(3) promotes and facilitates community integration for people with significant and long-term disabilities.
To provide tenant-based rental assistance to eligible persons with disabilities, in accordance with subsection (d)(4) of this section.
assistance under this paragraph may be used to finance the acquisition, acquisition and moderate rehabilitation, construction, reconstruction, or moderate or substantial rehabilitation of housing, including the acquisition from the Resolution Trust Corporation, to be used as supportive housing for persons with disabilities and may include real property acquisition, site improvement, conversion, demolition, relocation, and other expenses that the Secretary determines are necessary to expand the supply of supportive housing for persons with disabilities.
To offer additional methods of financing supportive housing for non-elderly adults with disabilities, the Secretary shall make funds available for project rental assistance pursuant to subparagraph (B) for eligible projects under subparagraph (C). The Secretary shall provide for State housing finance agencies and other appropriate entities to apply to the Secretary for such project rental assistance funds, which shall be made available by such agencies and entities for dwelling units in eligible projects based upon criteria established by the Secretary. The Secretary may not require any State housing finance agency or other entity applying for such project rental assistance funds to identify in such application the eligible projects for which such funds will be used, and shall allow such agencies and applicants to subsequently identify such eligible projects pursuant to the making of commitments described in subparagraph (C)(ii).
(II) under a contract having an initial term of not less than 180 months that provides funding for a term 60 months, which funding shall be renewed upon expiration, subject to the availability of sufficient amounts in appropriation Acts.
Of the total number of dwelling units in any multifamily housing project containing any unit for which project rental assistance under this paragraph is provided, the aggregate number that are provided such project rental assistance, that are used for supportive housing for persons with disabilities, or to which any occupancy preference for persons with disabilities applies, may not exceed 25 percent of such total.
The Secretary may not provide a capital advance under subsection (d)(1) for any project for which assistance is provided under this paragraph.
Project rental assistance under this paragraph may be provided only for dwelling units for extremely low-income persons with disabilities and extremely low-income households that include at least one person with a disability.
(III) by any Federal agency or any State or local government, for funding for the project from funds from any other sources.
(iii) to make available appropriate services for tenants of the project.
In the case of any project for which project rental assistance is provided under this paragraph, the dwelling units assisted pursuant to subparagraph (B) shall be operated for not less than 30 years as supportive housing for persons with disabilities, in accordance with the application for the project approved by the Secretary, and such dwelling units shall, during such period, be made available for occupancy only by persons and households described in subparagraph (B)(iv).
(iii) making recommendations regarding future models for assistance under this section.
(C) facilitate access by such persons to the community at large and to suitable employment opportunities within such community.
A capital advance provided pursuant to subsection (b)(1) shall bear no interest and its repayment shall not be required so long as the housing remains available for very-low-income persons with disabilities in accordance with this section. Such advance shall be in an amount calculated in accordance with the development cost limitation established in subsection (h) of this section.
Contracts for project rental assistance shall comply with subsection (e)(2) and shall obligate the Secretary to make monthly payments to cover any part of the costs attributed to units occupied (or, as approved by the Secretary, held for occupancy) by very low-income persons with disabilities that is not met from project income. The amount provided under the contract for each year covered by the contract for any project shall not exceed the sum of the initial annual project rentals for all units and any initial utility allowances for such units, as approved by the Secretary. Any contract amounts not used by a project in any year shall remain available to the project until the expiration of the contract. The Secretary may adjust the amount provided under the contract for each year covered by the contract if the sum of the project income and the amount of assistance payments available under this paragraph are inadequate to provide for reasonable project costs. In the case of an intermediate care facility which is the residence of persons assisted under title XIX of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.], project income under this paragraph shall include the same amount as if such person were being assisted under title XVI of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.].
Upon the expiration of each contract term, subject to the availability of amounts made available in appropriation Acts, the Secretary shall adjust the annual contract amount to provide for reasonable project costs, including adequate reserves and service coordinators as appropriate, except that any contract amounts not used by a project during a contract term shall not be available for such adjustments upon renewal.
In the event of emergency situations that are outside the control of the owner, the Secretary shall increase the annual contract amount, subject to reasonable review and limitations as the Secretary shall provide.
A very low-income person shall pay as rent for a dwelling unit assisted under subsection (b)(2) of this section the higher of the following amounts, rounded to the nearest dollar: (A) 30 percent of the person's adjusted monthly income, (B) 10 percent of the person's monthly income, or (C) if the person is receiving payments for welfare assistance from a public agency and a part of such payments, adjusted in accordance with the person's actual housing costs, is specifically designated by such agency to meet the person's housing costs, the portion of such payments which is so designated; except that the gross income of a person occupying an intermediate care facility assisted under title XIX of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.] shall be the same amount as if the person were being assisted under title XVI of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.].
Tenant-based rental assistance provided under subsection (b)(1) shall be provided under section 1437f(o) of this title.
There is authorized to be appropriated for tenant-based rental assistance under section 1437f(o) of this title for persons with disabilities an amount not less than the amount necessary to convert the number of authorized vouchers and funding under an annual contributions contract in effect on January 4, 2011. Such converted vouchers may be administered by the entity administering the vouchers prior to conversion. For purposes of administering such converted vouchers, such entities shall be considered a "public housing agency" authorized to engage in the operation of tenant-based assistance under section 1437f of this title.
The Secretary shall develop and issue, to public housing agencies that receive voucher assistance made available under this subsection and to public housing agencies that received voucher assistance under section 1437f(o) of this title for non-elderly disabled families pursuant to appropriation Acts for fiscal years 1997 through 2002 or any other subsequent appropriations for incremental vouchers for non-elderly disabled families, guidance to ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, such vouchers continue to be provided upon turnover to qualified persons with disabilities or to qualified non-elderly disabled families, respectively.
Any project for which a capital advance is provided under subsection (d)(1) shall be operated for not less than 40 years as supportive housing for persons with disabilities, in accordance with the application for the project approved by the Secretary and shall, during such period, be made available for occupancy only by very low-income persons with disabilities.
If the owner of a project requests the use of the project for the direct benefit of very low-income persons with disabilities and, pursuant to such request the Secretary determines that a project is no longer needed for use as supportive housing for persons with disabilities, the Secretary may approve the request and authorize the owner to convert the project to such use.
The initial term of a contract entered into under subsection (d)(2) of this section shall be 240 months, except that, in the case of the sponsor of a project assisted with any low-income housing tax credit pursuant to section 42 of title 26 or with any tax-exempt housing bonds, the contract shall have an initial term of not less than 360 months and shall provide funding for a term of 60 months. The Secretary shall, to the extent approved in appropriation Acts, upon expiration of a contract (or any renewed contract), renew such contract for a term of not less than 60 months. In order to facilitate the orderly extension of expiring contracts, the Secretary is authorized to make commitments to extend expiring contracts during the year prior to the date of expiration.
No assistance received under this section (or any State or local government funds used to supplement such assistance) may be used to replace other State or local funds previously used, or designated for use, to assist persons with disabilities.
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), of the total number of dwelling units in any multifamily housing project (including any condominium or cooperative housing project) containing any unit for which assistance is provided from a capital grant under subsection (d)(1) made after January 4, 2011, the aggregate number that are used for persons with disabilities, including supportive housing for persons with disabilities, or to which any occupancy preference for persons with disabilities applies, may not exceed 25 percent of such total.
Subparagraph (A) shall not apply in the case of any project that is a group home or independent living facility.
(7) such other information or certifications that the Secretary determines to be necessary or appropriate to achieve the purposes of this section.
(H) such other factors as the Secretary determines to be appropriate to ensure that funds made available under subsection (b)(2) of this section are used effectively.
(B) The Secretary shall retain the authority to process capital advances in cases in which no State or local housing agency is sufficiently qualified to provide delegated processing pursuant to this paragraph or no such agency has entered into an agreement with the Secretary to serve as a delegated processing agency.
(ii) retain the authority to review and process projects financed by a capital advance in the event that, after a review and assessment, a State or local housing agency is determined to have failed to satisfy the criteria established pursuant to clause (i).
(D) An agency to which review and processing is delegated pursuant to subparagraph (A) may assess a reasonable fee which shall be included in the capital advance amounts and may recommend project rental assistance amounts in excess of those initially awarded by the Secretary. The Secretary shall develop a schedule for reasonable fees under this subparagraph to be paid to delegated processing agencies, which shall take into consideration any other fees to be paid to the agency for other funding provided to the project by the agency, including bonds, tax credits, and other gap funding.
