Software firm gives Hillier Parker UK role

first_imgTo access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week. Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletterslast_img

FIFA extends match-fixing sanctions to 74 individuals

first_imgThe FIFA Disciplinary Committee has confirmed the worldwide extension of sanctions imposed on 74 players and officials; 70 by the Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC) and four the Korean Football Association (KFA).The FIGC informed FIFA that in the course of three different proceedings during 2012, a number of 106 players and officials had been charged with match fixing (direct involvement or omission to report match fixing), illegal betting or corrupt organisation (association to commit illicit acts). Some of the players and officials were sanctioned in several different proceedings and received several different sanctions. In total, a number of 123 sanctions, ranging from one-month suspensions to life bans, were pronounced.Once all domestic processes were complete, the Chairman of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, swiftly decided to extend those domestic suspensions and bans that have not yet expired and/or have not been annulled on appeal. This has resulted in the extension worldwide of 76 sanctions, of which 11 are life bans.In the case of two players of foreign nationality (from Sierra Leone and Cameroon), the two respective national associations are also in the process of being notified of FIFA’s decisions.On 15 January 2013, the FIGC informed FIFA that a fourth proceeding had been concluded, this time initially regarding 11 players and officials. The relevant decisions were then submitted on 20 February 2013 to the Chairman of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, which subsequently resulted in the extension of 6 sanctions imposed on further players and officials. The other five sanctions have already elapsed or have been annulled on appeal. Meanwhile, on 27 December 2012, the KFA informed FIFA that four players had been sanctioned with life bans on any football related activity by the K-League Disciplinary Committee on 15 December 2011 and 16 August 2012. In one of the cases, the player had the possibility of having the ban lifted after a probation period of 2 years and community service of 200 hours. These decisions were extended by the KFA Disciplinary Committee to have nationwide effect on 27 April 2012 and 6 September 2012.The relevant decisions were submitted on 20 February 2013 to the Chairman of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, which resulted in the extension of the sanctions imposed on the four players.The sanctions imposed on the players in the Korea Republic follow on from 10 football participants whose sanctions were extended in June 2012, and 41 players whose sanctions were extended in January 2013.last_img read more

What channel is Chargers vs. Cardinals on today? Time, TV schedule for Kyler Murray’s preseason debut

first_imgMORE: Watch the Chargers vs. Cardinals live with fuboTV (7-day free trial)What channel is Chargers vs. Cardinals on today?TV channel: NFL NetworkLive stream: fuboTVThe game can be televised on NFL Network. You can also live stream the game on fuboTV, which offers a 7-day free trial.What time does the Chargers vs. Cardinals game start?Date: Thursday, Aug. 8Start time: 10 p.m. ETLocation: State Farm StadiumKickoff between the Chargers and Cardinals will be at 10 p.m. ET on Thursday. The game will be played at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona.Chargers preseason schedule 2019DateOpponentTimeAugust 8at Cardinals10 p.m. ETAugust 18vs. Saints4 p.m. ETAugust 24vs. Seahawks10 p.m. ETAugust 29at Cardinals10 p.m. ETCardinals preseason schedule 2019DateOpponentTimeAugust 8vs. Chargers10 p.m. ETAugust 15vs. Raiders8:00 p.m. ETAugust 24at Vikings1:00 p.m. ETAugust 29at Broncos9:00 p.m. ET Week 1 of the 2019 NFL preseason schedule gets underway Thursday, and one of the night’s highlights will be Chargers vs. Cardinals with the debut of No. 1 overall pick Kyler Murray.Los Angeles is coming off a 13-3 season, but fell short to the Patriots in the AFC divisional round. The Chargers are led by Anthony Lynn, who is going into his third season with LA and faces the task of corralling running back Melvin Gordon, who has requested a trade amid a contract holdout.Meanwhile, Arizona’s 2018 campaign was the exact opposite. The Cardinals went 3-13, leading them to fire coach Steve Wilks after only one year. The team made big moves hiring Kliff Kingsbury, who was previously the offensive coordinator at the University of Southern California and coach at Texas Tech.The Cards also snagged Murray, the 2018 Heisman Trophy winner. The dual-sport star from Oklahoma became the first athlete taken in the first round in both the MLB and NFL drafts, and everyone’s eager to see what he’ll be able to do on the big stage. Here’s everything you need to know about how to watch the Chargers vs. Cardinals.last_img read more

