DOCSLIB.ORG

With Charity for All

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
With Charity for All The Yale Law Journal Volume 93, Number 8, July 1984 With Charity for All Oliver A. Houckt TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1419 I. TOWARDS AN UNDERSTANDING OF CHARITABLE ORGA- NIZATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE 1421 A. An Historical Perspective 1422 B. Public Charities and the Internal Revenue Code 1425 1. Income Tax Exemptions 1426 2. Contributions and Deductions 1428 3. Fringe Benefits and White Hats 1429 C. Civic Leagues and Business Leagues 1430 1. Civic Leagues and Social Welfare Organizations 1430 2. Business Leagues and Chambers of Commerce 1432 t Associate Professor, Tulane Law School. This study was begun in August 1981 and proceeded through December 1983. No sponsorship or funding was received from any source; if its methods or conclusions are faulty, they are at least those of the author and of no other influence. Tribute should be paid here, however, to the work of several law students who assisted in this research, with small reward, and without whom the assembly of information and law could not have been accomplished: Karen A. Adams, Michael G. Dwyer, John D. Edgcomb, Noel T. Johnson, Frank S. Jones, Barry R. Scott, Susan B. Snyder and Michael A. Stroud. The assistance of the Internal Revenue Service in providing public records is also acknowledged with thanks. 1415 The Yale Law Journal Vol. 93: 1415, 1984 D. The Requirements for Public Charities in Practice: The "Organizational" and "Operational" Tests 1434 II. TOWARDS A DEFINITION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LAW 1438 A. The Roots of Public Interest Law 1439 B. The Internal Revenue Service Response to Public In- terest Law: The 1970 Guidelines 1443 C. Subsequent IRS Guidance on the Public Interest Law: Is There "Law to Apply"? 1451 III. THE BUSINESS PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRMS 1454 A. The Powell Memorandum 1457 B. From Powell to Pacific 1458 C. Pacific Legal Foundation 1460 1. Utilities and Energy Development 1465 2. The Regulation of Chemicals and Toxic Sub- stances 1468 3. Land Use and Clean Air Regulation 1470 4. Issues of Minority Representation 1473 D. National Legal Centerfor the Public Interest 1474 E. Mountain States Legal Foundation 1478 F. Mid-America Legal Foundation 1486 G. Gulf Coast and Great Plains Legal Foundation 1490 H. Mid-Atlantic Legal Foundation 1494 I. Southeastern Legal Foundation 1498 J. New England Legal Foundation 1502 K. Capital Legal Foundation 1506 L. Corroboration from an Unlikely Quarter: The Horowitz Report 1512 IV. REFLECTIONS ON THE QUALIFICATION OF THE BUSINESS PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRMS FOR TAX EXEMPTION AS PUBLIC CHARITIES 1515 1416 Public Interest Law Firms A. The "Operational Test" in Action: Some Suggestions for Improvement 1515 B. Altered States: Qualification of the Business PILFs Under More Appropriate Tax-exempt Categories 1520 1. Qualification Under Sections 501(cX4) and 501(cX6) 1520 2. The National Chamber Litigation Committee: A Litigation Modelfor the American Business Com- munity 1521 3. The Effect of Re-qualification 1525 C. Reaching the Altered State: Questions of Standing 1526 1. Falling over Standing 1526 2. Standing as a Sword 1530 D. Reflections on Another Remedy: "A Plague on Both Your Houses" 1535 1. The Impact of Administrative Agencies 1536 2. The Impact of Money 1540 V. CONCLUSION 1544 APPENDIX I SUMMARY OF DOCKETS AND EVALUATIONS 1546 APPENDIX II METHODS OF RESEARCH AND EVALUATION 1547 I. RATIONALE FOR THE BUSINESS PILFs: DAVID AGAINST GOLIATH 1547 II. METHODS OF RESEARCH 1553 A. The Dockets 1553 B. Inside Interest 1555 C. Evaluation 1556 III. STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION 1557 A. The Economic Interest 1558 B. The Benefit 1559 C. Hard Cases and the Search for Flexibility 1560 1417 The Yale Law Journal Vol. 93: 1415, 1984 D. Amicus Appearances: A Looser Standard 1562 B. Government Interests and the Public Interest 1562 F. The "Substantiality" Test: The Ultimate Safety Valve 1563 1418 Public Interest Law Firms INTRODUCTION This is a study of public interest law and its practice by a group of inter-related legal foundations that were created, funded, and remain largely directed by leaders of American business corporations. The ques- tion raised is the extent to which their practice is consistent with accepted notions of charity under federal tax laws and with the more particular requirements for public interest law firms. Few areas of law are more elusive than the regulation of exempt orga- nizations under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. The section is broad and within it one finds separate provisions for, among others, churches and hospitals, civic leagues and veterans organizations, labor un- ions, irrigation companies, animal shelters, and benevolent life insurance associations. In common, these are non-profit organizations: They work for something other than their own financial gain. In return, they receive an assortment of tax advantages, including exemption from federal income