All 250 workers at Bernard Matthews’ sandwich business have been made redundant, after it was acquired by Irish company Kerry Foods.Around 150 jobs have been axed with the closure of the company’s Dunstable factory, with the remaining redundancies coming from the van sales business.Frank Hayes, director of corporate affairs at Kerry Foods, confirmed to British Baker that it had acquired the assets of the sandwich-making firm, but had told the Dunstable workforce that it would not be required to operate the facility.The Bernard Matthews sandwich business in Dunstable opened in 2003 and, through the Yummy Food Company brand, supplied retailers including Superdrug and Morrisons. However, a Bernard Matthews spokesman said: “Following an extensive review of our business in the current and projected challenging trading environment, it has become clear that we need to change the strategies and organisation if we are to secure Bernard Matthews’ future as a sustainable business.” He added the company would now concentrate on its “historical core business of turkey farming and production”.Miles Hubbard, regional industrial organiser of the Unite union, which represents Bernard Matthews workers, said the redundancies were “regrettable” but the only alternative appeared to be “summary closure”.
Holland’s is adding a new pie to its frozen offering Peppered Steak Pie. Available in a two-pack, the recipe contains chunks of diced steak in a creamy peppercorn sauce. The pre-baked pies, which can be microwaved from frozen, are targeted at those in search of a quick meal or snack.The launch of the frozen Peppered Steak Pie is the first in a wave of new Holland’s products being unveiled this year, helping to commemorate the brand’s 160th anniversary.Holland’s frozen Peppered Steak Pie has an RSP of £2.
In assembling individual small pieces of brightly-colored glass, stones, shells, beads and ceramic tiles, an artist creates a mosaic, or a beautiful image that can only be appreciated once all the materials are glued together. On Wednesday, the Saint Mary’s Student Diversity Board brought individuals from the campus community together in a similar fashion, through its annual Mosaic Dinner. This dinner allows participants to join a conversation about and celebration of diversity and inclusion on the college campus.Junior Jazmin Herrera, the vice president of Student Diversity Board, said this event encapsulates the board’s mission to promote diversity and educate others about inclusive practices. The definition of diversity is multifaceted and always changing, Herrera said, and the Mosaic dinner gives the Saint Mary’s community an opportunity to explore race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion and other identifiers that make the college a more diverse place.“I think it’s really important for students to come just so they know who their allies are and also to know that they fit into this definition and that they contribute to the celebration and education on campus,” Herrera said.Junior Guadalupe Gonzalez, vice president of strategic affairs, said the dinner unites the Saint Mary’s community by giving voice to diverse individuals, and allowing participants to recognize the beauty in shared and unique differences.“Even the name itself, Mosaic, it’s an artwork,” Gonzalez said. “It’s a coming together in a collage of different people, different pieces, different stories, different lived experiences. … This is why [the Mosaic dinner] is really important, because that’s the main goal … and you don’t see any other event like that.”In past years, the Mosaic dinner has instead been held as a casual mixer including crafts and games, Herrera said.“This year, we decided to host a dinner because it’s more intimate,” she said. “Basically, it’s just an opportunity for faculty, students and different student leaders of clubs that celebrate and promote diversity and inclusivity on campus to mingle and get to know each other.”Gonzalez said the board made the decision to reintroduce Mosaic dinners because of the previous lack of response from the student body.