text:
Providing training in mediation and conflict resolution
Mediation Center is a recognized leader in the mediation and conflict resolution field. Established in 1981, and affiliated with the Dispute Resolution Institute since 1998, Mediation Center has a long reputation for excellence in mediation training and conflict resolution training for professionals and organizations. Collaboration with the Dispute Resolution Institute provides a blend of research knowledge and practical applications that ensure the highest quality professional education and skills-building opportunities. Mediation Center is located on the Hamline University's West Campus in St. Louis Park.
Directed by experienced conflict resolution practitioner Aimee Gourlay, trainings are led by a hand-picked team of trainers/consultants, each with at least 20 years of experience in managing conflict.
Mediation Center
1600 Utica Avenue
Suite 700
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Add Skills and Expertise to Your Practice
Learn to:
- Settle disputes, solve problems, and manage decisions
- Enhance relationships and improve communication
- Negotiate with confidence
- Navigate workplace challenges
- Hone leadership skills
Professional Education Credits
- MN State Court Certified Rule 114 training for alternative dispute resolution neutral rosters.
- Credits for ADR, CLE, CE, CEU and others.


text:
Wed 04/Jan 2012
Thu 05/Jan 2012
Fri 06/Jan 2012
Sun 08/Jan 2012
Wed 11/Jan 2012
Fri 13/Jan 2012
Sat 14/Jan 2012
Tue 17/Jan 2012
Wed 18/Jan 2012
Thu 19/Jan 2012
Fri 20/Jan 2012
Sat 21/Jan 2012
Wed 25/Jan 2012
Fri 27/Jan 2012
Sat 28/Jan 2012
Wed 01/Feb 2012
RA goes in-depth with the graphic designers from one of experimental electronic music's most exciting labels.
In conversation with the synth pop pioneer and his current collaborator, Benge.
The Nashville artist has brought the aesthetics of noise to techno, and RA's Justin Farrar can't help but love the result.
The polls are closed and the votes are in: It's RA's top tracks of the past 12 months.
RA goes long, highlighting our favourite full-lengths of the year.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Michael Linares | Así las cosas (This being so), 2012 | black paint | Courtesy of the artist and Walter Otero Contemporary Art, San Juan
Location: Bass Museum of Art facade, facing North
Michael D. Linares (b. 1979, Bayamón, Puerto Rico) lives and works in San Juan, Puerto Rico. In 2005 he received a BFA from the EAP (School of Fine Arts) of San Juan, where he currently teaches. In 2010 he finished Beta-Local (Independent Studies) San Juan, Puerto Rico. He is also founder and editor at large of www.lasonora.org.
Notable solo exhibitions include 'Found & Lost', Museum of Contemporary Art of Puerto Rico (2009); 'Useless', curated by Pablo Leon de la Barra, PINTA Art Fair London (2010); 'Solo Project', curated by Juan de Nieves, ARCO, Madrid (2010); 'Tu y Yo en una Isla para Dos sentados mirando el Sol…', Galería Comercial, San Juan (2006); 'Eight, Ocho, Bizcocho, Cake', Galería Comercial, San Juan (2006); and 'Lawrimore Loves Painting', Lawrimore Project, Seattle (2006). Upcoming solo exhibitions include 'Solo Show', Walter Otero Gallery, San Juan (2013); and 'Solo Show', Ltd Los Angeles, Los Angeles (2013).
Artist statement (excerpted from the artist):
"Through a wide range of styles and media, my work reflects my determination to constantly review and question the possibilities of new relations between things and their meanings. I consider my practice to be a constant inquiry about what is considered art through its materiality, process and its relation with other objects, as well as language, people and situations. More than an aesthetic experience itself that fades the minute it's institutionalized, I see my work as the vehicle for a possible aesthetic experience, one that remains open, ever changing and ready to be redefined."
"Paint Splatter is a series of 'flat paintings' that explore the accidental gestures and erratic behavior characteristic of the medium and the act of painting. The series aims to constraint the immediacy and out-of-control nature of the accident (splatter) with the intention of reflecting on the act of painting and painting itself as another medium among many, with no particularities or special characteristics beyond its materiality at the service of an idea."


text:
EPA's "Tailoring Rule"
Decades ago Congress defined specific thresholds of 100 tons per year (tpy) and 250 tpy for new source review major sources (commonly referred to as "PSD"). In addition, Congress mandated that the Title V permitting program applies in most locations if a source has the potential to emit 100 tpy of a regulated air pollutant. Several years ago the Supreme Court held that EPA has the authority to regulate GHG emissions. EPA subsequently determined that it was compelled to permit GHG emissions from PSD and Title V major sources, and that the statutory PSD and Title V major source thresholds did not reasonably apply to GHG emissions. EPA "tailored" the statutory thresholds in its Tailoring Rule to create a new 100,000 tpy major source threshold unique to GHG. In addition, EPA established a PSD threshold for emissions increases of GHG at major sources, over which the source would trigger a GHG BACT review (75,000 tpy). In the case decided today, petitioners asked the Supreme Court whether EPA had the authority to tailor the federal Clean Air Act. And the Supreme Court said no.
