text:
Female Clergy Support Group Hosts Inaugural Legend's Ball
Pomp and circumstance were certainly in order Friday night as the Female Clergy Support Group of Maryland (FCSG) held their inaugural Legend's Ball, honoring women who have made significant impact through their leadership.
Put together with the help of Sisters in Ministry (SIM), an interdenominational faith-based group for ladies, honorees were each recognized for their work in and outside of church walls both locally and internationally.
Attendees got in-depth looks at each woman via three to four minute videos that played before each legend gave remarks and accepted an award for work in specific areas.
"I was humbled, and I was honored to even be considered a 'legend,'" Bishop Bertha Greene, 75, told the AFRO, after receiving her award at the organization's premier gala.
"When I got the call, I was surprised. I wasn't expecting it," she said.
The pastor of Baltimore's Sacred Zion Full Gospel Baptist Church was selected for her direction within the state's Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship (FGBCF). She has been state bishop since June 2011.
Past contributions, aside from founding Sacred Zion in 1996, include 11 years as Chairwoman of Project ARISE (Abstinence, Remembering, Instilling Pride, Self-Worth, and Education), a church organization funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to promote HIV/AIDS awareness.
The Vaughan, N.C. native also helped organize the Maryland National Black Leadership Commission on AIDS, and became an author in 2008 with the release of her autobiography "From the Cradle to the Pulpit."
Greene was raised on a farm owned by her Clanton family and said that she hopes that holding up positive examples of women in ministry will encourage others in their own faith walk.
"God wants to use women in ministry," she said. "And it's important to understand the importance of knowing that God has a calling for women ministers."
The Female Clergy Support Group of Maryland was introduced at the beginning of the year as an answer to women in need of proper training and upright mentors within the faith community to guide, lead, and promote them to their best selves both spiritually, mentally, and physically in their every day lives.
Along with Greene, two other bishops were acknowledged, including Bishop Joan B. Sanders, leader of El-Bethel Prayer Tabernacle for more than three decades.
Dr. Minnie Washington, Leah White, and Ann Lightner-Fuller, the first woman to serve as president of the Baltimore AME Ministerial Alliance in 1992, were also recognized along with Rev. Cecelia W. Bryant, supervisor of the Fourth Episcopal District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church.
Dr. Patricia Pender, an associate elder at the Beth-El Temple Church of Christ and manager of the Home Schooling Department for Baltimore City Public Schools, took to the stage along with Dr. Leslie Barnett-Davis, who enlivened the crowd with her testimony of surviving a heart attack and multiple sclerosis.
Members of Love Alive Ministries also saw their leader, Dr. Goldia Demory Wright, recognized for her vision and strength as a woman in ministry.
Two of the even dozen, Lady Weptonomah Carter of New Shiloh Baptist Church and Dr. Marie Antoinette Phillips, were posthumously honored. Highlights of Carter's work included the founding of schools in Port au Prince, Haiti and Kenya, Africa to educate children, and the Progressive Shiloh Workers, who raised funds for students headed to college.
The event was held inside the Calvin and Tina Tyler Ballroom on the campus of Morgan State University, in front of a crowd that ranged from lay members of local churches to national faith leaders.
"It really was a tremendous honor and encouragement- especially hearing the stories of the other sisters," said Bishop Vashti Murphy McKenzie, the 117th bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church to be elected.
McKenzie currently serves as prelate over the 10th Episcopal District, but has found time to complete four books, and serve on the Advisory Council of the White House Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships in 2009.
"We're all intertwined, and all of our lives kind of mesh together-one after the other," she said, of the others "who have done extraordinary work in the Lord."
"Women in ministry are not encouraged in this way a lot so to have a night like this, with a ball setting, where we all get all dressed up and come out is just really wonderful," said McKenzie, who was impressed by the inaugural event and said she can't imagine what future endeavors will look like.
Liturgical dancers from Set the Captives Free Dance Ministry and vocal selections were a part of the full-scale event hosted by Lady Marlaa' Reid of Bethel AME Church and directed by FCSG founder and leader, Dr. Karen S. Bethea, who is also pastor of Set the Captives Free Outreach Center.
More than 200 gathered for the event that lasted well into the night complete with a catered food, gifts for attendees, live music, and vendors pushing everything from hats and purses to suits.
It seemed that everyone present had come out to support and bear witness to the open recognition of a woman or two they, at some point, made a personal connection with.
"I sat under Dr. Ann Lightner-Fuller when I was a young girl of 13," said Anitra L. Harris- McKnight, 37.
"When someone teaches you how to be a woman- and a woman for Christ- you have to honor that," said the Baltimore native and current member of Calvary Baptist Church on Garrison Blvd.
"I have been blessed by the ministries of some of the other ladies, such as Dr. Vashti McKenzie, who has ministered many times to me at different locations.
One of the things that stuck out was that she was always poised, as was Dr. Lightner-Fuller, when preaching. They brought a tone of femininity to the pulpit and did it always to honor God."
856 total views, 1 views today


text:
Testimony :: The Honorable James Gurule
Under Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement -
Chairman Campbell, Co-chairman Smith, Ranking Member Hoyer, and Members of the Commission, I am privileged to be here today to discuss the Treasury Department's efforts in combating terrorist financing and ways in which the Department can work more closely with this Commission and the Member States of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
This is my first appearance before the Helsinki Commission since being confirmed as the Treasury Department's Under Secretary for Enforcement. The Commission has played a crucial role since 1976 in monitoring and encouraging compliance with the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE documents. Therefore, it is a special honor for me to be here today.
My testimony today will focus on three areas: 1) an overview of Treasury Enforcement; 2) the Treasury Department's counter terrorist financing activities; and 3) the contributions of OSCE Member States in the war against terrorist financing and ways in which the Treasury Department and OSCE can coordinate more closely in this global financial battle.
Treasury Enforcement Overview
The mission of Treasury law enforcement is uniquely suited to combating terrorist financing, as well as to playing a leading role in homeland security efforts -- from protecting the Nation's borders to protecting its leaders, to ensuring the integrity of our financial institutions and critical infrastructures. Treasury Enforcement comprises approximately 40 percent of Federal law enforcement, with a budget of $5.3 billion and more than 31,000 dedicated men and women who quietly and selflessly serve their country every day -- often at great personal peril and sacrifice.
The Office of Enforcement oversees and provides policy guidance to five bureaus, and includes the Office of Foreign Assets Control and the Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture. I take this opportunity to highlight for the Helsinki Commission the roles and missions of the Treasury law enforcement bureaus and offices.
U.S. Secret Service
The U.S. Secret Service protects the Nation's top leaders, combats financial fraud, protects the integrity of the financial systems against cyberattacks, and leads the effort to ensure the safety of thousands of citizens participating in designated National Special Security Events (NSSEs). We have seen the stellar work of the Secret Service in providing security for two recent NSSEs – the Super Bowl and the Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City.
U.S. Customs Service
The Customs Service is the vanguard agency in protecting the country against weapons of mass destruction as it monitors travelers and cargo crossing the northern and southern borders and through the Nation's seaports and airports. Customs also is the second largest source of revenue for the U.S. Government.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms has developed the most respected program in the world for detection of explosives and accelerants. This expertise is vital in our war on terrorism, in which explosives are the terrorists' weapon of choice.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) conducts the training for the vast majority of the Federal Government's law enforcement personnel. FLETC is projecting the greatest increase in training requirements in its history as it responds in full measure to the
September 11th attacks.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network supports law enforcement investigative efforts to enforce the Bank Secrecy Act, combat money laundering and other financial crimes, and implement its new responsibilities under the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. On November 7, 2001, President Bush, Treasury Secretary O'Neill, Secretary of State Powell and Attorney General Ashcroft visited the FinCEN offices. At that time, the President stated: "We put the world's financial institutions on notice: if you do business with terrorists, if you support them or sponsor them, you will not do business with the United States of America." FinCEN plays a critical role in this effort and will continue to provide this invaluable service to our Nation.
IRS Criminal Investigation
While the Office of the Under Secretary for Enforcement does not have direct oversight authority over IRS-Criminal Investigation, we do provide policy guidance for IRS-CI criminal investigators. These investigators offer a unique blend of accounting and enforcement expertise that is invaluable in perfecting complex financial investigations, including cases involving leaders and members of extremist groups who have committed tax, money laundering, or currency violations and individuals engaged in fundraising activities to support terrorism, especially if tax exempt organizations are being used.
Office of Foreign Assets Control
The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), an office within the Office of Treasury Enforcement, administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions against targeted foreign countries, terrorism sponsoring organizations and international narcotics traffickers based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals. OFAC plays a key role on the inter-agency working group, chaired by Treasury, that has been targeting and listing individuals and entities pursuant to Executive Order 13224 which President Bush signed on September 23, 2001. In this process, we have identified, among other entities, front companies, charities, banks, and a hawala conglomerate that served as the financial support networks for al-Qaida and other global terrorist groups.
Treasury's Role in Combating Terrorist Financing
Combating terrorism and terrorist financing has become the Nation's primary agenda and is the top priority for the Treasury Department and the Office of Enforcement. As you are aware, on September 24, 2001, President Bush stated, "We will direct every resource at our command to win the war against terrorists, every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence. We will starve the terrorists of funding." Under Secretary Paul O'Neill's leadership, we in Treasury Enforcement have devoted extensive resources and expertise to fulfill this mandate.
Our war against terrorist financing extends to financial intermediaries and facilitators who infuse terrorist organizations with money, materiel, and support. We have come to clearly appreciate and understand that terrorism has been nourished by ample funding channeled from and through a plethora of sources, including banks, charities, hawalas1, narcotics traffickers, and money launderers.
Since September 11th, Treasury Enforcement, including its component bureaus, has launched a number of new initiatives to identify, disrupt, and dismantle terrorist financial networks both domestically and abroad. I am pleased to report to the Helsinki Commission this morning that Treasury has named 210 individuals and entities as financiers of terrorism pursuant to the President's September 23rd Executive Order, and has blocked over $34.3 million in assets. Our Coalition partners have blocked another $81.3 million. A portion of that amount has since been unblocked for the new Afghan Interim Authority to assist in its critical period of rebuilding.