(E) Under such delegated system, the Secretary shall retain the authority to approve rents and development costs and to execute a capital advance within 60 days of receipt of the commitment from the State or local agency. The Secretary shall provide to such agency and the project sponsor, in writing, the reasons for any reduction in capital advance amounts or project rental assistance and such reductions shall be subject to appeal.
(F) the cost of land, including necessary site improvement.
In establishing development cost limitations for a given market area, the Secretary shall use data that reflect currently prevailing costs of acquisition, construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation, and land acquisition in the area. Neither this section nor any other provision of law may be construed as prohibiting or preventing the location and operation, in a project assisted under this section, of commercial facilities for the benefit of residents of the project and the community in which the project is located, except that assistance made available under this section may not be used to subsidize any such commercial facility.
The Secretary shall adjust the cost limitation established pursuant to paragraph (1) not less than once annually to reflect changes in the general level of acquisition, construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation costs.
The Secretary shall use the development cost limitations established under paragraph (1) to calculate the amount of financing to be made available to individual owners. Owners which incur actual development costs that are less than the amount of financing shall be entitled to retain 50 percent of the savings in a special project account. Such percentage shall be increased to 75 percent for owners which add energy efficiency features which (i) exceed the energy efficiency standards promulgated by the Secretary in accordance with section 12709 of this title; (ii) substantially reduce the life-cycle cost of the housing; (iii) reduce gross rent requirements; and (iv) enhance tenant comfort and convenience.
The special project account established under subparagraph (A) may be used (i) to supplement services provided to residents of the housing or funds set-aside for replacement reserves, or (ii) for such other purposes as determined by the Secretary.
An owner shall be permitted voluntarily to provide funds from sources other than this section for amenities and other features of appropriate design and construction suitable for supportive housing for persons with disabilities if the cost of such amenities is (A) not financed with the advance, and (B) is not taken into account in determining the amount of Federal assistance or of the rent contribution of tenants. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, assistance amounts provided under this section may be treated as amounts not derived from a Federal grant.
The provisions of section 212(e) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12742(e)) and the cost limits established by the Secretary pursuant to such section with respect to the amount of funds under subtitle A of title II of such Act [42 U.S.C. 12741 et seq.] that may be invested on a per unit basis, shall apply to supportive housing assisted with a capital advance under subsection (d)(1) and the amount of funds under such subsection that may be invested on a per unit basis.
(III) the cost of providing the housing in a location that is accessible to public transportation and community organizations that provide supportive services to persons with disabilities.
An owner shall adopt written tenant selection procedures that are satisfactory to the Secretary as (i) consistent with the purpose of improving housing opportunities for very low-income persons with disabilities; and (ii) reasonably related to program eligibility and an applicant's ability to perform the obligations of the lease. Owners shall promptly notify in writing any rejected applicant of the grounds for any rejection.
Occupancy in dwelling units provided assistance under this section shall be available only to persons with disabilities and households that include at least one person with a disability.
Except only as provided in subparagraph (D), occupancy in dwelling units in housing provided with assistance under this section shall be available to all persons with disabilities eligible for such occupancy without regard to the particular disability involved.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the owner of housing developed under this section may, with the approval of the Secretary, limit occupancy within the housing to persons with disabilities who can benefit from the supportive services offered in connection with the housing.
The lease between a tenant and an owner of housing assisted under this section shall be for not less than one year, and shall contain such terms and conditions as the Secretary shall determine to be appropriate.
(ii) by providing the tenant, not less than 30 days before such termination or refusal to renew, with written notice specifying the grounds for such action.
A supportive service plan for housing assisted under this section shall permit each resident to take responsibility for choosing and acquiring their own services, to receive any supportive services made available directly or indirectly by the owner of such housing, or to not receive any supportive services.
An applicant may obtain ownership or control of a suitable site different from the site specified in the initial application. If an applicant fails to obtain ownership or control of the site within 1 year after notification of an award for assistance, the assistance shall be recaptured and reallocated.
The Secretary shall notify an owner not less than 30 days prior to canceling any reservation of assistance provided under this section. During the 30-day period following the receipt of a notice under the preceding sentence, an owner may appeal the proposed cancellation. Such appeal, including review by the Secretary, shall be completed not later than 45 days after the appeal is filed.
The Secretary shall take such action as may be necessary to insure that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors and subcontractors in the construction of housing with 12 or more units assisted under this section shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing in the locality involved for the corresponding classes of laborers and mechanics employed on construction of a similar character, as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with sections 3141–3144, 3146, and 3147 of title 40.
(1) The term "group home" means a single family residential structure designed or adapted for occupancy by not more than 8 persons with disabilities, which provides a separate bedroom for each tenant of the residence. The Secretary may waive the project size limitation contained in the previous sentence if the applicant demonstrates that local market conditions dictate the development of a larger project. Not later than the date of the exercise of any waiver permitted under the previous sentence, the Secretary shall notify the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives of the waiver or the intention to exercise the waiver, together with a detailed explanation of the reason for the waiver. Not more than 1 home may be located on any one site and no such home may be located on a site contiguous to another site containing such a home.
(2) The term "person with disabilities" means a household composed of one or more persons who is 18 years of age or older and less than 62 years of age, and who has a disability. A person shall be considered to have a disability if such person is determined, pursuant to regulations issued by the Secretary to have a physical, mental, or emotional impairment which (A) is expected to be of long-continued and indefinite duration, (B) substantially impedes his or her ability to live independently, and (C) is of such a nature that such ability could be improved by more suitable housing conditions. A person shall also be considered to have a disability if such person has a developmental disability as defined in section 15002 of this title. The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to prevent abuses in determining, under the definitions contained in this paragraph, the eligibility of families and persons for admission to and occupancy of housing assisted under this section. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this paragraph, the term "person with disabilities" includes two or more persons with disabilities living together, one or more such persons living with another person who is determined (under regulations prescribed by the Secretary) to be important to their care or well-being, and the surviving member or members of any household described in the first sentence of this paragraph who were living, in a unit assisted under this section, with the deceased member of the household at the time of his or her death.
(B) are located in housing that make available supportive services that address the individual health, mental health, or other needs of such persons.
(4) The term "independent living facility" means a project designed for occupancy by not more than 24 persons with disabilities (or such higher number of persons as permitted under criteria that the Secretary shall prescribe) in separate dwelling units where each dwelling unit includes a kitchen and a bath. Not later than the date that the Secretary prescribes a limit exceeding the 24 person limit in the previous sentence, the Secretary shall notify the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives of the limit or the intention to prescribe a limit in excess of 24 persons, together with a detailed explanation of the reason for the new limit.
(5) The term "owner" means a private nonprofit organization that receives assistance under this section to develop and operate supportive housing for persons with disabilities.
(D) which is approved by the Secretary as to financial responsibility.
Such term includes a for-profit limited partnership the sole general partner of which is an organization meeting the requirements under subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) or a corporation controlled by an organization meeting the requirements under subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D).
(7) The term "State" includes the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States.
(9) The term "very low-income" has the same meaning as given the term "very low-income families" under section 1437a(b)(2) of this title.
The Secretary shall establish a minimum percentage of the amount made available for each fiscal year for capital advances under subsection (d)(1) that shall be used for multifamily projects subject to subsection (e)(4).
Of any amounts made available for assistance under subsection (b) of this section, such sums as may be necessary shall be available for funding capital advances in accordance with subsection (d)(1) of this section. Such amounts, the repayments from such advances, and the proceeds from notes or obligations issued under this section prior to November 28, 1990,4 shall constitute a revolving fund to be used by the Secretary in carrying out this section.
Of any amounts made available for assistance under subsection (b) of this section, such sums as may be necessary shall be available for funding project rental assistance in accordance with subsection (d)(2) of this section.
There are authorized to be appropriated for providing assistance pursuant to this section $300,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2015.
The amendments made by this section shall take effect on October 1, 1991, with respect to projects approved on or after such date. The Secretary shall issue regulations for such purpose after notice and public comment.
The Secretary shall, upon the request of an owner, apply the provisions of this section to any housing for which a loan reservation was made under section 1701q of title 12 before November 28, 1990,4 but for which no loan has been executed and recorded. In the absence of such a request, any housing identified under the preceding sentence shall continue to be subject to the provisions of section 1701q of title 12 as they were in effect when such assistance was made or reserved.
