On Friday's edition of Houston Matters: Houstonians face long lines at the GRB to apply for food assistance after Harvey. A former Assistant Secretary of State tells us how the politics of refugee assistance has changed over the years. Our non-experts discuss The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly of the week's news. And a new exhibit opens at the MFAH on the life and work of fashion designer Oscar de la Renta.
On Friday's edition of Houston Matters: A deadline looms for those in need of food assistance after Harvey. On the final day to apply, the line outside the George R. Brown Convention Center stretched more than a mile as Harris County residents affected by the storm try to apply for D-SNAP benefits — assistance with food and utilities. News 88.7's Brien Straw joins us with details.
Also this hour: Anne Richard is the former Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration. It's a bureau within the State Department that provides assistance to refugees, people who've been displaced, and other victims of conflict from around the world. At one point, the bureau had a budget of $3.4 billion dollars. Richard recently gave a talk at the University of Houston, and, while she was here, she sat down with Houston Matters producer Maggie Martin to talk about how the politics of refugee assistance has changed.
Plus: Our rotating panel of non-experts discusses The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly of the week's news. And we learn about a new exhibit highlighting the life and career of fashion designer Oscar de la Renta.


text:
Home Biography Dinesh Karthik: Big Hitter Batsmen
Dinesh Karthik: Big Hitter Batsmen
Team Celebanything
Krishna Kumar Dinesh Karthik also popularly known as Dinesh Karthik is known for his wicket keeping skills and he is also a renowned batsman playing for the Indian cricket team since 2004.
He was initially a batsman but he worked on his wicket keeping skills for the sake of his future projects.
Currently, Dinesh Karthik is the captain of the Kolkata Knight Riders in the Indian Premier League. The performance he gave against Bangladesh for the Nidahas Trophy 2018 is considered to be his best so far.
He made 129 runs against Bangladesh at Sher-e-Bangla National cricket stadium in the year 2007 which was his international century.
Dinesh also got a chance to replace Sehwag who had a shoulder injury in India's four match tour of West Indies.
Awards and Recognitions Of Dinesh Karthik :
Dinesh Karthik gained huge recognition for his performance against Bangladesh in the Nidas Trophy where he probably made India win a losing match with his magical innings.
Dinesh Karthik Wedding:
Dinesh was initially married to Nikita Vanjara who is his first wife but unfortunately the marriage didn't work and he separated from her.
He then fell in love with squash player Dipika Pallikal who otherwise hated cricketers but was unaware that she would be married to one someday.
Dipika and Dinesh had the same fitness trainer Basu and it was then when they formally met each other for the first time.
While they were seen together at many occasions, they didn't accept any link up rumours. Finally, Dinesh proposed Dipika and they made their relationship public with an engagement on November 25, 2013.
They finally got married on August 18, 2015 n a grand Christian wedding.
Career Of Dinesh Karthik :
He started his career in Indian cricket with the 2008 Indian Premier League for Delhi Daredevils as a wicket keeper.
In the next season of the Indian Premier League, Dinesh played in 15 matches and was very close to making a century in three of them.
He then played for the Mumbai Indians in the following years and made a descent 86 against Delhi Daredevils.
Mumbai Indians was the winner of the IPL for that season and Dinesh played in all the matches batting and wicket keeping. He was also the top ten run scorers of the tournament with 510 runs.
Dinesh Karthik age: 32 years. Born on 1 June 1985
Education Qualifications Of Dinesh Karthik :
School: Don Bosco School, Chennai
St. Bede's Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School, Chennai
Indian Public School in Salmiya, Kuwait
Dinesh Karthik Family:
Father: Krishna Kumar (System Analyst)
Mother: Padmini Krishna Kumar (IDBI and ONGC)
Brother: Vinesh
Controversies in Dinesh Karthik's Life:
Karthik's ex-wife Nikita Married to Murali Vijay (cricketer)
There were rumours that there was a love triangle between Karthik, his ex-wife Nikita and Murali Vijay (cricketer) as Nikita was probably cheating on him with Murali.
She is now married to Murali Vijay.
Dinesh Karthik Net Worth:
Income Per Month: $30,000
Income Per Year: $0.6 million
Net Worth: $3million
Social media handles:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/dinesh91karthik/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dk00019/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/DineshKarthik
Dinesh Karthik
Dinesh Karthik age
Dinesh Karthik Awards and Recognitions
Dinesh Karthik Career
Dinesh Karthik Controversies
Dinesh Karthik Education Qualifications
Dinesh Karthik family
Dinesh Karthik net worth
Dinesh Karthik wedding
Previous articleUpcoming Movies in May 2018
Next articleShreya Ghoshal- The Melody Queen
Lionel Messi Family, Career, Biography and More..
Antoine Griezmann Football Career, Family, Bio, and More.
KL Rahul : An Indian cricketer, Bio , Family and more..
Leonardo DiCaprio: movies, net worth and more..
Punjab Kings, Team 2021, Roster, Owner, Captain, Rankings…
Robert Lewandowski Bio, Family, Career, and More
Sakshi Tanwar : Kahani Ghar Ghar Ki, Bade achhe lagte hain, serial, movies and more..
Shreyas Santosh : Indian cricketer ,Bio and early life..

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The Yorktowne Hotel is a prominent landmark that reflects the history of another nostalgic era, the roaring twenties. Built in 1925, The Yorktowne Hotel stands 11 stories tall in the heart of downtown York's historic neighborhood. Twenty foot high ceilings, ornate chandeliers, and wood paneling welcome you as you enter the lobby of The Yorktowne Hotel. The amenities of The Yorktowne Hotel include 121 spacious rooms, free wireless high speed internet access, washer and dryer, valet parking, two restaurants, a complimentary fitness center, a complimentary business center, lobby ATM, and meeting and banquet space. The Yorktowne Hotel is within walking distance of various attractions in the city of York and within a five minute drive of even more.
Be the first to add a review to the The Yorktowne Hotel.


There's a lot of misinformation here so let's get to unpacking. Yes, in these states it is legal to purchase a firearm from a private individual—even through an online sale. But, it isn't as if a customer can order any gun online and have it shipped no questions asked. It's also illegal to sell a gun to someone that isn't qualified to own one.
And if we take a look at violent crime rates in these states, they happen to be on par with every other state. Not only that, they are much lower than "gun free zones" such as Chicago and Washington D.C.
Of course Bloomberg conveniently ignores these points and shifts the focus back to his city, in some backwards attempt to justify his nationwide spending to end gun ownership. We've mentioned Bloomberg's rough month here and here, but it seems like he'll keep fighting despite the rest of his party tabling the issue till 2014.


Win 1 of these 6 books in our #Fantasy Scavenger Hunt.
Two young men and a girl with a baby...will they win out?
Teen siblings fall into magical powers they never wanted and a destiny too dangerous to fulfill.
All heroines are not created the same. Some are born strong, some become that way.
Hidden ruins where magic slumbers. Only the dragon knows if they can fulfill their destiny.
One woman stands against the powers of darkness. Will her magic prevail?
With his powers starting to overwhelm him, Seth will do anything to find his brother before it's too late.