taxes. Within this spectrum of exempt organizations, however, is a most- advantaged class, those qualified under section 501(c)(3) as public chari- ties, organized and operated for "religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals." Contributions to these public charities are exempt to the donor. In the eyes of the Code and of the public at large, these organizations are the most worthy of all. The Internal Revenue Service has long recognized the practice of law in pursuit of charitable goals as an exempt activity. The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People have been so engaged beyond the lifetimes of most attor- neys active today. By the late 1960's, however, a growing number of orga- nizations formed exclusively to litigate issues as diverse as child care, prison reform, and clean air forced the Service to come to grips with the question of when such litigation was in the public interest, and thus to be recognized as charitable under section 501(c)(3) of the Code. In 1970, after several false starts, the Service arrived at perhaps the only definition of public interest legal practice consistent with its prior exemptions and intellectually tenable amidst the rising clamor for recognition from organi- zations that were fiercely ideological, at times in flat opposition to each other, and at all times claiming to represent the best interests of the American public. Public interest law firms were qualified not by their particular ideology but by the service they performed, the representation of otherwise underrepresented interests at the bar. The years which followed have seen few refinements. The Internal Revenue Service has issued no further regulations and only a handful of revenue rulings on the subject. Audits have led to the disqualification of no firm in practice. The field has risen and ebbed with dozens of firms 1419 The Yale Law Journal Vol. 93: 1415, 1984 established to represent one or more under-financed interests in the life of the country, maintaining a base of about 100 organizations. The most sig- nificant development since 1970 has been a new breed of public interest organizations fashioned closely after the older ones but, for the first time, founded, financed, and presided over by the chief executives and counsel for such entities as Exxon, ARMCO, and General Motors, the chemical, mining, and construction industries, public and private utilities, national and international banks, the most powerful economic forces in America. The forerunner of this breed was the Pacific Legal Foundation, estab- lished in Sacramento, California, and qualified as a public charity in 1973. Within the next few years, under the aegis of a group of corporate executives formed as the National Legal Center for the Public Interest, the Pacific Legal model was adopted for the Mountain States Legal Foun- dation (Denver), the Gulf and Great Plains Legal Foundation (Kansas City, Missouri), the Mid-American Legal Foundation (Chicago), the New England Legal Foundation (Boston), the Southeastern Legal Foun- dation (Philadelphia), and the Capital Legal Foundation (Washington, D.C.). This new form of public charity presents, or should present, the Service with its second major challenge in public interest law. The creation of these firms by corporate leaders should not by itself be disqualifying, nor should their participation in an at least limited fashion on the organiza- tions' directing bodies. Major funding of these firms by corporations and their foundations is likewise, within reason, no bar. What causes the most serious difficulties, or should cause them, is the conduct of these firms, the cases they have undertaken, a high percentage of which are indistinguish- able from those of their business sponsors, and a smaller but still dis- turbing percentage of which appear to be on behalf of the very corpora- tions that are their major donors and that sit on their directing boards. How the Service's definition of public-interest practice applies to firms which in substantial measure support the objectives of these corporate in- terests and, as they characterize their actions, those of the free-enterprise economic system, is at the heart of this investigation. Excluded from this study are the merits of the legal actions involved, for essentially the same reasons which lead the Service to find another means of defining public interest practice. One person's good is another's bad, a diversity long recognized as a strength of American democracy. Other data do emerge, however, which, while only incidental to the in- quiry, may be of interest. At an aggregate funding of approximately $14 million over six years, the seven firms associated with the National Legal Center for the Public Interest have involved themselves in 227 identified legal actions. The Pacific Legal Foundation, which has received roughly 1420 Public Interest Law Firms equivalent funding since 1973, adds another 167 actions." Only a handful of cases were initiated by these PILFs directly and in less than one half did they participate as parties; the majority were appearances as amicus curiae.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • September 11 & 12 . 2008
