text:
Policy I-13
(Approved: UFC 2/10/98; 4/24/07; BFC: 4/3/07, 12/1/09, 12/6/11)
The primary mission of the university is to search for truth, and its members are strongly committed to this mission. Research conducted under the aegis of the university, therefore, must be guided by norms which facilitate this search, and which foster a spirit of creativity and honesty in the process. Because the conduct of research rests on the foundation of intellectual honesty, violations call into question not only the validity of the particular research project but the social context in which it is conducted. Scholars must be able to trust their peers, students must be able to trust their teachers, and citizens must be able to trust the integrity of the results of research performed in institutions of higher education.
The major responsibility for maintaining standards of intellectual integrity rests with individual scholars and with the departments in which they work. Accordingly, it is incumbent upon faculty members to exercise active leadership in their supervisory roles in mentoring, collaborating with, or directing junior colleagues, staff, or students. The larger institution has a major role to play in three respects: (1) providing an environment for open inquiry in which research can be conducted appropriately, (2) declaring the standards which must not be abrogated, and (3) enforcing the standards on those occasions where violations may have occurred.
The purpose of this document is to set forth the policies and procedures by which Indiana University seeks to maintain and enforce such standards through impartial fact-finding and fair adjudication of allegations of research misconduct. Policy and procedures described below are steps in an academic peer review and fact-finding process and are not intended or designed to represent rules of a judiciary proceeding or hearing. Principles of basic fairness and confidentiality shall be observed in these peer-review procedures.
Charge. A written allegation of misconduct that triggers the procedures described by this Policy.
Complainant. A person who submits a Charge of Research Misconduct.
Deciding Official. ("DO"). Deciding Official shall be the university official appointed by the President to implement and oversee this policy on a particular campus in a manner that is consistent with applicable federal regulations.
Good Faith Charge. A Charge of Research Misconduct made by a Complainant who believes that Research Misconduct may have occurred. A Charge is not in good faith if it is made with reckless disregard for or willful ignorance of facts that would disprove the Charge.
Inquiry. The process under the Policy for information gathering and preliminary fact-finding to determine if a Charge or apparent instance of Research Misconduct has substance and therefore warrants an Investigation.
Investigation. The process under the Policy for the formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine whether Research Misconduct has occurred, and, if so, the responsible person and the seriousness of the misconduct.
Investigator. Any person, including but not limited to any person holding an academic or professional staff appointment at Indiana University, who is engaged in the design, conduct, or reporting of Research.
Misconduct. See "Research Misconduct."
ORI. The Office of Research Integrity within the Department of Health and Human Services.
PHS. The unit of Public Health Services with the Department of Health and Human Services.
Research. A systematic investigation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge. The term encompasses basic, applied demonstration and research, as well as research training activities.
Research Integrity Officer (RIO). A person identified by the DO to have primary responsibility for assuring adherence to these procedures.
Research Misconduct.
- (1) Research Misconduct means fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
- (a) Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
- (b) Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
- (c) Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
Research Misconduct does not include disputes regarding honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data, and is not intended to resolve bona fide scientific disagreement or debate. Research misconduct is also not intended to include "authorship" disputes such as complaints about appropriate ranking of co-authors in publications, presentations, or other work, unless the dispute constitutes plagiarism (as defined above).
Research Record. Any data, document, computer file, computer diskette, or any other written or non-written account or object that reasonably may be expected to provide evidence or information regarding the proposed, conducted, or reported research that constitutes the subject of a Charge of Research Misconduct. A Research Record includes, but is not limited to, grant or contract applications, whether funded or unfunded; grant or contract progress and other reports; laboratory notebooks; notes; printed or electronic correspondence; memoranda of telephone calls; videos; photographs; X-ray film; slides; biological materials; computer files and printouts; manuscripts and publications; equipment use logs; laboratory procurement records; animal facility records; human and animal subject protocols; consent forms; medical charts; and patient research files.
Respondent. The person against whom a Charge of Research Misconduct is directed, or the person whose actions are the subject of an Inquiry or Investigation.
RIO. See "Research Integrity Officer."
Sponsored Programs. Research, training, and instructional projects involving funds, materials, gifts, or other compensation from external entities (including any individual and government agencies) under agreements with the University.
* IUPUI has in place alternative mechanisms for dealing with the types of research misconduct described in paragraphs 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c).
This policy applies to (i) all individuals who hold university appointments and all graduate students who are engaged in the conduct of research, whether or not the research is funded, and to (ii) anyone affiliated with Indiana University engaged in research through a Sponsored Program to the extent of that research. Except as provided in clause (ii) above, academic misconduct of undergraduate students shall be dealt with through the Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct.
The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) may, in consultation with the Dean of the Graduate School, determine that an allegation of research misconduct on the part of a graduate student is more appropriately referred to the disciplinary channels provided in the Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct or such other disciplinary process duly established by the campus or an academic unit to take the place of the Code of Students Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct.
The procedures adopted pursuant to the policy set forth in this document will apply to all allegations of unethical research practices unless specifically prohibited by an applicable negotiated settlement or by another disciplinary procedure established by the University.
Multi-Campus Jurisdiction
Cases involving multiple Respondents who are subject to the jurisdiction of different Indiana University campuses shall be handled through a single investigatory process pursuant to these Research Misconduct Procedures. The DO(s) of the involved campus(es), in consultation with the provost or chancellor(s) of the involved campus(es), shall determine which campus process will be used. If the DO(s) and provost/chancellor(s) of the involved campuses are unable to reach agreement, then the President shall determine which campus process will be used. Such determinations shall be final.
Duty to Cooperate
All persons to whom this Policy and Procedures apply, including those accused of misconduct, are obligated to cooperate with the process set forth in this document. Such cooperation shall include providing Research Records and other relevant information to the DO or his or her designee, and refraining from actions that are retaliatory or other actions that impair the process set forth in this Policy.
Limitation of Actions
Allegations must be raised within six years of the date on which the alleged Research Misconduct occurred unless (i) the Respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research misconduct that occurred before the six-year limitation through the citation, republication or other use for the potential benefit of the Respondent of the research record that is alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized; or (ii) if DO, following consultation with ORI, determines that the alleged misconduct, if it occurred, could possibly have a substantial adverse affect on the health or safety of the public.
This Policy and Procedures shall be carried out in such a way as to protect the privacy and confidentiality of Complainants and Respondents to the extent possible consistent with protecting the public health and safety and with carrying out the Inquiry or Investigation. If the Complainant requests anonymity, the University will strive to honor the request within the limits set by applicable policies and regulations and federal, state, and local law.
Restoring Reputations
The University will make diligent efforts, as appropriate, to restore the reputations of persons alleged to have engaged in Research Misconduct when Charges are not confirmed.
Bad Faith Charge
A person who makes a charge of Research Misconduct in bad faith may be subject to sanctions if either the inquiry committee (if no further investigation is recommended) or the investigation committee finds bad faith to exist.
The University will make diligent efforts to protect the positions and reputations of those persons who, in Good Faith, make Charges and those who cooperate with an Inquiry or Investigation into Charge of Research Misconduct. Instances of apparent retaliation will be reviewed by the DO for appropriate action consistent with the University's Whistleblower Policy. Appropriate preventative measures also may be instituted.
Role of Counsel
The University (including the RIO, DO, or others acting on the University's behalf in the investigatory process) may consult with the University Counsel on procedural matters at any stage of the proceedings. The Respondent may be accompanied by counsel of his or her choice when interviewed in the course of an Inquiry or Investigation. Respondent's counsel may provide the Respondent advice, but may not participate in the proceedings.
Conflict of Interest
At each stage of handling an Inquiry or subsequent Investigation, all persons involved shall be vigilant to prevent any real or perceived conflict of interest, or personal conflicts or relationships between colleagues, from affecting the outcome of the proceedings and resolution of the charges. Possible conflicts of interest may include co-authorship of work within the recent past with any of the individuals directly involved with the alleged misconduct, or professional or personal relationship with the Respondent beyond that of mere acquaintances or colleagues. If such relationships are present, the individual shall recuse himself or herself from any investigative or decisional role in the case. If any prospective Committee member at any point in the process presents a conflict of interest, that committee member shall be replaced by another appointee of the appointing authority. If the DO has a conflict of interest, the campus provost or chancellor shall recommend a replacement to the President. The President shall name the replacement who will carry out the functions required of the DO under this Policy for the particular matter that creates a conflict for the DO. Conflicts of interest on the part of deans or department chairs shall be dealt with by the DO. If it becomes necessary to appoint a replacement during the course of the process, the new appointee shall be fully informed regarding earlier procedures and evidence secured, but it shall not be required that any of the process commence anew.
The following Procedures shall be used in connection with the reporting, inquiry, investigation and resolution of all Charges of Research Misconduct on all campuses of the University.
1. Rights and Responsibilities
- a. Research Integrity Officer. The RIO will have primary responsibility for assuring adherence to these procedures. The RIO is responsible for initially assessing Charges of Research Misconduct, determining when such Charges warrant Inquiries, and for overseeing Inquiries and Investigations. The RIO may seek the advice and assistance of the Standing Committee on Research Integrity. The RIO will assist Inquiry and Investigation Committees, and will also assist members of the University community in complying with these procedures and with relevant standards imposed by government or other entities, such as professional associations. The RIO will ensure that all reporting requirements are met. The RIO is responsible for maintaining files of all documents and evidence and for the confidentiality and security of the files.
- b. Complainant. The Complainant shall have an opportunity to be interviewed by the Inquiry and Investigation Committees, to review portions of the Inquiry and Investigation reports pertinent to those interviews, to be informed of the results of the Inquiry and Investigation, and to be protected, to the extent possible, from retaliation. The Complainant is responsible for making Charges in Good Faith, maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating with any subsequent Inquiry or Investigation conducted as a result of information he or she has brought to the attention of the University.
- c. Respondent. When an Inquiry is initiated, the Respondent shall be informed, in writing, of the Charges and shall be notified in writing of the final determinations and resulting actions. The Respondent shall also have the opportunity to be interviewed by, and present evidence to, the Inquiry and Investigation Committees, to review and comment on draft Inquiry and Investigation reports, and receive copies of the final reports. The Respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and for cooperating with the conduct of an Inquiry or Investigation. The Respondent shall refrain from retaliating against Complainants who raise Charges in Good Faith or against other persons who cooperate in inquiries and Investigations.
- d. Deciding Official (DO). The DO is responsible for implementation and oversight of these procedures. The DO retains final decision-making authority over all actions related to these procedures. The DO will appoint Standing Committees on Research Integrity on the IUPUI and Bloomington campuses with the advice of faculty councils and other bodies representing the faculty. The Committee on the Bloomington campus shall serve the Bloomington Campus and the Northwest, South Bend, Kokomo, East and Southeast campuses and shall have appropriate representation from the campuses. The DO will appoint the committees to conduct Inquiries and Investigations. The DO will ensure that the necessary and appropriate expertise is secured to carry out a thorough and authoritative evaluation of the relevant evidence in an Inquiry or Investigation. The DO will also ensure the interim administrative actions are taken, as appropriate, to ensure compliance with all relevant government regulations.
- e. Members of the University Community. All members of the University community have a duty to cooperate with the Inquiry and Investigation Committees and provide relevant evidence to the Committees and the RIO in the course of Research Misconduct proceedings.
2. Standards of Review
A finding of Research Misconduct requires that:
- a. There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
- b. The Research Misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
- c. The allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
3. Preservation of Evidence
- a. Either before or when the RIO notifies the Respondent of a Charge, the RIO shall promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the Research Records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence, and sequester them in a secure manner. Where the Research Records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments.
