爱上海AW Tag Archive

poatdljtm

Hesburgh emphasized importance of lay governance

first_imgAmid the triumph and turmoil of the civil rights movement, the changes of the Second Vatican Council and the push for academic freedom for Catholic universities, the 1960s saw what Fr. Theodore Hesburgh called one of his greatest administrative achievements: placing University decision-making power in the hands of laypeople.“I would have to say that of all the accomplishments during the 35 years of my presidency at Notre Dame — improving the academics, the quality of the students, the endowment, the building program — the greatest change made during my administration was turning the University over to lay control,” Hesburgh wrote in his 2000 autobiography, “God, Country, Notre Dame.”Until 1967, Holy Cross priests made all major decisions for the University, which was valued at half a billion dollars, Hesburgh wrote. A lay advisory board existed, but it had no real power.In the summer of 1965, at a University retreat house in Land O’Lakes, Wisconsin, Hesburgh and several other Holy Cross leaders set out to change that.“The time had come for the priests of the Holy Cross to relinquish ownership and control of the university to a lay board of trustees who would be better equipped to oversee its future well-being,” Hesburgh wrote.A key motivating factor was the recently-concluded Second Vatican Council, which emphasized involvement of laymen and laywomen in the Church. Hesburgh even wrote his 1945 doctoral dissertation at Catholic University of America on the role of the laity in the Church.“Vatican II had said that laypeople should be given responsibility in Catholic affairs commensurate with their dedication, their competence and their intelligence,” he wrote. “Many people may not have taken that seriously, but we did. For me, it was the most natural thing in the world.”The separation of the University from a religious order would also be a step towards establishing its independence and academic freedom, Hesburgh said.“An organization as big as a Catholic university, which is totally faithful to the Church, wants to go on and be a Catholic university, needs a lot of elbow room,” he told National Public Radio’s Fresh Air in 1990. “And I thought we’d have more elbow room if we were run by lay people.”In early 1967, the process of transferring ownership of the University from the Congregation of Holy Cross to a lay board — which required Vatican approval — began. According to Hesburgh’s autobiography, Fr. Edward Heston, Holy Cross’ procurator general in Rome, put in a request for the transfer.Approval “sailed right through,” Hesburgh wrote, “which is highly unusual for the Vatican.”Hesburgh then called in Ed Stephan, a 1933 graduate and a Chicago lawyer, to legally transfer ownership and to set up a new governing structure. A continual priority, Hesburgh said, was to be “careful not to load anything in favor of the clergy.”“We all wanted Notre Dame to continue as it had before, as a premier Catholic university, and also to grow stronger academically and economically,” he said.The result was a two-tiered system of governance: a 12-member board of Fellows — six Holy Cross members and six laypeople — and a Board of Trustees, whose members could be lay or religious. The Fellows would set the number of, elect and oversee members of the Board of Trustees, allowing the laity to make decisions but maintaining the voice of the clergy.Fr. Thomas Blantz, a professor emeritus of history and a trustee emeritus, was an assistant rector on campus in the mid-1960s. He said while he was not involved in the decision to transfer control, Hesburgh was open with the Holy Cross community throughout the process.“There were very good discussions,” Blantz said. “Fr. Hesburgh was very open in his discussions with the Holy Cross. He’d bring [Stepan], and he was there to answer our questions also, at these meetings.”Over the next several decades, the new structure resulted in the input of trustees from a range of backgrounds and fields, such as law, business, media and academia, who could both act as examples for Notre Dame students and bring their expertise to the University’s decision-making, Blantz said.“One of the things a Board of Trustees does is represent the wider public at the University,” Blantz said. “We are, at Notre Dame, every University, training people for life in American society and maybe even leadership in American society. Therefore, it’s probably good to have that perspective of these leaders in American society overseeing your product and how you are doing.”The expertise of those leaders also helped Notre Dame expand financially. For example, Don Keough, the former chairman of the board of trustees who died last Tuesday, donated or raised billions of dollars for the University.“We reached out into the world and picked out some of the best leaders in the country like Don Keough, head of Coca-Cola, and he came in, and he helped us carry off a great fundraising campaign,” Hesburgh said in an interview with The Observer in 2013.One of the biggest impact of the transfer, Hesburgh wrote, was to give Notre Dame the independence it needed to expand intellectually.“I think we are more Catholic today than we were in the past — both big C and little c,” Hesburgh wrote. “One could argue with that, as many do, but I stand by that statement. It is very important that we continue to have independent Catholic universities. They are the very places that do the most of advance Catholic thought and influence in this country.“We have, and deserve to have, the respect of everyone who values academic freedom and commitment to the principles of reason seeking faith, and faith freely seeking a deeper understanding of all that faith means in our times.”Tags: board of fellows, Board of Trustees, Catholic university, Don Keough, Hesburgh, lay board, lay governancelast_img read more