This is truly a global effort -- 196 nations have expressed support to disrupt terrorist financing and 149 nations can block terrorist assets.
Operation Green Quest
On October 25, 2001, Treasury created Operation Green Quest ("Green Quest"), a new multi-agency financial enforcement initiative designed to augment existing counter-terrorist efforts by bringing the full scope of the government's financial expertise to bear against systems, individuals, and organizations that serve as sources of terrorist funding. This task force is led by the Customs Service and includes the Internal Revenue Service, the Secret Service, ATF, OFAC, FinCEN, the Postal Inspection Service, the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. Operation Green Quest also receives support from Interpol's National Central Bureau, based in Washington, D.C. Green Quest brings together the extensive financial expertise of the Treasury Enforcement bureaus along with the exceptional experience of our partner agencies and departments to focus on terrorist financing.
Green Quest has complemented the work of OFAC in identifying terrorist networks at home and abroad, and it has served as an investigative arm to aid in blocking actions. Green Quest's work has led to 12 arrests, 6 indictments, the seizure of nearly $4 million, and bulk cash seizures -- cash smuggling -- of over $12 million. Green Quest agents, along with those from the FBI and other government agencies, have traveled abroad to follow leads, exploit documents recovered, and to provide assistance to foreign governments. In this effort, Green Quest has made full use of its overseas Customs Attachés to investigate suspect networks and to gather information for its own use and the use of OFAC. The work of these financial experts is just starting as they have opened well over 200 terrorist financing investigations and are following leads on a daily basis. Green Quest's work, in combination with the work of OFAC, serves as a seminal part of our enforcement efforts.
Blocking Assets
One of the higher profile results of OFAC and intelligence community analysis was the identification of Al-Barakaat as a major financial operation that supported terrorist organizations. The Al-Barakaat case is a good example of model coordination between the Treasury Department, the FBI, and other enforcement agencies both domestically and abroad.
Al-Barakaat is a Somali-based hawaladar2 operation, with locations in the United States and in 40 countries, that was used to finance and support terrorists around the world.3 The investigative work of the FBI, Customs, and IRS-Criminal Investigation, along with analysis by OFAC, FinCEN, and the intelligence community, identified Al-Barakaat as a major financial operation that was providing material, financial, and logistical support to Usama bin Laden and other terrorist groups.
Treasury, along with the Department of Justice, coordinated efforts to block assets and to take law enforcement actions against Al-Barakaat on November 7, 2001. As part of that action, OFAC was able to freeze approximately $1,100,000 domestically in Al-Barakaat-related funds. Treasury also worked closely with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to enable the UAE to block Al-Barakaat's assets at its financial center of operations in Dubai. Disruptions to Al-Barakaat's cash flows, resulting from OFAC's designation actions and international cooperation, are estimated to be in excess of $65 million from the United States alone. In addition, the combined work of OFAC, Operation Green Quest, and law enforcement has led to additional leads and a money laundering conviction in the Al-Barakaat investigation.
Joint Designations
Our efforts to block the assets of terrorist financiers and supporters have truly become an international endeavor. Over the past two months, our partners abroad have engaged directly in proactively identifying and freezing the assets of terrorist organizations and supporters.
On May 3, 2002, the European Union and the United States took coordinated actions against the assets of several terrorist groups and individuals – including seven individuals and one group related to ETA, the Basque terrorist group. This follows the EU's actions, which we joined, in late December of 2001. On April 19th, the G-7 Finance Ministers joined in Washington and jointly designated nine individuals and one entity as terrorist supporters or financiers related to al-Qaida. Among those designated were The Aid Organization of the Ulema (AOU), headquartered in Pakistan, which was previously operating as al Rashid Trust, an entity that was among one of the first organizations named as a terrorist financial facilitator in September 2001. This organization has been raising funds for the Taliban since 1999. In addition, the G-7 designated two prominent individuals, Abu Hamza al-Masri and Ahmed Idris Nasreddin, who have been facilitators of terrorist organizations linked to al-Qaida. This action was the first multilateral joint designation, which marks a new stage of information sharing, collaboration, and coordinated action in this field.
The G-7 action followed on the heels of the March 11th joint designation between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. On the six month anniversary of the September 11th attacks, our countries jointly took a bold step in the war on terrorist financing by making the first joint designation of a financial supporter of terrorism. Prior to that date, Treasury received significant cooperation from other countries in blocking accounts of those named by the United States, and our European allies have made designations of their own.
With the March 11th action, Treasury and the Saudi government blocked the accounts of the Somalia and Bosnia-Herzegovina branches of the Saudi Arabia-based Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation. While the Saudi headquarters for this private charitable entity is dedicated to promoting Islamic teachings, Treasury and our Saudi Arabian allies determined that those specific branches of Al-Haramain have been engaged in supporting terrorist activities and terrorist organizations such as al-Qaida, AIAI (al-Itihaad al-Islamiya), and others. This action also highlights the special need to safeguard charities, so that well-intentioned donors can be assured that their donations will be used only for their intended good purposes, and not for acts of terrorism.
The joint blocking actions of April 19th and March 11th , and the continued cooperation with the EU, are especially significant because these actions signify the growing strength of the anti-terror coalition and mark a new level of international coordination and cooperation.
As part of our overall strategy to maintain the international momentum in our battle against terrorist financing, Treasury Secretary O'Neill has taken critical trips to the Persian Gulf region and Europe to discuss the importance of coordinated action in this arena. While in Europe last month, the Secretary met with his counterparts in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom where he obtained commitments to work closely on operational and structural issues related to the war against terrorist financing. On this trip, our European colleagues recommitted to taking aggressive steps along with the United States to attack the structural underpinnings of terrorist financing. In the Persian Gulf, the Secretary gained the commitment of our allies to work together on regulatory issues, like the oversight of charities and hawalas, and to combat generally the menace of terrorist financing. In these trips, the Secretary has reiterated this country's commitment to battle terrorism on all fronts, and he has obtained the support and cooperation of all these countries.
We at Treasury have been extensively engaged in this international outreach. In my trip to Europe in December 2001, I called on my Spanish, French and British counterparts to work with us to develop new ways of sharing information and taking aggressive steps to shut down terrorist financing networks. Treasury will continue to work with our allies for concrete actions in this area.
International Cooperation
Our efforts will not have the greatest success if prosecuted unilaterally, and may ultimately fail if we cannot obtain the cooperation of other nations. To date, all but a handful of countries have expressed their support for the international fight against terrorist financing. The Treasury Department, in concert with other Federal agencies, is providing technical assistance to a number of countries to strengthen their capacity to freeze terrorist funds. Daily, we are in contact with foreign financial officials and are engaged in bilateral and multilateral discussions regarding international cooperation and action against terrorist activities and financing.
The Office of Enforcement has also helped coordinate the deployment of financial "jump teams" consisting of experienced accountants, bank examiners, and other financial experts from OFAC, the Customs Service, IRS, FinCEN, the FBI, and other agencies. These experts review business records and possible links to money associated with bin Laden's al-Qaida network.
Treasury has worked with regional organizations such as APEC and the Manila Framework Group to further coordinate international efforts to stop the financing of terrorism. In March, we, along with the State Department, participated in an ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and Pacific Island Forum (PIF) regarding counter-terrorism and financing issues. These fora provide an opportunity to expand our efforts and to engage the entire world in this endeavor.
In light of the regional composition of the OSCE and the jurisdictional interest of the Helsinki Commission, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight Treasury Enforcement's work with a number of European multilateral organizations. The members of these organizations also are Participating States within the OSCE.
Treasury has engaged in numerous international fora, including the G-7, G-8, G-20, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the Egmont Group -- the global network of Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) of which FinCEN is a key member -- and with the international financial institutions to combat terrorist financing in a global, systematic way.
At this point, I will highlight specific examples of counter terrorist financing activities in these organizations. On November 17, 2001, the G-20 finance ministers and central bank governors met in Ottawa, Canada and agreed that they would block terrorist assets in their respective countries, and report publicly on precisely which terrorist groups each country has blocked and the amount of actual monies blocked, if any. Meeting the next day, the governing body of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) announced that the IMF would take similar steps.
In February 2002, the G-7 group of industrialized countries met in Ottawa and agreed to an ambitious new work program. In particular, the G-7 agreed to develop a mechanism to identify jointly terrorists whose assets would be subject to freezing. This announcement has led to even closer cooperation and commitment between and among the G-7 countries. Treasury continues to work with the G-7 on developing key principles regarding information to be shared, the procedures for sharing it, and the protection of sensitive information.
The Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) is a 31-member organization committed to attacking the problem of money laundering on an international basis. Treasury's Office of Enforcement chairs the U.S. Delegation to FATF, and through its leadership, has applied the use of the successful FATF to address the issue of terrorist financing.
At the end of October 2001, the Treasury Department, in conjunction with the Departments of Justice and State, hosted an Extraordinary Plenary session of FATF in Washington, D.C., to address terrorist financing. This meeting was immediately followed by a meeting of the Egmont Group to discuss information sharing and terrorism. At the plenary session, FATF established eight Special Recommendations regarding terrorist financing which represent an important step to establishing a global regime to cut terrorists off from the international financial system.
These new Recommendations were endorsed by countries throughout the world at a special FATF Forum on Terrorist Financing held in February and attended by over 55 jurisdictions. Moving forward, FATF, with the strong support of the U.S., is now leading a global effort to bring all countries in compliance with these new standards. The U.S. has recently completed a self-assessment questionnaire against these standards, which is posted on the Treasury web site. In June, FATF will begin to consider a process with respect to countries that are not cooperating in the international effort against terrorist financing.
