text:
I'm marking the 12th anniversary of the abomination that is Guantanamo with a couple of repostings related to how the Bush administration, with the connivance of key members of the press and the human rights community, sold a continuation of torture as an end to torture.
Such a reposting seems necessary as the entire press, human rights groups, and blogging world continues to ignore the ongoing issue of torture via interrogations. While indefinite detention, forced cell extractions aka beatings, and the painful forced-feeding of hunger strikers still garners attention, and rightly so, the fact the U.S. continues to have an official policy of torture in its interrogation manual continues to be ignored, even though it is the most important issue about torture facing America today.
Eschewing the worst-looking forms of torture, like waterboarding, in 2006, at the same time that "high-value detainees" like Khalid Sheik Muhammad and Abu Zubaydah were transferred out of the CIA black sites and sent to Guantanamo, the U.S. put out a new Army Field Manual (AFM) with instructions on interrogations that claimed to be "humane."
Origin of AFM Rewrite Out of Ashes of Abu Ghraib Scandal
Only recently have I found the possible origin of the new AFM's drafting in the August 2005 recommendations of a Joint Chiefs of Staff panel subsequent to the military investigations into the Abu Ghraib scandal. (See pg. 315-16 of this document.)
Recommend a policy-level review and determination of the status and treatment of all detainees, when not classified as EPWs [Enemy Prisoners of War]. This review needs to particularly focus on the definition of humane treatment, military necessity, and proper employment of interrogation techniques. (e.g. boundaries or extremes)….
Recommend study of the DoD authorized interrogation techniques to establish a framework for evaluating their cumulative impact in relation to the obligation to treat detainees humanely.
The study of "authorized interrogation techniques" was tasked to the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone.
But a number of the new techniques that ultimately showed up in the newly written AFM were not humane at all. In fact, they amounted to torture and/or cruel, inhumane and degrading behavior. Over the years various human rights groups recognized this and came out publicly for changes to the AFM. (Seehere, and here, and here, and here, and here.)
The AFM made changes to its text that allowed wider latitude in use of drugs in interrogations, while eliminating prohibitions against sleep deprivation and stress positions that had been in the pre-2006 AFM. Even worse, a category of prisoners that were not considered subject to Geneva Convention POW protections was singled out for a special kind of interrogation "technique," as described in the manual's Appendix M.
Appendix M allowed for use of isolation for 30 days, and potentially indefinitely; sleep deprivation for up to 30 days, but potentially indefinitely; manipulation of environment and diet (so long as it wasn't "extreme"); and forms of sensory deprivation, so long as every form of sensory input wasn't affected.
There was very little interest in whether or not or how these new techniques were being used. In fact, no one had apparently even thought to ask the government until I did in January 2010 whether or not Appendix M had even been used. Not surprisingly, the Department of Defense confirmed it was using Appendix M interrogations at Guantanamo.
More surprising was my discovery, confirmed by a DoD spokesman, that the use of the Appendix M torture techniques was approved in a Bush-era Office of Legal Council memorandum, and left in place by the Obama administration despite claims that all such memos were withdrawn in January 2009. Even to this day, in a massive political failure, not one human rights group or legal organization has recognized this fact.
The Torture Never Stopped
Intense abusive interrogations continue. We know from a filing by Omar Khadr in his Canadian court case that prior to release from Guantanamo to Canadian authorities, and shortly after his plea deal with Military Commissions authorities in October 2010, Khadr was subjected to prolonged interrogation that likely was conducted, given the key presence of the use of isolation, to Appendix M parameters: "Following the Pre-Trial Agreement, the Americans transferred Omar to a maximum security detention facility restricted for prisoners convicted of offenses. Omar was thrown back into solitary confinement and continued to be subjected to months of prolonged interrogations consisting of a sequence of 9 hours of interrogation per day for 9 days at a time."
With an even dozen years of crimes at Guantanamo — fully over 1/3 of them under the auspices of the Obama administration — I think it's time to review just how consensus around torture takes place in actuality. As we shall see, it is a complex story, involving media manipulation, psychological effects such as denial, and subordination of human rights to party politics and an achingly slow platform of reformist change. I say "consensus" because silence about all this amounts to consensus.
The following was published at Alternet and my own blog, Invictus, in January 2009. (My first writingrecognizing torture in the AFM goes back to the introduction of the new manual in September 2006, when I wrote under my pseudonym Valtin.) In a day or two, I will publish part two, which will look at how the foreign press saw through what DoD was doing, and how a major blogging news and opinion site helped cover that up.
How the Press, the Pentagon, and Even Human Rights Groups Sold Us an Army Field Manual that (Still) Includes Torture
A January 17 [2009] New York Times editorial noted that Attorney General designate Eric Holder testified at his nomination hearings that when it came to overhauling the nation's interrogation rules for both the military and the CIA, the Army Field Manual represented "a good start." The editorial noted the vagueness of Holder's statement. Left unsaid was the question, if the AFM is only a "good start," what comes next?
The Times editorial writer never bothered to mention the fact that three years earlier, a different New York Times article (12/14/2005) introduced a new controversy regarding the rewrite of the Army Field Manual. The rewrite was inspired by a proposal by Senator John McCain to limit U.S. military and CIA interrogation methods to those in the Army Field Manual. (McCain would later allow an exception for the CIA.)
According to the Times article, a new set of classified procedures proposed for the manual "was pushing the limits on legal interrogation." Anonymous military sources called the procedures "a back-door effort" to undermine McCain's efforts at the time to change U.S. abusive interrogation techniques, and stop the torture.
A Forgotten Controversy
Over the next six months or so, a number of articles in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the L.A. Times described the course of the controversy. By mid-June 2006, the NYT was reporting that, under pressure from unnamed senior generals and members of Congress (including McCain, and Senators Warner and Graham), the Pentagon was rethinking its plan to have a classified annex to the AFM, which would include a different set of interrogation rules for "unlawful combatants," like the detainees at Guantanamo. Included in the discussion about these classified procedures were, reportedly, members of the State Department and various human rights organizations.
