text:
PROC Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
Notice of Meeting
Meetings (PROC)
Listen on ParlVU
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
The Chair (Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)):
Good morning. Welcome to the 67th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Fortunately the meeting is in public.
In case this is our last meeting, I'd like to give a big shout-out to our clerk and our librarian. I think they've done excellent work for us.
In the other committees, they probably didn't have as many hours as you had, so we really appreciate it, and your sage advice has been great.
I had some preliminary discussions with people, so we might have a very short, efficient meeting, but we'll see how it goes. We will start with Mr. Reid's letter, and he wants 10 minutes or so. We'll see if we can get it on the record.
I will just read some notes I made, Mr. Chair.
We're in public now?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Scott Reid: Okay, thank you.
First of all, Mr. Chair, thank you for agreeing to set aside some time today for me to lay out concerns regarding the conduct of the epic month-long meeting of this committee that began on March 21 of this year and concluded on May 2.
On May 4, I indicated in a letter to you that it was my intention to raise the matter at the earliest possible convenient moment. Verbal interaction with members from all parties caused us to agree to set aside that discussion until this moment.
I'm grateful to all members of recognized parties for having accommodated me in this matter, and I'm particularly grateful to you, Mr. Chair, for the degree to which you've accommodated me in providing a forum in which to raise these concerns.
The concerns revolved around three specifics. The first concern is the manner in which, at the time of normal adjournment on March 21, you did not adjourn, citing the need for a consent from a majority of committee members. My second concern is the manner in which, on several subsequent occasions, you suspended the meeting for periods of up to two weeks at a time. The third concern is the manner in which you adjourned the final sitting of the meeting on May 2 without seeking the explicit consent of the committee.
In my own well-publicized remarks of May 2, I also raised another issue, which was whether or not you had adjourned the meeting after I had already sought to raise a point of order. With the permission of the committee, I will set that issue aside, as it is not strictly speaking closely linked to the narrower theme that unites the three points I raised a moment ago.
These three points are united by the fact that each of them involved an action or a series of actions that were not, in my view, prohibited by any standing order but contravened a norm or standard that has thus far been only articulated in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, colloquially known as O'Brien and Bosc.
For me, the goal of today's intervention is to get on the record a further articulation of the problem that such actions could represent if they are repeated in the future here or elsewhere. My intention is, at a minimum, to ensure that the way in which adjournment and suspension were used during the meeting that started on March 21 is not seen as normalizing this way of doing things. In other words, I want to ensure that these actions are not seen as precedents that establish that any further meetings in the future conducted in this manner at this committee or at another committee are falling within the norms of generally accepted House of Commons behaviour.
At a maximum, I can imagine a situation in which the Standing Orders are amended in order to bring complete clarity to the manner in which committee adjournment and suspensions ought to take place. The remarks that follow lay out some guidelines that might prove useful to this committee, should it see fit to attempt to draft said amendments at a future time.
Let me now turn to the three specific matters I raised earlier. In so doing, I will merge the first and third items, both of which deal with the manner in which a committee meeting is appropriately adjourned. After dealing with this, I will turn to the issue of suspension.
At 1 p.m. on March 21, you declined to suspend the meeting at the appointed hour of adjournment. When I queried you as to your rationale, you stated that a chair may not suspend a meeting against the will of the majority of the members. A survey of the will of the committee, which was taken immediately thereafter, established that a majority did not wish to adjourn.
On May 2, the same meeting, which had at that point had been under way for over a month, was adjourned by you without attempting to determine whether or not members wanted to adjourn.
The Standing Orders do not explicitly rule out either of these two actions, but it is clear that they are incompatible with each other. In one case, adjournment was not acceptable, even after the scheduled hour of adjournment, without a careful canvass of the membership first being entertained. In the second instance, the exercise of establishing the will of the committee was deliberately avoided.
My view is that both of these actions were a violation of the spirit of our practices, although to be clear, neither instance was a violation of the Standing Orders nor of any clearly established and universally exercised practice of this House as codified in O'Brien and Bosc.
The closest thing we have to a defined practice is the following, and I quote from page 1087 of O'Brien and Bosc, 2009 edition:
A committee meeting is normally adjourned by the adoption of a motion to that effect. However, most meetings are adjourned more informally, when the Chair receives the implied consent of members to adjourn. The committee Chair cannot adjourn the meeting without the consent of a majority of the members, unless the Chair decides that a case of disorder or misconduct is so serious as to prevent the committee from continuing its work.
This is the same passage, Mr. Chair, that you cited in part at 1:05 p.m. on March 21 in explaining that, as you put it then, "In response to your question, the clerk informs me that the committee adjourns with the consent of the committee and, unless that's available, the committee doesn't adjourn."
This is true, but I think it misses the point I stated then in words that I will use again today:
my interpretation of those words
these words from O'Brien and Bosc
unless I'm corrected, would be that the chair cannot in the midst of a meeting—say at 12:30 rather than at 1—say, "I'm adjourning the meeting". He has to get consent. This committee has ended its meetings early on numerous occasions under your chairmanship. You've always seen whether there was consent to end the meeting, and then we adjourned at that time.
My understanding is that the purpose [of this passage from O'Brien and Bosc] is to prevent you from adjourning early. It's not to say that a meeting scheduled from 11 to 1 is actually an indefinite meeting....
Today I stand by my interpretation of that passage, specifically the first sentence I quoted from O'Brien and Bosc. Actively seeking the consent of members to end a meeting early is a recommended practice even if it is not actually required by the Standing Orders. The mirror image of that rule, actively seeking the consent of the members to continue a meeting beyond its scheduled time of adjournment, ought as well to be seen as a recommended practice.
Now let me cite practices used by another chair that I think serve as a good example. I always admired the practice of Joe Preston, your predecessor as chair of this committee. In the 41st Parliament he was in the habit of saying, before adjourning meetings whether ahead of schedule or at the scheduled hour, loudly so that all could hear, "Is there anything else for the good of the committee?" This provided an opportunity for anyone who needed to do so to raise any matter of business. If this was 1 p.m. this item of business would be pursued only if the membership expressed its willingness to continue on past the normal hour of adjournment. We never had to resort to a vote, at least, in my recollection.
But there were occasions when an individual would raise objections to continuing onwards past 1 p.m. and by general consent it was now appropriate for the chair to gavel the meeting to a close. I can remember, for example, on one occasion myself raising a verbal reminder to the committee that we could not in all propriety continue because the room was needed for the meeting of the subcommittee on international human rights of which I was the chair. I think Mr. Preston's practice was a good one and could profitably be followed explicitly. Doing so would not have prevented this committee from sitting beyond 1 p.m. on March 21, but the continued sitting would have been carried on following an explicit demonstration of that consent.
On May 2 the seeking of such consent would have made it clear that one member, myself, had an item of business that he wished to pursue. This item of business was a motion that could not have been approved by the committee without a majority vote anyway. So I'm at a loss to determine what good was achieved by peremptorily adjourning without first seeking consent on this motion.
Let me, therefore, recommend Mr. Preston's practice to yourself, Mr. Chair, as our minimalist response to the issue of adjournment. If at some future point the committee deems it appropriate to consider amending the Standing Orders to require that explicit majority consent be sought prior to adjournment as is required, for example, under Robert's Rules of Order, then I would be in favour of making that change to the Standing Orders. A change to the Standing Orders that requires explicit consent for any business other than the business of determining whether or not to delay the hour of adjournment would also find my favour.
Now let me turn to the question of the manner in which the March 21 meeting was repeatedly suspended. I have a list with me, Mr. Chair, of all of the suspensions that took place—it's three pages long—between March 21 and May 2. While I will not regale the committee with every suspension and its length, you can quickly see that they fall into two categories.
Starting on March 21 itself, we have a suspension at 4 p.m. for 50 minutes. Another one then takes place at 6:50 in the evening for three hours and 30 minutes. The meeting reconvenes and then is suspended again at 9:30 p.m. for one hour and 10 minutes. There is a further suspension for five minutes a bit later on.
Then at three in the morning on March 22, it's suspended for nine hours, the same calendar day but effectively a new day of sitting. People went home, went to bed, and came back. A suspension of four hours and 30 minutes occurred later on for votes and question period that day, and then a suspension of 12 hours and 15 minutes until the 23rd, an overnight suspension.
After this we see suspensions from the 23rd to the 24th, from the 24th to the 25th, from the 25th to April 3 to incorporate a break week, from April 3 to April 5, from April 5 to April 6, from April 6 to April 7, from April 7 to April 11, and then the big one—actually there are several in between, but I'll skip them—from April 13 to May 2. I think I am correct in saying that if there were a gold medal for long suspensions, this would have to win it. It was several weeks long and not what suspensions are intended for.
Turning back now to O'Brien and Bosc, they make it clear that suspensions are intended for brief, temporary interruptions. On page 1086 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, they write the following:
Meetings are suspended, for example, to change from public to in camera mode, or the reverse, to enable witnesses to be seated or to hear witnesses by video conference, to put an end to disorder, to resolve a problem with the simultaneous interpretation system, or to move from one item on the agenda to the next.
This is not an exhaustive list, but it's obvious that, in each case enumerated above, the intention is to keep matters that are of a purely administrative and non-parliamentary nature from becoming part of the formal record, remembering of course that parliamentary speech is different from normal speech. It is protected in a certain manner and needs to be treated respectfully.
O'Brien and Bosc concede—and again, I'm quoting—that "Suspensions may last a few seconds, or several hours, depending on the circumstances, and a meeting may be suspended more than once." So there's nothing irregular in the fact that there are multiple suspensions here, but rather in their length.
The key point that O'Brien and Bosc are drawing to our attention is that "The committee Chair must clearly announce the suspension, so that transcription ceases until the meeting resumes." The cessation of transcription, the ending of parliamentary speech is the whole point of suspensions.
The serial suspensions of the March 21 meeting do not fit this pattern. They were de facto adjournments that served an entirely different purpose. Without exploring that purpose, I will simply observe that O'Brien and Bosc cite an interesting example, which may serve as a bit of a guideline for us.
On May 28, 2003, the Standing Committee on Transport met late in the evening and then suspended, resuming its meeting the next day. The practice was protested, and on June 3, 2003, Speaker Milliken addressed the matter. He indicated that no Standing Order had been violated and therefore the entire proceedings of the committee were part of the parliamentary record, but that the practice of suspending from one day to the next was, quite literally, unprecedented; that is, there was no precedent for it.
He was anxious not to allow this meeting to set a precedent. He said, "Your Speaker is...somewhat troubled by the notion of an overnight suspension of proceedings.... I would not consider the unorthodox actions of the transport committee in this particular instance to be a precedent in committee practice." This means that, as of the date of our epic meeting, this was an unprecedented action.
I agree with Speaker Milliken's ruling, and it's my view that the serial suspensions of our committee between March 21 and May 2 ought similarly to be regarded as having no weight as precedents.
Therefore, as a minimal response, I would be grateful to you if you would consider not using overnight suspensions in the future, and if the committee is willing, at some point in the future, I might suggest adding a change to the Standing Orders to eliminate the possibility of overnight suspensions.
That concludes my prepared remarks, Mr. Chair. I just want to say again that, in drawing these to the attention of the committee, I am not suggesting that I regard your overall chairmanship of this committee.... It was very flexible and open, in ways that are not really possible to raise in a proceeding of this sort because they are not breaches of our practices; they are actually creative additions to it. Those are admirable, and I want to indicate my respect for them. I similarly respect and admire the way members of all parties conducted themselves during that period. I know I'm not alone in feeling this way, because other members of this committee have suggested that the House leader, for example, might profit from reading some of the proceedings that took place during those long meetings and some of the thoughts that were captured there.
I'll stop at this point. Thank you very much.
The Chair:
Thank you. I congratulate you on a very well-researched and well-analyzed talk. I learned some things about suspensions that I hadn't heard before, so that was very helpful.
We certainly have a lot of outstanding things related to the Standing Orders where some of this would be very valuable to discuss. When we get to that, I think it would be a great discussion.
Mr. Christopherson, go ahead.
Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP):
Thanks, Chair.
I want to thank Mr. Reid for his ever-thoughtful comments.
In my opinion, it would be in our best interest to take up the suggestion that we pursue some of this. The issue of not adjourning and forcing...the government of the day, whoever controls the majority, having the ability to unilaterally declare a 24-7 filibuster, when it's....
There are two different kinds of filibusters. There is the filibuster where you have the floor at a meeting and you talk until the end of the meeting. Then the meeting adjourns, and you go off and do your business. When we come back again as a committee, the first order of business is to pick up where we left off. The other kind of filibuster is the one the government forced this time by refusing to adjourn, effectively setting in motion a 24-7 filibuster that the opposition wasn't calling for.
I would just point out that this has happened before. I experienced it at the hands of his government, which did exactly the same thing to me, on Bill C-23, as this government did to him. It created as much confusion then as it did this time.
I think it may be in our best interest to take up Mr. Reid's suggestion that we pursue that a bit, because we know it's going to come up again and we are going to have the same turmoil and the same question of its legitimacy. We could get ahead of it by removing the passion of the moment and looking at it dispassionately.
There is an argument—and I'll just leave it there, not that I'm supporting it per se—that, given the fact that the opposition does have the ability to seize control of a committee through a filibuster, maybe a countervailing measure that the government can call its bluff by virtue of being able to trigger that is not such a bad thing. I think what's in question is whether it is done unilaterally through a declaration of the chair or, as Mr. Reid has outlined, whether it requires a vote. Should we eliminate it entirely? Do we deem it to be not cricket and say, "You know what? From now on, that's not the way we're going to let things go"?
Anyway, I just wanted to thank him for his remarks. We all learn. I suspect he is the dean of the committee, by a long shot, and I learn so much from him as a political historian.
I would end by echoing his comments about the chair. There were a few times when I was ready to come flying out of my chair, too, but for the most part, Chair, it's obvious you bent over backwards as much as possible in our situation, where you're both partisan and non-partisan at the same time. You're our Schrödinger's cat: you both are and aren't at the same time. I just want to echo how much your personal character helped us get through a very difficult time.
I would just end by, again, urging that, even though we have a massive amount of work, at some point we find the time to unpackage some of the issues Mr. Reid has raised, because it's in our best interest to do so.
Thank you, Chair.
Point taken. Good point. We'll try to keep that high on the list when we get to the Standing Orders discussion.
Now, related to the rest of the meeting, we had tentatively set aside a discussion of section C, but I know committee members want to express where the results of that would be in relation to the minister's letter. I know David wanted the floor, and so we'll determine now what we're going to do for the rest of the meeting, because there are some opinions. I had informal discussions with people, and as I said, this may be quite a short meeting.
Chair, I was going to ask if the analyst could prepare a briefing note, as he's very good at doing, on everything remaining in the electoral officer's report that we had not yet dealt with, as well as all the items that had come up. In discussion, we often had items that were outside of that report that we wanted to discuss at the end. Perhaps he could include that as sensibly as he can. Any additional feedback from Trevor, if they have it, for that brief would be very appreciated, as well as how to reach them so we can start looking at the stuff on our own over the next few weeks. I think it's important that we have this opportunity per the minister's letter. I think this is the most efficient way forward at this time. That would be my one request, that the analyst do that as soon as practicable.
Is anyone opposed to the analyst providing that information to us?
Mr. David Christopherson:
Well, no. That's fine.
Mr. David de Burgh Graham:
Briefly, I wanted to thank our intrepid Elections Canada people for having put up with us so much. I would almost want to move that they become honorary members of the committee.
Don't do that. I like them too much.
I really do want to express my sincere gratitude for all you've put up with and all you've done over the last several months. Thank you for that.
I'm sure you speak on behalf of all the committee.
Mr. Christopherson.
We all received a copy of the minister's letter, and I think that's where you've got us right now, focusing on this letter. The problems arise, not so much from what it says, but from what it doesn't say. Again, here we are, running out of time to do our work effectively and the reason we don't have enough time is the government. I can make the case chronologically how this opposition has bent over backwards to try to be accommodating, on my part mostly because I want to see a lot of changes in the election laws, especially fixing some of the serious damage that was done by Bill C-23.
This government does not make it easy to continue to have that kind of approach because I feel a bit like we've been had. The government got what it wanted, for the most part, not the opposition, and the reason? We're out of time. Why are we out of time? Because we spent six weeks doing the filibuster we just referenced. I want to remind everybody that filibuster was caused by a letter from the House leader indicating draconian changes to the Standing Orders, followed by a motion from a member of this committee that then put a timeline on it and gave a 100% clear indication that it was the government's desire to let as much debate happen as is necessary, but only to allow them to get to the point where they could vote and ram it through. If the proof is in the pudding, what happened at the end of six weeks? The government withdrew the letter, and they withdrew the motion, and we were exactly where we were six weeks before, except we lost six weeks. That's the government's fault.
