Audit report on the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy for the year ended June 30, 2013

Audit report on the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy for the year ended June 30, 2013

Iowa Law Enforcement Academy Annual Report FY2012

Iowa Law Enforcement Academy provided 383 training opportunities for law enforcement, jailers, and telecommunicators for a total of 3584 individuals receiving training. The Academy remains committed to bringing cutting edge programming to law enforcement, jailers, and telecommunicators across Iowa, as evidenced by partnerships with the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Secret Service, the Midwest Counterdrug Training Center, Northwestern University’s Center for Public Safety, and many others. The Academy is looking forward to growing its presence within the law enforcement community as the “go to” resource by also serving as a bulletin board for training around the state.

Iowa Law Enforcement Academy Annual Report FY2013

Iowa Law Enforcement Academy provided 383 training opportunities for law enforcement, jailers, and telecommunicators for a total of 3584 individuals receiving training. The Academy remains committed to bringing cutting edge programming to law enforcement, jailers, and telecommunicators across Iowa, as evidenced by partnerships with the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Secret Service, the Midwest Counterdrug Training Center, Northwestern University’s Center for Public Safety, and many others. The Academy is looking forward to growing its presence within the law enforcement community as the “go to” resource by also serving as a bulletin board for training around the state.

Contribution of fine particulate matter sources to indoor exposure in bars, restaurants, and cafes

This study investigated the contribution of sources and establishment characteristics, on the exposure to fine particulate matter (PM(2.5)) in the non-smoking sections of bars, cafes, and restaurants in central Zurich. PM(2.5)-exposure was determined with a nephelometer. A random sample of hospitality establishments was investigated on all weekdays, from morning until midnight. Each visit lasted 30 min. Numbers of smokers and other sources, such as candles and cooking processes, were recorded, as were seats, open windows, and open doors. Ambient air pollution data were obtained from public authorities. Data were analysed using robust MM regression. Over 14 warm, sunny days, 102 establishments were measured. Average establishment PM(2.5) concentrations were 64.7 microg/m(3) (s.d. = 73.2 microg/m(3), 30-min maximum 452.2 microg/m(3)). PM(2.5) was significantly associated with the number of smokers, percentage of seats occupied by smokers, and outdoor PM. Each smoker increased PM(2.5) on average by 15 microg/m(3). No associations were found with other sources, open doors or open windows. Bars had more smoking guests and showed significantly higher concentrations than restaurants and cafes. Smokers were the most important PM(2.5)-source in hospitality establishments, while outdoor PM defined the baseline. Concentrations are expected to be even higher during colder, unpleasant times of the year. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Smokers and ambient air pollution are the most important sources of fine airborne particulate matter (PM(2.5)) in the non-smoking sections of bars, restaurants, and cafes. Other sources do not significantly contribute to PM(2.5)-levels, while opening doors and windows is not an efficient means of removing pollutants. First, this demonstrates the impact that even a few smokers can have in affecting particle levels. Second, it implies that creating non-smoking sections, and using natural ventilation, is not sufficient to bring PM(2.5) to levels that imply no harm for employees and non-smoking clients. [Authors]

Enhancing centralized enforcement of EU law : Pandora's toolbox ?

State compliance with EU Law is crucial to the very existence of the Union. Traditionally, it has been secured through a combination of strong "private" and of weak "centralized" enforcement. However, this arrangement is no longer perceived to be sufficient. By endowing the Union with new tools vis-à-vis its Member States - penalties, conditionality, and the like - current reforms try to complement symbolic sanctioning with real "consequences". The goal is to reinforce the authority of EU Law. In this article, we question whether the new toolbox is fit for the purpose, or whether it risks to produce adverse effects which might even go as far as upsetting the Union's constitutional template.