According to an article in the L.A. Times, this latest fight over the classified procedures went back at least to mid-May 2006. The manual itself had been written at the U.S. Army Intelligence Center at Ft. Huachuca, Arizona, roughly a year earlier, and then sent to the Pentagon for further evalution. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's right-hand man, Stephen Cambone, was put in charge of its final draft. According the L.A. Times article, members of Congress were "keen to avoid a public fight with the Pentagon." The announcement that the controversial and still unknown procedures might not be included in the manual was seen as a success by human rights groups.
Yet the proverbial chickens never hatched, and by early September 2006 the new Army Field Manual was finally released. The section on special interrogation procedures for "unlawful combatants" was included as a special appendix (Appendix M), and published in unclassified format. According to a L.A. Times story on September 8, Cambone was crowing that the new Army Field Manual instructions would give interrogators "what they need to do the job." The article noted:
The new manual includes one restricted technique that will only be used on so-called unlawful combatants – such as Al Qaeda suspects – not traditional prisoners of war.
That technique, called "separation," involves segregating a detainee from other prisoners. Military officials said separation was not the equivalent of solitary confinement and was consistent with Geneva Convention protections.
As for the proposed secrecy surrounding the new techniques, the Pentagon had decided it couldn't keep them secret forever. Senator Warner was also on record as against any classified annex to the manual.
Not long ago, I wrote about what was included in Appendix M, which purports to introduce the single technique of "separation." In fact, the Appendix M includes instructions regarding solitary confinement, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, and, in combination with other procedures included in the Army Field Manual, amounted to a re-introduction of the psychological torture techniques practiced at Guantanamo, and taught by Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape, or SERE psychologists and other personnel at the Cuban base and elsewhere.
The rewrite of the Army Field Manual included other seemingly minor changes. It introduced dubious procedures, such as the "False Flag" technique, wherein interrogators could pretend they were from another country. It also redefined the meaning of "Fear Up," a procedure meant to exploit a prisoner's existing fears under imprisonment. Now, interrogators could create "new" fears. The AFM rewrite was a masterpiece of subterfuge and double talk, which could only have been issued from the offices of Rumsfeld and Cambone.
One would think this turnaround of the Pentagon's position regarding a removal of these controversial procedures would have been a matter of some note. But there was no protest from Congress, no mention of the past controversy in the press, and only vague comments at first and then acceptance by human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Only Physicians for Human Rights protested the inclusion of the techniques listed in Appendix M. For the rest… silence.
[Author's Note, 1/13/2014: By 2009, Amnesty International had clearly come out against Appendix M, as we can see at this posting. In 2010, Open Society Foundations, Human Rights First and Human Rights Watch signed a letter to the Pentagon, along with other groups, asking for the removal of Appendix M. The letter stated, "we are concerned that Appendix M creates a legal precedent that may be used in the future by other governments to justify abusing captured U.S. personnel…. Appendix M can be interpreted to allow serious abuse, including months of abnormal sleep deprivation.]
DoD Rolls Out the New Model
On September 6, 2006, a news briefing was held by the Department of Defense, as part of the unveiling of the new Army Field Manual, in conjunction with the then-new Defense Department Directive for Detainee Programs (DoD Directive 2310.01E). Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs Cully Stimson and Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence (G-2) Lt. Gen. John Kimmons were the DoD presenters.
Much of the belief that the AFM provides an improvement over previous policies of the Department of Defense is likely due to a confusion between the two documents introduced that summer of 2006, the new Detainee Program Directive and the new Army Field Manual.
DoD Directive 2310.10E made a number of changes in regards to detainee operations and management. It made clear that "All persons subject to this Directive shall observe the requirements of the law of war, and shall apply, without regard to a detainee's legal status, at a minimum the standards articulated in Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949…" The same type of language appears in the text of the Army Field Manual itself.
During the press briefing on September 6, and a different one the next day for the foreign press, reporters were not so easily fooled.
One unnamed reporter at the DoD briefing challenged Lt. Gen. Kimmons on the "single standard" issue:
Q General, why was the decision made to keep these categories — the separate categories of detainees? You have traditional prisoners of war and then the unlawful enemy combatants. Why not treat all detainees under U.S. military custody the exact same way?
Kimmons's answer gives us insight into the kind of convoluted legal thinking that went into the Pentagon's rationale for the acceptability of coercive interrogation — for some (emphasis added):
GEN. KIMMONS: Well, actually, the distinction is in Geneva through the Geneva Convention, which describes the criteria that prisoner — that lawful combatants, such as enemy prisoners of war — which attributes they possess — wearing a uniform, fighting for a government, bearing your arms openly and so on and so forth. And it's all spelled out fairly precisely inside Geneva.
Geneva also makes clear that traditional, unlawful combatants such as in the — 50 years ago, we would have talked about spies and saboteurs, but also now applies to this new category of unlawful — or new type of unlawful combatant, terrorists, al Qaeda, Taliban.
They clearly don't meet the criteria for prisoner of war status, lawful combatant status, and so they're not entitled to the — therefore to the extra protections and privileges which Geneva affords.
But Kimmon's clarification was not very helpful. In fact, if a prisoner is judged not a "lawful combatant", then he or she immediately becomes covered by Geneva IV, the "Civilian Convention," which protects anyone "who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever find themselves" held prisoner. According to the International Red Cross Commentary on the Geneva Conventions:
Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third [POW] Convention, [or] a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention…. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law.
Separation and Sensory Deprivation
One questioner took on the topic of the "Separation" technique. Wasn't it the same as solitary confinement, and wasn't solitary confinement "banned by Common Article 3 in the affront to human dignity, other provisions? "Are you confident," a reporter asked, "that separation is permitted under Common Article 3?"
