Revisions to certification appeal process being discussed September 15, 2003 Gary Blankenship Senior Editor Regular News Revisions to certification appeal process being discussed Senior EditorA proposed revision of the certification appeal process has been referred to the Program Evaluation Committee, but several Bar Board of Governors members have questioned a premise of the change – keeping peer reviews confidential.The board’s Certification Plan Appeals Committee (CPAC) and the Board of Legal Specialization and Education have proposed doing away with CPAC (which takes appeals from BLSE decisions) and subsequent appeals to the board. Instead, a new committee would be created and appeals would go directly from it to the Supreme Court.The sticking point between the two is CPAC proposed that the new committee be composed entirely of board members, a majority of whom are certified. BLSE proposed that a majority of the committee be nonboard members. The board considered the plans at its August 22 meeting in Clearwater Beach.CPAC Chair David Rothman said the committee has had problems handling appeals where certification or recertification was denied because of peer reviews.The committee found it difficult to determine if the denial was arbitrary or capricious, as set out in Bar rules, because it could not see the confidential reviews. BLSE balked when CPAC suggested making the confidential peer reviews available to both the committee and the board when they get peer review appeals.The compromise, he said, was to create the new committee, ending appeals to the board, and give the new panel access to the peer reviews.But some board members said they were troubled that no change would be made to the rule that prohibits appealing lawyers from seeing the peer reviews that caused the denial of their certification.“How is an applicant expected to prosecute an appeal without looking at the reasons for the appeal?” board member Frank Angones asked.Board member Louis Kwall questioned how the board could consider a procedural change without looking at the underlying confidentiality. “How can we send them [to the new committee] without giving the applicants the right to see them and to defend themselves?” he asked.Board member Hank Coxe rejected the suggestion the only issue before the board was the makeup of the proposed new appellate committee. “The whole train is driven by the revelation of peer review and the failure to disclose,” he said. “So why is Lou Kwall’s question and Frank Angones’ question not the real issue?”BLSE Chair Jeff Cohen and Tallahassee attorney Tom Ervin, who represents the BLSE on appeals, said peer review confidentiality has always been part of the process, and that the confidentiality is important to the certification system.BLSE has been reluctant to share any peer reviews above the BLSE level because those appeals are supposed to focus only on procedural issues, Cohen said, and the proposed new committee is a compromise so peer reviews won’t have to be shown to the entire board when it gets a peer review-based appeal.“Effective peer review is just critical to certification. . . and peer review can only be effective if confidentiality is maintained,” Ervin said.He also argued that if someone loses an appeal, the loss of certification does not affect their right to practice, nor is it a disciplinary sanction. In addition, when a certification committee is considering rejecting certification because of negative peer reviews, it contacts the attorney first to allow him or her to submit more names for peer review, Ervin said.Bar President Miles McGrane said since the board did not have the proposed rule necessary to make the change, it was best to send the proposal to the Program Evaluation Committee for more study. That included the dispute over the new appellate committee’s makeup.Rothman said CPAC favored having only board members, since they are elected by Bar members and CPAC is entirely made up of board members. If the majority is not board members, the meetings would be unlikely to be held in conjunction with board meetings which would place additional time demands on the minority board members, he said.Ervin said the BLSE thought it was better to separate the adjudicative function of appeals from the board’s legislative functions. He also said it could be difficult with some board members getting confidential information not available to all board members, and that handling the appeals could be a significant additional burden to board work.Bar Executive Director John F. Harkness, Jr., noted that the Bar’s annual rule amendment package, which would include the change in the certification appellate process, won’t be submitted to the Supreme Court until at least January.