Sunday Blog: Questions abound concerning the hirings at USD 353

first_img“NepotismThe superintendent shall make reasonable efforts to determine whether a candidate for employment is related to a board member or an administrator of the district.  If a candidate is related to a board member or administrator, the superintendent will make this fact known to the board.Except in an emergency, the board will not employ anyone who is the father, mother, brother, sister, spouse, son, daughter, step-son, step-daughter, son-in-law, or daughter-in-law of any board member.This provision shall not apply to any person who has been regularly employed by the board prior to the adoption of this policy or to any person who has been regularly employed by the board prior to the election or appointment of a new board member to whom the person is related.Supervision LimitationsNo employee shall directly supervise or be responsible for any portion of the evaluation of his or her father, mother, brother, sister, spouse, son, daughter, step-son, step-daughter, son-in-law, or daughter-in-law.” To me, the KASB recommendation is left to a lot of interpretation. Notice in paragraph two of the policy recommendation that “the board will not EMPLOY anyone who is a father, sister… of a board member”. In paragraph four, it states “No employee shall directly SUPERVISE or be responsible for any evaluation of his or her father, mother…”That says to me the KASB did not address nepotism directly — unless you are related to a school board member — giving schools plenty of leeway on the subject. They just don’t want spouses to evaluate each other’s job performance.So the Wellington School Board did not violate any KASB policy recommendations by hiring both Hatfields to both positions. But the board should make it prohibitive that Adam can evaluate Carmen’s job performance.My guess is the KASB did not directly address nepotism because in smaller school districts where there are about five people living in town, it’s impossible to put restrictions on husband and wife teams because those positions don’t get filled otherwise.Still, USD 353 is large enough that nepotism should be a consideration.I spoke with a source involved with school administration, who told me one of the job requirements of a high school counselor is to act as a mediator between a potential administrator-teacher conflict. For example, let’s say Wellington implements a lacrosse program. Let’s say the principal tells the lacrosse coach he has to play his son or he will get fired by the school board.A counselor in that situation would be asked to step in and settle the issue as an objective bystander. It’s a checks and balance system within the confines of the school district. If a husband and wife are principal and counselor then you very well will lose that checks and balance.My source then said the job evaluation of Carmen Hatfield at USD 353 is going to be tricky.  Even if Adam can’t evaluate Carmen directly, then who will? That is part of the duties of the high school principal, as well as principals in each building across the school district. The evaluation could be moved to the vice principal who has yet to be hired. But that is dicey because the principal also evaluates the vice principal.My source then thought the USD 353 would probably go with someone in the USD 353 central office like Adams or Larry Roth. But that becomes an issue because neither one of them are in the high school building on a full time basis.“It is going to make it a sticky situation, regardless of how they handle it,” my source said.Again, this is not an anti-Hatfield issue. If Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt rose from the dead to run the Wellington school district, there would be serious issues with having one serve as the principal and one as the counselor.Ultimately, the Hatfields themselves are placed in a vulnerable position and will incur more public scrutiny because of the nepotism situation.•••••The second concern is the lack of interviewing process, which to me is more baffling.When principal Adams was hired two years ago, the Wellington School Board advertised the position for a couple of months and spent a considerable amount of time hiring the best available candidate for the job. Wellington received a plethora of applications and interviewed three candidates – all who were serving as administrators elsewhere.This time, after Jerry Hodson resigned as curriculum/technology director, the hiring of Adams and Hatfield came simultaneously in the same meeting. There were no interviews or advertising of the vacancy of the high school principal position.The issue isn’t hiring within. The issue is the board disallowed the opportunity of others, who may have wanted to apply for the principal position.From an appearance standpoint, the board could have freed itself from public condemnation by opening up the application process even if it was only a month. If the intention was to elevate Hatfield all along, fine. But this way the board members could have said “he’s the best available candidate for the job.”Instead, the immediate hiring of Hatfield reeks of croneyism – even if that may not be the case.Follow us on Twitter. Commentary by Tracy McCue — It is obvious speaking with many people at various high school graduation parties throughout the community last weekend, there were concerns with the hirings made by the USD 353 school board.Two weeks ago, the board hired Dale Adams, the current high school principal as the curriculum/technology director. It then elevated Adam Hatfield from vice principal to head principal at WHS. This occurred a month after hiring Hatfield’s wife Carmen as a high school counselor to replace John Gifford.The two most common questions were:1) Does the USD 353 have a nepotism policy?2) Does the board have to at least advertise the position of high school principal before hiring someone?Personally, I have no qualms with the hiring of Adam and Carmen Hatfield to their respective positions. They have served the school district well for the past two decades. Who am I to judge their qualifications, or the