text:
Difference between revisions of "Maine Same-Sex Marriage People's Veto, Question 1 (2009)"
m (Text replace - "," retrieved September" to "," accessed September")
m (Text replace - "," retrieved October" to "," accessed October")
|Line 313:
|Line 313:
===Constitutional challenge===
===Constitutional challenge===
:: ''See also: [[Campaign finance requirements for Maine ballot measures]]''
:: ''See also: [[Campaign finance requirements for Maine ballot measures]]''
On [[BC2009#October|October 21, 2009]] NOM and American Principles in Action filed a constitutional challenge, NOM v. Mckee et al., to [[Campaign finance requirements for Maine ballot measures|Maine's campaign finance law]] that requires that any person or organization who contributes or spends more than $5,000 on a ballot measure be registered as a "ballot measure committee." According to the James Madison Center for Free Speech, a Maine law that required individuals or organizations to register as political action committees (PACs) was declared unconstitutional approximately 10 years ago. That case was Volle v. Webster.<ref>[http://www.jamesmadisoncenter.org/NOM/Index.html ''James Madison Center for Free Speech'',"NOM v. McKee,"
On [[BC2009#October|October 21, 2009]] NOM and American Principles in Action filed a constitutional challenge, NOM v. Mckee et al., to [[Campaign finance requirements for Maine ballot measures|Maine's campaign finance law]] that requires that any person or organization who contributes or spends more than $5,000 on a ballot measure be registered as a "ballot measure committee." According to the James Madison Center for Free Speech, a Maine law that required individuals or organizations to register as political action committees (PACs) was declared unconstitutional approximately 10 years ago. That case was Volle v. Webster.<ref>[http://www.jamesmadisoncenter.org/NOM/Index.html ''James Madison Center for Free Speech'',"NOM v. McKee," October 22, 2009]</ref>
Both groups also sought a restraining order that would allow for the groups to run television ads and donate funds to the Question 1 campaign without registering as a committee.<ref>[http://www.jamesmadisoncenter.org/NOM/TROMotion.pdf ''James Madison Center for Free Speech'',"Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,"
Both groups also sought a restraining order that would allow for the groups to run television ads and donate funds to the Question 1 campaign without registering as a committee.<ref>[http://www.jamesmadisoncenter.org/NOM/TROMotion.pdf ''James Madison Center for Free Speech'',"Motion for Temporary Restraining Order," October 22, 2009]</ref>
===Donor privacy lawsuit===
===Donor privacy lawsuit===
Revision as of 08:08, 21 April 2014
- 1 Election results
- 2 Ballot summary
- 3 Supporters
- 4 Opponents
- 5 Campaign contributions
- 6 Media editorial positions
- 7 Television ads
- 8 Washington, D.C. National Equality march
- 9 Path to the ballot
- 10 Polls
- 11 Fundraising investigation
- 12 Domestic partnership rights
- 13 See also
- 14 External links
- 15 Additional reading
- 16 References
Question 1 was an effort by opponents of same-sex marriage in Maine to use Maine's People's Veto process to overturn "An Act to Promote Marriage Equality and Affirm Religious Freedom." This act (Public Law Chapter 82, of the 124th Maine Legislature) authorized same-sex marriage in Maine. It was passed by the Maine State Legislature and signed by Governor Baldacci on May 6, 2009.[1]
The same-sex law was scheduled to take effect September 12, 2009 but since the Maine Secretary of State determined that sufficient signatures were collected to place the measure on the ballot, the law remained pending until results from the election were tallied.[2]
In July 2009, veto supporters submitted approximately 100,000 signatures, approximately double the requirement.[3] On September 3, 2009, the Maine Secretary of State's office announced that petitioners collected sufficient valid signatures to place the measure on the state ballot.That same day, on September 3, Gov. John Baldacci signed a formal proclamation to place the measure on the November 3, 2009.[4]
Election results
Question 1 was approved as of November 4, 2009 at 2:05 a.m. EST.[5]
|Maine Question 1 (Marriage)
Ballot summary
The language that appeared on the statewide ballot was:
Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?"[6]
A "yes" vote on the people's veto was a vote to reject the same-sex law. A "no" vote was a vote to keep the law.
|Voting on
Marriage and Family
|Ballot Measures
|By state
|By year
|Not on ballot
According to Stand for Marriage Maine, individual groups that supported placing the measure on the ballot included:[8]
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland
- Maine Jeremiah Project
- National Organization for Marriage
- Maine Marriage Initiative
- Daughters of Isabella
- Knights of Columbus
- Concerned Women of America, Maine Chapter
- Maine Coalition of Concerned Families
- Eagle Forum
- Family Watch International
- Marriage4 Maine
According to Stand for Marriage Maine, if Question 1 was not approved and the same-sex law, approved by the governor in early 2009, was allowed to go into effect there might be several legal conflicts. Other arguments by the group included:[9]
- refusal by a religious school/organization to offer housing or hire someone in a same sex relationship as an employee to married same sex couple may lead to lawsuits
- professionals, such as doctors, psychologists or counselors, that object to same-sex marriage could face legal problems
- religious-based social service organizations may be subject to lose government funding if they refuse same-sex couples any services or benefits
Additionally, Stand for Marriage Maine argued that the same-sex marriage law eliminated the state's "commitment to promoting monogamous marriages between a man and a woman" - a building block of society. Question 1, said the organization, was a chance for voters to have a say on the issue. "Question 1 is about preserving marriage; it's not an attack on the gay lifestyle."[10]
If approved, Question 1 would, according to Stand for Marriage:[10]
- preserve the definition of marriage - union between a man and a woman
- maintain the rights and benefits that same-sex couples have under the state's domestic partners law
- children in schools would not be taught that "same-sex marriage" is the same as traditional marriage - union between a man and a woman
- ensure that voters decide on the meaning of marriage and not politicians
The official campaign organization that opposed the Same-Sex Marriage People's Veto was called Protect Maine Equality. They launched their official website in early August 2009.[7] Other opponents include Gov. John Baldacci and Sen. Christopher Rector.[11]
According to Protect Maine Equality, individual groups that opposed placing the measure on the ballot include:[12]
- Americans for Democratic Action
- American Academy of Pediatrics- Maine Chapter
- American Association of University Women (AAUW)
- American Civil Liberties Union
- Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence
- Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere
- Community Counseling Center
- Downeast Pride Alliance
...view all opponents here.
Despite Question 1 supporters that argued that if the veto is not approved those who oppose same-sex marriage may face lawsuits, Protect Maine Equality argued that "marriage equality law respects and protects the rights of people of faith. It explicitly ensures that no one empowered to perform marriages will be required to marry any couple, including same sex couples, contrary to their conscience or their religious beliefs."
Additionally, Protect Maine Equality argued that marriage equality reflects traditional Maine values of fairness and equality. "Without marriage equality loving, committed same-sex couples are not recognized as a legal pair. They cannot file taxes jointly, do not have access to health insurance as a family and are not allowed to inherit property at the time of death without the hardship of crushing taxes. Their children are not entitled to all of the rights and protections conferred automatically on a family headed by a married couple."[13]
Phone campaign
Opponents of Question 1, according to reports, made hundreds of phone calls on September 27, 2009 in order to urge voters to oppose the measure. Additionally Protect Maine Equality started a nationwide "on-line walk" to raise additional funds for the campaign.[14]
Campaign contributions
$9,996,301 was reported to have been contributed to campaigns relating to Question 1, $3,434,064 in support and $6,562,237 in opposition. However, some of the contributions were to groups supporting or opposing multiple campaigns, so an exact donation figure for Question 1 cannot be calculated.[15]
According to the final 2009 financial reports, the Stand for Marriage Maine campaign raised a total of $3.073 million. Total expenditures were $2,880,895.29 and an additional $183,971.89 in operating expenses.[16]
Financial summary:
- In support of the ballot measure, the Stand for Marriage Maine campaign raised a total of $1.14 million according to quarterly state reports on October 1, 2009. Approximately $794,180 was raised during the third quarter.[17][18]
- However, as of October 23, 2009, Stand for Marriage reported a total of $2.6 million.[19]
- In September, Maine Catholics donated a total of approximately $86,000 in support of Question 1. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland reported a total of $41,000 in donations.[20]
Committee groups that contributed to the "Yes on 1" campaign included:[21]
- StandForMarriageMaine.com (PAC)
- Maine Marriage Initiative (PAC)
- Maine Marriage PAC (PAC)
- Focus on the Family Maine Marriage Committee (PAC)
- Maine4Marriage (PAC)
- Marriage Matters in Maine (PAC)
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland (BQC)
- Family Research Council Action (BQC)
Below is a chart that outlines major cash contributions to the Stand For Marriage Maine Campaign, as of October 2009:[17][19]
|National Organization for Marriage
|$1.1 million
|Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland
|Focus on the Family of Colorado
|Knights of Columbus
|Catholic Charities, Diocese of Evansville
|Archdiocese of Santa Fe
- On October 20, 2009, The Gazette, in Colorado, reported that Focus on the Family Colorado donated a grand total of $98,500 to Stand for Marriage. Additionally, they reported that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, Maine, provided approximately $390,000 in total donations.[22]
According to the final 2009 financial reports, the Protect Maine Equality campaign raised a total of $4.565 million. Total expenditures were $4,382,937.57 and an additional $210,832.43 in operating expenses.[23]
Financial summary:
- An October 23, 2009 report revealed a grand total of $4 million.[19]
- According to late September 2009 reports, NO on 1 raised approximately $642,459 via its website.[24]
- According to the report submitted to the state ethics commission, $2.56 million was raised during the period of July 1 - September 30 and half of the funds were reported to have been donated within the state of Maine.[18]
Committee groups that contributed to the "No on 1" campaign included:[21]
- No on 1 Protect Maine Equality (PAC)
- Mid-Coast for Marriage Equality (PAC)
- Equality Maine (PAC)
- TFC Maine PAC (PAC)
- Equality Maine (BQC)
- Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (BQC)
- Maine People's Resource Center (BQC)
Below is a chart that outlines major cash and in-kind contributions to the Protect Maine Equality Campaign, as of October 2009:[23]
|Human Rights Campaign
|Equality Maine
|Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
|National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
|American Civil Liberties Union
Total campaign allocations
According to a report, "Maine Question 1: Where Did the Money Go?" by James R. Oaksun, the chair of Liberty For Maine and president of Virtual Galt Corporation, below is a summary of the campaign allocations for both the support and opposition of Question 1.[25]
|TV/Radio ads
|$1,637,000 (64%)
|$2,551,000 (55%)
|$307,000 (12%)
|$810,000 (18%)
|$270,000 (11%)
|$343,000 (7%)
|Internet use
|$113,000 (4%)
|$343,000 (7%)
|Polling data
|$176,000 (7%)
|$160,000 (3%)
|Telephone use
|$1,000 (0%)
|$267,000 (6%)
|$64,000 (2%)
|$130,000 (3%)
Media editorial positions
- Main article: Endorsements of Maine ballot measures, 2009
Editorial boards opposed
- The Bangor Daily News opposed Question 1. On October 17, the newspaper announced their opposition to the same-sex marriage veto. In the editorial they said, "It is hard to see how allowing more people to marry will weaken marriage. Instead, it seems the strong desire of gay and lesbian couples to be married, rather than declared domestic partners, shows the value and importance of marriage. Voting no on Question 1 will reiterate Maine's commitment to equality and acceptance of families of all types while respecting religious traditions and beliefs."[26]
- The Bowdoin Orient opposed Question 1. On October 16, the college weekly said "no" to Question 1. In an editorial they said,"As members of a generation that recites the ideals of equality and tolerance like an unofficial mantra, we cannot stand for legislation that denies citizens their right to marry. More than that, we cannot stand for a law that considers some citizens less worthy of certain things than others. The right to marry is not a privilege to be doled out to those deemed worthy—it is a decision between two individuals, regardless of sex."[27]
- The Portland Press Herald opposed Question 1. In an editorial they said,"While this change in the law could seem abrupt to some Maine voters, it reflects the way people are really living now in cities and towns all over our state. That's why we urge people to vote "no," to allow this reasonable law to go into effect. Leaders of the people's veto campaign argue that extending the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage to families headed by same-sex couples would have broad effects throughout society. We have listened to their arguments, but we just don't buy them."[28]
- The Boston Globe said "vote no on Question 1." In an editorial the board said,"The law signed by Governor John E. Baldacci in May recognizes that legalizing gay marriage is a matter of fairness. A civil union, the governor said, is not equal to a marriage. Just as the state of Maine would not deny the equal rights and protections of the law to its other citizens, it should not deny them to gay people who wish to build stable families. A vote of "no on Question 1 is a vote for equal protection of the laws, a guarantee in Maine's constitution and in the country's that all citizens should defend and embrace."[29]
- The Kennebec Journal/Morning Sentinel opposed Question 1. They said,"Families led by same-sex partners are here now. They are part of our communities and they need and deserve the legal protections -- as well as the dignity -- that comes with civil marriage status. Maine voters should recognize that even if their personal beliefs about marriage haven't changed, reality has. They should accept reality and vote "no" on Question 1."[30]
- The Seacoast Media Group opposed Question 1. They said, "This editorial board has had no change of heart on the issue of gay marriage. We supported both Maine and New Hampshire efforts to establish their laws, and we now oppose the effort to repeal the law in Maine in the strongest possible terms. Make no mistake: The eyes of the country will be focused on the state next Tuesday. If Mainers vote to keep the law on the books and reject repeal, it will be the first victory at the ballot box for gay marriage."[31]
- The Journal Tribune opposed Question 1. They said,"Just the same, those who take a more liberal view of marriage don't see any reason to deny two people who love each other the ultimate expression of that love. We at the Journal Tribune fall into that latter category and publicly state our support of the same-sex marriage legislation. We do not believe that any harm can come from allowing gay couples the same definition that heterosexuals have for a life-long commitment to another human being."[32]
- The Brunswick Times Record opposed Question 1. They said,"We hope the turnout is huge, and that a decisive majority of Mainers will vote "No" on this important social issue — which really boils down to acknowledging with loving-kindness in our hearts the freedom of everyone to marry the person they love, if not in church, then at least in a civil ceremony attended by family and friends."[33]
Television ads
Yes on One ad, 9-15-09
Supporters: On September 15, 2009 Stand for Marriage released their first television ad in support of Question 1. The ad emphasized the argument that if Question 1 is not approved and the same-sex marriage law was allowed to go into effect a range of lawsuits would begin to pop-up throughout the state against religious groups, schools and small businesses.
Stand for Marriage released a second television ad on September 22, 2009. The ad "Everything To Do With Schools" featured a couple urging voters to vote "Yes" in order to prevent same-sex marriage from being taught in Maine schools.[34]
Opponents: The week of September 1, 2009, Protect Maine Equality released two television ads against Question 1. One ad featured a military man talking about equality for his daughter, while the second add featured a family with two moms. According to reports, opponents of Question 1 analyzed ads during California Proposition 8 (2008) campaign. The outcome of Question 1 is said to be an indicator of how California Repeal of Proposition 8 (2010) would fare with voters.[35]
Shortly after Stand for Marriage's television ad was first released, questions arose regarding the truthfulness of the ad. Specifically, questions arose regarding two claims: the legal ramifications and the changes on education if the law was allowed to stand.[36][37]
- In regards to lawsuits, the ad stated: "Legal experts predict a flood of lawsuits against individuals, small businesses and religious groups." Veto opponents argued that the claim was "overstated" and was not the case in other states. However, Stand for Marriage said,"There is no reason to believe that it won't happen, there is every probability that it will happen."[36]
- In regards to education, the ad stated: "Homosexual marriage taught in public schools whether parents like it. Vote yes on question one." Opponents called the statement "inflammatory" and "misleading." The Department of Education reported that curriculum language about marriage does not and would not exist. Education plans about family life are created by individual schools districts. According to Stand for Marriage the statements were not meant to be taken literally.[36]
Protect Maine Equality ad, 09-02-09
State investigation
On October 7, the state's education commissioner Susan Gendron asked Attorney General Janet Mills to provide an analysis of same-sex marriage law effects on schools. "The commissioner felt it would be helpful to put this issue to rest," said education department spokesman David Connerty-Marin.[38][39]
Response to investigation
- See also: Interview with Scott Fish (10/8/09)
"Our campaign looks at it as a political stunt and I'll tell you why. In the first place, Janet Mills, in her capacity as attorney general testified in favor of same-sex marriage in, I think it was April 22nd of this year at the Augusta Civic Center when they had the one public hearing on LD 1020. So I think when you are an attorney general and you come out, as she did, you can see it YouTube and you can watch her testify, how you then supposedly come out with an unbiased opinion is a bit of a stretch. Susan Gendron, similarly, is in an interesting spot, because her boss, the governor not only signed LD 1020 into a law but he has appeared on t.v., Channel 7 in Bangor is one place I know, and also in print supporting the No on 1 position. And he has, in fact, taken part in fundraising activities for the No on 1 position. Susan Gendron, the education commissioner, serves at the pleasure of Governor Baldacci. So for those three to allegedly put together an unbiased legal opinion, again smacks as a political stunt and we're hoping that Attorney General Mills will do the right thing and not allow her office to be misused in that manner," said Scott Fish, spokesperson for Stand for Marriage Maine.
Attorney General response
In response to a request by the state's education commissioner Susan Gendron, the attorney general said, "I have scoured Maine laws relating to the education of its children for any references to marriage in the public school curricula. I have found none." According to Mills written opinion she said that the state's standards does not include the teaching of marriage, however, individual school boards "determine the exact content of each district's curricula."[40][41]
Yes on 1 response: Marc Mutty of the Yes on 1 campaign argued that Mills' statement is "a shameless political ploy by supporters of homosexual marriage." Mutty added, "Yes on Question 1 has shown -- and our opponents have been forced to acknowledge -- that existing curricula ALREADY create an opportunity for teaching about same-sex relationships under the guise of 'safe schools' instruction. We know, for example, that the Portland schools already show films on gay relationships. What is to stop them from showing films about homosexual marriage if it becomes legal?"[42]
No on 1 response: Mark Sullivan of the No on 1 campaign said,"We hope the Question 1 campaign will stop attempting to hijack the fundamental issue at stake."[40]
Washington, D.C. National Equality march