Big Win for the Regulated Community
The Supreme Court concluded that EPA was "mistaken" in thinking that the Clean Air Act compelled PSD and Title V permitting, and it confirmed that applying the Tailoring Rule "would overthrow" the CAA structure and design. The Supreme Court disagreed with EPA's conclusion that "any air pollutant" must be permitted under the Act, and observed that "EPA has routinely given it a narrower, context-appropriate meaning." Use of the phrase throughout the Act, the Court said, is "not a command to regulate, but a description of the universe of substances EPA may consider regulating under the Act's operative provisions." Interpreting the phrase to encompass only those pollutants that can be sensibly regulated at the PSD and Title V statutory levels and to exclude others, like GHG emissions, make the PSD and Title V permitting programs work as enacted by Congress. The Supreme Court recognized that, if applied to GHG emissions, the statutory thresholds would expand the universe of major sources to an extreme and place excessive demands on limited government resources. But the opinion firmly communicated EPA's lack of authority to rewrite the Act's applicability thresholds. An agency "has no power to 'tailor' legislation to bureaucratic policy goals by rewriting unambiguous statutory terms." When EPA replaced the major source statutory numbers with its own for GHG, it exceeded the bounds of its authority. EPA's disregard for the prescribed statutory thresholds prompted the opinion's author, Justice Scalia, to say: "We are not willing to stand on the deck and wave goodbye as EPA embarks on this multiyear voyage of discovery...an agency may not rewrite clear statutory terms to suit its own sense of how the statute should operate." In short, the Court concluded that "EPA overstepped" its authority. As a consequence of the Supreme Court's decision today, the Tailoring Rule provisions are invalid for those sources subject to PSD or Title V permitting requirements solely because GHG emissions exceed EPA's major source thresholds.
As for 'anyway' sources -- those sources that are subject to PSD permitting for other non-GHG pollutants -- GHG BACT remains a reality. Today's decision affirms the requirement to conduct BACT review for GHGs when a source is otherwise subject to PSD. The Supreme Court concluded that EPA can require GHG BACT review, if the proposed major source or major modification triggers PSD for a non-GHG pollutant. The Court summarized sideboards from EPA's guidance on GHG BACT reviews in an attempt to limit "free rein" of regulatory applications of BACT in this distinct context. Referencing established PSD law and practice, the Supreme Court also observed that the 75,000 tpy threshold set by EPA to trigger BACT review was not established as a true de minimis level for GHG, and that the agency must justify its de minimis level for GHG. This aspect of the ruling potentially creates an unintended black hole for PSD sources: under the established PSD rules BACT applies to pollutants emitted above a prescribed significant emissions rate set for each regulated pollutant, but according to the opinion no such rate is set presently for GHG. When a significant emissions rate is not prescribed for a regulated pollutant under the established program, then any emissions increase can trigger BACT review. So, until EPA justifies "on proper grounds" its selection of 75,000 tpy as the GHG significant emissions rate, any emissions increase of GHG emissions at an 'anyway' source could potentially trigger BACT. This would seem at odds with the Supreme Court's unequivocal view that "EPA may require an 'anyway' source to comply with greenhouse-gas BACT only if the source emits more than a de minimis amount of greenhouse gases." So until EPA justifies its significant emissions rate, some uncertainty lingers for PSD sources.
Conclusion: The Tailoring Rule Got Trimmed
EPA lacked authority to rewrite the Act through the Tailoring Rule. Though some States may be slow adopters to the Court's ruling and others may choose to impose permitting programs more stringent than the Act, air quality permitting under PSD or Title V based solely on GHG emissions is impermissible under the Act. For 'anyway' sources, BACT review is here to stay. In light of the presumably unintended black hole described above, the legality of final GHG BACT determinations now in place may be in question, and pending or future GHG BACT reviews face some uncertainty in the absence of a true de minimis rate.
Your air quality team will continue to monitor developments in response to today's ruling. In the meantime, please call or drop us an email with any questions.
Tom Wood at (503) 294-9396 or email@example.com
Krista McIntyre at (208) 387-4239 or email@example.com
Matt Cohen at (206) 386-7569 or email@example.com
Geoff Tichenor at (503) 294-9389 or email@example.com
Allison Smith at (916) 319-4759 or email@example.com
Rachel Cox at (206) 386-7654 or email@example.com
Save this Web Page