dragon slot game
Rossendale charity shop devastated by Storm Bert flooding just days after opening
Trump names David Sacks as White House AI and crypto czarNone
In conclusion, the White House's consideration of pardoning criminals and its commitment to seeking public input represent a significant step towards promoting transparency and inclusivity in the criminal justice system. As the debate unfolds, it is essential for policymakers to carefully consider the potential consequences of pardons and to ensure that their decisions are guided by principles of fairness, justice, and accountability.The outbreak has sent shockwaves through the Japanese poultry industry, which relies heavily on the production of chicken meat and eggs to meet consumer demand. The loss of such a large number of chickens will undoubtedly have a significant economic impact on the affected farms and the wider industry as a whole. It will also raise concerns about the potential disruption to the supply chain and the availability of poultry products in the market.Colimerio has 15, Queens defeats VMI 81-78
The Texas Supreme Court on Friday overturned a lower court ruling that state Attorney General Ken Paxton testify in a whistleblower lawsuit at the heart of impeachment charges brought against him in 2023. The court on Friday said Paxton’s office does not dispute any issue in the lawsuit by four former Paxton employees and agreed to any judgment in the case. “In a major win for the State of Texas, the state Supreme Court has sided with Attorney General Paxton against former OAG employees whose effort to prolong costly, politically-motivated litigation against the agency has wasted public resources for years," a statement from Paxton's office said. An attorney for one of the plaintiffs declined immediate comment, and a second attorney did not immediately return a phone call for comment. The former employees allege they were improperly fired or forced out for bringing to the FBI allegations that Paxton was misusing his office to protect a friend and campaign donor, who in turn, they said, was helping the attorney general to conceal an extramarital affair. The Supreme Court ruling noted that the Texas governor and Legislature have expressed a desire to hear testimony from the witnesses prior to agreeing to appropriate funds to settle the lawsuit. The court said forcing Paxton, First Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster, Chief of Staff Lesley French Henneke and senior advisor Michelle Smith to testify earlier could improperly be used for legislative purposes in deciding any appropriation. Under the preliminary deal , Paxton agreed to apologize to the former employees for calling them “rogue” employees, settle the case for $3.3 million and ask the state to pay for it, prompting the state House to reject the request and begin its own investigation, leading to the vote to impeach him. Paxton was ultimately acquitted after a Senate trial. The Supreme Court termed its ruling conditional upon the lower trial court complying with the decision, while saying it is “confident the trial court will comply” with the order.
Conservative Texas lawmakers and power brokers in recent years have criticized university professors for being “woke” activists who indoctrinate college students with far-left teachings and ideas. Now, as state lawmakers head back to the Capitol for the 2025 legislative session, they could limit the influence faculty have over campus culture and curriculum. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick wants lawmakers to recommend potential changes to the roles of faculty senates, which traditionally take the lead on developing curriculum — and ensuring professors have the academic freedom to teach and research their subject areas without fear of political interference. But conservatives say university curriculum has been infused with ideologies that have helped take higher education in Texas in an overly liberal direction. “If we’re going to refocus our universities on their mission of open inquiry and freedom of speech, we’ve got to take a look at the curriculum and who’s controlling it,” Sherry Sylvester, a fellow at the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, told state senators in November. Some Texas professors, though, fear the Republican-controlled Legislature could undermine a long-standing balance of power at universities that’s meant to protect higher education from politicization. Their concerns are that without a proper voice on campus, and a guarantee that faculty have control over their teaching and research, faculty might leave Texas or be less likely to take a job at a Texas university, research would be imperiled, and there would be no checks and balances on university leadership. “There’s very clearly an ideological based attack against higher education and more specifically against faculty,” said Michael Harris, a professor of higher education at Southern Methodist University, a private institution in Dallas. “A place where faculty are most noticeable is a faculty senate.” Here’s a look at faculty senates in Texas and the role they play in higher education. Faculty senates are made up of professors from across a university. The body approves academic policies, curriculum design, faculty hiring and evaluation, and other issues that impact the academic mission. They also relay university-wide news and plans back to their colleagues.. The senates often meet monthly and invite guests from the administration to speak directly to faculty on university issues. “They provide a critical advisory voice on so many things we do on campus,” Texas A&M University President Mark Welsh recently told reporters. “The faculty