    n e w y o r k c i t y s e p t e m b e r 11 & 12 . 2008 ServiceNation is a campaign for a new America; an America where citizens come together and take responsibility for the nation’s future. ServiceNation unites leaders from every sector of American society with hundreds of thousands of citizens in a national effort to call on the next President and Congress, leaders from all sectors, and our fellow Americans to create a new era of service and civic engagement in America, an era in which all Americans work together to try and solve our greatest and most persistent societal challenges. The ServiceNation Summit brings together 600 leaders of all ages and from every sector of American life—from universities and foundations, to businesses and government—to celebrate the power and potential of service, and to lay out a bold agenda for addressing society’s challenges through expanded opportunities for community and national service. 11:00-2:00 pm 9/11 DAY OF SERVICE Organized by myGoodDeed l o c a t i o n PS 124, 40 Division Street SEPTEMBER 11.2008 4:00-6:00 pm REGIstRATION l o c a t i o n Columbia University 9/11 DAY OF SERVICE 6:00-7:00 pm OUR ROLE, OUR VOICE, OUR SERVICE PRESIDENTIAL FORUM& 101 Young Leaders Building a Nation of Service l o c a t i o n Columbia University Usher Raymond, IV • RECORDING ARTIST, suMMIT YOUTH CHAIR 7:00-8:00 pm PRESIDEntIAL FORUM ON SERVICE Opening Program l o c a t i o n Columbia University Bill Novelli • CEO, AARP Laysha Ward • PRESIDENT, COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND TARGET FOUNDATION Lee Bollinger • PRESIDENT, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Governor David A.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-41822-5 — Seeing the Light: the Case for Nuclear Power in the 21St Century Scott L
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-41822-5 — Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century Scott L. Montgomery , Thomas Graham, Jr Index More Information Index Abalone Alliance, 191 in US, 190–193 acid mine drainage (AMD), 214 Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository acute radiation syndrome (ARS), 156–157 and, 216–217 AEC. See Atomic Energy Commission anxiety. See nuclear anxiety Africa. See also Ghana; South Africa; arms treaties. See Nuclear Non-Proliferation sub-Saharan Africa Treaty; nuclear weapons nuclear reactor construction in, 25 ARS. See acute radiation syndrome Agreed Framework Agreement, 330 Aston, Francis, 34–35 air pollution, 16–20. See also clean air laws atomic bombs. See nuclear weapons in China, 16–17, 263 atomic energy, 66. See also nuclear energy and WHO statistics on, 16–17 power under Clean Air Act, 17–18 Atomic Energy Act, 97, 104, 107–108, under clean air laws, 18 112–113, 301 from coal use, 4 Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), 38, 101–104 in developing countries, 17, 18–19 establishment history of, 104–107 from fossil fuels, 2 nuclear reactor design guidelines, 105–106 Great Killer Smog of 1952, 4 scientific community’s loss of confidence health risks from, 2 in, 104 in India, 17 Atomic Energy Research Establishment, 45 in Turkey, 266 atomic theory. See also radiation Akhromeyev, Sergei, 318 critical mass, 73 Alexievich, Svetlana, 159 half-life period in, 66 alpha radiation, 65, 119 isotopes in, 68 AMD. See acid mine drainage in nuclear weapons, 72–73 anti-nuclear movement neutrons in, 68, 69 in
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3: the Rise of the Antinuclear Power Movement: 1957 to 1989
    Chapter 3 THE RISE OF THE ANTINUCLEAR POWER MOVEMENT 1957 TO 1989 In this chapter I trace the development and circulation of antinuclear struggles of the last 40 years. What we will see is a pattern of new sectors of the class (e.g., women, native Americans, and Labor) joining the movement over the course of that long cycle of struggles. Those new sectors would remain autonomous, which would clearly place the movement within the autonomist Marxist model. Furthermore, it is precisely the widening of the class composition that has made the antinuclear movement the most successful social movement of the 1970s and 1980s. Although that widening has been impressive, as we will see in chapter 5, it did not go far enough, leaving out certain sectors of the class. Since its beginnings in the 1950s, opposition to the civilian nuclear power program has gone through three distinct phases of one cycle of struggles.(1) Phase 1 —1957 to 1967— was a period marked by sporadic opposition to specific nuclear plants. Phase 2 —1968 to 1975— was a period marked by a concern for the environmental impact of nuclear power plants, which led to a critique of all aspects of nuclear power. Moreover, the legal and the political systems were widely used to achieve demands. And Phase 3 —1977 to the present— has been a period marked by the use of direct action and civil disobedience by protesters whose goals have been to shut down all nuclear power plants. 3.1 The First Phase of the Struggles: 1957 to 1967 Opposition to nuclear energy first emerged shortly after the atomic bomb was built.