At the very least, when it looked as if we weren't going to get a chance to finish the Chief Electoral Officer's report in time to give it to the minister prior to the legislation she's developing now, what we asked for was an indication that the government was committing to at least an intention of a second round, a second bill, that would then give us a chance to do the follow-up work. If you'll recall, Chair, we have spent almost all our time in the last few weeks since we got out of the filibuster talking about only the issues the minister asked us to talk about, which we accommodated.
At the last meeting we asked for some indication to let us know that we should continue our work, and that the unfinished items could.... We haven't even gotten to the items that this committee thought were some good ideas; we put those over in another work pile as we put together our work plan. All we wanted was some commitment that this work was going to lead somewhere and do something progressive and positive. Instead, we get a letter that basically, if it says anything, says that—my words—if you don't get your work done in the report, you can send me a personal letter, so I can consider the things you want.
I don't need this letter to do that and I don't need PROC to do that. I could have done that a long time ago. What does that give me? Nothing. I spoke to you last night. I asked if there was any chance of getting hold of the minister because I didn't want to give this damn speech again. I'm getting as tired giving it as you folks are of hearing it, but damn it, it's still where we are.
Apparently I asked you last night, can you get to her to get us a different message, something that would prevent us from being exactly where we are right now? Crickets. Nothing. All we get is this.
I have to tell you, Chair, I am getting very frustrated and—this is public— I was the one who threw my lot in and trusted the government, even when my good friend Mr. Richards was warning me to be careful. He was concerned that we were going to get sandbagged here. I took the government at their word, and I thought they were serious about wanting to hear what this committee had to say, and that it would help advise and inform the minister as she developed legislation to introduce. I'm beginning to think more and more, worst-case scenario, that Mr. Richards was right, that we've been sandbagged here.
You can take your modest little victory in what you think this got you, but you're going to pay for it going forward, because we still have two and a half years to go.
Like Mr. Reid, I've been on this committee a very long time. Not as long as he, but a very long time, and I can tell you when this committee is working well we get some really good stuff done, and when we go in the ditch it is serious. The problem is that the House can't afford to have this committee tied up because basically we're the steering committee of the House. So it's not too long before the House is asking us to consider something that they've either given us directly or has come from a referral out of the Speaker's chair.
I don't have an action at the end, or a motion, Mr. Chair. I'm speaking much more in sorrow than in anger, but I do not like where we are. I do not think the government has been respectful of the opposition. I think they've been respectful enough to get what they want, and when it was time for the opposition to maybe get their day it was "too bad, so sad". You can get away with that and you can get yourself out of this, fair enough, but be on notice. If this is the way you're going to treat us, you're going to have a very different opposition and you're going to have a very different autumn experience here than you have had to date.
Thank you for your honest, passionate presentation, as always.
Just as we discuss what to do with the rest of this meeting, one of the things I forgot to mention, which Blake and I have discussed briefly, is that the committee has been referred Bill C-50. Somehow, we need to put that into our work plan.
What do members want in light of what Mr. Christopherson has just discussed and the letter we received? What do you want to do with the rest of today's meeting? We were scheduled to do table C with the election officers who are here. Of course, Anne Lawson, general counsel and senior director, and Trevor Knight, senior counsel, are here.
Blake.
Mr. Blake Richards (Banff—Airdrie, CPC):
I guess nobody else is stepping forward.
Frankly, I'm not going to repeat it because I think what Mr. Christopherson just had to say is all incredibly valid, and I would certainly concur with him. Obviously, for the minister to set this deadline of July 15, which she's chosen, or someone has chosen for her, arbitrarily as far as I can see.... This very question about a timeline was already pointed out when I asked this question of the Elections Canada officials. They indicated that as long as they had something by, say, next spring...that would certainly leave us some time in the fall to conclude our work. Clearly, the government has decided it doesn't want to give us that opportunity, for whatever reason. I would say that's obviously highly disrespectful of this committee and of the work that it should be doing, given the fact that we know the timeline is not in reality what the minister is telling us it is. But she's chosen that, or someone has chosen that for her nevertheless, and that's the situation we face. I assume this will likely be our last meeting before the summer recess, so unless she is going to change her mind, or the person who's given her those directions is going to change his or her mind, and that deadline is going to be changed, as it should be, it seems to me that for us to look at something today that we cannot report on prior to this deadline that's been imposed on us now, will serve no purpose, unfortunately. Frankly, it's a make-work project. That's troubling.
While I have the floor, I do want to comment on Bill C-50 as well because again it seems as though there's something in it. I'm not sure what's behind it, or what the reasons are for it. We received a letter, I don't know what you want to call it, some communication from our clerk on this, asking us for our amendments, which I thought was a bit unusual. I'm not sure why that occurred because I would assume that as we usually do....
I'll let you finish your discussion.
I just thought you'd respond because I didn't know about it either.
Mr. Blake Richards:
My understanding of the usual practice is that when a bill is referred to our committee.... In all the time that I've been on a number of committees in this place, I don't recall.... Usually we have a discussion as a committee about how we want to attack—not attack, but tackle—the work plan for the bill. In some cases, it is attack, I guess, from some members. In most cases, or probably every case I can recall, it involves witnesses and a study of the bill prior to clause-by-clause, which would be the time when amendments would be brought. It just seemed a bit out of place for that to be happening. I don't know if there was some reason for that, because it seems to me that we should probably look at, for the fall, what we need for meetings and how many witnesses. That would seem to me to be the first step, but there may be reasons I'm not aware of.
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Andrew Lauzon):
The memo that was distributed to all members is a standard memo that all committees distribute as soon as a bill is referred in order to give members as much time as possible to prepare any amendments they may want to propose. It doesn't have any bearing on how the committee wishes to study the bill. The committee is free to decide when it wants to hear witnesses, how many, and for how long.
To be fair, I do think it said "as soon as possible", which I think obviously can be taken a couple of ways. "As soon as possible" can mean that it's urgent, which sounds as though it was not the context you meant it in. You meant it more as a typical "as soon as it makes sense".
The Clerk:
I think there have been occasions when committees have decided to move quite quickly when it comes to bills, and there have been times when, on a Tuesday, a committee decides to do clause-by-clause on a Thursday. In order to give members as much warning as possible, we send the memo out immediately. It doesn't require members to submit any amendments. There is no deadline that is set by the committee at that point in time for the amendments to be submitted. That usually comes at a later time when the committee decides how it wants to study the bill.
Okay, thanks for that clarification.
In the absence of the government members indicating somehow that this is some major priority that needs to be passed before the summer recess, which I can't imagine, that would mean that we'd be setting a work plan for the fall, and then there would be lots of time for the amendments. That would be my assumption.
I don't know what anyone's thoughts are on what we need. I really haven't had much chance at this point to even give it any thought as to the witnesses who would be required. We could indicate that, at the first meeting when we come back in the fall, all parties would come prepared with an idea of what should occur and if there are any witnesses. That would be my suggestion on that one.
Back to the other one, I find it really difficult to understand why there is this need for the July 15 deadline. If that is going to be imposed, and we have not had any direction that it is changing at this point, then to proceed with the supplementary estimates (C) when we can't report prior to that deadline seems like a make-work project, which is unfortunate because it doesn't have to be that way.
Could I suggest that we express the committee's concern to the minister about that, and hope there would be a change? If not, our first meeting would be, as you just described, for members to bring back ideas of witnesses, etc., on Bill C-50.
David Graham.
I would suggest that our first meeting back in the fall be a steering committee meeting to plan the fall, and technically that would be a witness meeting, but yes, the principle is fine.
David Christopherson.
I want to reference the minister's letter. She says in the second paragraph, second sentence, that her work will continue over the summer. Then she adds, "This is because many of the decisions on our response to the CEO's recommendations will have to be made before the House returns in the fall."
Mr. Richards asked a question of the Elections Canada folks about what the deadline would be for changes in the next election, and the answer was...? I'm looking at Blake and asking.
This discussion was in camera. Do you want to go in camera, David?
Why was it in camera?
Mr. Scott Reid:
The answer was not in camera. The answer was a letter, was it not?
Yes, I'm referring to the letter that's already in front of us, I assume in public.
Oh, I thought you were referring to what Blake had said.
Well, if you want to jump in, I'm in your hands, Chair. I could ask them here in public and maybe avoid that. Thanks, that's the way to go.
What was the absolute deadline, given that, if we're not going for PR—which we should be—you don't need the time for the redesign? What was the deadline you gave us to have the changes that the government would like to see in your hands? When do you need that by, through you, Chair?
Ms. Anne Lawson (General Counsel and Senior Director, Elections Canada):
I believe the acting Chief Electoral Officer has said that we would need to look at any legislation that is introduced, but my understanding is that legislation that's fully enacted by the spring of 2018 would be something we would certainly hope that we can implement for the next election. Now, legislation being enacted in the spring obviously requires its introduction before that, and requires the various committee processes, and the legislative process needs to unfold.
Could you help me understand what parts of your recommendations require a response from the government by the fall or over the summer? Are there any exceptions to the deadline you've given us?
Ms. Anne Lawson:
I'm not aware of the content of the minister's letter. I'm not really in a position to speak to that.
I'm not trying to drag you into that, but the minister has just stated that some of these responses to you require her, as the minister, on behalf of the government, to respond over the summer. I don't know what those are. I'm asking if you might know.
No, I'm not in as position to comment on that.
I'm listening even more closely to my good friend Mr. Richards, since he was proven to be right in the past. He's now focusing and asking, "Where did this mid-July date come from?" In light of the answer from Elections Canada, I would ask that, too.
I would like somebody, on behalf of the minister, to tell me what responses have to be made before the House returns in the fall, which is the reason the minister is giving for our report not to be timely if it isn't received by her on a unilateral date of some time in mid-July. What are they?
Can we include that in our message to the minister?
I was thinking of something a little closer to now, not months from now when the whole thing is moot.
This is what I mean, Chair. Where's the goodwill? We've offered all kinds of it. All we asked for was an indication that the government would recognize...if we once again met their imposed deadline, which we don't have to do as a standing committee, as masters of our destiny. Now they want us to unilaterally accept something. I would say that at this stage the minister's point may even be suspect in terms of whether or not it's true.
We're in a bit of a crisis here, because this stuff matters. At least the government keeps saying it does, but when it comes time to deliver, we get this kind of nonsense. I am not satisfied, Chair. I have to tell you that this letter means, "Okay, well, folks, see you in September."
That clock is going to keep ticking, and there is a point at which it will be too late to introduce legislation that could get all the way through the House. We're quite a ways from that now, but the more time is wasted, the more it suits the government agenda of shutting things off by saying, "Oh, we ran out of time." I remind you that this is the government that was the author of the six-week "lost in space" period that we had.
The more that you look at this, think it through, and try to figure out what's fair and reasonable, the more you realize that the senior partners in this, the government, don't seem to have any interest other than their own agenda. I had taken them at their word that they were willing to consider beyond that, that they were going to be a different kind of government. Remember the election way back when, and all the promises about how things were going to be different. I have to tell you, right now it doesn't feel so different.
Chair, I am not satisfied that this is anywhere it needs to be. At some point, this thing has to get straightened out, or I don't know what.
What's not going to happen is that we just let it whimper away and die quietly because we've crossed deadlines that then make it impossible for us to do our work. I am so frustrated right now, and I question whether we're going to get a resolution. We're going to get out of here, we're going to be back in September, and we're going to be further behind because we've lost all that time. I'm getting close to the end of my rope with this government on this file.
Mr. Richards.
To add to what Mr. Christopherson just said, the deadline in this letter is not a truthful deadline. It's inaccurate; it's not grounded in the truth.
Elections Canada officials have clearly indicated to us on two occasions now that legislation would be enacted by the spring of 2018. A deadline of July 15 is not required for that to happen. This is, potentially, at least, dishonest on the minister's part. At the very minimum, it is an insult. It's what referred to by people as a "PFO letter". That's what it is.
It's telling this committee, "Ha, I fooled you." We were told, "If you guys deal with these things that I think are the priorities, we promise that we'll be able to deal with the other issues that the committee sees as important. We'll take those into consideration too." Now she's saying, "You just finished what I promised from your part of the bargain, but oh well, fooled you. Tough luck. Not happening now."
That's what happened. I think the suggestion you made that we communicate.... But it needs to be communicated that we absolutely condemn what has happened. This committee is extremely disappointed in this situation. There needs to be a more appropriate deadline created that would allow this committee to finish its work and would allow that work to be considered. Now, I understand that can't be an indefinite timeline, because there is some point at which Elections Canada can't put these things in place, but it is not July 15. That is not the truth.
We therefore need a date. We need to demand a date be given that gives this committee the opportunity to have its input. What is being told to us is an insult and is not accurate.
That's what a motion from this committee needs to say.
It's fair to transmit that, for sure.
Mr. Graham.
I just want to work backwards a little bit.
When we had Minister Gould here a few months ago, we asked her for her priority items. She didn't give them to us; we asked her for them. I don't think there's a lack of willingness to do another bill in the future; I just don't think it's realistic to have it implemented on time for the spring deadline—given the cabinet, Commons, and Senate process to get there.
If we want our input in, the best thing is to do our best to get our input on this. If we choose to come back and study it in the future, I'd be happy to do that. I just don't think realistically it can be in place by the spring of 2018, given everything else on our plates.
It's a purely pragmatic point of view.
Tell us what it is that has to be decided over the summer. We have the minister in writing...and I have Elections Canada saying they can't identify it.
What are these things that have to be decided over the summer that deny us the chance to have input? Elections Canada doesn't know what they are. I don't know what they are. I have a suspicion my esteemed colleagues in the Conservative benches don't know what they are. Please, government, enlighten us. What are the issues that have to be decided over the summer because there are deadlines that deny us the opportunity to put a full report?
The government has to go through each one of the recommendations from the CEO's report and each recommendation from us, as well as every comment we have and every comment from everywhere else.
The minister said this is because...and I'm going to read this:
You will recall my letter of May 17th, in which I stated to Committee members that my work will continue over the summer. This is because many of the decisions on our response to the CEO's recommendations will have to be made before the House returns in the fall.
I don't know. I'm not in the cabinet process. But they have to make the decisions to write the bill.
I'm calling BS.
They can't do it after the fact.
I'm calling BS. I don't think that's true. I think this is just a game. Drop the sword. End the debate. And if there's anything that we want to add afterwards, well that's nice, but it won't find its way into this legislation.
The minister is using that line as the excuse to impose the mid-July deadline. I for one am exactly where Mr. Richards is. That's a unilateral date that has no reflection other than to deny this committee the opportunity to finish our work in totality and forward it to the minister.
Do you expect the minister to write a bill in one night, not having made any decisions? It doesn't make much sense. You have to take the time to take all the input together and write the bill.
So far you've been more than an apologist for the government. Is that going to be your new role, David? You're just going to be an apologist. If that's the case, then I'll just stop talking.
I'm a pragmatist. I'm just looking at how this works.
Do you have a good feel for the way Mr. Richards, the strength...that you could draft a letter for me? We'll pass on that strong sentiment to the minister. We'll see what the response is. Our first meeting back would be subcommittee on agenda, so we can see if we have a response and what we would do. Does that make sense?
Yes, I don't know. Just as long as the letter is strong enough.
If we're winding up, then I want to reiterate that I meant what I said. Most of this has been done in public, and there's a track record of our trying to be accommodating with the government as much as possible. We just have the dirty end of the stick in this whole process, and it doesn't look to me as if this is going to get resolved at all satisfactorily.
There may be a strongly worded letter. Whoa, boy, that's going to change the world. Also, I won't hold my breath for a response that has any serious relevance to what we're concerned about.
However, do understand that where we leave now is not a good place, and that will be reflected in the tone and the approach to our work in the fall. The government cannot have it both ways. You can't ask for our co-operation, receive it, give us the dirty end of the stick, and then expect you're still going to get co-operation. Understand that when we come back in September, we will not be in a very good place.
The point is well taken.
Is there anything else for the good of the committee?
I think debate has collapsed.
Leaving this point aside, which we will follow up on, I think the committee has done some very good work in total.
Thank you to the Elections people. I think with an experienced Chief Electoral Officer some very positive changes will come out of this. Also, as Mr. Christopherson and Mr. Reid said on a number of occasions, we have worked well together and have been very productive, and we'll see what happens with this next hurdle.
For the good of the committee, is there anything else?
I just said that, but I'll say it again. For the good of the committee, is there anything else?
Is it the will of the committee to adjourn?
The meeting is adjourned.