senate does work that is fundamentally important to what we do as a university.” Faculty at many Texas universities elect a professor in their specific college to serve as a representative on the senate. Faculty will typically elect a chair or co-chairs for a one or two year term. Other faculty members can serve on specific committees that provide recommendations to leadership on specific issues, such as budget, research or facility planning. Faculty say that it’s vital that they have a voice in the decision making processes and that university boards of regents listen to those on the ground when making decisions that impact their work. “At a Fortune 500 company, you wouldn’t want the CEO to make every single decision,” said Harris, the SMU professor. “They don’t have time. People close to the product line or business aspect are best able to do that. The same thing is true here. You want your faculty who teach undergrads to make policy (about undergrads). They know the issues there better.” Bill Carroll served as president of the University of Texas at Arlington’s faculty senate four years ago. He said administrators often haven’t taught in a classroom in years and rely on current faculty to share their experiences that can help shape decision-making. “The faculty senate can provide that input and that information to administration so they can understand how the faculty are perceiving things and understand what faculty needs to do their job in an effective way,” he said. Public universities and university systems are overseen by boards of regents, who are appointed by the governor. Those boards hire university presidents, who serve as a CEO of the institution. While there is nothing in state law that specifies how faculty senates should be organized or function, many universities have adopted rules based on the American Association of University Professors’ guidance that faculty have academic freedom in the classroom and in research. They also rely on the 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities to guide how boards, presidents and faculty senates interact to operate the university. This statement was developed by national organizations that represent faculty, university presidents and governing boards. The statement spells out who should handle each sector of university operations. “It’s not something that was just drawn up by faculty saying, ‘Here is our best practice, deal with it,’” said Joey Velasco, president of the Texas Council of Faculty Senates who also teaches at Sul Ross State University in Far West Texas. “It really was a joint effort.” Faculty should be responsible for curriculum, methods of instruction and research, the statement reads. If the governing board or university president ultimately makes a decision that goes against the faculty’s wishes, that statement urges the board or president to communicate those reasons with the faculty. “It’s through open dialogue and mutual respect and a shared vision that faculty, administrators and governing boards can ensure their institutions continue to thrive,” Velasco said. Faculty senates found themselves in Patrick’s crosshairs three years ago when he boldly declared he wanted to end tenure for new faculty hires at Texas’ public universities. It was a radical legislative priority condemned by faculty groups across the country. At the time, Patrick was honest about his motivations: he was angry at The Faculty Council at the University of Texas at Austin. The elected group of faculty had passed a nonbinding resolution reaffirming their right to teach critical race theory in the college classroom after the state banned its teaching in K-12 schools. In the statement, faculty at UT-Austin said they will “stand firm against any and all encroachment on faculty authority including by the legislature or the Board of Regents.” Patrick called the professors “Loony Marxists” on social media and accused them of poisoning the minds of college students with such teaching. Ending tenure would make it easier to terminate or punish faculty who were teaching these ideas. Patrick ultimately was unable to outright ban tenure at Texas’ public universities. But Harris said it’s clear that the Faculty Council “poked the bear.” “I do wonder, were it not for that, would it have been as much on the radar,” Harris said, though he feels like the wave of similar actions at universities in other states, such as Florida , would’ve led Texas to take similar routes. Faculty senates largely garner the most attention outside the university when they issue a vote of no confidence in a school leader. These votes are non binding, but are meant as a way for faculty to express their discontent with the direction a president is taking the school. Sometimes, they can lead to the resignation of a university leader. Other times, they’re completely ignored. Last year, most faculty members at West Texas A&M University in Canyon said they lost confidence in the president for a variety of issues, including his decision to cancel a student drag show on campus. Nothing happened after the vote and Walter Wendler remained president. At Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, faculty took a vote of no confidence in the leadership of former President Scott Gordon after he accepted an $85,000 pay bump amid a COVID-19 budget shortfall. In that case, the board of regents stood behind Gordon despite the no confidence vote. Still, he stepped down six months later. Nationally, a Chronicle of Higher Education analysis found that a president ends up leaving office within a year of a no-confidence vote about half of the time. This spring, more than 600 faculty at UT-Austin signed a letter stating they had no confidence