On October 10 and October 11, 2009 thousands of people marched in Washington, D. C. in favor of equal rights for LGBT people in the United States. A week prior to the march a bill was introduced to the District of Columbia Council that proposed same-sex marriage in the district.[43] President Barack Obama's spoke at the Human Rights Campaign's annual dinner and addressed the issue of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, however, Obama did not directly address Maine's Question 1 or Washington's Referendum 71 directly. Two ballot measures that currently address the topic at hand - equal rights for LGBT people.[44][45]
President Obama opposes anti-gay referenda
Nearly a week after the Washington, D.C. march, President Obama announced his opposition to "anti-gay referenda in Maine and Washington state." At the October 10-11 event, Obama did not directly address either state's upcoming ballot measures regarding domestic partnerships and same-sex marriage. However, a week later, after questions arose regarding the President's stance on the issue, White House officials released a statement that said,"The President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples, and as he said at the Human Rights Campaign dinner, he believes 'strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away.'" Additionally, officials said, "He supports 'ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country.'"[46]
Path to the ballot
The Maine Secretary of State determined that sufficient signatures were collected, therefore the law did not go into effect pending the results of the November election.[47] In August 2009 the secretary of state's office announced that they began the verification process.[3] And on September 3, 2009 the office announced that enough valid signatures were filed to qualify the measure for the November 3 ballot. That same day Gov. John Baldacci signed a formal proclamation to place the measure on the November 3, 2009. On September 3 the governor said, "I fully support this legislation and believe it guarantees that all Maine citizens are treated equally under our state's civil marriage laws. But I also have a constitutional obligation to set the date for the election once the secretary of state has certified that enough signatures have been submitted."[4]
Required signatures
Veto supporters were required to collect 55,087 signatures; a number equivalent to 10 percent of the total votes for governor in the last gubernatorial election.
Filed signatures
Supporters of the veto measure filed about 100,000 signatures with the Maine Secretary of State on July 31 in order to qualify the measure for the November 2, 2009 statewide ballot.[48]
National Petition Management
National Petition Management, a petition drive management company, was hired to collect signatures to qualify Question 1 for the ballot. They were paid $308,000 for the signatures they collected in this petition drive.[49][50]
- See also: Polls, 2009 ballot measures
- An Oct. 31 - Nov. 1 poll by Public Policy Polling revealed that 51% of voters said they were in favor of Question 1, whereas 47% said they were opposed and 2% remain undecided. Approximately 1,133 voters were surveyed. The poll has a +/-2.9% margin of error.[51][52]
- A poll released October 27, 2009 by Pan Atlantic SMS Services revealed that 42% of voters are in favor of Question 1, whereas 53% are opposed and 6% are undecided. Approximately 400 voters were polled. The poll is reported to have a +/- 4.9% margin of error.[53][54]
- An October 16-19 poll by Public Policy Polling revealed that 48% of voters said they planned on voting to overturn the same-sex marriage law, while 48% of voters said they planned to vote to keep the 2009 law. A total of 1,130 voters were polled and the reported margin of error is +/- 2.9%.[55][56]
- A poll conducted from September 30 - October 7 by Pan Atlantic SMS Services revealed that 43% of voters are in favor of Question 1, whereas 52% are opposed and 5% are undecided.[57][58]
- A September 23-27 poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (GQR) revealed that 41% of voters said they were likely to vote "yes" to overturn the same-sex marriage law, 50% of voters said they would most likely vote "no." A total of 808 registered voters were polled.[59]
- A September 14-16 poll by Research 2000/Daily Kos indicated that 48% of voters said they were likely to vote to overturn the same-sex marriage law, 46% would vote not to and 6% were undecided.[60] The poll interviewed 600 people between September 14-16 and is reported to have margin of error of +/- four percent.[61]
- In light of the poll results, Equality Maine communications director Mark Sullivan said,"What I took away from that poll is that we really have to work hard. This is going to be a very close election but we have the opportunity to make history by becoming the first state to vote for marriage equality."[24]
- An April 2008 poll by Pan Atlantic SMS Services revealed that 49.5% of voters were against the same-sex marriage legislation approved by the legislature in 2009, 47.3% were in favor and 3.3% were undecided.[60]
|Date of Poll
|In favor
|April 2008
|Pan Atlantic SMS Services
|Sept. 14 - 16
|Research 2000/Daily Kos
|Sept. 23 - 27
|Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (GQR)
|Sept. 30 - Oct. 7
|Pan Atlantic SMS Services
|Oct. 16 - 19
|Public Policy Polling
|Oct. 20 - 22
|Pan Atlantic SMS Services
|Oct. 31 - Nov. 1
|Public Policy Polling
Fundraising investigation
- See also: Question 1 support donations and opposition donations
On October 1, 2009 the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices voted 3 to 2 to investigate groups supporting the veto campaign after a complaint was filed on August 25, 2009.[62] On September 30, commission staff said an investigation was not warranted.[63]
Fundraising complaint
The complaint was filed by Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate, on August 25, 2009. In the 9-page complaint Karger said groups like the National Organization for Marriage and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, solicited contributions from individuals and in turn gave the money to Stand for Marriage - hiding the identity of the individual donors.[64] Maine election law states that every donation, regardless of how small, must be listed.
Investigation responses
- NOM response: Barry Bostrom, National Organization for Marriage attorney, said Karger's complaint is "nothing more than an attempt to harass and intimidate those of us who believe in the core truth that marriage is between one man and one woman." According to Bostrom, the organization complies with state campaign financing laws. It's policy is to collect funds and then submit the donations to a particular campaign so as to protect donors from harassment.[65]
- Stand for Marriage Maine response: Chairman of Stand for Marriage Maine Marc Mutty said,"It is yet another example of the harassment that follows supporters of traditional marriage. It is an abuse of power for the Commission to have allowed itself to be used as an instrument of politics in this fashion."[66]
- Protect Maine Equality response: "We are not involved in any way shape or form. We have nothing to do with the complaint and don't have any opinion about it one way or the other," said Mark Sullivan, spokesperson for Protect Maine Equality.[66]
Constitutional challenge
On October 21, 2009 NOM and American Principles in Action filed a constitutional challenge, NOM v. Mckee et al., to Maine's campaign finance law that requires that any person or organization who contributes or spends more than $5,000 on a ballot measure be registered as a "ballot measure committee." According to the James Madison Center for Free Speech, a Maine law that required individuals or organizations to register as political action committees (PACs) was declared unconstitutional approximately 10 years ago. That case was Volle v. Webster.[67]
Both groups also sought a restraining order that would allow for the groups to run television ads and donate funds to the Question 1 campaign without registering as a committee.[68]
Donor privacy lawsuit
The National Organization for Marriage filed a federal lawsuit against the state after the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices launched a fundraising investigation. The ethics commission is investigating whether the organization should have filed as a ballot question committee. However, the commission has requested donor names to verify donations.[69]
The state, according to reports, believes most of the donations were completed verbally and they require donor names to verify the transactions. The state contends that names will be kept confidential, however, NOM attorney Josiah Neeley said the organization would be willing to list donations without names or addresses. Neeley said, even without the disclosure of names donors may worry about being part of an investigation or deposition in the future.[69]
In May 2010 Justice Donald Marden in Kennebec County Superior Court said he is concerned about the privacy of those who participate in the political system. "The court is really queasy in light of recent history of what it does to a person's 1st Amendment right when they contribute to a campaign. What are we doing with privacy these days?"[69][70]
Court ruling
In a preliminary ruling on May 23, 2010 U.S. Magistrate Judge John Rich III said the National Organization for Marriage should release documents relating to donors and fundraising. Documents, he said, should date back to January 1, 2009 and should be submitted to the Attorney General's office. However, donors names may not be made public and can only be shared with state officials. The order, however, is pending approval by a federal district judge.[71][72]
A challenge was filed on May 25 by National Organization for Marriage lawyers in the U.S. District Court. According to reports the state must file a response by June 11, 2010. The organization argues that "disclosing personal donor information, even limited disclosure to opposing counsel, would have a substantial negative effect on the ability of NOM to raise funds."[71]
In February 2011, U.S. District Judge D. Brock Hornby granted a summary judgment upholding Maine's campaign disclosure laws as they pertain to ballot committees.
In March 2011 the National Organization for Marriage announced that they were appealing the judge's decision.[73]
State commission continues investigation
Despite a 2010 attempt by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) to halt the investigation, on June 24, the Maine Ethics Commission said it would continue it's investigation. All four members of the commission unanimously voted to dismiss NOM's challenge. NOM argued that the commission lacked the authority to conduct an investigation on whether or not the organization should have filed as a ballot question committee. Specifically NOM said that the Maine statute that authorized investigations did not specifically address "ballot question committees." Jonathan Wayne, executive director of the Ethics Commission, said, "The argument is that the statute says the commission may undertake on its investigation to determine the facts concerning the registration of a candidate, treasurer, political committee or political action committee. But because the type of filer we're investigating, the ballot question committee does not list it among those types of entities that we can investigate, NOM's arguing that the investigation's not authorized in the first place."[74][75]
Domestic partnership rights
The State of Maine has a law on the books, since April 2004 and took effect July 30, 2004, that grants domestic partnership rights. If Question 1 was approved, the domestic partnership rights would still stand, however, Maine Same-Sex Marriage Law signed in May 2009 by the governor would no longer be valid.
According to the law:[76]
Under the law, registered domestic partners are accorded a legal status similar to that of a married person with respect to matters of probate, guardianships, conservatorships, inheritance, protection from abuse, and related matters. The legislation establishes a Domestic Partner Registry housed within the Office of Health Data and Program Management, Bureau of Health of the Department of Health and Human Services.
See also
- Preliminary ruling indicates release of Maine same-sex marriage donor names
- Maine same-sex marriage lawsuit filed to protect donor names
- Same-sex marriage measures raised over $100 million in 2008
- Maine finance campaign law challenged
- Recent Question 1 poll reveals Mainers are evenly split
- Both sides of Maine Question 1 concerned about resource allocation
- Maine officials approve investigation of same-sex marriage fundraising
- Maine ads stir controversy
- Maine may investigate alleged illegal fundraising
- Sen. Susan Collins plans to stay neutral on Maine same-sex marriage
- Maine same-sex marriage law likely to be put on hold
- Language for same-sex marriage referendum filed in Maine
External links
- Text of SP0384/LD1020, "An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom"
- StandForMarriageMaine.com campaign finance disclosures
- Maine 2009 Ballot Measures
- Maine 2009 Ballot Measures Voter Guide
- 2009 Maine Ballot Questions Results
- No on 1 Protect Maine Equality campaign finance disclosures
- Protect Maine Equality, Online Walk Against 1
Additional reading
- Washington Post,"Thuggish liberalism at work in Wash. state vote," October 31, 2009
- Examiner,"Maine becomes battlefield for same sex marriage," October 28, 2009
- The Atlantic,"Ballot Initiatives To Watch On 11/3," October 26, 2009
- CNN,"Same-sex marriage battle moves to Maine," October 25, 2009
- Kennebec Journal,"PAC LAW HIT," October 24, 2009
- WMTW,"Stand For Marriage Maine, NPR At Odds Over Ad," October 21, 2009
- Maine Public Broadcasting Network,"Controversy Rages Over Question One's Impact on School Curricula," October 19, 2009
- The Maine Campus,"No on 1 ahead in fundraising, finance reports show," October 18, 2009
- Morning Sentinel,"Maine in Spotlight," October 11, 2009
- Associated Press,"Voters in Maine get historic chance to uphold or scrap state's same-sex marriage law," October 9, 2009
- Socialits Worker,"Maine's fight to save equality," September 30, 2009
- Bangor Daily News,"Catholics put cash behind Question 1," September 28, 2009
- Examiner,"Will Maine same-sex marriage destroy the sanctity of marriage?," September 25, 2009
- WMTW,"Both Sides On Defensive In Maine Marriage Debate," September 24, 2009
- Politico,"Dueling ads in Maine," September 24, 2009
- On Top,"NOM's Gallagher Confident Of Maine Win, Loves The Gay Press," September 23, 2009
- Fox Maine,"Maine Family Council Chief Resigns," September 23, 2009
- Advocate,"Poll: Gay Marriage Trailing in Maine," September 18, 2009
- NPR,"Battle Lines Drawn In Maine Same-Sex Debate," September 7, 2009
- Kennebec Journal,"Vote 'no' on Question 1 Support all Maine families," October 25, 2009
- Morning Sentinel,"We need to 'preserve institution of marriage'," October 24, 2009
- Seacoast Media Group,"'No' on Question 1: equality over fear," October 4, 2009
- Stand for Marriage,"Stand for Marriage Maine Issues Statement About Opposition to Question 1," October 1, 2009
- RPT-NJ vote on gay marriage could shape battles ahead
Video clips
- ↑ Politico, "The question in Maine," May 19, 2009
- ↑ Associated Press,"Gay marriage foes reach signature goal in Maine," July 8, 2009
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Edge,"Bay Area LGBTs pitch in to help Maine in marriage fight," August 17, 2009
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Associated Press,"Voters in Maine Will Decide Fate of Same-Sex Marriage Law," September 2, 2009
- ↑ Bangor Daily News,"2009 Election Results," last retrieved November 4, 2009
- ↑ Maine Government News, "People's Veto Effort on Same-Sex Marriage Receives Ballot Question," May 19, 2009
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Bangor Daily News,"Stand for Marriage launches Web site," August 28, 2009
- ↑ Stand for Marriage Maine,"Who We Are," accessed September 1, 2009
- ↑ Stand for Marriage Maine,"The Threat to Marriage," accessed September 17, 2009
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 Stand for Marriage Maine,"About the People's Veto and Question 1," accessed September 17, 2009
- ↑ The Advocate,"Maine Gov. Endorses Protecting Equality," October 27, 2009
- ↑ Protect Maine Equality,"Who We Are," accessed September 17, 2009
- ↑ Protect Maine Equality,"Why Marriage," accessed September 17, 2009
- ↑ Edge,"Activists to urge Maine voters to oppose marriage referendum," September 23, 2009
- ↑ Follow the Money, Question 1"
- ↑ Maine Campaign Finance,"PAC Summary: StandForMarriageMaine.com," accessed December 18, 2009
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 State of Maine,"Cash Contributions to PAC," October 13, 2009
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 Portland Press Herald,"QUESTION 1 Gay-marriage backers raise $2.7 million," October 14, 2009
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 Bangor Daily News,"Money fueling battle over gay marriage," October 24, 2009
- ↑ Kennebec Journal,"Catholics add $86,000 vs. gay vows," October 10, 2009
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 Maine Campaign Finance,"Committees Involved in the November 2009 Ballot Questions," accessed September 27, 2009
- ↑ The Gazette,"Focus chips in $98k to help overturn Maine's gay marriage law," October 20, 2009
- ↑ 23.0 23.1 State of Maine,"Cash Contributions to PAC," October 13, 2009
- ↑ 24.0 24.1 Seacoast Media Group,"Marriage campaigns heated," September 27, 2009
- ↑ Nolan Chart,"Maine Question 1: Where Did the Money Go?," December 17, 2009
- ↑ Bangor Daily News,"No on Question 1," October 17, 2009
- ↑ The Bowdoin Orient,"Vote 'No' on 1," October 16, 2009
- ↑ Portland Press Herald,"Support Maine families: Vote 'no' on Question 1," October 18, 2009
- ↑ Boston Globe,"Uphold equal rights in Maine," October 25, 2009
- ↑ Morning Sentinel,"Vote 'no' on Question 1 Support all Maine families," October 25, 2009
- ↑ Seacoast Media Group,"Our take on state ballot questions," October 28, 2009
- ↑ Journal Tribune,"Question 1 denies Maine's same-sex couples equal civil rights," October 21, 2009
- ↑ The Times Record,"'No' on Question 1," October 30, 2009
- ↑ Fox Maine,"Gay Marriage Foes Launch New TV Ad," September 24, 2009
- ↑ NBC,"Secret Weapon for Repealing Prop 8: Maine," September 5, 2009
- ↑ 36.0 36.1 36.2 WMTW,"Maine Marriage Ad's Truthfulness Questioned," September 22, 2009
- ↑ Opposing Views,"Push to Ban Gay Marriage in Maine Looks Like CA Prop 8 Fight," September 28, 2009
- ↑ Bangor Daily News,"Education head seeks analysis of gay marriage law effects on schools," October 8, 2009
- ↑ Maine Public Broadcasting Network,"Education Commissioner Asks AG for Analysis of Gay Marriage Law," October 8, 2009
- ↑ 40.0 40.1 Morning Sentinel,"AG: Marriage law would not affect schools," October 16, 2009
- ↑ Kennebec Journal,"Gay-marriage foes criticize AG's opinion Yes on 1 insists law would cause educational changes," October 17, 2009
- ↑ Stand for Marriage Maine,"Stand for Marriage Maine Responds to Attorney General's 'Independent' Opinion," October 16, 2009
- ↑ CBS News,"Gay Rights Advocates March in D.C.," October 11, 2009
- ↑ Los Angeles Times,"Obama owes gays more support," October 10, 2009
- ↑ Towleroad,"Obama Commits to Work for LGBT Equality, Offers No New Promises," October 10, 2009
- ↑ The Advocate,"White House Says No to Antigay Referenda," October 16, 2009
- ↑ Associated Pres,"Gay marriage foes reach signature goal in Maine," July 8, 2009
- ↑ All Headline News, "Gay Marriage Opponents in Maine Submit Petition," July 31, 2009
- ↑ Times Herald Online, "Marriage doesn't need protecting from gays," December 9, 2009
- ↑ Nolan Chart, "Maine Question 1: Where Did the Money Go?," December 17, 2009
- ↑ Public Policy Polling,"TABOR Going Down, Gay Marriage Still Close," November 2, 2009
- ↑ The Advocate,"Maine Poll: 51% Yes, 47% No on 1," November 2, 2009
- ↑ Maine Public Broadcasting Network,"Poll Finds Waning Support for TABOR 2," October 26, 2009
- ↑ Bangor Daily News,"Opposition to ballot questions grows," October 27, 2009
- ↑ Public Policy Polling,"Maine split on gay marriage question," October 20, 2009
- ↑ Windy City Times," Maine: Taking everything down to the wire Extended for the Online Edition of Windy City Times," October 28, 2009
- ↑ Sun Journal,"New poll shows Mainers support gay marriage, TABOR," October 15, 2009
- ↑ Maine Public Broadcasting Network,"Majority Want to Keep Maine's Gay Marriage Law, Poll Finds," October 26, 2009
- ↑ Greenberg Quinlan Rosner,"Democracy Corps - Maine Frequency Questionnaire," accessed September 30, 2009
- ↑ 60.0 60.1 Kennebec Journal,"Marriage law closely contested, poll shows," September 19, 2009
- ↑ Baptist Press,"Poll: Gay marriage opponents lead in Maine," September 18, 2009
- ↑ Maine Public Broadcasting Network,"Ethics Commission OK's Stand for Marriage Probe," October 1, 2009
- ↑ Associated Press,"Maine marriage campaign complaint rejected," September 30, 2009
- ↑ Maine Public Broadcasting Network,"Complaint Against Gay Marriage Repeal Campaign Filed With Ethics Commission," August 26, 2009
- ↑ Associated Press,"Maine marriage campaign probe gets OK," October 1, 2009
- ↑ 66.0 66.1 Bay Windows,"Maine will scrutinize anti-gay groups," October 1, 2009
- ↑ James Madison Center for Free Speech,"NOM v. McKee," accessed October 22, 2009
- ↑ James Madison Center for Free Speech,"Motion for Temporary Restraining Order," accessed October 22, 2009
- ↑ 69.0 69.1 69.2 Kennebec Journal,"Judge appears cool to disclosing names," May 14, 2010
- ↑ Associated Press,"Maine Gay Marriage Vote Funds In Question," May 14, 2010
- ↑ 71.0 71.1 The Portland Press Herald,"Judge: ID donors to Maine's same-sex law repeal," May 26, 2010
- ↑ Associated Press,"Federal magistrate urges disclosure of anti-gay marriage donors," May 28, 2010
- ↑ The Portland Press Herald,"Group appeals ruling allowing release of donor list," March 2, 2011
- ↑ Bangor Daily News,"Commission: Marriage group probe to go on," June 24, 2010
- ↑ Maine Public Broadcasting Network,"Maine Ethics Commission Rejects NOM's Request to Drop Investigation," June 24, 2010
- ↑ State of Maine,"Domestic Partner Registry," accessed September 17, 2009