    [Show full text]
  • No Nukes Study You Don't Need to Be a Nuclear Physicist to Understand
    No Nukes Study You don’t need to be a nuclear physicist to understand that nuclear weapons and nuclear power are both bad for our species and bad for the planet. It’s not exactly rocket science to understand our need to move away from both nuclear energy and fossil fuels and toward a safe, sustainable, and democratic energy system based on solar, wind, and other renewable resources. However, given the powerful economic interests, often called the “Merchants of Death,” which profit from United States nuclear weapons and the rest of the U.S. war machine and which exert an undue and undemocratic influence on U.S. policy through making us accept the nuclear/fossil fuel complex, it is wise to arm oneself with a better understanding of nuclear and sustainable energy issues. The literature is vast, both published and on the web. Here is a listing of some of the most important internet resources, most of which have additional links. Atomic Archive. This site explores the complex history surrounding the invention of the atomic bomb. Includes a good section on the history of the Cold War. http://www.atomicarchive.com/index.shtml Fiat Pax is a project to provide information to university students, faculty, and the public regarding the militarization of science and the university, focusing on the University of California and its ties to the military enterprise, but also examples of the larger military- industrial-academic complex. http://www.fiatpax.net/index.html Greenpece International. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/ Mothers for Peace, in San Luis Obispo, is a non-profit organization concerned with the local dangers involving the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, and with the dangers of nuclear power, weapons and waste on national and global levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Class of 2003 Finals Program
    School of Law One Hundred and Seventy-Fourth FINAL EXERCISES The Lawn May 18, 2003 1 Distinction 2 High Distinction 3 Highest Distinction 4 Honors 5 High Honors 6 Highest Honors 7 Distinguished Majors Program School of Law Finals Speaker Mortimer M. Caplin Former Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service Mortimer Caplin was born in New York in 1916. He came to Charlottesville in 1933, graduating from the College in 1937 and the Law School in 1940. During the Normandy invasion, he served as U.S. Navy beachmaster and was cited as a member of the initial landing force on Omaha Beach. He continued his federal service as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service under President Kennedy from 1961 to 1964. When he entered U.Va. at age 17, Mr. Caplin committed himself to all aspects of University life. From 1933-37, he was a star athlete in the University’s leading sport—boxing—achieving an undefeated record for three years in the mid-1930s and winning the NCAA middleweight title in spite of suffering a broken hand. He also served as coach of the boxing team and was president of the University Players drama group. At the School of Law, he was editor-in-chief of the Virginia Law Review and graduated as the top student in his class. In addition to his deep commitment to public service, he is well known for his devotion to teaching and to the educational process and to advancing tax law. Mr. Caplin taught tax law at U.Va. from 1950-61, while serving as president of the Atlantic Coast Conference.
    [Show full text]
  • Al Giordano Collection Finding
    Special Collections and University Archives : University Libraries Al Giordano Collection 1969-1996 2 boxes (1 linear foot) Call no.: MS 604 Collection overview A native New Yorker born in 1959, Al Giordano was drawn into the antinuclear movement as a teenager, becoming an important organizer for the antinuclear and environmental movements. Giordano sharpened his organizing skills through a close association with Abbie Hoffman, with whom he often collaborated throughout the 1980s. Giordano has worked as a journalist for several decades, primarily with the alternative press, founding his own periodical Narco News in 2000 and the School of Authentic Journalism in 2002. He currently resides in Mexico City. The Giordano collection contains a miscellaneous assemblage of ephemera, publications and newspapers, reports, and a small quantity of correspondence, relating to antinuclear activism. See similar SCUA collections: Antinuclear Massachusetts (West) Background on Al Giordano The journalist Al Giordano was born in New York City ion Dec. 31, 1959, and was drawn into the antinuclear and environmental movements as a teenager. Living in Rowe, Mass., he became a successful grassroots organizer beginning with his work opposing the twin power plants Yankee Rowe and Vermont Yankee, which straddled the Vermont border. In 1981, Giordano met the radical and activist Abbie Hoffman, who became a mentor and close collaborator throughout the 1980s. Working within the political system to effect change. He was a key organizer and campaign director for the successful ballot measure in 1982 that required that proposals to construct new nuclear power plants or disposal facilities for low-level radioactive waste would be first vetted by the legislature and approved by a majority of voters, and worked throughout the country in antinuclear and environmental organizing for most of the decade.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit a Case 1:20-Cv-08899-CM Document 74-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 2 of 20