What Does a Teenage Music Teacher Do?
As a teenage music teacher, you will teach younger kids or maybe even kids your age how to play a musical instrument that you have already mastered. You could choose to do private lessons or group lessons if you have enough people interested to set that up.
In addition to teaching how to play the actual instrument, you may also need to teach things like reading music, the names of the notes, and chords. How much you'll need to work with your student(s) will depend on their previous knowledge of music and whether or not they can play other instruments.
How Much Does a Teenage Music Teacher Get Paid?
How much you get paid as a teenage music teacher will depend on what instrument you are teaching, how often you have classes, and whether you are doing private or group lessons. If you have group lessons, how much you make will also depend on how many students you have in your class.
As a private music teacher, you can expect to make anywhere between $20 - $100 per lesson. As a group music teacher, you could make between $30 - $200 per lesson. Typically, if you play a more unusual instrument, you can make more because there won't be as many teachers in your area, but too unusual of an instrument and there won't be anyone looking to learn.
How Can I Get Started as a Teenage Music Teacher?
Ask your parents' permission. Since you will likely be working with kids you don't know and either inviting them to your home or going to theirs, it's important that your parents are aware of what your plans are.
Learn how to teach. Knowing how to play an instrument well is obviously a prerequisite to becoming a music teacher, but you also need to know how to teach this skill to others. Take time to study your music teacher and think about how they teach effectively, or ask them for tips on teaching. You can also watch videos on YouTube to get more ideas about how to be an effective teacher.
Decide on your rates. To figure out how much you will charge for lessons, find out how much other people are charging in your area for the same service. Since you are probably a beginner compared to them, you will need to charge less until you get better at teaching and gain a reputation as a good teacher.
Find a location. If you are teaching the flute, you could teach pretty much anywhere since they're small, portable, and relatively quiet. However, if you're teaching piano, you'll need to be somewhere that there is a piano. If your parents agree, you may use your own home for teaching music lessons, or go to the home of your student. Alternatively, you may be able to borrow a practice room at your school or rent one at a local music store. If you are teaching group lessons, you will need to get more creative with your location. The size of your location you'll need will depend on the type of instrument you're teaching and how many students you have. You could do this in your parents' house with a smaller group learning a smaller instrument, but a larger group with a larger instrument may require renting a space in your local community center. Churches will also often rent spaces to people.
Put together some lesson plans. When you're first starting, you'll probably want to help your student(s) work their way through a beginner book on that instrument, which you can find at a local music store or on Amazon. These books are designed by professional teachers to guide someone through the learning process which makes them perfect material for you. However, you will also need to provide information and practice that goes beyond the book, so once you've found a book that you like, take some time with the first few lessons and decide what you need to focus on so that they can complete the practice sections in the book. Keep in mind that different people learn differently, so you may need to teach something several ways before you student(s) will fully grasp it. If you decide to try group lessons, then you will need to put a course together that covers a certain amount of material over a period of time. Be realistic when planning so you don't end up cramming too much information into one lesson which could make it hard for your students to learn everything.
Make a flyer. Put together a flyer that includes information on what instrument you are teaching, how long you've been playing it, any special music awards you've won, the cost of lessons, and your contact information. You should also include a picture to get people's attention and print them on colored paper to draw attention to them.
Post your flyers everywhere. Starting at your local music stores which usually have bulletins for people to share music-related information and advertisements, put up your flyers in as many places around town as you can. Libraries, community centers, and coffee shops are other great places where you might be able to put up a flyer. Just be sure to ask before putting it up. You might even be able to advertise in schools.
Advertise online. Use Facebook and Craigslist to get the word out about what you're doing. If you have prepared a course, make sure you let people know when the last date to register is and begin advertising long in advance so as many people as possible will see your advertisement.
Start teaching! Once you get some interest, then all that's left is to start teaching! As you teach private lessons, make sure you watch for areas where your student is struggling so you can have them focus on that while they practice at home, and you may need to prepare extra material to help them in certain areas. With group lessons, you should be doing the same, although this is a little more difficult with multiple students.
Amazon.com: This is where you can get a beginner music book for your students. it's best to do this and include it in the price of the first lesson to keep them coming back.
Craigslist.org: This is where you can go to advertise your services if word-of-mouth in your neighborhood isn't enough.