text:
Internet exclusive! RSVP "yes" and step out in this party-ready dress with black lace shoulder insets. A fully lined white chiffon bodice and a black fitted skirt create stylish color-blocking contrast that really stands out from the crowd.
- Size 1 measures 41" from shoulder
- Polyester/rayon/spandex
- Hand wash; line dry
- Made in USA

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Great news! Last week the ASPCA teamed up with animal shelters in Louisiana, Tennessee and New Jersey to help find homes for 43 dogs.
The transport—which began at the LA/SPCA in New Orleans—made a pit stop at AnimalWorks, a spay/neuter clinic in Tennessee where staff helped walk and care for the dogs. The transporters then delivered their precious cargo to St. Hubert's in New Jersey. The dogs, including a nine-month-old, 118-pound Great Dane puppy named Leo, now have a better chance at finding a home.
"In much of the South where euthanasia rates are high, there are no shelters that can help these animals. The most viable solution is to transport them to areas of where they are most likely to be adopted," explains Sandy Monterose, ASPCA Senior Director of Community Outreach.
How Does It Work?
This week's transport operation is the first of several between the LA/SPCA and St. Hubert's in the coming months. Each transport will bring approximately 40-60 dogs from the Southeast—where there is an oversupply—to shelters in the Northeast, where dogs are in higher demand. The ASPCA Animal Relocation Initiative will fund all the transports.
"The ASPCA Relocation Initiative works collaboratively to help animals at risk, moving them to where they have the greatest opportunity to find a home," says Monterose. "We're happy we can help."
Special thanks to St. Hubert's and partners for providing a second chance for these dogs!
Where on the website can I find these dogs ?
I would like to have this dog if no home can be found for it.
Where on the website can I find these dogs ?
Live in Cherry Hill NJ interested in the Great Dane sent from New Orleans
very interested in this great dane pup
Prob why they are demand in so many in the SE and needed in north cause I figure all the snowbirds come south (from north) and bring their animals and when the winter is over and they head north They leave their animals down here????? I just adopted a rescue Lab to join my golden Love them both to pieces and would never abandon them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I live in eastern North Carolina but I'm from up north and I witness how the dogs are treated in the South vrs. the North. I'm so glad that the ASPCA is taking adoptable babies where they will be loved and well cared for! I pray that all people adopt a pet and treat them like a part of the family not just a lawn ornament. THANK YOU ASPCA for the great work that you do! By the way I wish you would do the same for North Carolina dogs especially the hunting dogs which are left in cages their entire lives...so SAD!
Luv it... but I fear for the safe ty of my hamsters if I adopt one!
The Memphis, Tennessee Animal Shelter executes 1,000 animals per month! PLEASE ASPCA, please help the unfortunate animals in this shelter by transporting these loving animals to the Northeast to get homes. This is an EXTREMELY HIGH KILL Shelter with a documented history of employee abuse of animals they are supposed to be caring for. You are well aware of this shelter as you headed the "bust" of the shelter in the fall of 2009. It has not improved since.