When responding to an owner's request under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, apply such portion of amounts obligated at the time of loan reservation, including amounts reserved with respect to such housing under section 1437f of this title, as are required for the owner's housing under the provisions of this section and shall make any remaining portion available for other housing under this section.
The HOME Investment Partnerships Act, referred to in subsec. (b)(3)(C)(ii)(II), is title II of Pub. L. 101–625, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4094, which is classified principally to subchapter II (§12721 et seq.) of chapter 130 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 12701 of this title and Tables.
The Social Security Act, referred to in subsecs. (b)(3)(D) and (d)(2), (3), is act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620. Titles XVI and XIX of the Act are classified generally to subchapters XVI (§1381 et seq.) and XIX (§1396 et seq.), respectively, of chapter 7 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 1305 of this title and Tables.
The amendments made by such Act, referred to in subsec. (b)(3)(F)(ii), probably means the amendments made by Pub. L. 111–374, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 4089, known as the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2010, which amended this section. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 2010 Amendment note set out under section 8001 of this title and Tables.
Section 1441a of title 12, referred to in subsec. (h)(2), was repealed by Pub. L. 111–203, title III, §364(b), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1555.
The Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, referred to in subsec. (h)(6)(A), is Pub. L. 101–625, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4079. Subtitle A of title II of the Act is classified generally to part A (§12741 et seq.) of subchapter II of chapter 130 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 12701 of this title and Tables.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, referred to in subsec. (j)(2), is Pub. L. 88–352, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 241. Title VI of the Act is classified generally to subchapter V (§2000d et seq.) of chapter 21 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2000a of this title and Tables.
The Fair Housing Act, referred to in subsec. (j)(2), is title VIII of Pub. L. 90–284, Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 81, which is classified principally to subchapter I of chapter 45 (§3601 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 3601 of this title and Tables.
Section was enacted as part of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, and not as part of the Congregate Housing Services Act of 1978 which comprises this chapter.
In subsec. (j)(6)(A), "sections 3141–3144, 3146, and 3147 of title 40" substituted for "the Act of March 3, 1931 (commonly known as the Davis-Bacon Act)" on authority of Pub. L. 107–217, §5(c), Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1303, the first section of which enacted Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works.
November 28, 1990, referred to in subsecs. (l)(2) and (n)(2), was in the original "the enactment of this Act" and "the date of enactment of this Act", respectively, see Enactment of Section note below.
2011—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 111–374, §5(1)(B)(i), substituted "makes available" for "provides".
Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 111–374, §5(1)(A), (B)(ii), (C), added par. (3).
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 111–374, §4(1), substituted "is authorized to take the following actions:" for "is authorized—" in introductory provisions.
Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 111–374, §4(2), inserted heading and substituted "To provide tenant-based" for "to provide tenant-based" and a period for "; and".
Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 111–374, §4(3), inserted heading and substituted "To provide assistance" for "to provide assistance".
Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 111–374, §4(4), added par. (3).
Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 111–374, §5(2)(A), substituted "housing and community-based services" for "special".
Subsec. (c)(2)(A). Pub. L. 111–374, §5(2)(B)(i), added subpar. (A) and struck out former subpar. (A) which read as follows: "provide persons with disabilities occupying such housing with supportive services that address their individual needs;".
Subsec. (c)(2)(B). Pub. L. 111–374, §5(2)(B)(ii), substituted "activities;" for "activities,".
Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 111–374, §5(3), substituted "provided pursuant to subsection (b)(1) shall bear" for "provided under subsection (b)(2) shall bear".
Subsec. (d)(2). Pub. L. 111–374, §3(a)(1), designated existing provisions as subpar. (A), inserted heading and "comply with subsection (e)(2) and shall" before "obligate" in first sentence, substituted "amount provided under the contract for each year covered by the contract" for "annual contract amount" in two places, and added subpar. (B).
Subsec. (d)(4). Pub. L. 111–374, §2(a), amended par. (4) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (4) related to tenant-based rental assistance provided through a public housing agency or a private nonprofit organization.
Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 111–374, §3(b)(1)(A), substituted "Program requirements" for "Term of commitment" in heading.
Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 111–374, §3(b)(1)(B), added par. (1) and struck out former par. (1). Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "All units in housing assisted under subsection (b)(2) of this section shall be made available for occupancy by very low-income persons with disabilities for not less than 40 years."
Subsec. (e)(2). Pub. L. 111–374, §3(a)(2), inserted ", except that, in the case of the sponsor of a project assisted with any low-income housing tax credit pursuant to section 42 of title 26 or with any tax-exempt housing bonds, the contract shall have an initial term of not less than 360 months and shall provide funding for a term of 60 months" after "240 months" and substituted "upon expiration of a contract (or any renewed contract), renew such contract" for "extend any expiring contract".
Subsec. (e)(3), (4). Pub. L. 111–374, §3(b)(1)(C), added pars. (3) and (4).
Subsec. (f)(3)(B). Pub. L. 111–374, §5(4)(A)(i), substituted "be offered" for "receive".
Subsec. (f)(3)(C). Pub. L. 111–374, §5(4)(A)(ii), added subpar. (C) and struck out former subpar. (C) which read as follows: "evidence of the applicant's (or a designated service provider's) experience in providing such supportive services;".
Subsec. (f)(3)(D). Pub. L. 111–374, §5(4)(A)(iii), substituted "tenants" for "such persons, including evidence of such residential supervision as the Secretary determines is necessary to facilitate the adequate provision of such services".
Subsec. (f)(3)(E). Pub. L. 111–374, §5(4)(A)(iv), inserted "other Federal, and" before "State".
Subsec. (f)(4). Pub. L. 111–374, §5(4)(B), substituted "housing and community-based services" for "special".
Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 111–374, §3(c), substituted "Selection criteria and processing" for "Selection criteria" in subsec. heading, designated existing provisions as par. (1), inserted par. heading, redesignated former pars. (1) to (5), (6), and (7) as subpars. (A) to (E), (G), and (H), respectively, of par. (1), and added par. (2).
Subsec. (g)(1)(D). Pub. L. 111–374, §5(5)(A), substituted "appropriate supportive services will be made available" for "the necessary supportive services will be provided".
Subsec. (g)(1)(E). Pub. L. 111–374, §5(5)(B), added subpar. (E) and struck out former subpar. (E) which read as follows: "the extent to which the proposed design of the housing will accommodate the provision of such services;".
Subsec. (g)(1)(F). Pub. L. 111–374, §3(d), added subpar. (F).
Subsec. (h)(1). Pub. L. 111–374, §3(f)(1), substituted "Group homes" for "In general" in heading and "group homes" for "various types and sizes" in introductory provisions, redesignated subpars. (F) and (G) as (E) and (F), respectively, and struck out former subpar. (E) which read as follows: "the cost of congregate space necessary to accommodate the provision of supportive services to persons with disabilities;".
Subsec. (h)(3). Pub. L. 111–374, §3(f)(2), inserted "established pursuant to paragraph (1)" after "cost limitation".
Subsec. (h)(6). Pub. L. 111–374, §3(f)(3), added par. (6).
Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 111–374, §3(e), added subsec. (i) and struck out former subsec. (i) which related to tenant selection.
Subsec. (j)(4) to (7). Pub. L. 111–374, §5(6), redesignated pars. (5) to (7) as (4) to (6), respectively, and struck out former par. (4). Prior to amendment, text of par. (4) read as follows: "The Secretary may require an owner to deposit an amount not to exceed $10,000 in a special escrow account to assure the owner's commitment to the housing."
Subsec. (k)(1). Pub. L. 111–374, §5(7)(A), inserted ", which provides a separate bedroom for each tenant of the residence" before period at end of first sentence.
Pub. L. 111–374, §3(g)(1), inserted after second sentence "Not later than the date of the exercise of any waiver permitted under the previous sentence, the Secretary shall notify the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives of the waiver or the intention to exercise the waiver, together with a detailed explanation of the reason for the waiver."
Subsec. (k)(2). Pub. L. 111–374, §5(7)(B), substituted "The term 'person with disabilities' means a household composed of one or more persons who is 18 years of age or older and less than 62 years of age, and who has a disability." for "The term 'person with disabilities' means a household composed of one or more persons at least one of whom is an adult who has a disability."
"(B) provides supportive services that address the individual health, mental health or other special needs of such persons."