Treasury Enforcement also supports FinCEN's active involvement in the growing network of financial intelligence networks or FIUs. The specialized agencies created by governments to fight money laundering first met in 1995 at the Egmont-Arenberg Palace in Belgium to share experiences. Now known as the Egmont Group, these FIUs meet annually to find ways to cooperate, especially in the areas of information exchange, training, and the sharing of expertise.
This global network of information exchange and cooperation has been a valuable and responsive avenue of terrorist-related information. As I mentioned above, FinCEN hosted a special meeting of the Egmont Group on terrorist financing in October 2001, to support the unprecedented law enforcement investigation in the wake of the events of September 11th. During that special meeting, the Egmont Group agreed to: (1) review existing national legislation to identify and eliminate existing impediments to exchanging information between FIUs, especially when such information concerns terrorist activity; (2) encourage national governments to make terrorist financing a predicate offense to money laundering and to consider terrorist financing one form of suspicious activity for which financial institutions should be on the look out; (3) pass requests for information involving FIUs exclusively between FIUs rather than other government agencies; (4) have FIUs play a greater role in screening requests for information; and (5) pool Egmont Group resources, where appropriate, to conduct joint strategic studies of money laundering vulnerabilities, including Hawala.
Combating Money Laundering
The Office of Enforcement is about to publish the National Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Strategy of 2002, and is overseeing the implementation of the 2001 National Money Laundering Strategy. The main focus of the Strategy is on the prosecution of the war against terrorist financing and investigation of major money laundering enterprises and sophisticated networks. This work has been significantly impacted by the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act.
One recent enforcement success has international implications -- Operation Wire Cutter, a 2 ½-year joint DEA/Customs undercover operation targeting the largest Colombian Black Market Peso Exchange (BMPE) money brokers. These brokers are professional money launderers who sell their services to the Colombian drug cartels. On January 15, 2002, U.S. and Colombian officials arrested 37 people in the U.S. and Colombia and seized over $8 million in cash, over 800 pounds of cocaine, and a total of over 1,000 pounds of narcotics.
The Multinational Black Market Peso Exchange (BMPE) Experts Working Group (Colombia, Aruba, Panama, Venezuela, and the United States), led by the Office of Enforcement, has produced a report that recommends BMPE initiatives to participating governments to improve international cooperation in efforts to combat and dismantle the BMPE. In March 2002, a joint statement was issued embodying the conclusions and recommendations of this Working Group. We are also working closely with senior executives of major trade associations and corporations operating in the United States whose products are vulnerable to being involved in BMPE transactions.
Treasury's anti-money laundering efforts directly involve the cooperation of European countries, and our efforts will not be successful without the continued cooperation of our allies in Europe.
OSCE Contributions and Treasury Coodination
The Treasury Department supported the action taken by the OSCE in Bucharest on December 4, 2001, when the OSCE adopted the Bucharest Plan of Action for Combating Terrorism. Section 24 of the Bucharest Plan of Action, entitled "Suppressing the financing of terrorism," calls on Participating States to suppress the financing of terrorism, criminalize the collection or provision of funds for terrorist purposes, and freeze terrorist assets, all within the framework of the U.N. Convention on the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism. The section also calls on Participating States to enhance information sharing.
Less than two weeks after the Plan of Action was adopted, the OSCE, in partnership with the U.N. Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (UN ODCCP) sponsored an international conference in Bishkek, Tashkent, on Enhancing Security and Stability in Central Asia: Strengthening the Comprehensive Efforts to Counter Terrorism. This forum provided an important opportunity to consider the special challenges and threats to the security of the Central Asian region as a neighbor to Afghanistan.
In addition to these strong actions taken by the OSCE, many of the Participating States of the OSCE also are members of other European multilateral organizations. Much progress already has been made since September 11th, and we look forward to continued cooperation on operation as well as macro-level structural issues related to terrorist financing.
It is my view that there are a number of areas for enhanced participation by OSCE Participating States in the financial war against terrorism, as well as for enhanced cooperation between Treasury Enforcement and the OSCE.
I had the opportunity to meet at the Treasury Department with Ambassador Stephen Minikes, shortly after he was confirmed as the new U.S. Ambassador to the OSCE and prior to his departure for Vienna. We discussed a number of new ways Treasury Enforcement and other programs within Treasury could support his efforts and the work of OSCE and its membership in counter terrorism and counter terrorist financing. I am scheduled to meet again with Ambassador Minikes later this month to discuss additional ways to enhance cooperation and coordination.
OSCE Economic Forum
One area in which Treasury Enforcement can work directly and immediately with the OSCE is at its annual Economic Forum in Prague, scheduled for May 28 - 31, 2002. This year's conference topic is water management and transboundary issues; however, a special meeting on terrorist financing issues has been included in the agenda. I have authorized two officials from Treasury Enforcement to participate in OSCE's annual Economic Forum in Prague scheduled for May 28 – 31, 2002. They will join their colleagues from the State Department to support OSCE's efforts on counter terrorist financing.
The Economic Forum will provide an excellent opportunity to discuss international standards in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing, including the role of FATF and its Eight Special Recommendations. National experts will participate to advise on ways to strengthen OSCE Participating States' capabilities in implementing these guidelines, especially the establishment of Foreign Intelligence Units (FIUs). The Forum also will provide the opportunity for bilateral and multilateral discussions on counter terrorist financing cooperative initiatives.
Another area in which the OSCE can be especially helpful is to encourage and assist other countries in developing legislation or setting up FIUs, especially in Central Asia and the Caucasus. A number of Central Asian states agree in principle with the need to adopt the FATF recommendations, but require advice or assistance in how to accomplish this objective or overcome technical (and in some cases, legal) obstacles to implementing them. The Participating States of the OSCE which have mechanisms in place for counter terrorist financing could share their expertise with those OSCE Participating States that require technical assistance.
International Law Enforcement Academy -- Budapest
Another area in which the Treasury Department and its Office of Enforcement can assist Participating States of the OSCE is in the provision of international training. Treasury's Federal Law Enforcement Training Center has conducted training programs in support of the U.S. Government's interest in international law enforcement activities since 1984. FLETC was a founding partner in the Department of State's Antiterrorism Assistance Training Program, which has provided specialized training in topics such as seaport and aviation security to countries cooperating with the United States. Some of those programs have been conducted overseas and others at FLETC sites and other locations arranged by the Department of State in the U.S.
Typically, FLETC's international training has been a three-pronged effort: 1) assessment in conjunction with the foreign government of existing needs; 2) implementation of the training; and 3) follow-up validation of the training to measure effectiveness or address needed adjustments. FLETC also is a principal member agency of the group formed by the Department of State for its International Law and Democracy Program. FLETC supports this effort through the International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA) operations in various regions of the world, including the ILEA in Budapest, Hungary for countries in that region, and through bilateral training programs.
Of special interest to the members of the Helsinki Commission, the ILEA in Budapest has provided International Banking and Money Laundering training to officials in Russia, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Lithuania and Kazakhstan. Examples of other programs which have been provided include Human Dignity and Police Training, Health Care Fraud, Computer Investigations and Security and Under Cover Operations. FLETC, working with the State Department has assisted in numerous training needs assessments for newly emerging democracies throughout Eastern Europe.
I am pleased to report to the Helsinki Commission that I have requested FLETC to develop a Terrorist Financing Training Program in Europe and elsewhere. My goal is to be able to provide a three to five day training program on Terrorist Financing at the ILEAs in Budapest and Bangkok in the near future. When this program is implemented, it will be of immediate benefit to law enforcement officials in the OSCE region.
In conclusion, the OSCE's Bucharest Plan of Action for Combating Terrorism, the Bishkek Declaration, and the upcoming Economic Forum represent three significant steps the OSCE has taken since September 11th to counter terrorism and terrorist financing. The Treasury Department's enhanced cooperation and coordination with the OSCE and its Participating States will result in a force multiplier in this global battle.
I thank the members of the Helsinki Commission for holding this hearing today and for your support of Treasury Enforcement. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Was $79.95 NOW $49.95
These comfortably soft slippers have adjustable uppers made from Mongolian sheepskin that provide a custom fit for narrow or wide feet. The double-walled uppers are made from durable chestnut-napped suede and are adjusted using hook-and-loop fasteners. The sheepskin interiors' dense, hollow fibers allow air to circulate, keeping your feet toasty warm. The slippers have a roomy toe area, and the cushioned insole is made from sheepskin for maximum comfort. The rippled rubber outsole has a raised high-grip herringbone design that ensures stable footing indoors and outdoors. Men's. (1 1/4 lbs.)
"These slippers fit perfectly! Was pleased that although very warm, with the toe hole there is circulation."- G, Texas
Lifetime Guarantee
The Adjustable Sheepskin Slippers (Men's) come with The Hammacher Schlemmer Lifetime Guarantee at no additional charge. If this product ever disappoints you, for any reason, you may return your Hammacher Schlemmer purchase for exchange, credit, or refund.
Should you have any questions, we are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Please call 1-800-321-1484 to speak with a product specialist or email us at email@example.com to receive a response within one hour.
Sale item quantities are limited — please order soon.
May we recommend:
(based on 78 reviews)
Ratings Distribution
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Stars
of respondents would recommend this to a friend.
Best Uses
Feels full size too small
Feels half size too small
Feels true to size
88% (64 reviews)
(64 reviews)
Feels half size too big
Feels full size too big
Feels too narrow
Feels true to width
90% (66 reviews)
(66 reviews)
Feels too wide
Reviewed by 78 customers
Displaying reviews 1-10
Back to top
Previous Page | Next Page »
(3 of 3 customers found this review helpful)
Gift for Parent
By Lynn
from Dublin, CA
This was a gift for a parent who is wheelchair bound. He has regular swelling in legs and feet and because of that wears a size 13-14 shoe. Finding that size has been tough so this was a great find. With his poor circulation he is loving the warmth and comfort! Would buy again.