text:
Support Home > Offshore Navigator (& Lite) & Chart Navigator (Viewer) > Technical Documents > Installing Offshore Navigator (and Lite) and Chart Navigator Viewer in Windows Vista & Windows 7
Windows Vista & Windows 7 Setup procedure, including Power Squadron Training CDs, Digital ChartKits, and other Maptech Marine applications.
Maptech's Offshore Navigator (and many related products, such as Offshore Navigator Lite and Chart Navigator Viewer) was created long before Microsoft Windows Vista or Windows 7 were released. As you may be aware, Microsoft Vista and Windows 7 are designed to restrict access to certain core components of the operating system, in order to make the system more robust and secure. Unfortunately, by doing this, older applications must be run "As Administrator" and in "Windows XP Compatibility Mode" in order to function correctly.
These steps may not install on 64-bit systems. Some older Maptech Installer Discs for Offshore Navigator, Offshore Navigator Lite, or Chart Navigator (Viewer) will install on 32 bit systems only.
If you have a 64 bit system and the install process ends with an error about the 64 bit incompatibility, please contact Maptech Navigation Sales at 978-834-9950 for a replacement Offshore Navigator v5.08e, or Offshore Navigator Lite v5.08b Installer Disc that can handle the 64 bit operating system.
Running Setup
The first step to getting everything installed in Windows Vista or Windows 7, is to ensure that the Setup application is running with these parameters. Otherwise, the Setup program will error out complaining about an "Unknown Operating System" and be looking for "Microsoft Internet Explorer," and/or other similar error messages.
To Install Offshore Navigator (or a related product) in Windows Vista or 7:
1. Insert the CD labeled Installer.
2. If an AutoPlay window appears, choose to View the Files in Windows Explorer.
(If an Auto Play window does NOT appear, click on the Computer icon - or access the Computer under the Start Menu - and then right click the Installer Disc listing, and choose Explore.)
3. A list of files on that CD will appear. One (or more) will appear as Setup - look for the Application File that is Setup (or Setup.exe.) Once located, right click on the Setup application file and select Properties.
4. Click the Compatibility tab and for Compatibility Mode check on the option that reads Run this program in compatibility mode for: Windows XP (Service Pack 2) or (Service Pack 3) if avaliable.
5. On that same page, click on the Privilege Level that reads Run this program as an Administrator and press OK.
6. Now, right-click on that same Setup application, and choose Run this program as an Administrator and the install process should proceed as expected. Follow the on-screen instructions to install and, if necessary, register the software and charts. However, at the conclusion of the process, you may be prompted to run the application (Chart Navigator, Offshore Navigator Lite, or Offshore Navigator) that was just installed.
Do NOT elect to start the application - yet.
7. On the Windows desktop, there will now appear an icon for the Maptech application that has just been installed (Chart Navigator, Offshore Navigator Lite, or Offshore Navigator) Right-click on this icon and choose Properties.
8. Click the Compatibility tab and for Privilege Levelcheck the option that reads Run this program as an administrator and press OK.
9. If the installed software is not already at v5.08,
follow the appropriate link below to update the software to it's latest version.
10. Finally, double-click on the Chart Navigator, Offshore Navigator Lite, or Offshore Navigator Desktop icon. The application will start and operate normally.
1. These software programs may not install on 64-bit Operating Systems.
The above steps are for 32-bit Vista or 32-bit Windows 7 computers.
2. This process assumes that Windows Vista and Windows 7 are not being used in a multi-user environment (where one PC has two or more accounts.) If this is the case, the install process must be repeated for each user that intends to access the Maptech navigation software.
3. Tide and Currents documents (containing the tables, not the dynamic graphs) as well as the Coast Pilot pages and Light Lists are in a ".hlp" format that has been discontinued by Microsoft.
Click here for a download to add .hlp compatibility to Microsoft Windows Vista.
Click here for a download to add .hlp compatibility to Microsoft Windows 7.
4. There are updates available for each type of Maptech Navigation application. If you have an older version, we highly recommend these free downloads
Offshore Navigator version 5.08
Offshore Navigator Lite version 5.08
Chart Navigator Viewer version 5.08
5. If required, Maptech makes the 5.08 software available on CD. Version 5.08e for Offshore Navigator that has been tested to install properly in Windows Vista and Windows 7, and automatically configures itself to operate in the required compatibility modes. If this CD is required, it may be purchased for $49.95 by calling 978-834-9950.
Related Technical Documents
BSB Chart Registration (for Windows Vista)