- b. Where appropriate, the RIO shall give the Respondent copies of or reasonable, supervised access to the Research Records.
- c. The destruction, absence of, or Respondent's failure to provide Research Records adequately documenting the questioned research is evidence of Research Misconduct when the University establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent had Research Records and intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly destroyed them, had the opportunity to maintain the records but did not do so, or maintained the records and failed to produce them in a timely manner and that the Respondent's conduct constitutes a significant departure from accepted practices of relevant research community.
4.Initiation of the Process
Charges of Research Misconduct may be filed by anyone, whether associated with the University or not. Such charges may be made to:
- (i) the RIO; or
- (ii) the dean of the school in which the Respondent holds principal appointment; or
- (iii) the campus chancellor or provost.
Prior to submitting a formal Charge, a potential Complainant is encouraged to consult informally with the RIO. Any such consultation shall be confidential within the limits set by applicable policies and regulations and federal, state, and local law. The consultation helps to distinguish whether the case involves questions of Research Misconduct, is to be resolved by other deliberative or mediation procedures, or does not warrant further actions.
If a potential Complainant consults with the RIO, the RIO will inform him or her of the need to file written Charges if he or she wishes the matter to go forward. If the Complainant does not file a written Charge, after consulting with the RIO, the matter will be dropped, unless the RIO believes there may be sufficient cause and evidence to warrant an Inquiry in which case the RIO may submit written charges. The Complainant will also be informed of his or her obligation to cooperate in any Inquiry or Investigation that may take place.
Any administrator who receives credible information that Research Misconduct may have occurred, including unwritten information or information submitted anonymously, shall notify the RIO of such information. When such information comes to the attention of the RIO, the RIO shall reduce the concern to a written Charge and apply these Procedures.
- a. Submission of Formal Allegation. Any written allegations received by the administrators other than the RIO shall be forwarded to the RIO.
- b. Receipt of Formal Allegation. On receipt of a written Charge of Research Misconduct, the RIO shall, in consultation with the Standing Committee, determine whether the Charge is frivolous, does not raise questions of Research Misconduct, or does not warrant further action. In such a case, the RIO may, at his or her discretion, handle the matter informally or refer it to the appropriate person or process. Such process may include the involvement of the Standing Committee in those instances where the Charges involve the responsible conduct of research, but do not constitute Research Misconduct.
- c. Disposition of the Case. If the Charge does not raise questions of Research Misconduct, does not warrant further action, is determined to be frivolous, or is determined to be more appropriately resolved by other deliberative or mediation procedures, the Complainant and anyone else known to be aware of the Charge will be so notified.
5. The Inquiry
The purpose of an Inquiry is to determine whether there is sufficient credible evidence of possible Research Misconduct to warrant conducting an Investigation.
- a. Appointment of Inquiry Committee. The Inquiry shall be carried out by a committee of no fewer than three persons appointed by the DO. The DO shall promptly appoint the Inquiry Committee after receiving the RIO's determination that an Inquiry should be initiated. Members of the committee shall have no Conflicts of Interest with the Respondent or with the case in question, shall be unbiased, and shall, together, possess sufficient expertise to enable the Committee to conduct the Inquiry and to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the Charge(s). Appointees are expected to notify the DO of any known Conflict of Interest or of an inability to render unbiased judgment. Wherever feasible, one member of the Inquiry Committee shall be from the department in which the Respondent holds primary appointment and one member shall be a faculty member from elsewhere in the University. One member of the Inquiry Committee must be a member of the Standing Committee. If necessary (e.g., to obtain appropriate expertise), the DO may appoint an individual from outside the University. Any exception of the designated composition of the Inquiry Committee shall be made only for good cause and shall be documented in the Inquiry report. The DO shall designate a chair, who shall be a University appointee who is not from the unit in which the Respondent holds primary appointment.
- b. Notification of Initiation of Inquiry.
- (1) Notification of the Complainant.
- The RIO shall notify the Complainant in writing of the initiation of the Inquiry, including a statement of the Charges and related issues that will be the subject of the Inquiry and the membership of the Inquiry Committee. The RIO shall include with the notification a copy of these procedures and an explanation of the rights and responsibilities. The RIO shall explain that while every attempt will be made to maintain anonymity through the Inquiry phase of the process (if requested by the Complainant), the Complainant's identity in most instances will be made known to the Respondent if an Investigation ensues.
- (2) Notification of the Respondent.
- Upon initiation of the Inquiry, the RIO shall meet with the Respondent to present the Respondent with written notification of the Charges and related issues and the membership of the Inquiry Committee; review the contents of the Charges; describe the process that will be followed; and promptly take possession of or otherwise secure the Research Record. The RIO shall include with the notification a copy of these procedures and an explanation of the Respondent's rights and responsibilities, including his or her right to submit a written response to the Charges. The RIO shall remind the Respondent of his or her obligation to cooperate with the investigative process and to provide all relevant materials and information.
- (3) Notification of the Dean.
- The Dean of the School in which the Respondent holds primary appointment shall be notified of the initiation of any Inquiry.
- c. Objections to Committee Membership. The notifications shall state that the Respondent and the Complainant may object, in writing, to any of the proposed appointees on the grounds that the person does not meet the criteria stated in paragraph 5(a). Any objections shall be submitted to the DO within 5 working days of receipt of the notification. The DO shall consider the objection, and if it is reasonable, the DO shall replace the person with one who meets the stated criteria. The DO's decision as to whether the challenge is reasonable shall be final.
- d. Charge to the Inquiry Committee. The RIO shall convene the first meeting of the Inquiry Committee, review the Charges, and describe appropriate procedures for conducting an Inquiry. The Inquiry Committee may consult with RIO as necessary during the course of the Inquiry. If issues of Research Misconduct that fall outside of the charge to the Inquiry Committee arise during the course of the Inquiry, the Inquiry Committee shall so inform the RIO, including in its communication the evidence on which its concerns are based. The RIO, in consultation with the Standing Committee, will consider the issues raised and, if warranted, amend the Charges accordingly. The Respondent and Complainant shall receive appropriate notification of any such amendments.
- e. Interviews. Whenever possible, interviews should be conducted with each individual involved either in making the Charge or against whom the Charge is made. The Inquiry Committee may interview others and examine relevant Research Records and materials, as necessary to determine whether there is sufficient credible evidence of Research Misconduct.
- f. Provision of Documents. The Inquiry Committee shall have the authority to require submission to the Committee of any documents or materials it deems necessary to the conduct of the Inquiry.
- g. Timing. The Inquiry (including the DO's determination whether an Investigation should be initiated) shall be completed within 60 calendar days after its initiation. Commencement of the Inquiry is defined as the first meeting of the Inquiry Committee convened by the RIO. If an inquiry takes longer than 60 days, the Inquiry Report must state the reasons of the extension of time.
- h. The Inquiry Report. The Inquiry Committee shall document its findings in a report that states the Charges summarizes relevant interviews, and states the conclusions reached and the evidence on which it reached those conclusions. Where it finds that an Investigation is not warranted, the report and other retained documentation must be sufficiently detailed as to permit a later assessment of the reasons for the recommendation not to conduct an Investigation. The Inquiry report may be drafted with the assistance of the RIO. If the report recommends that an Investigation be conducted, it shall propose the subject matter to be included in the Investigation.
- The draft Inquiry report shall be distributed to the Respondent. The RIO shall make available to the Complainant the draft report or relevant portions of the report (i.e., those portions that address the Complainant's role and opinions in the Inquiry) if the Complainant is identifiable. The RIO may establish reasonable conditions for review to protect the confidentiality of the draft report. The Complainant and Respondent may submit written comments regarding the facts and findings to the RIO within 10 working days, which will be made a part of the final Inquiry record. Based on any comments received, the Inquiry Committee may revise the report, as the Committee deems appropriate.
- The final Inquiry report, together with the Respondent's and Complainant's comments, if any, shall be forwarded to the DO for action.
6. Disposition of the Case Following an Inquiry
Within 10 working days of receipt of the Inquiry report, including the comments, if any, the DO shall decide whether the findings from the Inquiry provide sufficient evidence of possible Research Misconduct to justify conducting an Investigation. If the DO's decision varies from the conclusion reached by the Inquiry Committee, the DO shall prepare a report explaining in detail the basis for his or her decision. The report shall document the DO's findings, stating the conclusions reached and the evidence on which the DO reached those conclusions, and shall be distributed to the Respondent, the Complainant, the Inquiry Committee, and the Standing Committee within the 10 working day period.
If the DO decides that the matter is not to be pursued further, the RIO will act to ensure that all reference to the matter is expunged from the Respondent's personnel file. A single copy of the records from the case sufficient to permit a later assessment of the reasons for the decision not to conduct an Investigation shall be maintained in a secure manner by the Office of the DO for a period of seven years after the termination of the Inquiry. Anyone known to have knowledge of the Inquiry (including the Respondent, the Complainant, the dean, chancellor, provost, the Standing Committee, and all persons who have been interviewed or otherwise informed of the Charges) shall be informed that the matter has been dropped because it was determined not to warrant an Investigation.
7. The Investigation
The purpose of an Investigation is to determine whether the alleged Research Misconduct occurred and, if so, to recommend appropriate sanctions.
- a. Notification of Initiation of Investigation. The RIO will notify the Respondent and the Complainant in writing that an Investigation will take place and remind them of their obligation to cooperate in the conduct of the Investigation. The RIO will also notify external funding agencies and appropriate governmental offices, in the manner and to the extent required by law.
- b. Timing of Investigation.
- (1) the Investigation shall commence within 30 calendar days after it is determined by the DO that an Investigation is warranted.
- (2) the Investigation should be completed within 120 calendar days of its initiation, which shall be the date of the first meeting of the Investigation Committee convened by the RIO.
- This includes conducting the Investigation, preparing the report of findings, making that report available for comment by the Respondent and the Complainant and, if required, submitting the report to governmental funding sources.
- Extensions of time must be approved by the DO, and if the case involves PHS funding, the approval of ORI. The reasons for the extension must be documented in the Investigation report. The Respondent shall be notified of any extensions of time.
- c. Investigation Process. The Investigation may be conducted through private interviews or, at the option of either the Investigation Committee or the Respondent, at a hearing at which the Respondent shall be invited to be present. Requests for hearings shall be made in writing within 15 working days of receipt of the notice of the Investigation.
- (1) Notice of Hearing
- RIO shall notify the Respondent at least 15 working days before the hearing concerning the following:
- (i) The date, time, and place of the hearing;
- (ii) That the Respondent is required to provide to the RIO the names of all persons he or she wishes to have interviewed or whose statements may be offered as evidence no later than 10 working days prior to the date of the hearing;
- (iii) That the RIO will provide the Respondent with the names of all additional interviewees who will give evidence at the hearing and will make available to the Respondent any statements or other material that will be presented during the hearing no later than 10 working days prior to the date of the hearing;
- (iv) That the Respondent is entitled to raise questions for the Investigation Committee to pose to each interviewee about the information provided by that interviewee and about the Charges;
- (v) That the Respondent is entitled to be accompanied at the hearing by counsel or an advisor of his or her choice and at his or her expense, who may provide the Respondent advice but may not participate in the proceedings;
- (vi) That the Respondent may make a statement, either orally or in writing to the Investigation Committee at the commencement of or at the end of the proceedings (at the Respondent's choice) concerning the Charges;
- (vii) That the hearing will be closed to the public unless both the Respondent and the DO agree to have the hearing open to the public as provided in (8) below; and
- (viii) That the Respondent may attend the presentation of evidence at the hearing, but not the Committee's deliberations.
- (2) Appointment of Investigation Committee
- The Investigation shall be conducted by an Investigation Committee of no fewer than five persons appointed by the DO. The DO shall appoint the Investigation Committee promptly upon the completion of the Inquiry. Members of the Investigation Committee shall have no Conflicts of Interest with the Respondent or the case in question, shall be unbiased, and shall, together possess the necessary expertise to enable them to evaluate authoritatively the relevant evidence of the alleged Research Misconduct and to conduct an Investigation. Committee members must have been uninvolved in the prior processes and must have no intimate knowledge of the case. Appointees are expected to notify the DO of any known Conflict of Interest or of an inability to render unbiased judgment. At least one member of the Committee shall be a peer of the Respondent from outside the University. The DO shall designate a chair of the Committee, who shall be a tenured member of the University faculty who is not from the unit in which the Respondent holds primary appointment. Where the Respondent is a member of the faculty, all appointees to the Investigation Committee shall be tenured faculty from this or another university.