The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs responded by denying that separation amounted to solitary confinement, even though the AFM describes the technique as, among other things "physical separation" "limited to 30 days of initial duration." Extensions for such physical separation must be reviewed and approved the General Officer or Flag Officer who initially approved the original "separation."
Kimmons' reply was even more disingenuous:
We have always segregated enemy combatants on the battlefield at the point of capture and beyond, to keep them silent, segregate the officers from the enlisted, the men from the women, and so forth. That's traditional; it goes back to World War II and beyond.
So, is "separation" a matter of segregating prisoners, or what? In the Army Field Manual itself, one gets that same kind of double talk. At first it is presented thus:
The purpose of separation is to deny the detainee the opportunity to communicate with other detainees in order to keep him from learning counter-resistance techniques or gathering new information to support a cover story; decreasing the detainee's resistance to interrogation.
This description sounds a lot like segregation for security purposes, although there is that phrase "decreasing the detainee's resistance." A page or so later, however, we find the following (emphasis added):
The use of separation should not be confused with the detainee-handling techniques approved in Appendix D [Guide for Handling Detainees]. Specifically, the use of segregation during prisoner handling (Search, Silence, Segregate, Speed, Safeguard, and Tag [5 S's and a T]) should not be confused with the use of separation as a restricted interrogation technique.
Furthermore, we learn that "separation" requires an interrogation plan, and medical and legal review, as well, of course, as "physical separation." If this is not solitary confinement for the purposes of breaking a prisoner down for interrogation, then the English language has lost all purpose in explaining things.
Another line of questioning took on the AFM's contention that it banned sensory deprivation. The entire exchange at the September 6 hearing is worth reproducing here. It represents, among other things, the most thorough line of inquiry I have seen by any reporter in quite some time. The following quote contains added emphases.
Q General, as an expert in interrogations, do you believe that sensory deprivation was abusive, or did it ever prove to be helpful in interrogation?
GEN. KIMMONS: Sensory deprivation is abusive and it's prohibited in this Field Manual, and it's absolutely counterproductive, in my understanding of what we have used productively. Sensory deprivation, just to be clear — and we define it in the Field Manual, but basically, it comes down to the almost complete deprivation of all sensory stimuli, light, noise, and so forth, and to the point where it can have an adverse mental, psychological effect on a — disorienting effect on a detainee.
Q So could there be deprivation of light alone for extended periods of time, as opposed to complete sensory deprivation?
GEN. KIMMONS: I think the total loss of an external stimulus, such as deprivation of light, would not fit what we have described here as — for example, if you're hinting about separation, separation does not involve the darkness or lack of that type of sensory stimulation.
Q That wasn't the question, though. Would sensory — would the deprivation of light alone be permitted under the current manual, as opposed — because you described sensory deprivation as total deprivation –
GEN. KIMMONS: That's correction.
Q — of all senses. So deprivation of light alone for extended periods would be permitted?
GEN. KIMMONS: I don't think the Field Manual explicitly addresses it.
It does not make it prohibited.And it would have to be weighed in the context of the overall environment. If it was at nighttime during sleep hours, then it would make personal sense to turn the lights off.
Q You know what I'm talking about. I'm trying to get at — because you said specifically total sensory deprivation — so deprivation of any one sense might be permitted. Like light, for example. They could be kept in the dark for extended periods of time beyond the usual nighttime hours.
This is really too specific and challenging for the DoD briefers, and they turn on their double-talk machine:
MR. STIMSON: Jim, questions like this are good questions to ask. And what's important to remember is that interrogation plans are put together for a reason so that not just one person can decide what he or she wants to do and then run off and do it. They're vetted. It's laid out how they're vetted. General Kimmons could go into that in exhaustive detail. Typically, there would be a JAG, as I understand it, General Kimmons –
GEN. KIMMONS: That's correct.
MR. STIMSON: — that would have to review that. It goes up through various chains of command. And so, you know, types of questions like this would have to be asked and then vetted through that process.
Burying the Story
With all the hard questioning by the press, you'd think the issues would have been aired in the media in the days and weeks following the introduction of the Army Field Manual. As should be evident by now, that's not what happened.
Here's how the L.A. Times covered it (9/6/06), getting the story exactly backwards (emphasis added):
Bowing to critics of its tough interrogation policies, the Pentagon is issuing a new Army field manual that provides Geneva Convention protections for all detainees and eliminates a secret list of interrogation tactics.
The manual, set for release today, also reverses an earlier decision to maintain two interrogation standards – one for traditional prisoners of war and another for "unlawful combatants" captured during a conflict but not affiliated with a nation's military force.
There is no mention of Appendix M or any controversy over techniques. Jumana Musa, an "advocacy director for Amnesty International, is quoted as noting, ""If the new field manual embraces the Geneva Convention, it is an important return to the rule of law.'"
The 9/7/06 article in the Washington Post was, if anything, even more laudatory of the new AFM:
Pentagon officials yesterday repudiated the harsh interrogation tactics adopted since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, specifically forbidding U.S. troops from using forced nudity, hooding, military dogs and waterboarding to elicit information from detainees captured in ongoing wars.
The Defense Department simultaneously embraced international humane treatment standards for all detainees in U.S. military custody, the first time there has been a uniform standard for both enemy prisoners of war and the so-called unlawful combatants linked to al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist organizations.
The article falsely claims the AFM bans manipulation of sleep patterns. Regarding any controversy, the article explains:
Three expanded techniques — good cop, bad cop; pretending to be an official from another country; and detention in a separate cell from others — are allowed but require approval from senior officers. Officials originally considered keeping those three techniques classified but decided to make them public for the sake of full transparency.