text:
Beyond the Books
To Get That Job Think Internships
Internships provide an important means of learning about a potential career before committing to the lifestyle change associated with pursing your choice. Students are the first to admit that internships are extremely important to understanding the demands of a career and the first step to getting your foot in the professional door.
Internships are designed to give realistic insight into the requirements of the career and how your life will look when you are employed in the career. Internships offer the perfect opportunity to see if that career fits within your current living conditions and lifestyle.
There is no better way to gain the confidence needed to succeed in the career world, than to get the chance to see and be a part of the workings of the company. Internships give the interns the chance to work in the career environments and to work with the professionals.
Internships allow college students a free trial if you will, to see if all of their hard work in their classes was for the right major or degree. Since full time internships generally do not take place until the junior or senior years of college, students may feel it is too late to change their career paths if they decided that the career is not right for them. Many colleges and degree programs have taken that thought into consideration and now many of them offer mini internships at different levels throughout the degree program. Many colleges with, for example, education programs offer two or three day internships throughout freshman year.
Internships are now required before graduating from many areas of study. In professions such as journalism, theater, teaching, and medical areas, internships are required to even pass college. While not all careers require internships, doing one can be the competitive edge you need to secure your dream job. Internships also look great in resumes, showing an employer that you already have the skills and experience necessary to do your job.
Studying out of college textbook or listening to a professor's lecture is one thing; applying that knowledge to real life situations is another. Internships allow you to put your money where your mouth is and prove that you have not only taken in what you learned, but you understood it. Internships also offer you the chance to learn beside professionals and get up to date information on new procedures and terminology that may not have made it to your textbooks yet. These professionals can become your social network and the more you talk to them the more you get the true information on the career, both the good and the bad without all the sugar coated fluff.
One of the most valuable things that you can gain from an internship is a job. Most companies use their interns as supplemental employees when job openings become available. Interns already now the job and what is required of them and will not need to be trained again. Employers use internships as a chance to work one on one with the interns and see if they have what it takes to be full time staff members. Since internships are usually not paying positions, the employee can use and you train you for a position free of charge and then add you to the payroll when you graduate.
Students that decide to do internships are making the best career decision possible. They are not only getting a taste of the job and experience, they are building a great resume and getting their foot in the professional door.
« Return to previous page
» Send to a friend
Share This


text:
The Oregon Bed and Breakfast Guild is committed to Sustainable Travel and we are encouraging our members to be "Certified Green" through the OBBG Green Certification Program. Not that we have to do too much coaxing. Most of our members already implement many "green" practices, like recycling and composting. But we don't stop there. We apply business practices that promote sustainability of our planet's natural resources such as using recycled paper, minimal use of disposables and using greener cleaning supplies and energy efficient lighting.
On the Oregon Bed and Breakfast Guild website's Green page you'll find information and details of the Green Certification Program and a list of those inns that have gone through the checklist to become certified. It really is such an easy thing to do, going Green and to provide Eco Friendly Travel. Visit the following Green Certified inns of the Oregon Bed and Breakfast Guild who proudly display the OBBG Green Certification Green Inspection Program logo on their website and begin your Sustainable Travel Vacation today.
- The Blue Plum Inn - Portland
- Forest Springs - Gresham
- Nob Hill Riverview - St. Helens
- Belle Pepper's - Joseph
- Sandlake County Inn - near Tillamook
- Old Parkdale Inn - Parkdale
- The Craftsman B&B - Pacific City
- Youngberg Hill Vineyards and Inn - McMinnville
- Arch Cape Inn and Retreat - Cannon Beach
- Yamhill Vineyards B&B - Yamhill
- WildSpring Guest Habitat - Port Orford
- Georgian House - Portland
- Villa Columbia B&B - Hood River
- Cest la vie Inn - Eugene
- Apple Inn B&B - Cottage Grove
- Hood River BnB - Hood River


text:
Articles Tagged 'Montauk Surfcasters'
The Run
It begins with a splash. The ocean's waters may ripple, and amidst the pounding Atlantic surf there is, at first, a delicate disturbance on the surface. In moments, though, the surface becomes a frothing scrum, with predators mercilessly slaughtering prey. There is a sound of a crowd, a massive swarm, cheering a game-winning touchdown pass. This is the result of a feeding frenzy. Thousands—perhaps millions—of animals fight for freedom or food in the dance of life and survival.