- (3) Notification of Appointment of Investigation Committee
- The Respondent and Complainant shall be notified of the Committee membership and shall be given an opportunity to object to the Committee membership on the grounds that one or more members do not meet the above-stated criteria. Objections shall be made in writing to the DO within 5 working days of notification of the Committee's membership. The DO shall consider the objection, and if it is reasonable, the DO shall replace the person with one who meets the stated criteria. The DO's decision as to whether the challenge is reasonable shall be final.
- (4) Charge to Investigation Committee; Standard of Review
- The DO shall provide the Investigation Committee with a written charge of the subject matter to be considered in the Investigation. The charge will state that the Committee is to evaluate the evidence to determine whether, based on a preponderance of the evidence, Research Misconduct occurred and, if so, to what extent, who was responsible, and its seriousness.
- If issues of Research Misconduct that fall outside of the charge arise during the course of the Investigation, the Committee shall so inform the DO, including in its communication the evidence on which its concerns are based. The DO, in consultation with the RIO and the Investigation Committee, will consider the issues raised and, in the DO's discretion, provide the Investigation Committee with an amended charge. The Respondent shall be notified of any such amendments.
- (5) Due Process
- In all of its proceedings the Investigation Committee shall be governed by principles of due process and orderly procedures for ensuring the impartial examination by the Committee of all pertinent facts, University policies and procedures, and the legitimate interests of all parties involved.
- (6) Collection of Information During the Investigation
- The Respondent shall have the right to be interviewed by the Investigation Committee and accompanied by legal counsel or other advisor of his or her choice (who may provide the Respondent advice but not participate with proceedings); shall be permitted to identify persons who might have material information about the Charge, each of whom shall be interviewed by the Committee; to identify other relevant evidence, which shall be reviewed by the Committee; where the Respondent has requested a hearing, to hear all interviewees; to raise questions for the Investigation Committee to pose to each interviewee about the information provided by that interviewee and the Charge of Research Misconduct; and to respond to all written evidence.
- The Committee shall interview the Complainant, if available, and shall review all pertinent documentary evidence. Before and during the Investigation the Committee may request and secure further information in writing from the Respondent which it thinks to be pertinent to the case. The Committee may also request that persons not identified by the Respondent provide information pertinent to the case either through interviews or in statements prepared for the Committee. These statements, if they are not presented during a hearing, shall be made available to the Respondent. The Respondent may request that a hearing be reconvened in order to add or to respond to such newly solicited material and information. The decision made by the Committee and any subsequent decision by University administrators shall be made only on the basis of evidence presented during the Investigation or solicited by the Investigation Committee and to which the Respondent has had the opportunity to respond. The Respondent may submit a written statement at the close of a hearing.
- (7) Complainant's Confidentiality
- If a Complainant who has requested that his or her identity be kept confidential declines to appear to be interviewed at a hearing, the Investigation may nevertheless go forward if the Investigation Committee determines that there is credible evidence of possible Research Misconduct apart from the Complainant's statements regarding the Charge of Research Misconduct.
- (8) Open vs. Closed Hearings
- Any hearings will be closed to the public unless both the Respondent and the DO agree to have the hearing open to the public. A request by the Respondent for an open hearing shall be made to the RIO in writing no later than 10 working days prior to the date set for the hearing.
- (9) Record of Interviews; Transcripts
- An audio tape recording of Investigation interviews shall be made. A copy of the audiotape or a transcript thereof shall be provided to each interviewee for his or her review to identify errors. The recording or transcript and any changes requested by the interviewee shall together constitute the record of the interview. If transcripts are created, they shall be maintained as the rest of the record of the case.
- (10) Committee Recommendation
- The Investigation Committee shall render a written report within 15 working days of completion of hearing. If there was no hearing, the Investigation Committee shall provide its written report within 15 working days of concluding its interviews or other investigative process. The Committee's report should specify the Charges, summarize the relevant information provided by persons interviewed by the Committee, make explicit findings of fact with respect to each Charge and list the evidence relevant to the findings and whether each Charge was proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The Report should provide the Committee's conclusions as to whether any proved Charge constitutes Research Misconduct.
- It should also include a recommendation as to who was responsible for the Research Misconduct and its seriousness. The Committee shall also make recommendations of procedures to be undertaken by University administrators to achieve appropriate remedies. The report and other retained documentation must be sufficiently detailed as to permit a later assessment of the Investigation.
- (11) Review of Committee Report by Respondent and Initiator
- A draft of the Committee's report shall be forwarded to the Respondent. The draft report or relevant portions thereof (i.e., those portions that address the Complainant's role in the Investigation) also shall be made available to the Complainant for review. The Respondent and Complainant may submit written comments to the RIO within 15 working days, which will be made a part of the final Investigation record. The Committee's report, together with the Respondent's and Complainant's comments shall then be forwarded to the DO.
- (12) Factual Findings are Conclusive
- The factual findings of the Investigation Committee shall be conclusive and binding on any later proceeding convened for other purposes (e.g., grievances to the Faculty Board of Review relating to sanctions imposed).
8. Disposition of the Case Following an Investigation
Within 10 working days of receipt of the Investigation report, the DO shall decide what action to take or recommend.
- a. Concurrence with the Committee
- (1) No Misconduct
- If the DO concurs with an Investigation Committee's recommendation that the Charges have not been proven by a preponderance of the evidence, the RIO will act to ensure that all reference to the matter is expunged from the Respondent's personnel file.
- (2) Misconduct
- If the DO concurs with an Investigation Committee's recommendation that Research Misconduct has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence, the Respondent shall be notified in writing of the DO's decision. If the DO determines that a sanction should be imposed, the DO shall either take such action as is within the DO's authority or make recommendations for action to the appropriate person or decision-making body, as prescribed by University policy. Whether or not sanctions are imposed, the DO may prescribe corrective action responsive to the Research Misconduct and take any other appropriate action. The DO's findings shall be conclusive and binding on any later proceeding convened for other purposes (e.g., grievances to the Faculty Board of review relating to sanctions imposed).
- b. DO's Decision at Variance With Committee's Recommendation. If, on review of the Investigation report, the DO disagrees with the Investigation Committee's recommendation, the DO shall prepare a report explaining in detail the basis for his or her concerns. The basis of the DO's concerns may be procedural or substantive. The DO shall provide the Investigation Committee with the statement of concerns and the Committee shall have 10 working days in which to address them. The Committee may, for example, gather additional evidence, deliberate further in light of the concerns raised by the DO, or correct the procedural problem(s) identified by the DO. The Committee may request and obtain from the DO extensions of time, as may be reasonably necessary for addressing the issues. The Investigation Committee shall provide the DO an amended Investigation report in response to the statement of concerns. The Respondent shall be provided a copy of the amended Investigation report, together with the DO's statement of concerns, and shall be given an opportunity to respond to the amended report and DO's statement of concerns. Relevant portions thereof (i.e., those portions that address the Complainant's role and opinions in the Investigation), shall be made available to the Complainant for review, and the Complainant shall have 10 working days to comment in writing on the amended report.
- If the DO concurs with the recommendation in the amended Investigation report, the procedures specified in Section 8a shall be followed. If the DO's decision varies from the recommendation made by the Investigation Committee in the amended report, the DO shall prepare a report explaining in detail the basis for his or her decision. The report shall document the DO's findings, stating the conclusions reached and the evidence on which the DO reached those conclusions. The report should make explicit findings of fact with respect to each Charge. The DO's decision shall be based solely on evidence elicited in the Investigation and to which the Respondent has had the opportunity to respond. The DO's findings shall be conclusive and binding on any later proceeding convened for other purposes (e.g., grievances to the Faculty Board of Review relating to sanctions imposed). The Respondent shall be notified in writing of the DO's decision.
- c. Restoration of reputation of the Respondent, Complainant and Others. Where the DO determines that the Respondent did not engage in Research Misconduct, the DO shall consult with the Respondent and take any action which the DO deems necessary to restore the Respondent's reputation. At the conclusion of any Investigation, the DO shall also consult with the Complainant and take any action which the DO deems necessary to restore the position or reputation of the Complainant.
9. Appeals
Through the process provided in this section, the Respondent may appeal a Research Misconduct determination or sanction. Appeals may be taken to the review body available to persons in the Respondent's appointment classification for the purpose of hearing employment grievances [e.g., the Faculty Board of review (in the case of academic appointees), the appropriate Graduate School body (where applicable in the case of graduate students), or the processes established by the University Personnel Policies relating to employee conduct (in the case of staff employees)].
- a. Submission of Appeals. Appeals must be in writing and must be submitted to the appropriate body within 10 working days of receipt of notice of the DO's decision. The Respondent shall submit a copy of the appeal to the DO.
- b. Subject of Appeals. Appeals shall be limited to: (1) claims that the process was flawed in a way that creates a significant risk that the outcome was erroneous; or (2) grievances of sanctions imposed as a result of a finding of Research Misconduct. The appeal must specify the nature of any claimed procedural error. The factual record established during the Investigation shall constitute the factual record for the purposes of the Appeal. The Appeal body may not review the factual finding of misconduct.
- c. Exclusive Process. The procedures described in this document constitute the exclusive process for raising and resolving charges of Research Misconduct.
- d. Time Frame. If PHS funding is involved, the appeal must be completed within 120 days, unless an extension is received from the Office of Research Integrity.
10. Severance of University Relationship
Severance of the Respondent's relationship with the University, whether by resignation or termination of employment, completion of or withdrawal from studies, or otherwise, before or after initiation of procedures under this policy, will not preclude or terminate Research Misconduct procedures. Ongoing Inquiries and Investigations shall be conducted, and appropriate internal and external notifications of the proceedings and of their outcome will be made.
11. Notifications
- a. The DO shall notify federal funding entities if he/she believes that any of the following conditions exist:
- (1) an immediate health hazard;
- (2) an immediate need to protect federal funds or equipment;
- (3) an immediate need to protect the interests of the Complainant or Respondent as well as the Respondent's co-investigators or associates, if any;
- (4) a probability that the alleged incident is about to be publicly reported; or
- (5) developments during an Investigation disclose facts that may affect current or potential funding of the Complainant or that the entity needs to know to ensure appropriate use of federal funds and protection of the public interest.
- b. The DO shall determine whether law enforcement agencies, professional societies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals in which deceptive reports may have been published, collaborators of the Respondent in the work, or other concerned parties, should be notified of the outcome of a case. The RIO will be responsible for compliance with all requirements for notification of funding or sponsoring agencies.
12. Disposition of File
After completion of the case and all ensuing related actions, the RIO shall prepare a complete file, including the original records of all proceeding conducted by the Inquiry and Investigation Committees and copies of all documents and other materials furnished to the RIO or to the Inquiry or Investigation Committee. The RIO shall seal the file and retain it for 7 years after completion of the proceeding or the completion of any PHS proceeding involving the Research Misconduct allegation. Access to the materials in the file shall be available only upon authorization of the DO for good cause.
The RIO shall return all original documents and materials to the persons who furnished them.
After seven years from the completion of the Investigation and all ensuing related actions, if any, the RIO will destroy the file unless the RIO makes a written finding that there is reason to retain it. The finding will state explicitly the reasons why and the period during which the file is to be maintained, and will be entered in the file. The Respondent shall receive either a notice that the file has been destroyed or a copy of the written finding that the file will be retained.
13. Procedural Changes
- a. Deadlines. Due to the sensitive nature of allegations of misconduct, each case shall be resolved as expeditiously as possible. The nature of some cases may, however, render normal deadlines difficult to meet. If at any time an established deadline cannot be met, a report shall be filed with the DO setting out the reasons why the deadline cannot be met and estimating when that stage of the process will be completed. A copy of this report shall be provided to Respondent.
- b. Other Procedural Changes. Particular circumstances in an individual case may dictate variation from the normal procedures deemed in the best interests of the University. Any change from normal procedures must ensure fair treatment of the Respondent. Any significant deviation from the procedures described in this document shall be made only with the written approval of the DO.


