The terminations represent only a fraction of the $247 million in cost-cutting moves; with several hundred employees retiring each year, management of attrition and hiring replacements will continue to need attention, Baxter said. ATHENS —The ousted commander of the local Veterans of Foreign Wars post will appeal his removal before the state VFW Disciplinary Board. Larry Truman was removed by the state VFW after he cooperated with state insurance investigators probing the sale of bonds to VFW posts.
The Termites bonds indemnified the posts for up to $20,000 for any losses from a post treasury. According to the VFW Web site, each officer who handles funds must be bonded with an indemnity company as surety, and the commander has the responsibility for getting adequate bonding. The State Insurance Commission has been investigating the state VFW and its issuance of these surety bonds.
Truman provided information about his post’s bond to the commission. Bell notified the state VFW that it must stop issuing bonds because the person issuing those bonds for the VFW is not licensed by the insurance commission. The state said the salesman sold bonds to more than half its posts statewide without a license for 10 years. Deputy Insurance Commissioner Johnny Johnson said Thursday the department has not yet calculated how much in premiums the VFW collected over the past decade, when it had no license to insure post treasuries against theft.
Former state VFW Commander Jim Manley, who raised questions about the VFW insurance and now may be fired, estimates that about $200,000 to $400,000 in premiums were collected from 60 to 70 of the 117 posts in Alabama. He said a post paid an annual premium of $80 to $100 for about $20,000 in coverage. The insurance commission’s investigation was sparked when the VFW refused to renew the bond at the Limestone County post because Manley — who was serving as the post’s treasurer at the time — was involved in an unrelated civil lawsuit.
In the process o Building inspection checklist many types of activities are involved. According to the required situation proper steps are to be taken in BPI. But the process of BPI is affected due to many factor which do cause many issues due to which problems do rise in completion of BPI process. They did not attempt to contact him or his wife at home even though Mr X had given written authority for his wife to act on his behalf. The Child Support Agency (CSA) delayed sending a maintenance enquiry form to a non-resident parent.
CSA also agreed to consider further compensation in respect of interest on the sums previously paid by the non-resident parent. as those arrears had been paid later than they would have been had there been no maladministration. Mrs C applied for child support maintenance in May 1993. CSA did not make an interim maintenance assessment until March 1994 and then took no action to collect child support maintenance until August 1997, following the intervention of Mrs C’s solicitor.
All sort of troubles can easily sort out by the potential inspector in BPI. When the inspector do hold year of working experience and have skill to face all type of situation then the inspector can be called as potential inspector. CSA obtained a liability order in January 1998 and then realised that it was invalid because two periodic reviews were outstanding.
In March 1998 CSA received sufficient information from the non-resident parent to enable them to calculate an interim effective date full maintenance assessment effective from 18 March 1998. CSA refused to make Mrs C a lump sum payment of the arrears still owed to her. CSA delayed implementing one of the recommendations of that report and even then did so only after much prompting from Mr X. CSA made ex gratia awards to Mr X of £150 for gross inconvenience and £150 in recognition of the distress he had suffered.
After looking at new medical evidence BE decided in October to award DLA but they considered that the benefit regulations prevented payment between 18 March and 21 April 1998. After intervention by the Ombudsman BA quickly agreed that their poor service had led to the loss of statutory entitlement to benefit. The Benefits Agency (BA) paid the mobility component of Mr K’s disability living allowance direct to a finance company which, in turn, supplied Mr K with a motor vehicle.
Following a review Mr K’s mobility component was withdrawn, and BA stopped making payments to the finance company. Mr K successfully appealed against that decision and BE reinstated his mobility component. They said that Mr K had not suffered a financial loss as he had received the benefit to which he was entitled. The Ombudsman found that although BA had made an error when they paid Mr K direct, Mr K might reasonably have been expected to query the payment before he spent it. Mr K’s failure to do that has contributed to the situation in which he found himself.
The Benefits Agency (BA) missed opportunities to interview a man whose wife had challenged a decision to stop the award of benefit increase relating to a narrow period in which she received a special bonus of pay to Building Inspector. They also misplaced original wage slips that has been submitted in evidence. Although the woman lost her appeal on the narrow issue, BA were able to obtain the necessary documentation so as to calculate and pay benefit increase covering a period of about 18 months, amounting to £743.44.
Three months later, after Mr C himself had supplied copies of the missing papers together with fresh evidence, his case was reviewed and the appeal superseded. Mr C meanwhile had pursued his case by telephone and correspondence but the responses of both departments left much to be desired and the Ombudsman’s investigation was hampered by poor record-keeping on the part of ITS. The determination was further delayed by problems in obtaining access to the new National Insurance Recording System to operate Mr D’s guaranteed minimum pension.