text:
Posts Tagged 'LGPS'
A crystal ball and a prayer – LGPS Bulletin 37
By David Davison | 13th September 2019
Employers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland LGPS will be bracing themselves for the results of the March 2019 actuarial valuations which should be landing in the inbox shortly (Scottish employers have another year to wait). So, what are they likely to see?
Asset returns have been positive over the period which will have a positive impact on the funding level, all other things being equal. Inflation is also broadly unchanged over the period. There was some optimism around mortality rates although an announcement of a fall in deaths in 2019 has potentially put something of a damper on that.
However, that's likely to be all the good news. Gilt yields have continued to fall from just below 2.3% in 2016 to around 1.6% in 2019 placing a higher value on liabilities. Gilt yields have continued to fall subsequently with yields down around the 1.0% level now.
The big issues likely to make an impact are likely to be legislative ones. These valuations will see the incorporation of additional liabilities related to GMP equalisation. In July we also witnessed the Government being defeated in the McCloud case with speculation this could cost Funds billions of pounds. The case found that the Government had forced younger members of the Judges and Firefighters schemes to join less valuable schemes while older colleagues were protected by transitional arrangements providing them with valuable additional benefits. The Government was not granted leave to appeal so steps will now have to be taken to rectify the problem. The LGPS has similar transitional protections.
These issues will likely increase liabilities and therefore funding costs.
The uncertainty created is also likely to hit exiting employers and will result in uncertainty around the impact for employers providing out-sourced services who may be left 'holding the baby'.
Many schemes had been going through a cost cap review which suggested they may have to increase the level of benefits being provided (as there was a cost surplus), however these deliberations were deferred awaiting the impact of these changes.
Employers may have to brace themselves for further cost increases with no real viable route to escape. Hopefully the LGPS England & Wales Consultation will look at offering some additional flexibilities and a more equitable exit basis. Fingers crossed.
An inconvenient truth – LGPS Bulletin 36
By David Davison | 6th September 2019
In my last Bulletin I provided some detail on why the current exit basis used by LGPS funds is based upon excessive prudence and is totally inequitable to exiting charities costing them £100's of millions in excess exit payments, swelling Fund assets and reducing Council costs.
The approach is unfortunately also counter-productive as it locks charities in schemes by presenting them with unaffordable exit payments thereby increasing risk for other participants in the Scheme. Funds focus on the risk of default and don't really assess the material risk of future accrual, particularly for organisations with a weak covenant. It could be argued that the greater risk lies with an employer continuing to accrue further liabilities, which they may be unable to afford, which places other employers at risk.
The cessation lottery
Below is a table showing gilt yields and inflation over the last 12 years.
It can be seen from this that yields were broadly above 4% until around 2011 when we began to witness a steady decline to current levels where they are at or below 2%. There has been some volatility in the inflation position though not to the same extent as with gilt yields. Lower gilt yields will be resulting in very materially higher cessation debts being required from exiting employers which often makes them unaffordable.
Cessation debts could have been 2 to 3 times the size depending upon when the cessation debt was calculated. As an example we recently witnessed a debt move by around 50% over a matter of months and because of where the assets were held the employer had no control over the figure during the period when they were awaiting cessation numbers from the Fund Actuary.
Taking cessation payments based on gilt yields may make some theoretical sense where liabilities in Funds are being secured by the purchase of broadly matching gilts. However, very few Funds do this and we would question if that is sensible and a good use of public monies given the longer term view that Funds can adopt, the relatively small proportion of overall liabilities these Funds are likely to represent as well as the potential returns which could be foregone. This would be particularly the case where small exiting employers had very young staff where a 100% gilts-based investment would be wholly inappropriate.
The vast majority of Funds take these cessation payments and continue to fully invest them in their standard growth portfolio meaning the Fund continues to take the investment risk, and indeed return, as demonstrated in my previous article.
A number of alternatives exist which could provide for a fairer distribution of risk on exit.
The PWC Report referred to in my previous article suggested the use of Liability Driven Investments which could increase the 'secure' discount rate which could be used, thereby reducing exit payments and making exit more affordable.
The cessation basis could also reflect the likely duration of the liabilities with a moving discount rate applied depending upon the likely term the assets will be held. This basis could also be adjusted depending upon the level of any security which could be provided.
We would urge the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and LGPS to consider these alternative solutions to look to achieve a more equitable distribution of risk and reward.
LGPS using exiting Charities to cross subsidise Scheme benefits – LGPS Bulletin 35
By David Davison | 27th August 2019
I have long been of the view that the current basis of assessing payments for charities when they exit an LGPS is excessive and doesn't provide a fair balance between the schemes and the charities. Indeed I'm not the only one to hold this view.
In 2015 the Scheme Advisory Board in England & Wales commissioned research from PWC on this specific issue which commented:-
"We recommend that Funds should not be permitted to use very onerous assumptions for exit bases. One way to achieve this would be to require that the discount rate applied should not be stronger than CPI plus 1.0% or plus 1.5%. This would be the maximum strength exit basis. The range suggested is consistent with cautious investment policies but not zero risk investment policies."
Needless to say this view represented 'an inconvenient truth' for LGPS Funds so the recommendation was just completely ignored. Its likely that this approach may have needlessly cost the UK's charity sector many £100's of millions. So just how much have Funds, and indeed their sponsoring local authorities, benefitted from these payments?
If we use a simple example comparing returns and gilt yields to highlight the issue (i.e. at this stage we are assuming all other factors remain constant). We have cessation assets and liabilities of £1m at outset with estimated on-going liabilities of £670,000 based on a 67% cessation funding rate. Table 1 shows the potential return based upon a gilts-based discount rate of 1.7% and returns of 0.5%, 1.0% and 2.0% above gilt yield (the latter reflecting broadly the on-going funding assumption).
The table shows that a matching gilts-based liability would have increased to £1.4m after 20 years and £1.66m after 30 years. Over 20 years the equivalent asset value covering this at 0.5%, 1.0% and 2.0% above gilts would be £1.55m, £1.70m and £2.07m respectively. So effectively the Fund (i.e. other active employers – primarily the Council) would have benefitted from the cessation payment by anywhere between £150,000 (11%) to £670,000 (48%) over this period based on these assumptions.
The equivalent 'on-going' liability reflecting a 2% return above gilts would have been around £670,000 so the exiting employer would have been paying a cessation 'premium' of £330,000. Allowing for a discount rate of 1.0% and 0.5% above gilts this cessation payment would reduce by £180,000 and £90,000 respectively while still providing a reasonable security margin for the Fund.
However, the position is in reality much worse than the example as the actual returns achieved by the Funds over the last decade or so have been hugely in excess of those assumed. If we consider an employer exiting in 2008 using the actual average return disclosed in the LGPS SAB Annual Reports across all Funds (net of charges) and the actual prevailing gilt yields the picture is alarming.
Based upon the £1m starting point the actual return from April 2007 to March 2018 was 87.7% (average 7.97% p.a.) and the gilts return over the same period was 35.75% (average 3.25% p.a.). This means that the actual gilt value of the £1m liability would now be around £1.42m however the actual value of the assets would be nearly £2.3m. So the Fund will have made nearly £900,000 excess return over gilts on the £1m of assets over only 11 years and around £1.3m in total. Even with no cessation payment the assumed on-going asset value (£670,000) would by 2018 be in excess of £1.5m and therefore over the gilts-based value and well in excess of a likely 'on-going' value which would be around £1.2m.
Funds are therefore collecting huge and, in our view, unreasonable payments on exit well in excess of the amount of money actually needed to provide the benefits. We do not question the need for some form of prudence margin to be applicable for exiting employers but Funds are demonstrating excessive prudence and refusing to consider change because they have the power not to do so. It is not unreasonable to assume that Funds could easily have taken £100's of millions in cessation debts from the charitable sector over the last decade or so and benefitted by additional multiples of that figure. Is it reasonable for public bodies to effectively ask our charitable organisations to cross subsidise their costs to that extent?
We are firmly of the view that the existing approach is flawed and in need of revision and we made some proposals how this could be addressed in our submission to the Consultation on LGPS in England & Wales though would be less than confident that the turkeys will vote for Christmas!
LGPS – Who needs protection from who?
By David Davison | 6th August 2019
A question in the recent policy consultation "Local Government Pension Scheme: Changes to the Local Valuation Cycle and the Management of Employer Risk" asking if schemes needed greater protections from admitted bodies, and some recent communication with a Fund, really highlighted a misconception held by Funds and those associated with them.
A constant frustration for me, and something which must be a huge irritation for charities participating in LGPS is to be accused by Funds of recklessly building up liabilities they can't afford and then complaining about having to deal with them. This is a blatant distortion of the facts and admitted bodies would in my view have every right to feel aggrieved by the assertion. I'd just like to set out some facts so that if this assertion does rear its ugly head it can be swiftly returned to whence it came.
Most organisations participating in LGPS were encouraged to do so by Councils and Funds without being provided with any risk warnings about their participation. Charities therefore joined with the best of motives but often unaware of the future risks they'd be exposed to. Had these warnings been provided in a clear way I'm sure many Trustee Boards would have taken a decision not to participate.
Even today warnings are far from transparent and the key driver for organisations not participating is that they are not permitted to join without Government or Council protection. Most Funding Strategy Statements outline the process for achieving this for potential participants however Funds have taken no steps to rectify the legacy position.
In a similar vein Funds have been happy to transfer liabilities built up by these public bodies to organisations without their knowledge, without any choice and on a basis which leaves the charity with a liability many times that of the public body. The inequity is enshrined in Regulation and Councils in my experience use it as an excuse to avoid dealing with liabilities accrued on their watch. Should Funds not be looking to protect members interests to the maximum extent possible. Surely a public sector guarantee over historic liabilities does this? Yet Funds have been reluctant to pursue this with conflicts of interest to the fore. Indeed from what I've seen Funds and government bodies have looked instead to seek every route possible to avoid their obligations.
Crucially then Regulation limits organisations ability to deal with the issue. While other UK DB schemes will allow employers to close to future accrual and continue to fund on an 'on-going' funding basis to manage down risk in LGPS Funds unilaterally trigger a cessation debt on a gilts basis. There is the constant insistence that this is the correct basis to value these liabilities even though that is not the way Fund themselves invest their assets or indeed usually the way assets are invested post a cessation. Councils are effectively using exiting charitable bodies to cross subsidise their funding. Even where professional advice has been provided to the Scheme Advisory Board recommending change this has been strategically ignored.
Even where some flexibility is offered this is on the repayment term, not on the closure basis. In addition Funds are using the negotiation around an exit to leverage additional security or extort higher contributions.
Funds usually have a one dimensional view of risk driven by what happens when an admitted body looks to exit the Fund. They are not however balancing this with the risk they are exposing participants to by allowing further accrual, particularly for those with weaker covenants. Funds are not assessing this risk to properly identify the overall position and better manage it.
