Phish guitarist Trey Anastasio returned to the Washington County Felony Drug Court recently, speaking to graduates of the same program that he was once a part of so many years ago. According to a report in The Post-Star, Anastasio spoke for nearly 25 minutes to the graduates of the program, offering words of inspiration after sharing his experiences.“The night I got arrested, I couldn’t go 10 minutes without taking something… Nine years later, I don’t think about drinking or drugging anymore.” He continued, “I thought I would come in here and say, ‘I’m sober’ and get to go home. At the time, I thought this was the worst thing that ever happened to me. Today, it’s without a question the best thing that ever happened to me.”Anastasio was arrested in 2006 for possession of heroin and pain killers in Whitehall, NY, and spent 14 months in Drug Court under the county’s supervision. Now, the guitarist tries to encourage sobriety for those addicted to substances. “I want to come back anytime I can,” he said in the article. “It’s an honor. It’s such a great program. Every community in America should have one.”Whatever you’re doing Trey, it’s working. We can’t wait to see Phish on tour, when they kick things off one week from tonight.[H/T JamBase, Photo via The Post-Star]
On Oct. 14 the Faculty Council met with Provost Garber to ask and answer questions as representatives of the faculty and heard an update on the library.The council next meets on Oct. 28. The preliminary deadline for the Nov. 3 meeting of the faculty is Oct. 20 at noon.
In response to high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol and other drug abuse, domestic violence and mental health challenges among uniformed professionals (police, fire, military, EMTs, etc.) the Brattleboro Retreat is proud to announce the opening on Tuesday, August 11 of a new 16-bed, partial hospitalization program designed specifically to meet the unique mental health and addiction treatment needs of this population. Most participants will also take advantage of the program’s residential component, which offers single and double rooms in a newly renovated property on the Retreat campus.The Retreat’s new USW program is expected to help meet the largely unmet mental health and addiction treatment needs of uniformed professionals from locations and service branches (civilian and military) across the country. It will offer a host of treatment options in a highly confidential setting. These options include individual and group therapy, medication management and drug and alcohol support groups, mindfulness-based training, stress and anger management and other psycho-education workshops, wellness training, recreation therapy and ongoing aftercare.“With less than a handful of similar services across the country, we’ve taken great care to design a program based on proven treatment approaches such as Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, and others,” said James Bastien, director. “Our clinical staff includes individuals with personal experience in uniform—clinicians who have the experience and credibility that makes a big difference when uniformed professionals reach out for help.”To accommodate the new program, the Retreat has renovated both clinical and residential space on its campus. Participants will also have access, as needed, to the Retreat’s entire continuum of care including inpatient hospitalization and detox services—a unique feature not available elsewhere. “We are honored to be able to offer a place, and a staff, with the specialized knowledge and the credibility to help these professionals overcome their unique challenges,” added Bastien. “It’s about providing hope and healing to America’s heroes.”The Brattleboro Retreat, founded in 1834, is a not-for-profit, regional specialty psychiatric hospital and addictions treatment center, providing a full range of diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitation services for individuals of all ages and their families. Nationally recognized for its premiere treatment in behavioral healthcare, the Brattleboro Retreat offers a high quality, individualized, comprehensive continuum of care including inpatient, partial hospitalization, residential and outpatient treatment.Source: Brattleboro Retreat, August 11, 2009.
