Draw attention to. Id be really interested in hearing about places where people have done Creative Things specifically on this question of Building Trust between police and communities. I share your concerns on the broader issues. Because were not talking about them i dont want you to feel like youre not being heard. The questions of gun access and drug policy are very big issues that Law Enforcement have to bare the brunt of but im interested in any recommendations that youd like to endorse either from your copanelists or that youve heard here today. First and foremost i think the most important thing that weve heard from day one is collaborating communication in our neighborhoods. Weve got to work most of my associations have been doing Community Outreach for years. Weve run the poa leagues in many places. We do christmas drives to help feed the people in our neighborhoods. Shop with a cop programs. A lot of the Police Departments dont have the resources or the ability to do that. Th
Thank you. Tracy is next followed by sue. Thank you so much for your comments. I wanted to first point out before i ask you a question. It was really gratifying for me to hear how much the comments of mr. Winkler and mr. St. Germane were congenial to the ideas and theory offered about procedural justice. Mr. Winkler you didnt use those words but its pretty much, i think, this idea of reform is consistent. I think thats good. Here is my question. In your written testimony you mentioned two things. The centralization is an important key to repairing trust between individuals and then you have an idea about the federal mandate for system wide accountability for juvenile sentssent centers. The idea we might need to look to more centralization uniformed ideas for standards for policing. If you could say a little bit about what you mean that would be helpful. If we have time, the federal mandate and what that is. Definitely. I think decentralization in the sense of having Community Policing.
To somebody blowing up an airplane. And i suddenly thought, as a practical matter, that is not a serious worry because the president can always use the second prong to keep people from disclosing the information that you dont want disclosed. And so far, youve said im right and now you got into a legal argument. Im not talking about a legal argument. So, your honor, i think such a system could be devised, but i think it would be a very odd construction of the statutes the court has before it to say that we are going to undermine and eviscerate the ssi system that congress by statute no, no. I am just worried look. Let me ask my question. And my question is, if for other reasons i decided you were wrong, would i still have to face the problem of airplanes being blown up . Im focusing on this because its very important to me. And you have answered that question, if for other reasons and you, of course, think youre right, but if for other reasons i thought you were wrong, i wouldnt have to
Before the release. Your honor. Orrect, but there is no doubt best mark information ssi. Before it is going out . Correct. S. S. I. Ion can be whether or not it is marked that way. Regulations are clear on this that details of federal air deployment are covered as s. S. I. And this issue was the ated before administrative judge. If there were no regulations on the books tes at that point are there any disclosure . On there can be no s. S. I. Without regulation . Me thats correct, your honor. What the federal circuit held is that the while blower protection extended this b8 a but 2302 a xempts from whistle blower Protection Information that is specifically disclosure specifically prohibited by law. The federal circuit found no specific prohibition and no law s. S. I. Ut under the regime it was prohibited by the mandated fa nondisclosure regulation by the s not prohibited statute until there were regulations, right . That is correct. It is not prohibited by regulations. I think we would
Is just kind of your theory on whether we should be helping the less fortunate of not, which is the idea of the Affordable Care act, provides care to people that cant have it or havent been able to have it and cant afford it. So, were looking a lot at high deduct i believe plans, as the next big project were working on. Because it is going to be, i think the big story of the next year. Host so Affordable Care act, has it caused employer plans to higher . That was a very inarticulate question. Host but i know what you mean. Theres a lot of blaming and scapegoating of the federal government in the law going on. Its difficult to prove but certainly this past year there were not so many costs that Companies Really could legitimately, regularly say sorry folks, your plan is going to cost you more because of the Affordable Care act. That was very convenient in a lot of cases. However they are going to have these cadillac plans, the really good plans that provide so much and so little out of