Subsec. (k)(4). Pub. L. 111–374, §3(g)(2), substituted "prescribe)" for "prescribe, subject to the limitation under subsection (h)(6) of this section)" and inserted at end "Not later than the date that the Secretary prescribes a limit exceeding the 24 person limit in the previous sentence, the Secretary shall notify the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives of the limit or the intention to prescribe a limit in excess of 24 persons, together with a detailed explanation of the reason for the new limit."
Subsec. (k)(5). Pub. L. 111–374, §5(7)(D), struck out "a project for" before "supportive housing".
Subsec. (k)(6). Pub. L. 111–374, §5(7)(E)(ii), which directed striking out "wholly owned and" in the matter inserted by the amendment made by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, was executed by striking out "wholly owned and" after "corporation" in concluding provisions as inserted by section 5(7)(E)(i) of Pub. L. 111–374, to reflect the probable intent of Congress. See below.
Pub. L. 111–374, §5(7)(E)(i), inserted as concluding provisions the matter directed to be inserted as concluding provisions after section 811(k)(6)(D) of the Housing Act of 1959 by section 841 of Pub. L. 106–569. See 2000 Amendment note below.
Subsec. (l)(1). Pub. L. 111–374, §3(h), amended par. (1) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "Of any amount made available for assistance under this section in any fiscal year, an amount shall be used for assistance under subsection (b)(2) of this section that is not less than the amount made available in appropriation Acts for such assistance in the preceding year.".
Subsec. (l)(2). Pub. L. 111–374, §5(8)(A), substituted "subsection (d)(1)" for "subsection (c)(1)".
Subsec. (l)(3). Pub. L. 111–374, §5(8)(B), substituted "subsection (d)(2)" for "subsection (c)(2)".
Subsec. (l)(4). Pub. L. 111–374, §3(b)(2), struck out par. (4). Text read as follows: "Of any amounts made available for any fiscal year and used for capital advances or project rental assistance under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (d) of this section, not more than 25 percent may be used for supportive housing which contains more than 24 separate dwelling units."
Subsec. (m). Pub. L. 111–374, §6, amended subsec. (m) generally, substituting authorization of appropriations for fiscal years 2011 through 2015 for authorization of appropriations for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003.
2000—Subsec. (d)(4). Pub. L. 106–569, §843(1), added par. (4) and struck out heading and text of former par. (4). Text read as follows: "Tenant-based rental assistance provided under subsection (b)(1) of this section may be provided only through a public housing agency that has submitted, and had approved, an allocation plan under section 1437e(f) of this title, and a public housing agency shall be eligible to apply under this section only for the purposes of providing such assistance. Such assistance shall be made available to eligible persons with disabilities and administered under the same rules that govern rental assistance made available under section 1437f of this title. In determining the amount of assistance provided under subsection (b)(1) of this section for a public housing agency, the Secretary shall consider the needs of the agency as described in the allocation plan."
Subsec. (h)(1). Pub. L. 106–569, §845, inserted at end of concluding provisions "Neither this section nor any other provision of law may be construed as prohibiting or preventing the location and operation, in a project assisted under this section, of commercial facilities for the benefit of residents of the project and the community in which the project is located, except that assistance made available under this section may not be used to subsidize any such commercial facility."
Subsec. (h)(5). Pub. L. 106–569, §842, substituted "sources other than this section" for "non-Federal sources" and inserted at end "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, assistance amounts provided under this section may be treated as amounts not derived from a Federal grant."
Subsec. (j)(7). Pub. L. 106–569, §844, added par. (7).
Subsec. (k)(2). Pub. L. 106–402 substituted "as defined in section 15002 of this title" for "as defined in section 6001(7) of this title" in third sentence.
Subsec. (k)(6). Pub. L. 106–569, §841, which directed insertion of concluding provisions after section 811(k)(6)(D) of the Housing Act of 1959, could not be executed because there is no section 811 of the Housing Act of 1959.
Subsec. (l)(1). Pub. L. 106–569, §843(2), substituted "subsection (b)(2) of this section" for "subsection (b) of this section" and struck out before period at end ", and the remainder shall be available for tenant-based assistance under subsection (n)".
Subsec. (m). Pub. L. 106–569, §822, added subsec. (m) and struck out heading and text of former subsec. (m). Text read as follows: "There is authorized to be appropriated for providing assistance under this section $201,000,000 for fiscal year 2000."
1999—Subsec. (k)(4). Pub. L. 106–74, §524(a)(1), inserted ", subject to the limitation under subsection (h)(6) of this section" after "prescribe".
Subsec. (l)(4). Pub. L. 106–74, §524(a)(2), added par. (4).
Subsecs. (m), (n). Pub. L. 106–74, §512, added subsec. (m) and redesignated former subsec. (m) as (n).
1992—Pub. L. 102–550, §623(a)(1), reenacted section catchline without change.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 102–550, §623(a)(2), added heading, introductory provisions, and pars. (1) and (2) and struck out former heading "General authority", introductory provisions, and pars. (1) and (2) which authorized assistance to private, nonprofit organizations to expand the supply of supportive housing for persons with disabilities, which assistance would be provided as capital advances and contracts for project rental assistance, and, in concluding provisions, realigned margin and substituted "assistance under this paragraph" for "Such assistance".
Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 102–550, §623(a)(3)(A), which directed the substitution of "subsection (b)(2) of this section" for "this section", was executed by making the substitution the first place appearing in first sentence, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
Subsec. (d)(3). Pub. L. 102–550, §623(a)(3)(A), substituted "subsection (b)(2) of this section" for "this section".
Subsec. (d)(4). Pub. L. 102–550, §623(a)(3)(B), added par. (4).
Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 102–550, §623(a)(4), substituted "subsection (b)(2) of this section" for "this section".
Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 102–550, §623(a)(5), substituted "subsection (b)(2) of this section" for "this section" in first and second sentences.
Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 102–550, §623(a)(6), which directed the substitution of "subsection (b)(2) of this section" for "this section", was executed by making the substitution in the introductory provisions and in par. (7), to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
Subsec. (j)(6). Pub. L. 102–550, §913(b), designated existing provisions as subpar. (A), inserted subpar. heading, substituted "with 12 or more units assisted under this section" for "assisted under this section and designed for dwelling use by 12 or more persons with disabilities", inserted "commonly known as" before "the Davis-Bacon Act", struck out before period at end "; but the Secretary may waive the application of this paragraph in cases or classes of cases where laborers or mechanics, not otherwise employed at any time in the construction of such housing, voluntarily donate their services without full compensation for the purposes of lowering the costs of construction and the Secretary determines that any amounts saved thereby are fully credited to the corporation, cooperative, or public body or agency undertaking the construction", and added subpar. (B).
Subsec. (k)(6). Pub. L. 102–550, §603, struck out "incorporated private" before "institution" in introductory provisions, added subpar. (A), and redesignated former subpars. (A) to (C) as (B) to (D), respectively.
Subsec. (l). Pub. L. 102–550, §601(d)(1), substituted "Allocation of funds" for "Authorizations" in heading.
Subsec. (l)(1). Pub. L. 102–550, §601(d)(5), added par. (1). Former par. (1) redesignated (2).
Pub. L. 102–550, §601(d)(2), inserted first sentence, struck out former first sentence which authorized an appropriation of $271,000,000 for fiscal year 1992 for the purpose of funding capital advances in accordance with subsection (d)(1) of this section, and in second sentence, substituted "Such amounts" for "Amounts so appropriated".
Subsec. (l)(2). Pub. L. 102–550, §601(d)(4), redesignated par. (1) as (2). Former par. (2) redesignated (3).
Pub. L. 102–550, §601(d)(3), added par. (2) and struck out former par. (2) which read as follows: "For the purpose of funding contracts for project rental assistance in accordance with subsection (d)(2) of this section, the Secretary may, to the extent approved in an appropriations Act, reserve authority to enter into obligations aggregating $246,000,000 for fiscal year 1992."
Subsec. (l)(3). Pub. L. 102–550, §601(d)(4), redesignated par. (2) as (3).
1991—Subsec. (k)(4). Pub. L. 102–27 substituted "24 persons with disabilities (or such higher number of persons as permitted under criteria that the Secretary shall prescribe)" for "20 persons with disabilities".
Amendment by title VIII of Pub. L. 106–569 effective Dec. 27, 2000, unless effectiveness or applicability upon another date certain is specifically provided for, with provisions relating to effect of regulatory authority, see section 803 of Pub. L. 106–569, set out as a note under section 1701q of Title 12, Banks and Banking.