text:
Difference between revisions of "Governor of Idaho"
m (Text replace - 'None of Idaho's state executive officers face term limits.' to 'There are no term limits for this office. Out of all of Idaho's state executives, only the Idaho Controller faces term limits.')
(→Recent news)
|(16 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
|Line 1:
|Line 1:
{{SEO infobox
}}{{TOCnestright}}The '''Governor of the State of Idaho''' is an elected constitutional officer, the head of the executive branch, and the highest state office in Idaho. The governor is popularly elected every four years by a plurality and is limited to two terms.
==Current officeholder==
==Current officeholder==
The 32nd and current [[governor]] of [[Idaho]] is [[Republican]] [[Butch Otter]], first elected in November 2006 and returned to office in 2010. Otter's first term began on January 8, 2007, and his second term started on January 3, 2011. Otter will next come up for re-election in November 2014, and his second term will end on January 5, 2015.
The 32nd and current [[governor]] of [[Idaho]] is [[Republican]] [[Butch Otter]], first elected in November 2006 and returned to office in 2010. Otter's first term began on January 8, 2007, and his second term started on January 3, 2011. Otter will next come up for re-election in November 2014, and his second term will end on January 5, 2015.
|Line 46:
|Line 66:
There are no term limits for this office. Out of all of [[Idaho|Idaho's]] state executives, only the [[Idaho Controller]] faces term limits.
There are no term limits for this office. Out of all of [[Idaho|Idaho's]] state executives, only the [[Idaho Controller]] faces term limits.
|Line 91:
|Line 115:
*Serve Idaho, Governor's Commission on Service & Volunteerism
*Serve Idaho, Governor's Commission on Service & Volunteerism
*Office of Species Conservation<ref>[http://idaho.gov/government/executive.html ''Office of the Governor of Idaho'', "Executive," accessed September 28, 2011.]</ref>
*Office of Species Conservation<ref>[http://idaho.gov/government/executive.html ''Office of the Governor of Idaho'', "Executive," accessed September 28, 2011.]</ref>
the of .
==Contact information==
==Contact information==
|Line 110:
|Line 167:
==External links==
==External links==
*[http://gov.idaho.gov/ Office of the Governor of Idaho]
*[http://gov.idaho.gov/ Office of the Governor of Idaho]
Revision as of 09:00, 5 July 2013
|Idaho Governor
|General information
|Office Type:
|Office website:
|Official Link
|2013 FY Budget:
|Term limits:
|Length of term:
|4 years
|Idaho Constitution, Article IV, Section 5
|Selection Method:
|Current Officeholder
|Butch Otter
|Officeholder Party:
|Assumed office:
|January 1, 2007
|Next election:
|November 4, 2014
|Last election:
|November 2, 2010
|Other Idaho Executive Offices
|Governor • Lieutenant Governor • Secretary of State • Attorney General • Treasurer • Controller • Superintendent of Public Instruction • Agriculture Director • Insurance Director • Director of Lands • Labor Director • Public Utilities Commission
- 1 Current officeholder
- 2 Authority
- 3 Qualifications
- 4 Elections
- 5 Vacancies
- 6 Duties
- 7 Divisions
- 8 State budget
- 9 Compensation
- 10 History
- 11 Historical officeholders
- 12 Recent news
- 13 Contact information
- 14 See also
- 15 External links
- 16 References
As of May 2015, Idaho is one of 23 Republican state government trifectas.
Current officeholder
The 32nd and current governor of Idaho is Republican Butch Otter, first elected in November 2006 and returned to office in 2010. Otter's first term began on January 8, 2007, and his second term started on January 3, 2011. Otter will next come up for re-election in November 2014, and his second term will end on January 5, 2015.
Before becoming governor, Otter served three terms as a U.S. Representative for Idaho's 1st congressional district from 2001 to 2006, before which he served as the Lieutenant Governor of Idaho. Prior to entering public service, Otter served on the board of directors of the J.R. Simplot Company, a food processing and agricultural company, where he also worked as director of the food products division. He has also served as president of Simplot Livestock and Simplot International. Otter served in the Idaho Army National Guard from 1968 to 1973; after leaving the military and as he began his career in the private sector, he served two terms in the Idaho House of Representatives (1973-1976).[1]
The state constitution establishes the office of the governor in Article IV, the Executive Department.
Idaho Constitution, Article IV, Section 5
The supreme executive power of the state is vested in the governor, who shall see that the laws are faithfully executed.
|Current Governors
|Gubernatorial Elections
|2015 • 2014 • 2013 • 2012 • 2011 • 2010
|Current Lt. Governors
|Lt. Governor Elections
|2015 • 2014 • 2013 • 2012 • 2011 • 2010
|Breaking news
Per Article IV, Section 3 of the Idaho Constitution, a candidate for governor is required to be:
- at least thirty-years old
- a United States citizen
- a resident of Idaho at least two years prior to the election
Idaho Constitution, Article IV, Section 3
No person shall be eligible to the office of governor or lieutenant governor unless he shall have attained the age of thirty years at the time of his election; ... In addition to the qualifications above described each of the officers named shall be a citizen of the United States and shall have resided within the state or territory two years next preceding his election.
- See also: Gubernatorial election cycles by state
- See also: Election of governors
Idaho elects governors to four year terms in federal midterm election years, that is, even years that are not presidential election years. Thus, 2006, 2010, 2014, and 2018 are all gubernatorial election years. The gubernatorial inauguration is always set for the first Monday in the January following an election. Thus, January 3, 2011 and January 5, 2015 are inaugural days.
If two candidates ever tie in the general election, a joint session of the legislature chooses the winner by a majority vote.
Term limits
- See also: States with gubernatorial term limits
There are no term limits for this office. Out of all of Idaho's state executives, only the Idaho Controller faces term limits.
Partisan composition
The chart below shows the partisan breakdown of Idaho State Governors from 1992-2013.
- See also: How gubernatorial vacancies are filled
Details of vacancies are addressed under Article IV, Sections 12 and 14 of the Idaho Constitution.
The powers of the governor devolve to the Lieutenant Governor of Idaho any time the Governor is unable or unwilling to discharge the office, or has been removed from the office. In such instances, the lieutenant governor exercises the office of governor either until the latter can resume the office or until the next gubernatorial election.
Additionally, under Section 14, if the offices of both governor and lieutenant governor are vacant, the office of governor passes first to the President Pro Tem of the Idaho Senate and next the Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives.
The governor is responsible for upholding the Idaho Constitution, executing state law and recommending a state budget to the legislature. He is also the commander of the Idaho militia at all times when the state's military forces have not already been called into service by the federal government.
The governor may fill vacancies in any state executive office, including other constitutional offices, when the law does not otherwise provide the manner for filling a vacancy. If the Senate, whose confirmation is required, is in recess, the appointment stands until the Senate reconvenes.
During special circumstances the governor can call for special sessions of the legislature. The governor has the power to veto bills, including appropriations, but must list his objections. The legislature can override a veto by a two-thirds vote of each chamber. In Idaho the governor also serves as the President of the Board of Examiners and Chairman of the Board of Land Commissioners and appoints department heads and members of boards and commissions.
Other duties and privileges of the office include:
- Granting pardons and reprieves when the legislatively controlled Board of Pardons is not in session, not to be permanent until the Board sits again. Regarding convictions for treason, the Governor may only stay the sentence pending legislative review.
- Requiring reports, made under oath, from state officials and managers of state institutions, on any aspects of their jobs.
- Making a 'State of the State' address to the General Assembly at the beginning of each session, including recommendation on prudent courses of action for the state and, somewhat unique among the constitutionally mandated aspect of such addresses, an estimate of the tax revenue the state will require for the coming year.
- Convening extraordinary sessions of the Senate to conduct specific Executive business.
- Authorizing and signing all commissions and grants made by the state of Idaho.
- Idaho Commission on Aging
- Idaho Commission on the Arts
- Commission for the Blind & Visually Impaired
- Idaho Office of Drug Policy
- Office of Energy Resources
- Financial Management
- Human Resources
- Idaho Commission on Human Rights
- Liquor
- Military
- Northwest Power and Conservation Council
- Public Employee Retirement System
- Serve Idaho, Governor's Commission on Service & Volunteerism
- Office of Species Conservation[2]
State budget
The budget for the Office of the Governor in Fiscal Year 2013 was $128,831,800.[3]
Originally, Section 19 of Article IV addressed the compensation of Executive officers, a section that has been since repealed.
In 2013, the governor's salary was $117,000.[4]
In 2012, the Idaho Governor was paid an estimated $115,348. This figure comes from the Council of State Governments.
Partisan balance 1992-2013
From 1992-2013, Idaho had Democratic governors in office for the first three years while there were Republican governors in office for the last 19 years. Idaho is one of eight states that were run by a Republican governor for more than 80 percent of the years between 1992-2013. Idaho spent the last 19 years under Republican trifectas.
Across the country, there were 493 years of Democratic governors (44.82%) and 586 years of Republican governors (53.27%) from 1992-2013.
Over the course of the 22-year study, state governments became increasingly more partisan. At the outset of the study period (1992), 18 of the 49 states with partisan legislatures had single-party trifectas and 31 states had divided governments. In 2013, only 13 states have divided governments, while single-party trifectas held sway in 36 states, the most in the 22 years studied.
The chart below shows the partisan composition of the Office of the Governor of Idaho, the Idaho State Senate and the Idaho House of Representatives from 1992-2013.
Historical officeholders
Note: Ballotpedia's state executive officials project researches state official websites for chronological lists of historical officeholders. That information for the Governor of Idaho has not yet been added because the information was unavailable on the relevant state official websites, or we are currently in the process of formatting the list for this office. If you have any additional information about this office for inclusion on this section and/or page, please email us.
Recent news
This section displays the most recent stories in a google news search for the term Idaho + Governor
- All stories may not be relevant to this page due to the nature of the search engine.
- Loading...
Contact information
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720
See also
External links
- ↑ Office of the Governor of Idaho, "About Governor C.L. 'Butch' Otter," accessed September 28, 2011.
- ↑ Office of the Governor of Idaho, "Executive," accessed September 28, 2011.
- ↑ Budget Publications, "State of Idaho 2012 Legislative Fiscal Report for Fiscal Year 2013," 6.27, accessed June 20, 2013.
- ↑ Council of State Governments, "CSG Releases 2013 Governor Salaries," June 25, 2013
State of Idaho
Boise (capital)
|Ballot measures
List of Idaho ballot measures | Local measures | School bond issues | Ballot measure laws | Initiative laws | History of I&R | Campaign Finance Requirements | Recall process |
Idaho State Constitution | House of Representatives | Senate | Legislative Services Office | Legislative Audits Division Manager |
|State executive officers
Governor | Lieutenant Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Controller | Treasurer | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Director of Insurance | Director of Agriculture | Director of Lands | Director of Labor | Public Utilities Commission |
|School boards
Idaho Supreme Court | Court of Appeals | District Courts | Magistrate Division | Judicial selection in Idaho |
|Transparency Topics
Public Records Act | Transparency Advocates | State budget | Taxpayer-funded lobbying associations |
State |
List of Counties |
List of Cities |
List of School Districts |


text:
If you'd rather not use the built-in PDF Viewer, you can use another PDF viewer like Adobe Reader, Nitro PDF Reader or Sumatra PDFAdobe Reader, MozPlugger, or KParts pluginthe Mac OS Preview application or the Schubert|it PDF Browser Plugin.
To switch from the built-in PDF viewer to another PDF viewer:
At the top of the Firefox window, click on the button and then select .At the top of the Firefox window, click on the menu and then select .On the menu bar, click on the menu and select .At the top of the Firefox window, click on the menu and select .
Click the menu button and choose . .
- Select the panel.
- Find Portable Document Format (PDF) in the list and click on it to select it.
- Click on the drop-down arrow in the Action column for the above entry and select the PDF viewer you wish to use.
Note: If you want to view PDF files in Firefox using a plugin, instead of in an external PDF reader application, select Use PDF reader name (in Firefox).
Click to close the Options window.Click to close the Preferences window.Close the Preferences window. Close the about:preferences page. Any changes you've made will automatically be saved.
Share this article: http://mzl.la/1xKv1eW