Based on the above I think charities would have every right to question who needs protection from who?
LGPS in England & Wales – Spence & Partners response to the consultation
By David Davison | 23rd July 2019
In a previous LGPS Bulletin I highlighted the consultation issued on the 8th May entitled "Local Government Pension Scheme: Changes to the Local Valuation Cycle and the Management of Employer Risk." The consultation closes on the 31 July 2019 and a copy of our detailed response to the specific questions can be found here or click on the image below.
Our response highlights concerns over the quality of information provided by schemes, deficiencies with the proposals and existing Regulation, the calculation of cessation debts, the drive for security, legacy liabilities and the status of public bodies in the schemes, and makes proposals for a more equitable future framework.
Over the coming Bulletins I will be examining many of these issues in more detail.
PLEASE NOTE: Our response was updated on 12th August 2019 to include additional information.
An analysis of Scottish LGPS membership
By David Davison | 28th May 2019
We have analysed the 2017 Fund actuarial valuations and carried out some analysis of the employer membership in Scottish LGPS to see how this is distributed. From this we can identify what issues Funds and employers might face.
There are 11 Scottish Funds with the share of overall employers shown below.
The numbers are dominated by Strathclyde Pension Fund, Lothian Pension Fund and North East Pension Fund who account for two thirds of the employers with the other eight Funds making up only one third. Borders, Dumfries & Galloway and Shetland all account for only around 2% each.
We identified a total of 544 employers and have classified them in to the six broad Groups as shown below.
Public bodies, such as Councils, Police and Fire Service, account for around 11% of the total number of employers though these bodies will account for the vast majority of the Funds liabilities.
Leisure organisations will tend to have been formed from outsourced agreements from local authorities and will be run as autonomous organisations. Often this switch however has left these organisations without any protection should they wish to revise their membership of the schemes and has left them saddled them with huge inherited legacy liabilities from the Councils which they do not have the underlying asset base to support. These organisations therefore are effectively trapped in schemes and leaving them without the level of autonomy they believed they had.
Similarly schools and colleges will have evolved out of public entities or be private schools with public sector links. Participation in LGPS tends to be for non teaching staff. Again these organisations will have little if any financial protection and will find any changes to their LGPS membership complex and expensive to achieve. These organisations are also likely to be facing additional financial pressures from rising costs in the teachers pension scheme as well as some having to deal with membership of the University Superannuation Scheme ('USS') all putting a strain on already hard pressed budgets.
Private companies will tend to participate as a result of providing out-sourced public sector services and the requirement to maintain equivalent benefits for contracted staff under Fair Deal. Some of these organisations will be protected by Council guarantees or 'pass through' arrangements but many will not, often leaving their shareholders oblivious to the underlying risks they are running.
That leaves the vast majority of employers (around 360) as either charities, who account for nearly 60% of the employer membership, or social housing organisations who account for about 7%, so nearly two thirds in total. In liability terms they will probably account for considerably less than 10% of overall fund liabilities. Some of these bodies may have exited the Fund since the 2017 valuation was carried out.
Some of these charities may also be undertaking public sector contracts and therefore have some form of guarantee or transferee admission body status but the vast majority will not.
The key SPPA findings were that:-
There were 530 employers with at least one active member. Of these 422 were admission bodies (covering both transferee and community admission bodies) of which 223 had no guarantor and so were at some point likely to be liable for a cessation payment. Of these 102 had 5 or fewer members where a cessation payment could be deemed to be payable in the short term.
Worryingly of the 102, 60 remain open to new members and are therefore building further liabilities which suggests either a lack of understanding of their position or a position forced upon them as a result of the Scottish LGPS Regulations.
Of the 121 with no guarantor and more than 5 members 94 remained open to new members.
There are 41 employers at greatest risk as they have fewer than 5 members and are closed to new members which mean that a cessation is imminent.
The cessation deficit associated with the 'at risk' group of 41 was estimated to be in the region of £12m-£15m (i.e. and average of around £300,000 per body). Two LGPS Funds looked at the financial position in their schemes which showed that for organisations with 5 or less members the funding position moved from around £1.93m in surplus on an on-going basis to around £9.4m deficit on a cessation basis. This very much resonates with my experience.
The total liabilities for the 223 admitted bodies with no guarantor were in excess of £350m and the cessation deficit could be in excess of £150m.
The cessation position could be materially worse now given falls in gilts yields since 2014 which highlights the issue with the cessation basis being adopted.
Based on these numbers I would expect that the position in England and Wales would be 8-10 times greater, so these issues could affect in the region of 2000 other charities and account for deficits approaching £80-£100m. A material proportion of this will relate to liabilities transitioned surreptitiously from local authority to unsuspecting charities.
Changes to Scottish LGPS Regulations in 2018 looked to provide additional flexibility to look to manage these issues however they haven't been widely adopted by the Funds.
More research needs to be carried out to understand the pension position fully in relation to the covenant position of the organisations concerned and to look to develop solutions, and potentially further update Regulation, to allow this issue to be effectively managed.
LGPS Consultation – An opportunity missed? – LGPS Bulletin
On the 8th May the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government issued a policy consultation entitled "Local Government Pension Scheme: Changes to the Local Valuation Cycle and the Management of Employer Risk." This comes following the publication in September of the "Tier 3 employers in the LGPS" research findings. The consultation closes on the 31 July 2019.
The first proposal is to change the actuarial valuation cycle in LGPS, from every 3 years to every 4 years, to coincide with the 4 yearly valuations of LGPS as a whole. I do have some concerns that for admitted bodies in the Schemes this will mean that they receive less information and ultimately the information provided will have to have a much longer shelf life. I suspect this is driven more by the inefficiencies in administration and a drive for cost savings than it is for any drive for valuation consistency.
I think to make this change work Schemes should be supplying annual updates on the funding and cessation position (perhaps linked to the provision of FRS102 information) which would allow organisations to be better informed about their position and options.
Of greater importance to charity participants are a series of proposals primarily aimed at looking to help employers better manage exits from the Schemes.
The document recognises that "for some employers a significant issue is the cost of exiting the scheme which can be prohibitive." The consultation seeks views on two alternative approaches:-
To introduce a 'deferred employer' status that would allow funds to defer the triggering of an exit payment for certain employers who have a sufficiently strong covenant. Whilst this arrangement remains in place, deferred employers would continue to pay contributions to the fund on an on-going basis. This is looking to broadly replicate the 'deferred debt arrangements' ('DDA') brought in by DWP to deal with Section 75 debts in multi-employer schemes and the suspension arrangements implemented in Scottish LGPS in 2018;
To allow an exit payment calculated on a full buyout basis to be recovered flexibly – i.e. over a period of time providing this is deemed to be in the interests of the Fund and other employers. This is designed to put in to regulation a framework to provide flexibilities on a more formal and consistent basis to those being utilised 'informally' by some funds via alternative arrangements.
Whilst I welcome the sentiment and the objective to formalise any additional flexibilities offered the consultation proposals stop well short of fully recognising the issues and finding a full range of workable solutions to deal with them.
The DDA legislation and the changes to the cessation position in LGPS in Scotland brought in in 2018 have both been damp squibs with schemes choosing to ignore the changes and to continue to plough their own furrow. The fundamental issue seems to be that schemes are using any request to use the new regulations as an opportunity to re-negotiate security arrangements with the participant. This is hugely short-sighted as it ignores the lack of security on the benefits already built up and that it cannot be in the interests of the organisation, or indeed the other organisations participating, to build further liabilities. This stance in most cases therefore forces organisations to stay in the Scheme which is exactly the result the changes were looking to avoid! The proposals in this Consultation just seem re-inforce this issue referring to employers who are "sufficiently strong" being the only ones who avail of the proposed funding flexibilities – exactly the employers who can probably afford to exit or even potentially continue in the Scheme;
The proposals need to consider what options are available for less "sufficiently strong" employers. It cannot be sensible to force employers in to insolvency as a result of their pension liabilities but instead find a better way to manage these. In the interests of the impacted employer and others in the Scheme it would seem more productive to identify methods where the fund can obtain the maximum possible amount, even if this amount is less than the full cessation position. Some LGPS have already pioneered work in this area and the proposed changes are well behind the curve in terms of effective solutions;
The gilts based cessation methodology is flawed. Over the past 10 years gilt yields have fallen from over 5% to well below 2% which means that exiting employers are subjected to something of a lottery in exit terms. Currently high cessation values based on low gilt yields make exits less affordable keeping employers tied to the scheme – again counter-productive. Funds feel their hands are tied in investment terms forcing them to either invest very long term liabilities in poorly performing gilt assets or some funds remaining invested in the same way effectively just taking the cross subsidy benefit from their charity participant to help fund public sector liabilities. A more equitable system could be to look at the rolling average gilt value over a period or based upon the expected local authority borrowing costs;
There continues to be no recognition of the issue of legacy liabilities within LGPS. It is wholly inequitable for public sector bodies to expect admitted bodies in their Funds, often charities, to cross subsidise the public entity for benefits built up by staff while working for them. These liabilities should continue to be held by the public body in the same way as they were pre a transfer and new employers should be fully protected from these. Benefits reverting back to a prior employer for service linked to that employer just means that they continue to be dealt with on an on-going' valuation basis (as they were initially) and not converted to a cessation basis. This is a solution which is also likely to make exits more affordable.
The suggestion that the steps proposed are linked to protecting the remaining employers in the Funds and this is repeated here. This whole issue of residual risk has been over-egged. The risk is already there and rising – what is needed is an affordable way to minimise the associated risk with the accrued liability and limit any future accrual. How can it be sensible to have 2 employers where one has one active member and one has no active members and yet they are both treated in vastly different ways.
The proposals in this consultation paper are a hugely disappointing response to the issues and in my view provide a wholly inadequate range of options to address the major issues faced. You'd have thought having sat on its hands over this issue for such a long time that the response would have been more comprehensive and considered.
I will be preparing a more detailed response to the consultation which I will share in a future Bulletin. I would also suggest that if you are a charity affected by these issues that you also respond to the Consultation.
Is LGPS Governance fit for purpose? – LGPS Bulletin 30
By David Davison | 8th April 2019
This is a challenging time for LGPS. Funding pressures, consolidation, Tier 3 issues and investment pooling are all high on the agenda. When it comes to taking effective decisions and shaping the future direction of LGPS there needs to be confidence that these issues are being addressed independently and without conflicts of interest. However is this really the case?