“What we’re trying to do is go back to the roots of it, back to making it into a dinner, making it … more important and less casual. Good food, good people, good discussions,” Gonzalez said. “Our mission with this dinner is just to truly bring awareness and help people connect with others. It’s like a networking event where we all know what we’re here for, and we’re trying to become advocates for all.”This year, Mary Burke, the chair of the Saint Mary’s Board of Trustees, presented a keynote address explaining how the new administration under Interim President Nancy Nekvasil will further promote the mission of Student Diversity Board.Before the dinner, Herrera said she hoped the address would help students become more familiar with Burke and her role at Saint Mary’s.“She will be speaking on how diversity and inclusion fit into the board’s priorities and also on how she is an ally on campus,” Herrera said.Tags: Diversity, mosaic dinner, Saint Mary’s Board of Trustees, Student Diversity Board
By Brad HaireUniversity of GeorgiaVolatile spring weather and diseases have left Georgia’s tobacco crop hurting, as farmers prepare to harvest what could be their worst yields in decades, says a University of Georgia tobacco specialist.Earlier this spring, farmers had one of the toughest times in recent memory just trying to get the tobacco crop securely planted, said J. Michael Moore, a tobacco expert with UGA Cooperative Extension. Repeated rain deluges of five and six inches across south Georgia, where the crop is grown, washed away planting beds, chemicals, plants and delayed planting all together. “There were a lot of headaches just getting started this year,” he said.Farmers eventually planted 15,000 acres by May 1, he said. Then came more rain followed by a hot, dry June. Then the diseases hit — hard.Tobacco’s deadliest foe is tomato spotted wilt virus, which is carried by tiny insects called thrips. Over the past few years, it has infected 15 percent of the plants. This year, as much as 30 percent of plants statewide have shown symptoms of the disease. Many plants have died and yields have been reduced, he said.The increased damage from TSWV this year was likely due to the weather. “We know there is a relation to the type of weather we had and this disease pressure,” Moore said. “But at this point we don’t know exactly what that relation is.” Due to the excessive rain, two other diseases called target spot and white mold also caused problems for farmers, he said.Of the 15,000 acres planted, Moore said, 1,700 acres were lost either to extreme rain or disease. Due to weather- and disease-related problems, tobacco yields are expected to average 1,700 pounds per acre, or 400 pounds per acre less than last year. This is the lowest average yield since 1973. In total, Georgia farmers are expected to harvest 23.8 million pounds of tobacco this year, or 29 percent less than last year. Harvest will start in the next two weeks, a month behind the typical schedule.The number of tobacco farmers continues to decline in Georgia. Today, only 200 actively grow the crop. There were around 350 two years ago.In 2004, Georgia had 1,000 tobacco farmers. That same year, the federal government ended its Depression-era tobacco quota program at the farmers’ request. It provided price support but restricted how much tobacco farmers could grow and where. Farmers and quota owners were compensated for the end of the program. Farmers now can grow as much tobacco as they feel they need to fill contracts they get directly from cigarette manufactures or marketing companies. For decades, south Georgia has been a place to get sweet-flavored, aromatic tobacco, the kind manufacturers add to tobacco blends to improve taste.But delivering quality tobacco this year will be hard for Georgia, Moore said. And making any profit will be, too.Tobacco quality is graded on a scale from 1 to 4, with No. 1 being the best, which has golden leaves and no blemishes. Most companies now only want No. 1- or No. 2-graded tobacco. They have enough of the No. 3 and No. 4 in storage to use for the next 15 years, he said.“Growers are concerned that the companies are no longer seeing south Georgia as a reliable region for quality tobacco,” he said. “There is a demand for this style of tobacco, and there will continue to be. But it’s critical for us to produce the tobacco in this area to keep the market.”For now, the remaining farmers are cobbling together a tobacco-growing industry in Georgia, scavenging from old, abandoned equipment to fix equipment currently in use.“I’d hate to be a dealer trying to sell any tobacco-related equipment today,” Moore said. “Nobody has the money to buy anything new.”