text:
Making It Modern: Wheaton College and the International Style is a digital exhibit that follows the transformation of Wheaton's built environment from its traditional 'brick and ivy' roots to its adoption of innovative Modernist styles of architecture. The exhibit is based on an exhibition of the same name that was on display in Wheaton's Beard and Weil Galleries March 18 through April 16, 2009. The exhibition was curated by students in the course Exhibition Design during the Spring 2009.
The digital exhibit's organization corresponds to that of the physical exhibition and is divided into four chronological sections: Early Days, the 1938 Competition, Modernism Realized, and Post-Modernism. One can navigate through these sections by using the right menu.
Online Exhibit Created by Shannon Ryan, Class of 2010

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Using MySQL lat/lon Columns as a Mapnik Datasource
With the gracious help of Dane Springmeyer, I recently got Mapnik up and running on my Mac, so naturally the first thing I wanted to do was to plot iNaturalist observations. Mapnik will talk with a PostGIS database just fine, but it wont't pull points from a MySQL database table, at least not directly. What it does support, though, is the all-powerful OGR. Back when I used to use Mapserver, I had used OGR a few times to act as a bridge between simple lat/lon columns in a MySQL table and Mapserver (great description here), so I figured the same would be possible in Mapnik.


text: Sijun Forums :: View topic - Showdown Log in to check your private messages Sijun Forums Forum Index >> Gallery/Finished Work View previous topic :: View next topic Author Topic : "Showdown" newtabjunior memberMember #Joined: 30 May 2012Posts: 9 Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:10 am Not sure if this fits the board's format - more of a graphic design excersize than a painting, but would love to hear any criticisms and comments. newtab Back to top whommemberMember #Joined: 28 Feb 2012Posts: 317Location: Sweden Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:59 am It fits very well, I love it. Back to top newtabjunior memberMember #Joined: 30 May 2012Posts: 9 Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 1:14 am Thank you for the nod of approval! Will post more Back to top SumalethAdministratorMember #Joined: 30 Oct 1999Posts: 2896Location: Australia Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 1:51 am I like it._________________Art Links Archive -- Artists and Tutorials Back to top aaron2junior memberMember #Joined: 21 Oct 2012Posts: 12 Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:18 am Great it looks..no need to worry..It is preety good Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First Sijun Forums Forum Index -> Gallery/Finished Work All times are GMT - 8 Hours Page 1 of 1 Jump to: Select a forum Digital Art----------------Digital Art DiscussionWork in ProgressGallery/Finished Work Miscellaneous----------------Random MusingsArchive : Sep99 - Dec00 You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group


text:
Several readers who disagreed with The Times' Monday editorial, which expressed concern over priests who made political statements from the pulpit before Tuesday's vote, noted that the same day's paper published a photo of Gov. Jerry Brown in the pews of a South L.A. church campaigning for Proposition 30.
In a letter Tuesday, Robert S. Rodgers of Culver City asked: "Do the editors approve of Democrats going to churches to push for their causes but disapprove of Republicans speaking from the pulpit in support of their causes?"
Reader James P. Murphy of Santa Clarita raised another question: "If corporations and unions are allowed to speak publicly about candidates and issues under the guise of freedom of speech, why shouldn't churches, regardless of denomination, be allowed to do likewise without fearing an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service? At least there will be a moral and ethical basis behind their beliefs, which neither of the aforementioned organizations has demonstrated to any degree."
Editorial writer Michael McGough responds:
Rodgers draws a parallel between religious leaders seeking to influence the way their parishioners vote, the subject of our editorial, and the fact that Gov. Jerry Brown visited a Los Angeles church as part of his advocacy of Proposition 30. If not quite apples and oranges, this is a flawed comparison.


