Sentences with phrase «require public oversight»

Public schools, on the other hand, must spend taxpayer money according to strict laws that require public oversight, transparency, and accountability.

Not exact matches

City Councilmember Ritchie Torres, Chair of the Council's Committee on Public Housing, announced that the Committee would require Olatoye to appear before an oversight hearing in early December.

Bergman and the others want Nike's certificate of occupancy revoked until they and the developer apply for the special permit required for retail larger than 10,000 square feet, which would entail public review and oversight.

Through a constitutional convention, we can demand transparency to backroom dealings in Albany by mandating public oversight of budgetary decisions and requiring narrow, set purposes for all money funneled into the budget.

At 10 a.m., the Committees on Public Safety and Fire and Criminal Justice Services will hold a joint oversight hearing on prosecuting violence in city jails, and discussion of a proposed law on requiring certain types of bail recommendations.

It should be a no - brainer for both chambers to get behind the reform: Major public spending ought to be done in a transparent and accountable way — which requires independent oversight.

Advocates for broader campaign finance reform were gobsmacked at the speed that will be required to set up the public matching oversight system.

The sweet spot requires stipulating the importance of meaningful authorizer oversight for public charter schools that collect public funds and that such oversight should respect charter autonomy and the ability of educators and innovators to launch promising schools.

Those against the law also raised the familiar criticism that charter schools would be free to use the new local dollars without the accountability and oversight required of traditional public schools.

Private schools do not report to any public boards - there is no public oversight and private schools are not required to follow the rules and regulations of local school districts.

Eastin, in a post published on Medium titled «California Needs a Moratorium on Charter Schools,» wrote: «Too many charters are escaping the rigorous financial oversight, auditing and reporting rules that are required of traditional public schools.

What's more, charter schools are already required to undergo renewal hearings every five years, publish their annual 990 financial forms for the public, and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, among many other oversights.

Initiative 1240 sets strict accountability and performance requirements The initiative sets strict qualification requirements for public charter school operators and requires strict oversight and accountability standards — including annual performance reporting for public charter schools to evaluate their success in improving student outcomes.

«We are moving forward to require that charter schools receive the same level of oversight, civil rights protections and provide the same level of transparency, and we require the same of traditional public schools,» NAACP Chairman Roslyn M. Brock said in the statement announcing the resolution.

The truth is that building and maintaining a public school system responsible for educating over 50 million children is a tremendously complicated operation, and requires experienced oversight and leadership from all involved.

Since the climate science is predicting such dramatic climate change that will require major changes in virtually everyones lives to mitigae, the same type of oversight for climate change science may be demanded by the public and hence politicians.

The public interest requires that «law firms» be subject to regulatory oversight and be held responsible for their local and global behavior.

Several commenters further recommended that only the following uses and disclosures be permitted for research information unrelated to treatment without authorization: (1) For the oversight of the researcher or the research study; (2) for safety and efficacy reporting required by FDA; (3) for public health; (4) for emergency circumstances; or (5) for another research study.

We reviewed the important purposes for which some commenters said government agencies needed protected health information, and we believe that most of those needs can be met through the other categories of permitted uses and disclosures without authorization allowed under the final rule, including provisions permitting covered entities to disclose information (subject to certain limitations) to government agencies for public health, health oversight, law enforcement, and otherwise as required by law.

Moreover, doctrinal entrenchment is particularly problematic in the FISA courts, where secrecy and institutional context indicate that outside efforts at doctrinal reform are less likely to be effective than they are with courts that publish their opinions.35 Unlike published opinions, secret opinions can not provoke the public into lobbying for a legislative override36 or judicial overruling37 — two important paths of legal reform.38 Perhaps to hedge against the risks of limited external oversight, FISA limits FISC and Court of Review judges to non-renewable, seven - year terms, 39 a provision suggesting that Congress envisioned a FISA court whose membership would be responsive to shifting factual circumstances and policy priorities.40 Stare decisis, which requires judges to adhere to interpretations of law that they might otherwise reject as unjust or unpersuasive, constrains these judges» ability to adapt to such factual and policy shifts.

We reviewed the important purposes identified in the comments for government access to protected health information, and believe that the disclosures of protected health information that should appropriately be made without individuals» authorization can be achieved through the other disclosures provided for in the final rule, including provisions permitting covered entities to disclose information (subject to certain limitations) to government agencies for public health, research, health oversight, law enforcement, and otherwise as required by law.

Comment: One commenter recommended clarifying in the final rule that covered entities are not required to establish business partner contracts with health oversight agencies or public health authorities to release individually identifiable information to them for purposes exempt from HIPAA and sanctioned by state law.

The new § 164.512 includes paragraphs on: Uses and disclosures required by law; uses and disclosures for public health activities; disclosures about victims of abuse, neglect, or domestic violence; uses and disclosures for health oversight activities; disclosures for judicial and administrative proceedings; disclosures for law enforcement purposes; uses and disclosures about decedents; uses and disclosures for cadaveric donation of organs, eyes, or tissues; uses and disclosures for research purposes; uses and disclosures to avert a serious threat to health or safety (which we had called «emergency circumstances» in the NPRM); uses and disclosures for specialized government functions (referred to as «specialized classes» in the NPRM); and disclosures to comply with workers» compensation laws.

These include judicial oversight for surveillance carried out by public authorities, requiring government departments to produce an independent and publicly available privacy impact assessment before introducing any new data collection scheme, and allowing the information commissioner to inspect private as well as public sector organisations.

Finally, in the interest of maintaining public oversight of law enforcement's use of such surveillance technology, EFF recommends that Congress enact a transparency policy that requires law enforcement agencies to produce annual reports on the number of times an agency uses cell - site simulators, as well as against whom, when, where, and how.

Besides requiring driver background checks from screening firms accredited by the NAPBS accredite, S 2864 — which was passed in June of 2016 — puts Uber, Lyft, and other TNCs under the oversight of the Rhode Island public utilities commission, sets minimum insurance requirements, and establish an annual $ 30,000 permit for companies with 200 or more drivers, WJAR Channel 10 in Providence, RI reports.

Public and licensed private agencies are required to meet State standards and have more oversight to ensure quality services.