The Post article also briefly mentions the generally positive response of human rights groups:
"This is the Pentagon coming full circle," said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "This is very strong guidance."
As for the human rights organizations, Amnesty International later essentially signed off on the AFM. In an article from the Winter 2007 issue of Amnesty International Magazine, Jumana Musa, quoted in the L.A. Times article above, had this to say about the new AFM:
AIUSA also worked with U.S. representatives and senators to introduce legislation to create a single, transparent standard for interrogations and to limit the CIA to approved interrogation techniques outlined in the Army Field Manual.
In a telephone interview for this article, Mr. Malinowski said he supported using the Army Field Manual as a replacement for the CIA "enhanced interrogation techniques," and described the question of abuse in Appendix M as not entirely clear. The language in Appendix M was "ambiguous," and open to criticism due to a "lack of clarity." He maintained, however, that using the current Army Field Manual as a model was merely a beginning, and that a new overhaul of interrogation techniques was on the agenda.
A call made to Amnesty International's press contact regarding this issue, and an e-mail sent to Jumana Musa, were both unreturned.
Two conclusions can be drawn from the above examination of the "selling" of the Army Field Manual to the American public in the late summer of 2006 and beyond. One is that reporters on the beat were very aware of the origins and implications of the issues surrounding Geneva and the AFM, and the controversies surrounding the use of isolation and other techniques under the rubric of "Separation." The extremely muted or non-existent discussion in the mainstream press of these issues after the AFM was introduced means that a decision to suppress these issues was made at an editorial level, and were not the result of laziness or dilatory reporting on behalf of reporters.
Secondly, the role of some human rights organizations in promoting the new Army Field Manual — in particular, the actions of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch — are curious, to say the least. Press reports and the interview with Malinowski show that inclusion of certain human rights organizations in the vetting of the AFM started at the very beginning. We may not be able to find out what went on in the editorial offices of the nation's top newspapers, but we should know more about the discussions within the human rights organizations on how they advised, or were fooled, by talks with Bush administration and Pentagon personnel.
Meanwhile, other human rights organizations, such as the Nobel Prize-winning Physicians for Human Rights, have criticized the language and techniques described in Appendix M of the Army Field Manual, and called for rescission of the offending text. In a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in May 2007, Leonard S. Rubenstein, Executive Director of PHR, and retired Brigadier General Stephen N. Xenakis, MD, former Commanding General of the Southeast Regional U.S. Army Medical Command, wrote:
The new Army Field Manual on human intelligence gathering… explicitly prohibits several SERE-based techniques, yet Appendix M of the manual explicitly permits what amounts to isolation, along with sleep and sensory deprivation. The manual is silent on a number of other SERE-based methods, creating ambiguity and doubt over their place in interrogation doctrine….
PHR, therefore, respectfully urges you to take the following actions:
1. Fully implement the OIG's recommendation to "preclude the use of Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape physical and psychological coercion techniques" in all interrogations. (Id, pp. 29-30.) This includes rescission of Appendix M of the new Army Field Manual and specific prohibition, by name, of each of the known SERE-based methods and their equivalents.
It seems likely that the Army Field Manual, whether by executive order (most likely) or by legislation, will become the new "single standard" for U.S. interrogation. Press reports hint that the Obama administration may yet allow a loophole for CIA interrogators. I don't know how that will sit with the many military lawyers and officers who have been instrumental in opposing Bush/Rumsfeld's torture policies from the beginning. I'm thinking of people like Alberto Mora and Antonio Taguba, or the new nominee for DoD General Counsel, Jeh Charles Johnson, who apparently intends to seriously change the policies set by his predecessor, Jim Haynes.
[Author's note, 1/12/2014: Johnson never did change the Army Field Manual/Appendix M policies. Last month, he was confirmed by the Senate as Secretary of Homeland Security.]
In any case, the full history and controversy behind torture and U.S. interrogation policy deserves a full airing. What happened, for instance, between June and September 2006, allowing for Pentagon acceptance of the Appendix M abusive procedures? When it comes to the implementation of a host of torture and cruel, inhumane interrogation techniques by the U.S. government, both an investigation and prosecutions are needed.
It will be a challenge for our society to bring out the full story, while also bringing to justice those individuals who broke both domestic law and international treaty. We will need both investigations and prosecutions in order to settle scores with the past, to understand where we stand now, and what we need to change to move forward.
"[DNC Chair Tom Perez] has gotten instructions from Bill Clinton not to let the party go to the Bernie Sanders folks." - Jonathan Allen, co-author of Shattered, revealing new material in the upcoming paperback release pic.twitter.com/dLEnwl7kIc— HootHootBerns 🌹🐦 (@HootHootBerns) May 3, 2018


text:
In Baltimore schools, the cost of doing business can often be found on a plate — eggs Benedict or a French-toast buffet for breakfast, crab cakes or beef Wellington for lunch, and chocolate-covered strawberries for dessert.
The school district racked up $1 million in food bills between 2010 and 2012, according to catering charges on administrative accounts at central headquarters.
The records show a range of spending and menus, from $9.24 for cookies and juice for the CEO's office to a $7,170 professional development lunch for 600 educators that featured a menu of chicken cacciatore, baked ziti and beef brisket barbecue. Orders were for small-scale staff meetings, large-scale professional development, and parent and community events.
With the money spent over two years, a Baltimore Sun analysis found, the district could have bought a full-priced cafeteria lunch for its poorest students — 66,659 students qualified for free lunch this past school year — for a week.
School officials defended the expenditures, saying the food was served at community and parent engagement events and made workdays more efficient for staff who could work through lunch or dinner.
"This is not food that a bunch of central administrators are eating," said Victor De La Paz, the system's chief financial officer. "This is food to engage people in the work. The activity is constant."
The Sun reviewed more than 1,350 food invoices, obtained through a Maryland Public Information Act request, from 35 central administrative offices between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2012.