text:
Interest age: 13+
Reading age: 12+
Personal/social issues
Author: Millie Murray
Publisher: Livewire Books
Jade's mum was forced to give up a promising career as a model when she became pregnant and ended up a teen mum, married too young, and soon became a single parent. She might be fiercely over-protective, but Jade adores her and understands why she is the way she is; against the odds, Jade's mum has become a successful businesswoman and simply wants to save Jade from repeating her own mistake.
Jade has no intention of going against her mum's wishes. She's already a fiercely competitive and a successful swimmer – but then the slightly older, attractive Dicey comes on the scene and everything is turned upside down.
Conflict rises between Jade and her mum over Dicey - but the powerful emotions Jade is feeling mean that this might be one time where she doesn't listen to her mum's wisdom, leading to a difficult decision to be made.
Jade is a story of its time, as attitudes and options available to young girls have changed – but it's still a story about the consequences of teen pregnancy, making very difficult choices and the challenges that face any young teenager in this situation.
Millie Murray
Millie Murray was born in London to parents of amaican heritage. She is a qualified general psychiatric nurse and also a youth worker. Millie writes novels for young adults, the first entitled Kiesha (1988). Her books tend to reflect black female, young adult experiences. She has worked in England and Wales in schools, libraries, colleges and a prison, facilitating creative writing workshops.
Millie has written for The Real McCoy, BBC TV's black comedy sketch show. She was reator and co-writer of The Airport (BBC Radio 4 1995/96), the first radio series in Britain that epitomised black people's lives within a humorous setting. It was shortlisted for a radio comedy award. For several years she has been the Royal Literary Fund Fellow at the University of East London. Millie lives in east London is currently working on her new novel.
BookTrust Represents: Teen
BookTrust Represents is a three-year project created to promote children's authors and illustrators of colour. As part of the project we have put together booklists hightling some of our favourite picture books by authors and illustrators of colour.
Angus, Thongs and Full-Frontal Snogging
Author: Louise Rennison
Welcome to the world of Georgia Nicolson - an angst-ridden teenage girl who keeps a diary to record the rollercoaster of emotions and experiences she faces every day
Read more about Angus, Thongs and Full-Frontal Snogging
It's OK, I'm Wearing Really Big Knickers!
Georgia Nicholson's account of her life with her friends, her family, her eccentric cat Angus and her on-off relationship with 'sex god' Robbie is colourful and convincing.
Read more about It's OK, I'm Wearing Really Big Knickers!