text:
Get tacky.
The polyurethane/EVA foam sandwich construction of Arundel's Gecko Bar Tape isn't terribly revolutionary, but the low-profile, rubbery grip of its surface would certainly inspire a few political agitators. The tape is right around 2mm at its fattest, tapering toward the edges so it goes on thin and evenly. Its dimpled surface provides a confident, tacky grip — even in wet conditions — and resists abrasion and dirt better than traditional cork.
Tech Specs
Reviews & Community
What do you think of the
Arundel Gecko Bar Tape
? Share a...
Disappointed in a couple of ways
- Gender: Male
- Familiarity: I've put it through the wringer
The bar tape was difficult to install compared to more flexible cork alternatives. It is less flexible, and re-wrapping it to fix irregularities started to break the tape (cannot be re-wrapped after some use). Though I got it close to perfect, the tape shifted and opened new gaps after a few weeks. The tape itself looks good, but it's challenging to tape it nicely and have it stay that way. Disappointed.
While in use, I like how the tape feels for regular riding. However if you ride without gloves and do long rides, the tape is quite uncomfortable compared to cork alternatives such as Sram Supercork. I also don't like it as much as Pro Digital Smart Silicon Bar Tape.
Andrew G.
So far pretty good
- Familiarity: I've used it several times
I have now purchased and installed two rolls of the white Gecko tape. I have had mixed experiences with the double sided backing tape, the first roll having no issue and the second roll the backing tape separating from the bar tape as I tried to remove the cover. I was able to gently push it back on the bar tape and apply without issue, but something to be aware of.
I have not installed the Lizard Skins, so I cannot give a relative review. That said, I find the tape to be tacky enough and provide adequate cushioning (I ride with gloves) for my purposes. While the white does not stay pristine, I would not expect it to, contributing to the attractiveness of the price-- I feel less guilty replacing more often.
- Familiarity: I've used it once or twice and have initial impressions
I had high hopes for this, as I love Arundel cages. I might have had a defective batch, but there was no adhesive backing on most of the tape--so it shifts under pressure and is beginning to bunch up on the bar. I'm guessing I'll have to change it out very soon.
Nice feel
- Familiarity: I've used it several times
Nice tape for the price. I was able to install it on my own without difficulties. I haven't tried it out on long rides yet but it performs well around town.
Kind of impressed
- Familiarity: I've put it through the wringer
I normally used lizard skins but i needed to quickly switch some cables, had to cut the bar tape and this was the only tape my shop had on hand that day. Not as comfortable as lizardskins or as tacky in wet conditions but it has amazing life. I put this on in April and ride around 15 hours each week, it has still not started to fray or degrade. Color is still pretty good and holds up well to sweat. For the price it's good bar tape that will last.
Pure Crap
- Familiarity: I've used it once or twice and have initial impressions
I either got a bad package, or other reviewers are much more adept at installing. When I installed the first side, the adhesive peeled off the tape when I pulled off the the backing paper.... got around it by using the park tool electrical tape trick (wrap electrical tape inside out, bar tape sticks to that). Both sides have little bubbles/lumps, material does not seem very pliable or flexible. Basically a pain in the butt to install. I have used deda tape (usually wrap 3-4 bars a year between cross and road bike) and never had an issue.... Will see how it holds up.
Mike B
Tacky, grippy, durable
- Familiarity: I've put it through the wringer
Great stuff. Very durable. Requires some subtle English when you're installing the tape, but each bar tape has its own necessary tension to make it just right. It is around 1/2 the price of the Lizzard Skins similar product and just as good, IMO.
Good Stuff Maynard!
- Familiarity: I've put it through the wringer
I use this tape almost exclusively (the White). I have tried, and continue to explore other tapes, but I always come back to this one. The price is right. And I strongly disagree with another reviewer who stated that this tape is 'not very durable'. Perhaps he/she was speaking of the cork variety? (which I have not tried) This handlebar tape is very durable in my experience. I use the White almost exclusively. As with all whites it does pick up dirt. It cleans up ok. Personally, I am one of those that would prefer to have dirty white handlebar tape than a clean "looking" darker color (they are just as dirty, just not as obvious). The feel of the tape is rubbery; not too slick, not too sticky. To me this tape's value point is extremely high.
Finally, I mentioned that I try other tapes. It's less about the Gecko tape and more about just seeing what's out there - but here's what I am seeking:
- A white tape that never gets dirty, or that cleans up to near-original form easily. (this is not the Gecko - or any other tape that I have come across. However, the Fizik white comes closest in this department).
- A tape that has the right about of tack to it; not too slippery nor too sticky (I think the Gecko is perfect in this area)
- A tape that offers me the right amount of cushion (for me). (The Gecko could be a little more cushiony for my taste, but it's not bad where it is)
- And finally, I seek out other tapes as I have been trying to find one with a green that matches the green highlights on my bike.
In the end, I am very happy with this tape and highly recommend you try it if you have not.
JT Metzger
Very nice
- Familiarity: I've used it several times
I would rank this tape with Lizard Skin for less than 1/2 the price. Great stuff.
Andrew T
Great cushion, soft grip
- Familiarity: I've used it several times
I have used almost every tape out there, and seem to always revert to cork tape. I like the ease of wrapping it, the amount of cushion, and like that the cost is low enough that I dont get too bummed when I have to buy new tape when it wears out. My go to is almost always the Arundel cork, so I figured I'd give this gecko tape a swing. Initial impressions are good; it wrapped with ease, but seems even a little more padded than the cork. I'm not typically one who seeks out thick bar tape, and I like that this provides noticeably more padding than most fizik tapes without the added bulk of some of the thicker Lizardskins tape. Time will tell about the durability, but chances are I'll just pick up another sub- $20 roll of arundel and move on with my life.
Not bad for the price
- Familiarity: I've put it through the wringer
Not very durable and I am wondering about the whole sticky thing. Do you need sticky bar tape? I ride in the rain with the Fizik Glossy tape and have never felt my hand slip. Maybe because I wear gloves?
Durability of the Arundael tape is not high.
James Pramick
does its job
- Familiarity: I've put it through the wringer
does its job
- Familiarity: I've used it several times
You would figure "tape is tape" but this stuff is pretty nice. The install was pretty easy but the feel of it is wicked nice (I'm from the New England where wicked is an adjective). The tape is not too bulky and has a good solid feel. I used it on my aerobars and ended up using the cloth medical tape to secure the end and haven't had any issues
Wayne Christoffersen
Gecko Bar tape is 30mm wide x 220cm long.
Michael Machnicki
Angus Bohanon
Well I can see where it is not listed to be a question but a simple search on the internet would have produced that answer.................hey, we live in the informational tech society.......use those search engines!
What about the thickness? I'm looking for somethings at least 2mm thick.
The good stuff
- Familiarity: I've put it through the wringer
Grippy but not sticky. Comfortable but not pillowy. Lasts a full season (barring the "C**SH" word)" My favorite tape!
Dane Uriona
Soft and affordable
Soft poofy feel, like new car smell for a bike. Pretty standard as bar tape goes. Haven't had a chance to see feel it in the rain. I'm regretting not getting the furry black version, tight pants and black fur are such a good combo.
Mike Nelson
Fur Black for Stealth.
- Gender: Male
- Familiarity: I've used it several times
I just put the fur black on, and am liking it so far. It has a dry-feeling microsuede surface, a lot like Fizik's Dual tape, but in a more unterstated package. Be sure to check out Arundel's instructions on the back of the box. If you have wrapped very many bars, they will make you laugh.
Sunn Kim
This handle bar tape is quite easy to apply, comfortable, and quite durable. For those who don't know how to apply handle bar tape correctly, this video was quite helpful.


text:
McCormack and Barbosa Land on NSCAA All-Southeast Region Teams
December 10, 2009
MISENHEIMER, N.C. – The National Soccer Coaches Association of America (NSCAA) has named Pfeiffer University soccer players Sara McCormack (Charlotte, NC) and Renato Barbosa (Charlotte, NC) as representatives on the all-southeast region teams for 2009. McCormack represents the Lady Falcons on the all-region second-team while Barbosa landed on the region's third-team.
McCormack started all 19 matches this season on defense, playing in all but 49 minutes of the Lady Falcons 1,840. McCormack assisted Pfeiffer to post five shutouts during the regular season helping out a midseason, seven-match win streak by only allowing four goals in that stretch. The junior defender will look to anchor the Lady Falcons defense during her senior season in the fall of 2010.
Barbosa, a senior midfielder, scored six goals and seven assists during a 13-5 year for the Falcons that included a pair of home shutouts against #11 Anderson, 2-0, and #1 Lees-McRae 1-0. Barbosa netted the insurance goal against Anderson to start a three-match goal scoring streak halfway through the season. On four different occasions, Barbosa paced the Falcons with a goal and an assist in a single match, leading the team with seven assists on the year.


text:
Enlarge / Alternate Images
Great lotion and we love it
This cream is very thin and doesn't seem to go as far as others. I have used. I live in a very dry climate and it soaks in pretty fast compared to other creams. However, it smell really good and clients seem to like it!
This is a great product and when it is on sale its a great buy
I have used soothing touch products since I had gotten out of massage school I love it. Never had a problem and all my clients want to know what I am using
Love this cream! Surpasses all others I have used, including those priced higher.
Requires half the amount of cream for a full body massage. A+++
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires that MSDS be available to employees for potentially harmful substances handled in the workplace under the Hazard Communication regulation.
Material Safety Data Sheet


text:
Opportunities Fund for Persons with Disabilities
If you are a person with a disability, you could receive financial assistance for training to start a business and for living expenses while you learn.
As an individual, you should:
- Have a permanent physical or mental disability
- Be unemployed or work less than 20 hours a week
- Be a Canadian citizen or landed immigrant
- Be unable to receive benefits
If you're an employer, you could get a wage subsidy to hire someone with a disability. Before proceeding with the project, you are required to get approval.
Funding may not be available in all regions.
- Date modified:


text:
This John Deere 4650 Mfd Hub & Parts comes with a 2 Year Parts Warranty.
For an additional
would you like to add a
2 Year Labor Warranty
to your order?
* For the month of May purchase a labor warranty for 15% of the cost of your parts.
Normal retail price is 25% off the cost of your parts.
Labor Warranty covers replacement of defective part(s) using OEM Flat Rate Guide hours at $75 per hour.


