted as a reply brief is optional and the movant may argue from the reply brief without filing it.
[3] Certiorari - Constitutional Review - Timeliness - Reasonable Time - Determination. A petition to a superior court for a constitutional writ of certiorari must be filed within a "reasonable time." What constitutes a "reasonable time" is determined by application of the equitable doctrine of laches. The equitable doctrine of laches cuts off a claim if there has been a delay in asserting the claim that is (1) inexcusable and (2) prejudicial to the opposing party. While a court may look to various factors to determine whether a delay is inexcusable, including similar statutory and rule limitation periods, the main component of laches is prejudice to the opposing party. Mere speculation is insufficient to demonstrate prejudice.
[4] Statutes - Construction - Legislative Intent - Statutory Language - Plain Meaning. A court's fundamental objective when construing a statute is to ascertain and carry out the legislature's intent. When a statute's meaning is plain on its face, a court will give effect to that plain meaning as an expression of the legislature's intent. Under the plain meaning rule, examination of the statute in which the particular provision is found, as well as related statutes or other provisions of the same act in which the provision is found, is appropriate as part of the determination whether a plan meaning can be ascertained. If, after this inquiry, the statute remains susceptible to more than one reasonable meaning, the statute is ambiguous and it is appropriate to resort to construction aides, including legislative history.[5] Public Contracts - Transportation Development - Public-Private Initiative - Contracting - Modification or Implementation - Competitive Bid - Necessity. Under Laws of 2002, ch. 114, which amended several code sections and added new provisions for the purpose of facilitating public-private developments of critical transportation projects under the public-private transportation initiatives statute (chapter 47.46 RCW), a lawfully executed agreement between the State and a private company for the development of a transportation project under the public-private
228 State ex rel. Citizens Against Tolls (CAT) v. Murphy Apr. 2004
transportation initiatives statute may be modified or implemented by subsequent agreements or personal service contracts without going through a competitive bid process.
[6] Statutes - Construction - Acts Relating to Same Subject - Harmonious Construction. A court will presume that the legislature did not intend to create an inconsistency by enacting two statutes pertaining to the same subject. Such statutes are read together, if possible, to achieve a harmonious total statutory scheme that maintains the integrity of each.
[7] Public Contracts - Transportation Development - Public-Private Initiative - Contracting - State Bidding Requirements - Applicability. The State may make an agreement with a private company to develop a transportation project under the public-private transportation initiatives statute (chapter 47.46 RCW) without following the usual bid requirements for state contracting; i.e., projects under the statute are exempt from the requirements of the state bidding laws.
[8] State - Bonds - Referendum 49 Bonds - Nature of Indebtedness - Toll Revenue - Effect. Referendum 49 bonds issued under RCW 47.10.843 -.848 for financing highway improvements, which are paid by an excise tax on motor vehicles and special fuels, are a general obligation of the State and are not revenue bonds. The fact that under Laws of 2002, ch. 114 toll revenues are to be paid into the motor vehicle fund in reimbursement of funds used to pay off Referendum 49 bonds does not make Referendum 49 bonds revenue bonds in violation of RCW 47.10.846 .
[9] Public Contracts - Transportation Development - Public-Private Initiative - Contracting - State Bidding Requirements - Priority Programming Statute - Effect. The priority programming statute (chapter 47.05 RCW), which requires the Washington State Transportation Commission to prioritize various projects for preserving or improving state highways by using certain selection criteria, does not require that contracts for transportation projects under the public-private transportation initiatives statute (chapter 47.46 RCW) be let according to state bidding laws.
[10] Public Contracts - Transportation Development - Public-Private Initiative - Contracting - Priority Programming Statute - Applicability. The priority programming statute (chapter 47.05 RCW), which requires the Washington State Transportation Commission to prioritize various projects for preserving or improving state highways by using certain selection criteria, does not govern the selection of transportation projects for contracting under the public-private transportation initiatives statute (chapter 47.46 RCW), which establishes an alternative contracting process for a limited number of transportation projects.[11] Highways - Construction - Priority Programming - Agencies Bound - Legislature. The legislature is not bound by the
priority programming statute (chapter 47.05 RCW), which requires the Washington State Transportation Commission to prioritize various projects for preserving or improving state highways by using certain selection criteria.
[12] Statutes - Subjects and Titles of Acts - Construction - Liberal Construction. Const. art. II, § 19, which requires that a bill embrace no more than one subject and that the subject of a bill be expressed in its title, is construed in favor of upholding legislation.
[13] Statutes - Subjects and Titles of Acts - Constitutional Limitation - Purposes. Const. art. II, § 19 has two requirements: (1) that a bill embrace no more than one subject and (2) that the subject of a bill be expressed in its title. The purpose of the first requirement is to prevent logrolling, or the practice of pushing legislation through by attaching it to other necessary or desirable legislation. The purpose of the second requirement is to ensure that members of the legislature and the public are provided notice of the subject matter of legislation.
[14] Public Contracts - Transportation Development - Public-Private Initiative - Contracting - Modification or Implementation - Statutory Provisions - Validity - Single Subject and Subject in Title. Laws of 2002, ch. 114, which amended several code sections and added new provisions for the purpose of facilitating public-private developments of critical transportation projects under the public-private transportation initiatives statute (chapter 47.46 RCW), does not violate the single subject or subject-in-title requirement of Const. art. II, § 19.
SANDERS , J., dissents by separate opinion.
Nature of Action: Action by a citizens organization challenging the validity of (1) a referendum authorizing the sale of bonds to finance transportation projects upon request by the state transportation commission, (2) the use of toll revenue to pay off the bonds used to finance the construction of a second Tacoma Narrows bridge, (3) a statute authorizing state financing and the administration of toll facilities for public-private transportation projects, (4) the design-build agreement and other personal services contracts related to the second Tacoma Narrows bridge project, and (5) the second Tacoma Narrows bridge project under the priority programming statute.Superior Court: After granting the defendants' motion to shorten the time within which to hear the defendants'
motion for summary judgment, the Superior Court for Thurston County, No. 02-2-01481-7, Daniel J. Berschauer, J., on September 27, 2002, entered a summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
Supreme Court: Holding that the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the shortened time frame for hearing the defendants' motion for summary judgment, that the plaintiff timely commenced its challenge to the validity of the agreements to build the second Tacoma Narrows bridge, that the State was not required to follow state bidding laws in letting the contract for the development of the second Tacoma Narrows bridge or in executing agreements in modification thereof or personal service contracts related thereto, that the bonds issued to finance the project were not converted from general obligation bonds to revenue bonds by a statutory requirement to deposit toll revenues into the motor vehicle fund, that the designation of the Tacoma Narrows bridge project did not violate the priority programming statute, and that a statute enacted for the purpose of facilitating public-private developments of critical transportation projects did not violate the constitutional single subject or subject in title requirements, the court affirms the judgment.
Shawn T. Newman ; and Stephen A. Smith (of Preston Gates & Ellis, L.L.P. ), for appellant .
Christine O. Gregoire , Attorney General, and Deborah L. Cade , Senior Counsel, and Thomas C. Morrill , Assistant, for respondents .
MADSEN , J . - This case involves several challenges to construction of a second Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Citizens
Against Tolls (CAT) seeks reversal of the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Michael Murphy, Washington State Treasurer and Chair of the Washington State Finance Committee; Douglas MacDonald, Washington State Secretary of Transportation; Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT); Aubrey Davis, Chair of the Washington State Transportation Commission; and the Washington State Transportation Commission (WSTC) (collectively, the State). The principal issues are (1) whether the State violated existing state bidding laws when WSDOT executed a design-build agreement and the personal service contracts relating to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project, (2) whether Engrossed House Bill (EHB) 2723 conflicts with RCW 47.10.846 , (3) whether the State violated chapter 47.05 RCW (the priority programming statute), and (4) whether EHB 2723 violates article II, section 19 of the Washington Constitution. We conclude that summary judgment was properly granted and affirm the trial court.
In 1993, the legislature enacted the public-private transportation initiatives act (PPI Act). Ch. 47.46 RCW. Under the PPI Act, the secretary of transportation is authorized to select up to six demonstration project proposals from private entities, so that the private entities can work with WSDOT on public projects. RCW 47.46.030 . The construction of the second Tacoma Narrows Bridge was one of the six projects selected under the PPI Act.
In May 1994, three separate firms submitted proposals for the second Tacoma Narrows Bridge after WSDOT sent requests for proposals to interested parties. In August 1994, WSDOT selected a proposal submitted by United Infrastructure Washington (UIW). On June 15, 1999, WSDOT executed a development agreement with UIW (original UIW agreement). Under that agreement, UIW was responsible for developing and financing the project as well as for
hiring all necessary contractors, including a design-build contractor.
On July 6, 1999, Peninsula Neighborhood Association (PNA), a nonprofit corporation from Gig Harbor, filed a lawsuit against WSDOT, alleging that the PPI Act is unconstitutional and that WSDOT violated various state laws in developing the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project. On November 9, 2000, this court found that the PPI Act is constitutional but that WSDOT violated former RCW 47.56.270 (1983), former RCW 47.56.271 (1983) and RCW 47.56.240 because the original UIW agreement allowed UIW to toll the existing Tacoma Narrows Bridge and to fix toll rates. State ex rel. Peninsula Neighborhood Ass'n v. Dep't of Transp ., 142 Wn.2d 328 , 340-46, 12 P.3d 134 (2000). As a result, we found the original UIW agreement unenforceable. Id . at 347.
