DOCSLIB.ORG

Mississippi Charter School

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE REGULAR SESSION 2013 By: Representatives Moore, Dixon To: Education HOUSE BILL NO. 369 (As Sent to Governor) 1 AN ACT TO BE KNOWN AS THE "MISSISSIPPI CHARTER SCHOOLS ACT OF 2 2013"; TO DECLARE THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSES OF CHARTER SCHOOLS; TO 3 DEFINE CERTAIN TERMS AND PHRASES USED IN THE ACT; TO CREATE THE 4 MISSISSIPPI CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZER BOARD AS A STATE AGENCY 5 HAVING EXCLUSIVE CHARTERING JURISDICTION; TO AUTHORIZE THE BOARD 6 TO APPROVE CHARTER SCHOOLS IN CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICTS; TO 7 PRESCRIBE THE BOARD'S MEMBERSHIP; TO PROVIDE FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF 8 AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE BOARD; TO 9 PRESCRIBE THE BOARD'S POWERS AND DUTIES; TO PROVIDE FOR FUNDING 10 FOR THE AUTHORIZER BOARD; TO REQUIRE THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF 11 EDUCATION TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE TO THE 12 AUTHORIZER; TO REQUIRE THE AUTHORIZER TO ANNUALLY PUBLISH A 13 PAMPHLET ON THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CHARTER 14 SCHOOLS; TO REQUIRE THE AUTHORIZER TO ANNUALLY DISSEMINATE A 15 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CHARTER SCHOOL APPLICATIONS AND TO 16 PRESCRIBE THE REQUIRED COMPONENTS OF CHARTER APPLICATIONS; TO 17 DECLARE THE PURPOSES OF A CHARTER APPLICATION AND TO PROHIBIT A 18 CHARTER APPLICATION FROM SERVING AS A CHARTER CONTRACT; TO 19 ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR AUTHORIZING CHARTER SCHOOLS WHICH MUST BE 20 EQUAL TO NATIONALLY ESTABLISHED BEST PRACTICES; TO PRESCRIBE THE 21 PROCESS BY WHICH THE AUTHORIZER MUST REVIEW AND MAKE DECISIONS ON 22 CHARTER SCHOOL APPLICATIONS; TO ESTABLISH AN INITIAL TERM OF FIVE 23 YEARS FOR CHARTER CONTRACTS AND TO PRESCRIBE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS 24 FOR EXECUTING CHARTER CONTRACTS; TO ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS 25 RELATING TO THE ENROLLMENT OF STUDENTS IN CHARTER SCHOOLS RESIDING 26 IN THE GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN WHICH THE 27 CHARTER SCHOOL IS LOCATED AND A LOTTERY PROCESS FOR SELECTING 28 STUDENTS WHEN CAPACITY IS INSUFFICIENT TO ENROLL ALL STUDENTS 29 DESIRING TO ATTEND A CHARTER SCHOOL; TO ESTABLISH CERTAIN 30 ENROLLMENT PREFERENCES; TO REQUIRE ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE STATE 31 TO ACCEPT TRANSFER CREDITS FROM CHARTER SCHOOLS; TO REQUIRE SCHOOL 32 DISTRICTS TO PUBLICIZE INFORMATION ABOUT CHARTER SCHOOLS TO THE 33 SAME EXTENT AS NONCHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOLS; TO REQUIRE EACH CHARTER 34 CONTRACT TO INCLUDE A PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK SETTING FORTH THE H. B. No. 369 *HR40/R594SG* ~ OFFICIAL ~ G1/2 13/HR40/R594SG PAGE 1 (RKM\BD) 35 ACADEMIC AND OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS THAT THE AUTHORIZER 36 WILL USE TO GUIDE ITS EVALUATIONS OF THE CHARTER SCHOOL; TO 37 REQUIRE THE AUTHORIZER TO ANNUALLY MONITOR THE PERFORMANCE OF 38 CHARTER SCHOOLS AND TO ASSIST THE CHARTER SCHOOL IN TAKING 39 CORRECTIVE ACTION WHEN NECESSARY; TO ESTABLISH PROCESSES FOR 40 RENEWING AND REVOKING CHARTER SCHOOL CONTRACTS; TO REQUIRE THE 41 AUTHORIZER TO DEVELOP A CHARTER SCHOOL CLOSURE PROTOCAL FOR A 42 CHARTER SCHOOL THAT IS TO BE CLOSED AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE 43 DISBURSEMENT OF UNSPENT FUNDS AND ASSETS; TO REQUIRE THE 44 AUTHORIZER BOARD TO ANNUALLY REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR AND 45 LEGISLATURE ON THE STATUS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS OPERATING IN THE 46 STATE; TO REQUIRE A CHARTER SCHOOL AND ANY EDUCATION SERVICE 47 PROVIDER WHICH PROVIDES COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT FOR A CHARTER 48 SCHOOL TO BE A