Thank you Congressman McHenry

first_imgby. Henry MeierRepublican Congressman Patrick McHenry’s asking questions that NCUA should have answered a long time ago in advocating for risk-based capital reform. According to our good friends at CUNA, the Republican Congressmen is asking NCUA to inform him of:Any cost-benefit analyses performed by the NCUA or that otherwise form part of the administrative record in this matter;The metrics used to determine what asset classifications required revisions;A justification for the revised weighing associated with each individual asset class; andAn explanation of the extent to which NCUA examiners would be empowered to assess and make capital recommendations to credit unions that might deviate from the new RBC standards.NCUA keeps on saying it is committed to a transparent rulemaking process when it comes to RBC reform but, aside from making the impact of the proposal on credit unions publicly available on its website, the proposal has been short on specific explanations about how NCUA settled on the specifics. When a rule of this importance is proposed, it is typically accompanied by a section by section analysis explaining in detail why an agency is proposing the specific change. I know everyone likes to bash the CFPB, but they do such a thorough job of explaining what it is they want to do and why that you know a tremendous amount of thought was put into any one of its proposals. continue reading » 1SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblrlast_img read more

Hochtief has new partner for construction and operation of special-purpose

first_imgGeoSea, a company within the Belgian DEME Group, has taken over the 50 percent shareholding in Beluga Hochtief Offshore GmbH & Co. KG, from Beluga Offshore. The share acquisition is subject to approval by the relevant merger regulation authorities.The company’s new name will be HGO Infra Sea Solutions GmbH & Co. KG with both partners have a 50 percent shareholding. The parties agreed not to disclose the purchase price.HGO Infra Sea Solutions develops, constructs, manages and charters special-purpose vessels used to build and maintain offshore wind farms and oil and gas facilities.Henner Mahlstedt, ceo of Hochtief Solutions said: “The services of the two companies complement each other perfectly and make the joint company into an even more powerful player. Since there is huge demand for offshore installation equipment, we are planning the construction of further special-purpose vessels.”HGO Infra Sea Solutions is currently constructing the “Innovation I” – claimed to be the most sophisticated heavy-duty jack-up lifting vessel on the offshore market. A technical innovation, this vessel with a payload of 8,000 tonnes and a crane capable of lifting 1,500 tonnes will operate in water depths of up to 50 m starting in mid-2012. It is ideally suited for the installation of all types of offshore foundations and is the only one of its kind in the world, says the company. Innovation I will be used for the first time at the Global Tech I offshore wind farm. It has already been chartered long-term.Alain Bernard, CEO of the DEME Group, says: “It will be the equipment of choice for the installation of turbines of 5 to 10 MW. nnovation I will significantly reduce the assembly and servicing times required for the latest generation of offshore wind turbines. In the oil and gas sector, the vessel is ideally suited for a wide range of operations.”Nordsee-GeoSea (DEME) and Hochtief Solutions are already working together elsewhere: In 2010 the two companies founded a joint venture which delivers and erects foundations for the German Baltic wind farm EnBW Baltic 2 and handles the logistics for the erection of the towers and turbines.Readers will recall that previously Hochtief had confirmed that it was itself seeking to acquire the shares which it did not already own in Beluga Hochtief Offshore.last_img read more