Bottom Line Yes, I would recommend this to a friend
Was this review helpful? Yes / No
- flag this review
Share this Review
(2 of 3 customers found this review helpful)
Worth It
By Wifey
from California
The only slippers I can get my hard-to fit husband to wear. He has a balance issue and cannot wear anything that can slip off the feet easily. He's had multiple surgeries, so his feet are not the same size. These slipper fit. The only problem will be that they are too warm for anything but the coldest winter days in our area of California.
(1 of 1 customers found this review helpful)
Excellent product bought for my father
By Angela the daughter
from Toronto, Canada
I bought this for my father who is in a nursing home. He really liked them as soon as we put them on his feet. The adjustable velcro top is perfect for his wide slightly deformed and tender feet.
(1 of 3 customers found this review helpful)
Long sought answer for problem feet
By doctor jay
from amarillo, tx.
bit too stiff at flex point. long sought relief for diabetic neuropathy.
Great comfort and adjustable.
By John
from Burke, VirginiaJohn
My feet expand and contract and I have been having trouble wearing the slippers that I have been wearing. These slippers are adjustable and very comfortable. I can go outside and pick up the newspaper without having to concentrate on how NOT to walk out of my slipper in the driveway - which previously occurred fairly frequently.
adjustable sheepskin slippers ( men's)
By axel
from Syracuse, ny
Best slippers i have every had
Describes well
By Al's Wife
from Clearwater, Florida
Husband found them difficult to walk in due to very flat and stiff sole. If standing or sitting - very cozy.
Bottom Line No, I would not recommend this to a friend
Where have these slippers been?
By Chuck the lounger
from Pahrump, NV
These are being worn around the house. They are comfortable and warm, even though the toes are open. They are very easy to remove and put on. The slippers tend to fall off easily if I make a quick move to the left or the right. So, I try not to do that!
great for troubled feet
By mike the retired
from sugar land texsas
I specifically like the adjustable size capability. My feet suffer from varius situations that make shoes difficult to fit..these slippers are great for just the perfect fit along with style and comfort.
By TOM
from BELDEN,MISSISSIPPI
COPYRIGHT © 2016 HAMMACHER SCHLEMMER & COMPANY, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. W105HAMMACHER SCHLEMMER • 147 E. 57th ST • NEW YORK, NY • 10022 • 1-800-_321-1484


text:
Majic Music
Majic 95.5 Listen Live
Audio Vault
Listen on your mobile device
Majic blog
Majic Events
Community Events
Contest Rules
Majic in the Morning Blog
Healthy Habits That Aren't
by Alex O'Neal
posted Mar 24 2009 7:55AM
Healthy Habits That Aren't
from msn.com
Using antibacterial soap
You may be tempted to take a biological jackhammer to every microbe that dare touch your family, but the fact is there's a lot we don't know about the long-term effects of common, household use of antibacterials. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, these chemicals have been shown, in the lab, to kill off only weak bacteria—leaving the tougher ones to reproduce. That's led many medical experts to worry that anti-bacterial soaps might be contributing to the rise of stronger bacteria, capable of fighting off our attempts to kill it. So far, this theory hasn't been proved in a real-life setting. What has been proved, however, is that washing your hands with anti-bacterial soap isn't anymore effective at preventing disease than hand washing with regular soap
Sitting up straight
According to a study presented in 2006 at the annual conference for the Radiological Society of North America, so-called "perfect" posture might actually be contributing to back pain. Go ahead, call your mom and gloat. But make sure you get your facts right. When this story first came out last November, many newspapers incorrectly reported that slouching was the better way to sit. The problem turned out to be a "slanguage" barrier. In England, where the story was first reported, "slouching" refers to reclining backward, which is, according to the study, a great way to relieve pressure on your lower back. Translated into American slang, however, the news reports gave many people the impression that hunching forward was healthy, when, in fact, it's actually worse than sitting up straight.
Trusting your eyesight to carrots
If you think these vegetables will improve your vision, think again. While carrots do contain vitamin A, which is a major player in keeping your eyes working properly, you really only need a small amount of it—and no matter how much vitamin A you consume, it's not going to magically eliminate your need for glasses. In fact, if you eat too much vitamin A, you can end up with a toxic—although not usually fatal—reaction. The idea that more carrots means better vision might actually be a relic of a World War II-era military disinformation campaign. According to the online World Carrot Museum, British intelligence began spreading the myth during the blitz as a plausible explanation for why their fighter pilots were suddenly able to spot Nazi planes at night. In reality, the British had simply developed a better radar system and didn't want the enemy to find out about it.
Drinking eight glasses of water a day
Admit it, this is one healthy habit that's a royal pain. Luckily, it's also completely unnecessary. For some people, eight glasses a day might actually be far too much, leading to sodium deficiencies and potentially life-threatening water intoxication, caused by kidneys not being able to keep up the intake of liquids. In 2002, a kidney specialist tried, in vain, to find any scientific evidence supporting the eight-glasses-a-day myth. His report, published in the American Journal of Physiology, concluded that this standard health advice was complete and utter bunk that, like many urban legends, stemmed from a tiny grain of truth. Apparently, the dietary guidelines provided by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council do say that humans need 1 milliliter of water for each calorie of food—adding up to about 10 cups a day. However, the same guidelines also say that we get most of this liquid from the water in solid food. There's no need to drink more
Back To Blog
Healthy Habits That Aren't
Please Enter Your Comments Below
Title :
Comment :
Please enter the text as it is shown in the box below :
Refresh Image
Follow Us on Facebook & Twitter
Wet Nose Wednesday
1 Thing Austin
Recent Blog Posts
Nearly Impossible Question Week of 9/21/15
Terri McCormick
Sep 21
Nearly Impossible Question Week of 9/14/15
Terri McCormick
Sep 14
Nearly Impossible Question Week of 9/8/15
Terri McCormick
Sep 8
Nearly Impossible Question Week of 8/31/15
Terri McCormick
Aug 31
Nearly Impossible Question Week of 08/24/15
Terri McCormick
Aug 24
Alex's Cool Clicks
Amazing Facts
crazy stories
Cute Video
Daily Thoughts
Disney Magic
fun weekend events
Get Fit
Great tips
In studio guest
This Week In Music
words to live by
May 2016
Apr 2016
Mar 2016
Feb 2016
Jan 2016
Dec 2015
Nov 2015
Oct 2015
Sep 2015
Aug 2015
Jul 2015
Jun 2015


text:
The River Salt Jacket is our toughest, most durable fishing shell made with 4-layer waterproof/breathable H2No® Performance Standard wader fabric for long-lasting bomber performance.
Patagonia developed the 4-layer fabric construction for our waders to increase breathability and abrasion resistance, move moisture away from the body, and decrease the weight.
Our exterior fabrics are densely woven 100% polyester microfibers for durability and puncture resistance. On one side we apply our H2No® waterproof coating for waterproof/breathable performance. On the other side we apply a Hydrophilic laminate that pulls moisture away from the body so it can be passed out through the exterior shell.
To protect the hydrophilic laminate we use a soft polyester tricot lining that increases abrasion resistance yet maintains a soft, supple drape.
Finally, we apply a DWR (durable water repellent) treatment as the first line of defense in keeping these waders waterproof.
We promote fair labor practices, safe working conditions and environmental responsibility throughout the Patagonia supply chain.
Below are the suppliers that impact the Patagonia Men's River Salt Jacket
View our supply chain


text:
I've done some research on this issue and, while I've seen somewhat similar reports, they usually seem to be a little different so I thought I would get everyone's opinion.
Current Zimbra Version: 7.1.3_GA_3346
Steps to Reproduce
- Share your calendar with someone
- Have them add an event to your calendar
- Once the event has synced to the phone, have them remove or move the event
Your calendar will still show the old event, not remove/move it, and no longer sync your calendar. Going in to Settings -> Accounts & Sync shows a generic Unknown Server Error as the reason for the failed calendar syncs. Mail and contacts still sync without issue. This occurs in both VZA and standard ActiveSync Mail setup, and has been reproduced on an HTC Hero, HTC Thunderbolt, and a Droid Incredible.
The only way I've found that will get calendars to start syncing again is to completely delete and re-add the account.
This has become a big issue at my company because of the number of users that rely on their phone to view their calendar. I'm not sure if it will be very helpful, but I've attached a ZCS log file of the time the shared event was added and removed and when the failed syncs began. Any input would be greatly appreciated.


text:
WASHINGTON (WUSA) -- For the first time in nearly 8 and a half months, Metro commuters can use the escalators at Dupont Circle South.
Sunday, Metro held a ribbon-cutting to unveil three new escalators. The general manager says the older escalators were among the least reliable in the system and that the transit agency plans to replace 94 escalators over the next seven years.
Check out the photos to see the new escalators on Monday morning.


text:
to page content
to site navigation
Numenta's Jeff Hawkins, a frequent company founder, inventor, and product designer for Palm and Handspring, highlights lessons learned during his tenure in technology. He also confesses that these accomplishments were mere way stations in his 30-year passionate pursuit of neuroscience.
Steve Westly, Founder of clean tech investment firm The Westly Group and former Controller for the state of California, paints a landscape of the present and future opportunities in emerging alternative energy.
Stanford Technology Ventures Program's Executive Director Tina Seelig shares rich insights in creative thinking and the entrepreneurial mindset. Her talk, based on her 2009 book, What I Wish I Knew When I Was 20, cites numerous classroom successes of applied problem-solving and the lessons of failure.
Part 1 of 2: Thom Ruhe speaks on entrepreneur/CPA/lawyer/author Lou Hutt's popular XM Radio show discussing various matters related to entrepreneurship, the Kauffman Foundation, the E=R Campaign and our current business/economic climate.
Part 2 of 2: Thom Ruhe speaks on entrepreneur/CPA/lawyer/author Lou Hutt's popular XM Radio show discussing various matters related to entrepreneurship, the Kauffman Foundation, the E=R Campaign and our current business/economic climate.
Robin Li, CEO of Baidu, speaks in detail about the launch and growth of the company and the search engine. He discusses how its intimate understanding of Chinese language and culture - and a unique social approach to search - have allowed it to succeed where many North American search giants have faltered.