NONPROFIT EDUCATION ORGANIZATION THAT FUNCTIONS AS 49 A LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY; TO PRESCRIBE CERTAIN POWERS RELATING 50 TO THE FISCAL AND OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT OF A CHARTER SCHOOL WHICH 51 MAY BE EXERCISED BY THE SCHOOL; TO PROHIBIT CHARTER SCHOOLS FROM 52 ENGAGING IN DISCRIMINATION AND FROM CHARGING TUITION; TO PROVIDE 53 THAT CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO RULES AND REGULATIONS 54 ADOPTED BY THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OR THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE 55 SCHOOL DISTRICT IN WHICH THE CHARTER SCHOOL IS LOCATED; TO 56 ENUMERATE CERTAIN STATUTES FROM WHICH CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE NOT 57 EXEMPT; TO PRESCRIBE CERTAIN QUALIFICATIONS OF EMPLOYEES OF 58 CHARTER SCHOOLS; TO REQUIRE AT LEAST SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF 59 TEACHERS IN A CHARTER SCHOOL TO BE LICENSED BY THE STATE WHEN THE 60 INITIAL CHARTER APPLICATION IS APPROVED; TO EXEMPT ADMINISTRATORS 61 FROM STATE LICENSURE REQUIREMENTS; TO PROHIBIT CHARTER SCHOOL 62 EMPLOYEES FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT 63 SYSTEM; TO REQUIRE CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR CHARTER SCHOOL 64 EMPLOYEES; TO AUTHORIZE CHARTER SCHOOLS TO PARTICIPATE IN STATE 65 AND DISTRICT SPONSORED ATHLETIC AND ACADEMIC INTERSCHOLASTIC 66 LEAGUES AND COMPETITIONS; TO REQUIRE CHARTER SCHOOLS TO CERTIFY 67 AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE AND QUALIFY FOR STATE ADEQUATE EDUCATION 68 PROGRAM ALLOCATIONS ON A PER-PUPIL BASIS; TO AUTHORIZE LOCAL 69 FUNDING FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS; TO REQUIRE THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF 70 EDUCATION TO MAKE ADEQUATE EDUCATION PROGRAM PAYMENTS TO CHARTER 71 SCHOOLS BASED ON THE SCHOOL'S AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE; TO 72 AUTHORIZE EQUAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING UNDER THE ADEQUATE 73 EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS; TO REQUIRE CHARTER SCHOOLS 74 TO UNDERGO AN ANNUAL FINANCIAL AUDIT; TO PROVIDE THAT FUNDS 75 REMAINING IN A CHARTER SCHOOL'S ACCOUNTS AT THE END OF A YEAR MUST 76 REMAIN IN THE SCHOOL'S ACCOUNTS FOR USE IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS; TO 77 AUTHORIZE CHARTER SCHOOLS TO ACCEPT GIFTS, DONATIONS AND GRANTS; 78 TO GRANT CHARTER SCHOOLS THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL TO VACANT 79 SCHOOL FACILITIES AND PROPERTY AND TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF PUBLIC 80 SPACE FOR CHARTER SCHOOL OPERATIONS UNDER PREEXISTING ZONING 81 REGULATIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 11-46-1, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, 82 TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF THE TERMS "EMPLOYEE" AND "POLITICAL 83 SUBDIVISION," AS THOSE TERMS ARE USED UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT, 84 TO EXTEND COVERAGE FOR TORTS TO CHARTER SCHOOLS; TO AMEND SECTION 85 25-41-3, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO INCLUDE THE GOVERNING BOARD H. B. No. 369 *HR40/R594SG* ~ OFFICIAL ~ 13/HR40/R594SG PAGE 2 (RKM\BD) 86 OF A CHARTER SCHOOL IN THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM "PUBLIC BODY" AS 87 USED UNDER THE OPEN MEETINGS LAWS; TO AMEND SECTION 25-61-3, 88 MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO INCLUDE THE GOVERNING BOARD OF A 89 CHARTER SCHOOL IN THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM "PUBLIC BODY" AS USED 90 UNDER THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT; TO AMEND SECTION 31-7-1, MISSISSIPPI 91 CODE OF 1972, TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF THE TERMS "AGENCY" AND 92 "GOVERNING AUTHORITY," AS THOSE TERMS ARE USED IN THE PUBLIC 93 PURCHASING LAWS, TO EXEMPT CHARTER SCHOOLS FROM REQUIREMENTS 94 RELATING TO PUBLIC PURCHASES; TO