Read More

casexhdga

Board continues debating section funding issues

first_imgBoard continues debating section funding issues Board continues debating section funding issues Gary Blankenship Senior Editor The Bar Board of Governors has received a detailed briefing on proposals to revamp the way the Bar provides fiscal support for its sections, including the split with the Bar of CLE course revenues.But the vote on the proposal was delayed until the board’s June 3 meeting to give more time for the recommendations to be presented to sections for their feedback.“I want to go ahead and discuss everything this morning as though we were going to vote on it,” Bar President Kelly Overstreet Johnson told the board at its April Tallahassee meeting. “Hopefully, in June, we can have a limited discussion.“I want to reach out to the sections and facilitate further understanding of this plan so even if they don’t like it. . . they understand it,” she added. “I want to go the extra mile. Now is the time to do that.”Budget Committee Chair Jerald Beer, who also headed the special committee that examined section finances, said the details had been presented to the leadership of 20 of the 22 sections, and the remaining two would be briefed shortly. At its January meeting, the board heard that many sections were opposed to preliminary proposals, but Beer said it was different when the sections were approached one at a time.“If you talk to the sections individually, they have more questions about how the numbers are being computed, rather than the methodology,” he said.Board member Jesse Diner, another member of the special committee, added, “I think there is an understanding among most of the sections that there are a couple things that need to be adjusted,” he said. “Nobody loves it. The Out-of-State Division has endorsed the proposed changes. But others, I think, accept it and understand it. There are certain things that need to be done to tweak it, but overall the plan seems workable and fair.”Beer said the proposals address the amount the Bar gets from sections’ dues to pay direct administrative costs, the amount the Bar charges to sections for indirect administrative services, the Bar’s subsidy of section use of Bar printing services, and the split of CLE revenues.The proposals generally charge the sections more for administrative and printing services, but change the CLE splits in such a way that many sections will see that income boosted, Beer said. In fact, he noted some sections could see a boost in overall revenues under the plan, which will also encourage sections to operate efficiently.Combining all the changes, Beer said, shows that had the proposed policies been implemented for the most recent budget year, overall the sections would have had an increase in income of about $166,000, although the results vary section to section.“Those are the best numbers we have,” Beer said. “I suspect the effect on the sections will be better than we’re showing here, but that’s just an educated guess.”The special committee was appointed by former President Miles McGrane after an analysis showed that Bar support for sections was costing more every year and rising at a rapid rate. The proposed changes would give the Bar a larger portion of section dues, end a printing subsidy for sections’ use of the Bar’s print shop, and change the CLE split in a way that could increase section revenues, while also protecting the Bar from taking a loss on CLE operations, which has happened in recent years.According to Bar figures, 29,000 members hold a total of 50,000 section memberships.Beer outlined the changes in a memo sent to board members and sections officials before the meeting.He laid out five areas for the board:• Section dues split. Currently the Bar gets one half of the first $25 of section dues, or $12.50 a member, to pay for the Bar’s costs for providing administrative services. That amount has not changed since 1993. Adjusted for inflation, that amount should be $16.50 for 2005, $17 for $2006, and $17.25 for 2007. While the Bar has historically subsidized sections on their administrative costs, the Budget Committee recommended increasing the Bar’s split of the dues to $17.50, noting that’s actually only a 50-cent increase over the cost after inflation. But the Bar would also calculate each section’s administrative expenses and allow a section to receive a refund up to $5 per member if the $17.50 wound up raising more than the section’s actual administrative expenses. The $17.50 would also be indexed for inflation in future years, Beer said.