This section was enacted as part of Pub. L. 101–625, which was approved Nov. 28, 1990. However, this section was deemed enacted as of Nov. 5, 1990, by Pub. L. 101–507, title II, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1358, set out as an Effective Date of 1990 Amendment note under section 1701q of Title 12, Banks and Banking.
Amendment by section 623(a) of Pub. L. 102–550 not applicable with respect to lower income housing developed or operated pursuant to contract between Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and Indian housing authority, see section 626 of Pub. L. 102–550, set out as a note under section 1437a of this title.
Pub. L. 111–374, §2(b), Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 4090, provided that: "The Secretary is authorized to the extent amounts are made available in future appropriations Acts, to provide technical assistance to public housing agencies and other administering entities to facilitate using vouchers to provide permanent supportive housing for persons with disabilities, help States reduce reliance on segregated restrictive settings for people with disabilities to meet community care requirements, end chronic homelessness, as 'chronically homeless' is defined in section 401 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11361), and for other related purposes."
Pub. L. 111–117, div. A, title II, Dec. 16, 2009, 123 Stat. 3088, as amended by Pub. L. 112–10, div. B, title XII, §2256, Apr. 15, 2011, 125 Stat. 197, provided in part: "That amounts obligated for initial project rental assistance contracts from amounts appropriated in fiscal year 2003 and thereafter shall remain available for the purpose of paying such obligations incurred prior to the expiration of such amounts for a 10 year period following such expiration".
1 So in original. Probably should be "Partnerships".
3 So in original. The word "opportunity" probably should be followed by a period.
4 See Codification note below.


In the Order Accepting Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge Concerning Plea of Guilty, dated March 8, 2018, Chief Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn has referred this matter to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for a hearing to determine whether it has been clearly shown that there are exceptional circumstances under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c) why Defendant Cedric Deon Garland should not be detained under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) and whether it has been shown by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant Cedric Deon Garland is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b) or (c). See Dkt. No. 786.
Defendant is set for sentencing before Chief Judge Lynn on June 29, 2018. See Dkt. No. 736. “[W]hether a defendant should be released pending trial and whether a defendant should be released pending sentencing or appeal are distinct inquiries governed by different provisions of the Bail Reform Act.” United States v. Lee, 31 F. App'x 151, No. 01-30876, 2001 WL 1747632, at *1 (5th Cir. Dec. 4, 2001).
“The provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3143 govern release pending sentencing or appeal.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 46(c). 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) dictates that the Court “shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense in a case described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of subsection (f)(1) of section 3142 and is awaiting imposition or execution of sentence be detained unless - (A)(i) the judicial officer finds there is a substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted; or (ii) an attorney for the Government has recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed on the person; and (B) the judicial officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2).
Defendant filed a Motion for Continued Pretrial Release in which he identifies the exceptional circumstances under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c) that he contends justify his continued release post-conviction and in which he addresses whether he is likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b) or (c) pending sentencing. See Dkt. No. 821.
The Court held a hearing on March 29, 2018 on the matters referred by Chief Judge Lynn, at which Defendant appeared in person and through counsel and the government's counsel appeared. See Dkt. No. 839.
Defendant therefore must be detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless he meets the conditions of release set forth in Section 3143(a)(2) or 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c). Release of “a person who has been found guilty of an offense in a case described in [18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1)(A)] and is awaiting imposition or execution of sentence” requires that “the judicial officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2)(B); see also United States v. Morrison, 833 F.3d 491, 506 (5th Cir. 2016) (“The decision to detain Jacqueline after conviction is a common one because of the presumption in favor of detention that attaches to a convicted defendant. See 18 U.S.C. § 3143.”); United States v. Lopez, 504 F. App'x 297, 298 (5th Cir. 2012) (“A defendant who has been convicted ‘shall ... be detained' pending sentencing ‘unless the judicial officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released.' Thus, there is a presumption against release pending sentencing.” (footnotes omitted)). As the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has repeatedly recognized, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 46(c) and Section 3143(a)(1) impose a burden on a convicted defendant seeking release pending sentencing to show by clear and convincing evidence that she or he is not a flight risk or a danger to the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 46(c) (“The burden of establishing that the defendant will not flee or pose a danger to any other person or to the community rests with the defendant.”); United States v. Lockett, 549 F. App'x 269 (mem.), No. 13-11097, 2013 WL 6623771, at *1 (5th Cir. Dec. 17, 2013).
Further, Defendant must meet the conditions of release set forth in Section 3143(a)(2)(A) or 3145(c). Defendant cannot, and does not claim that he can, satisfy the Section 3143(a)(2)(A) showing that there is a substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted or that an attorney for the government has recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed on Defendant.
18 U.S.C. § 3145(c) provides that “[a] person subject to detention pursuant to [18 U.S.C. §] 3143(a)(2) or (b)(2), and who meets the conditions of release set forth in [18 U.S.C. §] 3143(a)(1) or (b)(1), may be ordered released, under appropriate conditions, by the judicial officer, if it is clearly shown that there are exceptional reasons why such person's detention would not be appropriate.” As reflected in the Report and Recommendation Concerning Plea of Guilty [Dkt. No. 731], Section 3145(c) provides an alternative basis for pre-sentencing release under “exceptional circumstances, ” so long as Defendant also makes the required showing under Section 3143(a)(1) and 3143(a)(2)(B) - that is, by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b) or 3142(c) pending sentencing. See United States v. Carr, 947 F.2d 1239, 1240 (5th Cir. 1991).
The Court finds that Defendant has made the required showing that he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if continued on release. As Defendant explains in his motion.


§ 90.205 Power and antenna height limits.
§ 90.207 Types of emissions.
§ 90.212 Provisions relating to the use of scrambling devices and digital voice modulation.
§ 90.214 Transient frequency behavior.
§ 90.217 Exemption from technical standards.
§ 90.219 Use of signal boosters.
§ 90.221 Adjacent channel power limits.


text:
As shown by several recent opinions in the last several months, however, courts are taking an increasingly skeptical view of requests to continue the seal both of dismissed qui tam complaints and of the government's motions for extension to investigate. See US ex rel Danner v. Quality Health Care, Inc., (D. Kan. 10/18/11); US ex rel Durham v. Prospect Waterproofing, Inc., (D. D.C. 10/4/11); US ex rel Littlewood v. King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (D. Md. 8/29/11), US ex re Rostholder v. Omnicare, (D. Md. 7/28/11). In these decisions, courts unsealed qui tam complaints in the face of claims by relators that they feared retaliation from employers. In turn, these opinions reflect an attitude that courts will no longer defer to claims by relators or the government that they will be prejudiced or harmed if qui tam pleadings are unsealed. See FCA Alert for a discussion of Danner and Durham.
The most thorough case addressing sealing and the request of a relator and the government to keep portions of the qui tam court file under seal is US ex rel Littlewood v. King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. which can also be found at 2011 WL 3805607.
In US ex rel Littlewood v. King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the relator filed a qui tam under seal pursuant to the False Claims Act alleging that defendant was engaged in an illegal scheme to promote off label uses of a drug. The government declined to intervene, and the relator moved to dismiss the underling suit. Though consenting to dismissal, the government requested that the court unseal the relator’s amended complaint and the Court’s dismissal order on the grounds that continuing the seal over those records “would violate the strong presumption in favor of the public’s right to examine and copy judicial records.” At the same time, the government moved to continue the seal on all other papers in the action, including its two previously filed motions seeking extensions of time in which to decide to intervene.
The relator opposed the government’s request to unseal any portion of the file, claiming that unsealing would subject her to significant harm in part because she was still employed by the defendant. The relator argued further that she should not be “penalized for coming forward” and she asked for the court’s “compassion” in retaining the seal on the grounds that she was a mother to two young children.
Additionally, the Court refused to continue to seal the government’s motions for extension of the seal in order to permit government to investigate. The Court analogized the motion to continue the seal to Rule 26(c), Fed. R. Civ. P., which requires courts to consider and balance the harm that might result from disclosure and determine whether the harm of unsealing will outweigh need for documents. Courts will usually decline to unseal if doing so results in the release of confidential investigative techniques, of information that could jeopardize an ongoing investigation, or of matters which could injure nonparties. Unsealing, the Court found, is appropriate if disclosure results in “routine investigative procedures" becoming known "which anyone with rudimentary knowledge of investigative processes would assume would be utilized in the regular course of business.” Finding that the government’s motions merely outlined “the kind of investigative procedures that anyone with rudimentary knowledge of investigative processes” would assume to be used, the Court denied the government’s motion.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
Burger King Corporation v. Burger King S.R.L.