Speaker, author, and entrepreneur Eric Ries shares rapid fire wisdom on building nimble, responsive, and efficient online software-based businesses. He also offers his wisdom on streamlining processes and progressing engineering systems, and puts forth front line insight into why some new ideas succeed where others have failed.
Steve Jurvetson, partner at Draper Fisher Jurvetson, offers perspective on the market opportunities in innovation and technology. Topics discussed include the necessity for utter market disruption, interdisciplinary solutions (particularly across the "bio-nano" life sciences and engineering), and advice for those interested in working in the venture capital arena.
Whereas the 20th century belonged to the scientist, the 21st century, says Sun Micosystems' CTO Greg Papadopoulos, is the domain of the engineer. Rather than secretly toiling away on new discoveries, modern engineers are concerned about social responsibility, renewable materials and product lifecycles, collaborative and open source discovery, and furthering industry-wide innovation.
Intel Corporation legend, former CEO, and Chairman of the Board Craig Barrett discusses his personal career path from a Stanford Associate Professor, to Silicon Valley consultant, to a 35-year career inside one of the globe's most prominent players in technology. His talk concentrates on Moore's Law and the myriad factors in place to ensure its continued progeny.

Want to get connected? Sign up to receive regular news, polls and updates from The Kauffman Foundation.
A robust online curriculum for entrepreneurs.
Explore Founders School >
A network of U.S. cities facilitating a weekly entrepreneur education program. Go to 1 Million Cups >
Whether you are starting or growing a company, FastTrac will help you live your dream at each stage.
Get started with FastTrac >


text:
1927 Ford Modified - Brown's GarageWritten by Eric Geisert on November 1, 2010 Tim Brown's T Modified
Most folks can remember when something big happened in their life, but sometimes those imprinted moments can be with you for longer than you can remember. For 47-year-old Tim Brown, from El Cajon, California, he can't remember a time when he wasn't around old Fords. His dad, Ed, was into Model Ts and Model As, and he'd take young Tim to swap meets looking for vintage car parts. This was in the time well before craigslist (or even the computer age), back when you had to have blind luck in stumbling across some parts laid out on the ground at a football stadium parking lot some Sunday morning.
Though Tim went through a Volkswagen phase earlier in life (that included raising, lowering, and restoring them), it wasn't until he started hanging out at the local Goodguys Show in Del Mar, California, that he got the itch to build a hot rod. Tim thought starting off with a '32 would be nice, but he liked dirt racing, too, so combining the dirt aspect with hot rods yielded a specialized hot rod: a dirt track-inspired '27 Ford Modified.
Almost three decades ago Ed sold all of his Model Ts to finance the restoration of his '30 roadster, and the only T-related parts he kept were a set of old, purple-tinted headlight lenses. The vintage lenses were the inspiration Tim was looking for, and he decided to build his T the way a kid might have long ago. The pair found a '27 roadster that was already built as a base to work from, but its look was basic and without much imagination.
The pair tore into the car and took it down to the frame to begin its rebirth. There was a list of "must-have" parts, including a healthy Flathead, a quick-change rear, and, as Tim's transmission guy, Jim Rupe, told him: "Ya gotta run a '39 Lincoln Zephyr trans in the car for a true old-school look." Tim then set about getting those items and more.
The chassis started with a handmade 2x3 box frame, powdercoated at ECP Powder Coating in El Cajon, California, and set up on a 115-inch wheelbase. Tim's brother, Phil, helped out when it came to the rear suspension, a Winters quick-change (4.85:1) was located and installed along with a pair of QA1 coilover shocks. Up front a '47 I-beam, dropped 4 inches, was used, as were '47 Ford backing plates and '61 Buick drums. Both the front and rear received radius rods that were modified '47 Ford units, and a 12-gallon polyethylene gas tank was added to the frame just forward of the rearend. Each corner got Ford spoke wheels (16-inch up front, 15-inch out back); the 16s were wrapped in 5.00 Firestone ribbed tires while the backs were shod in P23575R15s.
Mike Herman at H&H Flathead Motors in La Cresenta, California, was given the task of breathing life into the project in the form of a stout Flathead V-8, and he assembled a 258 incher from a 59AB block. A 3.75-inch crank and Ross pistons were used, as were Manley valves and Isky 185 springs. Feeding the motor are a pair of Stromberg 97 carbs atop an Edelbrock Super Dual intake, and Edelbrock was also tapped for the heads, which feature Rajah ends on red spark plug wires. Other engine goodies include a four-core radiator that was cut down to fit in the track nose and Lakes-style headers.
The body to the project is a 'glass unit from Speedway Motors, though the aluminum hood was rolled at Direct Sheet Metal in El Cajon. Best Auto Body & Painting (also in El Cajon) painted the roadster a shade of Cabernet, which was soon followed by graphics and pinstriping from Mark Lueck. The headlights (with those purple lenses) were fitted to original '27 buckets that were modified to use halogen bulbs, and out back '39 Ford taillights were installed.
Inside the cockpit a '39 DeLuxe banjo-type wheel features a pad/cushion (just like in the early dirt track cars) and four Stewart Warner gauges were set into an aluminum dash insert. Mike Jones at El Cajon Auto Trim built the bench seat before covering it and the rest of the interior with tan Naugahyde.
With the two-and-a-half-year, father-son project now complete, the Browns debuted the roadster at the Goodguys Del Mar show in 2008 where it won the Real McCoy award; in 2009, the pair won a Timberland Homebuilt award with it. The following year, Tim received a STREET RODDER Top 100 award, and is currently in the running for the magazine's Street Rod of the Year competition (see www.streetrodderweb.com for more on the contest). But more than the awards, the car represents the quality time Tim and his dad had together building the car-something no car show plaque will ever top.
More Photos From This Article View Slideshow
Side nerf bars also lend a real dirt track feel to the T, and the "24" on the side is the birthdate of Tim's youngest daughter, Brittany. The front, rear, and side nerf bars were all handmade.A four-core radiator was cut down to fit in the small track nose. The grille guard gives the Modified a vintage look while protecting the nose at the same time.


text:
Difference between revisions of "Task Force on RDA Instructions for Governmental and Non-governmental Corporate Bodies"
Betsy Moon (Talk | contribs)
Betsy Moon (Talk | contribs)
|(24 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
|Line 15:
|Line 15:
==General Comments==
==General Comments==
We are charged with coming up with a proposal that is: CONSISTENT; RATIONAL; PRINCIPLE-BASED. I'd like to tease out the principles that currently exist in the rules. Are those the principles we want to continue with? If so, are the rules in support of those principles? And if we want different principles, what might those be? Randall, 11/22/11
We are charged with coming up with a proposal that is: CONSISTENT; RATIONAL; PRINCIPLE-BASED. I'd like to tease out the principles that currently exist in the rules. Are those the principles we want to continue with? If so, are the rules in support of those principles? And if we want different principles, what might those be? Randall, 11/22/11
==11 Identifying Corporate Bodies==
==11 Identifying Corporate Bodies==
Latest revision as of 14:57, 11 April 2012
To enter your comments, click on link where you want to comment.
Please have your comments ready to paste into the wiki by first writing them in a text editor, like Microsoft Word or Notepad. Don't keep a page open for more than 5 minutes.
Always log in before editing.
Paste in your comments, signing them with:
- Your name
- Month/day/year
Never copy and paste over the entire original wiki document.
- 1 General Comments
- 2 Topic 1: Type 1 vs. Type 2
- 4 Topic 2: Principle of Continuity
- 6 Topic 3: How much should we be concerned with collocation?
- 8 Topic 4: Eliminating Type 6
- 10 Topic 5: Religious subordinate bodies
- 12 11 Identifying Corporate Bodies
- 13 220.127.116.11 General Guidelines on Recording Names of Subordinate and Related Bodies
- 14 220.127.116.11 Subordinate and Related Bodies Recorded Subordinately
- 15 184.108.40.206 Type 1
- 16 220.127.116.11 Type 2
- 17 188.8.131.52 Type 3
- 18 22.214.171.124 Type 4
- 19 22.214.171.124 Type 5
- 20 22.214.171.124 Type 6
- 21 18.104.22.168 Direct or Indirect Subdivision
- 22 22.214.171.124 Joint Committees, Commissions, Etc.
- 23 184.108.40.206 Conventionalized Names for State and Local Units of United States Political Parties
- 24 18.104.22.168 General Guidelines on Recording Names of Government Bodies
- 25 126.96.36.199 Government Bodies Recorded Subordinately
- 26 22.214.171.124 Direct or Indirect Subdivision
- 28 First Draft Revision of 220.127.116.11-126.96.36.199
General Comments
We are charged with coming up with a proposal that is: CONSISTENT; RATIONAL; PRINCIPLE-BASED. I'd like to tease out the principles that currently exist in the rules. Are those the principles we want to continue with? If so, are the rules in support of those principles? And if we want different principles, what might those be? Randall, 11/22/11
Immediately following are 5 topics to be discussed to help us prepare a proposal to be submitted to CC:DA in May 2012. Please discuss each topic in the area designated for discussion on that topic. Randall, 3/29/12
Topic 1: Type 1 vs. Type 2
What are the differences between these?
Note that Type 1 calls for subordinate entry without exception. But with Type 2, entry is subordinate if the parent is not somehow identified (e.g., "Public Relations Office" becomes "Seattle Art Museum. Public Relations Office"), but entry is direct if the parent is identified in some way (e.g., "ACS Office of Statistical Services" is entered directly).
Is there a need to continue the distinction, and if so, should it be clarified?
I'm particular intrigued by Type 2 resulting in apparent contradictions or inconsistencies such as:
- ALA Committee on Minority Concerns
- vs.
- American Library Association. Committee on Accreditation
If we do away with Type 6, we also come up with:
- ALA Committee on Minority Concerns
- vs.
- American Library Association. Committee on Accreditation
- vs.