De La Paz said many offices pay for their meals with grants — the district estimated that $416,319 of the food was paid for with grants — that explicitly allow for the food purchases and thus don't require tapping into operating budgets.
"The grant funds allow us to bring more people together," he said.
Federal auditors questioned the school system earlier this year for its use of grant funds on food and parent engagement activities.
De La Paz said the school system, which has 12,000 employees, is looking to rein in those expenses while also preserving its philosophy that gives autonomy to office heads about how they spend their budgets.
Watchdog groups said the district should be mindful of the public's perception.
"Creative ideas and creative ways of building community and engagement are important. They just have to be gauged against the cost efficiencies, accountability and what the public expects," said Jennifer Bevan-Dangel, executive director of Common Cause Maryland.
She also said the considerable use of grant funding raises questions about accountability.
"It just shows when you try to move a lot of money into a big, clunky system, the oversight you need to have," she said. "To me, you're at a higher standard because you're taking public funds."
De La Paz pointed out that the district's spending on food declined from $601,112 in fiscal year 2011 to $458,710 in fiscal year 2012. He attributed the decrease to less spending on food for professional development and a decline in grant funds.
Through May of the current fiscal year — which ends Sunday — the district spent $469,785. Officials said that $208,834 of those food orders were paid for with grants.
De La Paz said the system's analysis after The Sun's request — which entailed asking departments to provide supporting documentation for their catered events — shows that the orders were for a total of 68,000 meals over the two-year period, for an average of $15.50 per meal.
However, the purchase orders show that in some cases, the price per person could be more than $30. Examples include a $1,534 meeting for 50 parents at which crab-stuffed mushrooms and salmon marinated in white-wine butter sauce were served, and a $1,298 meal ordered for 35 administrators that featured grilled salmon, saffron rice and beef Wellington.
In the same timeframe, fiscal years 2011 and 2012, Baltimore County charged a total of $303,741 worth of purchase orders to administrative accounts. Officials said the standard fare is sandwiches and pasta salad, though there is some deviation for those with dietary restrictions.
"With more than 18,000 employees on its payroll, BCPS is the largest employer in Baltimore County," Superintendent Dallas Dance said in a statement. "When teams of those professionals meet for extended periods — to discuss system or school business or for professional development, for example — we believe it is our responsibility to occasionally provide a light meal.
"Providing a breakfast or lunch on site during a meeting or workshop also is an efficient use of staff time and maximizes the opportunities for employees to interact with colleagues," he said.
The city school system is in the process of revising guidance for food purchases to comply with federal grant guidelines passed down by the Maryland State Department of Education last week.
When making food purchases, the district primarily uses federal Title I funds, which help supplement efforts in districts with the nation's poorest students, and Title II funds, which are to be used for hiring and training effective principals and teachers.
This year, a federal audit criticized the district's use of federal stimulus money — particularly the community engagement office's use of Title I money — on chicken dinners that ended up costing $99 per person because of poor turnout and other parent activities, such as makeover days and dinner cruises.
The auditors have recommended the school system pay back thousands in federal money it received in 2009 and 2010.
The audit drew outrage from congressional leaders, who urged the system to tighten its stewardship of taxpayer money, after a year when its fiscal management — including a Sun investigation that found administrator misspending on district credit cards — was repeatedly questioned.
De La Paz said that "the guidance on grant funding for food is not that clear."
"I'm toying with the idea of no grants for food," he said. "But because we're asking parents to come out during certain times, like dinnertime, I'm struggling with being draconian on no food."
The new federal guidelines stipulate that food purchases are allowable if they are "reasonable and necessary" to achieve the grant's goals and objectives.
However, the guidelines say such cases should be considered "rare" and "grantees would have to make a compelling case." There is "generally a high burden of proof to show that paying for food and beverages with federal funds is necessary to meet the goals and objectives of the grant," according to the guidelines.
Among the factors to consider when hosting an event with food: "how the meeting or conference will be perceived by the public; for example, will the meeting or conference be perceived as a good use of taxpayer funds?"
De La Paz said the district has recently contracted vendors to help it streamline food purchases and save money.
He said the district will not control what offices can order, as long as they stay within their budgets. He said, however, that as the district looks to provide more guidance to offices about food purchases, a standardized menu could emerge.
"Personal preference is really hard to constrain, but whenever I see people ordering seafood, I'd say, 'I wouldn't do that,' " he said. "But it's an investment we've made in autonomy, and sometimes that manifests itself in ways that make us feel uncomfortable."
The district's academic offices accounted for $750,000 of the expenses — $322,000 of which was grant funds — and ordered catered food several times a week with some of the more lavish menus, records show.
De La Paz said those orders showed primarily that "professional development for our staff has to be of a different variety, more intense, a different level of investment."
He said the orders reflect time demands on academic and school support staff who "burn the midnight oil" during the week and occasionally on weekends.
For example, in February 2011, teams gathered to grade student projects over the weekend, and the district's Office of Teaching and Learning spent $2,341 on crispy chicken salad, crab balls, sweet-and-sour chicken, shrimp, veggie and chicken fried rice, a cookie tray and drinks.
Several catering orders in one day reflect professional development that can last through mealtimes, De La Paz said.
In February 2011, the district's school support network hosted a $320 professional development session that started in the morning with eggs Benedict, scrambled eggs, sausage gravy and biscuits, turkey and regular bacon, fried potatoes and mini-muffins. That same day, the office also ordered $370 of mini-sandwiches, crab cakes, chicken salad, macaroni and shrimp salads, and cookies for lunch.
School officials said that the sessions started at 8:30 a.m. and ended just after 4 p.m. and normally included teams of 10 to 20 people. They said that holding the professional development in-house was cheaper because the meetings could reach up to 60 people at certain times during the day.