AMEND SECTION 37-1-3, MISSISSIPPI 95 CODE OF 1972, TO CLARIFY THAT CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE NOT BOUND TO THE 96 CURRICULUM ADOPTED BY THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR SCHOOL 97 DISTRICTS; TO AMEND SECTION 37-1-12, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO 98 EXEMPT CHARTER SCHOOLS FROM CERTAIN ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 99 ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; TO AMEND SECTION 100 37-1-13, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO CLARIFY THAT REGULATIONS 101 REGARDING RELOCATABLE CLASSROOMS ISSUED BY THE STATE BOARD OF 102 EDUCATION ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO CHARTER SCHOOLS; TO AMEND SECTION 103 37-3-2, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO CLARIFY THAT THE LIMITATIONS 104 ON THE EMPLOYMENT OF NONLICENSED TEACHERS WHICH ARE APPLICABLE TO 105 SCHOOL DISTRICTS DO NOT APPLY TO CHARTER SCHOOLS; TO AMEND SECTION 106 37-3-4, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO EXEMPT CHARTER SCHOOLS FROM 107 CONTINUING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT 108 ADMINISTRATORS AND PRINCIPALS; TO AMEND SECTION 37-3-5, 109 MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO CLARIFY THAT THE GENERAL DUTIES OF 110 THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RELATE TO PUBLIC SCHOOL 111 DISTRICTS; TO AMEND SECTION 37-3-11, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO 112 CLARIFY THAT THE DUTY OF THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC 113 EDUCATION TO RECOMMEND RULES GOVERNING PUBLIC EDUCATION RELATES TO 114 THE SUPERVISION OF PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS; TO AMEND SECTION 115 37-3-46, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO CLARIFY THAT THE DUTY OF THE 116 STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO ASSIST CERTAIN SCHOOLS IN 117 ESTABLISHING A PROGRAM OF EDUCATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY DOES NOT 118 APPLY TO CHARTER SCHOOLS; TO AMEND SECTION 37-3-49, MISSISSIPPI 119 CODE OF 1972, TO CLARIFY THAT REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE 120 ADOPTION OF INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS DO NOT 121 APPLY TO CHARTER SCHOOLS; TO AMEND SECTION 37-3-51, MISSISSIPPI 122 CODE OF 1972, TO REQUIRE NOTICE TO BE GIVEN TO THE MISSISSIPPI 123 CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZER BOARD OF THE CONVICTION OF CHARTER 124 SCHOOL EMPLOYEES OF CERTAIN FELONIES AND SEX OFFENSES; TO AMEND 125 SECTION 37-3-53, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO REQUIRE THE 126 MISSISSIPPI REPORT CARD TO INCLUDE DATA ON CHARTER SCHOOLS; TO 127 AMEND SECTION 37-3-61, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO CLARIFY THAT 128 CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ALLIANCE 129 FOR FAMILIES PROGRAM; TO AMEND SECTION 37-3-105, MISSISSIPPI CODE 130 OF 1972, TO CLARIFY THAT CHARTER SCHOOL TEACHERS ARE EXEMPT FROM 131 IN-SERVICE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS IN RESEARCH-BASED READING 132 METHODS; TO AMEND SECTION 37-5-61, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO 133 CLARIFY THAT COUNTY SUPERINTENDENTS OF EDUCATION HAVE NO AUTHORITY 134 OVER CHARTER SCHOOLS; TO AMEND SECTION 37-7-455, MISSISSIPPI CODE 135 OF 1972, TO PROVIDE THAT SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY NO LONGER NEEDED 136 FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES MAY BE DISPOSED OF AFTER THE CHARTER SCHOOLS H. B. No. 369 *HR40/R594SG* ~ OFFICIAL ~ 13/HR40/R594SG PAGE 3 (RKM\BD) 137 LOCATED IN THE DISTRICT HAVE ELECTED NOT TO USE THEIR RIGHT OF 138 FIRST REFUSAL; TO AMEND SECTION 37-7-473, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 139 1972, TO CLARIFY THAT SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY MAY BE SOLD OR 140 LEASED
Recommended publications
  • Basic Adjudication Guidelines