- Committee on Library Extension of the American Library Association
And of course any one body has the potential to be formulated in any of these ways, depending on how the name was presented in the resource.
It's quite possible that I just am not looking in the right place, but I wasn't able to find examples in RDA with "Office" in Type 1, but did in Type 2. The LCPS for RDA also treats "Office" as Type 2. In any event, when looking over the examples Kevin gave of apparent Type 2 contradictions and inconsistencies, it simply doesn't make sense to me to treat "ALA Committee on Minority Concerns" as Type 2 and "American Library Association. Committee on Accreditation" as Type 1. They are both committees, after all. I think it would be quite difficult to know for certain that "ALA Committee on Minority Concerns" is the actual name of the committee. The actual name could very well be "Committee on Minority Concerns" but just shows up as "ALA Committee on Minority Concerns" on the resource. It is also really hard (for me anyway) to come up with an example of an organization with the word "Office" in it that is a true stand-alone body; that is, not subordinate to another body. Take a look at n77013440. The heading "Office belge de l'économie et de l'agriculture" is a 110, with a 410 of "Belgium. $b Office belge de l'économie et de l'agriculture". Since "Belge" appears in the name of the office, it's a type 2 ... but it is still subordinate to a jurisdiction. Would it be such a bad thing to discontinue the distinction between "bodies that are always subordinate" and "bodies that are subordinate if the parent is not identified"? Type 1 and Type 2 bodies are all subordinate to a parent body of some sort. BM 4/2/2012
Sorry that I made a significant mistake in reading some of my notes. (I removed what had been the second sentence in the topic above, which talked about the word "office" being included in Type 1 in RDA; I was wrong...) But that still leaves the main question: What is the difference? To my mind, something that is "administratively subordinate" is by its very nature "part of another body". Or is there something I'm missing? While it is possible to have entirely independent bodies with names containing terms mentioned in either of these types (including "Office"), they are not very common, and no fiddling around with these rules would change the fact that those independent bodies would by necessity have their names entered directly! If we discontinue the distinction, and combine these two types, we would end up with something like the following names (examples under the word "but" in Type 2):
- American Chemical Society. Office of Statistical Services
- (not: ACS Office of Statistical Services)
- Church of England. Diocese of Hereford. Board of Education
- (not: Hereford Diocesan Board of Education)
- International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Species Survival Commission. Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force
- (not: IUCN/SSC Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force)
- National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. Subcommittee on Renewable Energy
- (not: NARUC Subcommittee on Renewable Energy)
- United Methodist Church (U.S.). Board of Higher Education and Ministry. National Commission on United Methodist Higher Education
- United Methodist Church (U.S.). National Commission on United Methodist Higher Education
- (not: National Commission on United Methodist Higher Education)
- University of Wisconsin--Madison. Campus Planning Committee
- (not: UW-Madison Campus Planning Committee)
- King County (Wash.). Cultural Development Authority
- (not: Cultural Development Authority of King County)
- Honolulu (Hawaii). Committee on Aging
- (not: Honolulu Committee on Aging)
- Queensland. Parks and Wildlife Service
- (not: Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service)
- Ontario. Royal Commission on Education in Ontario
- (not: Royal Commission on Education in Ontario)
- Snohomish County (Wash.). Office of Community Planning
- (not: Snohomish County Office of Community Planning)
- United States. Census Bureau
- (not: U.S. Census Bureau)
- Vancouver (B.C.). School Board
- (not: Vancouver School Board)
Call me weird, but I like some of these a lot better (especially the government agency ones).
Does this go against the principle of representation? Do we want more subordinate entry, or less? Is it worth having more subordinate entry (thus violating the principle of representation) if that also gives us more apparent consistency? Please look at the discussion under the header "126.96.36.199 Type 6" below. Randall, 4/3/12; edited 4/5/12
Actually, Kevin, I like the examples you've given better than the originals, so I guess I'm weird too. :-) However, if the principle of representation is considered bedrock, then what you and I have been discussing would appear to run counter to that. If a resource has "ALA Committee on Minority Concerns" on it, we probably shouldn't be gainsaying it ("is this REALLY the way this committee presents itself?"). I work with so many government agency names and congressional committees and subcommittees that are always subordinate bodies that I may well have a bit of a blind spot. I still don't think the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 is always clearcut--what's the difference between "Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service" (no2002003983) and "Tasmania. Parks and Wildlife Service" (no2003021214)? How would one know that the Parks and Wildlife Service in Queensland has "Queensland" as an inherent part of the name but "Tasmania" is not an inherent part of its "Parks and Wildlife Service" name? I have no idea why these two very similar Australian bodies have been established the way they have. That's why my gut reaction is to perhaps impose a foolish consistency by making more entries subordinate. BM 4/10/12
Topic 2: Principle of Continuity
John Attig brought this up at Midwinter. For example, "Agricultural Experiment Station of Auburn University" vs. "Agricultural Experiment Station" and "Auburn University" appearing adjacent or on two lines, etc. Is this anything that we want to discuss? I don't know if this is really a "principle" but more of a "problem". Or, it's the "Principle of Taking the First Most Prominent Form You Find Even Though It's Totally Arbitrary Because the Body Doesn't Really See Any Difference In the Various Ways They Present Their Name".
I tend to agree with this issue as being the "Principle of Taking the First Most Prominent Form You Find Even Though It's Totally Arbitrary Because the Body Doesn't Really See Any Difference In the Various Ways They Present Their Name". The difference in the way the name of the ag experiment station at Auburn looks in the two examples might just be due to someone in the university publications department thinking the name looked nicer split between two lines, or needing to save space by putting the name on one line, as opposed to thinking that the name should be the same format on all its publications. (Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.) BM 4/10/12
Topic 3: How much should we be concerned with collocation?
John Attig said that we probably still value collocation. But how much is desired? How much is possible? Should we rely primarily on variant access points to achieve collocation? (Hopefully with better systems...)
While collocation can still be valuable, I don't know how much evidence there is that patrons browse catalog entries very often, especially for corporate body names. Variant access points could be a way to achieve collocation if the changes that this TF (and other TFs) have recommended mean that there is less collocation. BM 4/2/2012
Interesting point about the possibility that users don't browse headings very much. I wonder if that's because browseable headings typically aren't a feature of result sets for keyword searches? Let's look into the literature to see what's been written about in regard to corporate name headings and user search behavior. Even when keyword searching does give browseable headings, perhaps the ability to specify terms that show up regardless of their adjacency can allow for lists that are manageable enough that traditional hierarchical heading construction doesn't matter as much. Randall 4/5/12
We do not have access to Library Literature in any online databases here so I can't really do a literature search, and I don't know that there is time for that anyway. As a (totally unscientific) experiment, I searched our catalog using a very common query here--"what hearings do you have from the Senate Finance Committee [or any other committee] from 2009 [or any other date] to the present?" Doing a keyword search in the author field in our ILS of "senate finance committee" and limiting the date to 2009 to 2012 results in 52 hits--the majority are hearings, but some are committee prints. In any event, there is a manageable group to choose from, without having to know exactly how the committee name is constructed. However, browsing the author field for "senate finance committee" results in zero hits. In my experience, users (patrons and reference librarians) don't tend to think in hierarchies (United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Finance), and at least in our catalog, browsing by author means you have to know the exact way a name is constructed in order to get hits. Browsing a catalog by the name of a corporate body is a very poor way to find resources by the body in pretty much any catalog I have used even if I know the exact name of the body, because of the sheer number of records that come up in a catalog of any size. Again, completely unscientific but it's my experience. Unless I am proven wrong, I still believe that patrons do not browse catalogs by the name of corporate bodies, if for no other reason than they have no idea how the name is constructed. BM 4/10/12
I dinked around on Google and found an article in JASIS in 1996 entitled 'Why are online catalogs still hard to use?' by Christine L. Borgman. Here are a couple of quotes: "Formulating author and title queries is difficult because the searcher must have accurate information that matches the entry in the catalog or know how to identify alternative forms that might exists" (p. 496); "Searchers need to know whether they can enter the catalog only under the search terms corresponding to the first significant word in the access point or whether all words are searchable. If only the first word is searchable, searchers must be able to determine which word that might be ... determining the appropriate search terms for corporate authors is even more difficult" (p. 497). This article seems to bear out my thought that browsing author fields by corporate name is difficult for patrons, since they have no idea how the names are constructed so have no idea which word to put in the box first. BM 4/11/12
Topic 4: Eliminating Type 6
Discussion in Dallas showed strong supporting for the elimination of Type 6, although some people supporting it were not necessarily happy with all of the results. For example: "St. John's College Library". If this name needed to be distinguished from another St. John's College Library, what would be the qualifying element? Would it be the immediate parent body:
- St. John's College Library (St. John's College (University of Oxford))
Then there are things like "Meeting of ...", "Annual conference of ...", etc. Do we want to expand the scope of Type 1 and/or Type 2 to include such terms?
Is it possible that while eliminating Type 6 will both simplify things for the cataloger and get rid of some inconsistencies, we would really just be trading those old inconsistencies for new ones? (See the discussion under Type 1 vs. Type 2.)
In the example given, it would seem to me that "Saint John's College Library (Saint John's College (University of Oxford))" would make sense, even if it might not look too elegant. I think that Type 6 is quite problematic and should be eliminated if possible, but I do recognize that it could create issues in the other types. I don't know that it is possible to eliminate all inconsistencies in these rules; Type 6, however, seems to cause the most difficulties in terms of heading construction and it would be nice not to have to contend with it. BM 4/11/12
Topic 5: Religious subordinate bodies
Bob Maxwell has advocated incorporating religious subordinate bodies into the generic guidelines. While this might be doable, I would like to see someone come up with an idea of how this might be accomplished. One thing I was struck by (and not in a positive way) was the lack of hierarchical consistency in 18.104.22.168-184.108.40.206. Essentially, this entire span of rules covers "subordinate and related bodies". To make more sense, the end of section 11.2.2 should be 126.96.36.199 (Transliteration); the next section would be 11.2.3 (Subordinate and Related Bodies), which would incorporate all of what is now in 18.104.22.168-126.96.36.199; and that section would be followed by 11.2.4 (Variant Name for the Corporate Body). I'm not sure of the status of 6JSC/ALA/2 (the proposal for revising 220.127.116.11 for heads of state) so I'm going to run this matter by John Attig to get his take on it. I don't think a total reworking like I suggest above is possible in our short time frame (we need to have a proposal by mid-May), but I think we can certainly take care of the initial thing we were wanting to do, which is streamline the generic and government subordinate bodies. I am convinced that other sections can (and should) be further streamlined and consolidated, including (and especially?) the religious officials; some of the guidelines say essentially the same thing, with the examples being the only substantive difference.