    Case 1:20-cv-08899-CM Document 74-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 1 of 20 Exhibit A Case 1:20-cv-08899-CM Document 74-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 2 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE CLEMENTINE COMPANY, LLC No. 1:20-cv-08899-CM d/b/a THE THEATER CENTER; PLAYERS THEATRE MANAGEMENT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CORP. d/b/a THE PLAYERS THEATRE; WEST END ARTISTS COMPANY d/b/a THE ACTORS TEMPLE THEATRE; SOHO PLAYHOUSE INC. d/b/a SOHO PLAYHOUSE; CARAL LTD. d/b/a BROADWAY COMEDY CLUB; and DO YOU LIKE COMEDY? LLC d/b/a NEW YORK COMEDY CLUB Plaintiffs, -against- ANDREW M. CUOMO, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of New York; BILL DE BLASIO, in his official capacity as Mayor of New York City, Defendants. 1. Plaintiffs The Clementine Company, LLC d/b/a The Theater Center; Players Theatre Management Corp. d/b/a The Players Theatre; West End Artists Company d/b/a The Actors Temple Theatre; SoHo Playhouse Inc. d/b/a SoHo Playhouse; Caral Ltd. d/b/a Broadway Comedy Club; and Do You Like Comedy? LLC d/b/a New York Comedy Club for their Complaint against Defendants Governor Andrew M. Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio, allege as follows: 1 Case 1:20-cv-08899-CM Document 74-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 3 of 20 INTRODUCTION 2. This civil rights lawsuit seeks to vindicate the constitutional rights of free speech and equal protection for the Plaintiff theaters and comedy clubs, which have been subject to unequal closure orders for more than a year.
    [Show full text]
  • Crystal Reports
    CLE Course Sponsors (listed alphabetically by abbreviation) Thursday, December 31, 2020 Nym Sponsor Address Contact Phone , - ( ) - 1031EE 1031 Exchange Experts LLC 8101 E Prentice Ave #400 Grnwd Vill , CO 80111- J Sides 866-694-0204 Kcc 2335 Alaska Avenue El Segundo, CA 90245- H Schlager (310) 751-1841 21STCC 21st Communications Comp 405 S Humboldt St Denver, CO 80209 G Meyers 303 298 1090 360ADV 360 Advocacy Inst 1103 Parkview Blvd Colo Spgs, CO 80905- K Osborn ( 71) 957-8535 4LEVE 4L Events Llc 2609 Production Road Virginia Beach, VA 23454- A Millard (800) 241-3333 AAA Amer Arbitration Assoc 13455 Noel Road #1750 Dallas, TX 75240- C Rumney (972) 774-6927 AAAA Amer Acad Of Adoption Attys 2930 E. 96Th Street Indianapolis, IN 46240- E Freeby (817) 338-4888 AAACPA Amer Assn Of Atty Cpas 8647 Richmond Hwy, #639 Alexandria, VA 22309- N Ratner (703) 352-8064 AAAEXE Amer Assn of Airport Executive , S Dickerson 703 824 0500 AAALS Assn of Amer Law Schools 1201 Connecticut Ave #800 Wash, DC 20036 J Bauman 202 269 8851 AAARTA Amer Acad Asst Repo Tech Attys Po Box 33053 Wash, DC 20033- D Crouse (618) 344-6300 AABA Asian Amer Bar Assn 10 Emerson St #501 Denver, CO 80218 c/o Ravi Kanwal 303 781 4855 AABAA Advocates Against Batt & Abuse PO Box 771424 Steamboat Spgs, , CO 80477- D Moore (970) 879-2034 AACLLC AA-Adv Appraisals Consulting 436 E Main St #C Montrose, CO 81401 M W Johnson 970 249 1420 AADC Arizona Assn of Defense Coun 3507 N Central Ave #202 Phoenix, AZ 85012 602 212 2505 AAEL Equipment Leasing Assn 1625 Eye Street Nw Washington, DC 20006-
    [Show full text]
  • The Multiple Sites of Conservative Legal Ideology
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-2002 Conservative cause advocacy : the multiple sites of conservative legal ideology. Laura J. Hatcher University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Hatcher, Laura J., "Conservative cause advocacy : the multiple sites of conservative legal ideology." (2002). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 1998. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/1998 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. mm UMASS/ AMHERST 3 1 2 ti b DEfifi 1224 1 CONSERVATIVE CAUSE ADVOCACY: THE MULTIPLE SITES OF CONSERVATIVE LEGAL IDEOLOGY A Dissertation Presented by LAURA J. HATCHER Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY September 2002 Department of Political Science © Copyright by Laura J. Hatcher 2002 All Rights Reserved CONSERVATIVE CAUSE ADVOCACY: THE MULTIPLE SITES OF CONSERVATIVE LEGAL IDEOLOGY A Dissertation Presented by LAURA J. HATCHER Approved as to style and content by: Jerome Mileur, Chair .Department of Political Science To the memory of my mother, Beverly Jean Hatcher ACKNOWLEDGMENTS If I were to list all the people who have been helpful while I worked away at this project, I would fill another dozen or so pages. I owe many thanks for support and critical commentary to many academics in the law and society community, public law.