LGPS are run as parts of a local authority and the key staff are Council employees. Usually the individual ultimately responsible for the delivery of scheme services is a senior executive or finance officer in the Council. Can these individuals discharge their duties to the scheme independently of their responsibilities to the Council and can Pension Managers do likewise when their ultimate line manager holds this position? How independent can these key people ultimately be when they are beholding to councillors in the local authority for agreeing budgeting and staffing levels? Would decisions in any way be swayed by these day to day concerns rather than the complete impartiality required on any decision they are taking?
Conflicts of interest are obvious so the key question must therefore be how well are they managed? The 7 principles in public life ('the Nolan Principles') require selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.
The Pension Regulator's guidance on conflicts of interest in public service schemes (such as LGPS) focuses on potential conflicts of interest as a member of the pension board. Any such member must not have "a financial or other interest which is likely to prejudice a person's exercise of functions." It goes on to confirm that "actual conflicts cannot be managed, only potential conflicts." Wider examples are given where senior staff may be conflicted.
The test is that the scheme manager must be satisfied.
Conflicts must be managed in 3 stages, namely identifying, monitoring and managing.
In practice however does this really fully address governance concerns. How seriously are Executives taking these conflicts, fully meeting the relevant Nolan principles and codes of conduct?
How might this impact on non Council participants in the Fund?
Information cannot be available to a Pension Fund Head as part of a negotiation and not to a Council FD if both are the same person! How can a Council FD claim to be detached from the policy in a Fund's Funding Strategy Statement when they are the individual who has signed and issued it! How can a Fund be expected to robustly pursue a Council guarantee for an employer when it is the Council FD who is required to agree it and provide sign off? And yet from the schemes perspective it should be doing so to protect other employers.
This does not create an environment for challenge, growth and change but one which favours the status quo. There is little or no motivation to change historic practices and to innovate and this reflects the ponderous pace of change in schemes and their inability to reflect their employer and employee needs. This is also reflected in the myriad of local practices which have evolved in schemes over many years which do not bear close scrutiny. Schemes a short geographical distance apart can adopt wildly differing approaches to managing exactly the same issue.
I am not for a moment suggesting that decisions are deliberately being subject to bias but the potential is there for implicit bias, which is exactly what good governance and the necessary checks and balances are there to resolve.
The model operated by Local Pension Partnership covering a number of regions also provides offers some room for optimism as it has implemented the required additional independent governance tier and their approach has resulted in welcome levels of innovation and flexibility.
One of the options considered as part of the review of local government pension schemes in Scotland could provide a blueprint for change. The formation of a single Scottish LGPS operated independently from local authorities, which could be self-financing and run autonomously by a wholly independent board would provide complete independence and additional comfort that the required governance structure is in place and operating efficiently.
But how close are we to getting something like this more consistently? A long way off I suspect. There aren't really similar discussions to those in Scotland on-going in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and those in Scotland are some way from implementation. Why would Funds themselves be the turkeys voting for Christmas and push this change agenda earlier? Any impetus really needs to come from central government and have a reasonable timescale imposed if it is not to be subject to local / regional self-interest. Central government need to grasp the nettle here if financial savings are to be made and a more independent and consistent form of governance is to be achieved.
Paying for someone else's mortgage – LGPS bulletin 29
By David Davison | 4th March 2019
I have highlighted the issue of legacy debt in LGPS in numerous previous bulletins, in numerous publications and at events. The whole issue is often met with some degree of disbelief. Rightly organisations question why should they be made responsible for pension liabilities which belong to someone else and why are public bodies taking the opportunity to avoid costs which are rightfully theirs.
Pension Funds and Councils are just choosing to avoid the issue and Government are just choosing to put it in the too difficult pile and ignore.
At the start of the year I issued an open letter to the Work & Pensions Committee to see if they would be prepared to raise the problem as the number of organisations I'm witnessing who are experiencing difficulties as a result of this issue has increased very significantly over the past number of months, I suspect as membership numbers in LGPS within charities continue to fall having closed schemes to new entrants.
My letter is available here –Download
I strongly believe that there is a potential tidal wave facing the charitable sector linked to this issue and the wider cessation debt regulation. Statistics compiled by Scottish Government back in 2014 for their schemes identified that of 422 admission bodies 223 had no guarantor. Of these 102 had fewer than 5 members and so were close to the point where they would have to manage a cessation.
Two LGPS Funds looked at the financial position in their schemes which showed that for organisations with 5 or less members the funding position moved from around £1.93m in surplus on an on-going basis to around £9.4m deficit on a cessation basis. This very much resonates with my experience and I suspect the gap has widened since 2014.
Based on these numbers I would expect that the position in England and Wales would be 8-10 times greater, so these issues could affect in the region of 2000 other charities and account for deficits approaching £80-£100m a material proportion of which relates to liabilities transitioned surreptitiously from local authority to unsuspecting charities.
A small number of LGPS have recognised the issue and made changes to deal with it but they are very much in the minority as the majority continue to stubbornly cling to the inequitable status quo.
Recent changes to the Scottish LGPS Regulations wholly ignored the issue and it was also studiously ignored by the Tier 3 review in England & Wales carried out towards the end of 2018.
The response from the Work & Pensions Committee has been positive and they have referred the matter to the Pensions Minister. I thank them for that. I will publish the letter and any response when it is received.
In the interim I would ask LGPS Funds to review this issue and to decide to 'do the right thing'.
Consultation on the future structure of Scottish LGPS
In June 2018 the Scottish Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Board launched a consultation on the future structure of the Scottish LGPS. The Board's consultation sets out four options for the future structure of pension funds in Scotland. The review provides excellent background for all LGPS in the UK as the range of scheme sizes provides a microcosm in which to review the options presented more widely.
There are 11 Scottish Funds with total assets of around £42Bn and liabilities of about £55Bn. Scheme sizes range from the largest, Strathclyde Pension Fund, with around £20Bn of assets and 210,000 members to the smallest, Orkney Islands, with only £335m of assets and just over 3,600 members. The four options being explored along with the key considerations are shown below.
Retain the existing structure
Retaining the status quo is likely to mean that inefficiencies will remain as most funds will not achieve the benefits of scale such as improved bargaining power, access to greater resources and reduced duplication of efforts in administration, governance, spending on advisers and fund management. Larger funds are also likely to be able to better access infrastructure investments. Maintain the existing approach is therefore likely to mean that costs per member are likely to be higher than necessary.
A potential negative would be the loss of local input and oversight and the regional diversification of resource such as staff as it may be difficult to access specialist staff in a single location. However the existing structure does potentially also create a key person risk as there is less available resource to cover key roles as well as budgetary and staff risk due to other competing local priorities..
Clearly any savings made or improvements achieved would need to outweigh any initial transition costs but all research to date would tend to support a move away from the status quo.
Promote co-operation in investing and administration
There have already been some examples of collaboration particularly in the investment area and around procurement. This approach would allow the current governance structure to continue, allowing for continued local oversight, although requiring some sharing of control. There would also have to be some adaptation of governance.
Approaches to date seem to have been relatively informal which results in a degree of uncertainty over their future persistence so a more formal structure may be of value to assist with planning as well as the distribution of costs and returns. To date this sort of co-operation has been pretty limited despite its obvious benefits which would suggest that without strong vision and direction it will remain something of an outlier. I can't help feeling that greater structure and compulsion is needed to really drive change.
Pool investments
This option would see all assets pooled in one or more asset pools managed centrally on behalf of a number of Funds. Schemes would retain their governance, administration and back office functions and continue to appoint and manage their advisers. This is very similar to the approach currently being adopted in England and Wales.
A single pool would double the asset size to about £42Bn over the largest Fund which has assets of just under £20Bn. At this size it would be of a similar size to 3 of the English pools and larger than the 3 others.
Fund assets and liabilities would still be allocated in the same way to ensure specific employer responsibility for liabilities.
A move of this type would be likely to result in lower cost investing though subject to some initial cost increases to manage a transition. It would also be likely to mean that the asset pool was of a significant enough size that more of the investment and administrative tasks could be undertaken in house.
From a governance perspective each Pension Committee would retain responsibility for asset allocation and managing the legislative structure however day to day investment management would be delegated to the pool. Each Fund would also maintain its Pension Board.
As has been shown in England and Wales this approach is very achievable and its hard to deny the value so would seem to be a minimum required step.
Merge funds in to one or more funds
This option would see the creation of a Scottish 'superfund' which would manage all LGPS benefits in Scotland. Such a move would benefit from the asset pooling advantage s in 3 above but also allow for merging of the administrative and governance functions.
Such a move, whilst ultimately desirable from a cost and consistency perspective is not without its challenges. Each of the Schemes is funded at a different level and there would have to be a recognition of this and a mechanism to resolve it to ensure there was not a cross subsidy between different regions and even potentially employers. There would also have to be clarity in terms of governance, priorities and costs. There are also political drivers as well as a need to ensure that the right level of resource is available to the new consolidated scheme.
None of these challenges however are insurmountable and really just need commitment to achieve the objective and a clear plan to do so over a reasonable timescale.
The Funds all provide consistent benefits based upon a single regulatory framework. Consolidation would remove regional variations and inconsistency. Legacy arrangements would have to be clearly documented and honoured but future practice could be implemented on a wholly fair and consistent basis. Undoubtedly given the size distribution of schemes in Scotland a number of them would be likely to benefit from cost savings and improved governance very quickly. Market buying power in terms of services would be improved and greater investment possible in staff, technology and scheme communications.
Research carried out by Deloitte in 2011 suggested that costs per member in Scotland compared favourably with funds in England and Wales and that a single operating model and common administration system may have a greater benefit than formal administration mergers though research by APG concluded that administration costs decline with larger funds and certainly this seems to be the model being employed across UK defined contribution businesses.
It also needs to be considered that the number of employers participating in LGPS in Scotland is falling so less resources are needed and greater consistency of practice can be achieved. In addition with greater employer consolidation there will undoubtedly be increased demand for larger employers to have all benefits consolidated in a single fund rather than across multiple schemes.
In addition the benefits of having a single scheme which is not accountable to a local authority and can operate in an autonomous way based on its agreed priorities should provide greater flexibility in staff terms and conditions and therefore provide the opportunity to attract a much higher calibre of staff.
There are clear benefits which can be achieved through investment pooling and even further benefits through a consolidated single scheme for Scotland – it just needs vision and commitment to achieve them.


