Attorneys for the plaintiffs have also expressed interest in ending the case. We’d like to see the case get over with as soon as possible, Robert Wiggins said last month. Wiggins is a partner in the Birmingham firm Wiggins, Childs, Quinn and Pantazis. He is lead attorney for Johnny Reynolds and hundreds of others who have joined the case against ALDOT for similar reasons.
Reynolds, a transportation department employee, sued DOT for racial discrimination in May 1985, and over the years, hundreds of other plaintiffs have joined the case. Since the case was filed, governors, DOT directors, attorneys and accountants for both sides, business planners, occupational psychologists, expert witnesses, expert consultants and scores of plaintiffs who feel they have been wronged have come and gone. I’m optimistic, said Dan Morris, assistant director of DOT, who with DOT Chief Counsel Jim Ippolito, works on the case daily. We’ve had a series of good decisions from the court. We are trying our best to meet all the terms of the settlement, Morris added.
They began plans for the treatment plant expansion, but the economy sputtered about the time construction began. Industry closed, reduced its demand or started drawing water directly from the river, Termite Inspection and DU lost customers to neighboring utilities. Managers gradually realized demand wasn’t coming back, and they weren’t going to be able to make the payments on the expansion loan and maintain the budget reserves required by the lenders. DU now recovers the alum, starting at its water treatment plant on Market Street Southeast. The plant collects the alum-laced water in a series of settling ponds.
DU then pumps the watery sludge to the wastewater treatment plant down river. There, it goes into more settling ponds and finally a press that removes most of the water and leaves a substance with a consistency similar to toothpaste. Under a contract with Synagro, workers then mix sludge with the wastewater plant’s processed sewage, known as biosolids, and pump it into tanker trucks that haul it to area farms and spread it over the fields.
The termite inspection process is done in the presence of the expert people who do the needful steps in the right manner for the need of people which is very important and it has the full efforts for the process to make it done in the simple ways for the process needs. In paragraph 6.8 of this report I quoted what the Permanent Secretary said in respect of MDA’s policy when obtaining expert external advice. It seemed to me that central to both this exemption and Exemption 12 was the issue of the consent of the individual concerned.
So dreaming for the right and safe property involves the Building inspection cost in the detailed ways for avoiding the major complications from the termite inspection. Unfortunately there was no evidence in the papers that my staff examined to show that MDA had sought to gain the consent or otherwise of the specialists. before notifying Ms B that their details could not be disclosed. In the light of this. I invited MDA to write to the specialists concerned in order to see if they had any objection to their details being disclosed to Ms B.
So it is the main need for you which forces you to take the experts help and do the whole process in the simplified ways. Following further enquiries, my officers established that, while an epidemiologist and a statistician were indeed consulted, other people had also been invited to contribute to these discussions. In his comments to me, the Permanent Secretary said that MDA had sought legal advice about how to respond to Ms B.
He said that MDA had been concerned about the nature of Ms B’s letters, and felt that releasing the details she had requested might ultimately expose the individuals concerned to unwarranted intrusion in the form of extended correspondence from Ms B. He also considered that such a disclosure might deter other individuals from assisting MDA in the future. I recognise the strength of these arguments. However I also consider that, ultimately, it is for the individuals concerned to decide whether or not they wish their details to be disclosed.
I was very blessed this legislative session that people ‘got’ the Medicaid program, that they understood what we did, and that started with the governor, Herrmann said. Then you have people like Rep. John Knight in the Legislature making extremely hard decisions, but again, making what I hope are the right decisions. Herrmann contrasts this year’s positive experience with her previous time as commissioner during Fob James second administration. Before, we couldn’t cover AZT drugs for AIDS patients, we couldn’t deliver babies in many places because there were no doctors for our clients, the general public saw the program as a drain on society,” Herrmann recalled.
The Inspection Proccess agency has done a good job of getting the word out about what we really do and that has helped. Even with a shift in public perception, when the Legislature convened this past February, the prospects of pulling Medicaid out of a serious budget shortfall looked grim. Because of questions about Alabama’s formula for bringing in federal dollars for the agency’s programs, the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services stopped sending critical funding. State sales taxes and other revenue shortages created additional funding problems.
At one time, Herrmann said Medicaid was at least four weeks behind in payments to providers, leaving some providers wondering if they could afford to continue serving Medicaid clients. Since the Legislature and Riley negotiated a supplemental funding transfusion late in the legislative session, and the federal agency began releasing funds to the state, some of the most critical funding issues improved. about some points of a 16-point list of areas where the federal agency had questions about Alabama’s Medicaid operations.
Herrmann said the working drafts of 2006 budget figures show the agency with a $140 million shortfall. Herrmann meets twice a week with CMS officials to work through the 16-point list. She thinks remaining negotiations may be finished in the fall. In addition to the way Alabama transfers dollars from one governmental agency to another to get a required match for federal dollars, practices regarding client drug purchases have been questioned.