text:
The Senate on Tuesday gave final approval to the hard-fought fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill, including provisions limiting reimbursement of contractor executive pay and removing caps on contract set-asides for women-owned small businesses.
In a unanimous vote on the $650 billion package -- which must now be reconciled with a House version at conference meetings next week -- senators approved a provision authored by Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., to cap contractor salary reimbursements at $230,700, a sizable drop from the current allowable Defense Department reimbursement for top contractor employees of $763,029.
Also included was an amendment by Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Charles S. Grassley, R-Iowa., to require the Pentagon to compile a report on top contractor salaries in recent years. The move was hailed by National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley, who said, "At a time when our economy is struggling, millions of Americans are unemployed, and our national debt and deficit continue to grow, taxpayers should not fund exorbitant government reimbursements for exorbitant private contractor salaries."
Such caps have long been opposed by the contracting community. Stan Soloway, president of the Professional Services Council, in October issued a statement saying, "This proposed limitation would deprive the government of access to critical skills, such as those currently in high demand to defend government networks from cyber intrusions. Existing limitations on compensation for federal employees are already hindering the government's ability to recruit and retain highly skilled professionals. While it may seem that this proposal could address the issue, it fails to recognize that federal contractors have to compete for top talent with companies that operate exclusively in the commercial sector."
The Senate-passed bill also includes an amendment approved on Monday to remove current limits on the anticipated award price for contracts let under the procurement program for women-owned small businesses. Sponsored by Sens. Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine, and Mary Landrieu, D-La., it also calls for the Small Business Administration to conduct a study every five years to examine disparities in the North American Industry Classification System code.
Advocates for women in contracting had for nearly a decade argued that the cap of $4 million for goods and services contracts and $6.5 million on manufacturing contracts discouraged contracting officers from taking the trouble to solicit women-owned businesses.
Barbara Kasoff, president of Women Impacting Public Policy, called approval of the amendment "a very important step toward bridging the gap for women entrepreneurs who wish to do business with the world's largest consumer -- the federal government."


text:
Reviewed by Marissa B. (age 10)
I think the book, The Black Pearl, was a great book! It was always full of action, every word. It was exciting, fun to read, and it kept you turning the pages.
The bad character in this story reminded me of a boy I know. He always thinks he's the best and can do everything on his own without any help, and he always wants to be the star of the show.
The story reminds me of times that people have tried to convince me not to do something because it's too hard or doesn't sound good, but when I do it, I get rewarded. And not with trophies, but with accomplishment.
I recommend this book for ages 8-12. A person who reads this book is a person who enjoys action, likes to read, and who can imagine being the person.


text:
Being a sports fan and a sportswriter, I have never fully pledged allegiance to the Cubs or White Sox. But I must say I've always had a special place in my heart for Wrigley Field. Throughout its 99-year history, the Friendly Confines has managed to keep its old-school and nostalgic appeal over the years.
But with baseball modernizing at a rapid pace, the Cubs have finally decided to follow this trend. They are doing so with their proposed $500 million renovation plan.
One aspect of the project is a 5,000-square-foot Jumbotron that the Cubs want oh so badly. Now while I understand the need for modernization and finding ways to stream revenue, I can't bear the thought of a Jumbotron on the North Side.
I must say I enjoy the view from the Wrigley press box. The rooftops, the nearby buildings, the neighborhood and the lake are all within my field of view.
I know there are others who enjoy that view as well. I feel a Jumbotron would take some of that ambiance away. I also feel such a device would take away the ballpark's originality, which has made Wrigley one of the best ballparks in the country.
The eyesore of a Jumbotron would also serve as a harsh reminder of corporate America's constant presence in professional sports with the amount of advertisements certain to be plastered on it. Now don't get me wrong, there are plenty of ads covering Wrigley. But most are limited to the concourses and the stadium's exterior.
There are ads surrounding the field itself, but those are small and few in comparison to other ballparks in the league.
I am also concerned about the potential of the rooftop views being obstructed. The Wrigleyville rooftops are part of what make the Wrigley experience unique.
Although I'm resigned to Wrigley changing in the near future, it doesn't mean I have to like it.
Gabe Salgado is a RedEye special contributor.
Want more? Discuss this article and others on RedEye Sports' Facebook page.


text:
Did y'all ever see the movie Auntie Mame? It's one of my top ten favorite movies of all time, the book is hilarious too. Rosalind Russell is so brilliant in this role as the eccentric yet glamorous Mame Dennis who is assigned the caretaker for her orphaned ten year old nephew Patrick in 1920's New York City. Auntie Mame is colorful and unconventional, a lover of art and theater, with a quick wit and a disdain for stuffy or snobbish society.
The character is divine and the movie sets are magnificent. The apartment Mame lives in takes on a completely new and different look every few years based on her iridescent theatrical personality. During the movie, viewers get to see six separate and completely different designs, and to quote Jonathan Adler, "Watching Auntie Mame is a right of passage for every aspiring decorator". For a full tour of the six different makeovers during the movie in Mame's apartment, visit Julia's post on 3 Beekman Place.
So I have a neighbor named Tatiana and we met eight years ago at my annual garage sale. Tatiana is the closest person to Auntie Mame I know. Up my driveway eight years ago she walked with her husband Miguel and Tatiana and I became instant friends. When I first met her, her name was Jennie, but then she decided she wanted her name to be Tatiana because she preferred Tatiana so she legally changed her name to Tatiana. At the age of 45. I love that.
Tatiana is my Auntie Mame, she eats and drinks and decorates as she pleases all with a zest for life that's rare these days. She lives around the corner from me and we meet for coffee from time to time to catch up. She always wants to come to my house because she finds it so soothing, and I always want to go to her house because I find it so inspiring, so we take turns. But on our last coffee visit I won and got the pleasure of visiting with her in her home.
You can take in any room in my house in one glance, but hers? Oh my. It's filled with her collection of precious things from the last twenty years scattered and displayed as she pleases. Walls painted in shades of saffron, muted turquoise, amethyst, and mustard yellow. Chinoiserie collections include everything from exotic screens to Chinese consoles, and she also displays eastern European objects from Turkish brass urns to Persian rugs, the list goes on. She's inherited some furniture from her grandmother, but acquired most of her collection through clever second hand shopping at thrift stores or flea markets.
Tatiana is a self taught artist too, and she showed me some of her recent pastel sketches, just beautiful.
Tatiana always makes me think about how important it is to decorate your home with what you love. Even if it's irreverent or unconventional, eccentric and colorful, if you love it, then do it, display it. Life's too short not to.
I've collected even more images of what I consider "Auntie Mame Style". These are interiors that are filled with art, pattern, and color to reflect the tastes and personalities of the residents.
via The Lennoxx
via Trendey
One of my favorite things to witness is when people decorate without care or concern for what others think and they mix pattern and color as they see fit. They decorate with wild abandon and to the beat of their own drum. I applaud anyone who displays what he or she loves fearlessly, with no regard for what other's think, by definition channeling their inner Auntie Mame.
And shouldn't we all? Maybe not in the form of bright colors in every single space or layer upon layer of competing pattern or fishbowls hanging as fixtures in our entry.
Instead, be inspired to fill your home with collections that are meaningful and important to you, irreverent or eccentric as they are. Life's too short not to.