749 Galleria Blvd. 4101 W. Washington st.
Sample Request 455 Mayock Road Chemical Distributors, Inc.
Click to request a sample or GILROY, CA 95020 2727 N. W. Industrial st.
download the 3401 Etiwanda Ave. #731A Price Container & Packaging Corp.


Windows only: DemoHelper is a tiny (76k!) portable application that creates on-the-fly screen annotations, so you can draw all over your next presentation like a hyperactive sports announcer DemoHelper resides in the system tray, able to be activated and controlled by keyboard shortcuts, even if you're doing the drawing with a mouse pointer. You can draw freehand, use shapes like ovals and arrows, and change colours and objects on the fly. You can also set the screen to erase all the annotations after a set period of time, letting you move ahead without stopping to clear it away. There's also a zoom mode, also activated by user-defined hot keys. DemoHelper is freeware, Windows only.


This is an amazing space to host a meeting, a small party, a shooting, or your best friend's shower. I'm a chef, so I can also provide food and berverage upon request. This was an old bowling alley and the old floors remain. Losts of character, tons of light from the skylight, and super high ceiling. This is located right on the most vibrant part of Pilsen.
This 744 sqft well-appointed meeting space features high-end amenities, sits 40 comfortably but has a maximum capacity of 45 people, and can be set up in several different configurations to suit the needs of your group. Our modern conference center is the perfect place for your next meeting. Located in a Class A office building situated on the western bank of the Chicago River, our this space boasts large east-facing windows with beautiful views of the Chicago River, the Civic Opera House, the Mercantile Exchange, and other buildings in The Loop. Getting here is easy too. We're just steps from Union Station and Ogilvie Station, walking distance from public transportation, and there are several public parking garages nearby. Extra $50 fee for after hours booking will be incurred. Ideal uses of the space include team off-sites, brainstorming sessions, creative meetings, workshops, board meetings, planning sessions, strategy sessions, corporate training, interviews, focus groups, and more. CONFIGURATIONS & CAPACITY - U-Shape: Up to 20 - Hollow square: Up to 24 - Pods: Up to 40 - Classroom: Up to 45 This space has the option to hold up to 60 attendees- inquire within. FEATURES - Overhead projector and screen - WiFi with business-grade internet - Complimentary coffee, tea, and filtered water - Whiteboard - Easel - Power strips - Room setup and troubleshooting as needed - Management of guest registration with building security - Convenient downtown location - Easels - Modern, ergonomic office furniture - Office Concierge to greet guests - Access to the business lounge - Smaller breakout rooms available AVAILABLE FEATURES (additional charges apply) - Flip chart paper - Breakout rooms from small interview rooms to larger spaces for team workshops CATERING/FOOD & BEVERAGE Blue Plate Catering is our exclusive catering partner. An extra charge will apply for catering. Inquire for details. ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD - Easy access by commuter rail, CTA, and by car. Divvy station on the west side of the building. - Restaurants in the building: Starbucks, Roti, and Just Salad - Nearby restaurants: Chipotle, Potbelly Sandwich Shop, Boston Blackies, Specialties Bakery, I Dream of Falafel, Yolk, Blaze Pizza, Naansense, and more CHECK OUT OUR OTHER ROOMS. Search Splacer using key words below -Modern & Well-Appointed Conference Space on the Western Bank of the River. -High-End Meeting Space with River Views. -Fully-Loaded Conference Space With Views of The Loop and the Chicago River. -Turnkey Meeting/Training Space in the West Loop. -Creativity Room in the West Loop. -Focus/Phone Room with Adjustable Standing Desk (One person office). -Focus/Phone Room in the West Loop (One person office).
Explore our full collection of exhibit spaces in Chicago, IL.


text:
Q: Passing peripheral objects to be used as class members in embedded systems When doing embedded programming in C++ (say, with MBED), I very frequently have globally declared objects for device peripherals like I2C or Serial, which typically take parameters for the pins you're using for that device for your specific application:
I2C i2c(SDA_1, SCL_1);
Serial my_serial(D7, D8);