Region 2Less than 500 acresGrower: Tucker Cobb, Washington CountyGinner: Midville Warehouse Inc.UGA Extension agent: Brent Allen The University of Georgia Cotton Team recognized the best cotton producers in the state with the 2018 Georgia Quality Cotton Awards during the Georgia Cotton Commission’s annual meeting and UGA Cotton Production Workshop held on Jan. 30, 2019, in Tifton, Georgia.The awards are presented in three cotton-acreage categories within the four regions of the state: less than 500 acres; 500 to 1,000 acres; and greater than 1,000 acres. Both the winning cotton farmer and the UGA Cooperative Extension agent for the county were recognized during the event.Cook County farmer Mike Lindsey was presented the Best Cotton Award, which is given to the farmer with the highest loan value and premium.Other 2018 winners were:Region 1Less than 500 acresGrower: Robert Rawlins, Turner CountyGinner: Sconyers Gin and Warehouse, SycamoreUGA Extension agent: Will Gay 500-1,000 acresGrower: Chad Hawkins, Wilcox CountyGinner: Arabi Gin Company, ArabiUGA Extension agent: Andrew Sawyer 1,000-plus acresGrower: RBF and M+S Roberts Farms, Worth CountyGinner: Worth Gin, SylvesterUGA Extension agent: Bryce Sutherland 500-1,000 acresGrower: Branch and Branch Farms, Tift CountyGinner: Omega Gin Company, OmegaUGA Extension agents: Scott Carlson and Justin Hand 500-1,000 acresGrower: Ed Wilson Farms, Jenkins CountyGinner: Midville Warehouse, MidvilleUGA Extension agent: Jason Mallard 1,000-plus acresGrower: Lancaster Farms, Pulaski CountyGinner: Heart of Georgia Peanut and Gin, HawkinsvilleUGA Extension agent: Jay Porter 1,000-plus acresGrower: Michael York, Brooks CountyGinner: BCT Gin Co., QuitmanUGA Extension agents: Stephanie Hollifield and Michasia Dowdy 500-1,000 acresGrower: Andy Sparrow, Seminole CountyGinner: Clover Leaf Gin, DonalsonvilleUGA Extension agent: Cody Powell 1,000-plus acresGrower: Dean JohnsonGinner: Bryant’s Gin, BartowUGA Extension agents: Katie Burch and Pamela Sapp Region 3Less than 500 acresGrower: Mike Lindsey, Cook CountyGinner: BCT Gin Co., QuitmanUGA Extension agent: Tucker Price Region 4Less than 500 acresGrower: Clifford Dollar III, Decatur CountyGinner: Sowega Cotton Gin and Warehouse, ClimaxUGA Extension agent: Nan Bostick “These are producers who are maximizing their productivity by having good quality as well as good yields,” said Jared Whitaker, assistant professor and Extension cotton agronomist at the UGA Tifton campus. “The Extension agents are vital to the success of these producers so it was important for us recognize their achievements as well.”Georgia’s 2018 cotton production season was hit by persistent rains in May, which delayed planting for many growers into June and July. Devastation from Hurricane Michael in October crippled Georgia’s cotton industry.UGA Extension agents and agricultural economists estimated that losses to Georgia agriculture from Hurricane Michael exceeded $600 million. Also, steady rainfall in November and December delayed or canceled harvests for a substantial portion of cotton acreage.“The quality that we’ve seen from these growers is impressive considering the type of year that we’ve had,” Whitaker said. “Our farmers faced just about every type of challenge you can imagine from Mother Nature this year. In a year where fiber quality was dramatically impacted, the fact that we still have a lot of growers making great-quality cotton is definitely a good thing.”The awards are co-sponsored by the Georgia Cotton Commission and BASF.For up-to-date information about the cotton crop in Georgia, visit http://www.ugacotton.com.
By Andréa Barretto / Diálogo November 18, 2019 Since September 2, oil has contaminated 494 coastal locations in 10 Brazilian states. The oil spill has washed up on beaches spanning over 1,300 miles and is considered the worst environmental disaster on the Brazilian coastline.Press and government officials said an analysis by Brazilian Oil Company Petrobras confirmed the crude oil mix was not of Brazilian origin. “The oil heading our way is likely from Venezuela, just as Petrobras’ research suggests. It seems it’s a type of oil that comes from a foreign ship navigating close to Brazil’s coast,” said Ricardo Salles, Brazilian Minister of the Environment, at a hearing before the Environment and Sustainable Development Commission of the House of Representatives, on October 9.The statement prompted a reaction from the Nicolás Maduro regime, which denied Venezuela’s responsibility for the oil spill. “Petróleos de Venezuela [PDVSA] categorically rejects the statements of Brazilian Minister of the Environment Ricardo Salles accusing Venezuela of being responsible for the crude oil that has been contaminating Brazil’s northeastern beaches since early September,” said a joint press release from the Ministry of Oil and state-owned company PDVSA.According to the document, neither customers nor subsidiaries of the company have reported a possible leak or damage near the Brazilian coast. It further claims that their facilities lie about 4,130 miles from the Brazilian area where the spills appeared.“The indication that the oil is of Venezuelan origin is based on Petrobras’ technical laboratory analysis. The hypothesis is that the oil could have been leaked from ships navigating along Brazil’s coast, and not necessarily from the Venezuelan dictatorship’s fields,” countered Salles in an interview with Brazilian daily Folha de São Paulo.Brazilian Navy service members work to clean the beaches of the northeastern coast with volunteers. In early November, MB reported that oil and associated waste had reached nearly 4,300 tons. (Photo: Brazilian Navy)ResearchBrazil’s government is investigating the cause and possible origins of the oil spill. The Ministry of the Environment is leading a research taskforce that includes the Ministry of Defense, Petrobras, and several other federal and state agencies.Petrobras President Roberto Castello Branco said three hypotheses are being considered: a sunken ship, an accident during the transfer of oil between ships, or a criminal spill.The investigation recommended screening merchant traffic information along the northeastern coast. As such, the Brazilian Navy (MB, in Portuguese) notified 30 tankers of 10 different flags to provide clarifications. “MB is in contact with the competent authorities of flag countries, with the International Maritime Organization, and the Federal Police to clarify the facts,” MB said.As of November 7, MB reported that nearly 4,300 tons of oil and associated waste had been picked up from northeastern beaches. Hundreds of volunteers and civil organizations took part in the cleanup effort. Navy teams are also on the field, with about 1,600 service members, five ships, an aircraft, as well as vessels and vehicles from port captaincies, police delegations, and agencies based along the coastline.