11 Identifying Corporate Bodies
220.127.116.11 General Guidelines on Recording Names of Subordinate and Related Bodies
18.104.22.168 Subordinate and Related Bodies Recorded Subordinately
The two primary principles that the rule seems to be dealing with are:
1. COLLOCATION: Collocate the subordinate bodies of a parent body. This is handled by Type 1. The determining factor here is the subordination implicit in the name. Whether or not the name is distinctive in itself, or identifies the parent body, is irrelevant.
2. DISTINCTIVE NAME: Ensure that the name conveys a "non-generic identity" for the subordinate body. This is handled by Types 2-5. The determining factor here is the distinctive nature of the name, since the inclusion of some form of the parent body's name, or some other "distinctive" name, makes the subordinate body name fall outside these types.
--Randall 11/21/11
I am very uncomfortable with the footnote in the second paragraph of 22.214.171.124. Footnotes should be avoided if at all possible. In the printed version of RDA, the footnote reference in the text is on page 11-15, but the footnote itself appears at the very end of the entire 188.8.131.52 text, on page 11-19. Would it be better to include the provisions into the guidelines for the specific types to which they apply? Randall 11/22/11
I too think that the footnote should be included in the provisions. BM 12/6/11
18.104.22.168 Type 1
Type 1 (term that implies the body is part of another): Essentially the same as in 184.108.40.206, Type 1. Randall, 8/9/10
Should some non-English terms be included in the parenthetical phrase of the guideline? Randall 11/23/11
I think so--since RDA will be used in non-Anglo-American countries, some non-English terms would be a good idea. Moon 12/5/11
Should "Meeting" be included? Randall 11/23/11
Yes. Moon 12/5/11
220.127.116.11 Type 2
Type 2 (word that implies administrative subordination): Essentially the same as in 184.108.40.206, Type 2. Randall, 8/9/10
What does the phrase "provided that the name of the higher body or government is required for the identification of the subordinate body" in Type 2 actually mean? Most of the examples might seem to indicate that this means the name should point to the identity of the body (such as, to what larger body might this belong) not simply give the body a distinctive name. However, a couple of the "but" examples are ambiguous:
- National Commission on United Methodist Higher Education
- (It can be assumed that this is part of the United Methodist Church, but not with absolute certainty)
- Royal Commission on Education in Ontario
- (It can probably be assumed that this is an agency of Ontario; but could is it conceivable that it is an agency of Canada? What if Canada had a "Royal Commission on Education" or all of the provinces?)
It would thus appear that "identification" here does actually mean "giving the name a unique identity", not necessarily a pedigree. All of the examples of names entered under the higher body are names that could be imagined to be used by other bodies, and all of the examples of names entered directly are names that are unlikely to be used by other bodies.
--Randall 11/22/11
Are Types 1 and 2 really distinguishable? What is the difference between "a term that by definition implies that the body is part of another" and "a word that normally implies administrative subordination"? The word "office" is used in an example for Type 2, but might appear to be more like a word that fits Type 1. The treatment of these two types is very different! If there's any indication of the parent body in a name being considered for Type 2, then the name is excluded from that category; if that same name were being considered for Type 1, it would be entered subordinately regardless. Randall 11/23/11
Should some non-English terms be included in the parenthetical phrase of the guideline? Randall 11/23/11
I think so--since RDA will be used in non-Anglo-American countries, some non-English terms would be a good idea. Moon 12/5/11
188.8.131.52 Type 3
Type 3 (general name, or name indicating geographic, etc. subdivision): Essentially the same as in 126.96.36.199, Type 3. Randall, 8/9/10
The example "Research and Training Institute" should be changed. The only NACO instance of this name is "Research and Training Institute (Hebrew Rehabilitation Center for Aged)"; the Institute is represented on the web as being a part of the Center. There also appears to be a "Research and Training Institute" located in Mpwapwa, Tanzania. Randall 11/23/11
Agreed, and the record that has the "Research and Training Institute" in Mpwapwa, Tanzania is a pre-AACR2 record, to boot. BM 12/6/11
184.108.40.206 Type 4
Type 4 (name not conveying idea of corporate body): ALMOST the same as in 184.108.40.206, Type 4. For govt bodies, adds "and does not contain the name of the government" (i.e., there's nothing in the non-govt rule about the name of the parent body). Randall, 8/9/10
220.127.116.11 Type 5
Type 5 (name of faculty, school, etc. indicating field of study): No parallel rule in 220.127.116.11. Randall, 8/9/10
126.96.36.199 Type 6
Type 6 (name includes entire name of the higher or related body): No parallel rule in 22.214.171.124. This seems to be the most glaring difference between the non-govt and govt rules. Randall, 8/9/10
It is not clear what principle Type 6 would be in service of. It certainly can't be the principle of distinctive name, because a name being considered under this type is already distinctive. It would seem that the principle of collocation is the point, but it works only half-heartedly: subordination of the name is an accident of the way the parent body's name appears. Maybe we can sort of deal with something like "University of Chicago. Law School" vs. "Harvard Law School"; it's conceivable (but how probable?) users might be able to grasp the difference. But what about "Acoustical Society of America. Meeting" vs. "Meeting of the A.L.A." and "ALA Midwinter Meeting"?
The only principle that I can figure out is the principle of "mucking around with the name if the parent body's name appears in full". Mind you, I'm really all in favor of the types of constructions we end up with when we do that mucking around; it's just that it doesn't seem to be based on any sound principle that the users would be able to figure out, and it prevents mucking around with names that sometimes or always have a variant form of the parent body's name.
Whether or not Type 6 is applied is based entirely on how the name happens to be presented on the source(s) that the cataloger happens to using to establish the name. For some reason, I'm not really satisfied with that, although the use of references is an ameliorating factor.
--Randall 11/21/11
I've been working more on this problem of the principles behind Type 6. To see if it would be reasonable to give subordinate entry whenever the higher body's name is included, regardless of the form of that name, I played around with the "but" examples in Types 1-6. Some of the resulting constructions seemed to present no significant problems:
- Type 2 names:
- American Chemical Society. Office of Statistical Services
- not ACS Office of Statistical Services
- King County (Wash.). Cultural Development Authority
- not Cultural Development Authority of King County
- Church of England. Diocese of Hereford. Board of Education
- not Hereford Diocesan Board of Education
- Honolulu (Hawaii). Committee on Aging
- not Honolulu Committee on Aging
- International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Species Survival Commission. Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force
- not IUCN/SSC Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force
- National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. Subcommittee on Renewable Energy
- not NARUC Subcommittee on Renewable Energy
- Queensland. Parks and Wildlife Service
- not Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service
- Snohomish County (Wash.). Office of Community Planning
- not Snohomish County Office of Community Planning
- United States. Census Bureau
- not U.S. Census Bureau
- (Type 2 has not followed consistently in AACR2. For example, "U.S. Census Bureau" vs. "United States. Bureau of Efficiency" (which has its only 410 as "U.S. Bureau of Efficiency") or "United States. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection", etc. However, the fact of inconsistent application in the past probably isn't an argument not to have the rule in the first place...)
- University of Wisconsin--Madison. Campus Planning Committee
- not UW-Madison Campus Planning Committee
- Vancouver (B.C.). School Board
- not Vancouver School Board
- Type 4 names:
- British Columbia. BC Fisheries (or: British Columbia. Fisheries)
- not BC Fisheries
- Canada. Multiculturalism Canada
- not Multiculturalism Canada
- California. Records & Information Management
- not California Records & Information Management
- Type 5 names:
- Harvard University. Law School
- not Harvard Law School
- Type 6 names:
- British Broadcasting Corporation. Symphony Orchestra
- not BBC Symphony Orchestra
- Corcoran Gallery of Art. Friends
- Friends of the Corcoran
- University of Colorado, Boulder. Alumni Association
- not CU-Boulder Alumni Association
Would it be going too far to also consider names in adjectival form? Consider the following:
- Australian Centre for Child Protection
- (Is "Australian" meaning "belonging to Australia" or "concerning Australia"?)
Some names cannot be put into adjectival form. We don't have "United Statesian", but instead either "American" or the noun form "United States" or "U.S." Would "State" or "Nation" (or adjectival forms of the words) be considered as nicknames for the parent body? Consider the following examples ("in case of doubt" examples in Type 3):
- National Portrait Gallery (Australia)
- National Health Institute (N.Z.)
- Musées de l'État (Luxembourg)
Some names may not be easy to determine:
- McGill Institute for the Study of Canada
- (This is a Type 5 name. The body is most likely named for parent body McGill University. However, what if it were named for James McGill (namesake of the University) or another McGill, such as his wife or brother or a descendant?)
As a result of this exercise, what I have concluded is that the principle seems to be certainty (via the name of the subordinate body) of the existence of a relationship and the identity of the parent body. And I believe that the way Type 6 is written is probably the only way that this principle could be applied. I'd have to say I would have no problem resigning myself to that.