text:
This week in Island history
The news of 10 and 15 years ago is from the Jamestown Press. The news of 100 years ago came from the collection of the Newport Historical Society.
100 years ago From the Newport Daily News, June 17, 1908
The firing of the big guns at Fort Greble yesterday afternoon and this morning jarred house on the island quite perceptively, although the intervening water to so lessen the effect that little or no damage was done to glass or plastering in the nearest cottages.
From the Newport Daily News, June 22, 1908
Yesterday was the hottest Sunday of the summer on the island, it being only about three degrees lower than on Saturday when the thermometer was at 90 during the hottest part of the day.
75 years ago From the Newport Daily News, June 17, 1933
There was a large attendance at the cooking demonstration given by the Newport Electric Corporation at the Gardner Inn tearoom Friday afternoon.
From the Newport Daily News, June 24, 1933
Dr. P. J. Lynam, graduate of Tufts Medical College, is at Dr. Bates Sanitarium, and has assumed the position of resident physician. He has opened an office for private practice in Jamestown.
50 years ago From the Newport Daily News, June 17, 1958
Frederick C. B. Smyth was appointed Jamestown's first permanent chief of police last night after an ordinance patterned on a similar one in North Kingstown was adopted by the Council.
From the Newport Daily News, June 18, 1958
Grade 8 of the Jamestown Elementary School held its first class day exercises in lieu of the usual graduation ceremony yesterday before a large assembly of parents and friends. … Both seventh grade classes acted as honor guards for the eighth grades for the processional and recessional marches. Approximately 30 pupils from the eighth grades will enter high school in the Newport area next fall.
John Franco, Jamestown pitcher, fired a one-hitter and fanned 15, but he lost to the leading Merchants 5-3 last evening at Cardines Field.
From the Newport Daily News, June 21, 1958
The Hudson Maintenance Corp. of Long Island City, N.Y., the lowest of three bidders ($3,444), was awarded the contract for painting the east span of the Jamestown Bridge, at a meeting of the Bridge Commission last night. (The contract for 200 gallons of aluminum paint, at $2.49 per gallon, was awarded to the Joseph Dixon Crucible Co., low bidder. E. R. Vieira was the low bidder at $11,150, to replace timber encasements on 50 piers.) The commission reduced the volume contract rates for all trucks making 1,000 trips across the bridge a year. The $1 rate was dropped to 90 cents and the 90-cent rate for the next 500 trips was dropped to 80 cents.
The Rev. Merle L. Jones, new minister of the Central Baptist Church, Jamestown, will be installed tomorrow night at 7:30.
25 years ago From the Newport Daily News, June 17, 1983
Sixty-two Grade 8 pupils received diplomas at Jamestown School Thursday night in the school gymnasium.
From the Newport Daily News, June 20, 1983
Hundreds turned out to honor Florence J. Brazil Friday night on her retirement after more than 33 years as a teacher at Jamestown schools. … She began her teaching career at the Carr School in 1939 after graduating from the Rhode Island College of Education (now Rhode Island College) and taught there until her marriage to the late John E. Brazil in 1945. She resigned as a teacher at that time, because the rules of the school department did not allow for married teachers.
15 years ago From the Jamestown Press, June 17, 1993
The Harbor Commission is caught in the middle of a dispute between state agencies over the definition of moorings, slips and outhauls. The department of Environmental Management and the Coastal Resources Management Council cannot come to terms over the meanings of these words.
Putting the newly adopted parking ordinance into effect will cost the town $12,000. (it was reported that it would cost $12,094 to replace the signs and sign posts required to enact the new parking ordinance).
Paul Sprague's Jamestown to Newport passenger ferry has been approved by the state Public Utilities Commission.
10 years ago From the Jamestown Press, June 19, 1998
Archeologists returned to Southwest Avenue Monday following last week's decision by the state Department of Transportation to resume the $1.9 million road improvement project, this time without the assent of participation of the Narragansett Indian tribe.
With a waiting list for space in Jamestown's waters of 155, up almost 25 percent in two years, the Harbor Office is cracking down on boat-owners who have not used or not paid for their moorings.


text:
I'll be hosting a Mets Chat Room tonight at 7 p.m. Come armed with your questions and comments. Among the topics that could be on the table:
1. Fuentes or K-Rod or somebody else?
2. Will they really keep Castillo at second base?
3. Now that he's signed, should they think about trading Carlos Delgado?
4. What should they do with Aaron Heilman and Pedro Martinez?
My thinking is Fuentes over K-Rod; it looks like Castillo could stay; ditto Delgado; they'll probably bring back both. Let's have yours.


text:
YONKERS, N.Y. -- A Yonkers man died after being stabbed at a party on Van Cortlandt Park Avenue Saturday night, according to police.
Police responded to the house around midnight after receiving reports of a dispute at a party, according to Yonkers Police Lt. Peter Fazio. During the party there was some kind of dispute, and two men were stabbed, Fazio said.
One victim, an 18-year-old male, was taken to St. Joseph's Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead. The second victim was taken to St. John's Riverside Hospital.
Fazio said that the investigation is ongoing.
Click here to sign up for Daily Voice's free daily emails and news alerts.


text:
Mexico Hits HSBC with $28 Million Fine in Laundering Case
MEXICO CITY – Mexico slammed banking giant HSBC with a $28 million fine for failing to prevent money laundering through accounts at the bank.
Mexico's National Securities and Banking Commission said Wednesday that HSBC has paid the fines, equivalent to 379 million pesos, or about half of the subsidiary's 2011 annual profits.
The commission, and a report by a U.S. senate investigative committee, found the bank failed to control suspicious flows of billions of dollars through its accounts and didn't respond promptly after being warned about a huge swell in dollar cash transactions at the bank.
Guillermo Babatz, president of the banking commission, said that at its peak in the mid-2000s, HSBC had become the main shipper of dollar cash transfers from Mexico to the United States, accounting for about half of the total flow, even though it wasn't then among the country's largest banks.
Babatz said that regulators detected the swell of suspicious transactions and warned local management in 2007 and 2008, but got little response. He said regulators then took the unusual step of contacting top management of the bank's central offices. "When we contacted the head offices, it was because we were very worried and didn't get a response" from local management, who he said "minimized the risks."
HSBC Mexico recognizes it failed to strictly comply with banking regulations, and with the standards that regulators and clients expect of our institution
The commission said Wednesday the violations began in the early 2000s.
A U.S. Senate investigative committee said that in 2007 and 2008 HSBC Mexico sent north about $7 billion in cash. "Bulk cash shipments could reach that volume only if they included illegal drug proceeds," the committee concluded in a report.
HSBC Mexico acknowledged in a statement that it failed to report 39 suspicious transactions and had been late in reporting 1,729 others.
"HSBC Mexico recognizes it failed to strictly comply with banking regulations, and with the standards that regulators and clients expect of our institution," the bank said.
The banking commission said the bank began to respond with "drastic and assertive" corrective measures in late 2008. HSBC noted that in 2009, it became the first Mexican bank to completely stop handling cash dollar transactions.
In 2010, the government imposed strict limits on cash transactions in U.S. dollars at all Mexican banks, limiting tourists and residents who don't have accounts at Mexican banks to exchanging $1,500 a month or less.
HSBC said it had implemented all the regulators' recommendations, such as reporting suspicious transactions, getting more information on clients and refusing to do business with clients who appeared dodgy.
"HSBC regrets that actions in the past, which have been corrected, affect the bank's image today," the bank said.
Babatz said that in the past HSBC had appealed fines that regulators had levied in the courts. It was unclear whether the Wednesday announcement marked a change in that policy.
The banking commission president said details of the scandal first emerged in the U.S. Senate committee report because Mexico's "extremely restrictive" legal framework doesn't allow regulators to announce investigations or fines until all appeals are exhausted.
He said banks in Mexico had used intensive lobbying to get favorable regulatory rules, and said those rules should be changed because they favor financial institutions and put regulators at a disadvantage.
Based on reporting by the Associated Press.
Follow us on twitter.com/foxnewslatino
Like us at facebook.com/foxnewslatino


text:
Join me every week for Win-It Wednesday, with 24-hour giveaways just for you!
New York Times bestselling author Stephanie O'Dea has a new book, More Make it Fast, Cook it Slow, where she breaks down slow-cooker meals into three categories of frugal meals: $7, $10 and $15 meals, and these meals aren't your standard slow-cooker fare with options ranging from mint chocolate fondue to leg of lamb with rosemary and lemon.
I've always been a fan of using my slow-cooker, but I've rarely ventured beyond the tried and true recipes that my mom passed on to me when I got married. I love that Stephanie's book encourages getting outside of your comfort zone with the crock pot. I would have never considered making lasagna in my slow-cooker otherwise!
I bought four cans of John McCann's Steel Cut Irish Oats off of Amazon a few months ago... and then I, ahem, forgot to cancel my Subscribe & Save order, so I ended up with eight cans of oatmeal and not a clue how to cook it easily. So I was really excited to try Stephanie's ingenious method for making them in the crock pot.
I threw all of the ingredients together last night and simply let it cook while we were fast asleep. Yes, apparently I slept right through a possible tornado touching down nearby! Anyhow, it was nice to wake up to a hearty breakfast that simply needed served with a little fruit and milk on top.
I'll probably do a little tweaking to the recipe because I've always preferred my oatmeal made with milk, so I missed that bit of richness that milk adds. I'm guessing that Stephanie used more water to keep the price of the recipe under $7, and it's perfectly delicious as is -- that's just my preference.
I'm totally looking forward to trying more recipes from More Make it Fast, Cook it Slow! Be sure to check out Stephanie's blog, A Year of SlowCooking, as well.
Ten lucky Deal Seeking Mom readers will each win a copy of the More Make it Fast, Cook it Slow cookbook by Stephanie O'Dea.
To enter, tell me what your favorite thing to cook in your slow-cooker is.
Every reader has four methods available to enter this contest. Choose one each of any combination of method one, two, three, or four for up to a total of 4 entries!!!
If you are reading this in your email or feed reader, please CLICK HERE to visit the original blog post to enter. Email entries will not be counted.
Methods of entry:
1. Leave a comment. What do you cook in a slowcooker at home?
2. Join the Deal Seeking Mom community on Facebook for more conversation, additional deals and a peek at the freebies I receive in the mail each week. Come back and leave a separate comment letting me know you've done so!
3. Follow @DealSeekingMom and @stephanieodea on Twitter and tweet the following. Be sure to come back and leave a separate comment with the link to your tweet!
Enter to win 1 of 10 copies of @stephanieodea's Make it Fast, Cook it Slow cookbook from @DealSeekingMom: http://dealseekingmom.com/?p=76333
4. Subscribe to my feed via RSS or email. You must confirm your email subscription for it to be a valid entry! Leave a separate comment letting me know you have done so. If you're already a subscriber, simply leave a separate comment letting me know you're already subscribed. Lovin' my subscribers! You guys make this all possible.
(10) More Make it Fast, Cook it Slow cookbooks
This giveaway ends at 9 p.m. EDT on 4/21 and is open to all U.S. residents 18 years or older. I'll use And the Winner Is to select the winning comment. Winner will be notified by email and listed on my Giveaway Winners page. Winners must respond within 48 hours of notification to claim their prize. Good luck!
While you're in a contest entering mood, don't forget to check out the Giveaway Gathering for a variety of contests being hosted on Deal Seeking Mom readers' blogs!