February 15, 2002 Regular News Survey tracks corporate spending for outside counsel How will U.S. corporations adjust their spending on outside legal counsel in 2002? Will the recession rein in spending, or will economic factors be less of a concern, as businesses call on outside firms more to help navigate a changing regulatory landscape and rising litigation?It turns out that companies may be headed in both directions, according to a new survey on law department spending by National Economic Research Associates.In its first annual “Legal Leading Indicators” survey, NERA found that more than a third of the country’s largest corporations (38 percent) say they plan on decreasing spending for outside lawyers, although the decrease is not expected to be dramatic. The percentage of spending on outside counsel, as a share of overall spending, is expected to slip from 53.5 percent in 2001 to 51.6 percent in 2002. At the same time, 23 percent of companies surveyed projected an increase in outside law firm spending.Even the projected decrease is not across the board. For a few key specialties, notably labor and employment and regulation, the percentage of companies that anticipate increasing outside legal budgets was greater than those anticipating a decrease. The same pattern emerged for international work — more companies than not expect to increase spending for legal work outside the U.S.Staffing changes and changes in regulation are the most important factors influencing outside counsel spending next year, ahead of changes in the economy, and far more important than “threats of terrorism,” which was cited as an important factor by only two percent of companies surveyed.For some, staffing changes simply mean more in-house hiring, according to the NERA.“We will be bringing in higher-level, in-house talent,” said one respondent to the NERA study. “More in-house counsel,” echoed another, with “more focus and closer review of outside billings.”The survey suggests that this past year found many corporate law departments at a crossroads. When asked to compare current legal budgets with 2000, 48 percent of companies reported there had been an increase, while only 18 percent reported a decrease.Looking ahead to 2002, 39 percent anticipated that outside legal spending would decrease “somewhat” or “a lot,” while 38 percent said that their outside legal spending would remain flat in the coming year.The NERA survey was based on interviews with 302 firms with annual revenues of $500 million or more. Sixty-two percent reported sales of least $1 billion, and 62 percent of respondents identified themselves as chief counsel.NERA, an economic research firm and an affiliate of Marsh & McLennan, provides economic consulting services to both in-house legal departments, as well as many private law firms. Survey tracks corporate spending for outside counsel
Proposed board actions March 15, 2005 Regular News Proposed board actions Pursuant to Standing Board Policy 1.60, the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar hereby publishes this notice of intent to consider or take final action at its April 8 meeting on the following items. These matters are additionally governed by Rule 1-12.1, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, where applicable. Most amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar that are finally acted upon by the board must still be formally presented to the Supreme Court, with further notice and opportunity to be heard, before they are officially approved and become effective. To receive a full copy of the text of any of these proposed amendments call (850) 561-5751 — reference any requested proposal by its title or item number and date of this publication. RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR Chapter 3 Rules of Discipline Subdivision 3-5 Types of Discipline 1. Rule 3-5.1 Generally Summary: Within subdivision (b)(3), adds language to clarify that a respondent is responsible for the $1,250 administrative fee if guilty of minor misconduct. 2. Rule 3-5.2 Emergency Suspension and Probation Summary: Revises subdivision (a) and creates new subdivision (b), to allow for separate criteria for petitions for emergency suspension or for interim probation; amends rule title and subtitles accordingly and reformats remainder of existing rule as necessary to accommodate these proposed changes; within former subdivision (d) – new (e) – deletes requirement that bar must proceed to trial within 60 days of any emergency order. Subdivision 3-7 Procedures 3. Rule 3-7.5 Procedures Before the Board of Governors Summary: Within subdivision (a), clarifies that a request by a designated reviewer for grievance committee reconsideration or referral to the disciplinary review committee shall be submitted to bar counsel; defines “in writing” for purposes of this subdivision; clarifies how bar counsel processes requests for reconsideration, to include notice to respondent and complainant; confirms that procedures in rule 3-7.4 apply to reconsiderations, and that the bar – as a party in disciplinary matters – has no authority to adjudicate rights; other edits attempt to clarify current verbiage or reformat remainder of existing rule to accommodate these proposed changes. 