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
import math
import re

class Preprocessor:
    def __init__(self, samFilename, cutoff_z, split_diff_strand):
        #self.num_reads = sum(1 for line in open(samFilename))
        self.frag_len_cutoff = None

        self.preprocess(samFilename, cutoff_z, split_diff_strand)

    def preprocess(self, samFilename, cutoff_z, split_diff_strand):
        '''
        Make a first pass over the file
        '''

        # For counting fragment lengths
        find_cutoff = False
        if not cutoff_z == None:
            find_cutoff = True
            self.lens = dict()
            self.len_sum = 0

        # For determining pairs
        #self.pairing = ['-1'] * self.num_reads
        self.unpaired = []
        self.unmatched = dict()

        lastChrom = None
        lastPos = 0
        with open(samFilename, 'r') as f:
            id = 0
            for line in f:
                if line[0] == '@':
                    continue

                row = line.rstrip().split('\t')

                chrom = row[2]
                pos = int(row[3])
                if chrom == lastChrom and pos < lastPos:
                    print('Error! SAM file appears to be unsorted.')
                    print('Found a read at %s:%d after a read at %s:%d' % (chrom, pos, lastChrom, lastPos))
                    exit()
                lastChrom = chrom
                lastPos = pos

                if find_cutoff and row[6] == '=':
                    self.process_frag_lens(int(row[7]) - int(row[3]))

                if not row[6] == '*':
                    self.process_pairs(id, row)

                id += 1

        self.num_reads = id

        self.unpaired.sort()

        if find_cutoff:
            self.calculate_cutoff(cutoff_z)
        #self.reprocess_pairs(split_diff_strand)

        #print(self.pairing[:15])
        #with open('pairs.txt', 'w') as f:
        #    f.write('\n'.join(self.pairing))

    def process_pairs(self, id, row):
        name = row[0]
        chrom = row[2]
        pos = int(row[3])
        if row[6] == '=':
            mate_chrom = chrom
        else:
            mate_chrom = row[6]
        mate_pos = int(row[7])

        # -1 = negative strand, 1 = positive, 0 = unknown
        strand = 0
        for r in row[11:]:
            if r[:5] == 'XS:A:':
                if r[5] == '+':
                    strand = 1
                elif r[5] == '-':
                    strand = -1

        if name in self.unmatched:
            foundMatch = False

            mates = self.unmatched[name]
            for i in range(len(mates)):
                mate = mates[i]
                if chrom == mate[3] and mate_chrom == mate[1] and pos == mate[4] and mate_pos == mate[2]:
                    if (strand == 1 and mate[5] == -1) or (strand == -1 and mate[5] == 1):
                        # Strand mismatch
                        self.unpaired.append(mate[0])
                        self.unpaired.append(id)
                        #print(name)
                    if len(self.unmatched[name]) == 1:
                        del self.unmatched[name]
                    else:
                        del self.unmatched[name][i]
                    foundMatch = True
                    break
            if not foundMatch:
                self.unmatched[name].append((id, chrom, pos, mate_chrom, mate_pos, strand))
        else:
            self.unmatched[name] = [(id, chrom, pos, mate_chrom, mate_pos, strand)]

    '''
    def reprocess_pairs(self, split_diff_strand):
        for name,reads in self.unmatched.items():
            if len(reads) > 1:
                i = 0
                while i < len(reads)-1:
                    foundMatch = False
                    j = i+1
                    while j < len(reads):
                        if reads[i][1] == reads[j][3] and reads[i][3] == reads[j][1] and reads[i][2] == reads[j][4] and reads[i][4] == reads[j][2]:
                            if not split_discordant or not reads[i][1] == reads[i][3] or not self.conflicts(reads[i][5], reads[j][5]):
                                if not split_diff_strand or (reads[i][6] == 0 or reads[j][6] == 0 or reads[i][6] == reads[j][6]):
                                    #self.pairing[reads[i][0]] = str(reads[j][0])
                                    #self.pairing[reads[j][0]] = str(reads[i][0])