    Basic Adjudication Guidelines

    Basic Adjudication Guidelines These materials are provided for general informational purposes only and do not, and are not intended to, constitute legal advice. You should consult your own legal counsel concerning your particular facts and circumstances and any specific legal questions you may have regarding the issues addressed in these materials. As an independent business owner, you remain solely responsible for recruiting, hiring, training, scheduling, supervising and paying the persons who work in your store and those persons are your employees, and not employees of Domino’s Pizza LLC. By providing these materials, we do not assume any of your responsibilities or duties. You may use these materials, or not, at your discretion. Adjudication Results Client must set results to Does Not Meet after HireRight review Adjudication Results Explanation MEETS COMPANY The applicant’s background check results do not trigger any of the defined STANDARDS (MEETS adjudication criteria, allowing the hiring process to continue for the candidate. COMPANY STANDARDS) The applicant’s background check results have triggered some questions. Please PENDING/ Pending Potential review the report details and make the appropriate employment decision. Conflict Does Not Meet Company Once the client sets a report to “Does Not Meet Company Standards”, The FCRA Standards pre-adverse/adverse letter process should start. Social Security Trace (SSN) Item # Description Recommended Adjudication Status 1 Valid SSN Trace Meets Company standards 2 No data or invalid trace Pending 3 No data age 21 and older Pending 4 No DOB available and No data Pending 5 No data under 21 Meets Company Standards SSN Validation Item # Description Recommended Adjudication Status 1 SSN has not been issued Pending 2 SSN belongs to deceased individual.
  • Delta Health Alliance, Inc. Narrative

    Delta Health Alliance, Inc. Narrative

    Delta Promise Neighborhood Project Delta Promise Neighborhood (DNP) Project Lead Applicant: Delta Health Alliance 501c3 Table of Contents Page Number Abstract i Table of Contents 1 Section 1. Need for Project 2 Section 2. Quality of Project Design 10 Section 3. Quality of Project Services 28 Section 4. Quality of Project Personnel 30 Section 5. Quality of Management Plan 34 Section 6. Significance 38 Budget Narrative attachment Appendix A. Applicant Eligibility Checklist Appendix B. Resumes of Key Personnel Appendix C. MOU Appendix D. Documentation of Match (Letters) Appendix E. Nonprofit Status Verification Standard Forms Assurances and Certifications GEPA Statement 1 Delta Promise Neighborhood Project NEED FOR PROJECT The Mississippi Delta is among the poorest and most disadvantaged areas in the U.S. with a long history of lack of access to appropriate services, poor health outcomes, and intergenerational poverty. The Delta Health Alliance (DHA) - a 501(c)3 organization - was founded in 2001 to support community-based healthcare initiatives that would target critical health and wellness issues in the Mississippi counties of Desoto, Tunica, Tate, Panola, Quitman, Coahoma, Tallahatchie, Bolivar, Sunflower, Carroll, Leflore, Washington, Humphreys, Holmes, Yazoo, Sharkey, Issaquena, and Warren. These counties share similar characteristics that impact the health of their residents: they are located in rural areas, have high levels of poverty, and their populations have relatively high percentages of African Americans, making them particularly vulnerable to the disproportionate economic and health burdens that accompany our nation’s existing racial and ethnic health disparities. The MS Delta includes only 20% of Mississippi’s population but is responsible for reducing state averages in economic and health measures to the point where MS is at the bottom of many nationwide rankings.
  • How to Prepare for an Adjudication - Tactics, Strategies, Planning and Panic