In July 2001, the legislature added a new requirement that WSDOT develop a competitive bidding process for soliciting a design-build contract. LAWS OF 2001, ch. 226, § 2; RCW 47.20.780 .«1»Then, in March 2002, the legislature passed EHB 2723, titled " AN ACT Relating to modifying the Public-Private Transportation Initiatives Act by authorizing state financing and administration of toll facilities; amending RCW 47.56.010 , 47.46.030, 47.46.040, 47.46.050, 47.46.060, 47.56.030, 47.56.270, 47.56.271, 39.46.070, and 47.56.245; reenacting and amending RCW 43.84.092 ; adding new sections to chapter 47.46 RCW; and creating new sections." LAWS OF 2002, ch. 114; EHB 2723, 57th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2002). EHB 2723 took effect on June 13, 2002 and was aimed at removing impediments to construction of the second Tacoma Narrows Bridge, such as the prohibition
«1»RCW 47.20.780 states:
Design-build - Competitive bidding. (Expires April 30, 2008.)
The department of transportation shall develop a process for awarding competitively bid highway construction contracts for projects over ten million dollars that may be constructed using a design-build procedure. As used in this section and RCW 47.20.785 , "design-build procedure" means a method of contracting under which the department of transportation contracts with another party for the party to both design and build the structures, facilities, and other items specified in the contract.
against tolling the existing bridge, which resulted in this court's ruling in Peninsula Neighborhood Ass'n that the original UIW agreement was unenforceable. FINAL LEGISLATIVE REPORT , 57th Leg., Reg. Sess. 112 (Wash. 2002).
Under section 13 of EHB 2723, if a proposal is or has been selected, "subsequent agreements may be made to implement portions of the proposal that modify the proposal or that do not incorporate all the features of the proposal. Any such modified agreement does not require the solicitation or consideration of additional proposals for all or any portion of the services rendered under that modified agreement." EHB 2723, § 13. Additionally, EHB requires that projects under the PPI Act comply with all applicable rules and statutes in existence at the time the agreement is executed. EHB 2723, § 14.
On July 16, 2002, WSDOT and UIW executed an amended development agreement (amended UIW agreement), modifying the original UIW agreement.«2»Under the amended UIW agreement, WSDOT, rather than UIW, was responsible for hiring a design-build contractor. On the same day, WSDOT executed a design-build agreement (Design-Build Agreement) with Tacoma Narrows Constructors (TNC). Under the Design-Build Agreement, WSDOT was to pay $615 million to TNC. Additionally, it provided for a price increase of approximately $3 million for each month of delay with the first increase due on September 30, 2002.
WSDOT also concluded at least three personal service contracts between March and May 2002 relating to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project.
On July 23, 2002, the Washington State Finance Committee, consisting of Governor Gary Locke, Lieutenant Governor Brad Owen, and State Treasurer Michael Murphy, met and passed a resolution approving the sale of $285 million in Referendum 49 bonds. RCW 43.33.010 . Of that amount, $158 million would be used for the design and
«2»At the oral argument, counsel for CAT argued that the agreement between WSDOT and UIW had been terminated on July 16, 2002. However, WSDOT and UIW did not terminate the original UIW agreement. They simply modified it.
construction of the second Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Referendum 49 authorized the sale of bonds to finance transportation projects upon request by WSTC. RCW 47.10.843 .
Under RCW 47.10.846 , the bonds issued under Referendum 49 are a general obligation of the State. The principal and interest on the bonds shall be first payable from the proceeds of a state excise tax on motor vehicle and special fuels. Additionally, the statute provides that the legislature will continue to impose the taxes on motor vehicle and special fuels in amounts sufficient to pay, when due, the principal and interest on all bonds issued under Referendum 49. RCW 47.10.846 .
Pursuant to EHB 2723, toll revenues derived from the bridge project will be used to reimburse the motor vehicle fund in the state treasury. EHB 2723, § 12. EHB 2723 also opened up the possibility of tolling the existing Tacoma Narrows Bridge. EHB 2723, § 21.
The state finance committee was scheduled to meet on September 18, 2002, to conduct the bond sale so that WSDOT could meet the "notice to proceed" requirement by September 30, 2002. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 153, 801. The sale of the bonds was necessary to cover progress payments and mobilization costs.
CAT is a nonprofit organization from Gig Harbor concerned about tolling as a result of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project. On July 11, 2002, CAT sent a letter to the attorney general requesting legal action, alleging that EHB 2723 violates various state laws and the state constitution. After a couple of exchanges, the attorney general's office declined the request on August 14, 2002.
On August 30, 2002, CAT filed suit against the State in Thurston County Superior Court. CAT claimed that (1) Referendum 49 violates article VIII, section 1(i) of the state constitution because the amount of the debt established by Referendum 49 was not approved by three-fifths of each
legislative house;«3»(2) the use of toll revenue to pay off the bonds financing the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project violates RCW 47.10.846 ; (3) EHB 2723 violates article II, section 19 of the state constitution; (4) the Design-Build Agreement and other personal service contracts related to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project violate the state bidding laws; and (5) the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project violates the priority programming statute.
On September 3, 2002, the State moved for an order shortening time to hear its motion for summary judgment. However, the actual motion to shorten time was not filed until October 16, 2002. CAT received notice of the hearing on the morning of September 3, several hours before the hearing. The trial court granted the motion to shorten time and the State was ordered to file its motion for summary judgment by September 5, 2002. CAT's response was due on September 11, 2002. The State's reply was due on September 12, 2002. Oral argument on the motion was set on September 13, 2002.
In its motion for summary judgment, the State responded to CAT's claims but also contended that the statute of limitations had run for certain of these claims. CAT filed its response on September 11, 2002. In the meantime, CAT asked several legislators for their interpretation of EHB 2723, obtained a copy of the amended UIW agreement and the Design-Build Agreement, and identified three personal service contracts relating to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project executed by WSDOT. The State's reply brief was filed on September 12, 2002, but CAT received it only on the morning of September 13, 2003, the date scheduled for oral argument. CAT resisted summary judgment, arguing that it needed additional time to conduct discovery.
In a letter opinion dated September 16, 2002, the trial court granted the State's motion for summary judgment. First, the trial court concluded that the additional evidence sought by CAT would not affect its ruling. Then the court
«3»The trial court rejected this claim. CP at 826. It was not raised before this court.
held that Referendum 49 is constitutional, that use of toll revenues to reimburse the motor vehicle fund does not violate RCW 47.10.846 , and that the State did not violate state bidding laws because the intent to create an alternative process for contracting of certain projects under the PPI Act was clear. Additionally, the court held that EHB 2723 does not violate article II, section 19 of the Washington Constitution. The final order granting the State's motion was filed on September 27, 2002.
CAT filed its notice of appeal in the Court of Appeals, Division Two, on September 17, 2002. On April 3, 2003, CAT filed a motion to transfer to this court, arguing that the case involves fundamental and urgent issues of broad public import which require prompt and ultimate determination. RCW 2.06.030 (d); RAP 4.2(a)(4). The motion was granted on May 12, 2003, and transferred to this court.
I. Order Shortening Time
Initially, CAT argues that the trial court erred in granting the State's motion for an order shortening time to hear its motion for summary judgment.
[1]A trial court has discretion when ruling on a motion to shorten time. A deviation from the normal time limits is permitted as long as there is ample notice and time to prepare. Loveless v. Yantis , 82 Wn.2d 754 , 759, 513 P.2d 1023 (1973). An appellate court will overturn a discretionary ruling only for a manifest abuse of discretion. In re Dependency of E.S ., 92 Wn. App. 762 , 769, 964 P.2d 404 (1998); Coggle v. Snow , 56 Wn. App. 499 , 504, 784 P.2d 554 (1990). Here, the trial court shortened the time to eight days between the filing and the hearing. See CR 56(c) (specifying 28 days). In order to prevail, CAT must show it was prejudiced by this ruling. Zimny v. Lovric , 59 Wn. App. 737 , 740, 801 P.2d 259 (1990).
To establish prejudice, the party making the challenge to an order shortening time must show a lack of actual notice,
a lack of time to prepare for the motion, and no opportunity to submit case authority or provide countervailing oral argument. Id . at 740. CAT claims that the ruling here deprived it of a reasonable opportunity to discover the contracts involved in the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project and whether or not they were competitively bid in accordance with the state bidding laws. CAT also claims that, due to lack of time, it failed to discover whether or not the taxes on motor vehicle and special fuels are sufficient to pay off the Referendum 49 bonds financing the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project. Finally, CAT contends that the trial court should have given it more time to defend against the motion, citing CR 56(f).«4»CAT points out that all it could do before the hearing was to identify the Design-Build Agreement, the amended UIW agreement, and three personal service contracts and to attempt to contact legislators concerning their interpretation of EHB 2723.
In support of its position to reverse, CAT relies on three cases: Cofer v. Pierce County , 8 Wn. App. 258 , 505 P.2d 476 (1973); Ungar v. Sarafite , 376 U.S. 575, 84 S. Ct. 841, 11 L. Ed. 2d 921 (1964); Martel v. County of Los Angeles , 34 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 1994). In Cofer , the Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's ruling denying the plaintiff's request for continuance, pointing out that a failure to accord the nonmoving party a reasonable opportunity to show the existence of an issue of material fact constitutes an abuse of discretion. 8 Wn. App. at 263 . In that case, the plaintiff asked for a continuance because a witness suddenly fell ill
«4»CR 56(f) states:
When Affidavits Are Unavailable. Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that he cannot, for reasons stated, present by affidavit facts essential to justify his opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just.
The State argues that CAT did not file an affidavit required under CR 56(f). However, the trial court's ruling on CR 56(f) is discretionary. Thus, the review is governed by the manifest abuse of discretion standard, regardless of whether affidavits are filed. In re Dependency of E.S ., 92 Wn. App. at 769 ; Coggle , 56 Wn. App. at 504 . CAT still must show prejudice to overturn the ruling. Zimny , 59 Wn. App. at 740 .
one week before the hearing on defendant's motion for summary judgment and was unavailable at the hearing. Id . at 259-60. In Ungar , the Court set a trial date for the defendant, who was charged with willful and disruptive contempt of the court, only five days after the court served him. Then, the trial judge denied several motions for continuance. 376 U.S. at 581. In Martel , the plaintiff was entitled to a new trial where he was able to identify seven of eight defendants less than three months before the trial date and received response to discovery only after the trial date. 34 F.3d at 733.«5»