1.1 The Complainant is Burger King Corporation, of Miami, Florida, United States of America, represented by CMS Cameron McKenna, Romania.
1.2 The Respondent is Burger King S.R.L. of Timisoara, Timis County, Romania.
2.1 The disputed Domain Names <burger-king.ro>, <burgerking.ro> and <whopper.ro> (the “Domain Names”) are all registered with RNC.ro (the “Registrar”).
3.1 The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 10, 2008. On July 10, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names at issue. On July 11, 2008, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant in respect of all of the Domain Names and providing contact details. However, the Registrar also responded that the language of the relevant registration agreements was Romanian.
3.2 As the Complaint had been submitted in English, on July 18, 2008 the Center forwarded a notice to the Complainant stating that the complainant should (a) provide evidence of an agreement between the parties that proceedings be English; (b) translate the Complaint into Romanian; or (c) submit a request that English be the language of the proceedings.
3.3 On July 22, 2008 the Complainant submitted a request that the proceedings be in English. The basis for that request was that (a) the Complainant was head-quartered in the United States of America; and (b) at that time only one Romanian speaking panelist was listed on the Center's website as a potential panelist in these proceedings and the Complainant had chosen a three person panel. However, at the same time it stated that it would submit a Romanian translation of the Complaint and this was done shortly thereafter.
3.5 The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
3.6 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 30, 2008. The Center’s explanatory email accompanying the notification was in both Romanian and English.
3.7 In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 19, 2008. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 20, 2008. On August 31, 2008 the Respondent sent an email to the Center purporting to be a Response but in fact being little more than the outline response available on the Center's website.
“For what this list serves is doubtful to us! Anyway we ask with ourselves in Roumanian [sic] to communicate. We have received from the file for the first time on the 20.08.2008 by means of email to the address knowledge. By mail we have received till this day no official writing. Another writing in this case will shut to you in a contemporary way.
3.9 The Center acknowledged that request in an email dated September 2, 2008 and stated this request would be included in the case file and any issue relating to the language of these proceedings would be left to be determined by the appointed panel.
3.10 The Center appointed Matthew S. Harris, Beatrice Onica Jarka and Marilena Oprea as panelists in this matter on September 4, 2008. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of the Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
4.1 The Complainant is the well-known fast food restaurant chain. It is the second largest fast food chain in the world with more than 11,200 restaurants in 70 countries. Over 11 million customers visit the Complainant’s restaurants every day.
(i) community trade mark no. 000338434 dated August 21, 1996 for the words BURGER KING in classes 16, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 42 (the “Burger King CTM”).
(ii) community trade mark no. 000330209 dated August 21, 1996 for the word WHOPPER in classes 16, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 42 (the “Whopper CTM”).
4.3 The Respondent is an entity incorporated under the laws of Romania on May 5, 2004. According to documents filed at the Romanian Trade Registry, its listed shareholders are Thomas Strohle, a German citizen, Colors Restaurant SRL a Romanian company, and Iloxx Group SRL, a Romanian company.
4.4 The Respondent registered the Domain Name <burgerking.ro> on June 28, 2004, <burger-king.ro> on June 2, 2006 and <whopper.ro> on September 4, 2006.
4.6 The websites operating from the <burger-king.ro> and <whopper.ro> Domain Names continue to operate at the date of this decision.
4.7 At all relevant times no website has operated from the <burgerking.ro> Domain Name.
5.1 The Complainant refers to its trade marks and asserts that the distinctive element of the Domain Names is identical to its marks.
5.2 It claims that the Respondent has never used the Domain Names in connection with any bona fide offering of goods and services. It also claims that the company has failed to file various mandatory documents at the Romanian Trade Registry, which “may also mean that the company has no active commercial activity”.
5.3 The Complainant asserts that “the Respondent used to have 3 (three) trade marks registered (including WHOPPER) within the OSIM [i.e. the Romanian Trade Mark Office] register”, but all these marks were revoked.
5.4 It refers to the domain name parking use in the case of two of the Domain Names and claims that the Respondent is using the Domain Names “to mislead Internet users into using the sponsored links hosted on the domain names website for commercial gain”.
5.5 On the issue of bad faith, the Complainant refers to its world-wide reputation. It then repeats its claim that the Domain Names were registered for commercial gain, claiming that from the sponsored links “it could be assumed that the Respondent may be even paid for each occasion on which a consumer clicks” on such a link. It also states that the page operating from the <burger-king.ro> Domain Name contained links associated with franchising and that given the Complainant’s franchising activities, this “suggests that [the webpage] is connected with the Complainant”.
5.6 The Complainant also claims that the Respondent has registered a number of other domain names in bad faith. It refers to <burgerking.lt>, <burgerking.lv>, <burgerking.pl> and <burgerking.dk>, which are said to have also been used for web pages that display sponsored links. From this the Complainant concludes “the domain names have been registered for the purposes of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant, as well as disrupting the business of the Complainant”. It is also said to involve “the Respondent prevent[ing] the Complainant from reflecting the BURGER KING trade marks in the corresponding domain names.
5.7 The Complainant also alleges that the activities of the Respondent constitute unfair competition under the laws of Germany, France, Romania and Poland. Lastly the Complainant claims that similar circumstances exist in this case as those set out in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
6.4 Subject always to the requirement that proceedings are conducted in accordance with the Policy and the Rules, a panel is generally granted wide discretionary powers regarding the conduct of those proceedings under paragraph 10 of the Rules. Insofar as a panel is concerned that the conduct of proceedings in a language other than that of the registration agreement and the native language of the respondent may have had a detrimental impact on the ability of a respondent to express itself, then a panel may use those powers to address that concern. For example, it may issue a procedural order seeking further clarification of the Respondent’s case (see, for example, Mirela Zoita and Florin Popescu v. Westaco S.R.L., WIPO Case No. DRO2007-0008). The Panel can even conceive of circumstances where a panel might consider it appropriate to order the translation by the Complainant of a complaint or other documents into a language other than the formal language of the proceedings.
6.5 Therefore, the fact that a panel has these wide powers available to it under paragraph 10, is also something that the panel can take into account when exercising its power to determine the language of proceedings under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules (see, for example, Henkel KGaA v. Mr. Augustin Sbinta WIPO Case No. DRO2008-0003).
6.6 In this case, the Complainant provided the Respondent with a copy of the Complaint in Romanian but has put in a submission requesting that these proceedings take place in English. The Complainant gives as one of the reasons why the proceedings should be conducted in English, that it is based in the United States of America. The Panel is of the view that ordinarily this fact alone would not be enough to justify a determination that proceedings be in English. This is particularly so here where the Complainant is an organisation with substantive resources that has been able to instruct Romanian lawyers to conduct these proceedings.
6.7 Nevertheless the Panel are minded to agree to the Complainant's language request. First, there is the fact that the Complainant has translated the Complaint into Romanian. Given this fact, it does not believe that the Respondent could have had any difficulty in understanding the substantive claims made against it in these proceedings. Second, the Domain Names comprise English words and links on the website operating from two of the Domain Names were in English. Indeed, the very name of the Respondent is comprised of English words. If an entity conducts activities in English, it is difficult for that entity to object if someone complains about such activities in English. Third, in this case the Respondent at no time prior to August 31, 2008 made any complaint about these proceedings being conducted in English. It did not respond to earlier communications from the Center (at least one of which was also in Romanian), and did not attempt to file a Response in Romanian.
6.8 The one factor that might be said to point in the other direction is the Respondent's email of August 31, 2008. This is quoted from in detail at paragraph 3.8 of this decision. This email would suggest that whilst the Respondent has some grasp of English, that grasp may be poor. The comments suggest that the Respondent may at that stage have had a limited grasp of what was procedurally going on in these proceedings at that time. Further, the email expressly requests that all further communications from the Center be in Romanian. Nevertheless, the Panel believes that when one takes into account the factors that suggest that English would be an appropriate language in which to conduct these proceedings, this email is insufficient to justify the Panel making an order that the language of these proceedings should be Romanian. The Panel also does not believe that any purpose would be served here by making any other order under paragraph 10 of the Rules. The Panel is not convinced that any lack of understanding that the Respondent may have as to progress of this case has anything to do with choice of language.
6.9 In the circumstances, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of these proceedings be English.
7.1 The Panel has reviewed the documents submitted by the Complainant in this case. In the light of this material, the Panel finds as set out below.