Bar Opposes Amendement 3 November 1, 2004 Senior Editor Regular News Bar opposes Amendment 3 Helps fund effort to defeat the measure Gary Blankenship Senior Editor The Florida Bar has gone on record as opposing a proposed constitutional amendment on the November 2 ballot that would limit contingency fees in medical malpractice cases and possibly other tort matters. The board also approved donating $100,000 to the campaign to defeat the amendment and learned that another $100,000 will be given from the Florida Lawyers Association for the Maintenance of Excellence.The issue also provoked an extensive debate at the board’s October 15 meeting on whether the Bar should become involved in the profusion of constitutional amendments recently placed on the statewide ballot by initiative petitions which many see as inappropriate for the state’s governing charter.In the end, the board decided to limit its action to the contingency fee amendment because of the nearness of the election, but many members said they want to explore the amendment process matter further.The proposed amendment — backed by the Florida Medical Association — would limit contingency fees to 30 percent of the first $250,000 awarded in a malpractice case and to 10 percent above that amount. Some opponents of the measure claim it may affect other tort actions as well, in that “medical liability claim” has not been clearly defined in the law.Bar President Kelly Overstreet Johnson said part of the reason for the last-minute action on the proposal, known as Amendment 3, was that she thought the issue did not fall within the relatively narrow areas where the Bar can lobby. But she said after she was asked to have the Bar consider it, she got a legal opinion that the Bar could act on it and she referred the matter to the Legislation Committee.Legislation Committee Chair Sharon Langer said both Bar Legislative Counsel Steve Metz and Bar General Counsel Paul Hill advised the committee that the Bar could act on the amendment. Tallahassee attorney Barry Richard, who also advises the Bar on legal matters, similarly agreed.The committee then voted to recommend to the board that the Bar oppose the amendment because it restricts access to the courts and limits a client’s rights to enter into contracts.Board member Hal Melville said the amendment strikes at basic legal rights. “I think access to the courts is one of the most fundamental concepts in our legal system,” he said. “Amendment 3 would destroy that for virtually every malpractice action.”The board unanimously passed the two-part motion necessary to adopt the position, first finding it within the purview of the Bar and then approving opposition to the amendment.The proposal by the Budget Committee to contribute $100,000 from the Bar’s operating reserve fund did not go so smoothly, with several members questioning whether that amount given so late in the campaign would have any effect.Budget Chair Jerald Beer said the money would go to buy more advertising time for ads already prepared. Bar President-elect Alan Bookman also announced during the discussion that a $100,000 donation will be made from FLAME, a private nonprofit corporation not affiliated with the Bar, but supported by voluntary donations from Florida lawyers.Board member Robert Rush said that was too much, especially because in recent years the Bar has cut funding for the Dignity in Law public relations campaign aimed at improving the public perception of the legal profession.“That’s $200,000 on this one issue,” he said, adding he also questioned the impact of the proposed amendment. “I could write a contract to get around this amendment every single time. If we’ve got this much money for this, why don’t we increase our public relations campaign?”President Johnson, though, said she found lawyers around the state are anxious for the Bar to act. “We don’t have the time, ability, or money to do anything on our own,” she said. “I have gotten a lot of calls and letters from our membership wanting us to get involved and put our money where our mouth is. I have talked with folks [involved in the amendment campaign] and this money is needed and it will make a difference.”The board voted 18-10 to approve the contribution.The discussion on what, if anything, the Bar should do about the proliferation of questionable constitutional amendments was more wide-ranging. Board member Grier Wells made a motion to add to the Bar’s reasons for opposing Amendment 3 that it would be an unnecessary addition to the constitution. Chris Lombardo added the entire amendment process needs to be studied, noting in 2002 Floridians approved an amendment covering treatment of pregnant pigs. Interest groups, Lombardo said, are learning that instead of going to the legislature they can fund an initiative petition drive and bypass legislative checks and balances on a variety of issues that don’t belong in the constitution.“That’s scary and we are the laughing stock of the country, with the possible exception of California, for our amendment process,” Lombardo said. “What we need to do as The Florida Bar is tell the legislature it’s time to have a constitutional convention. . . with the focus on the amendment process. Anyone with enough money can get an amendment on the ballot.”Other board members agreed with Lombardo, but said the Bar couldn’t raise an appropriateness issue on Amendment 3 without also raising it on other constitutional amendments on the ballot. Those include a proposal to increase the minimum wage in Florida and two amendments proposed by the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, one of which removes the license of any doctor found to have committed three instances of malpractice; the other makes public adverse incident reports about doctors and health care facilities.Board member Greg Parker suggested the Bar could put out a statement advising voters to carefully review the amendments and their appropriateness without taking a position.But others said it was too complex an issue to be addressed just before an election.Board member Mike Glazer said Wells’ motion could put President Johnson in the awkward position of trying to explain why the Bar had found Amendment 3 inappropriate for the constitution, but hadn’t taken a position on the academy’s proposals.Added President-elect Bookman, “I’m wholeheartedly in support of the concept [proposed by Lombardo] but now is not the time to do it.”Board member Ervin Gonzalez said the board should be very careful about any action that would affect initiative amendments.“We should not as a Bar take a position on putting anything on the ballot when it’s legal,” he said. “The reason we’re taking a position on behalf of The Florida Bar on Amendment 3 is it hurts access to the courts, it hurts health care, it hurts victims of malpractice.“It is dangerous for us to take a position as a Bar that the process we have for the electorate to change the constitution is wrong,” Gonzalez said.The board rejected Wells’ motion by an 8-23 vote, and President Johnson said she would like the Legislation Committee to further study the amendment process.