text:
GRAND PRAIRIE - The animals at Prairie Paws Animal Shelter are geared up and ready to play ball! To celebrate Major League Baseball's opening day, dogs and kittens will be $25, and cats 1-year-old and older will be free from March 29 to April 5. Regular price adoptions are $70. Wear your MLB gear and get a free dog toy and swag bag!
The adoption fee includes a $50 spay or neuter voucher for pets that are not yet sterilized. All animals will be micro-chipped and will receive 5-in-1 and kennel cough vaccinations for dogs and the 3-in-1 FVRCP vaccination for cats. All adult dogs will be heartworm tested. Those wishing to adopt must complete an application and be approved before receiving their pets, and they must provide proof of rabies vaccine and spay or neuter within 30 days of the adoption. Up to two pets per household may be adopted. This offer is valid only for new adoptions.
The Prairie Paws Animal Shelter operating hours are: Tuesday-Friday: 10 a.m.-6 p.m.Saturday: 10 a.m.-5 p.m. (closed noon-1 p.m.)
For more information call 972-237-8575.
City of Grand Prairie, 317 College St., Grand Prairie, Texas 75050 | Tel: 972-237-8000 | Site Map | Raving Fans
©2012 City of Grand Prairie. All Rights Reserved | Website Created by Vision Internet


text:
Grommet Twill Tape Sham
Taking its inspiration from a boat's sail, our crisp cotton duvet cover features two twill-tape stripes punctuated by industrial metal grommets.
- 100% cotton
- Cotton twill tape in natural with metal grommets in matte silver
- Duvet cover features inside ties and hidden-button closures
- Sham is finished with an envelope closure
- Imported
- Machine wash
- In navy or charcoal
- View bedding dimensions
Shown in navy.
Grommet Twill Tape Sham
Celebrate someone special. Add an initial, name or date to personalize gifts, apparel, bedding and decorative accents. Choose from our assortment of colors, fonts and styles to customize your selection with one-of-a-kind character.
- Beautifully embroidered in your choice of 22 thread colors, each with a matte finish
- Personalization is centered on the sham
- Size and shape of embroidery designs have been thoughtfully considered by our design team to best complement the product
- Monogrammed/Personalized items are considered custom order items and are non-cancellable, non-returnable and non-refundable
- An additional fee of $7 per item will be charged unless otherwise noted
Grommet Twill Tape Sham
Grommet Twill Tape Duvet Cover
$139 - $169
Featherblend Pillow Inserts
$16 - $34
European Down Duvet
$105 - $299
Down Free Duvet
$59 - $159


text:
Claim you profile
In order to claim your profile, we need to send an email to the email address you used when you created your SkillPages account. This will contain a unique link to claim your profile. We have sent the email to:
If you don't have access to this email account then please contact the Bark.com team.
Blerina Islamaj
London, London, City of, UK
Is this your profile?
If this is your profile, then you can claim it now and log into your account.
We will need to verify your account and email address before you can log in. To claim your profile now, please use the 'Claim Profile' button below.
Skillpages has been acquired by Bark.com!
Bark.com is pioneering the way people find local services. Skillpages is the world's premier directory of service providers.Find out more


text:
The Lions are heroes again after beating a Bok B-side that was a disgrace to the jersey, writes Keo in his Business Day newspaper column.
If the celebration of the supposed heroes who lost a meaningful series-deciding Test in Pretoria two Saturdays ago defied belief, it does not compare with the response to the British and Irish Lions defeat of a Springbok side in which 10 regulars were rested.
Some, among the British and Irish, called Saturday's dead rubber a great occasion. Others called it one of the greatest victories in Lions history and pondered what may have been if the Lions had not arrived in Johannesburg with the series already lost.
It is why the British, and to a lesser degree Irish, win nothing of relevance. They are the kings of the afterthought, the masters of the dead rubber and they will forever remain disciples of the delusional.
In all of the emotional outpouring of an after the fact Test win, there was no criticism of Lions coach Ian McGeechan's poor selections for the first two lost Tests. McGeechan picked the wrong lock combination in the first Test, selected the wrong front row combination and never got it right all tour with his back three combinations.
Not that it mattered because the Lions get on the plane heroes for winning one out of three Tests. It is the British and Irish way to applaud finishing second in a two-team race.
South Africa, in Johannesburg on Saturday, were a disgrace to the jersey a disgrace that started with a white armband protest against Bakkies Botha's two-week suspension and ended after 80 minutes of clueless and ill-disciplined rugby.
The build-up to the Test was a shambles with Bok coach Peter de Villiers spending all week mixing his metaphors, defending eye-gouging and telling the media that he changed his mind four or five times before settling on a Springbok B team because he wanted to give every player in his squad the feeling they had made a contribution to the Lions series.
Test rugby, to De Villiers, is obviously a charity in which you hand out jerseys instead of asking players to earn the right to wear them. After all De Villiers was gifted the job in the name of transformation.
De Villiers has been riding on the coattail of the 2007 World Cup winning squad and Saturday's team selection and approach to the game was the first example of a Peter de Villiers selected and coached team. The result was a 19-point defeat in Johannesburg; and the Boks were lucky it wasn't close to 30.
The De Villiers philosophy of not coaching off a clipboard and just playing the situation as the players see it does not even work on the club fields of his hometown in Paarl, let alone in a Test match environment. De Villiers, on Saturday, showed us that it is not only at press conferences where he plays the part of the court jester.
De Villiers's insecurity has meant that he has always wanted to dismantle White's World Cup winners and on Saturday he used his chance to introduce his breed of player and ineffective style of play.
It was a disaster because of the naivety of the approach and the arrogance of believing, that at this level, a team can play laterally without getting go forward and expect to be successful. It serves no purpose to take the ball to the wingers when they get it 20m behind the gain line while back-pedaling.
The scrum and lineout are the primary phases and in the scrums De Villiers got it wrong by pairing loosehead prop Beast Mtwarira with hooker Chiliboy Ralepelle, with the latter not having the grunt or grind of Bismarck du Plessis. It was no coincidence that when Du Plessis entered the arena English tighthead prop Phil Vickery left two scrums later and Mtwarira again looked more the Beast of Durban than the Bunny of the first half in Johannesburg.
Rugby selection is about getting the combinations right, settling on a structure that works for those players and then allowing them freedom of expression within that framework. Once that has been agreed the player's mindset must kick in.
On Saturday there was no structure, few match-winning combinations and a player mindset that confused the wearing of a white armband with the waving of a white flag to signal the end of Jake White's World Cup winning team.
Black armbands for South African rugby lovers would have been more appropriate of an occasion that should be mourned and not celebrated.


text:
Why Character Matters
by Cathleen Falsani | June 2010
Virtue is the road map for answering the question, How are we to live?
Christianity promises, by grace and through faith, that believers will spend eternity with God, in paradise. But many of us believers have become so obsessed with who gets into heaven—and who doesn't—and how, that we have missed a central question of the gospel: How are we to live this life, here and now?


text:
Nov 04
Posted by: heather on Nov 04, 2011
Tagged in: Events
If you missed last week's "Lego-Rama!":
We had three participants in the 4-8 age group, six participants in the 9-12 age group, and three adult participants. The People's Choice prize went to Keegan Haag, age 7, for his Lego project called "Head factory."
A few Lego projects will be on display at the library for one week.
Fun was had by all and refreshments followed the judging. And if you enjoyed "Lego-Rama!," you're in luck: there will be a Lego event on the first Friday of each month beginning January 6th, 2012! The Lego event would be from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m.
Thank you to our judges: Donna Helsius, Aimee Rosenberg, Dale Slack, and Bonnie Williams.


text:
Spotlight: Member Stories
My name is Deb. I have two young children, one with severe milk allergy, the other with peanut allergy. My DH is gluten-free. Want to come over for di...More
More Members
Helpful Tips
Chewy Flourless chocolate cookies Gluten Free
from a supplement in my local paper these cookies are gluten-free 1 3/4 Cups powdered sugar 1/2 cup Dutch processed Cocoa 2 t cornstarch ... More
Thank you for voting!
17 of 37 found this helpful
- Recipe: Vegan fruity oatmeal bars
- Milk - and egg- free chocolate cake
- At least we have Bread Machines!
Helpful Resources
Related News
Related Drug Reviews
- Drug Name User Reviews
Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA
You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.


text:
donepezil - oral, Aricept
GENERIC NAME: DONEPEZIL - ORAL (doh-NEP-eh-zil)
BRAND NAME(S): Aricept
Medication Uses | How To Use | Side Effects | Precautions | Drug Interactions | Overdose | Notes | Missed Dose | Storage
USES: Donepezil is used to treat confusion (dementia) related to Alzheimer's disease. It does not cure Alzheimer's disease, but it may improve memory, awareness, and the ability to function. This medication is an enzyme blocker that works by restoring the balance of natural substances (neurotransmitters) in the brain.
HOW TO USE: Read the Patient Information Leaflet if available from your pharmacist before you start taking donepezil and each time you get a refill. If you have any questions, ask your doctor or pharmacist.Take this medication by mouth with or without food as directed by your doctor, usually once daily just before bedtime. If you experience sleep problems (insomnia), talk to your doctor about switching to a morning dose.If you are taking the 23-milligram strength tablets, swallow them whole. Do not split, crush, or chew these tablets. Doing so can increase the risk of side effects.Dosage is based on your medical condition and response to treatment. To reduce your risk of side effects (such as nausea and diarrhea), your doctor will start this medication at a low dose and gradually increase your dose over weeks to months. Follow your doctor's instructions carefully. Do not increase your dose or use this drug more often than prescribed.If you do not take donepezil for 7 or more days in row, talk with your doctor before starting again. You may need to start at a lower dose to decrease the risk of side effects.Use this medication regularly in order to get the most benefit from it. To help you remember, take it at the same time each day. Do not stop taking it unless your doctor instructs you to do so. It may take a several weeks before you get the full benefit of this drug.Tell your doctor if your condition worsens.
Report Problems to the Food and Drug Administration
You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.
Need help identifying pills and medications?
Back to Medications Index


text:
OXFORD, Ohio -- Matt Honchel went 2-for-4 with two runs batted in and four others added a pair of hits to lift the White team to a 4-1 win Saturday afternoon in the finale of the annual Red and White intrasquad series. The Red team had already clinched the title by winning games Thursday and Friday.
Sophomore Austin Rooke had a triple among his two hits, while Alex Johnson and Max Andressen each doubled and singled. Alex Brown was effective in his start, allowing just one run in three innings. He struck out three. Tyler Simmons pitched three shutout innings in relief.
For the Red team, Julian Flannery and Matt Packer both singled twice. Seth Varner allowed just one run in three innings on the mound.
The series concludes the official portion of the fall practice schedule. The RedHawks open the 2013 season Feb. 15 against Michigan State in Greenville, S.C.