Posts Tagged governing body
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry on Saturday urged chief justices of all high courts to ensure that the Access to Justice Development Fund (AJDF) was utilised for enhancing the district judiciary’s capacity and the convenience of litigants.
He was presiding over a meeting of the governing body of the Access to Justice Development Fund at the Supreme Court.
The chief justice observed that the establishment of the AJDF, which is managed by the Law & Justice Commission of Pakistan, ensures that the genuine requirements of the district judiciary are met and legal aid and assistance is made available to people who cannot pursue their rights in the court of law. the governing body approves projects of organisations, as well as individuals, for funding from the AJDF.
The chief justice further appreciated the role of the LJCP in the promotion of legal awareness, particularly of vulnerable groups, by sponsoring projects of legal empowerment and provision of legal aid under the AJDF.
Besides approving accounts of the AJDF for the financial year 2010-11, the governing body also approved the amount recommended for the District Legal Empowerment Committees.
The governing body also approved the launch of the sixth phase of the AJDF for inviting project proposals from individuals, researchers, scholars, bar councils and associations, law colleges and research institutes across the country for release of funds from the allocated windows.
Published in the Express Tribune, January 8th, 2012.
The author responds:
Merriam Webster defines a diatribe as “a bitter and abusive speech or piece of writing.” In pointing out fairly universally recognized weaknesses with both the composition of this board and ideological privatization in general (as well as providing copious links to the original sourcing of many of the findings) I hardly think I was being either bitter or abusive. however, I ultimately leave it to the readers to make that determination.
To your points:
1.) the last time I checked, a board of directors was the governing body of a company or organization — unpaid though it may be — with a fiduciary duty to the group, that institutes and directs overall policy, including the hiring and firing of management. while, on reflection, to say Sen. Toomey was one of eight people who headed the Commonwealth Foundation may have been technically more explicit, since the intent of mentioning it at all was simply to draw an ideological link between a group many readers are likely not familiar with to someone they are familiar with who shares that ideology, the semantic distinction is hardly relevant to the message of the piece and, sadly, was brought up solely as a gratuitous attack on my credibility.
2.) to suggest the governor’s Advisory Council on Privatization and Innovation is not partisan is frankly laughable and I considered not even entertaining this point, but here goes: Of the 24 members, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette identified 17 who contributed to the governor’s campaign either personally or through PACs. (I already noted in my piece that I don’t find anything particularly striking about that fact in itself; but registered Democrats don’t typically contribute to GOP candidates – especially those that fall to the right side of their party’s line). Of the remaining seven members of the panel not identified as donors by the Post, a rudimentary Internet search turns up GOP campaign finance records or other evidence of Republican Party affiliation for six of them (including, by the way, Dennis Yablonsky, whose party affiliation was misidentified as Democrat in an early story on the panel). Only Varsovia Fernandez, of the Greater Philadelphia Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, could not be easily tied to the GOP, and I didn’t really dig that deep. the point is, simply, we are not talking about a bipartisan commission here.
3.) You rightly point out that privatization is “not a panacea, but something that can be done well or done poorly.” but that applies to just about everything. the question that is not raised by you or your report, as far as I can tell, is should it be done at all. You go on to say privacy advocates don’t want to “privatize everything,” (which, by the way, I never suggested) yet the report itself states: “Virtually every service, function and activity has successfully been subjected to competition by a government somewhere around the world at some time.” to a reasonable person that suggests nothing is off the table. further, I make it very clear that I agree with your group on a number of areas, like golf courses, fitness centers and liquor stores (please, can we get that one done first?) but where we disagree is when it comes to essential life- and health-sustaining services that I believe are too important to be left to the profit motive for guidance. That’s what we pay our government to do. If they do it poorly, it’s up to us voters to fire them. That’s part of the social contract. how exactly do I go about firing a private corporation with which I have no contract?
And yet, even with essential services, I will concede that I am not entirely convinced privatization is not sometimes the way to go. I am not, nor do I pretend to be, an expert on the subject; my point is simply that I (and from the looks of it many other Pennsylvanians) would feel more comfortable if there were a few dissenting skeptics on the panel. My problem is with ideological privatization (or anything in which ideology replaces critical discourse to solve a problem) because it typically begins with a solution and then creates the dialogue that leads to that solution, when it should be the other way around.