"We really don't hold back in how much we have to invest in our staff to get the work done," De La Paz said.
The district's efforts to draw parents and community members also can be expensive endeavors.
The district spent $168,000 on community engagement events over the two years, much of which also was funded through grants, including Title I funds, De La Paz said.
In June 2011, the Parent Community Advisory Board hosted an outreach event for Latino families that featured city schools CEO Andrés Alonso. About 200 people attended the $6,000 event, which was conducted in Spanish and featured paella, Cuban salad, plantains, beans and rice, pupusa, cakes and drinks.
And in November 2011, the district's Partnerships Office paid $3,890 to hold a "community conversation" with the chief academic officer at Tapas Teatro for 145 families. While a similar event earlier in the year had a large turnout, only 60 people attended. The cost per person: $65.
Turnout is difficult to predict, De La Paz said, but the district always wants to be prepared.
"That's the work of turning around an urban school system," he said.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Exclude files from Site Backup
If you don't want Site Backups to keep backups of certain things on your account (directories, types of files), you can add them to your Site Backups exclusion list.
- In your My Server control panel, click the Backups tab.
- In the Site Backup area, click Manage.
- If another message displays, click Manage again.
- Click (Edit Schedule).
- In the Exclusions area, enter what you want to exclude from backups using the following syntax:
Element Syntax Example Directory The directory name tmp Individual files The file name db1.sql File types A period entered by the file extension .sql
- Click Save.
Next step
- You can remove any backups that contain files or directories you don't want to back up.


text:
The knee is the largest joint in the body. Having chronic knee pain can seriously interfere with your life, making it difficult to do the simplest everyday things such as walking up and down stairs, grocery shopping or even just walking across the room. But you don't have to live with the pain for the rest of your life, decrease your activity rate, or take more pain meds. Chiropractic care for knee pain in Orange Park offers the same great benefits for treating knee pain as it does for many other conditions.
Chiropractic Adjustments in Orange Park, Florida
The knee is a joint that relies heavily on ligaments and muscles for stability. With each movement, they not only have to aid in shifting the body forward or backward but also have to manage the body's full weight. The stabilizing ligaments inside your knee are particularly susceptible: a torn or injured ACL, MCL, or meniscus is a regular occurrence among athletes who twist, pivot, and turn. When you think about the knee's complexity and the many stresses it must endure on a daily basis, it's a wonder that this joint isn't even more vulnerable to painful problems than it already is. They must all work together to provide balance and coordinated movements to bear the weight of the body. Although it is an incredibly complex and sturdy structure, it also is more prone to injury than any other bony structure besides the spine.
When an injury happens, it can affect any of the tendons and ligaments that surround your knee joint. Knee pain is one of the most common orthopedic ailments treated by Chiropractor For Knee Pain in Florida. In most instances, knee replacement, which involves a long and slow recovery time all to get back functionality and strength in the knees, thighs, ankles, and feet are recommended making people feel they have no better option. He will also adjust the spine to bring balance to the body and improve posture.
Knee Pain Can Be Treated With Chiropractic in Orange Park, Florida
If you're suffering from knee pain, your Chiropractor who specializes in knee pain in Clay County is available to discuss how you feel, the cause of your pain, and the treatment options that can help you get back to living the best possible quality of life. While such stress injuries are a common source of knee pain among younger people, older people tend to suffer from knee injuries related to every day, degenerative wear and tear. Your symptoms may be the result of an acute injury such as a torn muscle, anterior cruciate ligament or other major connective tissues.
In fact, knee pain is one of the most common musculoskeletal problems among all people and according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) the second greatest diagnosed pain condition. A deformity often leads to arthritis in the knee, but more often, obesity or excess weight, or repetitive stress injuries from sports, are the culprit. When the fracture happens, you have to wait for the broken bones to return to their proper place before you can do anything that can further aggravate the injury. If they are excessively worn on the outsides, this is likely due to hyperpronation, and you may want to look into getting special foot supports to correct this problem. Besides, continued and frequent adjustments to the knees as soon as symptoms clear up will actually enable the knees to function at its best.
- Laurel Grove
- Holly Point
- Camp Echockotee
- Meadowbrook Terrace
- Bellair
- Orange Park North Mobile Home Community
- Bellair-Meadowbrook Terrace
- Continental Village Mobile Home Park
Chiropractor Care in Orange Park for Problems of the Knee Cap
A deformity can lead to arthritis in the knee, but more often, obesity or excess weight, or repetitive stress injuries from sports are the culprits. We're a patient-centered chiropractic office using the most advanced treatment options available. A knee pain chiropractor in Clay County 32073 believes it's important to introduce movement and exercise therapy as soon as possible in the healing process, in order to decrease inflammation and prevent imbalances and instability around the injured joint. Whether you're a professional athlete who knee has sustained a sudden, agonizing injury or a retired senior citizen struggling to enjoy your daily walks, knee pain can rob you of the life you love. It stands to reason then that many things can impact the structure and efficiency of the knee. Injuries to the medial collateral ligaments are often caused by a blow to the outer side of the knee that stretches and tears the ligament on the inner side of the knee. Chiropractic treatment is the use of manipulation and mobilization techniques in the knee areas where movements are restricted.


text:
- Must have been born during the years of 1992-2001.
- Must never have participated in a previous national MISS USA Pageant.
- Must have been born during the years of 2001-2005.
- Must never have participated in a previous national MISS TEEN USA Pageant.
- Must not be married, never have been married, and never have had a marriage annulled. Must never have given birth to a child, can not be pregnant or be a parent.
- Must be of good health and moral character.
- Must be recognized medically and legally as a female in the United States, and at least one of the following must be true:
- Must now reside in their state as their permanent and primary residence for a period of at least three (3) months immediately prior to the beginning of their state pageant (although they may have attended college or University elsewhere); or
- Must have resided in the State as a full-time student at a school, college or university and will have completed one entire semester, trimester or summer session by December 31, 2019, and they will continue to reside in their State as a full-time student at a school, college or university (although they may have spent or be spending the summer in another State).