How do I correctly pass these objects into other classes? I want to keep all the application specific information in my platform level code, and ideally every class in the application should be using the same instance of these objects, but I can't seem to get the constructor syntax set up properly so that a peripheral object can be passed into a class on declaration and then used as a member object within that class.
Example:
I declare a device peripheral globally in my main.cpp file:
I2C i2c(SDA_1, SCL_1);

I need to use this i2c peripheral in several objects I use in my application, such as ThingController. Here's my attempt at passing these objects in with pointers:
ThingController.h
class ThingController {
public:
    ThingController(I2C *i2c);
    void init();
    void run();
private:
    I2C my_i2c;

ThingController.cpp
Editor::Editor(I2C *i2c)
{
    my_i2c = *i2c;

For this, I get "no default constructor exists for class I2C" for the header file, which implies it's just trying to make a new instance of the class. If I try passing by value instead, I get the same deal.
What is the syntax for doing this? Or, am I way off in terms of how I'm thinking about this? I haven't been able to find anything else online resembling the problem I'm having, which strikes me as weird given how frequently I need to do this exact task if I want to use classes in my application. Does everyone just pass through massive lists of application specific pins and then make new instances of these hardware peripherals for every class? Or another approach?

A: You have declared the member my_i2c as an instance of I2C, which means its default constructor will be called in the constructor of ThingController if you don't call it yourself. Since it does not have a default constructor, you're getting this error.
All you need to do is make the instance member a reference (or pointer) rather than a value, like this:
class ThingController {
public:
    ThingController(I2C& i2c);
    void init();
    void run();
private:
    I2C& my_i2c;
}

Editor::Editor(I2C& i2c) :
    my_i2c(i2c)
{
}

You could use a pointer rather than a reference, but in this case the semantics of a reference better suit your situation - you want to initialise it once and not change it.
It would be a good idea to read up on constructors and member initialiser syntax which covers all this.

Does everyone just pass through massive lists of application specific pins and then make new instances of these hardware peripherals for every class? Or another approach?

No, that would be a very bad idea. :) Peripherals such as I2C and SPI should have a singleton wrapper class, which allows you to serialise access. If you passed in the pin definitions and created multiple instances of I2C class (for example) you could end up having two different parts of your code trying to access the peripheral at the same time, and cause all sorts of bizarre and difficult-to-debug problems. The above approach is fine, and you would also want to look at adding a mutex and having lock/unlock methods on the I2C class.

A: To begin with, you should not declare anything global - least of all C++ classes. This will give you all manner of initialization order bugs. The order of initialization matters a lot in most embedded systems.
What you should do, is to declare all such objects local to the main loop/application code. If several parts of your code needs to access the I2C, then you pass the object to them.
However, if several parts of your program needs to access raw I2C, then your design is already wrong. It is bad OO design to have some random part of your program know about hardware-specific things like "SDA_1", "SCL_1".
Only the I2C driver should speak directly to the peripheral and "know" about I2C hardware. You need to implement a HAL on top of that one. (Optionally the HAL can be an abstract base class and the driver can inherit it.) And you should only allow as many I2C object instances as there are hardware peripherals available.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


On May 30, 28 young people ages 18 to 35, of whom 23 are women, received welding diplomas with international certification, having completed a 14-month training program through a project to strengthen and improve livelihoods in Carrefour-Feuilles.
The project was launched by the Haitian Red Cross and is funded by the American Red Cross. It has been implemented by CECI since 2014 in one of the most vulnerable areas of the Hatian capital. Its aim is to improve access to economic opportunities for residents of Carrefour-Feuilles, particularly young women and men.
According to Roselaure Claude, a beneficiary of the project targeting 75% women, this initiative has "brought hope back to our neighbourhood." Marie Dominique Denizé, Gender Equality Coordinator at CECI's Haiti offices, is thrilled with the number of women who have undergone the training. "These women dared to choose to become mechanics, electrical technicians, welders and other professions." The inclusion of women in these fields helps break down stereotypes that lead people to believe that certain professions are strictly for men.
In addition to receiving basic welding training, these 28 young graduates are the first in Haiti to receive specialized training in advanced techniques, which was provided by the Canadian Welding Bureau and funded by USAID. These highly sought-after skills qualify them for jobs in workshops and on site building large earthquake-resistant structures, on ships in the middle of the ocean, in shipyards, on oil rigs or even on the assembly lines of a new air craft.
From December 2014 to April 2017, the project trained 715 young people, 461 of whom are women, in various fields such as electrical work, masonry, refrigeration and cooling, plumbing and welding. Of the young people who received training, 379 rounded out their training by completing an internship in a business, after which 105 of them were hired by a private company. The project also supported 97 existing businesses in the Carrefour-Fruilees neighbourhood and helped create 11 new companies.


Chemistry of Nanocarbons presents the most up-to-date research on chemical aspects of nanometer-sized forms of carbon, with emphasis on fullerenes, nanotubes and nanohorns.
All modern chemical aspects are mentioned, including noncovalent interactions, supramolecular assembly, dendrimers, nanocomposites, chirality, nanodevices, host-guest interactions, endohedral fullerenes, magnetic resonance imaging, nanodiamond particles and graphene.
The book covers experimental and theoretical aspects of nanocarbons, as well as their uses and potential applications, ranging from molecular electronics to biology and medicine.


text:
MD Gaithersburg Latitude Observatory
History and Science in the Skies
Gaithersburg Latitude Observatory
<< Return to Maryland Hiking and History Page
(Gallery Has Two Pictures)
This wooden building doesn't look like much from the outside, but it was actually part of an international cooperative astronomical study of the earth's precession (wobble) on its polar axis of rotation. This Gaithersburg Latitude Observatory was built in 1899 as part of a system of six international latitude observatories; highly remarkable scientific cooperation during a period of terrible international warfare. The observatory and grounds are now designated a National Historic Landmark.
The "Skywatching" programs are held evenings at the Latitude Observatory, and admission is free. Get this on your calendar now: International Observe the Moon Night will be observed on Saturday, October 28, starting at 7pm. The calendar of events is on the museum's Facebook page.
This pagoda-looking thing was used for precisely calibrating the orientation of the telescope. The telescope was aimed through a window in the side of the building (see picture of observatory above) at crosshairs in these windows to ensure that it was correctly oriented, since orientation of the base and mounting of the telescope could drift from day to day. In this way, the measurements at this telescope could reliably be compared with similar measurements at the sites in the cooperating locations internationally, to create findings that could be relied on.
adventures, educational, engineering, maryland, park, photos, pictures.
MD Gambrill State Park
MD South Mountain in the Civil War


Enter The Highlands at Bethel New York and take a tour along the winding roadways of this serene property. You'll find stunning parcels of land for sale that will create a new life for you and your family! Available now are small and large acre country homesites in a private community of rolling hills, meandering brooks, grassy meadows and woodland retreats in the famed Catskill's region. Select the real estate that's perfect for you and build your family's dream home when the time is right. All properties come with clean title, protective covenants, recent survey and warranty, plus underground electric and phone.