Debate over in-state tuition for students in US illegally

first_img SHARE Do you see a typo or an error? Let us know. Published: April 8, 2017 9:43 AM EDT Debate over in-state tuition for students in US illegally center_img (AP) Twenty states already offer cheaper in-state college tuition to students who are in the United States illegally. Legislation making its way through the Tennessee Legislature would make that state the 21st.Supporters in states where the tuition benefit is available say the policy has boosted Latino enrollment and has helped these students contribute to the economy. Opponents say the policy wrongly rewards immigrants who entered the country illegally.The debate has been revived in some states as President Donald Trump pursues tougher immigration policies.Some things to know about the issue:THE TENNESSEE PROPOSALUnder Tennessee’s current rules, immigrants who are in the country illegally are typically required to pay out-of-state tuition prices that can cost three times more than in-state prices. The Tuition Opportunity Bill would allow these students to pay the cheaper price if they attended a Tennessee high school for the two years immediately before graduating, earned a high-school diploma or equivalent certificate in the state, and have been accepted to a public college or university. It was proposed by Sen. Todd Gardenhire, a Republican from Chattanooga who argues that immigrants with college degrees will earn higher incomes and pay higher taxes, among other benefits. “The key to a lot of problems we have is education,” he said. Opponents worry that the bill would draw large numbers of immigrants to the state and become a financial burden to taxpayers. Gardenhire proposed a similar bill two years ago that failed by a single vote in the House.___OTHER STATESSixteen other states have passed laws granting in-state tuition to students who are in the United States illegally, and university systems in four others have offered the benefit on their own, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Texas was the first when it passed a law in 2001, and Florida was the latest, approving a law in 2014.States began adopting the policy in response to a 1996 federal law that bars such immigrants from getting college benefits that aren’t offered to all U.S. citizens. To comply with the law, states established criteria to be eligible for in-state tuition regardless of immigration status. Five states, including Texas, California and Washington, went a step further and offered financial assistance to immigrants here illegally. Conversely, six other states have barred immigrants in the country illegally from in-state tuition. Some other states have sought middle ground, offering in-state tuition to those who were granted temporary protection from deportation by President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, which aims to help those who were brought to the country as children.___THE POLITICSAt first glance, Tennessee might seem like an unlikely state to adopt the policy. It’s a conservative state that voted heavily for Trump, who is working to clamp down on immigration and previously promised to end Obama’s protections for those who came to the United States as children. But experts say the idea has been accepted by states at both ends of the political spectrum, including New York and California but also Oklahoma and Nebraska.“Investing in students makes sense both from a fiscal perspective and from a human perspective,” said Tanya Broder, senior attorney for the National Immigration Law Center.Gardenhire, the Tennessee state senator, says it doesn’t make sense to punish students who were brought here by their parents.Still, some states have revived a debate over the policy in recent months. Republican lawmakers in Texas and Florida have proposed bills to repeal in-state tuition for students who are in the country illegally, while state attorneys in Arizona have asked a state court to block colleges from offering the benefit. “It is an issue that’s perennially debated,” said Randy Capps, director of research for U.S. programs at the Migration Policy Institute. “It’s close in a lot of states, just like it has been close in the Tennessee.”___WHAT SUPPORTERS SAYSupporters say the policy offers a social good along with financial benefits. In states that passed the law, college enrollment rates among college-age Mexican noncitizens increased by 4 percentage points, from about 19 percent to 23 percent, according to recent research at the University of Maryland Baltimore County. Graduation rates among those students increased similarly. Graduation rates among those students increased similarly. “It’s opened up higher education to a new group that otherwise wouldn’t get in,” Capps said. Enrollment growth has been even higher in states that offered student financial aid. Experts say even the lower in-state tuition costs can be too much for immigrants here illegally — who are not eligible for federal financial aid.In Texas, the number of students granted in-state tuition under the law grew from 393 in 2001 to nearly 25,000 in 2015, according to state data. In Washington, the number grew from 25 to 1,500 students in a similar span, mostly enrolled at community colleges. In both cases that’s about 1 percent of the state’s total college enrollment. “It’s money well spent, because the students go back into the economy and pay taxes and participate like everyone else,” said Stella Flores, an associate professor of higher education at New York University who has researched the topic.___WHAT OPPONENTS SAYThe policy can also bring costs. Past efforts to repeal the Texas law have focused on increased spending, with one state analysis predicting the cost would grow to $100 million by 2020. The cost to state and local governments in Maryland is estimated to be $7.2 million a year, although researchers at the University of Maryland say the long-term benefits are greater. “In most estimates the additional tax revenues to the state significantly outweighs the initial cost,” said Tim Gindling, an economics professor behind the research.Opponents in some states argue that the law takes college seats away from U.S. citizens and makes their state a magnet for immigrants. Conservative groups also allege the policy violates the 1996 federal law limiting benefits for immigrants who came here illegally. In a 2011 report, the Heritage Foundation criticized the Obama administration for refusing to sue states that “are incontrovertibly and brazenly violating an unambiguous federal immigration law.”___NEXT STEPSThe proposal in Tennessee has been passed by two lawmaker panels and is scheduled to be considered by a third on Tuesday. It still faces several hurdles, but has drawn support from Republicans, including Gov. Bill Haslam.In many states, uncertainty over the future of Obama’s DACA program has worried immigrants. Students who qualify for in-state tuition because of their DACA status could lose that benefit if Trump repeals the program. Some schools including Arizona State University have said they will find financial help for students if the program is eliminated. Author: Associated Press last_img read more

Beleaguered solicitors highlight ongoing disclosure fight

first_imgCriminal defence solicitors have highlighted the full extent of prosecution disclosure ‘failures’ in a survey that attracted nearly 300 responses in the first 24 hours.The Criminal Law Solicitors Association, which has long challenged what it claims to be repeated failures by prosecutors to disclose information on time, has begun collecting examples from solicitors to present to the Ministry of Justice, the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee and the Commons justice select committee.The survey, which opened on Monday, has already attracted 400 responses. The figure is rising steadily, according to solicitor Robin Murray, association committee member and former vice-chair.Murray, founding partner at Kent criminal defence firm Robin Murray & Co, part of Tuckers Solicitors, said the findings show that  ‘it is actually the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts that are bringing the system of justice into disrepute’.He said: ‘The survey shows the Crown prosecution fail, on a daily basis, to do what the law requires them to, which is to serve the evidence so the defendant knows the case against them.’When these failings are brought to the attention of the courts time and again, the courts fail to hold the prosecution to account, which means either a waste of public money because cases are adjourned unnecessarily or, far more seriously, the defence are put under pressure to proceed without reasonable notice of recently served evidence.’Last year Kevin McGinty, HM chief inspector of the CPS, told the justice select committee disclosure was an ongoing problem. Barrister Richard Horwell QC, who investigated the collapse of a trial following the 1988 murder of Lynette White, said disclosure problems had blighted the criminal justice system for too long.One solicitor, responding to this week’s survey, said the Criminal Procedure Rules ‘are reduced to being a best practice document and a stick to beat the defence with’.Another was successful in obtaining a wasted costs order for their privately represented client, but said this was ‘not a practical remedy’ for the vast majority of defendants, who are legally aided.One respondent said: ‘The failure of the Crown to comply with their disclosure obligation is the norm. This leads to miscarriages of justice and defendants routinely acknowledge that the magistrates’ court is no place to get justice. This has now crept into the Crown court where the defence have to constantly fight to get disclosure… In nearly every single case I have at the moment, approximately 50, the Crown have failed to comply with their disclosure obligation and I’ve had to list the case for a mention hearing.’Another solicitor observed: ‘There is a culture of the courts giving the CPS the benefit of the doubt by constantly referring to financial pressures, or lack of staff. This is an excuse that carries no weight when you see the lack of funding and the work pressures on defence solicitors.’The CPS declined to comment.last_img read more