Unlike the defendant in Ungar , CAT had more than five days to prepare. Here, EHB 2723 became effective on June 13, 2002. Thus, it had been clear for three months before the September 13, 2002 hearing that the toll revenues would reimburse the motor vehicle fund and that the motor vehicle fund would pay off the Referendum 49 bonds financing the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project. Additionally, on July 11, 2002, CAT sent a letter to the attorney general that pointed out alleged violations of various state laws and the State Constitution, including the issue of failing to comply with the state bidding laws. The Design-Build Agreement and the amended UIW agreement were executed on July 16, 2002, nearly two months before the State's motion was heard.
Moreover, unlike in Cofer , evidence that CAT was seeking had no evidentiary value. The interpretation of a statute by an individual legislator does not show legislative intent. Scott v. Cascade Structures , 100 Wn. 2d 537, 544, 673 P.2d 179 (1983). Here, CAT was seeking the legislators' interpretation of EHB 2723. Likewise, whether there would be sufficient funds to pay the Referendum 49 bonds - another fact CAT hoped to adduce - is irrelevant because the issue involves a question of law - whether tolls can be used to repay the motor vehicle fund.
«5»This opinion was later withdrawn and replaced. Martel v. County of L.A ., 56 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 1995). The court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish the prejudice required to overturn the trial court's denial of its continuance motion. Id .
Under the circumstances, we cannot conclude that CAT lacked actual notice and an opportunity to prepare for the motion, to provide countervailing oral argument, and to submit case authority.
Next, CAT asserts that it was prejudiced because the motion for an order shortening time was not filed at the time of the September 3, 2002 hearing. This assertion is unpersuasive. While the motion was filed on October 16, 2002, CAT actually received notice of an emergency hearing on the morning of September 3, 2002, several hours before the hearing.
[2]CAT also argues that it did not have an opportunity to prepare for the hearing on September 13, 2002 because it did not receive the reply brief by the State, due on September 12, 2002, until the morning of the hearing. CAT goes on to point out that the fact that counsel for CAT had another case on the same day aggravated a lack of opportunity to prepare for the motion and that counsel did not have an opportunity to consider the reply brief. However, a reply brief is optional, and the State could argue from a reply brief without filing it, as the trial court pointed out.
CAT also complains that the trial court did not strike the late reply brief. As pointed out above, an appellate court will overturn a discretionary ruling only for a manifest abuse of discretion. In re Dependency of E.S ., 92 Wn. App. at 769 ; Coggle , 56 Wn. App. at 504 . CAT has failed to meet its burden to show that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to strike the reply brief.
Finally, CAT claims the motion to shorten time was unnecessary because this case would not have been resolved by September 18, 2002, the day scheduled for the sale of the Referendum 49 bonds financing the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project, even if the trial court had granted the motion for an order shortening time for the hearing. However, even if correct, the point is irrelevant to whether CAT lacked actual notice and opportunity to prepare for the motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State's motion for an order shortening time to hear its motion for summary judgment.«6»
II. CAT's Challenge Was Timely
The State argues that CAT is barred from alleging that the amended UIW agreement and the Design-Build Agreement, executed on July 16, 2002, violated the state bidding laws because CAT failed to timely raise these issues. The State correctly points out that CAT resorts to a constitu tional writ of certiorari because those contracts do not repre sent agency actions. CONST . art. IV, § 6; RCW 34.05.010 (3). The State argues, however, that CAT should have raised the issues within 30 days following execution of the agreements, using the time period allowed for an appeal under a statute or court rule by analogy, citing City of Federal Way v. King County , 62 Wn. App. 530 , 536, 815 P.2d 790 (1991) and National Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Seattle , 82 Wn. App. 640 , 919 P.2d 615 (1996). These cases concern land development, and the courts adopted a 30 day period because of a need for finality in such decisions. CAT agrees with the State that the analogy rule should apply but argues that the appropriate analogy is RCW 47.28.120 ,«7»which sets forth a 180 day appeal period.
«6»In addition to asserting that the trial court erred in granting the State's motion for an order shortening time to hear its motion for summary judgment, CAT claims that the trial court failed to strike several newspaper articles and press releases attached to declarations in support of the State's motion for summary judgment. This ruling is also discretionary. Thus, CAT must show manifest abuse of discretion. In re Dependency of E.S ., 92 Wn. App. at 769 ; Coggle , 56 Wn. App. at 504 . However, CAT does not advance any argument showing such manifest abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in not striking these newspaper articles and press releases.
Actions for labor and materials - Limitation of action.
Any contracting person, firm, or corporation performing any labor or furnishing any materials upon their contract or otherwise for public work or improvement under the direction of the department or any person claiming any right of action upon any such contract with the state of Washington or who claims a cause of action against the state of Washington arising out of any such contract must bring such suit in the proper court in Thurston county before the expiration of one hundred and eighty days from and after the final acceptance and the approval of the final estimate of such work by the department; otherwise the action is forever barred.
[3]Neither party argues the correct rule. In Clark County Public Utility District No. 1 v. Wilkinson , 139 Wn.2d 840 , 847-48, 991 P.2d 1161 (2000), we held that constitutional writs of certiorari need not be sought within the analogous time period ordinarily allowed by statute or rule for filing an appeal. Instead, we held that laches, an equitable doctrine, governs the determination of a reasonable time for constitutional writs of certiorari. Id . at 848. Laches consists of two elements: (1) inexcusable delay and (2) prejudice to the other party from such delay. Id . While a court may look to various factors, including similar statutory and rule limitation periods to determine whether there was an inexcusable delay, the main component of laches is prejudice to the other party. Id . at 848-49.
Here, CAT asked the attorney general's office to take action before filing suit. This is a necessary step for a taxpayer lawsuit. CAT filed this suit 16 days after the attorney general's office declined CAT's request. Additionally, CAT brought this suit approximately 45 days after the execution of the amended UIW agreement and the Design-Build Agreement. There was no inexcusable delay here. As for prejudice, the State claims that it is prejudiced by the delay because it would have to pay a penalty to TNC under the Design-Build Agreement if it failed to issue the Referendum 49 bonds on September 18, 2002 and give TNC notice to proceed. The State's argument is mere speculation and insufficient for a finding of prejudice. Accordingly, CAT's claims relating to the amended UIW agreement and the Design-Build Agreement are not barred.
III. State Bidding Laws
CAT argues that the State violated the bidding requirements under the state bidding laws, chapter 39.29 RCW, chapter 47.28 RCW, and RCW 47.20.780 , when it executed the amended UIW agreement, the Design-Build Agreement
and the personal service contracts identified by CAT because WSDOT did not go through the bidding process specified under those provisions.
Under section 13 of EHB 2723, if a proposal is or has been selected, subsequent agreements may be made to implement portions of the proposal that modify the proposal or that do not incorporate all the features of the proposal.«8»Any modified agreement does not have to go through the process under the state bidding laws.«9»
[4]The meaning of a statute is a question of law reviewed de novo. Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C ., 146 Wn.2d 1 , 9, 43 P.3d 4 (2002); State v. Breazeale , 144 Wn.2d 829 , 837, 31 P.3d 1155 (2001); State v. J.M ., 144 Wn.2d 472 , 480, 28 P.3d 720 (2001). The court's fundamental objective is to ascertain and carry out the legislature's intent, and if the statute's meaning is plain on its face, then the court must give effect to that plain meaning as an expression of legislative intent. Campbell & Gwinn , 146 Wn.2d at 9 -10; J.M ., 144 Wn.2d at 480 . Under this plain meaning rule, examination of the statute in which the provision at issue is found, as well as related statutes or other provisions of the same act in which the provision is found, is appropriate as part of the determination whether a plain meaning can be ascertained. Campbell & Gwinn , 146 Wn.2d at 10 -12; In re Estate of Lyons , 83 Wn.2d 105 , 108, 515 P.2d 1293 (1973). If, after this inquiry, the statute remains susceptible to more than one reasonable meaning, the statute is ambiguous and it is appropriate to resort to
«8»Section 13 of EHB 2723 states:
A new section is added to chapter 47.46 RCW to read as follows:
ALTERATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE NEW PROPOSAL. If a proposal is or has been selected for the design, development, construction, maintenance, or operation of transportation systems or facilities under this chapter, subsequent agreements may be made to implement portions of the proposal that modify the proposal or that do not incorporate all the features of the proposal. Any such modified agreement does not require the solicitation or consideration of additional proposals for all or any portion of the services rendered under that modified agreement. Modified agreements may provide for the reimbursement of expenses and fees incurred under earlier agreements.
«9» Id .
construction aides, including legislative history. Campbell & Gwinn , 146 Wn.2d at 12 ; Cockle v. Dep't of Labor & Indus ., 142 Wn.2d 801 , 808, 16 P.3d 583 (2001).
[5]Here, the legislature's intent that subsequent agreements be exempt from the bidding requirements is apparent from the language in sections 1 and 13 of EHB 2723 and RCW 47.46.030 . Section 1 emphasizes the legislature's desire to prevent unreasonable delay of critical transportation projects that are essential for public safety and welfare.«10»Section 13 of EHB 2723 provides that "subsequent agreements may be made to implement portions of the proposal that modify the proposal or that do not incorporate all the features of the proposal. Any such modified agreement does not require the solicitation or consideration of additional proposals for all or any portion of the services rendered under that modified agreement."
It is important to note that EHB 2723 does not change the contracting procedure under the PPI Act. Rather, EHB 2723 is the legislature's attempt to remove the impediments to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project identified in Peninsula Neighborhood Ass'n so that the project could go forward. FINAL LEGISLATIVE REPORT , 57th Leg., Reg. Sess. 112 (Wash. 2002). Section 13 of EHB 2723 merely clarifies that any agreement related to Tacoma Narrows Bridge project executed after the original UIW agreement is exempt from additional solicitation requirements as long as the original UIW agreement was lawfully executed. Accordingly, the amended UIW agreement, the Design-Build Agreement and the personal service contracts do not violate state
«10»Section 1 of EHB 2723 states:
INTENT. The legislature finds that greater flexibility to provide state financing for projects developed under chapter 47.46 RCW will result in better use of public resources, lower financing costs, and potential savings to taxpayers. The legislature intends to: Clarify the ability of the department of transportation to use public and private financing for projects selected and developed under chapter 47.46 RCW; provide the department with specific means of state financing where that financing is in the public's best interest; provide citizens living in the impacted areas a statutory mechanism to review proposed toll rates and provide input before adoption of toll schedules by the toll authority; and prevent unreasonable delay of critical transportation projects that are essential for public safety and welfare.
bidding laws as long as the original UIW agreement was lawfully executed. The question is whether the State was required to follow state bidding laws in executing the original UIW agreement under the PPI Act.
The State argues that the PPI Act creates an alternative process to the bidding requirements under the state bidding laws because the selection process under the PPI Act is incompatible with the requirements of the state bidding laws. The State points out that the courts have upheld statutory exceptions to bidding laws created by the legislature citing National Electrical Contractors Ass'n v. Riveland , 138 Wn.2d 9 , 978 P.2d 481 (1999); Washington Waste Systems, Inc. v. Clark County , 115 Wn.2d 74 , 794 P.2d 508 (1990); and Shaw Disposal, Inc. v. City of Auburn , 15 Wn. App. 65 , 546 P.2d 1236 (1976).
In National Electrical Contractors Ass'n , this court upheld the department of corrections' decision to use inmate labor instead of soliciting bids from private contractors based on RCW 72.01.110 . That statute permitted the department of corrections, under certain circumstances, to by-pass the competitive bid procedures for the construction and repair of prison facilities. 138 Wn.2d at 28 -29. Similarly, in Washington Waste Systems, Inc ., we found that Clark County did not violate RCW 36.32.250 , the statute calling for a competitive bid in executing a solid waste contract, because the legislature created an alternative procedure for certain waste contracts under RCW 36.58.090 , including the one at issue. 115 Wn.2d at 76 -77. Again, in Shaw Disposal , the Court of Appeals found that garbage and trash collection is exempt from the statutory bidding requirement because this function is a matter that public agencies are authorized to address using the best means available to protect the public health. 15 Wn. App. at 68 .
CAT correctly points out that these cases are distinguishable from this case. Indeed, unlike in National Electrical Contractors Ass'n and Washington Waste Systems, Inc ., the PPI Act does not expressly create an exception to the state
bidding laws. Unlike Shaw Disposal , this case does not concern garbage and trash collection.
[6, 7]Nevertheless, we are persuaded that the selection process authorized by the PPI Act is simply incompatible with the requirements under the state bidding laws in two senses. First, under the state bidding laws, WSDOT must publish a call for bids for the construction of the highway according to the maps, plans, and specifications. RCW 47.28.050 . This assumes that WSDOT already has the maps, plans and specifications. Thus, WSDOT must have a design before calling for bids. On the other hand, the PPI Act contemplates that WSDOT will solicit proposals from the private entities that will undertake the planning and design of the project. Thus, under the PPI Act, WSDOT cannot have a design before the solicitation.
Second, while RCW 47.46.030 explicitly requires negotiation of an agreement after the selection of proposals, negotiation with a bidder and alteration of its bid after bid opening is not permitted under the state bidding laws. J.J. Welcome & Sons Constr. Co. v. State , 6 Wn. App. 985 , 990, 497 P.2d 953 (1972) (Court of Appeals pointed out that state bidding law prohibited any postopening revision of a bid on a highway contract); Platt Elec. Supply, Inc. v. City of Seattle , 16 Wn. App. 265 , 269-75, 555 P.2d 421 (1976) (law did not permit the city to negotiate privately with a selected bidder to lower the bidder's bid when a competitive bid is required under the law); Hanson Excavating Co. v. Cowlitz County , 28 Wn. App. 123 , 125-27, 622 P.2d 1285 (1981) (a sewer construction contract negotiated after a competitive bid was void because a private negotiation circumvented the policy supporting a competitive bid). Thus, RCW 47.46.030 and the state bidding laws are mutually exclusive.
When construing two statutes pertaining to the same subject matter we assume that the legislature does not intend to create an inconsistency. Peninsula Neighborhood Ass'n , 142 Wn. 2d. at 342. Statutes are to be read together, whenever possible, to achieve a " 'harmonious total statu
tory scheme . . . which maintains the integrity of the respective statutes.' " Id . (quoting Employco Pers. Servs., Inc. v. City of Seattle , 117 Wn.2d 606 , 614, 817 P.2d 1373 (1991)). Given this rule and the incompatibility of the statutes, the only way to read the PPI Act and the state bidding laws harmoniously is to read the PPI Act as creating an exemption for projects under the PPI Act from the requirements of the state bidding laws.
Because the original UIW agreement was lawfully executed, we conclude that the amended UIW agreement, the Design-Build Agreement, and the personal service contracts were not subject to the state bidding laws.
IV. Referendum 49 bonds
CAT challenges the legality of the Referendum 49 bonds on two grounds. First, CAT argues that EHB 2723 turns the Referendum 49 bonds into revenue bonds in violation of RCW 47.10.846 by providing that toll revenues be used to pay off the Referendum 49 bonds. CAT asserts that the Referendum 49 bonds are a general obligation of this State that must be paid from the motor vehicle fund rather than revenue bonds and that toll revenue cannot be used to pay off the bonds without specifying an alternative means of payment. Then, CAT goes on to claim that (1) issuing the Referendum 49 bonds, which in fact are revenue bonds, without voters' approval is a violation of article VIII, section 3 of the state constitution; (2) WSTC should have disclosed that the Referendum 49 bonds are in fact revenue bonds; and (3) EHB 2723 violated article II, section 37 of the state constitution, which prohibits enactment of legislation that revises or amends other acts without setting them forth at full length, by revising RCW 47.10.843 -.848 and turning the Referendum 49 bonds into revenue bonds. CONST . art. VIII, § 3; art. II, § 37; Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State , 142 Wn.2d 183 , 192, 11 P.3d 762, 27 P.3d 608 (2000).
In support of these arguments, CAT cites various statutes«11»that provide an alternative or additional means of paying bonds other than through taxes, pointing out that a sequence of statutes on the same general subject may provide insight as to legislative policy and intent. Morse v. City of Toppenish , 46 Wn. App. 60 , 63, 729 P.2d 638 (1986). Then, CAT argues that the Referendum 49 bonds do not provide any alternative or additional means unlike the other bonds that CAT cites.
[8]The bonds CAT cites are different from the Referendum 49 bonds. Revenues, other than tax revenues, directly pay off the bonds cited by CAT. In contrast, an excise tax on motor vehicle and special fuel, which creates the motor vehicle fund, directly pays off the Referendum 49 bonds. Toll revenues do not directly pay off the Referendum 49 bonds. Additionally, where bonds are paid from tax revenue, the bonds are a general obligation of the State, not revenue bonds. State ex rel. Wash. State Fin. Comm. v. Martin , 62 Wn.2d 645 , 661, 384 P.2d 833 (1963). Here, Referendum 49 bonds are paid by an excise tax on motor vehicle and special fuels. Thus, as stated in RCW 47.10.846 , the Referendum 49 bonds are a general obligation of the State, not revenue bonds. Thus, CAT's arguments on article VIII, section 3 and article II, section 37 of the Washington Constitution, as well as its argument regarding disclosing the character of the Referendum 49 bonds, are without merit.
Next, CAT argues that the State cannot use toll revenues to reimburse the motor vehicle fund, which pays off the Referendum 49 bonds, because the toll revenues cannot be commingled with tax revenues. This is essentially an argument that the toll revenues cannot indirectly pay off the Referendum 49 bonds. CAT first relies on State ex rel. Washington Toll Bridge Authority v. Yelle , 195 Wash. 636 ,
«11»RCW 43.99Q.060 ; RCW 43.99P.060 ; RCW 43.99L.070 ; RCW 43.99K.040 ; RCW 43.99J.040 ; RCW 43.99I.070 ; RCW 43.99G.080 ; RCW 43.83F.050 ; RCW 43.83D.100 ; RCW 43.83C.100 ; RCW 43.83B.100 ; RCW 43.83A.100 ; ch. 43.83 RCW; RCW 43.99Q.110 ; RCW 43.99Q.160 ; RCW 43.99N.080 ; RCW 43.99F.090 ; RCW 43.99E.050 ; RCW 43.99D.050 ; RCW 43.99C.055 ; RCW 43.99B.022 ; RCW 43.99B.038 ; RCW 43.99A.090 ; RCW 43.96B.230 .
82 P.2d 120 (1938). In that case, we found that a toll is not a tax and that toll revenues are not required to be paid into the state treasury. Id . at 647. However, the legislature's power to enact a statute is unrestrained except where, either expressly or by fair inference, it is prohibited by the state and federal constitution. State ex rel. Heavey v. Murphy , 138 Wn.2d 800 , 809, 982 P.2d 611 (1999); State ex rel. Distilled Spirits Inst., Inc. v. Kinnear , 80 Wn.2d 175 , 180, 492 P.2d 1012 (1972).
Here, nothing in the Washington Constitution prohibits the legislature from enacting a statute that enables the toll revenues to be paid into the state treasury, and eventually to reimburse the motor vehicle fund that pays off the Referendum 49 bonds. We conclude that the repayment provision of EHB 2723 does not violate RCW 47.10.846 .
V. Priority Programming Statute
CAT argues that the State violated the priority programming statute by concluding the contracts related to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project without a competitive bid. CAT claims that the priority programming statute requires that the contracts related to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project be let according to state bidding laws.
[9-11]The priority programming statute is completely silent as to whether contracts for highway projects must go through the process specified in the state bidding statutes. Under the priority programming statute, WSTC must prioritize various projects for preserving or improving state highways by using certain selection criteria. RCW 47.05.051 . The intent of the statute is to allow the State to efficiently improve the state highway system with limited funds. RCW 47.05.010 . As mentioned earlier, the PPI Act establishes a new contracting process for a limited number of transportation projects. Under the process established by the PPI Act, private entities undertake all or a portion of the study, planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the systems and facilities. RCW 47.46.010 , .030. We see no conflict between the priority programming
statute and the alternative bidding process under the PPI Act. Both statutes aim at achieving efficiencies in developing transportation improvement projects. The priority programming statute does not address the question of whether the contracts related to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project must comply with the state bidding laws. Moreover, the legislature is not bound by the priorities set under the priority programming statute, which apply only to WSTC.
VI. Washington Constitution article II, section 19
[12]Article II, section 19 of the state constitution provides:
No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.
CONST . art. II, § 19. This is to be liberally construed in favor of upholding the legislation. Amalgamated Transit , 142 Wn.2d at 206 ; Wash. Fed'n of State Employees v. State , 127 Wn.2d 544 , 555, 901 P.2d 1028 (1995).