    How to Prepare for an Adjudication - Tactics, Strategies, Planning and Panic

    HOW TO PREPARE FOR AN ADJUDICATION - TACTICS, STRATEGIES, PLANNING AND PANIC Karen Groulx, Partner Dentons Canada LLP 77 King Street West, Suite 400 Toronto-Dominion Centre Toronto, ON M5K 0A1 42165803_2|NATDOCS How to Prepare for an Adjudication – Tactics, Strategies, Planning and Panic Construction dispute interim adjudication has been introduced in the new Construction Act1 and will apply as of October 1, 2019 to all public and private sector construction contracts entered into on or after October 1, 2019, except with respect to those contracts or subcontracts that were the subject of a procurement process relating to the improvement at issue prior to October 1, 2019. (A procurement process is commenced at the earliest of the making of a request for qualifications, request for quotation, request for proposals, or a call for tenders.2 )The Act provides for adjudication as a cost effective, flexible, and swift means of enforcing the prompt payment regime set out in the Act, which will take effect as of the same date as interim adjudication. Parties to a construction contact or subcontract will not be able to contract out of the prompt payment or adjudication provisions set out in the Act. The UK Experience As noted in the report entitled Striking the Balance: An Expert Review of Ontario’s Construction Lien Act3 which led to the introduction of prompt payment and adjudication through amendments made to the Act, the phrase “pay now, argue later” has been used to describe adjudication under the Construction Act (UK).4 This description is equally applicable to adjudication under the new Act.
  • Equity in the American Courts and in the World Court: Does the End Justify the Means?

    Equity in the American Courts and in the World Court: Does the End Justify the Means?

    EQUITY IN THE AMERICAN COURTS AND IN THE WORLD COURT: DOES THE END JUSTIFY THE MEANS? I. INTRODUCTION Equity, as a legal concept, has enjoyed sustained acceptance by lawyers throughout history. It has been present in the law of ancient civilizations' and continues to exist in modem legal systems.2 But equity is no longer a concept confined exclusively to local or national adjudication. Today, equity shows itself to be a vital part of international law.' The International Court of Justice--"the most visible, and perhaps hegemonic, tribunal in the sphere of public international law" 4-has made a significant contribution to the delimitation,5 development of equity. Particularly in cases involving maritime 6 equity has frequently been applied by the Court to adjudicate disputes. Equity is prominent in national legal systems and has become increas- ingly important in international law. It is useful, perhaps essential, for the international lawyer to have a proper understanding of it. Yet the meaning of equity remains elusive. "A lawyer asked to define 'equity' will not have an easy time of it; the defimition of equity, let alone the term's application in the field of international law, is notoriously uncertain, though its use is rife."7 Through a comparative analysis, this note seeks to provide a more precise understanding of the legal concept of equity as it relates to two distinct systems oflaw: the American and the international. To compare the equity administered by the American courts with that administered by the World Court, this note 1. See sources cited infra notes 10, 22.
  • How to Prepare for an Adjudication Tactics, Strategies, Planning and Panic

    How to Prepare for an Adjudication Tactics, Strategies, Planning and Panic

    How to prepare for an adjudication Tactics, strategies, planning and panic By: Karen Groulx, Partner Introduction On October 1, 2019, the construction dispute adjudication provisions of the new Construction Act1 took effect. Adjudication applies to all public and private sector construction contracts entered into on or after October 1, 2019.2 On the same date, the prompt payment regime come into force, with adjudication being used as a cost effective, flexible, and swift means of enforcing the prompt payment regime. (For more on the prompt payment regime, see my previous article on the amendments to the Construction Act.) These new regimes are mandatory, as parties may not contract out of either procedure. A predominant feature of the new adjudication Despite the challenges that will come with these new procedure is the pace at which both payment for practices, there are steps that parties may take to services and work and the settlement of certain prepare for adjudication, either as the party initiating disputes will happen. The phrase “pay now, argue later” the adjudication process (the “Requesting Party”) or will be applicable to adjudication under the new Act, as as the party responding to the dispute (the the emphasis shifts to ensuring parties are paid within “Responding Party”). strict deadlines. 1 RSO 1990, c C.30, PART II.1, ss 13.1-13.23 [Act]. See also Adjudications Under Part II.1 of the Act, O Reg 306/18, O Reg 109/19 [Adjudications Reg]. 2 This excludes contracts or subcontracts that result from procurement processes initiated before October 1, 2019.
  • Common Law Rules and Constitutional Double Standards: Some Notes on Adjudication*