                                    del self.unmatched[name][j]
                                    del self.unmatched[name][i]

                                    foundMatch = True

                        if foundMatch:
                            break

                        j += 1
                    if not foundMatch:
                        i += 1

        # All remaining reads are unmatched
        count = 0
        for name,reads in self.unmatched.items():
            count += len(reads)
    '''

    def get_pair(self, i):
        return self.pairing[i]

    def process_frag_lens(self, frag_len):
        if frag_len >= 0:
            self.len_sum += frag_len

        if frag_len in self.lens:
            self.lens[frag_len] += 1
        else:
            self.lens[frag_len] = 1

    def calculate_cutoff(self, cutoff_z):
        if self.num_reads == 0:
            self.frag_len_cutoff = 0
            return

        # Calculate average and standard deviation
        avg = float(self.len_sum) / float(self.num_reads)
        stdev = 0.0
        for length,freq in self.lens.items():
            stdev += ((length - avg) ** 2) * freq
        stdev = math.sqrt(stdev / self.num_reads)
        self.frag_len_cutoff = int(avg + cutoff_z * stdev)

        print('Set fragment length cutoff to z=%f (%d) based on length distribution' % (cutoff_z, self.frag_len_cutoff))
        count_longer = 0
        for l,f in self.lens.items():
            if l > self.frag_len_cutoff:
                count_longer += f
        print('%0.2f %% of pairs are longer than the cutoff' % (100.0 * float(count_longer) / float(self.num_reads)))

    def conflicts(self, exonsA, exonsB):
        '''

        :param exonsA: List containing the exon bounds for gene A in the form [(x_0,y_0), (x_1,y_1),...]
        :param exonsB: List containing the exon bounds for gene B in the same form as exonsA
        :return: 1 if an exon in gene A overlaps an intron in gene B, 2 if vice versa, 3 if one gene range lies strictly inside the other, 0 otherwise.
        '''

        if (exonsA[0][0] < exonsB[0][0] and exonsA[-1][1] > exonsB[-1][1]) or (exonsB[0][0] < exonsA[0][0] and exonsB[-1][1] > exonsA[-1][1]):
            # One set of exons contains the other
            return 3

        for e in exonsB:
            if e[0] > exonsA[-1][0]:
                break

            for i in range(len(exonsA)-1):
                if e[0] >= exonsA[-i-1][0]:
                    break
                elif e[1] > exonsA[-i-2][1]:
                    # Exon in B overlaps an intron in A
                    return 1

        countA = len(exonsA)
        for i in range(countA):
            e = exonsA[countA-i-1]
            if e[1] < exonsB[0][1]:
                break

            for i in range(len(exonsB)-1):
                if e[1] <= exonsB[i][1]:
                    break
                elif e[1] > exonsB[i][1] and e[0] < exonsB[i+1][0]:
                    # Exon in A overlaps an intron in B
                    return 2

        return 0

    '''
    def parseCigar(self, cigar, offset):
        exons = []
        newExon = True

        # Parse cigar string
        match = re.search("\D", cigar)
        while match:
            index = match.start()
            length = int(''.join(cigar[:index]))

            if cigar[index] == 'N':
                # Separates contiguous exons, so set boolean to start a new one
                newExon = True
            elif cigar[index] == 'M':
                # If in the middle of a contiguous exon, append the length to it, otherwise start a new exon
                if newExon:
                    exons.append([offset, offset+length])
                    newExon = False
                else:
                    exons[-1][1] += length
            elif cigar[index] == 'D':
                # If in the middle of a contiguous exon, append the deleted length to it
                if not newExon:
                    exons[-1][1] += length

            offset += length
            cigar = cigar[index+1:]
            match = re.search("\D", cigar)

        return exons
    '''

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Beast from the East: will Asian equities roar again in 2019?
Last year was not a good one for Far Eastern equities. As trade-wars escalated between the US and China causing uncertainty and raised tariffs, and the dollar remained strong as US interest rates rose, the stock market suffered losing 9%* of its value in sterling terms.
As recent data from China suggests the economy continues to slow, what does 2019 hold in store for the asset class? We garnered the view of some Elite Rated managers and found out where they are finding opportunities.
"The economies in Asia overall are in good health," commented co-manager, Edmund Harriss. "Asia has, on aggregate, been lowering its debt burden since 2015 and national current accounts, with the exceptions of India, Indonesia and the Philippines, are now in surplus.
"Macroeconomic worries may well persist into 2019. But I believe the region has the resilience to face the slower growth, which is becoming evident among the export manufacturers of north Asia.
With a 'one-in, one-out' philosophy, the team have to be truly convinced about a new company's prospects to make changes to the portfolio. In 2018 they made just two buying Corporate Travel Management in Australia and Public Bank in Malaysia. To make room for these stocks they sold Relo Group in Japan, whose stock price had tripled since purchase, and LPN Development in Thailand, which had been less successful, as falling land prices had squeezed the margins of the Bangkok apartment developer.
" Corporate Travel Management specialises in providing business travel services," said Edmund. "Its customer offering is more expensive than competitors, but the overall travel cost savings outweigh the fees. North America is now its largest market accounting for 40% of its revenue. Australia contributes 30%, while Asia and Europe contribute 15% each.
Manager William Lam says that the time to buy Asia is in times of crisis. "Trade wars and China slowdown fears have led to the market being cheap," he said. "The chances are that now is a good time to buy, because markets are overly worried and have sold off accordingly.
William's largest country weighting in the fund is South Korea. "The South Korean stock market has been very resilient to the concerns over North Korea," he said. "Instead it is almost entirely driven by fundamentals, earnings and consumer spending.
The South Korean government is also quite populist and socialist, which is hurting the economy. But this has led to valuation anomalies. As a value-investor, this is a situation that suits William.
Matthews Asia investment team recently travelled to Vietnam to assess the potential production relocation activity related to the US-China tariff war.
Sriyan Pietersz, investment specialist said: "We came away with the impression that Vietnam is seeing a rising tide of enquiries regarding either contract manufacturing for China-based companies or outright relocation.
"In many instances, this relocation activity pre-dated the current tariff war. Instead it has been driven by rising costs in China and less-convenient inland locations. Vietnam's attractive tax privileges, when combined with extra tariffs on Chinese products, are helping to clinch the deal for some manufacturers.
"A shift in supply chains and manufacturing to Vietnam, followed by Thailand and Malaysia (as two other countries in Southeast Asia with relatively deep supply chains) seems poised to accelerate incremental foreign direct investment flows to Southeast Asia.


text:
Il Grand Prix Cycliste de Québec (it. Gran Premio Ciclistico del Québec) è una corsa in linea maschile di ciclismo su strada che si svolge nella città di Québec, nell'omonima provincia in Canada, a settembre. Creato nel 2010, il Gran Premio è stato subito inserito nel calendario dell'UCI ProTour e, di conseguenza, in quello World Tour.

Albo d'oro
Aggiornato all'edizione 2022.

Statistiche

Vittorie per nazione

Note

Altri progetti

Collegamenti esterni

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Nessa Nessa is a native american song that means winter moon. This tapestry was inspired by an eclipse of the moon that begins the journey of the tapestry & that occurred on my mother's birthday (the winter soltis) the first year after her passing. It records many items about the Hudson river and its relationship to the moon and there is a legend to help decipher the coding. The quipu (Andean historical method of recording information on cords using knots and colors) records the time of the rising and the setting of the moon for one year after the eclipse as well as phases. The graph at the bottom of the tapestry records the azimuth (angle of rise and set). The visuals of the tapestry record the possible images and weather changes that occur over a one day period in the winter. The sky records many of the major constellations and the month in which they are best viewed in the northern hemisphere. The song is represented by native american flute notations and the tapestry ends with my mother's dog Toby and I playing that song to the moon. The tapestry is mounted on a series of 28 screens in accordion book style that can be viewed in many ways, circular, accordion or stretched out to it full length(252"). When closed it is a compact large book (20"H x 9"W x 8"D).
Materials used are hand spun wool warp, indigo dyed silks, Bulgarian silks, wool, linen, hemp, cotton and metallics wefts. Mount materials are acid free book board and fabric, acid free Canson paper and glues.


text:
Russian Orthodox Church in the USA
The '''Russian Orthodox Church in the USA''' is the distinct name of the group of [[parish]]es of the Russian mission in America that recognizes the canonical authority of the [[Church of Russia]] and was known as the [[Russian Exarchate of North America]] before [[autocephaly]] was granted to the [[Metropolia]] in 1970.
The parishes of the [[Exarchate]] that remained under the canonical protection of the Moscow Patriarchate after the grant of autocephaly came to be known as the Russian Orthodox Church in the USA under the oversight of an [[auxiliary]] [[bishop]]. {{stub}}
==Bishops==
* His Grace, the Most Reverend Mercurius, Bishop of Zarisk, ? - Present
[[Category: Church History]][[Category: Jurisdictions]]
Retrieved from "https://en.orthodoxwiki.org/Special:MobileDiff/16732"


text:
<?php

if(!isset($GLOBALS['rw_fmeow'])) die();

Model('GetData');

ViewHtmlTop("Ссылки", 'Links.css');
ViewHeader();

$data = GetData("One", "Links");

?>

Ссылки

<?php foreach($data[0]['links'] as $link): ?>

        <a class="link" href="<?=$link['link']?>">[Ссылка]

<?=$link['text']?>

<?php endforeach; ?>


"The MTA should use its available funds, not cut services millions of New Yorkers depend on."
That's how the New York Times described the devastating service cuts that an MTA committee recommended yesterday.
The cuts will mean longer delays, 2 subway lines (the W and Z) eliminated, and dozens of bus lines canceled or shrunk. Worst of all, hundreds of thousands of school kids will lose their free Metrocards, and service for the disabled will be severely cutback.
Tomorrow, the full MTA board will vote to make the cuts final. We've got 24 hours to make sure they know that New Yorkers oppose this plan.
The petition says: "The MTA should use its available funds, not cut services millions of New Yorkers depend on." We'll deliver every signature we receive to the MTA board before the vote tomorrow.
Advocates for transit riders say many of the cuts proposed by the MTA aren't necessary if the transit agency uses available stimulus and reserve funds to close the gap.2 But the real problem is in Albany and City Hall, which have both betrayed riders time and again by shortchanging the MTA.
It's time for the MTA Board to push back and stand up for riders. Tomorrow, they have the chance to do that -- and if they don't, we will have a public transportation disaster on our hands.
As longtime commuter-advocate Gene Russianoff put it, "Riders have every reason to be mad as hell."
Almost 3,500 New Yorkers have signed the petition to the MTA in less than 24 hours. But we need to keep the momentum going. Speak out, before it's too late - and we'll make sure your voices are heard tomorrow.


