Annual Report Information Technology 2007-2008

Information Technology Annual Report Fiscal Year 2007-2008. Sandra Armstrong, Chief Information Officer, University of Connecticut Health Center.

Annual Report Central Administrative Services 2006/2007

University of Connecticut Health Center, Central Administrative Services, Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2006-2007; Submitted by Barry Feldman, Vice President & Chief Operation Officer, University of Connecticut, and Susan Whetstone, Chief Administrative Officer, UConn Health Center, August 2007

Integration under 'One Country, Two Systems' - The Case of Mainland China and Hong Kong-

Ever since the handover of the territory in 1997, Hong Kong has had its own unique law and its own economic system and international legal personality, and has not been integrated with Mainland China. The Basic Law guarantees the uniqueness of the Hong Kong SAR until 2047. But close economic ties between Hong Kong and the Mainland will promote closer economic integration. The Basic Law limits only a customs union and the introduction of a single currency, but not the formation of a Free Trade Agreement (hereafter FTA) and monetary union. FTA has already been realized in the form of the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (hereafter CEPA). The Hong Kong SAR government, including the bureaucrat as well as the Chief Executive Tung Chee Hwa, was opposed to, and hesitant towards, the formation of a regional trade agreement with the Mainland, but the business community made them to adopt a positive attitude towards the CEPA. It is unclear how much integration can been deepened, but it can be argued that the current policy of the Hong Kong SAR is too supportive of business, and an excessive degree of economic integration may threaten the uniqueness of Hong Kong. But if Hong Kong achieves democracy and enjoys complete autonomy, it will be easy for economic integration to co-exist with the 'One Country, Two Systems' approach, in the interests of the business community and of the citizens of the SAR.

In-House Risk

Over the last thirty years or so, as the number of in-house counsel rose and their role increased in scope and prominence, increased attention has been given the various challenges these lawyers face under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, from figuring out who is the client the in-house lawyer represents, to navigating conflicts of interest, maintaining independence, and engaging in a multijurisdictional practice of law. Less attention, to date, has been given to business risk assessment, perhaps in part because that function appears to be part of in-house counsel’s role as a business person rather than as a lawyer. Overlooking the role of in-house counsel in assessing risk, however, is a risky proposition, because risk assessment constitutes for some in-house counsel a significant aspect of their role, a role that in turn informs and shapes how in-house counsel perform other more overtly legal tasks. For example, wearing her hat as General Counsel, a lawyer for the entity-client may opine and explain issues of compliance with the law. Wearing her hat as the Chief Legal Officer, however, the same lawyer may now be called upon as a member of business management to participate in the decision whether to comply with the law. After outlining some of the traditional challenges faced by in-house counsel under the Rules, this short essay explores risk assessment by in-house counsel and its impact on their role and function under the Rules. It argues that the key to in-house lawyers’ successful navigation of multiple roles, and, in particular, to their effective assessment of business risk is keen awareness of the various hats they are called upon to wear. Navigating these various roles may not be easy for lawyers, whose training and habits of mind often teach them to zoom in on legal risks to the exclusion of business risks. Indeed, law schools continue to teach law students “to think like a lawyer” and law firms, the historical breeding grounds for in-house counsel positions, in a world of increased specialization master the narrower contemplation of legal questions. Yet the present and future of in-house counsel practice demand of its practitioners the careful and gradual coming to terms, buildup and mastery of business risk analysis skills, alongside the cultivation of traditional legal risk analysis tools.

Professional papers of the Signal Service.

At head of title: United States of America. War Dept.

Department store organization ...

v. 1. Organization of chief executive and merchandise function.

Annual report of the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners.

Some reports issued combined.

The Health of the school child.

Vols. for 1922- have subtitle: "Report of the Chief Medical Officer ..." (varies slightly)

NEDA electronic distribution aids.

v. 1. Wholesale distribution function.--v. 2. Administrative management, the role of the chief executive.--v. 3. Financial management.--v. 4. Marketing management.--v. 5. Inventory control, theory and practice.--v. 6. Applied management techniques.

Professional papers of the Signal service, no. 1-16, 18.

No. 17 forms pt.2 (app.71) of the Annual report of the chief signal officer for the year 1885 (Annual report of the secretary of war ... 1885, vol. IV, pt. 2) It is issued also in the Congressional series, no. 2375 (49th Cong., 1st sess. House. Ex. doc.1, pt.2).

Bulletin of state institutions.

Description based on: Vol. 38, no. 1 (Jan. 1936); title from cover.

Report on the Michigan forest fires of 1881.

At head of title: United States of America. War department.

[Civil report of the Military Governor, 1901.

Reports cover the calendar year unless otherwise noted.

Monthly weather review.

Latest issue consulted: Vol. 137, no. 12 (Dec. 2009).

Monthly weather review.

Description based on: Jan. 1874; title from caption.