4. Rule 3-7.16 Limitation on Time to Bring Complaint Summary: Within subdivision (a), adds provision stating that a reopened disciplinary investigation shall not be time barred by this rule if the investigation is reopened within 1 year of the date on which the matter was closed, except that reopened investigations based on deferrals shall not be barred if reopened within 1 year of the conclusion of the proceeding on which the deferral is based; amends subdivision title to additionally reference reopened cases; amends subdivision (b), to extend its exception from time limitations to the reopening of any matter alleging theft or conviction of a felony criminal offense; amends subdivision (c), to extend its tolling provisions to the reopening of any matter where fraud, concealment or misrepresentation is shown to have prevented discovery of the matter. Chapter 4 Rules of Professional Conduct Subchapter 4-1 Client-Lawyer Relationship 5. Rule 4-1.5 Fees for Legal Services Summary: Creates new subdivision (i) – “Arbitration Clauses” – that would add language permitting lawyers to contract with clients to resolve any fee dispute that may arise, through mandatory arbitration; prohibits such arrangements unless the lawyer first advises the affected person in writing of the opportunities of independent representation; sets forth required language for any such attorney-client agreement; proposed as companion to suggested amendments in rule 4-1.8(h). 6. Rule 4-1.8 Conflict of Interest: Prohibited and Other Transactions Summary: Within subdivision (h), adds new language that would permit lawyers to contract with clients to resolve any fee dispute that may arise, through mandatory arbitration; prohibits such arrangements unless the lawyer first advises the affected person in writing of the opportunities of independent representation; sets forth required language for any such attorney-client agreement; proposed as companion to suggested amendments creating new rule 4-1.5(i). Chapter 6 Legal Specialization and Education Programs Subchapter 6-1 Generally 7. Rule 6-1.2 Public Notice Summary: Updates explanation of board certification, for public notice in telephone directory Yellow Pages. Subdivision 6-4 Standards for Certification of a Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer 8. Rule 6-4.1 Generally Summary: Incorporates professionalism reference in preamble as to purpose of board certification. 9. Rule 6-4.3 Minimum Standards Summary: Substantial editorial rewrite of rule, with some substantive edits as noted; within subdivision (a), adds competence to substantial involvement criteria; in subdivision (a)(1), increases the active participation practice time from 30 to 50 percent; in subdivision (a)(2), specifies that each of the 15 minimum cases must involve substantial legal or factual issues; identifies matters unacceptable for the 15-case requirement; defines a “day” as at least 6 hours for purposes of this rule; and includes an allowance of 3 substitutions, including evidentiary hearings or preliminary injunctions lasting at least 1 day and involving substantial legal or factual issues – provided that matters submitted as substitutions are adversarial and binding on the parties, with “binding” meaning that parties must honor the court’s decision unless overturned pursuant to law; in subdivision (a)(3)(b), specifies that peer review must be sufficient to confirm competence, ethics, and professionalism; otherwise clarifies throughout that “courts of general jurisdiction” mean circuit courts, federal district courts, or courts of similar jurisdiction in other states. 10. Rule 6-4.4 Recertification Summary: Substantial editorial rewrite of rule with some substantive edits as noted; within subdivision (a), adds competence to substantial involvement criteria and increases active participation practice time from 30 to 50 percent; within subdivision (b)(1), reduces from 3 to 2 the number of contested trials for recertification; specifies that at least 1 trial must be a jury trial and handled by the applicant as lead counsel; references unacceptable trial matters for recertification, from rule 6-4.3(a)(2); allows a creditable non-jury matter to be an evidentiary hearing or preliminary injunction, as defined in rule 6-4.3(a)(2); within subdivision (b)(2), also permits recertification with 1 jury trial as lead counsel lasting a minimum of 10 days, with each day defined as at least 6 hours, in lieu of 2 contested cases; within subdivision (c), would allow the