As Cynagua begins Her celebration of 35 years, you are invited to spend a wondrous 4-day weekend with Walerich and Catriona, Prince and Princess of Cynagua, for Their Coronet Tournament. Our event site is again located in the breathtaking Sierra Mountains within the charming community of Quincy, CA at the Plumas Sierra Fairgrounds.
Spring Coronet Tournament restrictions and requirements: All entrants into Coronet will be required to submit a letter of intent. This may be done via email to Their Highnesses at heirsofcynagua.gmail.com. This letter will contain their intent & their consort. Each fighter is required to have this letter delivered to Them no later than the Thursday, May 22, 2014, prior to coronet. Fighters may also choose to submit a hand written letter of intent to be handed to Them in person at the event. Anyone that chooses to submit a letter in person will have their letters presented during the A & S display at Coronet. Then Their Highnesses will be signing those letters and returning them to the fighter as a memento of Their Coronet. There is a residency requirement; all fighters must have Cynaguan residency or be fighting for a Cynaguan consort. There will be a great weapons round in Coronet, most likely in round 3. Prepare! Her Highness wishes to request that all entrants into Coronet fly a banner; as well, she requests that all those that have a pavilion or sunshade on the Lists field fly a banner as well. She would love to look out across the field & see banners flying in the breeze.
Equestrian Information Cynagua Spring Coronet: 16th Century themed mounted games known as the Equestrian Masque will be performed Saturday on the eric. By gracious permission of their Highnesses of Cynagua, riders will present themselves on the Lists Field Saturday, May 24th, for games on the eric. Sixteenth century clothing, masks, & caparisons are appreciated, but NOT required. There are other games scheduled for Saturday's entertainment in the covered arena. Covered pipe pen corrals are available at $25/weekend (up to 2 horses in a pen). For further information on reserving a pen, equestrian authorizations and renewals, possible rental horses or scheduling other equestrian activities at this event, contact Equestrian Marshal-in-Charge: Gwendwyn the Silent bulotki@yahoo.com, Subject: Horses at Coronet, or phone 916-397-9850.
Lord Defender Tourney with The Princess's Tea on Monday during the tournament. Any wishing to contribute, please contact Countess Arianwen. Help is greatly appreciated!
For those of you who are not inclined to put on armor and fight in the lists, there will be other activities as well, from the Bard of Cynagua competition to Arts and Sciences.
If you plan to merchant, please let the autocrat know at least two weeks before the event.
$15 for members, $10 for kids 5-17, kids 4 and under are free. $5 non-member surcharge applies to adults only.


The Autism Spectrum Disorders Handbook is a product of our Autism Spectrum Disorders Program. The handbook is made possible in part by a grant from the South Dakota Council on Developmental Disabilities.
The information contained in the Autism Spectrum Disorders Handbook reflects the most up-to-date information available. The handbook is designed only as an informational resource and is not intended to replace the advice of professionals trained in the treatment of autism spectrum disorders.
The Autism Spectrum Disorders Handbook is available in an alternative format upon request. To request an alternate format, contact us by phone at 800-658-3080 or 605-357-1439 or via email at cd@usd.edu.
If you have difficulty downloading the Autism Spectrum Disorders Handbook, download a free copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.


text:
Bad Times collects all my short crime fiction in one volume, and for the next week or so I'm selling it for the paltry sum of 77p/99c. It contains all the stories from Gone Bad, Show No Mercy, and Wired.
One of my favourite stories in the collection is 'Star':
'I was downtown in Harry's Bar on the trail of a snitch named Benny the Weasel. Just that morning we'd found the landlord of a rundown rooming house with his brains all over his pillow, one eye staring at the ceiling, the other turned to jelly by hot lead. I figured if anyone knew who done it, Benny did.'
The full story is here if you want to read more.
Bad Times is available from all Amazon stores, including in the UK and the US.
Wicked Weekend Treats
It's the weather for shorts in the UK at the moment, so this weekend you can help yourself to a free pair. Wired contains two short stories, each including scenes of violence, brutality and human frailty.
'Barbed Wire' — How far would you go to protect your family? Pushed to the brink, Jimmy Mitchell does what he feels is necessary; then, when he finally dares to believe it's all over, the police knock on his door. Have Jimmy's past misdeeds caught up with him?
'Razor Wire' — As Jemma struggles to change her image from thieving tomboy to elegant sophisticate, she is driven to do desperate things to feed her new obsession. What we covet can make us reckless; but is it really worth dying for?
Free from all Amazon stores, including UK and US.
If Wired is your sort of thing, you might also enjoy Cutter's Deal, a novella published by Byker Books.
Mac is an old school crime boss, and getting on in years. Cutter is newer to the game, a sociopath with big ambitions. While Mac has an underlying sense of right and wrong, Cutter cares about no one but himself. People are his to use, and when they're no use anymore — or when he's broken them — he casually discards them with no thought for the damage done.
When his world collides with that of a decent, hard-working – but financially struggling – working-class family, it's only a matter of time before somebody gets hurt.
Meanwhile, Mac is looking increasingly fragile and there's no clear successor to take over his firm …
Available from all Amazon stores, including UK and US.
If you prefer your thrills with a supernatural edge, you might enjoy latest novel Darke: The Devil, The Magician and The Fool, which is also free this weekend.
World-renowned illusionist Thaddeus Darke is up against the clock: he has just three months to deliver a soul to settle the debt he owes Old Harry … the Devil himself. Not just any soul, either: it has to be the soul of someone who owes him a debt from the past. And if Thaddeus fails to deliver, the soul of his eight-year-old niece will be taken instead.
When Joe Fox's life is turned upside-down, forcing him to return to the UK, he's keen to catch up with his old school friend Thaddeus Darke. But it soon becomes clear to him that something is amiss. Why has Thaddeus stopped performing magic? Why has he shut himself away in his cliff-top mansion? And what is his true relationship with his manager, Harry?
As the story unfolds and the danger increases, Thaddeus realises that he has no choice but to go back to the crossroads to strike another deal with Harry. The stakes are high, there's everything to play for, and there'll be the Devil to pay if the game is lost.
'It was a mistake, Mac. I'm sorry …'
Bob was on his knees, hands tied behind his back, head bowed. His voice was muffled by the hood. The rope was cutting into his wrists, the skin abraded, but for all it was painful, it was the least of his worries.
Mac sighed audibly, almost theatrically. 'What am I to do, Bob? What choice have you left me with?'
'Mac, please. It's my Ruby Wedding next month. Me and Jeanie. And we're going to be grandparents soon—'
'You should have thought of that before you stole from me.'
'It was only a few hundred quid!'
'It was thousands. You'd been at it for months.'
'I needed the money.'
Gambling debts. Mac knew. 'You should have come to me if you were in trouble. Haven't I always seen you right?'
'I know, Mac, I know. And I wish I had. If I could turn the clock back … I was going to pay it back, though. Every penny.'
'You know as well as I do that once you start down that road, you don't stop. You never pay it back. It only ends when you get caught.'
'I was desperate.'
Mac could imagine how Bob must have felt. Trapped. Scared. Caught between a rock and a hard place, his bookie at his back chasing him for money, this confrontation with Mac always just a step ahead. Inevitable.
'You should have come to me,' Mac repeated.
Bob was sweating, and it had nothing to do with the hood or the fact that it was summer. It was freezing in the warehouse, kneeling on concrete, the wind blowing in off the river robbing the night of any heat it might have held.
He knew he'd been stupid, but he and Mac went back, right back to school days. Fifty years they'd been friends. He and Jeanie were godparents to all three of Mac and Marjorie's kids. He'd kept Mac's secrets, covered for him with Marjorie when he was playing away from home, given him an alibi whenever the coppers were breathing down his neck so close that he'd needed one. Fifty years watching each other's backs. You didn't throw that away over a bit of money. And it wasn't like Mac couldn't afford it.
Bob figured he was just trying to teach him a lesson, to scare him into never doing anything like it again. And he wouldn't. He'd get help. There was an organisation, Gamblers Anonymous, like AA but for folk addicted to betting. For Bob, it was the dogs. He'd had one good win and it had been his downfall. After that he was always chasing the next one, always believing it would turn around, telling himself that after one more good win he'd stop. The trouble was, to get a good win, he had to put on a good bet, and his money had run out.
Mac would probably let Big Liam finish what he started when he punched Bob to the floor in the club, dragged him outside and threw him in the back of the van, then tied his hands and put that stinking bag over his head. It had only been lifted once since: to let him see that Mac was waiting for him when they got to the warehouse.
Mac might let Liam break something, make sure the message got across loud and clear to anyone else with designs on his millions: not even family get away with it. Bob shuffled on the concrete floor, the cold seeping into his old knee joints. He'd suffer for this. The arthritis was biting at him anyway and this would just make things worse. He heard Mac moving around behind him, stamping his feet and rubbing his gloved hands together. He couldn't hear Big Liam, but he knew he was there, standing still and solid as a rock.
Liam didn't say much. Liam listened. And obeyed.
'You bloody fool,' said Mac.
'I'm sorry,' said Bob.
'Sorry doesn't do it, not for this. Sorry doesn't even begin to cover it.'
Bob heard the sorrow in Mac's voice, and the determination, and adrenaline surged through his veins. Realisation hit him hard as fear wrapped itself around his heart and squeezed, robbed him of breath and stopped his tongue.
'I can't let it go, Bob, you must see that. You betrayed me.' Mac walked over to where Liam was standing, the footsteps heading away from Bob. Then he came back and stood behind him. 'It'll be quick and clean,' said Mac, 'and I'll do it myself. That's the best I can do.'
'Mac, no!' Bob struggled to accept it. His childhood friend. He had never truly believed, not deep down, that it would ever come to this. 'I'll pay back every penny, with interest. I'll sell the house. You can have it all, everything I own.' He was tripping over the words in his haste to get them all out, to find the ones that would change Mac's mind before it was too late.
'Not good enough.'
Bob felt the barrel of the gun touch the back of his head and he whimpered. A small part of him still hoped Mac was just trying to scare him. He felt his bladder give and the fear was tinged with shame.
'It's not personal, Bob, you know that. I'll miss you myself. But I can't have people thinking I'm an easy touch or that I've gone soft.'
'Mac—'
'I'll take care of Jeanie,' said Mac, as the shot from the gun echoed through the warehouse. Bob crumpled to the floor and Mac put a second round in his head. The silence that followed was deafening.
Without speaking, Mac handed the gun to Big Liam and they walked out of the old warehouse. He nodded and Liam jumped in the van to drive back to the club. Mac's driver stood by the rear door of the car and he opened it when he saw the men coming. Mac slumped in the back seat and the driver shut the door and climbed into the front.
'Back to the club?' he asked, watching Mac in the rear view mirror. Mac nodded and he fired the engine.
In the back of the car, Mac pushed the button to raise the screen between him and the driver. Opening a small cabinet, he took out a cut crystal glass and a flask and poured himself a scotch, then sat back in the seat, the leather soft as butter, cradling his form. As the car was guided expertly through the darkened streets, Mac brooded. No one knew what it was like to be him. No one understood the responsibility, the loneliness. The darkness inside.
Back at the club, the door was opened for him and Mac stepped out into the night air. Liam at his back, he walked into the club, up the stairs and into the bar. His men waited. He looked at them through blue eyes as cold as ice, taking in each face, seeing the respect, the fear.
'Bob has retired from the firm,' he said. 'Someone organise flowers for Jeanie.'
Behind Blue Eyes heavily influenced Cutter's Deal, in which Mac plays a pivotal role. Cutter's Deal is published by Byker Books and is available for Kindle from all Amazon stores, including UK and US.
Cutter's Deal
When Byker Books asked if I was interested in writing a novella for the Best of British series, it seemed like too good an opportunity to miss: there are some great books in the series from some cracking writers.
What to write, though? I thought about it for a wee while and then a character from a previous short story popped into my head.
Mac was an old school crime boss, and getting on in years, too. I wondered who the new players might be, what might happen if Mac was out of the game … and Cutter was born.
Cutter is bad to the bone, a sociopath with big ambitions. While Mac has an underlying sense of right and wrong, Cutter cares about no one but himself. People are his to use, and when they're no use anymore — or when he's broken them — he casually discards them with no thought for the damage done.
When his world collides with that of a decent, hard-working – but financially struggling – working class family, it's only a matter of time before somebody gets hurt.
Cutter's Deal is available now from Amazon in the UK and the US.