• Printing subsidy. Currently the Bar’s in-house printing operation handles at a preferred “Bar rate” many printing jobs for sections, including CLE notices and section newsletters. That rate, according to the Budget Committee, is less than what the sections would pay for commercial services. In addition, the Bar rebates to the sections all costs except for ink and paper. Other services such as graphic arts and advertising in The Florida Bar News are also refunded. The Budget Committee noted the rebate amounted to $124,000 in 2001-02 and $173,000 in 2003-04 and recommended the rebate be eliminated. Sections would have the option each year of using Bar printing services or going to commercial services, but the decision would be binding for an entire budget year.• General and administrative overhead. These indirect administrative and support costs totaled $2.8 million in 2003-04, with the sections’ portion coming to $360,000. Some Bar programs are able to pay their proportion of the G&A, while others cannot and are subsidized. Sections object to being allocated those costs because they say they have no control over them. The Budget Committee recommended that sections continue to have those costs allocated. “These are real expenses expended by The Florida Bar in providing services to the various sections, as well as other programs of The Florida Bar,” Beer said in his report. “The Budget Committee felt that these costs should be included in determining the amount of financial support being provided to the sections, as it is a true cost to deliver the services.”• CLE revenues. This is one of the touchiest issues in the section funding debate, and the Budget Committee proposed a change that it said would actually boost section income. Currently, sections receive about 15 percent of the gross revenues from a CLE course (20 percent on advanced level courses), while the Bar gets 85 percent and pays all the costs. In three fiscal years from 2000 and 2002, that resulted in the sections making $1.026 million, while the Bar wound up with a collective loss of $472,000. A change in pricing reversed those losses, and the Bar made $118,000 in 2003 and $276,000 in 2004. The Budget Committee proposed changing the split to the net profits, after all the costs are paid. The committee suggested that sections should get 80 percent of the profits (and conversely cover 80 percent of any losses) while the Bar would receive 20 percent. To ease the impact of other suggested changes on sections’ finances, the committee suggested that the sections get 90 percent for 2006-07, and 85 percent for 2007-08, before reverting thereafter to the 80/20 split. The committee noted under that proposal the sections would have actually had an increase in CLE income of $217,000 last year.• Limitations on financial subsidies for sections. There is no limit on the amount the Bar can spend subsidizing sections, and Beer noted consequently there is no incentive for sections to limit their use of Bar administrative time and services. Those expenses have been growing by an average of $75,000 annually for the past three years. The Budget Committee proposed setting a cap on expenses a section could incur above the $17.50 per member limit for which the Bar would be compensated under revised policies. It suggested that cap be set at a flat $10,000 for the first 1,000 members of a section, $5 for the next 500 members, and $2.50 for any members over 1,500.“If the section goes over its subsidy ‘cap,’ that amount will be paid back to The Florida Bar at the end of the fiscal year. . . , ” Beer wrote. “It should be noted that to the extent the sections will not receive as large a subsidy as in the past, the sections will now receive a much greater share of its CLE profits. For those sections that operate with some administrative efficiency, and continue to promote successful CLE courses, the impact will either be negligible or the sections will actually end up with more money.“Those sections that continue to disproportionately use the resources of The Florida Bar for their activities and/or are unable to promote successful CLE courses, will find that they will have to revamp the manner in which they continue to do business.” May 15, 2005 Senior Editor Regular Newslast_img read more