    Common Law Rules and Constitutional Double Standards: Some Notes on Adjudication*

    The Yale Law Journal Volume 83, Number 2, December 1973 Common Law Rules and Constitutional Double Standards: Some Notes on Adjudication* Harry H. Wellingtont TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Common Law Rules page A. An Introduction to Principles and Policies 222 B. Strong Duties, Weak Duties, and their Remedial Conseq uences 229 C. Policies and Principles as Sources of Law in a Democracy 235 D. The Retroactive and Prospective Application of Decisional Law 254 E. Principles and Policies in Statutory Interpretation 262 II. Constitutional Double Standards F, Common Law Perspectives on Judicial Review 265 G. Substantive Due Process: Background 272 H. Substantive Due Process: Economic Regulation 280 I. Substantive Due Process: Contraception 285 J. Substantive Due Process: Abortion 297 * These notes arc dedicated to the memory of Henry M. Hart, Jr. Readers who know his and Albert M. Sacks's unpublished coursebook, Tie LECAL PROCELs: BASIC PROBLEMS IN TlE MAKING AND APPLICATION OF LAW (tent. cd. 1958), will recognize that many of the cases I use as examples in Part I figure prominently in that work. And while my point of view is indeed different from what I take to be the perspectives presented in The Legal Process, it is a point of view that has evolved trom my having taught from their book. f Edward J. Phelps Professor of Law, Yale University. HeinOnline -- 83 Yale L.J. 221 1973-1974 The Yale Law Journal Vol. 83: 221, 1973 I. Common Law Rules A. An Introduction to Principles and Policies Lawyers are not especially concerned, in the arguments they make or the explanations they give, to distinguish principles from poli- cies.
  • Online Dispute Resolution Pilot Program Report

    Online Dispute Resolution Pilot Program Report

    Online Dispute Resolution Pilot Program Report Recommendations from the Online Dispute Resolution Workgroup of the Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability and the Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy January 2021 Online Dispute Resolution Workgroup Members The Honorable William F. Stone, Circuit Judge, First Judicial Circuit, Chair Mr. Matthew Benefiel, Trial Court Administrator, Ninth Judicial Circuit The Honorable Gina Beovides, Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit Ms. Heather Blanton, Human Resources Manager, Twelfth Judicial Circuit Mr. Eric Dunlap, Florida Supreme Court Certified Mediator The Honorable Stephen Everett, Circuit Judge, Second Judicial Circuit Dr. Oscar Franco, Florida Supreme Court Certified Mediator Mr. W. Jay Hunston, Florida Supreme Court Certified Mediator Ms. Jeanne Potthoff, ADR Director, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit The Honorable William Roby, Circuit Judge, Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Mr. Christopher Shulman, Florida Supreme Court Certified Mediator Staff Support Provided by the Office of the State Courts Administrator Lindsay Hafford, Senior Court Operations Consultant Judith Ivester, Court Operations Consultant Kimberly Kosch, Senior Court Operations Consultant Victor McKay, Court Operations Consultant Susan Marvin, Chief of Alternative Dispute Resolution Hengel Reina, Senior Court Analyst II Page 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 4 Introduction
  • Spring/Summer 2016 No