text:
Q: Concentration inequality for function of independent Bernoulli r.v.'s (related to random graph) Consider a random undirected graph on a set of $n$ nodes, say $\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$, such that the probability of edge between nodes $i$ and $j$ is $p_{ij}$ (we may assume $p_{ij}=o(1)$ for all $i,j$, i.e., $p_{ij}\rightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$, if it makes things simpler). We define Bernoulli r.v. $X_{ij}$ such that $X_{ij}=1$ iff edge $(i,j)$ exists. We also assume that $X_{ij}$'s are independent r.v.'s (so the existence of edges are independent events).
We consider a random instance of the graph and define $Z_d=$ number of nodes that are reachable from node 1 via paths of length at most $d$ (we can assume $d=O(\log n)$). Then
$$Z_d \leq H_d = \sum_{i\neq 1}X_{1i}+\sum_{i,j\neq 1}X_{1i}X_{ij}+\sum_{i,j,k\neq 1}X_{1i}X_{ij}X_{jk}+\ldots\text{ (till $d$ levels).}$$
I wanted to know if it is possible to get a concentration inequality for $Z_d$, like
$$P(Z_d>cE[H_d]\log n)\leq P(H_d>cE[H_d]\log n)\leq c'n^{-1},$$
where $c,c'$ are constants? ($\exp(-c''n)$ in place of $c'n^{-1}$ would be desirable)
(whether $P(H_d>cE[H_d]\log n)\leq c'n^{-1}$ is possible or not is the concentration inequality for function of independent Bernoulli r.v.'s that I am interested in)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Hi everybody, I am looking for both new and experienced players to join my alliance.
If anyone is interested we can exchange email address and make a few games to play.
GO TO ALLIANCE & SEARCH FOR BIG BOSS INC.


text:
CULTURE, THE BUSINESS POWER Over 40 years of cultural research CULTURE, THE BUSINESS POWER Over 40 years of cultural research
The Foundation and the Lungarotti Museums
Private collection concerning the civilization of the vine and wine. The museum, through archaeological, historical and technical information presented in its twenty rooms, guides the visitor through 5,000 years of wine history. The Wine Museum has promoted over time numerous exhibitions, conferences and art competitions on the theme wine.
Artifacts and works related to the mythological origins of the olive, the use of oil as a source of light, religion, medicine and nutrition, in cosmetics, as a heating source and as a significant element of a cultural imaginary and that the plant the product has assigned symbolic values and healing.
THE LUNGAROTTI FOUNDATION
The Foundation promotes cultural activities such as exhibitions, conferences and publications about the Italian agricultural economy and the culture of wine and oil, aim to preserve and protect the cultural and artistic heritage and to study and promote the "art crafts" who in Umbria old and established tradition.
A visionary project
Culture is an integral part of the company Lungarotti since the 60s, when the determination of Giorgio Lungarotti to grow in terms of quality and image of a production already widely known, were added to the cultural interests of Maria Grazia Marchetti Lungarotti, history of 'art and archivist. Together they have created a visionary project, which aimed from the outset to quality.
MARIA GRAZIA AND THE MUSEUMS
Maria Grazia has promoted historical research, archaeological and archival. He also took an active part in the European debate on museology, creating along with other Italian section of ICOM (International Council of Museums). The Wine Museum was founded in 1974 and, thanks to the patient research work done by Maria Grazia, already exposed to the opening collections supported by an impressive didactic result of uninterrupted continuity of studies.
Last cultural news


The Episode Hotel combines modern British cooking with a sprinkling of continental style and technique. It uses great produce from local suppliers wherever possible and its wine list combines the best of the classic regions and the excitement of the New World. The cocktail and champagne terrace serves the most stylish drinks in the region and inventive bar snacks are available all day.
Episode Leamington is a new style of contemporary town house hotel situated in the picturesque town of Leamington Spa. Our hotel is the ideal setting for the business or leisure traveller and is perfect for corporate guests, weekend breaks, weddings, conferences and meetings.
Each one of the hotel's spacious rooms provide the maximum comfort and ease for our guests with elegant combinations of bold fabrics, clean lines, dark wood and sleek furnishings. Episode restaurant and bar is Leamington's newest and leading dining venue. Episode Leamington is ideally located for visitors to Warwick, Stratford-Upon-Avon, Rugby, Coventry and Birmingham and the NEC.
The two newly refurbished fully air conditioned functions rooms are suitable for all types of event from a meeting or conference to weddings, christenings and family celebrations, catering for up to 70 guests. The rooms can be used separately or as one main room, due to the central dividing doors.
Gastro Card offer 25% off food bill Monday-Thursday. A reservation is essential. You MUST mention your membership when booking and upon arrival.
25% off food bill Monday-Thursday. A reservation is essential. You MUST mention your membership when booking and upon arrival.


text:
Home > Conferences > AMCIS > AMCIS 1997 > 297
AMCIS 1997 Proceedings
The Role of the Software Life Cycle in theDevelopment of Interorganisational Systems
Ana Maria Ramanath, Brunel UniversityFollow
Ray J. Paul, Brunel UniversityFollow
Robert Macredie, Brunel UniversityFollow
Modern business organisations are increasingly concerned with developing, and subsequently maintaining, competitive advantage. To support this, business organisations are seeking to establish strategic partnerships with their customers, suppliers, and distributors. Implicit in such partnerships is the need to effectively employ information technology to support the timely exchange of salient information across the different organisational boundaries of the partners. Systems which support this type of information exchange are referred to as Interorganisational Systems (IOS). This is reflected in a common definition of IOS which notes that they are "information systems which allow companies to share data and software with trading partners across organisational boundaries" (Holland et al., 1994).The importance of IOS is likely to increase as more and more organisations realise and exploit the potential of current information technology to support their dealings with customers, suppliers and distributors. Future developments in information technology -such as improvements in networking -are also likely to offer further potential for competitive advantage through IOS. It would seem important, then, that the processof IOS development is well understood so that effective systems can be achieved. Yet, this does not seem to be the case, with only limited discussion of IOS development issues being represented in the literature. Instead, most IOS research tends to concentrate on the effects of strategic, organisational and environmental issues associated with IOS implementation in organisations. IOS development issues that have been reported include proposed guidance (Konsynski, 1992) as to what to take into account when designing IOS for businesses. This research suggests that concentration on purely transaction interchange types such as EDI could often lead to little more than 'speeding up the mess'.Other research has considered how IOS could be used as an opportunity to rationalise business processes, not just in one organisation but across many organisations (Clark and Stoddard, 1996). The diversity of the little research that is reported needs to be considered closely and developed to provide a better understanding of the issues and needs in IOS development. It is important that IOS development is considered in terms of its unique nature, considering the challenges of development across potenitally diverse organisational boundaries. The appropriateness of traditional development models and methods of IS should be questioned and, at the very least, developed in an attempt to encompass issues raised by the context of IOS. It is against the background of the limitations of traditional IS methods for IOS development that this research is framed
Ramanath, Ana Maria; Paul, Ray J.; and Macredie, Robert, "The Role of the Software Life Cycle in theDevelopment of Interorganisational Systems" (1997). AMCIS 1997 Proceedings. 297.
https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis1997/297
AMCIS 1997 Website
eLibrary FAQ
More AMCIS Information is Here