The Permanent Secretary has apologised for those delays, agreed to compensate Mr and Mrs X and is considering a compensation scheme for producers in similar circumstances. I also criticised certain aspects of the information which MAFF provided to Mr X, although I did not find that Mr X had been misinformed about the availability of quota for new entrants.
I regard the Permanent Secretaries apologies, the compensation offered to Mr and Mrs X, and the offer of compensation for producers in similar circumstances as a satisfactory outcome to a partly justified complaint.Mr Y, the father of Commercial inspection write to the then Member for his constituency, saying that his son was to start sheep farming in October 1992. He explained that a considerable financial investment would be involved, and asked him to confirm with the Minister of Agriculture that plans for the introduction of sheep quotas would allow applications to new entrants.
Don Siegelman has pledged $35 million in state funds toward a biomedical research center at The University of Alabama at Birmingham as part of a statewide research alliance. UAB officials have been asking the state for help in building the $90 million research center for two years, supplementing money from the federal government and other sources. With some help, we’re going to come up with $35 million,said Jim Hayes, Siegelman’s senior adviser and executive secretary. The center is expected to create 1,400 jobs and attract $100 million in new grants.
Ted vonCannon, president of the Metropolitan Development Board, said state officials agreed Friday to provide about $25 million for the project out of a new economic development fund that voters approved with passage of Amendment 1 last November. The other $10 million will be raised through a coalition of private businesses and industries and local governments. UAB President Ann Reynolds said the states pledge will help ensure our continue upward trajectory among the world’s top academic medical centers. Siegelman said the new center is part of a statewide plan revolving around a proposed Alabama Research Alliance including six universities
The then Member said that Mrs L had contacted office Z several times about the matter but had received no reply. In their reply of 23 July office Z said that, if Mrs L had paid only the small stamp, she would not be entitled to a RP but she might be eligible for a small GRB if she had been employed between 1961 and 1975.In a covering letter she said she had applied for RP when she had reached 60 years of age but had been told that she had no entitlement because she had paid only the small stamp.
The letter went on to say that Mrs L’s entitlement could not be determined until she had made a claim. 1997 On 29 April Mrs L wrote from France to tell office Z that since their letter of 23 July 1996 to the then Member she had sent them two letters providing information Prepurchase Inspection they had requested, but neither had been acknowledged. She said that she had been employed from age 14 in 1936 to 1992 with very few breaks. Between 1965 and 1968 she had lived, but not worked, in Gibraltar.
She said that on her return from Gibraltar she has worked in Hull for company A for about four months and had them been employed in Edinburgh by company B. In 1970 she had moved to Plymouth, working for companies C and D, and in 1973 she had worked in London for company E for about six months. She had then worked for company F in Watford for about nine years, after which she had joined company G in London, staying there until March 1992.
In reply office Z wrote to Mrs L on 13 May saying that from her letter it appeared that she wanted to make a claim for RP. They said that if she took up permanent residence in France her claim would be dealt with by Newcastle whose address they gave. On 15 May Mrs L return the completed claim form to office Z.Mrs L recorded on the RP claim form that she has not claimed RP before, that she had paid contributions in the two years before her sixteenth birthday.
It was not publicly circulated, but was used by the telephone help line, in conjunction with the note of 25 April, to give advice to enquirers. The bodies of animals emergency slaughtered on-farm had to be transported direct to a designated abattoir operating on that day, and be accompanied by an appropriate veterinary certificate. On 1 May IB circulated a list of 44 abattoirs which had been provisionally approved to operate as collection centres for OTMS.
On 2 May MAFF sent farmers an information note listing those 44 abattoirs. The note said that Pre Inspection Agreement farmers wishing to enter cattle into OTMS should contact a collection centre to arrange a date for delivery.There was likely to be great pressure on collection centres early in the scheme, so it would not be possible for them to deal immediately with all cattle that farmers might wish to present.There had been significant regional variations in the speed with which it had been possible to match abattoirs with disposal facilities, and only a small number of designated abattoirs had been available before 13 May.)
On 3 May MAFF asked IB to take forward with the Renderers’ Association proposals aimed at securing agreement between abattoirs and renderers regarding the slaughter totals to be taken by abattoirs under OTMS. On 7 May one abattoir in England slaughtered some cattle under OTMS to test the system. On 8 May the Minister met industry representatives to discuss OTMS. It was noted that the limiting factor as regards rendering was transport capacity, so renderers wanted to service only 20 abattoirs to maximise throughput.
It was suggested that the scheme should operate on that basis for a couple of weeks, but that the aim should be to increase the number of abattoirs in the longer term by the use of a rotation system or storage of carcasses. It was recommended that renders should be dedicated to certain abattoirs. Asked how casualty animals would fit into the scheme, the Minister said that he had made clear to abattoirs that he expected them to take casualty animals.