text:
Harrisburg Hope founder to continue running organization
Harrisburg Hope founder to continue running organization
HARRISBURG, Pa. —
The non-profit group Harrisburg Hope will still be run by its founder.
Alan Kennedy-Shaffer had been told he could not run the organization because he's a state employee.
The group that's been holding town hall meetings on the city's debt crisis was deemed too partisan by the governor's administration office in September.
Kennedy-Shaffer won his appeal on Thursday to continue with the organization.
"The real winner is the community. Community voices will be heard and Harrisburg Hope will continue to hold forums to bring the community and elected officials closer together," Kennedy Shaffer said.
Harrisburg Hope will hold two forums on the city's financial problems at the Midtown Scholar Bookstore on Dec 12 and 17.


text:
Female of the human species who spend their time on a skatepark, or in close vacinity to one, in order to gain attention from the masses of guys. Usually prey in pairs, guarenteed attention even if they are dog ugly and/or a complete moron.
"mate there was two ramp slags at the skate park today , both ugly as fuck"
by Fayelizzie23 July 28, 2008


text:
Who knows where the boundary is for the county line in Jim Wells and Kleberg counties in south Texas?
For 122 years, it was a fence put up by the 825,000-acre King Ranch on part of its Santa Gertrudis Division. The fence was low — not a high fence or 'enclosure' type — and allowed wildlife to move freely. Landowners acknowledged the fence as the boundary, as reportedly deemed by survey more than a century ago.
But with whitetail deer moving from the King Ranch to neighboring landowners, and hunters killing some fine bucks on those adjacent lands, King Ranch officials decided it was time for a change. According to this report from the San Antonio Express-News, not only did they want to put up a higher fence to prevent deer from leaving their property but they also had a new survey done that would move the boundary.
That set off a flurry of arguments by the neighboring landowners who said their property was being wrongfully taken by the King Ranch. The ranch disputed that, of course, saying the updated survey was correct and the property line had been incorrect for the last 122 years.
All this over white-tailed deer and hunting.
"On or about Nov. 8, 2012, the King Ranch, through its employees or fencing crews it had hired, came onto Dr. Garza's property with a bulldozer, vehicles, people and fencing equipment," reads a lawsuit filed late last year by Roel Garza, a dentist who owns 400 acres adjacent to the King Ranch, according to the Express-News.
Law enforcement officials were summoned by Garza when the King Ranch brought in heavy equipment to remove a fence, posts and trees on Garza's property. Another landowner jumped into the fray. A judge granted a restraining order, putting a temporary kibosh on any digging or fence relocation. Afterward, six landowners joined the suit against the King Ranch.
"The land in the strip was farmed, cultivated, grazed by cattle, hunted, fenced, crossed with roads and otherwise utilized by the plaintiffs to the exclusion of the King Ranch," lawyer Mike Hummell, who owns land on the fence line, testified in the suit proceedings.
Another wrench in the mix was the claim by 70-year old Juan Antonio Garcia. He said the boundary line was set by one of his great uncles after an agreement with Henrietta King, widow of the King Ranch founder, Richard King.
"In 1891, a land exchange between Henrietta King and Luciano Garcia was agreed upon. A fence was erected by the King Ranch and was considered the boundary line. It has been in the same place for the last 122 years," he said.
It's quite the tale of wealthy landowners, time, and legal wrangling. And all because of white-tailed deer and hunting.
Read the full story here.


text:
Once trusted, former SNHU budget director now in jail for theftBy PAT GROSSMITH
New Hampshire Union Leader
February 25. 2014 8:59PM
CONCORD — A 14-year funneling of $1 million-plus into the pockets of Southern New Hampshire University Budget Director Raymond C. Prouty came to light because of an unauthorized athletic scholarship the longtime official procured for his niece.
On Tuesday, Prouty, 58, was led out of Merrimack County Superior Court in handcuffs to New Hampshire State Prison to serve 7 1/2 to 15 years for theft by deception. He was given a second 7 1/2-to-15-year suspended sentence to be served consecutively on a second felony theft charge. He must make full restitution.
Assistant New Hampshire Attorney General Gregory Ward told Judge Larry M. Smukler that Prouty cooperated in the investigation, but was unable to explain where the money went.
"It just started and escalated. It's not like I have a million in the bank," Ward said Prouty told investigators.
In May 2012, SNHU's dean of students noticed an unauthorized scholarship given to Prouty's niece. An audit revealed that Prouty, a 1977 SNHU graduate, employee since 1978 and the man trusted with the college's finances, had stolen $1,157,252.24 from the college since 1998.
Ward said Prouty used the money to pay credit card bills; $30,000 went to his father and $90,000 to himself.
Prouty, of Hooksett, also arranged for another niece to receive $73,805 in unauthorized SNHU scholarships. Ward said after the hearing that none of Prouty's relatives were aware of what he was doing; none will be required to make reimbursement.
The thefts by Prouty, a former assistant athletics director, go back 14 years. Investigators discovered he opened a checking account for the athletics department — something the university's financial department was unaware of — in 1999 and wrote checks from it through 2009 covering personal expenses totaling $556,291.91. Those documents were found stored in a closet at the athletic complex, Ward said.
One of the theft charges alleged Prouty also established a business called Only the Best OPS, which received money from 2009 to 2012 from the university — purportedly to pay people who officiated at SNHU sporting events. While a few officials were paid, Ward said for the most part Prouty used the money for personal debts.
They also found a Fleet Bank account, opened in July 1998 and active through March 6, 2001, which Prouty used to pay $56,790 in personal expenses.
Ward said from May 2004 through May 2012, Prouty also stole $95,091.03 from three Hooksett Kiwanis organizations. He was treasurer at the time and would keep money taken in as cash.
Prouty paid the money back with funds he stole from the university, the prosecutor said.
An insurance company has already reimbursed the university $500,000. Prouty made his first restitution payment — $125,000 — Tuesday and is to pay $100,000 annually to SNHU until the debt is repaid. As a backup, he named the university the beneficiary of a $1 million life insurance policy.
Crime, law and justice Education Concord Hooksett Top Section Stories


text:
The game of Girls Lacrosse as played in AA County, even in Clinic play, requires the player to have an approved stick, certified goggles and uniform. For the GHAA Clinic Lacrosse program the uniform is included in the registration fee. Players must provide their own stick and goggles.
Above is a picture of the net end of a GIRLS stick. Note how the net is constructed as this is quite different from a BOYS stick. A stick is typically about three feet long and will probably need to be cut to size using a hacksaw. One of our coaches can do this for you or we can explain to you how to do it yourself. Sticks are available at LAX World and Modells as well as other places. A good beginner stick should cost around $40.00.
Above is a picture of the Brine Concept goggles. Other types of goggles are available including a type that uses protective lenses. We recommend the open goggles as above because they do not get obscured during the game. Also most glasses can fit under most of the open frame goggles. The Brine unit above can accommodate most glasses.
The only other piece of equipment required is a mouthguard. We supply mouthguards that will work for all players except for some of those who are wearing braces. That type of mouthguard is available from Modells and probably other places.
Optional equipment which a player may find useful is cleats.
New Privacy Policy


text:
Dead Sea
Situated between steep, rocky cliffs, 2,500 to 4,000 ft (762–1,219 m) high, the Dead Sea is divided by the Al Lisan peninsula into two basins—a larger northern basin now 1,240 ft (378 m) deep, and a smaller, shallow southern basin, now separated from the northern basin and divided into salt ponds. The lake is fed by the Jordan River and a number of small streams it has no outlet. Because it is located in a very hot and dry region, the Dead Sea loses much water through evaporation its level fluctuates during the year. Inflow has been greatly reduced by the increased use of the waters of the Jordan for irrigation, and that, along with the use of evaporation ponds to produce potash and other minerals, has led to falling water levels since the 1960s. A 2013 agreement by Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority involving regional water resources called for the lake to be replenished with the brine by-produced by a planned desalination plant at Aqaba, Jordan. In prehistoric times, the lake has been much larger, filling the entire Jordan trough from S of the Dead Sea to N of the Sea of Galilee as Lake Lisan some 25,000 years ago, and much smaller, perhaps completely dry, 120,000 years ago.
One of the saltiest water bodies in the world, the Dead Sea supports no life. It yields large amounts of mineral salts potash and bromine are commercially extracted. The ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were on the southwestern shore present-day Sodom is the site of mineral-salt extraction works. The Dead Sea coast in Israel and the West Bank is the site of beaches, spas, and tourist hotels. Biblical names for the salt lake include Salt Sea, East Sea, and Sea of the Plain.
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2012, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
See more Encyclopedia articles on: Middle Eastern and Iranian Physical Geography
Browse by Subject
- Earth and the Environment +-
- History +-
- Literature and the Arts +-
- Medicine +-
- People +-
- Philosophy and Religion +-
- Places +-
- Africa
- Asia
- Australia and Oceania
- Britain, Ireland, France, and the Low Countries
- Commonwealth of Independent States and the Baltic Nations
- Germany, Scandinavia, and Central Europe
- Latin America and the Caribbean
- Oceans, Continents, and Polar Regions
- Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, and the Balkans
- United States, Canada, and Greenland
- Plants and Animals +-
- Science and Technology +-
- Social Sciences and the Law +-
- Sports and Everyday Life +-