4.) You cite some information on the details of the Chicago Skyway lease and then some comparative numbers regarding the PA Turnpike presumably to show me as a dullard that has not done his homework. what you forget is that I am not the expert on privatization. I don’t have to be. My job is simply to point out the red flags and weaknesses, which I believe have done. further, I don’t work for government. I don’t have to prove that government works; it’s up to you to prove that privatization works better. to show that under both scenarios the costs to consumers go up doesn’t especially make that case regardless of the details of how or why, especially when you add in the element of accountability (remember, my objections are not all cost based).
5.) As to your final assertion that we focus on “how to properly implement privatization” you have made my point better than I could have myself. the governor’s panel is tasked with “how” not “if” to institute privatization. I repeat: I believe some things should be privatized. I only suggest that a reasoned assessment takes place that includes a range of experts representing the various (and conflicting) positions on this issue. to create a panel of people who already believe something works and then present a plan showing it does won’t convince me. And I don’t think I’m the only one who feels that way.
The NFL usually isn’t a league fond of mixed messages. Did you harm dogs in an elaborate dogfighting operation? you can still play, but we’ll suspend you indefinitely until the dust settles on your legal mess. Were you accused of sexually harassing a young woman in a sleazy college bar? you can still play too, but you’re suspended for six games, and we’ll consider bumping it down to four if you behave.
This is a governing body that pursues direct decisions, and one that’s led by a dictator who rarely displays indecisiveness while handing out discipline. the blue moon rose today though, and Terrelle Pryor was in its light.
The good news came first when the NFL declared Pryor–the former Buckeye standout for both his play, and his free tattoos–eligible for Monday’s supplemental draft. the bad news followed shortly after when Roger Goodell decided to suspend Pryor for the first five games of the 2011 NFL season once a team deems him worthy of employment.
The games and practice time Pryor will miss are irrelevant. He’ll be a third-string quarterback at best, and there’s even a strong possibility that he becomes the latest wildcat experiment and is molded into the next Brad Smith. However, the principle and precedent of this punishment matter far more than the price.
In a memo received by all teams, the NFL outlined the primary reason for Pryor’s suspension, which stemmed from actions that undermined the integrity of the NFL draft. Pryor hired an agent (gasp! Drew Rosenhaus), which immediately made him ineligible to play this fall at Ohio State, and therefore also ineligible to serve a five-game NCAA suspension for his involvement in the debacle that led to Jim Tressel’s resignation.
This is all true, but it’s also a public relations crutch. the supplemental draft is by definition a cheater’s draft, or at the very least a draft which allows those who failed at the other aspects of college life but are still good at football to gain meaningful employment. It’s a vague, murky area which provides an avenue for players whose college situations changed after the draft to play football, and get paid for doing so.
Poor grades can often prompt a supplemental draft entry, but even more often it’s a change in the football landscape at the players’ school. Pryor’s landscape wasn’t just remolded, it crumbled after a massive earthquake.
Goodell clearly knew this, and was aware of Pryor’s involvement in Ohio State’s unhinged football program. he knew that Pryor is perceived by some in college football circles as a young man who’s seeking more than just employment. He’s seeking refuge, and a ticket out.
Goodell’s contradiction–and his dangerous precedent–lies in his decision to grant Pryor that refuge while also making nice with the almighty farm system that powers the NFL. an even greater contradiction can be found in the lack of punishment for another refuge seeker, a certain Seattle coach who was at the center of the fall of Troy in Southern California.
Pryor hired an agent because after his situation drastically changed, he had no intention of returning to Ohio State and being the weekly face of a mess that led to the departure of a beloved coach. he took this action to pursue a selection in a draft made for players’ who have gone through unique change.
The NFL claims that Pryor’s move to hire an agent was the catalyst for his suspension, and maybe league spokesman Greg Aiello is speaking the truth, or maybe he’s just saving public face. Spokesmen are paid to do that.
If this is an NCAA olive branch, it’s one that could become prickly in the near future. If a player is punished for pursuing a draft designed for his unique situation, then maybe the supplemental draft is useless and obsolete.