- Must agree, that if selected to represent their state in the MISS USA or MISS TEEN USA Pageant, they will participate in that pageant, and will abide by all the rules and regulations governing that pageant. If they win the MISS USA Pageant, they must agree to participate in the MISS UNIVERSE PAGEANT, and to abide by the rules and regulations governing that pageant.
- No contestant or any member of their immediate family can be employed by The Miss Universe Organization, any State Director in the MISS USA and/or MISS TEEN USA Pageant system, IMG Worldwide, LLC, Ernst & Young, or, any of the subsidiaries, affiliates or related companies of the foregoing. (If contestant or any member of their immediate family is employed by any of the foregoing or any firm or corporation controlled or affiliated with any of them, then they must notify the state director immediately, in writing, so that their eligibility may be determined.)
- Must agree that if they win or succeed to the state level title or the national title of MISS USA or MISS TEEN USA, they will not participate in any other pageants during the time they hold any of these titles, unless authorized in writing by Miss Universe L.P. LLLP.
- Must be willing to release, unconditionally and forever, any claim against The Miss Universe Organization, Its parent and affiliated or related companies and their respective officers, directors, partners, employees, agents and assigns, which they may have by virtue of their participation in their state pageant, or by any use of their name, likeness, voice, and/or biography in connection with their state pageant, including use in promotional and advertising material.
- Must understand and agree that all issues as to eligibility shall be determined by The Miss Universe Organization, and they must agree to abide by that determination both as to themselves and other applicants


text:
The Lighthouse Restaurant has been serving their wide range of seafood, steak and chicken dinners for almost a quarter century. With its half-price dinner menu available from 4:30 p.m. to 8 p.m., it attracts snowbirds and families alike.
DESTIN � The Lighthouse Restaurant has been serving their wide range of seafood, steak and chicken dinners for almost a quarter century. With its half-price dinner menu available from 4:30 p.m. to 8 p.m., it attracts snowbirds and families alike.
It�s a restaurant I�d often overlooked, tucked just off U.S. Highway 98 in the Shoreline Mall of Gulfshore Drive.
Its building sports a lighthouse replica that beckons diners to its nightly fare.
The food
I was excited to tuck into my meal at the Lighthouse. Their menu features many of my favorites � shrimp, scallops, crab, fish and oysters.
For the meat-eaters, they have liver and onions, prime rib, and a teriyaki New York strip. They also have chargrilled chicken and chicken carbonara pasta.
My friend and I chose to order our entrees off the half-price menu. First, we began with an appetizer of bacon-wrapped scallops. This came with about six medium-sized scallops wrapped in perfectly cooked bacon. It was served with a horseradish sauce.
For dinner, I chose the Forget the Fish platter which came with shrimp, scallops and a crab cake. I ordered my meal broiled instead of fried, and it was served with a side salad, cheese grits and a dark pumpernickel bread with honey butter.
My friend ordered the beef and shrimp, which was prime rib with fried shrimp. She picked a baked potato for her side and also had a salad.
The plate I ordered had three scallops, four shrimp and the crab cake and some drawn butter. The seafood was all cooked very well. However, I was not a fan of the crab cake, which is the case at most restaurants. It was your standard too-much-breading crab cake.
I will say that even though three scallops and four shrimp does�t seem like a lot of food, I was more than satisfied when I left the restaurant. I couldn�t finish the grits, and hadn�t eaten even half of the crab cake.
My friend�s prime rib was quite large and she also got six shrimp. The beef was served with au jus. I had a bite, and it was very good and cooked perfectly.
By the time we were through with our entrees there was not room for dessert, but the Lighthouse does make their own. Their dessert menu consists of Key lime pie, chocolate amaretto fudge cake, peach cobbler a la mode, peanut butter pie and cheesecake.
The service
We were seated right away on a recent Monday night.
Our waitress, Felice, was very nice and kept our drinks full. My friend�s butter and sour cream were left off her plate, and Felice made sure to quickly get them.
The atmosphere
The Lighthouse Restaurant has been around for more than 25 years, and it�s not surprising when you walk in. The d�cor is straight from the �80s. The restaurant is a lot bigger than you would think with three large dining areas.
The other diners I noticed were older couples and families.
A final taste
The Lighthouse is a budget-friendly option if you decide to eat off their half-price menu. Don�t expect any surprises, just straight forward seafood and steaks.
Quick bites
The Lighthouse Restaurant
878 Highway 98 East
Destin, FL
Seven days a week
4:30 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Not necessary
Handicap access
Credit cards accepted
Children�s menu
$4.99 to $12.99
Signature Entrees
$9.99 to $29.99
Half-price menu (before discount)
$22.99 to $29.99


text:
COMER - Cliftus Dwaine Welch, 59, died Friday, February 14, 2014.
A longtime resident of Oglethorpe County, he was the son of the late Jack and Mary F. Welch. He was preceded in death by a brother, Toby Welch; and sisters, Betty Bray and Pansy Sloan. Mr. Welch was a poultry farmer and raised cows for many years. He also had worked for Wallace Graham Construction Company as well as Smith Seltzer and Sons.
Survivors include his wife, Irene Welch; children, Terri (Matthew) Patman, Cheryl (Freddie) Nash, Bobbie J. (Tommy) McLendon, and Ray (Kathy) Alford, Tony Alford; 18 grandchildren; 19 great-grandchildren; one great-great-grandchild; sisters, Thressa (Jerry) Fowler, Elwanda Richardson, Erwin, Tenn.; brother, Allen Welch; and numerous nieces and nephews.