hiring process since I am not part of the inner workings of the school district?But the issue isn’t the Hatfields, as it is nepotism.I do vaguely remember as a news reporter at the Wellington Daily News, writing a story about a nepotism policy adopted by the school board in the late 1990s or early 2000s. Unfortunately, I can’t find that article or whether it is within the confines of a school board policy handbook.I’ve heard conflicting reports from school employees whether USD 353 still has such a policy. Some have told me Wellington once had a nepotism policy in place in which two people from the same family could not be fellow teachers in the same building but not administrators. Others say, Wellington currently has none on the books.While a local nepotism policy is in question, the Kansas Association of School Board has addressed nepotism in a set of policy recommendations sent out to state school boards in June 2013. It states:center_img Close Forgot password? Please put in your email: Send me my password! Close message Login This blog post All blog posts Subscribe to this blog post’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Subscribe to this blog’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Follow the discussion Comments (19) Logging you in… Close Login to IntenseDebate Or create an account Username or Email: Password: Forgot login? Cancel Login Close Username or Email: Password: Lost your password? Cancel Login Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout Logged in as Admin Options Disable comments for this page Save Settings Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity Loading comments… You are about to flag this comment as being inappropriate. Please explain why you are flagging this comment in the text box below and submit your report. The blog admin will be notified. Thank you for your input. +17 Vote up Vote down Huh · 324 weeks ago Have you heard the song: They’re just good old boys. You raise some good questions. Report Reply 0 replies · active 324 weeks ago +24 Vote up Vote down Allen Ludden · 324 weeks ago There is definitely a problem with the school board and their hiring and their over all decision making. Everything they do just seems shady. Report Reply 1 reply · active 324 weeks ago +1 Vote up Vote down Fred · 324 weeks ago You are targeting on the Hatfields, but look at others in the district. Board memeber – wife, Activities Director – wife. Let’s address the whole issue… of nepotism. Report Reply 1 reply · active 324 weeks ago 0 Vote up Vote down VOTE NO SKLBOND · 324 weeks ago Sounds like a whole lot of someones are double dipping the system. GRRRRRRRRRRR. Report Reply 0 replies · active 324 weeks ago +19 Vote up Vote down crusader pride · 324 weeks ago Fred I don’t think Tracy is targeting the Hatfield at all. He raises some good points. The activities director does not supervise his spouse and Bob White is elected. But the question is who supervises Carmen? Adam? I don’t think we should suspect them of any wrong doing as Adam is a stand up guy who did not ask to be put in this situation. But the situation exsists just the same. The real focus should be on the hiring practice. Why was the position of principal and counselor not advertised? Why was the position of curriculum director not advertised? So the look of as some say “good old boy system” raises eyebrows and leaves some with another reason to distrust this board and administration. Report Reply 0 replies · active 324 weeks ago +23 Vote up Vote down bystander · 324 weeks ago The board did a terrible job in transparency. It isn’t unusual for an asst. principal to be promoted, but there are always interviews. The most disturbing fact here is the appointment of Mrs. Hatfield to counselor with absolutely no experience and not interviewing other qualified candidates from inside and outside of the district. It isn’t what you know in USD 336, it’s who you know! Report Reply 0 replies · active 324 weeks ago +9 Vote up Vote down WHS_Grad · 324 weeks ago Two years ago when the previous vice principal left, where was the posting for the vice principal position? Yes, the principal position was posted, but the vice principal position could never be found. I checked the Wellington Daily News, the USD 353 website, emails within USD 353, and on a daily basis. Then Mr. Hatfield was announced as the new vice principal of the high school. This is not the first time that a position has been filled in this district without a job posting by the local school board. Report Reply 0 replies · active 324 weeks ago +18 Vote up Vote down sucolover · 324 weeks ago Surely Bob White excuses himself from discussions and votes on matters that would effect his wife, and therefore his family? On the other hand, this IS the Wellington BOE and we all know they make up their own rules as they go along. Very unprofessional group. Report Reply 0 replies · active 324 weeks ago +17 Vote up Vote down omws · 324 weeks ago Here’s an idea: Open positions for interview and be honest in hiring. Adam Hatfield is taking a lot of shrapnel he more than likely does not deserve thru no fault of his. Same for Mr. Adams, although he doesn’t really have the qualifications…..yet. Who pays for those? Carmen Hatfield? Complete buffoonery that really confused the hiring for that position. Are you telling me the board hired someone who hadn’t even completed the education requirements for the position without interviewing anyone else? Shame on this board. Report Reply 1 reply · active 323 weeks ago +18 Vote up Vote down Guest · 324 weeks ago Think it could make for a very difficult situation for some students, to have a counselor who is the principles wife. Including the fact that Mrs. Hatfield has had no prior experience as counselor. Report Reply 0 replies · active 324 weeks ago 12Next » Post a new comment Enter text right here! Comment as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new comments Comments by IntenseDebate Enter text right here! Reply as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Cancel Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new commentslast_img read more