When I wrote about The PFA Challenge for last Sunday's Twitch, I had no idea what kind of a challenge it might turn out to be. I suspect you didn't either. Prayer, fasting, almsgiving.
More than ever, we need to be at a place where we can let God in through prayer.
We need to be "fasting" from letting horrible news subtly demand all our attention as though it was the only thing worthy of attention.
When our hearts are submerged in our reactions to the unthinkable, our charity runs the risk of drowning as well. We can't offer the charity of our love because it got crowded out..
I'm always amazed how many people come for ashes (and the palms that make them). Is it that we need something tangible to hold on to? Whatever it takes, once again, we want to accept the challenge of Lent. During the first half of Lent, we look at ourselves. In the second half we look at Jesus and what his life and death means for us. Looking at ourselves with honestly will make it easier for us to see Jesus clearly. How do we do that? We "do" Lent!
We begin Lent on Wednesday. We will celebrate Mass at 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and distribute ashes after each of the celebrations. We will also have some small envelopes with ashes which you may bring home for folk who are unable to attend Mass through illness, etc.
No words will express the gratitude I've been feeling every since the descent of the Irish upon the parish in the persons of Phil Coulter, Andy Cooney, and their gifted troop. Then add to that the Shepherd's Pie from the Kitchens of Waxy O'Connor's and you have the makings of a great time. And yes, it was had by all.
Thank you Mark and Noreen Rohleder, (Waxy's shepherds) for your kindness in providing a great meal. Someone even made a couple of special 'tubes' of the leftover dinner which I thoroughly enjoyed on the weekend.
You wouldn't think that those crazy Latins Sue and Scott Martinez would get into the Irish thing so well, but they brought their generosity into setting up the kitchen and shuffling trays of food all around.
Week after week, there are few things more than writing the Twitch ahead of time that remind me about how we never know what is coming. Somehow, I must write about things that haven't happened as though they had. I can just hear someone out there saying, "Poor baby. If that's the only problem he's got, he should be doing jigs down the center aisle." Trust me, you'll never see that happening.
Of course, I'm thinking about the great night we had/will have with Phil Coulter and Andy Cooney. Presumption? Judging from the distances people travelled to join us, I expect the Irishmen and women who formed the company did not disappoint with their performance.
We know Andy from past years and having him teamed up with Phil is a special event indeed. It will be (was) a personal pleasure to see 'live' Phil's piano wizardry.
This weekend - the 20th to be precise, we celebrate the feast of St. Sebastian, our patron. Until I came here in 2010, I really did not know very much about him at all. I remember seeing statues and images, usually with a lot of arrows. As a kid I think the few times I saw Sebastian portrayed, I thought it was a little weird. But I wasn't stupid enough to say that out loud.
If you want an interesting little adventure, 'google' "St Sebastian Catholic.org" There's a short video from the Catholic Online people that I think does a nice job of piecing together Sebastian's story. Sometimes separating the fable from the fact is hard. The bottom line is Sebastian's heroism in the face of the emperor Diocletian's evil, not once but twice. His martyrdom is dated to 288 and it didn't take long for his fame to spread. Less than 100 years later, in Milan, St. Ambrose speaks of Sebastian and what a great example of faith we can find in his life.
We kept the decorations up until last week's feast of the Epiphany. After all, that's what the word means: to show, to make conspicuous, to shine.
We associate the three magi with the feast because they represent the Gentiles who "saw the star and then saw the light." That's a good reason to keep up the lights and the decorations.
A week later, the decorations are down and we begin "ordinary time." Now the child in Mary's arms is a man. This year it is Mark's turn to tell us about what Jesus said and did. However, since Mark's gospel is shorter than the others, it gets supplemented by John, and that's why we hear from John today.
So here I am writing this Twitch for December 31/January 1. I'm writing on December 22nd because of the printing deadlines and wanting to give the staff (including me) December 26th to do a little recovery.
That means that I haven't experienced Christmas 2017 yet, so I must imagine what might happen in the next few days, and then sort of pretend that I'm writing to you after that celebration and then projecting myself into 2018. Have I totally confused you? Good, because I didn't want to be alone in my confusion.
Like so many things in our lives, the last week of Advent disappeared as though it wasn't important. It got crowded out of the calendar. Even the Leaflet Missalette company must have been having a bad corporate hair day, because they left the Fourth Sunday of Advent out of their booklets, too. That's why we printed today's Scriptures for you.
I looked at the readings I was referring to above and really saw the words, "Be it done to me..." Never mind the colors and the margins.


We love to meet new families. If you'd like to learn more about our academy or want to take a tour, please complete this contact form.
Students who enroll in preschool, prekindergarten, and kindergarten can enroll without initial testing. Tuition rates are based on household income. To find more information about the Tuition Tiers, please refer to the Tuition and Fee Form. The Omaha Catholic School Consortium wants to ensure that the Dual Language Academy programs are accessible to families of all household income levels. We offer a variety of payment plan options, as well as the opportunities to apply for reduced tuition rates (for preschool and prekindergarten) and scholarships (for kindergarten).


text:
Q: How to minimize the following function? I have the following function of $x$ $$f(x)=\max \left\{\sqrt{a^2+x^2-2ax\cos\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right)},\sqrt{b^2+x^2-2bx\cos\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right)}\right\}$$ where $x>a$ and $b>x$. $\theta$ can be any value from $0$ to $\pi$. $a,b,\theta$ are constants and I want to minimize this function with respect to $x$. I know that the derivative of the first term is positive but still I can not find how to solve this problem because of dependence on $\theta$.
Any help in this regard will be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.
I am extremely thankful to @Jack D'Aurizio and @Yves Daoust for their answers. Specially the image that was added by @Jack D'Aurizio which helped me understanding the above problem. Although we can follow the steps mentioned by these two people to find the answer. However, I also have a reasoning (based on the image attached by @Jack D'Aurizio) which also lead to the same answer (I think so). We have to find the optimal value of $x$ in [a,b]. First, we note that as we move from point $a$ toward point $b$ we note that until a certain point ($L$) the first argument increases while the second argument decreases. Therefore, if we are asked to find the optimal point between the interval $[a,L]$ then our answer will be obtained  by equating the two arguments of $\max$ function in my first equation (which will be $\frac{a+b}{2\cos(\theta)}$). Now if $\frac{a+b}{2\cos(\theta)} \geq b\cos(\theta)$ then the value of $x$ which minimizes $f(x)$ is actually $b\cos(\theta)$ since if we move further right then both of the arguments of $\max$ function increase. Therefore, moving further right can not be an optimal solution.

A: Hint:
The two arguments are equal when
$$x^2-2ax\cos\phi+a^2=x^2-2bx\cos\phi+b^2$$ or
$$\hat x=\frac{a+b}{2\cos\phi}$$ where $0<\cos\phi<1$. With $b>a$, $\hat x>a$ and $\hat x$ reaches $b$ when $\cos\phi=\dfrac{a+b}{2b}$.
So two cases:

*

*if $\cos\phi\le\dfrac{a+b}{2b}$, you minimize the second argument over $[a,b]$,

*if $\cos\phi>\dfrac{a+b}{2b}$, you minimize the second argument over $[a,\hat x]$, and the first argument over $[\hat x,b]$.
The local minima of these expressions are achieved when $\bar x=a\cos\phi$ (resp. $\bar x=b\cos\phi$). The first $\bar x$ is always out of range, and the second also if $b\cos\phi<a$.
Finally, you have to compute the values at the relevant interval endpoints and the local maxima, depending on the existence of $\hat x$ and $\bar x$.

A: $$f(x)=\max\left(\|x-ae^{i\theta/2}\|,\|x-be^{i\theta/2}\|\right) $$
hence by assuming $a>0$ we are in the following configuration:

Now consider that

*

*The distance from a point is a convex function;

*If $f,g$ are convex functions, $\max(f,g)$ is a convex function;

*Convex functions over convex domains attain their maxima at the boundary;

*The locus of points $P$ such that $\max(PA,PB)=d$, if non-empty, is given by the union of two circle arcs, symmetric with respect to the perpendicular bisector of $AB$;

*Let $A=ae^{i\theta/2}$ and $B=be^{i\theta/2}$. The previous points ensure that the solution of the minimization problem is given by the the projection of $B$ on the $ab$ line, if this point belongs to the $ab$ segment. Otherwise the solution is given by one of the endpoints of $ab$. This is the only part in which $\theta$ plays an active role.

I will let you finish.


Home / News / Design Tasmania Awards 2016 - Top Ten Finalist!
Design Tasmania Awards 2016 - Top Ten Finalist!
I'm very happy (and grateful, and suprised!) to be able to share the news that my entry to the 2016 Design Tasmania Awards - Tiny 'Askew Earrings' - has been included in the Top Ten Finalists listing, which was announced at a presentation at Design Tasmania in Launceston on Friday November 27.
Peter Whyte's stunning, large-scale photography of the small-product entries ties the exhibited works together beautifully, and I'm very humbled to have been included. Congratulations to all of the finalists - and a huge thanks to Design Tasmania for displaying it all so well!
The showcase at Design Tasmania in Launceston continues until Feb 24, 2016 - with a showcase of works at Henry Jones Design in Hobart from Dec 5 to Feb 24. Winners will be announced on Dec 17 at Arts Tasmania, with a showcase of works there until Jan 28. Voting for the People's Choice Award is open from now until Feb 24, and will be available at all venues and online.
There are some fantastic entries in the award, so it's worth a peek if you get the chance!