“Credit unions offer better rates, better service, and fewer fees” says the voice on the radio “And almost anyone can join!”To summarize: “take our word for it: our commodity offering is better than our competitors’ commodity offering. Plus, we do not specialize in serving the specific needs of people like you.”Spend enough time with any group of credit union marketers and someone will inevitably make a case for a marketing message like the one above, saying “Don’t waste money promoting the credit union difference. Members don’t care about it. All they want is better rates.”This always seems like curious logic to me. If it were true that members only care about rates, then banking would be a true commodity, and brands like Umpqua and Simple would be no more exciting than Morton’s salt. But, even if that were the case, do you know who does get excited about the ups and downs of Morton’s salt? The people who own Morton’s Salt. Even an unremarkable commodity brand like this has emotional value to someone who knows they stand to profit when the company does well.But detractors of the credit union difference messages are right about one thing: members don’t care about it. And they don’t care about it because they don’t know about it. How could they when we promote only the byproducts of member-ownership, while ignoring the core elements of the cooperative structure that make it all possible?We eliminate exclusivity from our brands:Compare the radio message above to one of thriving financial brands like USAA, Navy FCU and Simple. The message at these organizations is “People like you are special to us and we’re familiar with your specific financial needs. No, we aren’t for everybody. You either gotta’ BE somebody or KNOW somebody to get in.” At USAA and Navy, the exclusivity is mandatory as part of their charter. But what about Simple? For some time, in order to be a Simple customer, a person had to be invited by a friend just to get on a two week wait list, which was more than 12,000 people long.Like a bouncer at the door of a night club, dutifully filtering the riff-raff from the big shots, these organizations make their brands more desirable with every new person standing in line outside. “Is your name on the list?” they ask before removing the short velvet rope separating the haves from the have-nots. Only a select few are allowed to pass, while most are banished to the long line in front of the club. It doesn’t matter that other clubs in town welcome everyone with open arms and charge $3 for a beer, the line grows. In fact, the exclusive nature of this club is why they can charge $20 for a drink in the first place.Without exclusivity, there is no margin, there is no brand value, there is no reason to expect any other result than public disinterest, market irrelevance, commodity status and eventual failure. And yet, the same credit union marketer who approved the “everyone’s welcome” radio campaign might lay awake at night wondering why he has to cut loan rates below market averages in order to get foot traffic.We’ve got to be the only industry trying to seem less exclusive, and it’s written right in to our charters. But this is only one attribute of credit unions that is a built-in differentiator. There are many more. And our industry, by and large, tends to find ways to make sure members never find out about them.We don’t promote our annual meetingsThe best way to let members know that they are owners with a stake in the credit union is to let them know they are owners with a stake in the credit union. That sentence should be banished to the innermost pedestal at the Captain Obvious Memorial Library, but instead I had to use it here because it’s such a foreign concept.How can we expect our owners to feel like they have an ownership stake in the credit union if they don’t get to do what owners of other