7.2 There are no exceptional circumstances within paragraph 5(e) of the Rules so as to prevent this Panel from determining the dispute based upon the Complaint, notwithstanding the failure of the Respondent to lodge a Response.
7.4 However, under paragraph 14 of the Rules, where a party does not comply with any provision of the Rules, the Panel shall “draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate”.
7.5 The Panel agrees that the <burger-king.ro> and <burgerking.ro> Domain Names can, after disregarding the “.ro” ccTLD, only be sensibly understood as the English words “burger” and “king” in combination. Accordingly, they are virtually identical to the Complainant’s Burger King CTM.
7.6 Similarly, the <whopper.ro> Domain Name can only be sensibly understood as the word “whopper”. Accordingly, the Domain Name is virtually identical to the Complainant’s Whopper CTM.
7.7 In the circumstances, the Complainant has made out the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
7.8 In this case the name of the Respondent contains the term “Burger King”. Accordingly, this raises the question whether so far as two of the Domain Names that incorporate that term, the Domain Names reflect a name by which the Respondent has been “commonly known” as provided for by paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. However, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s claims that the Respondent has never engaged in a substantial business activity under that name and accordingly has not established a right or legitimate interest under this heading.
7.9 The only activity in which the Respondent appears to have been engaged is the operation of website from two of the Domain Names. As has already been described, these web sites show the classic hallmarks of a parking site. Even the slogan “what you need when you need it” is one that has long been associated with the pages produced by these services. For examples of other cases in which it features, see Associated Professional Sleep Societies v. l.c./Li Chow, WIPO Case No. D2007-0695, First Magnus Financial Corp. v. Domains Ventures, WIPO Case No. D2006-1427 and First SBF Holding, Inc. v. XC2, WIPO Case No. D2008-0409.
7.10 How these sorts of site operate is described in greater detail in the context of bad faith later on in this decision. In the view of the Panel there is no real doubt that in this case the Respondent has registered these two Domain Names with a view to earning a share of the click through revenue generated by the domain name parking pages in question.
7.11 It is possible for use of a domain name for a parking site with advertising revenue generating sponsored links to provide a legitimate interest within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. The key question is whether a respondent intended to profit from the descriptive nature of the word or words in the domain name without intending to take advantage of a complainant’s rights and reputation in that term. If that is the case, then the respondent may have a legitimate interest in the domain name (see paragraph 2.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions). On the other hand, if the domain name in question was chosen because of the similarity to a name in which a complainant has an interest and in order to capitalise or otherwise take advantage of that similarity, then such registration and use does not provide the registrant with a right or legitimate interest in the domain name (see, for example, the decision of the three member panel in Express Scripts, Inc. v. Windgather Investments Ltd. / Mr. Cartwright, WIPO Case No. D2007-0267).
7.13 In the case of the Domain Name <burgerking.ro> there is no evidence before the panel of any website having operated from that Domain Name. It also appears to have been registered over four years ago. Why this Domain Name has not been used is curious. Nevertheless, given the way in which the Respondent has used the other two Domain Names, the only reasonable conclusion that the Panel can draw is that the Respondent also registered the Domain Name <burgerking.ro> in order to take advantage in some way of the reputation that the Complainant has developed in its BURGER KING marks. Even if it is unclear to the Panel exactly how the Respondent intended to do this, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in this Domain Name.
7.14 There is one last complication in this case that needs to be addressed. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent was at one time the owner of three trade marks registered at the Romanian trade mark registry. The Complainant states that one of these marks was for the word WHOPPER but no further details are provided. Having conducted a search on the publicly available register1, the mark would appear to be no. M2005/013169. An application for this mark was filed on December 28, 2005 but it would appear not to have proceeded to registration due to a failure on the part of the Respondent to pay the relevant examination fee. In any event, there is no evidence before the Panel that at the time of commencement of these proceedings, the Respondent owned any registered mark in any term incorporated in any of the Domain Names.
7.15 In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and the Complainant has made out the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
7.16 The Panel has little difficulty in concluding in this case that the Domain Names have been registered and used in bad faith.
7.17 First, there is the use of two of the Domain Names in connection with a Domain Name parking service. It is now well known how these sorts of page operate. A domain name owner “parks” the domain name with a domain name parking service provider. The service provider then generates a page that incorporates sponsored links or links to sponsored links. When an Internet user clicks on these sponsored links, the entity sponsoring that link will make a payment. This “click-through revenue” is then ordinarily split between the domain name parking service provider and the owner of the domain name (see for example Owens Corning v. NA, WIPO Case No. D2007-1143).
7.18 In this case the pages appended to the Complaint, suggest that the link to the sponsored searches is indirect. Either sponsored links are produced when the Internet user undertakes a search in the search box provided on the page or chooses one of the “Related Searches” that are displayed.
7.19 The generation of revenue from domain name parking activities is not necessarily activity in bad faith. However, it is use in bad faith within the scope of pargraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy where the registrant chose the domain name in question because of its similarity to a mark or name of another person in the hope and expectation that that similarity will result in an increased number of Internet users being drawn to that page (see for example Express Scripts, Inc. v. Windgather Investments Ltd. / Mr. Cartwright, WIPO Case No. D2007-0267).
7.20 In this case the fame of the Complainant’s marks and in the case of the BURGER KING marks, the fact that the mark comprises an unusual combination of English words, mean that the inevitable conclusion to be drawn is that these Domain Names were chosen with the Complainant in mind and with to view to creating confusion between the Domain Names and the Complainant's marks in order to attract a greater number of Internet users to the relevant domain name parking pages.
7.21 As has already been mentioned, in the case of the <burgerking.ro> Domain Name there is no evidence of use for any website. Nevertheless, given that it is difficult to conceive of any use of the Domain Name in a manner that is not associated with the Complainant and taking into account the way in which the Respondent has used the other two Domain Names there is only one reasonable conclusion that can be drawn in this case. That is that the Respondent also registered that Domain Name in order to take advantage in some way of the reputation that the Complainant has developed in its BURGER KING marks. It has long been established that the mere holding of a Domain Name can in some circumstances constitute use of that domain name for the purposes of the Policy (see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).
7.22 In the circumstances, the Complainant has made out the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7.24 This Panel agrees with the comments of the panel in the Delta Air Transport case and believe that they apply equally to claims of breach of unfair competition law.
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Names <burger-king.ro>, <burgerking.ro> and <whopper.ro> be transferred to the Complainant.
1 As to the legitimacy of the Panel doing so, see paragraph 4.5 of the WIPO Overview.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
Thanks for your patience during our reconstruction of the MGEC website. Although we had been planning to update the site for some time, a computer fault froze the site from updates, and the updating and transfer process to a new platform needed to be done in advance of our plans. As many projects do, it also took longer than anticipated. While the look is similar right now, we plan to add in new content and features in 2019.
Throughout the US, public sector employee unions are responding to the summer 2018 ruling in “Janus.” This ruling, and its history is relatively important- so much so, that we’ve developed a whole section of content related to three cases that have shaped union representation in the public section.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1977 (Abood v. Detroit Board of Education) that states could require workers who are not union members to pay so-called agency fees in support of representation activities. A following case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, sought to strike down the requirement of California and more than 20 other states that public employees fund the union that bargains on their behalf even if they aren’t members of the union.
In the recently tried case, the issue was similar: Are Mark Janus’s First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and association violated when government requires him, an employee, to pay “fair share” or “agency” fees to a private entity, a labor union, to which government has given exclusive power to represent him, although he chooses not to be a member? Janus argues that an exclusive representative “is indistinguishable from a government-appointed lobbyist.” He argued the fees are usually significantly more than half of — sometimes up to 100 percent of — union dues. The court ruled in favor of Mark Janus; subsequently, unions like MGEC could no longer collect fees from individuals who were not union members.
We’d encourage you to read Mark Janus’ Washington Post editorial (July 1, 2018) on the case following the Supreme Court decision.
His case, in part, argued that unions were overly successful in bargaining for salary, health care, pensions, and benefits- and that governments were being stretched beyond their ability to afford the agreements. Take a look at the attached links for further details.
As a result of the Janus v. AFSCME ruling, MGEC made changes to our constitutional language in order to better define our full members, members who wish to voluntarily contribute at the pre-Janus level for costs related to contract bargaining and other non-political union activities, and represented non-members. These new classification of non-member individuals consists of those people whom MGEC, by law, still represents, while not paying any dues or contributions. MGEC still values its responsibility and obligation to represent all of our engineering and land surveying community, as we are stronger together.