    [Show full text]
  • Proquest Dissertations
    'RANDOM MURDER BY TECHNOLOGY': THE ROLE OF SCIENTIFIC AND BIOMEDICAL EXPERTS IN THE ANTI-NUCLEAR MOVEMENT, 1969 - 1992 LISA A. RUMIEL A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN HISTORY YORK UNIVERSITY, TORONTO, ONTARIO AUGUST 2009 Library and Archives Bibliotheque et 1*1 Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington OttawaONK1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-54104-3 Our file Notre r6f6rence ISBN: 978-0-494-54104-3 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation.
    [Show full text]
  • Departments Face Systems Review
    Vol. 60 No. 3 University of California, Santa Barbara Tuesday, July 3,1979 Departments Face Systems Review By MICHELLE TOGUT. would be lost and new jobs could The physical activities depart­ possibly be added though that was ment and the department of unlikely. However, he claimed athletics and leisure services will there were a couple of vacancies be undergoing an administrative within the P.A. department “we review Vice-Chancellor Edward are reluctant to fill if the needs Birch and Dean of the College of aren’t still the same. Letters and Science David Currently the P.A. department Sphrecher announced at a special and the department of Leisure staff meeting of the P.A. depart­ Services are separate. The P.A. ment Thursday. department handles physical Conducted by the campus In­ activities classes and is under the formations Systems under Prin­ jurisdiction of Dean Sprecher, cipal Systems Analyst Robert while Athletics and Leisure Ser­ Kuntz, the review was requested vices include intramurals, inter­ by Sprecher and Birch to examine collegiate athletics and recreation staffing within both departments and are overseen by Birch. as a combined unit. Sprecher, at the meeting com­ Birch told those who attended mented that he wanted to see “ how Diablo Rally Draws Crowd the staff meeting that because of the two departments meshed, to the “anxiety and problems within attempt to find out how the needs By CYNTHIA PUTNAM the Athletics Department within are being met.” An estimated 40,000 anti-nuke ralliers congregated the past year” the meetingwas Birch said that since Sprecher in San Luis Obispo Saturday to protest licensing of called to explain the situation.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Legal ~~ J Foundation
    PACIFIC LEGAL ~~ J FOUNDATION January 10, 2020 Administrator Andrew R. Wheeler VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Administration Mail Code 1101A 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20460 Re: Petition for Rule Making for Procedures to Govern Clean Water Act Compliance Orders Dear Administrator Wheeler: Section 309( a) of the Clean Water Act authorizes the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to issue compliance orders against landowners and other persons for a variety of alleged violations of the Act. Such orders can impose crushing liability, yet under EPA' s existing regulations, the orders' recipients are entitled to no notice of their impending issuance, nor any opportunity to contest the bases for such orders. The enclosed Petition for Rule Making to Establish Notice- and- Hearing Procedures for Compliance Orders Issued Under Section 309( a) of the Clean Water Act- submitted on behalf of Pacific Legal Foundation as well as Michael and Chantell Sackett, the successful petitioners in Sackettv. EPA, 566 U.S. 120 ( 2012)- would remedy this " due process deficit" in EPA's enforcement practice. The proposed rule would guarantee that persons potentially subject to a compliance order would have the opportunity to defend themselves before the unleashing of such immense coercive and penal power. In addition to honoring the due process rights of compliance order targets, the proposed rule would satisfy the President' s recent order that all such objects of agency enforcement be given an opportunity to be heard " regarding the agency' s proposed legal and factual determinations." Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication." Exec.
    [Show full text]