jury trial/lead counsel requirement to be replaced by either teaching or attending an advanced trial advocacy seminar, eliminating the substitution for a non-jury trial; within subdivision (d), specifies that peer review must be sufficient to confirm competence, ethics. and professionalism; otherwise clarifies throughout that “courts of general jurisdiction” mean circuit courts, federal district courts, or courts of similar jurisdiction in other states; revises other subdivision entries as editorially necessary to accommodate these proposed changes. Chapter 10 Definitions Subchapter 10-3 Standing Committee 11. Rule 10-3.1 Generally Summary: Adds recusal provision as new subdivision (b), consistent with current practices and similar revisions proposed for rule 10-4.1 and circuit UPL committee members; adds new subdivision titles for existing text due to insertion of these proposed changes. 12. Rule 10-4.1 Generally Summary: Adds recusal provision as new subdivision (g), consistent with current practices and similar revisions proposed for rule 10-3.1 and standing UPL committee members. Chapter 14 Grievance Mediation and Fee Arbitration Subchapter 14-6 Nature and Enforcement of Award 13. Rule 14-6.1 Binding Nature (fee arbitration awards) Summary: Adds, as new subdivision (c), provisions to confirm that a member’s failure to timely pay a fee arbitration award without just cause shall result in the member being delinquent and unauthorized to practice law pursuant to rule 1-3.6; amends subchapter and rule title to reflect this new matter. Chapter 17 Authorized House Counsel Rule Subchapter 17-1 Purpose 14. Rule 17-1.3 Activities Summary: Within subdivision (b), clarifies that authorized house counsel must disclose their status as such in communications with individuals outside the corporation with which the authorized house counsel is registered and certified; provides examples of acceptable disclosure language. STANDING BOARD POLICIES 1500 Series – Lawyer Regulation Policies 15. Policy 15.10 Waiver of Disqualification as Attorney for Respondent Summary: Adds new subdivision (c), to revise current prohibitions and allow a member of a board member’s firm to represent a disciplinary respondent in limited instances – if the respondent is a member of the board member’s firm, if representation of the respondent predated the board member’s initial date of board service and refusal to allow continued representation would work a substantial hardship on the respondent, or if representation of the respondent predated the time when the board member and respondent’s counsel became members of the same firm and refusal to allow continued representation would work a substantial hardship on the respondent; adds new subdivision (h), to clarify that if a waiver is granted hereunder the affected board member shall be recused from additional Bar participation in the matter per policy 15.20 and further screened from the law firm’s files and representation; adds new subdivision (k), specifying procedures for review of and action on any request for waiver hereunder; other edits attempt to clarify current subdivision titles or reformat remainder of existing rule to accommodate these proposed changes. 16. Policy 15.20 Recusal of Board Members Summary: Consistent with proposed changes in policy 15.10, adds language within subdivision (a) to clarify that the president or presiding officer may order recusal of a board member in a disciplinary matter upon concurrence of a majority of the board; further clarifies that a recused member may not participate in any manner of discussions with any member or group of members of the board concerning the matter; adds new language stating that a recused member should not be present when the matter is being debated by the board. 17. Policy 15.90 Review and Approval of Disciplinary Cost Payment Plans Summary: Expands current policy to include procedure for review and approval of plans for member payment of diversion fees, restitution amounts, and fee arbitration awards. SECTION BYLAWS 18. Workers’ Compensation Section Bylaws Summary: Within Article III (Officers) increases the size of the executive council, from 27, to 30 members; revises executive council membership to require at least 15 claimants’ and 15 employers’/carriers’ attorneys; revises the annual terms of office for all officers, to commence on July 1 of each year rather than at the conclusion of the council’s annual meeting; within Article V (Nomination and Election of Officers and Executive Council) increases the number of council members separately nominated by both the council and membership, from 4 to 5; includes other non-substantive editorial or conforming changes throughout; within Article VI (Committees) revises names of “specialization” committee, to “board certification” committee, and “planning” committee to “long range planning” committee.