companies do? Inviting members to the Annual Meeting, and asking them to vote on important issues, is an effective way to let members know they are owners.We love disclosuresThere is not a single asterisk on the entire Simple Banking site. Look it up to see for yourself! But no matter how transparent the brand can be, it must always word around the fact that it answers to stockholders and is legally obligated to act in their best interests instead of the customer’s. Credit unions can be fully transparent, and the end result is admitting that we really are, in fact, legally and ethically obligated to serve our members.We don’t pay dividendsMembers don’t know they are owners because there is nothing tangible or different about a better rate. A better rate = cheaper salt. In fact, any old bank can purchase a radio ad and say they have better rates, fewer fees, and better service. But what if the company you bought salt from sent you a $5 check in the mail and told you it was because you owned a profitable company? You’d never tweet about cheaper salt, but you just might tweet about getting a check for buying it.We avoid talking about our tax exemptionIf members don’t know why we are not paying taxes, and correspondingly, why we are able to offer amazing rates, then what reason will they have to defend us when banks lobby against us? There is no shame in telling members how their wise decision to bank cooperatively and eliminate an outside profit motive is a good way to avoid the corporate income taxes paid by for-profit banks. It’s also a built-in reminder that outside parties are not profiting from member deposits.We avoid using words like “member” in our adsAre you a customer of your favorite sports team, or a member of their fan base? Are you a customer of your political party, or a member? If membership is an important factor in loyalty, then why would we avoid it when we rely on our members to advocate for us?The credit union difference is not “better rates, better service, and fewer fees,” no matter how many times we hear it on the radio. It’s member-ownership. And with so many credit unions trying to avoid talking about the true reasons credit unions are different, then perhaps the best way to differentiate within our industry is to highlight them. 78SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr,Bradley Blue No matter what Brad were to say about himself in this bio, it would be easy to find the truth about him with a simple google search. This applies to … Details
This post is currently collecting data… COVID-19 has forever changed the way we do business in nearly every industry, financial services included. In the second session of Directors & Dialogue December, hosted by CUES, finance and fintech expert Chris Skinner, chair of the European networking forum The Financial Services Club and chair of Nordic Finance Innovation, discussed how credit unions can adapt and grow digital strategy to be successful in a post-pandemic world without the big budgets of the mega banks.A K-Shaped RecoveryThough politicians and business leaders have lamented the unexpectedness of the coronavirus pandemic, Skinner dismisses this as a sign of poor planning. “It was completely predictable. If you saw the 2012 movie Contagion with Jude Law, we all knew it was coming one day,” he said. “It’s just that we didn’t plan for it.”Or at least, we didn’t plan for it the right way. Skinner noted that banks developing their business continuity plans focused too much on the physical aspect of operations. “They should have had a disaster recovery plan for if people had no office to go to, whereas their physical disaster recovery plan was to have another office.” ShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr This is placeholder text continue reading »
Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week.