--Randall 11/22/11
If we go with a single list of types, should Type 6 be limited, e.g. something like "unless the higher or related body's name is only that of a government or jurisdiction"? Otherwise, we will end up with having to find some way to make sure we don't go back to having names such as "Vermont. University". Randall 11/22/11
There have been suggestions to get rid of Type 6, including from NLM when reviewing the Dec. 2007 draft. "NLM proposes to rewrite Type 5 to always record bodies subordinate to Universities indirectly, and to eliminate Type 6 altogether. This would simplify these instructions. KINCY, MedLA Liaison on behalf of NLM 2/10/2008" Randall 11/23/11
Bob Maxwell, in an email to this task force dated 12/5/11, stated: "I've been thinking about this a lot in the last while and I really think the only sane thing to do is eliminate 184.108.40.206 Type 6. There isn't any principle of 'certainty (via the name of the subordinate body) of the existence of a relationship and the identity of the parent body.' If there were, we would record subordinate bodies subordinately in all cases. 'Bodleian Library' gives no clue whatsoever about the existence of a parent body. If there were a principle that we need to indicate that existence through the authorized access point, the authorized access point would be 'University of Oxford. Bodleian Library.'" He gave several examples, like American Legion Auxiliary rather than American Legion. Auxiliary; Friends of the Dunedin Botanic Garden rather than Dunedin Botanic Garden. Friends, and St. John's College Library rather than St. John's College (University of Oxford). Library, and continued, "The proposed revised versions are in fact what the bodies call themselves-see the principle of representation in 0.4.3.4. They're also the forms that people would probably use when searching for them (which is the basis for why we apply the principle of representation). Type 6 only introduces artificial and unneeded manipulation of the name." I think Bob has made some really good points, especially about the principle of representation. 0.4.3.4 states: "The data describing a resource should reflect the resource's representation of itself. The name or form of name designated as the preferred name for a person, family, or corporate body should be the name or form of name most commonly found in resources associated with that person, family, or corporate body, or a well-accepted name or form of name in the language and script preferred by the agency creating the data." I would tend to agree with Bob, and with the NLM proposal to eliminate type 6 completely. BM 12/6/11
220.127.116.11 Direct or Indirect Subdivision
Different from govt bodies in 220.127.116.11. For non-govt, enter under lowest unit recorded directly under its own name. But for govt bodies, enter under name of the govt unless the name has been, or is likely to be, used by another agency, in which case enter under the lowest unit in the hierarchy that will distinguish it. Randall, 8/9/10
22.214.171.124 Joint Committees, Commissions, Etc.
22.214.171.124 Conventionalized Names for State and Local Units of United States Political Parties
Should this be generalized, not limited to United States? Randall 11/23/11
184.108.40.206 General Guidelines on Recording Names of Government Bodies
18.104.22.168 Government Bodies Recorded Subordinately
Type 1 (term that implies the body is part of another): Essentially the same as in 18.104.22.168, Type 1. Randall, 8/9/10
Type 2 (word that implies administrative subordination): Essentially the same as in 22.214.171.124, Type 2. Randall, 8/9/10
Type 3 (general name, or name indicating geographic, etc. subdivision): Essentially the same as in 18.104.22.168, Type 3. Randall, 8/9/10
Type 4 (name not conveying idea of corporate body): ALMOST the same as in 184.108.40.206, Type 4. For govt bodies, adds "and does not contain the name of the government" (i.e., there's nothing in the non-govt rule about the name of the parent body). Randall, 8/9/10
Types 5-11: No parallels in 126.96.36.199. Randall, 8/9/10
There is no parallel to Type 6 (name includes entire name of the higher or related body) in 22.214.171.124. For instance, while "Agricultural Experiment Station of Auburn University" is recorded subordinately as "Auburn University. Agricultural Experiment Station", "Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service" is recorded directly. This seems to be the most glaring difference between the non-govt and govt rules. Is this something we want to change? Would it be a problem to bring them in sync? Would that mean having constructions like "Oklahoma. University" if we change 220.127.116.11, or "Agricultural Experiment Station of Auburn University" if we change 126.96.36.199? Randall, 8/9/10
According to the LCPS for 188.8.131.52, "university" is not on the list of words that imply administrative subordination; no doubt because at least here in the US, universities can be public (government entities) or private. Given that, I don't think that "University of Oklahoma" would need to be changed to "Oklahoma. University". Yes, it is a government entity but because it is a university, it wouldn't need to be recorded as a subordinate body under jurisdiction. Moon, 11/30/10
The example "Canada. Corporations Canada" is not supported by the rules. It directly contradicts a similar agency name given as an exception to Type 4, "Multiculturalism Canada". We must find a new example. (Interestingly, the Dec. 2007 draft had "Canada. Agriculture Canada" as the example, and there was a complaint; the example got changed, but the problem remained!) Randall 11/23/11
During the review of Dec. 2007 draft, along with a suggestion to combine non-govt and govt, there was a suggestion to have the guidelines for govt REFER BACK to the corresponding types in non-govt guidlines, instead of repeating them. Would that be a viable way of handling this, vs. totally merging the guidelines? Randall 11/23/11
184.108.40.206 Direct or Indirect Subdivision
Different from non-govt bodies in 18.104.22.168. For non-govt, enter under lowest unit recorded directly under its own name. But for govt bodies, enter under name of the govt unless the name has been, or is likely to be, used by another agency, in which case enter under the lowest unit in the hierarchy that will distinguish it. Randall, 8/9/10
I had a question about this in AACR2 as well as in RDA--how is one supposed to know whether the name of a subordinate body "is or is likely to be used by another agency or another body" without a lot of checking of authority records, online organization charts, or application of judgment that may be faulty? (Of course you check authority records—my point is that the instruction seems to make creating these headings more complicated than maybe it needs to be.) Might it not be more sensible, if lengthier, to include the entire hierarchy? We aren't in a card catalog environment and there would be no guesswork involved. Also, this might be a way around that exceptional practice for US legislative subcommittees that some people objected to. If all corporate entities, government and non-government, include the entire hierarchy, then legislative bodies could as well:
American Bar Association. Section of Business Law. Committee on Non-Profit Corporations. (In RDA now: American Bar Association. Committee on Non-Profit Corporations.)
United States. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Human Development Services. (In RDA now: United States. Office of Human Development Services.) Note: I work with US government entities all the time, and I seriously question whether "Office of Human Development Services" is so unique that it could only be part of HHS. It sounds like an HR department to me and I could see it used by numerous agencies.
University of Texas at Austin. Division of Continuing Education. Petroleum Extension Service. (In RDA now: University of Texas at Austin. Petroleum Extension Service)
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs. (In RDA now: name is the same—considered an exceptional practice)
Australia. Parliament. Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. Sub-committee on Industrial Support for Defence Needs and Allied Matters. (In RDA now: Australia. Parliament. Sub-committee on Industrial Support for Defence Needs and Allied Matters)
Moon, 8/24/10
I rethought my comment of 8/24/10 and conferred with some colleagues here and at other instititions, and I'd like to rescind my suggestion. Even though the suggestion 'works', including the entire hierarchy for these names would mean that whenever any element anywhere in the hierarchy changed, you'd have to create a new authority record. It would generate a lot more work, most likely. Moon 12/5/11
220.127.116.11.3 Legislative Subcommittees of the United States Congress. Why is this an exception? Are U.S. subcommittees more likely to have conflicting names, vs. in other countries? Why not have a rule than if the name implies it's a subcommittee, then the parent committee must be included, regardless of what country we're dealing with? Randall 11/23/11
I *completely* agree with Kevin here ("Why not have a rule than if the name implies it's a subcommittee, then the parent committee must be included, regardless of what country we're dealing with?"). I work in the U.S. Senate Library, and it is of vital importance to know which committee has jurisdiction over which subcommittee. I can't imagine that it would be any different in Australia (source of the examples in 18.104.22.168.2). I can't speak for how other countries set up and name committees/subcommittees. In the U.S. Congress, subcommittee names tend to be quite specific, but not always. Right now, in the 112th Congress, there is a Subcommittee on Health in the House Committee on Veterans Affairs. If the treatment of U.S. Congress legislative subcommittees ceased to be exceptional in RDA and were treated the way other legislative subcommittees are treated in 188.8.131.52.2, you'd have "United States. Congress. House. Subcommittee on Health." That is incredibly vague; lots of committees aside from Veterans Affairs deal with health matters. What would happen if another House committee formed a Subcommittee on Health? You wouldn't know which one was which. In short, all legislative subcommittees of any legislature anywhere should include the name of the parent committee. I feel quite strongly about this. Moon 12/5/11
184.108.40.206.4 Successive Legislatures. A question on the Dec. 2007 draft talked about the use of "House" instead of "House of Representatives" in some United States examples. Instead of resolving the matter, the final version of RDA ducked the question by changing the example from "House" to "Senate". There is an example for "Australia. Parliament. House of Representatives. ..." in 22.214.171.124.2, but not for United States. Randall 11/23/11
In AACR2, 24.21B, one of the examples is "United States. Congress. House of Representatives. Select Committee on Government Organization." The LCRI for 24.21B states "Consider 'House' as the conventional name (cf. 24.3C) and use 'United States. Congress. House'". The LCPS for 126.96.36.199.1 states "Use "House" as the conventional name of the U.S. House of Representatives"--almost identical to LCRI 24.21B. If you look at the House website, you see the body refers to itself as "House" all over the place on the site, even though it isn't the official name of the body. I agree that in RDA it would be consistent to treat the U.S. House of Representatives the same way as Australia's House of Representatives. Maybe the reason for the exceptional treatment in the LCRI and LCPS is the massive amount of authority cleanup that would be involved. I'm not saying it's a justification for inconsistency, but there it is. BM 12/5/11
First Draft Revision of 184.108.40.206-18.104.22.168
This is essentially the draft that was sent out in May, but with some formatting changes, such as adding in the subheadings under the guideline headings. Does the overall structure of this draft seem workable? The revision draft was based on a preliminary RDA document, not the actual final published version, so I am going through it comparing with the print RDA. The subheadings weren't in the preliminary document; not having access to the online RDA, I'm not sure exactly what function these serve. But I'm worried now that merging the government sub-body types into 184.108.40.206 is going to complicate the structure of the online RDA product. Does anyone have something to say about this? Randall 11/22/11