    Spring/Summer 2016 No

    The Journal of Mississippi History Volume LXXVIII Spring/Summer 2016 No. 1 and No. 2 CONTENTS Introduction to Vintage Issue 1 By Dennis J. Mitchell Mississippi 1817: A Sociological and Economic 5 Analysis (1967) By W. B. Hamilton Protestantism in the Mississippi Territory (1967) 31 By Margaret DesChamps Moore The Narrative of John Hutchins (1958) 43 By John Q. Anderson Tockshish (1951) 69 By Dawson A. Phelps COVER IMAGE - Francis Shallus Map, “The State Of Mississippi and Alabama Territory,” courtesy of the Alabama Department of Archives and History. The original source is the Birmingham Public Library Cartography Collection. Recent Manuscript Accessions at Mississippi Colleges 79 University Libraries, 2014-15 Compiled by Jennifer Ford The Journal of Mississippi History (ISSN 0022-2771) is published quarterly by the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, 200 North St., Jackson, MS 39201, in cooperation with the Mississippi Historical Society as a benefit of Mississippi Historical Society membership. Annual memberships begin at $25. Back issues of the Journal sell for $7.50 and up through the Mississippi Museum Store; call 601-576-6921 to check availability. The Journal of Mississippi History is a juried journal. Each article is reviewed by a specialist scholar before publication. Periodicals paid at Jackson, Mississippi. Postmaster: Send address changes to the Mississippi Historical Society, P.O. Box 571, Jackson, MS 39205-0571. Email [email protected]. © 2018 Mississippi Historical Society, Jackson, Miss. The Department of Archives and History and the Mississippi Historical Society disclaim any responsibility for statements made by contributors. INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction By Dennis J. Mitchell Nearing my completion of A New History of Mississippi, I was asked to serve as editor of The Journal of Mississippi History (JMH).
  • Mississippi School Districts: Factors in the Disestablishment of Dual Systems

    Mississippi School Districts: Factors in the Disestablishment of Dual Systems

    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 054 248 24 UD 011 724 AUTHOR Palmer, James M. TITLE Mississippi School Districts: Factors in the Disestablishment of Dual Systems. Final Report. INSTITUTION Mississippi State Univ., State College. Social Science Research Center. SPONS AGENCY National Center for Educational Research and Development (DHEW/CE), Washington, D.C. BUREAU NO BR-0-1)-056 PUB DATE Jun 71 GRANT OEG-4-7-0017 NOTE 139p. EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF-$0.65 HC-$6.58 DESCRIPTORS County School Systems, Dejure Segregation, *Integration Effects, *Integration Methods, Integration Plans, Measurement Techniques, *Models, Racial Integration, Research Methodology, School Community Relationship, School Districts, *School Integration, Southern Schools, Statistical Analysis IDENTIFIERS *Mississippi ABSTRACT This research is basically a search for a model to explain why some districts achieved a higher degree of desegregation than others in their efforts to disestablish the dual system. The population studied consists of all of the school districts in Mississippi, and the unit of analysis was the local school district. Three types of variables were conceptualized and measures developed: school, community, and desegregation. Desegregation was the focus of the study and therefore the dependent variable. However, no effort was made to determine cause and effect. The measures of the variables were drawn from both primary and secondary sources and were gathered on the 147 districts. Primary data were obtained fromdistrict superintendents by use of a questionnaire which contained 47 items. There was a 95 percent response rate. Secondary data were gathered mainly from publications by the State Department of Education, records of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and Publications of the U.S.
  • Answers to Interrogatories of State of Mississippi; Comparison Of