Advertisement Chelsea beat Arsenal to win the Europa League (Getty Images)‘For example tonight we’re talking about negative things when they’re in a European final.‘We should be talking about what a good season Chelsea are having.‘Being in the Champions League and playing two finals.‘So some things needs to change in this case for sure.’More: Arsenal FCArsenal flop Denis Suarez delivers verdict on Thomas Partey and Lucas Torreira movesThomas Partey debut? Ian Wright picks his Arsenal starting XI vs Manchester CityArsene Wenger explains why Mikel Arteta is ‘lucky’ to be managing Arsenal Cesc Fabregas is unhappy with the ‘negativity’ surrounding Chelsea (BT Sport)Cesc Fabregas admits he is unhappy with the ‘negativity’ surrounding Chelsea and has blamed the club’s hierarchy for not being more transparent with supporters.Maurizio Sarri guided Chelsea to a top-four spot in the Premier League and ended the season with a trophy as his side sealed a 4-1 victory over Arsenal in the Europa League final on Wednesday evening.But reports have claimed that Sarri will leave Stamford Bridge this summer, which means Chelsea would be looking for their third manager in as many years.‘From inside, all these years that I spent at Chelsea, sometimes there’s such a negativity surrounding the club for so many things,’ Fabregas told BT Sport.AdvertisementAdvertisementADVERTISEMENT‘[Jose] Mourinho leaves the club, have a fight. [Antonio] Conte leaves the club, they go to court. Cesc Fabregas hits out at Chelsea board as Maurizio Sarri secures Europa League win over Arsenal Advertisement Metro Sport ReporterThursday 30 May 2019 2:43 amShare this article via facebookShare this article via twitterShare this article via messengerShare this with Share this article via emailShare this article via flipboardCopy link22Shares Maurizio Sarri’s future remains undecided at Chelsea (AMA/Getty Images)‘Some of the biggest legends playing for Chelsea in recent times, [Thibaut] Courtois, Diego Costa.‘The club doesn’t come out and tell things the way they are, so they just let the fans think whatever they want to think.More: FootballRio Ferdinand urges Ole Gunnar Solskjaer to drop Manchester United starChelsea defender Fikayo Tomori reveals why he made U-turn over transfer deadline day moveMikel Arteta rates Thomas Partey’s chances of making his Arsenal debut vs Man City‘They don’t have enough information and someone should come out every now and then and talk to the press, say what’s happening.‘If not there’s so many questions marks around the club and the press talk and talk and talk. It just brings negativity.‘It should be always positivity surrounding everyone at the club.
MP Pension’s business model was to build up a large capital buffer, enabling it to put a long-term investment strategy in place in spite of turbulence on the financial markets.Its solvency coverage increased to 1.26% at the end of 2015 from 1.08% a year before, according to the annual data.Meanwhile, AP’s solvency coverage grew to 1.4% from 1.2%, and PJD’s coverage rose to 1.61% from 1.35%.Each of the three pension funds, however, saw its total assets fall during the year and costs increase.In December, Unipension, set up by the three professional pension funds to manage their assets and administration collectively, announced that AP and PJD decided to quit the alliance and move their funds to Sampension.Commenting on the upcoming move, AP chairman Mette Carsted said in the annual report: “In Sampension, we can look forward to becoming part of an even larger joint company, with the economies of scale that will yield.”In 2015, MP Pension saw total assets fall to DKK112bn from DKK117bn.It is set to continue alone at Unipension from 1 January 2017, when AP and PJD will leave.AP reported that total assets fell to DKK9.2bn at the end of 2015 from DKK9.6bn, while PJD said total assets fell to DKK14.1bn from DKK14.7bn.Costs at MP Pension rose 1.7% in 2015 to DKK529 per member, but the two funds leaving Unipension saw much steeper rises in costs, with AP’s costs climbing 43% to DKK1,263 per member and PJD’s costs up 32% to DKK1,319.All three pension funds put the rise in costs down to extraordinary costs as a result of the termination of the cooperation at Unipension. The three Danish professional pension funds run by pensions manager Unipension saw costs surge by up to 43% last year because of their upcoming split as the smaller two prepare to shift their operations to rival provider Sampension.In their 2015 annual reports, the Architects’ Pension Fund (AP), the Pension Fund for Agricultural Academics and Veterinary Surgeons (PJD) and the Danish Pension Fund for MAs, MScs and PhDs (MP Pension) said pre-tax returns for the year fell to 5.1%, 4.7% and 4.4%, respectively, from 10.2%, 10.5% and 10.2% the year before.But their active investment management generated returns above the reference indices, the pension funds said.Egon Kristensen, chairman at MP Pension – largest of the three schemes – said: “The pension fund produced a competitive return for members once more in 2015.”