The letter highlighted that the board had failed to heed concerns pertaining to the institute’s governance and reminded its members of the Civil Service and the Ministry of Finance’s concerns that the agency is regulated by rules governing public-sector bodies, that the board is not an executive board and has no authority to revoke or appoint signing powers, cannot authorise who signs or who does not, or has any authority or privilege to sign cheques. It also objected to the board’s interference in deciding staff retirement and reassignment. “The board is acting beyond its scope and authority in removing senior staff from signing on behalf of the institute without cause,” said Grant. “Furthermore, your letter (April 14) indicates you (board) have informed the banks that staff are not to sign cheques. This is an absurd request, they (bank) cannot ignore the legitimate signatures approved by the Ministry of Finance how signatories must be assigned or removed from government accounts.” He continued: “Any decision by the administrative director is legal and binding. You have indicated that you will decide as a board who should retire or have employment extended. “To be so involved in the day to day issues of staff retirement and reassignment is another ridiculous stance as these persons are treated under the Civil Service Pensions Act,” Grant stated in his letter. Although citing the board’s instructions as “untenable”, the JCSA head advised Andrews to comply with the directives until, but specified that the administrative director cannot be held liable or responsible for any decision taken by the board. UNHEEDED CONCERNS LEADERSHIP BREACH The Jamaica Civil Service Association (JCSA) has again called for the resignation of the entire board of directors of the Institute of Sports (INSPORTS). This position, it said, was made on the grounds of a second round of attacks on the agency’s administrative director, Ian Andrews, with regard to having his signing authority removed, as well as its proposed action regarding retirement and contract extension of staff. Last year, the Don Anderson-led board rid Andrews of his signing authority – which is part of the administrative director’s job description – a decision that was overturned after a directive by the Ministry of Finance. Now, the INSPORTS board is headed in the same direction. However, the JCSA, which represents government workers, has filed a strong response. In a letter dated April 27 to board Chairman Don Anderson, President of the JCSA, O’Neil Grant, revealed that they were in receipt of two correspondents sent to Andrews (April 8th and 14th) by Anderson on behalf of the INSPORTS board. Grant raised a number of concerns and insists that the action proposed by the board is “ridiculous” and “untenable” and clearly violates the statutes and regulations applicable to government entities. “I must alert you (board) that the JSCA will be calling for the replacement of the board and particularly you (Anderson) as chairman, as we have seen where your leadership of the organisation has breached all public bodies’ guidelines, acts and regulations. Mr Andrews cannot be held liable for any decision taken by the board that he is forced to comply with, despite his declared concerns,” highlighted Grant. Efforts to reach chairman of the INSPORTS board, Anderson, for comments via telephone proved unsuccessful, as all calls went unanswered. The JCSA letter was copied to Minister of Culture, Gender Affairs, Entertainment and Sport, Olivia ‘Babsy’ Grange, Alison McLean, the ministry’s permanent secretary, Mrs. Loris Jarrett, deputy financial secretary, Ministry of Finance and Public Service, the ministry’s financial secretary, Devon Rowe, Mrs. Pamela Monroe-Ellis, auditor general, auditor general’s department, all members of the INSPORTS board and Andrews.
Facebook is Becoming Less Personal and More Pro… Tags:#Analysis#Facebook#NYT#web Related Posts A Comprehensive Guide to a Content Audit Hundreds of millions of people signed up to use Facebook when the default setting was that things you published there were kept private among approved friends. That changed dramatically last December and the company has taken a pounding from critics all around the world, not the least of which has been us.We’ve argued that Facebook is fundamentally wrong about privacy, but the truth of the matter is that there remain some very helpful privacy settings on the site. I thought I’d take a few moments to point out my favorites, in part to tell the other side of the story and in part to celebrate what we’ve still got, in case any more of it flies out the window in the future. Truth be told, these are features that are likely here to stay. Let’s just take stock of them.Facebook used to argue (back in the old days) that privacy was important because when people trust that the things they share will only be visible to trusted friends, then they will feel comfortable sharing all the more. I still think that’s a valid argument. Why did Facebook change its strategy? See this post for an in-depth examination of the company’s stated rational.As a technologist, I wish that trust had remained so that more content would be shared and thus could be built on top of as a platform for features and analysis. I think Facebook’s privacy violations will hurt the future of the internet. As an empathetic person, I wish Facebook hadn’t made the privacy changes it has because I think it’s important for everyday people to have a secure way to communicate online with trusted contacts. It’s been a revolutionary service and I think it’s tragic that so much trust has been lost.None the less, here are my three favorite remaining privacy features on Facebook. What are yours?Block Access By Particular PeopleMany people’s privacy concerns come down to wanting to communicate with friends without risking exposure to very particular people in their lives. Fortunately Facebook facilitates this by allowing users to block access by other individual users by name. You can visit this link to add Facebook users you want to be invisible to.This feature is limited in its usefulness in as much as it only blocks people when they are logged in, so content of yours that is now irretreivably public (like your interest pages) are still discoverable by anyone logged out. Casual discovery by particular undesirables is effectively stopped though, and that’s good. You may also want to block access by say, a person’s entire family. In that case, you’re out of luck. “Block also friends of this person except for mutual friends,” would be nice for example. None the less: this is a good and helpful little feature.Publishing Only to Particular ListsLast Summer Facebook enabled users to publish updates that are visible only to particular lists of contacts, groups you have created. This is very smart. There are some things that are only appropriate for some people that you know.We have argued that privacy today is more about respecting the contextual integrity of communication than it is about absolute secrecy. Photos from the bar shouldn’t be shown at Church and spiritual ruminations may be intended for family not for drinking buddies, for example.It’s great that Facebook enables this limiting of content exposure. You can even make publishing to groups your default publishing path. Unfortunately, this is hardly easy to do. It takes something like 5 clicks and some typing to select a particular group to publish to. Software users use default settings and group publishing is burried too deep in settings. It’s nice that the option is there, though, and we know some people use it regularly.Limited Access to Data By ApplicationsEarlier this year, Facebook enabled 3rd party applications to request access to just some and not all parts of a user’s data. It also required that these applications clearly identify what data is being requested.This is unconditionally good.These are my favorite remaining features on Facebook and I’m glad they are there. The fact that the pages you “Like” (formerly “Fan”) cannot be made private since December is what drives me nuts more than anything else. That’s how mainstream users subscribe to syndicated updates from organizations of interest to them. That this hugely powerful publishing and subscription platform doesn’t allow private subscriptions is an absolute tragedy.What about you? What are your favorite privacy settings on Facebook? Speak up now, lest they be dissapeared later. Guide to Performing Bulk Email Verification The Dos and Don’ts of Brand Awareness Videos marshall kirkpatrick