2007 application guidelines : Community Development Assistance Program : economic development.

The following activities are considered ineligible. 1. Construction of buildings, or portions thereof, used predominantly for general conduct of government (e.g. city halls, courthouses, jails, police stations, etc.) 2. General government expenses. 3. Costs of operating and maintaining public facilities and services (e.g. mowing parks and replacing street light bulbs). 4. Servicing or refinancing existing debt.

2008 application guidelines : Community Development Assistance Program : economic development.

The following activities are considered ineligible. 1. Construction of buildings, or portions thereof, used predominantly for general conduct of government (e.g. city halls, courthouses, jails, police stations, etc.) 2. General government expenses. 3. Costs of operating and maintaining public facilities and services (e.g. mowing parks and replacing street light bulbs). 4. Servicing or refinancing existing debt.

2008 application guidelines : Community Development Assistance Program : competitive housing rehabilitation.

The following activities are specifically identified as ineligible. 1. Construction of buildings, or portions thereof, used predominantly for the general conduct of government (e.g., city halls, courthouses, jails, police stations). 2. General government expenses. 3. Costs of operating and maintaining public facilities and services (e.g., mowing parks, replacing street light bulbs). 4. Servicing or refinancing of existing debt.

2009 application guidelines : Community Development Assistance Program : competitive design engineering.

The following activities are specifically identified as ineligible. 1. Design Engineering costs of water storage tanks/towers. 2. Construction of buildings, or portions thereof, used predominantly for the general conduct of government (e.g., city halls, courthouses, jails, police stations). 3. General government expenses. 4. Costs of operating and maintaining public facilities and services (e.g., mowing parks, replacing street light bulbs). 5. Servicing or refinancing of existing debt.

2009 application guidelines : Community Development Assistance Program : competitive housing rehabilitation.

The following activities are specifically identified as ineligible. 1. Construction of buildings, or portions thereof, used predominantly for the general conduct of government (e.g., city halls, courthouses, jails, police stations). 2. General government expenses. 3. Costs of operating and maintaining public facilities and services (e.g., mowing parks, replacing street light bulbs). 4. Servicing or refinancing of existing debt.

Proceedings of a meeting of citizens of Nashua upon the north side of Nashua River, March 10, 1842, upon the subject of certain grievances ; with a report and resolutions thereon, by a committee chosen for the purpose.

Mode of access: Internet.

L'oeuvre de P.-V. Galland,

At head of title: Le peinture décorative au XIXe siècle.

POLÍTICAS LOCAIS DE FOMENTO À COMUNICAÇÃO COMUNITÁRIA: Os casos das prefeituras de Fortaleza, João Pessoa, Macapá, Porto Alegre e Recife

Quais foram as políticas de fomento à comunicação comunitária, desenvolvidas nas gestões municipais de 2001 a 2004 e nos anos 2005 e 2006, das capitais brasileiras? A partir de reflexões teóricas sobre incomunicação, democracia, desenvolvimento, comunicação comunitária, transformação social e políticas públicas de comunicação, é descrito o panorama das políticas locais de fomento à comunicação comunitária no Brasil. Contudo, é preciso verificar em que condições o fomento à comunicação comunitária é possível. Assim, essa pesquisa objetiva analisar os condicionantes políticos-sociais, materiais, ideológicos e institucionais-metodológicos das políticas locais de comunicação das prefeituras de Fortaleza (CE), João Pessoa (PB), Macapá (AP), Porto Alegre (RS) e Recife (PE) em execução em 2007. Optou-se pelo estudo de casos múltiplos, a fim de verificar quais são as replicações possíveis. Como fontes de evidências, foram utilizadas a documentação existente sobre essas experiências e entrevistas semi-estruturadas. Tal multiplicidade se fez necessária uma vez que a triangulação foi a forma de análise de dados escolhida. Por fim, conclui-se que políticas de fomento à comunicação comunitária começam a ser implantadas em âmbito municipal, mas ainda de forma incipiente e pouco articuladas.

Building cliques and alliances as practices to 'make things happen' in complex networks

The Roma population has become a policy issue highly debated in the European Union (EU). The EU acknowledges that this ethnic minority faces extreme poverty and complex social and economic problems. 52% of the Roma population live in extreme poverty, 75% in poverty (Soros Foundation, 2007, p. 8), with a life expectancy at birth of about ten years less than the majority population. As a result, Romania has received a great deal of policy attention and EU funding, being eligible for 19.7 billion Euros from the EU for 2007-2013. Yet progress is slow; it is debated whether Romania's government and companies were capable to use these funds (EurActiv.ro, 2012). Analysing three case studies, this research looks at policy implementation in relation to the role of Roma networks in different geographical regions of Romania. It gives insights about how to get things done in complex settings and it explains responses to the Roma problem as a „wicked‟ policy issue. This longitudinal research was conducted between 2008 and 2011, comprising 86 semi-structured interviews, 15 observations, and documentary sources and using a purposive sample focused on institutions responsible for implementing social policies for Roma: Public Health Departments, School Inspectorates, City Halls, Prefectures, and NGOs. Respondents included: governmental workers, academics, Roma school mediators, Roma health mediators, Roma experts, Roma Councillors, NGOs workers, and Roma service users. By triangulating the data collected with various methods and applied to various categories of respondents, a comprehensive and precise representation of Roma network practices was created. The provisions of the 2001 „Governmental Strategy to Improve the Situation of the Roma Population‟ facilitated forming a Roma network by introducing special jobs in local and central administration. In different counties, resources, people, their skills, and practices varied. As opposed to the communist period, a new Roma elite emerged: social entrepreneurs set the pace of change by creating either closed cliques or open alliances and by using more or less transparent practices. This research deploys the concept of social/institutional entrepreneurs to analyse how key actors influence clique and alliance formation and functioning. Significantly, by contrasting three case studies, it shows that both closed cliques and open alliances help to achieve public policy network objectives, but that closed cliques can also lead to failure to improve the health and education of Roma people in a certain region.

Ramsey Clark for Intro 2

General note: Title and date provided by Bettye Lane.

Loss Intro 475

General note: Title and date provided by Bettye Lane.

Martyn Klein and Wilfred Rivera (both social workers) speak to press following defeat of Intro 2

General note: Title and date provided by Bettye Lane.

Intro 475 with Charles Taylor (voted no), Carter Burden (voted yes) and E. Clinton (voted yes)

General note: Title and date provided by Bettye Lane.

Intro 475 with Kate Millett in the court room

General note: Title and date provided by Bettye Lane.

A Influência da Auditoria Externa na Qualidade da Informação Financeira nos Municípios Portugueses

Mestrado em Auditoria