continue reading » President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday calling for reviews of the federal government’s cybersecurity vulnerabilities and directing adoption of specific security practices.The order also directs each agency to use the National Institutes for Standards and Technology’s cybersecurity framework to manage cybersecurity risk and to provide a risk management report to the Secretary of Homeland Security and director of the Office of Management and Budget within 90 days documenting risk mitigation choices made.CUNA generally supports the use of the framework as a tool for credit unions but is concerned that mandatory use by federal agencies could eventually lead to making it a mandatory standard for financial institutions. It should not create additional requirements, nor should it apply a one-size-fits-all approach for credit unions to demonstrate readiness. 12SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr
Apart from the fact that illegal renters lower the price, they do not pay taxes (thus earning more than you) damage directly to you, as well as to the entire tourist destination. The new State Inspectorate has consolidated the tasks of 17 inspections within eight ministries. Thus, market, sanitary, veterinary, agricultural, hunting, forestry, phytosanitary, tourist, mining, inspection of pressure equipment, energy, management of toxic chemicals, labor, construction, environmental protection, nature protection and water inspection are united. Those who do everything according to the Law do not have to be afraid or intimidated by inspections. Recall, in accordance with the new amendments to the Law on Hospitality, which, among other things, requires that tourism inspectors have the opportunity to apply the principle of opportunity, ie the possibility that minor violations can be warned, with a deadline to correct irregularities, not to they immediately print out fines. So, if someone has listed their apartment on Booking.com, it is easy to see if the same landlord is also registered in the eVisitor system. On the other hand, all those who respect the Law and settle all their obligations to the State, turn out to be “fools” towards those who do not. So accordingly, the question arises whether you will report your “colleagues”, friends, neighbors who rent illegally? On the other hand, illegal renters are unfair competition and a big problem of our tourism. In addition to not paying taxes and all other levies, by lowering prices, they destroy the market and thus are unfair competition to all those who pay everything regularly and according to the law. RELATED NEWS: As the inspections merged and with the reorganization of the independent State Inspectorate, the work of the inspections should have been more efficient and functional. In tourism, it should enable a clearer and more concrete fight against the black and gray economy. Certainly, it is in everyone’s interest to suppress the black market, because they are unfair competition to legal landlords. It is in everyone’s interest to combat illegal landlords. Why would they be “smart” and you “fools”. Yes, that is exactly what everyone who pays according to the law turns out to be. Report illegal landlords as well as anyone else who does not comply with the Act. “Advertising on platforms such as Booking.com and Airbnb can also be a reason to conduct inspections. Namely, the Law on Catering stipulates that when advertising and advertising services and displaying messages in promotional materials, the landlord may use only the designation of the prescribed type and the category and type of special standard of the facility determined by the competent office, and when advertising and advertising services with taxpayers from the European Union must indicate the tax number, ie VAT identification number”, They explain in the inspectorate for Poslovni dnevnik. TAX ADMINISTRATION MOVES FISCALIZATION SUPERVISION IN THE ACCOMMODATION SERVICE SECTOR Everyone must pay taxes and all levies prescribed by law, including landlords. We need fair market competition, so let the one who is better, more creative, more proactive, more capable “win” and the one who invests more in quality and gives his personal contribution as a host. Non-payment of taxes, non-registration of workers and illegal landlords are the cancer of the wound of our tourism, and the State Inspectorate will focus on that. In order to carry out better control and bring order to the black zone, under the new law, inspectors will be able to enter facilities that have not reported renting accommodation. It is the tourism sector, renters and catering facilities, announced by the State Inspectorate, that will be in focus before the start of the peak tourist season. The unified State Inspectorate began operations on Monday (April 01st). How to find illegal renters? Simply. Assistance to the State Inspectorate will be eVisitor data where all renters must register, and illegal renters will be compared with data / advertisements on the strongest booking portals, such as Booking.com and Airbnb.com. Illegal renters are unfair competition