[13]There are two distinct prohibitions in article II, section 19. Amalgamated Transit , 142 Wn.2d at 207 ; Patrice v. Murphy , 136 Wn.2d 845 , 852, 966 P.2d 1271 (1998). The first is that no bill shall embrace more than one subject (the single-subject rule). The purpose of this prohibition is to prevent logrolling or pushing legislation through by attaching it to other necessary or desirable legislation. Amalgamated Transit , 142 Wn.2d at 207 ; Power, Inc. v. Huntley , 39 Wn.2d 191 , 198, 235 P.2d 173 (1951); State v. Broadaway , 133 Wn.2d 118 , 124, 942 P.2d 363 (1997). The second prohibition is that no bill shall have a subject which is not expressed in its title (the subject-in-title rule). The purpose of this prohibition is to notify members of the legislature and the public of the subject matter of the measure. Amalgamated Transit , 142 Wn.2d at 207 ; Power, Inc ., 39 Wn.2d at 198 ; Broadaway , 133 Wn.2d at 124 .
[14]Here, CAT asserts that EHB 2723 violates the single-subject rule because there is no "rational unity" between the provisions of EHB 2723 which relate to public
financing for specific projects and an exemption for all-state issued project contracts from the state bidding laws. In asserting the violation of the single-subject rule, CAT assumes that EHB 2723 creates a new exemption from the state bidding laws for the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project. In fact, the PPI Act, not the amendments, create an exemption from the process under the state bidding laws for the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project. As discussed above, EHB 2723 merely clarifies that any agreement related to Tacoma Narrows Bridge project executed after the original UIW agreement will be exempt from additional solicitation requirements. In other words, EHB 2723 does not change the selection process for the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project. CAT's argument fails.
CAT's second contention is that EHB 2723 violates article II, section 19 of the state constitution because the title of EHB 2723 fails to provide notice that any and all WSDOT issued contracts under the publicly funded Tacoma Narrows Bridge project would be exempt from the state bidding laws.
Again, CAT's argument assumes that EHB 2723 creates a new exemption from the process under the state bidding laws for the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project. As discussed above, that is not the case. Since EHB 2723 does not change the procurement method described by the PPI Act, there is no need to include reference to the process in the bill title. EHB 2723 does not violate the subject-in-title prong of article II, section 19 of the state constitution.
We hold that the trial court did not err in granting the State's motion for an order shortening time to hear its motion for summary judgment. We also hold that the State did not violate the state bidding laws in the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project. We further hold that the State did not violate the priority programming statute by concluding the contracts related to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project
without a competitive bid. Finally, we hold that EHB 2723 does not violate article II, section 19 of the Washington Constitution. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
ALEXANDER , C.J ., and JOHNSON , IRELAND , BRIDGE , CHAMBERS , OWENS , and FAIRHURST , JJ ., concur .
SANDERS , J . (dissenting) - The majority's affirmance of this cripplingly shortened summary judgment notice illuminates a disturbing trend in which courts of this state seem to rubber stamp any request by the government to fast track challenges to the expenditure of public funds. I, for one, cannot let this pass unnoticed.
In King County v. Taxpayers of King County , 133 Wn.2d 584 , 949 P.2d 1260 (1997), this court upheld King County's issuance of bonds to finance what is now Safeco Field. Analogous to this case, yet less egregious, the litigation there spanned a mere 36 days from the commencement of the lawsuit to the order granting summary judgment. See id . at 592-93. I stated my reservations about such a railroad to dismissal:
[H]aste makes waste; the best lawyers are often deprived of an adequate opportunity to represent the interests of their clients if denied sufficient time; and courts sometimes commit error which could be avoided given an adequate opportunity to study the law, discern the facts, think, and reflect. A rush to judgment defeats justice.
Id . at 615 (Sanders, J., dissenting).
While the summary judgment notice in Taxpayers of King County was shortened from 28 days to 26 days, see id . at 592-93, here the notice was shortened from 28 days to 8 days, according the responding party only 6 days to provide all necessary memoranda of law and responsive affidavits in this complex litigation involving millions of dollars of public expenditures. This trial court's decision to place appellant Citizens Against Tolls (CAT) on a "rocket
docket"«12»to dismissal exemplifies what I perceive to be an abdication of the judiciary's ultimate responsibility to ensure the citizens' right to an impartial and just adjudication of their claims.
The civil rule governing summary judgment plainly provides a minimum summary judgment notice of 28 days, without exception. See CR 56(c) ("The motion and any supporting affidavits, memoranda of law, or other documentation shall be filed and served not later than 28 calendar days before the hearing." (emphasis added)). "Shall" is unequivocally mandatory language. Erection Co. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus ., 121 Wn.2d 513 , 518, 852 P.2d 288 (1993). Even if we were to invent an exception to an otherwise clear rule, I posit the movant must at least demonstrate good cause for such a request.«13» See generally 14A KARL B. TEGLAND, WASHINGTON PRACTICE: CIVIL PROCEDURE § 22.8, at 8 (1st ed. 2003). The State's sole asserted reason here for shortening the 28-day limit to 8 days was to "comfort" itself upon issuance of the Referendum 49 bonds on September 18, 2002. So much is evident from the trial court hearing
«12» Martel v. County of L.A ., 56 F.3d 993, 1003 (9th Cir. 1995) (Kleinfeld, J., dissenting).
«13»I note the majority cites no case which expressly considered a motion to shorten the summary judgment notice requirements holding a trial court has the inherent discretion to do so. See majority at 236 (citing Loveless v. Yantis , 82 Wn.2d 754 , 513 P.2d 1023 (1973); In re Dependency of E.S ., 92 Wn. App. 762 , 964 P.2d 404 (1998); Zimny v. Lovric , 59 Wn. App. 737 , 801 P.2d 259 (1990); Coggle v. Snow , 56 Wn. App. 499 , 784 P.2d 554 (1990)). Each of the cited cases addressed the discretion a trial court has to shorten the time frame provided in CR 6 for nondispositive motions. It seems only one Washington case has addressed the propriety of considering summary judgment on a shortened schedule, however even there the hearing was actually held more than 28 days after filing and service. Cole v. Red Lion , 92 Wn. App. 743 , 749, 969 P.2d 481 (1998). CR 6(d) by its terms does not apply to summary judgments but rather motions normally brought on five days' notice:
A written motion, other than one which may be heard ex parte, and notice of the hearing thereof shall be served not later than 5 days before the time specified for the hearing, unless a different period is fixed . . . by order of the court. Such an order may for cause shown be made on ex parte application.
(itself on only a few hours' notice) addressing the oral motion to shorten time:«14»
THE COURT: Can I ask you a question with finality? [sic] Clearly, as you understand the last time the Narrows Bridge issue came before me I ruled in favor of the Department of Transportation and was reversed by the Supreme Court, so even if I rule in your favor and say that this suit has no merit as a matter of law, how is that going to give any more assurances to bond counsel and/or purchasers of bonds than would be the case if this lawsuit were just judged on its own merits by attorneys looking to see whether or not there was any arguable merit in the case notwithstanding what I might do or not do?
MS. CADE [State's attorney]: That's true, Your Honor, but I think that they [the state finance committee] would be way more comfortable in taking that risk and making that decision if there were a Superior Court ruling on this case . . . . [T]hey feel more secure in selling $250 million in state bonds to at least have a Superior Court decision on the case.
Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (Sept. 3, 2002) at 8-9 (emphasis added). At the time the trial court granted the motion to shorten time, it was unclear whether the State would ultimately prevail over CAT's lawsuit, but the motion to shorten time presumed that eventuality was a foregone conclusion. The entire basis for the motion to shorten time centered on the finance committee's desire to "be way more comfortable" with a superior court decision in its favor before issuing the bonds five days after the ruling dismissing CAT's lawsuit. Id . at 9. The parties and trial court were all well aware of the inevitable appellate review, yet the court agreed with the State and elected to race through the proceedings to ensure dismissal of CAT's claim as a mere formality. Clerk's Papers at 69-70.
«14»Though the order granting the WSDOT's motion to shorten time referenced the declarations of Amy Arnis and Linea Laird, those declarations were not even dated, much less filed with the court, until after the order was entered. See Clerk's Papers (CP) at 69-70 (order shortening time, dated and filed on Sept. 3, 2002); CP at 152-53 (Arnis declaration, dated and filed on Sept. 5, 2002); CP at 800-02 (Laird declaration dated September 5, 2002 and filed Sept. 11, 2002). Moreover neither of these declarations made any claim that shortening the usual notice requirements was appropriate, much less absolutely necessary.
Summary judgment carries a judicial determination that one litigant has no evidence or legal entitlement to support its claim. See Babcock v. State , 116 Wn.2d 596 , 599, 809 P.2d 143 (1991) ("Summary judgment exists to examine the sufficiency of legal claims and narrow issues, not as an unfair substitute for trial."), quoted in City of Seattle v. State , 136 Wn.2d 693 , 697, 965 P.2d 619 (1998). A litigant has at least 17 days to file briefing and affidavits in opposition to a motion for summary judgment. CR 56(c). This time frame is greater than that applicable to other motions, cf . CR 6(d) - properly so, considering the inherent dispositive effect of summary judgment. And the rule expressly provides that response time may be extended . See CR 56(f).
I posit when a litigant faces the potential summary dismissal of his or her claim the trial court must be ever vigilant in its duty to ensure each claim is properly decided on its merits. This is especially true with a citizen's lawsuit against the government's unlawful use of taxpayer dollars. In such a case I reject the claim the trial court has the discretionary authority to fast forward the proceedings to the finish line just to make the State "feel" better. This suggests an overt judicial partiality which favors the State over the private citizen litigant corrosive to public support and confidence in an independent judiciary.
I also note the State claimed it needed to speed the process to dismiss because it is "hard to schedule" the state finance committee in the same place at the same time to sell Referendum 49 bonds. VRP (Sept. 3, 2002) at 17; see also RCW 43.33.010 (state finance committee consists of governor, lieutenant governor, and treasurer); RCW 47.10.844 (state finance committee must supervise sale of Referendum 49 bonds). However even if a reschedule was desirable, certainly it was not compelled. Moreover if the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project is truly one which "is essential for the economic, social, and environmental well-being of the state," RCW 47.46.010 , is it not unreasonable to expect those responsible public officials to adjust their calendars to
allow independent assurance that the legal rights of the citizens of this state are properly respected?
I would therefore reverse this dismissal and return this case to the trial court with an express order to observe the notice requirements mandated by CR 56. Because the majority turns its back on the citizens' right to fair notice, I dissent.