Cancer: How Dangerous Are Our Cosmetics?
Davis, Devra (2007) Cancer: How Dangerous Are Our Cosmetics? Newsweek.
Toxic chemicals don't just hurt us in big doses. An environmental oncologist argues that myriad tiny amounts of cancer-causing agents in our environment—and even in our shampoo—can make us sick.


text:
Music has always been my passion! I simply cannot live without it.
I particularly love rock and its thousands of shades so I am going to talk about a group which took my heart when I was young: The Clash, the legendary British punk band.
The Clash – London Calling
The Clash: Topper Headon drums, Joe Strummer vocalist and guitarist, Mick Jones guitarist, Paul Simonon bassist. https://www.theclash.com
I was living in London when on the 14th of December 1979, The Clash released the double album London Calling. It was the third album that the punk band had released since 1976.
Although many people think that London Calling is only a nice melody inviting to visit London, in reality it is about the downsides of contemporary progressive society.
Joe Strummer, alias for John Graham Mellor, the singer and guitarist of the band, was so impressed by all the catastrophic events and bad news reported by newspapers in 1979, that he decided to write a song about the many ways the world could end. Starvation was one of the issues as England itself was going through a very bad period of recession. The river Thames, on the other hand, was threatening to overflow and London was at risk of being flooded..
I remember my teacher of English at school using many social problems as a subject to make us pratice the language and improve it. Immigration was increasing a lot in the UK and many riots were breaking out in the suburbs of most British cities, as well as in London, as a response to police brutality grown all over the country. Margareth Thatcher came to power and discontent arose everywhere in the UK. Unemployment caused many social problems and poverty increased while racism outspread. England was in a state of social upheaval.
In February 1979 the First World Climate Conference was held in Geneva (Switzerland). Weather conditions were already considered extreme and many articles and books were written about the risks of Global Warming causing a new Ice Age, which for someone had already begun.
In March of the same year, the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor in the Susquehanna River, near Harrisburg, in Pennsylvania (USA) melted, due to one of the feedwater pump breaking, and it started leaking. Although no deaths or bad injures were reported, the world started thinking about the risk of nuclear power. Many other probles arose in the world. Russian invasion of the Afganistan gave start to the Soviet-Afghan War, the Pol Pot brutal regime in Cambodia was close to its end but still people were being killed, the overthrow of the Shah in Iran and the Sandinista victory in Nicaragua were all events which shook society. The film Apocalypse Now was also released that same year in the cinemas.
This was the catastrophic picture that induced Joe Strummer and his band to release London Calling.
The BBC catchphrase for BBC's Overseas Service Radio broadcasts during the Second World War, "This is London calling…" was used as the title for both a single track and the double album.
The Clash London Calling
London Calling was full of references to various political actions and it was an invitation to become aware of the severe impact of local and global crises on society. Considering that there was no internet yet, it was not an easy task to get information about wat was going on in the world.
Joe Strummer was really worried about it. The SOS morse code message of the song was used to pose more of an apocalyptic picture of the possible future at risk of wars and natural disasters.
The Punk Movement which started at the beginning of the 70s in US and England was born as a form of rebellion against the establishment and it became a lashing out against injustice caused by the regime. Although punk music was never meant to be heard by the masses, many punk bands started using music to invite the public to take political actions.
Joe Strummer had been against the "authority" as a system of control since he was a child, and when he decided to write London Calling, he had the clear purpose of sending a political message throughout the entire album inviting people to rebellion. DIY (Do It Yourself) which was the message sent by punk rock movement against the regimes was strong in England where other punk band like Sex Pistols were rebelling against the establishment. While other punk rock band had a more aggressive style, both in music and lyrics, The Clash, however, were mixing Caribbean and Latin American music styles in their songs and used political lyrics which made the band be considered the rock band symbol of the punk movement. What distinguished in fact The Clash from all the other punk rock bands was the foray into different genres which they managed to alchemize into a unique style. Reggae, first of all, then soul, funk, blues, ska, dub, glam and early rock like the rochabilly of the track "Brand New Cadillac".
London Calling features an iconic cover. A picture shot by the British rock music photographer Pennie Smith in New York during a concert that The Clash had at the Palladium. Paul Simonon, the bass guitarist, out of frustation when he realised that the crowd attending the concert could not stand up due to fixed seats, smashed his fantastic Fender Precision Bass guitar on the stage. It was exactly 9.50 p.m. as proved by his watch which was broken too in the process. Paul Simonon and Pennie Smith did not know at that time that the epochal picture would become a supreme cover in music history. The cover was designed in pink and green letters in homage to Elvis Presley's first album which also features him smashing his guitar.
In 2010 London Calling cover was even turned into a Royal Mail Stamp for music lovers.
Many other albums were produced later by the band, like the double album Sandinista (12 december 1980) and Combat Rock (14 May 1982).
I was lucky enough to see The Clash in Italy, on the 6th of September 1984. No one was expecting them to come to South Italy but the town of Cava dei Tirreni, in the surroundings of Naples, invited The Clash to held a concert at the city stadium and thousands of people came to see them although no proper publicity had been given. It was the word of mouth which made the concert known and it was a real success.
On that occasion, Joe Strummer was seen while going around the town of Naples on a Vespa scooter. All the tracks of the albums London Calling, Sandinista and Combat Rock and others were performed.
I will never forget that amazing concert.
The punk rock band was bestowed the honor of being inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2003, with tributes by Bruce Springsteen, Little Steven and other rock stars but Joe Strummer did not have the chance to see it. He unfortunately passed away in december 2002.
© 2020 Maria Sannino


In terms of the Government of India Notification No. F.No.4(22)-W&M/2018 and Press Release dated October 08, 2018, Sovereign Gold Bonds 2018-19 (Series VI) will be opened for the period from 4th February to 8th February, 2019. The Issue Price of the Bond during this subscription period shall be Rs.3,326 (Rupees Three Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Six only) – per gram with Settlement date February 12, 2019, as also published by RBI in their Press Release dated February 01, 2019.
The Government of India in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India has decided to allow discount of Rs.50 (Rupees Fifty only) per gram from the issue price to those investors who apply online and the payment is made through digital mode. For such investors, the issue price of Gold Bond will be Rs.3,276 (Rupees Three Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Six only) per gram of gold.


BizTalk Server Advantages – Why BizTalk Server ?
BizTalk Server Advantages – Why BizTalk Server?
1. It is basically an Integration server. It helps in Integrating Enterprise Applications at one common point.
2. Solutions can be developed really fast with BizTalk Server. Effort spent will be less.
3. Updates can be handled in an easy way and maintenance will be easy. BizTalk Server supports Versioning of Artifacts.
6. MessageBox DB designed for optimum performance.
7. Advantage for customers on cost saving in terms of developent time.
8. BizTalk has a number of Tools like BRE, BAM, SSO which be effectively used.
advantages that can be effectively used.


It wasn't too long ago when most people thought laser hair removal was just for women. Times have changed and now more than ever men take pride in being well groomed. Laser hair removal for men can help maintain problematic parts of the body that men struggle to control.
If you read our last blog you will know there are several advantages for getting laser hair removal. If you need more basic info or missed it you can check it out here: Laser Hair Removal Blog. Laser hair removal for men is no different. It's a more permanent solution to reducing hair in specific areas of the body. It will require less grooming in often hard to reach areas so a man is always looking his best.
There are several spots on the body men get laser hair removal treatments. The most common is the back and neckline. Using laser hair removal to reduce back hair prevents men from having to use costly creames or awkward shavers that are next to impossible to use. Treating the neckline keeps men looking cleaner in between visits to the barber which can help save money as well.
Other popular areas include the chest, ears and armpits. Why hide a physique you work on so hard under a layer of hair?
At Achieve Beautiful Skin we offer in spa consultations for both men and women for free. We will help you understand if your hair type and skin tone makes you an ideal candidate and what type of results you can expect. There is no obligation after the consultation, we just ensure all of your questions and concerns are answered. Give us a call at 321-720-5473 or book online today!


text:
Q: Python example of asynchronous socketserver I am looking at the socketserver doc: https://docs.python.org/3/library/socketserver.html, there's a Asynchronous Mixins example near the end. I am a newbie on this. Just so curious why the example creates a thread for serve_forever? Why not just run server.serve_forever() in the main thread?
And I also noticed that a shutdown function is called at the end. Since the server_thread is a daemon thread, it will also quit, right? But servers are suppose to run forever, the example seems to be a one shot server. So can anyone help me explain this...Thank you!