text:
YORK Pa.- The York College Spartans (9-3-2) downed the Wesley Wolverines (4-9-1) with a dominating 4-0 victory on a beautiful October evening.
The game opened up with an early threat from the Wolverines as their offense pressured near the goal, but the Spartan defense, led by Dale Mason (Langhorne, Pa. / Neshaminy). Then the Spartan attack collected itself and worked to secure pressure against the Wolverine defense. The Spartans had four corner kicks in four minutes, but failed to secure a shot-on-goal. Then almost 32 minutes into the game Beth Bunn (Lothian, Md. / Calverton School) launched a perfect pass from the middle of the field. A streaking Clare Chatham (Ellicott City, Md. / Mount Hebron) found the pass and faced a one-on-one with the Wesley goalie, Sam Brannigan. Chatham, the Spartan team leader in assists, fired the shot to the right and secured her 4th goal on the year. The Spartans were able to take Chatham's goal, into the half with continued offensive pressure.
The second half opened in typical Spartan fashion, with vigor to attack any opposing goalie. York pushed the ball down deep into Wesley territory and positioned themselves for a great opportunity. Chatham fired a shot looking to get her second goal of the day, but the ball bounced off the goalie's hands. Traci Mohl (Lebanon, Pa. / Lebanon Catholic) collected the rebound and buried the shot into the open net. Mohl was able to get her second goal of the year and the Spartans did not relent on their attack.
York kept the pressure off their defense and continued to press for an attack. With her team up by two with 27 minutes remaining in the game, Chelsea McDowell (Cinnaminson, N.J. / Cinnaminson) saw a great opportunity. Chelsea took the ball near her bench, and took a peak at the goal from 30 yards out. With the opportunity she fired the ball and was able to guide into the far side of the net, just beyond the Wesley goalie, Brannigan, and her outstretched arms. The game continued with a relaxed Spartan attack until the last minute of the game. The Green and White bench could be heard yelling "Score a goal, Ali." A shot ricocheted off Brannigan's hands and freshman Ali Schoppe (Plymouth Meeting, Pa. / Plymouth Whitemarsh) listened to her teammates and netted her first goal of the season. The Spartans played out the last 43 seconds to close the game with a 4-0 victory.
York finished the day with an impressive 31 shots on the day with 16 shots being on goal. The three goalies for York, Melanie Glessner (Waldorf, Md. / Thomas Stone), Stevie Lukacz (Leesport, Pa. / Schuylkill Valley), and Kate Lutte (Catasauqua, Pa. / Catasauqua) all appeared in the game with Glessner recording the only save of the game.
The Spartans return to action on Saturday, October 19 at Christopher Newport in a battle of the top two teams in the CAC. Kickoff in Newport News is set for 2:00 pm.
Written by Nate Caruso - Asst. Dir. of Athletic Communications


text:
It's an axiom of research that a database is only as good as the search tool being used to explore it. The Energy Department's Office of Scientific and Technical Information, therefore, has taken a step toward better databases in releasing SciTech Connect, a reference tool that helps users browse DOE's core reference collections using semantic search techniques.
Semantic search is the Holy Grail of computer-assisted research, intended to improve the quality of search results. Instead of using ranking algorithms as in a Google search, semantic search considers the context of a query, including word variation and natural language questions, to provide more relevant search results. In unveiling the tool, OSTI director Walter Warnick said SciTEch also achieves the agency's goal of re-circulating research findings between DOE and the scientific community.
"With SciTech Connect," he said, "we are [making] DOE R&D results easier to retrieve and thereby [able to] better serve our dual core mission – getting DOE results out to the scientific community and beyond, and getting the community's results into DOE."
The SciTech tool contains full text documents of two earlier DOE scientific reference resources, the Information Bridge and the agency's Energy Citations database. Together, the new reference system comprises 65 years of energy-related scientific citations, DOE said, including 2.5 million citations and 1.4 million journal articles.
SciTech Connect will eventually replace the Information Bridge and Energy Citations databases in a transition period that should be completed by July.DOE said SciTEch uses a semantic search approach called keyword-to-concept mapping. When a keyword-based query is made, the system maps the query to other associated terms, to produce a taxonomy of narrow and related concepts.The technique enables the search engine to "make use of the logical relations among concepts in different scientific documents, regardless of whether those documents use standard [terms] to express those concepts," DOE said.
It is an "especially effective search approach when a person is truly is researching a topic rather than trying to navigate to a particular destination.
SciTech Connect has a other features, including in-document search; word clouds; and tools for personalization, allowing users to save searches, define alerts and create and manage document libraries.
Posted by Paul McCloskey on Apr 19, 2013 at 9:39 AM
E-Mail this page
Printable Format
I was excited to try the new search service since I know a fair bit about semantic search and how it should work. I did a simple query for 'storage' which is an ambiguous word that could mean any of the following: energy storage, data storage, warehouse storage, etc.
The SciTech tool failed to distinguish these different meanings and in no particular order gave me results for storage of nuclear materials, heat storage, etc.
Basically, this article suggests semantic search is in place with this tool. If so, it is not effective. It looks like keyword search to me.
Against a broader standard of discovery tools, this one falls very flat. Why am I not surprised?
Advanced Search
8251 Greensboro Drive, Suite 510
McLean, VA 22102
© 2018 1105 Media, Inc.
8251 Greensboro Drive, Suite 510
McLean, VA 22102703-876-5100 © 1996-2017 1105 Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.


text:
More Costly
The 10-year term premium, a model that includes expectations for interest rates, growth and inflation, reached negative 0.75 percent today, the most costly level since Jan. 23. A negative reading indicates investors are willing to accept yields below what's considered fair value.
Treasury market volatility, as measured by the Bank of America Merrill Lynch MOVE index, declined yesterday to 55.9, the lowest since Jan. 24.
Treasury trading volume dropped yesterday to $286 billion, the lowest level since Feb. 22, according to ICAP Plc, the largest inter-dealer broker of U.S. government debt. Daily volume reached $491 billion on Feb. 1, the highest since August 2011. The average daily volume for 2013 is $302 billion, compared with $238 billion in 2012.
Congress mandated $1.2 trillion in across-the-board spending cuts to begin today and be spread over nine years, as part of a 2011 agreement to increase the U.S. debt limit. Reductions totaling $85 billion are scheduled to take effect in the remaining seven months of this fiscal year. Lawmakers have failed to reach an accord to head them off.
'Grind Higher'
"No one knows how much time we have in terms of the resolution of this," said Sean Murphy, a trader at Societe Generale in New York, a primary dealer. "We have the potential to grind higher in prices with these concerns. There may be another 10 basis points of steam left."
Obama said it may take weeks to win over enough lawmakers from both parties to reach a deal on a replacement deficit- cutting plan. He said agreement will be reached once members of Congress hear from voters feeling the pinch of cutbacks in government programs.
Bernanke signaled in congressional testimony this week the Fed is prepared to keep buying bonds at its present pace, as he dismissed concern that record easing risks sparking inflation or asset-price bubbles. The central bank purchases $85 billion of Treasury and mortgage debt a month, putting downward pressure on borrowing costs to fuel growth.
Fed Purchase
The Fed bought $916 million of Treasuries today maturing from August 2023 to February 2031.
China's official purchasing managers' index was 50.1 in February, the weakest in five months and down from 50.4 in January, a report from the National Bureau of Statistics and China Federation of Logistics and Purchasing showed in Beijing. The euro area's annual inflation rate fell more than economists predicted in February, to 1.8 percent, according to the European Union's statistics office in Luxembourg.
Italy's 10-year yield rose six basis points to 4.79 percent today. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index fell as much as 0.9 percent and gained as much as 0.4 percent.
Copyright 2014 Bloomberg. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


text:
- Code: Select all
VERSION: MADSONIC 6.2 | BUILD: 9080.619dd31.20161222.0327
REST: MADSONIC REST API v2.5.0, SUBSONIC REST API v1.14.0
OS: Linux 3.10.77 #8451 SMP Wed Jan 4 00:31:32 CST 2017 x86_64 GNU/Linux
SERVER: jetty/8.y.z-SNAPSHOT, java 1.8.0_121, Linux 3.10.77 (amd64)
HOST: Synology NAS 1815+ (DSM 6.0.2-8451 Update 9) | CPU: INTEL Atom C2538| ARCH: X64 | MEMORY: 6GB | HDD: 36TB, RAID6
BROWSER: FF 51.x
CLIENT: see browser
DESCRIPTION: as in the topic's subject
REPRODUCIBLE: I did not reproduced it on purpose yet
logged in as admin
Last week, I clicked choosed "Back to Mine by Unterworld" from the random albums menu.
Then, I clicked a song "Creep by TLC" about 3 times, because it did not start quick enough, and since then, the log was constantly flooded with this:
Also, it seems, madsonic is trying to play that song and therefore is updating the playcount, maybe even scrobbling that song. (In real life, I just played some songs from that album, but then stopped playing and listened to other music.
So this playcount is definately not correct.


text:
Travel Photography Photos tagged as daytona
35 photos | Tags: daytona Show as stream
We provide Orlando Luxury Transportation and limousine service. We offer Town cars, Luxury private Passenger van, SUV's, Stretch and Super Stretch limousine, Mini Buses & Motor Coaches for Corporate Events, Meetings, Conventions, Airports, Disney World, Port Canaveral, Personal or Family events, Weddings, Prom, Night Out & Statewide Florida service.
Kevins Ride


text:
Monaco sign midfielder Toulalan
Monaco have continued their summer spending spree with the signing of France international Jeremy Toulalan from Malaga.
The 29-year-old midfielder has penned a two-year contract with Monaco with the option of a further year on top, the newly-promoted Ligue 1 club have announced on their website.
Toulalan, who will be presented by his new club on Monday, joins the likes of Radamel Falcao, Ricardo Carvalho, James Rodriguez and Joao Moutinho as new arrivals at the big-spending Monte Carlo club, who are bankrolled by ambitious Russian owner Dmitry Rybolovlev.
Monaco sporting director Vadim Vasilyev said on his club's website: "We are happy with the signature of Jeremy. His skills, his European and international experience, will be an important asset for our team this season."
Toulalan joined Malaga from Lyon in 2011 and played 57 competitive matches for the Primera Division outfit. The former Nantes player has won 36 caps with France.