Business owners and clients contend with a wide variety of legal issues. The landscape seems to grow in complexity daily. Let the attorneys of Johnson, Killen & Seiler use our experience and focus on solutions to reduce complexity and move you forward.
Our attorneys help with all aspects of business law, including organizing, financing, managing, merging, acquiring and selling companies. From sole proprietorships to publically traded companies, we have represented clients across the spectrum of industries. Our expertise and practical knowledge makes the law work for your business—and your financial goals.
The best way to handle a problem to is prevent it from happening. We are experts at consulting our clients to keep them on top of the latest employment and labor issues—and on the right side of the law. A quick conversation with us can avoid months or years of costly disputes and litigation.
Our attorneys have experience handling all aspects of employment and labor law, from advising business operators on personnel matters to negotiating labor contracts. We stand up for the employer.
How will you leave your legacy? Our attorneys have handled every kind of estate and trust case. We can provide you with options, as well as clear direction for achieving your goals.
Preserving assets, transferring an estate or a business or making a charitable gift is easier and more effective when you have an experienced counselor in your corner. How you pass on your legacy is one of your most important decisions. We're here to help.
Family legal issues can be among the most important and stressful. When you need help, our attorneys provide skilled counsel, valuable experience and a willing ear. Our focus on solutions starts by understanding your situation and needs.
We have extensive experience in pre-marital planning, divorce, property distribution, child custody, visitation and support. We advocate for clients through the mediation process. We also serve as mediators for others.
Our attorneys represent clients in all aspects of the health-care industry, from acquiring facilities or equipment to obtaining and maintaining tax-exempt status and ensuring regulatory compliance.
We practice before all state and federal administrative agencies. We have helped clients grow. As the health-care industry changes, our attorneys are a constant source of help.
Need the support of a well-established team?
Johnson, Killen & Seiler attorneys are skilled litigators and strong advocates. But serving our clients doesn't start or end in the courtroom. Pre-lawsuit research, investigation and preparation help position our clients for success.
Alternative methods of dispute resolution, such as arbitration and mediation, can reduce the expense and exposure of a trial. We are experienced in all forms of business and insurance defense work. We lead clients through litigation to solution.
Two of our attorneys are members of the Maritime Law Association of the United States, and the firm represents ship owners as well as companies that manage ship operation. We also represent domestic and foreign insurers and indemnity companies that insure vessel operations on the Great Lakes.