The KIP Kuliah program is primarily meant for low-income students who have performed well academically.Last month, Minister of Education and Culture Nadiem Makarim issued a ministerial regulation introducing measures to help higher education students during the COVID-19 pandemic, including by reducing university tuition fees.Under the policy, university students who are on leave or who are not taking any course credits no longer need to pay tuition fees. Those who are in their final semester of study and are taking fewer than six course credits will only pay only half of normal tuition.While experts applauded the move, some expressed concern that only small portion of the national education budget was allocated to private universities.Topics : “The government will also provide support for private universities through the KIP scheme by giving financial assistance to 410,000 students in the third, fifth and seventh semesters of college,” Angkie Yudistia wrote.Read also: COVID-19 education funds leave much to be desiredShe said 60 percent of the program’s funds would be allocated to private university students and 40 percent to state university students.“The government will make sure every state university reduces its tuition fees or sets a new tuition fee plan so that educational fees will be no longer be a burden for students,” Angkie said. Government announced on Wednesday that it would expand its Indonesia Smart Card (KIP) program to provide financial assistance to more university students in need.In a statement released on Wednesday, presidential staffer Angkie Yudistia announced that the new KIP Kuliah program, which was initially only intended for incoming freshmen, would be expanded to students in the third, fifth and seventh semesters of university.Under the program, university students will receive Rp 2.4 million (US$166.5) in grants for university tuition, while students enrolled in vocational colleges will receive Rp 800,000 per semester.
Daily Mail (UK) 8 Sep 2012A leading neuroscientist has backed an opt-in system for online pornography, saying extreme images may cause long-term harm to children’s brains. Baroness Susan Greenfield urged ministers to respect parents’ concerns over uncontrolled internet access. The Oxford University professor said the developing brain was ‘vulnerable’ and that children needed to be protected from premature sexualisation. Already, she said, young people she had spoken to believed ‘relationships are for losers’ and that having multiple sexual partners would impress their friends. The Daily Mail is campaigning for an automatic block on online porn unless over-18s specifically ask their internet service providers to let them see such material, following strict age verification. Baroness Greenfield said: ‘If I had to choose between unfettered internet access, and having children potentially harmed psychologically or worse by porn sites, then for me the decision is an easy one. ‘This [opt in] seems to be the simplest and something simple is easiest for people to deal with. We know that the young brain, because it is still developing, is vulnerable. It is so easily influenced, exposing young people to extreme behaviours like that, might influence it in a way that could be long term.’ Baroness Greenfield said children’s brains may be vulnerable to pornography, as well as suicide and eating disorder sites, on the back of evidence from studies on drug use, video games and criminal behaviour, showing long-term effects from early exposure. On Thursday, a petition signed by 115,000 – including 140 MPs – was handed in to Downing Street, demanding that internet service providers block online porn.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2200103/Lasting-damage-young-minds-left-online-porn-Brain-expert-warns-children-protected-extreme-images.html
The Indian team for the upcoming ICC Champions Trophy will be picked on May 8, finally breaking the deadlock over India’s participation in the mega event scheduled to be held in England from June 1.India Today has learnt that captain Virat Kohli, who is busy leading Royal Challengers Bangalore in the ongoing Indian Premier League season 10, will join the proceedings via conference call.Earlier, irked by the delaying tactics of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), the Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators (COA) on Thursday asked the board to announce the team for the Champions Trophy immediately.The BCCI had deliberately missed the April 25 deadline for submission of the squad in the wake of the International Cricket Council (ICC) proposing a new financial model which reduces BCCI’s revenues from USD 570 million to USD 293 million.The ICC had overwhelmingly voted to drastically reduce the BCCI’s share of revenue at its board meeting that led to much heart burning among BCCI officials who contemplated a pull out from the Champions Trophy.The CoA in a letter to the BCCI on Thursday asserted that the it must not hurt the interest of the players in its dispute with the game’s world governing body.In the letter to BCCI Joint Secretary Amitabh Chaudhary ahead of the board’s Special General Meeting (SGM) on Sunday, the CoA demanded an immediate meeting of the selection committee to announce the squad for the Champions Trophy.The CoA also urged the BCCI to resolve its differences with the global body in the best interests of Indian cricket.advertisement