Read More

akscaugbd

ESM, J-D track teams split neighborhood clash

first_imgFor a long time, the East Syracuse Minoa girls track and field team had to look up at the standings where its neighbors from Jamesville-DeWitt ruled over them.That changed in Wednesday’s three-team SCAC Empire division battle, where the Spartans defeated the Red Rams 75-66, though both sides lost to Central Square.First place in the league was at stake, and the Redhawks (7-0) grabbed it by topping ESM 74-67 and J-D 95-46, though the Spartans did not mind since it finally got the best of the Rams head-to-head. Sophie Hartz led ESM with a pair of individual titles, taking the 100-meter dash in 13.0 seconds and going 15 feet 7 inches in the long jump. Lailani Carrion added a first-place finish in the 400-meter hurdles in 1:03.15.The Spartans won most of the field events as Sara Bourdon threw the shot put 31’4” and Sophia Jackson heaved the discus 90’7 ¾”, with Maria Markert able to clear 8’6” in the pole vault.J-D claimed three events, two of them from Denise Yaeger, who ran the 200-meter dash in 28.2 seconds and went 33’11 ½” in the triple jump as Laeticcia Bazile topped 5’1” in the high jump. Central Square was led by Ella Dolce, victorious in the 100 and 400 hurdles, and Jillian Howe, who ran to titles in the 1,500 and 3,000-meter distance events and also helped the Redhawks win the 4×800 relay.It was different in the boys meet, for here J-D did turn back ESM 80-61, though it also lost to Central Square 76-65 as the Redhawks also got past the Spartans 77-64.In this showdown of the top three SCAC Empire division sides, each of them won plenty of events, with J-D having Haberle Conlon take the 200 in 23.25 seconds and Fidel Martinez blaze to first in the 400 sprint in 51.98 seconds.Martinez and Conlon paired with Mike Potamianos and Nick Mannion to help the Rams prevail in the 4×400 relay in 3:34.29 as James Richer was victorious in the shot put with a toss of 46’4”. J-D also had Andrew Balotin, Caleb Smith, Juan Smith and Reinaldo Colon take the 4×100 relay in 45.72 seconds.Meanwhile, ESM’s Myles Riggins again pulled off his signature double, running the 100 sprint in 11.15 seconds after he was first in the 110 high hurdles in 15.59 seconds.Rocky El, in the triple jump, won for the Spartans with a top attempt of 41’7”, while Elijah Buck unleashed a discus throw of 128’9”. Gabe Chisari led Central Square with wins in the mile (4:36.4) and 3,200-meter run (10:14.38) and helped in the 4×800 relay (8:36.43).Share this:FacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditComment on this Story center_img Tags: ESMJ-Dtrack and fieldlast_img read more

Read More

lkelyodzf

Richard Flint – Racing is a ‘critical friend’ of betting in tackling its regulatory predicaments

first_img StumbleUpon Share UK Racing pushes for drastic levy reforms as deep recession looms August 25, 2020 Spotlight ups matchday commentary reach and capacity for new EPL Season  August 21, 2020 Ending his 17-year tenure at Sky Betting & Gaming (Sky Bet), industry figurehead Richard Flint has called for betting and racing leaders to work in partnership, tackling an ‘existential threat’ facing all betting stakeholders.Speaking to the Racing Post, Richard Flint the former Executive Chairman of Sky Bet, warned UK racing leaders not to be complacent in believing that their sport is immune to betting’s current regulatory predicaments.In his warning, Flint acknowledges the growing profile of gambling industry sceptics, ‘that is way higher now’, stating that negative perspectives are becoming ‘influential among policymakers’.“That’s why I think it’s a dangerous moment for the betting industry and by extension for the racing industry because there are more politicians with a very negative view of the industry than there are with a positive view,” Flint said.With the UK government having enforced its FOBTs £2 wagering reduction last April, Flint warns that campaigners and politicians have turned their attention to scrutinising betting’s links with sports.A stricter regulatory agenda could lead to a blanket ban on betting-sports advertising and sponsorship damaging racing indefinitely.“If all advertising was banned that would take racing off the terrestrial TV, it would stop race sponsorships, it would do vast harm to racing’s finances,” Flint said.Describing racing as a ‘critical friend’ of the betting, Flint calls for sector leaders to take heed of warnings, and work together in partnership.Issuing a response, the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) acknowledged Flint’s concerns, reaffirming that it wouldcontinue to promote socially responsible betting as core mandate, as well as emphasising the importance of the sector to the sport to politicians. Related Articles Share Spotlight delivers Racing Post translated services for Pari-Engineering Russia August 26, 2020 Submitlast_img read more

Read More