text:
Home Screen Film Entertation Index, Oct. 29-Nov. 9: Cusack Does Rush
Entertation Index, Oct. 29-Nov. 9: Cusack Does Rush
And so, the Entertation Index, October 29 – November 9:
Baldwin, Alec – Actress Genevieve Sabourin denies stalking the 30 Rock star, saying her feelings for him were reciprocated. To prove it, she noted, "How come I know he's got a scar… on his bikini line that is round?" Probably the same way that you would know that his alias is Jack Donaghy-he's been on screen a lot. You might want to find a better explanation.
Link: Baldwin's "Stalker" (NY Post)
At least he's already familiar with radio.
Cusack, John – Cusack's New Crime Productions has confirmed that the actor is developing Rush, a film about conservative firebrand radio host Rush Limbaugh. Cusack may even be taking the titular role, but he'll have to practice being a much bigger asshole if he hopes to nail the part.
Link: Cusack Doing Rush Film (CBS News)
Dawn, Breaking – Twilight movie saga hearththrob Taylor Lautner stopped by The Tonight Show with Jay Leno this week to talk about the final film of the series, the second part of Breaking Dawn, and confirmed that there would be a "twist" at the end of the tween movie. Spoiler alert! That "twist" is that after you've watched the film, you look in your wallet and realize you're suddenly sixty dollars poorer than you were in 2008 with virtually nothing to show for it.
Link: Taylor Lautner Promises a Surprise "Twist" Ending for Final Twilight Film (HuffPo)
Goldblum, Jeff – A woman who has allegedly been stalking Goldblum for 10 years, and who has a 3-year restraining order against her, was arrested when she showed up at one of the actor's recent plays. The judge set her bail at $5000 after considering a higher amount but then thinking, "c'mon-we're talking Jeff Goldblum."
Link: Goldblum's Stalker (TMZ)
Kardashian, Kim – The reality TV star is denying rumors of a "sequel" to her infamous sex tape, which helped catapult her to fame and fortune. Her rep stated, "There is no truth to this and there's no tape," but then supposedly continued, "unless people start to forget about Kim and she needs a little boost. Then I'm sure we can come up with one."
Link: Kim Says No Sequel (HollyScoop)
Ke$ha – As the "Tik Tok" diva preps her next album Warrior for the public, she told reporters that working with ex-Stooges frontman Iggy Pop on a track was "the best day of her life." Sources close to the singer can confirm this, though they say it only narrowly beat out the day that Southern Comfort truck overturned in front of the singer's house and "that magical night down at the wharf during Fleet Week."
Link: The Best Day of Ke$ha's Life (HuffPo)
Lohan, Lindsay – After almost two years of tabloid rebuttals, scandal spin, and conflict with other Lohans, Steve Honig is resigning as Lindsay Lohan's publicist. Good luck, Steve. Dirty Jobs should be calling soon.
Link: Lohan's Right-Hand Man Scrams (E! Online)
Lucasfilm – This week saw a transaction which chilled Star Wars fanboys to the very bone: George Lucas sold Lucasfilm and its properties to Disney, who announced that more films would be on the way. Disney reps say that while the company is excited to finally have the side project of Lucas' Star Wars empire, the company's main motivation all along was simply to garner the rights to the American Grafitti franchise.
Bullshit! Those aren't real!
Link: Disney to Acquire Lucasfiilm for $4.05 Billion (LA Times)
Portman, Natalie – The UK's Advertising Standards Authority has banned a digitally retouched Christian Dior mascara ad for, essentially, false advertising. The ASA said that Dior's claims of "'lash-multiplying effect volume and care mascara,' had '… an unrivalled lash creator effect' and 'delivers spectacular volume-multiplying effect, lash by lash', in conjunction with the image of Natalie Portman's eyelashes, 'would be understood to mean that the mascara could lengthen the lashes, as well as separate them, increase their thickness and volume, and generally enhance lash appearance.'" So, yes, irony abounds when a makeup ad is banned for false advertising.
Link: Beautiful Girl (Yahoo)
Swift, Taylor – Pop-country darling swift recently split with Kennedy family scion Conor after a summer fling. Swift loves to sing about her exes, so get ready, Kennedy family, cuz you have no idea how bad things can…oh.
Link: Swift Splits (NY Daily News)
Previous articleSewers, Foxes, and Roses: Amruta Patil's Kari
Next articleThe Grand Old Party's Over. Maybe.