Funeral services will be Monday, February 17, at 3 p.m. at Colliers Baptist Church with the Rev. Wayne Phillips officiating. Interment will follow in Boulder Creek Farms Family Cemetery.
Lord and Stephens Funeral Home, EAST, Athens, is in charge of arrangements.
Dwaine Welch (02-14-14)
No Trackbacks
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)


text:
You can never have too many make up books, right? Sometimes there isn't much that is new to discover in Make Up books but it's always nice to see some nice pics and get some ideas.
I got this book, Eye Candy by Linda Mason from Amazon for £6.
Its a small book that is softbound 50 random looks for £6? Bargain.
The book is split into futher catergories; Flirtatious, Funky, Glam, Hot etc. Apparently the artist has working with the super models like Kate Moss, Naomi Cambell and Jasmine LeBon.
The book has a recipe style layout. On one side is the photo, on the other is the colours needed and where to place the colour with some very simple directions.
Did I like it. Not at all.
I found he pictures very unprofessional. They looked like slightly better than your average snapshop images. The models looks like girls off the street…ok there's nothing wrong about that but I didn't find the make up particuraly inspiring or…dare I say it….neat. It looked sloppy. They weren't look I would want to copy; there are far better eye looks from people on Make Up Alley.
Examples of looks:
What do you think? I had another flick and I can't find any looks I really like. Quite of the pictures of slightly blurring and would benefit from a little contrast adjustment in photoshop. Just a tweak – hey it makes all the difference!
You know what – this is not a book I would ever use – I don't even think its pretty enough just to look at. I think I will pass this on to my 13 year old cousin who is learning about eye make up and is probably less critical than me!
Bah, this is not a book I recommend, unfortunately. Go back to the god that is Kevyn Aucoin (any of his books) or the Nars book is also nice.


text:
Member? Sign in. Not a member? Register for free.
This app was removed from the App Store.
Learn French: Listen, Speak and Play (Discovery)
iOS Universal Education
Listen, speak and play - the quick and intuitive way to learn and recall everyday vocabulary in French. It includes audio pronunciations by native French speakers. Whether for leisure, school or business, this introduction to key vocabulary covers a range of subjects from home and people to food and time. With scenes and items from everyday life clearly labelled, it's easy to find the words you want in this application.
35 topics and over 600 words/phrases
Main topics :
-Home: House, Bedroom, Bathroom, Kitchen...
-People: Family, Body, Face, Appearance, Age, Emotions, Hygiene...
-Food: Meals, Drinks, Table, Fruits, Vegetables, Accessories...
-Time & Weather: Calendar, Months, Time, Seasons...
-Basics: Numbers, Colours, Shapes...
Comes with quiz for each lesson. These are great reinforcement tools.
Translations are available in 5 languages (English, Spanish, German, Italian, Portuguese).
This game is part of our collection of educational games.
Visit our web site for more info: http://bacarox.com
If you have questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us : email@example.com


text:
|For the traveller in a hurry, this smart, simple hotel is ideally located at the heart of North London's motorway system, with great connections to Central London, Heathrow Airport and Wembley Stadium and Conference Centre. Clean and modern, it provides the business traveller with everything he or she might need.
Booking multiple rooms?
Visit our group bookings page or call 020 7437 4370 for assistance
Room 1
Map for Ramada London North M1
Underground Stations
Railway Stations
Car Parks
Ramada London North M1
Most recent feedback from actual LondonTown.com customers
|We always stay here the service is great rooms are great and so is the atmosphere and prices! Q
Jayesh from London, United Kingdom would recommend this hotel to a friend
TripAdvisor User Reviews
Ramada London North M1 Hotel Facilities
Hotel services
Fitness centre
Swimming Pool
Business facilities
Business centre
24hr porter
24hr reception
Laundry services
Dry cleaning
Passenger lift
Accept dogs
Airport shuttle service
In house car park - FREE
Room facilities
En suite bathroom
Satellite and cable
In-room direct dial
Room service
24hr room service
Mini fridge
Tea/coffee making
Air conditioning
In-room safe
Wifi - FREE
200 rooms
For children
Baby cots - FREE
Wheelchair access rooms
Guide dogs welcome
|Check-in from:
|Check-out before:
All rooms
Some rooms
Telephone reservations
To book the Ramada London North M1 by phone, call the telephone booking department on 011 44 20 7420 4963. The hotel reservations call centre is open seven days a week from 8am until 11pm (UK time) seven days a week. From USA call 011 44 20 7420 4963
Group booking discounts
Are you booking for a group of people? If you are making a booking for a group of people and require over 10 rooms, you may prefer to speak to the Group Booking Department for Ramada London North M1 bookings. Special deals can be arranged for groups, including discounts and arrangements for adjacent and inter connecting rooms if required. Call the Groups Reservations Department on 0207 292 2307. The best way to book a group deal is to complete the online form for group reservations at Ramada London North M1 .
Customer Service - Speak to a London hotel expert
From USA:
011 44 20 7420 4963
8am to 11pm
Free callback service:
We can call you back
Email a London Expert
Send email
Live Chat
Advisors available now
Chat to a London Expert
Live chat
Speak to a
London Hotel Expert
From UK:
020 7437 4370
Free callback service
If you prefer, we can call you back for free:Call me back
Email a London Expert:Send an email
My shortlist
Our pick of alternative hotels
Suggestion 1
Ramada London Finchley
15 minute drive to Alexandra Palace
With a stay at Ramada London Finchley in London (Finchley), you'll be within easy driv.. more
Suggestion 2
Holiday Inn London Brent Cross
Near Brent Cross shopping centre
Customer rating: 93%
The motorway hub of Brent Cross, home to many of London's largest superstores, has gre.. more
Suggestion 3
Hilton Watford Hotel
Customer rating: 81%
Just minutes from both the M1 and M25 this hotel enjoys a wonderfully convenient location .. more