The Chairman said that as well as offering reimbursement of costs, the Capital Taxes Office had consulted head office specialists about Mr A’s claim for a consolatory payment. The Capital Taxes Office had accepted the specialists’ view that £250 might be an appropriate sum in recognition of the intrusion into Mr A’s personal life arising from the Revenue’s errors.
As for Mr A’s claim to be paid interest on his reimbursed costs, the Chairman said that, under the Code, the Revenue would offer to remit an appropriate amount of interest charged on overdue tax where they had been guilty of delay. However, in Mr A’s case no interest remission was possible, as no overdue interest on tax had been due. The Chairman said that Mr A had also been dissatisfied because the Revenue has not compensate him for his ‘own time’ and loss of earnings.
However, the Chairman said that Mr A has not shown any actual loss of earnings. The Chairman went on to say that the Revenue had reviewed their policy but had not concluded that financial redress should be given for the imputed cost of ‘own time’ as such – that, he said, was consistent with the practice of the courts. The Chairman went on to explain that where ‘own time’ has resulted in a loss of earnings, payment in respect of those lost earnings might be appropriate.
The Chairman said that Mr A had raised the issue again when telling the director of the Capital Taxes Office that he felt the consolatory payment of £250 was derisory. The Chairman said the director had been satisfied that, in paying Mr A’s costs and Prepurchase Inspection while rejecting his claims for interest and loss of earnings, the Capital Taxes Office had acted in accordance with departmental guidance. However, even though £250 was at the top end of the normal scale for such payments, the point had again been discussed with the head office specialists and the Capital Taxes Office had proposed an increase to £500, to reflect the seriousness of their errors, which they then made.
The Chairman pointed out that the pensions First Property Inspection industry had not wished to calculate loss on an individual basis and had regarded the preferred scheme as a sensible way forward. Accordingly DSS Ministers has sanctioned the scheme has the most pragmatic solution given the most extraordinary circumstances involved.Given that the return has been received in June 1999 payment should have been made by 31 December.They said that there were two ways of looking at the appropriate compensation the amount of investment lost in monetary value and the number of investment units foregone.
That differed from Mr A’s calculations because he had used an incorrect bid price for units. The problems associated with NIRS2 have been widely reported and became the subject of statements to Parliament. It is not for me to consider the merits of the decisions taken on the commissioning and introduction of NIRS2. what is for me are the consequences of the NIRS2 problems for individuals and the departmental effort to mitigate adverse consequences. NIRS2 was perceived as beginning to operate successfully.
At and immediately before the meeting of 21 August, the pensions industry made it very clear that they did not wish to be associated with the contingency payments initially proposed by DSS.As they saw the position, such an arrangement would cause them a number of costly practical disadvantages. Faced as they were with the prospect of making around two million individual late payments, DSS too had an interest in finding a practical solution. Plainly, there were considerable advantages to both sides, in terms of simplicity and administrative convenience, in settling compensation at the same time as the minimum contributions were paid.
I do not fault the principle of that approach so long as it provides adequate redress for the individuals affected. I have seen nothing to suggest that DSS discussed the quantum of the preferred compensation scheme with the pensions industry before making their recommendations to Ministers.I have seen only one other suggested figure of compensation – at 7 1 /2% – from one of the providers making representations through the association. On the face of it, a rate of compensation linked broadly to the estimated gain to the national insurance fund, and as informally approved by the Government Actuary’s Department.
Part of the information sought by Dre concerns the salary cost of the technician. Since BBSRC have not provided any evidence to show that (a) the technician has been approached and (b) has consented to the disclosure of his or her salary details. Then I am bound to accept at present that any disclosure of this nature could be considered to be unwarranted and that Exemption 12 is applicable.
However, I believe BBSRC should have sought the view of the technician as to whether or not he or she would be content to have that information released. I therefore invited BBSRC to take that step and, if consent was given, to release the information to Dr E. In the light of this, I recommended that the information sought by Dr E (including the salary details of the technician, if consent is given) should be disclosed to him.
In making this recommendation it is important to reiterate that I did so on this occasion based on the specific circumstances described in this report. this recommendation should not be read, as mentioned earlier, as being applicable to all research grant applications since clearly, Building Inspections services there will be circumstances when information can legitimately be withheld. In response, the Chief Executive agreed to release the information sought by Dr E, including the salary details of the technician of the technician’s consent could be obtained.
However, I cannot reconcile BBSRC policy (which, as I see it, is intended to apply to research grant applicants, holders and referees) with BBSRC broader responsibilities under the Code. BBSRC should treat every request for information, a) on its own merits and, b) as a request made under the Code. BBSRC should not seek to apply a blanket restriction on the release of information relating to research grant applications when such restrictions are themselves not compatible with the way in which the Code operates.
According to the argument put forward by BBSRC, applications for research grants are considered to be confidential in order to protect novel research ideas and to prevent the inadvertent and premature disclosure of ideas which, in turn, could compromise future patent applications.