We love hearing from you! Whether you're an existing or prospective client or just wondering more about our services – we check our messages several times during a normal day but please remember we are only small team and occasionally it might be a few hours before you get a reply. We also welcome visitors to our home so you can see if what we offer is right for you but this has to be by appointment as we are always very busy with our little furry guests.
The fun-loving Mollie on patrol!


text:
Q: update authorities of logged in user Spring security
I have integrated spring security on a restful API with spring-boot,
and now I am looking for a way to update authorities of an already logged user.

I have implemented a custom user for Spring authentication !
I can get All principals (all logged in users) from the sessionRegistry like this way :
List<Object> allPrincipals = sessionRegistry.getAllPrincipals();

now when I try to update the authorities of a specific user, the authorities won't update I always got the same authorities until logging out and then loggin in.
Here is my code :
List<Object> allPrincipals = sessionRegistry.getAllPrincipals();

for (Object principal : allPrincipals) {

    if (principal instanceof SpringSecurityAuthentificatedUser) {

        SpringSecurityAuthentificatedUser principalInSession = (SpringSecurityAuthentificatedUser) principal;
        if(id.equals(principalInSession.getUser().getId().toString())){

            // updating the user's authorities
            principalInSession.getUser().setRole(role);
            principalInSession.getAuthorities().clear();
            principalInSession.getAuthorities().add(new SimpleGrantedAuthority(role));

            SpringSecurityAuthentificatedUser springSecurityAuthentificatedUser =
                    new SpringSecurityAuthentificatedUser(principalInSession.getUser(),principalInSession.getUser().getPassword(),principalInSession.getAuthorities());

            SecurityContextHolder.getContext().setAuthentication(
                    new UsernamePasswordAuthenticationToken(springSecurityAuthentificatedUser, principalInSession.getUser().getPassword(), principalInSession.getAuthorities())
            );
        }

    }
}

could any one help me ?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Q: unresolved import 'Board' with python 3.8.3 64bit I faced a strange problem
I have some files as bellow:

*

*Sudoku

*

*Classes

*

*Board.py

*Solver.py

*Tests

When using Vscode, I imported Board by typing:
from Board import Board

And then tested it, it runs well.
But vscode gives me warning only in python 3.8.3 64 bit, but not in python 2.7.18 64 bit
Images:
python 3.8.3
python 2.7.18

A: Thanks to @u/LaurentTO on reddit I could fix this issue by:

*

*Creating a folder named .vscode inside my Sudoku directory.

*Create a settings.json file inside .vscode

*Writing(in my case) this JSON code in it:

{
  "python.autoComplete.extraPaths": ["./Classes"]
}


text:
Unbelievable! DOJ WILL NOT Charge Lois Lerner – FBI Has Evidence, But Lynch Says No
by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton | October 23, 2015 3:09 pm
So, let me get this straight…[1] the FBI has now said they have enough evidence to nail Lois Lerner's sorry hide to the wall, but the DOJ, headed by Loretta Lynch, is saying nope. We'll give her a pass. Figures… that's justice for you. The DOJ is saying there is a lack of evidence, which is utter bull crap. Ask all the conservatives and Tea Party groups she went after. Look at the emails where she just out and said she was targeting them. The IRS acted as an enforcement arm of Obama's White House to suppress the Tea Party movement. It was criminal. It was corrupt. Now it is being swept under the rug and they are just acting like it never happened.
From The Washington Times:
IRS official Lois Lerner will not face charges following a Department of Justice investigation.
Federal prosecutors announced their decision Friday in a letter to members of Congress.
A firestorm erupted more than two years ago with an inspector general's audit that said IRS agents had improperly singled out tea party and other conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status during the 2010 and 2012 elections.
The disclosure set off investigations by the Justice Department and multiple congressional committees.
The House voted to hold Lerner in contempt of Congress last year after she refused to answer questions at two House Oversight hearings. She has since retired.
The U.S. Department of Justice[3] informed lawmakers on Friday that its closing the two-year investigation into whether the IRS improperly targeted conservative groups. There will be no charges filed against ex-IRS employee Lois Lerner — or anyone else for that matter. In a letter obtained by CNN, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik claimed the investigation found "substantial evidence of mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia leading to the belief by many tax-exempt applicants that the IRS targeted them based on their political viewpoints. But poor management is not a crime." "We found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution," the letter added. No obstruction of justice charges for destroying hard drives and emails. No perjury for lying in front of Congress. Nothing. Hey America… does this look like justice to you?
let me get this straight…: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/23/lois-lerner-will-not-face-charges-after-justice-de/
[Image]: https://rightwingnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Lois-Lerner.jpg
The U.S. Department of Justice: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/10/23/doj-closes-two-year-investigation-into-irs-targeting-scandal-there-will-be-no-charges-filed/
Source URL: https://rightwingnews.com/democrats/unbelievable-doj-will-not-charge-lois-lerner-fbi-has-evidence-but-lynch-says-no/
Copyright ©2022 John Hawkins' Right Wing News unless otherwise noted.


text:
Host program for developmental disability community is through Burke
Source: KTRE Staff
By Haley Squiers | August 23, 2017 at 10:16 PM CDT - Updated August 10 at 3:31 AM
LUFKIN, TX (KTRE) - Three years ago, Bernice Jackson and her husband Robert Jackson were newcomers to Lufkin. But, something just didn't feel right.
"After Leroy came into our home, I began to feel like a normalcy," said Jackson. "Because that's all we've done since we've been adults."
The Jacksons' passion for helping those with special needs was perfect for the Companion Host Care program through Burke, where they were matched with Leroy Butler. According to Cassandra Malone, a supervisor for Burke, this program was created to get those with intellectual developmental disabilities out of group home and into a family-type environment.
"You have staff coming in and out 24 hours, and you don't get to form that personal bond," Malone said. "When you're living in a host companion care home, you can kind of just do your own thing."
Butler is able to do just about anything, including helping his caregivers out around the house.
"When it's time for me to barbecue, he wants to come out and participate, you know, hand me the wood and help me light it and stuff," Jackson said. "He's been a blessing."
Butler might have trouble speaking, but those that know him are amazed at how he's grown.
"I've seen change in his actions and his behaviors," Malone said. "And, it's an accomplishment to be able to come from a group home into the community and be able to do the same things that other people do around them."
Jackson explained why becoming a host in this program isn't that difficult.
"They have the same needs that we do," said Jackson. "You just have to build a relationship and that comes with time. You just take care of him like you take care of yourself."
The program is currently looking for more families interested in providing temporary foster care to these individuals. For more information on the program and how to become a host, follow this link: http://myburke.org/services/developmental-disabilities-services/host-companion-care/
Haley Squiers
Haley Squiers is a multimedia journalist with KTRE-TV. She recently graduated from the University of Texas at Austin this May. During her four years at UT, she pursued her love of journalism by reporting and anchoring for KVR, the student-run news program at the college. Outside of her academics, she has interned at Good Morning America in New York City. She also interned at KTRE-TV last summer.


text:
<?php

namespace Oro\Bundle\DataAuditBundle\Migrations\Schema\v1_1;

use Doctrine\DBAL\Schema\Schema;
use Oro\Bundle\MigrationBundle\Migration\Migration;
use Oro\Bundle\MigrationBundle\Migration\QueryBag;

class OroDataAuditBundle implements Migration
{
    /**
     * @inheritdoc
     */
    public function up(Schema $schema, QueryBag $queries)
    {
        $table = $schema->getTable('oro_audit');
        $table->addIndex(['logged_at'], 'idx_oro_audit_logged_at', []);
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


We've got all the pieces you need to sass up your wardrobe! Out sparkle the crowd with the Selah dress, featuring a bodycon mini fit with square neckline and thin spaghetti straps. Complete with silver accessories for the perfect touch.