in President Jay Hartzell’s leadership after police arrested a swath of pro-Palestinian demonstrators protesting the war in Gaza. However, that letter came from the UT-Austin chapter of the American Association of University Professors, not the Faculty Council. Across the country, other states have sought to curtail the power and freedoms of faculty. The Arizona Legislature passed a law that would reduce the power of faculty senates. The bill eliminated language in the state that says the faculty “shall participate in” or “share responsibility” for academic and personnel decisions. Instead, professors could only “consult with” university leaders on decisions. Arizona’s Democratic governor vetoed the bill. When Florida passed a higher education bill that banned diversity, equity and inclusion programs at public institutions last year, it also included language that said public university presidents and administrators are not bound by faculty recommendations or opinions in hiring decisions. In Texas, at a November state Senate Higher Education Subcommittee meeting, Sylvestor, with the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, suggested that the Legislature require all faculty senate votes to be public, all meetings be open to the public and live streamed, and all curriculum changes made public. Many faculty senates at Texas universities already livestream their meetings and post agendas and minutes online. Velasco with the Texas Council for Faculty Senates said many votes are taken publicly, too. But there are instances when private voting is better, he said, such as when faculty vote whether to award tenure. This story was originally published by The Texas Tribune and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.In conclusion, the cancellation of the PS4 exclusive game has sparked a broader conversation about the responsibilities of game developers and publishers in fostering a healthy and productive work environment. Only time will tell how Ubisoft will address the fallout from this incident and whether it will make changes to prevent such a debacle from happening again. For now, developers and fans alike are left to wonder what could have been and hope for a brighter future for the gaming industry as a whole.A judge on Monday granted a request by prosecutors to dismiss the election subversion case against Donald Trump because of a Justice Department policy of not prosecuting a sitting president. Judge Tanya Chutkan agreed to the request by Special Counsel Jack Smith to dismiss the case against the president-elect "without prejudice," meaning it could potentially be revived after Trump leaves the White House four years from now. "Dismissal without prejudice is appropriate here," Chutkan said, adding in the ruling that "the immunity afforded to a sitting President is temporary, expiring when they leave office." Trump, 78, was accused of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election he lost to Joe Biden and removing large quantities of top secret documents after leaving the White House, but the cases never came to trial. Smith also moved on Monday to drop his appeal of the dismissal of the documents case filed against the former president in Florida. That case was tossed out earlier this year by a Trump-appointed judge on the grounds that Smith was unlawfully appointed. The special counsel paused the election interference case and the documents case this month after Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris in the November 5 presidential election. Smith cited the long-standing Justice Department policy of not indicting or prosecuting a sitting president in his motions to have the cases dismissed. "The Government's position on the merits of the defendant's prosecution has not changed," Smith said in the filing with Chutkan. "But the circumstances have." "It has long been the position of the Department of Justice that the United States Constitution forbids the federal indictment and subsequent criminal prosecution of a sitting President," Smith said. "As a result this prosecution must be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated." In a separate filing, Smith said he was withdrawing his appeal of the dismissal of the classified documents case against Trump but pursuing the case against his two co-defendants, Trump valet Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira. Trump, in a post on Truth Social, said the cases were "empty and lawless, and should never have been brought." "Over $100 Million Dollars of Taxpayer Dollars has been wasted in the Democrat Party's fight against their Political Opponent, ME," he said. "Nothing like this has ever happened in our Country before." Trump was accused of conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding -- the session of Congress called to certify Biden's win, which was violently attacked on January 6, 2021 by a mob of the then-president's supporters. Trump was also accused of seeking to disenfranchise US voters with his false claims that he won the 2020 election. The former and incoming president also faces two state cases -- in New York and Georgia. He was convicted in New York in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election to stop her from revealing an alleged 2006 sexual encounter. However, Judge Juan Merchan has postponed sentencing while he considers a request from Trump's lawyers that the conviction be thrown out in light of the Supreme Court ruling in July that an ex-president has broad immunity from prosecution. In Georgia, Trump faces racketeering charges over his efforts to subvert the 2020 election results in the southern state, but that case will likely be frozen while he is in office. cl/sms