    Answers to Interrogatories of State of Mississippi; Comparison Of

    ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF STATE OF MISS]' SIPPI; MRS. PAULINE EASLEY, CIRCUIT CLERK AND RFL ISTRAR OF CLAIBORNE COUNTY; J. W. SMITH, CIRCUIT CLE,EK AND REGISTRAR OF COAHOMA COUNTY; T. E. WICGINS, CIRCUIT CLERK AND REGISTRAR OF LOWNDES COUNTY. COMPARISON OF EDUCATION FOR NEGROES AND WHITE PERSONS 1890 - 1963 ANSWER TO INTBRROGA± R1 NUMBEk:11(a) AS TO THE ENTIRE FACTUAL BASf g bN WHiCH THE UNITED STATES MAKES THE ASSERTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 31 OF THE COMPLAINT THAT PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES PROVIDED FOR NEGROES WERE AND ARE INFERIOR TO THOSE PROVIDED FOR WHITE PERSONS The factual basis of the allegation that public education facilities provided for Negroes in Mississippi were and are inferior to those provided for white persons is as follows: A. SINCE AT LEAST 1890 ALL PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN MISSISSIPPI HAVE BEEN SBGRBGA TBD BY RACE AND UNTIL OCTOBER 1. 1962. ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS B 11 Mississippi Constitution, Article 4, section 207. On October 1, 1962, James Meredith, a Negro student, was admitted to the University of Mississippi Undergraduate School by Court order. He graduated on August 18, 1963. On June 6, 1963, Cleve McDowell, a Negro student, was admitted to the Law School of the University of Mississippi. All other public educational institutions in Mississippi 41 are segregated at the present time, B. SINCE AT LEAST 1890 THERE HAVE BEEN MORE NEGRO CHILDREN THAN WHITS CHILDREN OF SCHOOL AGE IN MISSISSIPPI. State of Mississippi School Census Year yWh ite Negro 1890 1/ 207,652 292,581 1910 2/ 301,548 410,089 1929 •/ 379,678 493,987 1949 4/ 393,804 492,349 1960 T/ 329,215 337,871 1/ B-O-3 Biennial Report of the State Superintendent of Public Education to the Le islature of Mississippi for the Scholastic Years 1891-92 and 1892-93, p.III.
  • Volume I 2017

    Volume I 2017

    VOLUME I 2017 THE MISSISSIPPI ECONOMIC REVIEW EDITOR SONDRA COLLINS, PHD EDITORIAL BOARD ERCILLA DOMETZ J. COREY MILLER BOB NEAL, PHD JANNA TAYLOR DARRIN WEBB, PHD PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTER MISSISSIPPI INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING THE MISSISSIPPI ECONOMIC REVIEW VOLUME I 2017 PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES Who Chooses to Adopt Mississippi’s Early Learning Standards and Guidelines? A Demographic Analysis of Use Kristin Javorsky and Candice Pittman ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Evacuating the Mississippi Gulf Coast from Hurricane Katrina: The Role of Risk and Socioeconomic Factors Edward Sayre, Candace Forbes Bright, David Butler, and Michael Webb ............................................................................ 13 Understanding the Nature of the Teacher Shortage in Mississippi Kenneth V. Anthony, Dana Franz, and Devon Brenner ....................................................................................................... 24 Is Hinds County Mississippi Really Less Desirable than Madison or Rankin County; What do Implicit Amenity Estimates Tell Us? Maury Granger and Gregory N. Price ................................................................................................................................... 32 STUDENT PAPERS Improving Developmental Mathematics Courses: A Study of Various Methods for Replacing Developmental Mathematics Courses in Higher Education Lyle Wallace, Selah Weems, Marti Pulido,
  • Adjudication: a Quick Guide

    Adjudication: a Quick Guide

    Adjudication: a quick guide What is adjudication? Adjudication is a statutory dispute resolution procedure introduced by the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended) (Act), to provide a quicker and cheaper method by which certain construction disputes could be resolved. A party to a construction contract (as defined in the Act) has a statutory right to refer a crystallised dispute to adjudication at any time. Parties are free to agree their own adjudication procedure within their contract (contractual adjudication). If they have not, or their procedure does not satisfy the statutory requirements, the whole of The Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (as amended) (Scheme) will apply. The below provides a very brief overview of adjudication. Do I have the right to adjudicate? Does my contract include an express right If the contract does not include an express right to adjudicate to adjudicate? NO (whether or not the contract concerns construction • The contractual procedure must satisfy the statutory operations): there is no right to contractual adjudication. requirements. If not, the whole of the Scheme will However, a party might be able to use the statutory procedure be implied. YES (the Scheme), if they have a construction contract under the Act. • The contractual procedure must be followed. ASK Has my dispute crystallised? • Has a claim been made regarding this dispute? • Was it in writing? Do I have a construction contract under the Act? • Did it set out what is being sought and the basis YES for the claim? • Is a party carrying out construction operations with a non-residential party? • Has the claim been rejected by the other party (either expressly or by implication)? • Contract can be oral or in writing if entered into after NO 1 October 2011 (England/Wales).