Full Members: These members elect to pay the full dues rate and participate fully in MGECs operations. Dues are generally paid through direct payroll deduction.
Contributing Members: These members pay an 85% rate of the full membership and have more limited opportunity for participation [some a-la-carte fees apply and office holding and voting privileges are constrained]. Payment may be through direct payroll deduction or by other contribution method. This membership category has been established to encourage members who previously participated as “fair share” members to continue their limited participation. While less than 4% of the MGEC budget goes to any sort of non-partisan legislative activities, money from contributing members is kept expressively separate from these functions.
Represented non-members: These individuals are not members of MGEC for purposes of MGEC’s organizational structure, however they are represented by MGEC during bargaining and labor negotiations as part of our collective bargaining responsibilities with the State of Minnesota. These individuals are now, with the passage of the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME ruling not required to contribute any money toward representation. Dues or other contributions are not deducted from members in this category.
Obviously, the union will be in better overall health, the more full members we have. Not just in terms of the financial contribution, but also with respect to organizational unity. Eighty-nine percent of those represented by MGEC members are full members. Your support allows us to represent members in collective bargaining as well as in discussions with management about irregular or inconsistent labor practices. We also participate in discussions related to retirement, health care, state pensions, safety, hiring and outreach, and other issues impacting our members.
It’s easy to miss that our union, MGEC, isn’t particularly similar to the unions shown in the movies and on TV- we don’t have cigar smoking union bosses in dimly lit rooms around mahogany desks and aren’t preoccupied with grievances, seniority, and protectionism regardless of circumstances. We do however, represent our members to the best of our abilities when they are been harmed by unfair or inconsistent contract practices. While you may think you don’t need or use your union- you might be surprised at our role- and how we might be helping you- right now- behind the scenes.
While you may not see the active role of your union on a daily basis, a look through the history books shows the significant impact MGEC has had in establishing new positions, maintaining or expanding state engineering and land surveying jobs, obtaining higher salaries, and obtaining favorable language and work rules. Our employment environment would be different without MGEC- you need look no further than our neighboring states to see the differences in salary, vacation accrual, contract language, health care, and retirement benefits. What we have now didn’t happen without the active investment of the members who came before us.
Are you new to MGEC, or are you a long-time member, or are you anywhere in between? Get in contact with us through your local board members or representatives and get a MGEC polo shirt with our logo and join your other members in showing your support for your fellow engineers, engineering specialists, and land surveyors!
MGEC represents you- but MGEC also needs interested people to help us in our workplaces by acting as representatives for MGEC. See our FAQ page on representatives for more. These positions are responsible for greeting new MGEC members (either new employees or job transfers) and helping to arrange worksite snack or lunch meetings. The positions are not intended to have any role with human resource, labor actions, grievances, or disciplinary sorts of topics. Just the fun stuff to provide improved networking opportunities for our members.
We are currently recruiting- so if you are interested in being a contact person, please let us know.
You may have been approached, or you may be approached in the near future from someone with your best intentions in their mind. It may be by mail, phone e-mail, or maybe even at your door as aspiring politicians drop by neighborhoods this fall. They might well encourage you to cancel or drop your union membership so that you can put that money in your pocket. It is surely nice that they are looking out for you- and without you even asking them. It is difficult to find that sort of altruism today. As with all things however, we would advise- caveat emptor- “buyer beware.” What your union membership investment is “buying” you is likely more than you think- thanks to the power of collective bargaining.
MGEC wants you to make the right choice for you- and we will be striving to make the case that your best investment is in support of your collective bargaining representatives at MGEC.
States where union membership is not required for some labor jobs are generally termed “Right to Work” states. The thought is that worker earnings are directed to unions in unionized states without worker choice- these workers are therefore denied the “right to work” without paying union dues. The thinking continues that while those unions may provide benefits, they may also provide unwanted benefits, services, or actions. In the recent Janus v. AFSCME decision, the plaintiff specifically argued he wanted to separate from the union as he felt that high wages and costly benefits were causing undue stress on government. The case specifically embodied the “Right to Work For Less.” We have numerous links on our site to independent studies that show the positive impact of labor unions with respect to salaries, working conditions, safety, health care, and retirement benefits. These benefits even trickle down or across to non0unionized workforces in the states where there is a union presence. We urge you to compare your benefits to those of non-unionized government workers.
MGEC interacts with members of both the executive and legislative branches irrespective of party affiliation and we make no endorsement of candidates. We do not make political recommendations or contributions. What we do is act on behalf of our members, supporting the hard working engineering and land surveying employees of the state of Minnesota.
There is quite a bit of evidence to support the conclusion that collective representation is more powerful than going it alone- and the examples don’t always involve labor. Have you heard that organizations like AARP, AAA, and Alumni associations can arrange for group discounts? Strength in numbers. Have you heard that large pension plans have an outsized role in the funds in which they are invested? Strength in numbers. Have you heard that the Federal Government gets better prices on drugs through Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veteran’s Administration? Strength in numbers. Have you heard that nurses and teachers have successfully- this year- even in non-union states, organized and undertaken collective action to pursue better wages and working conditions. Strength in numbers. Class action lawsuits? Strength in numbers.
Having sat across from more than 15 State Human Resources and Labor representatives during our contracting negotiations, I can tell you is a situation I’d rather not be in alone.
An opportunity presented itself in this past round of bargaining. MAPE previously negotiated deferring 1% of salary for its members into a Health Savings Account. The state was willing to consider adding this to our negotiations, and it went into practice faster than many in state service were expecting, with the comparatively fast ratification of the union contracts in the spring legislative session.
This account is administered by the Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS), and although dedicated to health care, is also an investment vehicle- and a relatively high value one in that both contributions and disbursements are tax free- which means comparatively more value to your salary.
The HSA plan has some distinct requirements: 1) It must be applied broadly to a defined represented group (such as MGEC members); 2) it must be for a fixed contribution amount among the members, such as the 1%, currently established; 3) there are very limited circumstances to opt out; 4) you may elect to change investment vehicles for the contributions; and 5) the plan contributions become available to you when you leave state service either by a job change or through retirement.
We know that our more senior members may ask- “Why can’t I contribute more?” while our younger members may ask- “Why can I contribute less or none at all?” The short answer is simply, the plans don’t allow for those options. Health care costs are the number one cited reason our MGEC retirees don’t retire earlier. We recognize that the HSA is a plan that won’t immediately meet everyone’s needs or desires, but it is an excellent opportunity to help our members plan for their future. We expect that everyone will have health care expenses after state service, and that money saved through this account can help our members and their families in the long run.
Be sure to go into your HSA account and review the investment options. The default investments are likely not the ones you would pick if you are in the early to middle portion of your career.
It is the fall, and that means that the nomination period for MGEC directors and officers is open! We are looking for motivated candidates to help with the website, member activities, and a variety of organizational roles. The experience gained working with MGEC can often help on the job or when building your resume. Our volunteer efforts help keep our member dues low and help establish relationships among our 1000 members across our Minnesota state agencies. New for late 2018, we are embracing more teleconferencing technologies to enhance our collaboration with board members who would otherwise find it difficult to attend the meetings at our building in Inver Grove Heights.
Are you interested in putting your skills to work? We encourage you to consider helping MGEC with outreach, marketing, editing, database work, newsletter and web development, preparation of meeting materials, or other supporting roles as a director on the board. It is a great way to network with your colleagues and gain some additional leadership experience for your resume.
It won’t be long until 2019 is here and our next round of bargaining is in full swing. Of course, there are a few things before that time which will shape those circumstances, notably state budget forecasts and the 2018 elections in November for State-wide offices and our State legislators.
Whether you are a new Graduate Engineer Trainee or a Land Surveyor Administrative Professional, MGEC has something to offer you. MGEC supports our educational and career-building organization, MAPD, and helps provide training throughout your career with Minnesota government. We offer classes related to licensure renewal as well as provide support for other professional and career development classes. MGEC also provides the opportunity to network with your peers in state government and to interact with your elected representatives.
We’re working to make MGEC more friendly to our state-wide workforce by updating our web-based technologies. We’re now working with Skype for Business and looking into other ways to share content effectively and meaningfully to our members. We recognize that life is busy and it should be easy to get information on-line in addition to our in-person meetings.
The labor contract can be found here or on the MMB website. It covers a number of provisions- but not everything. Some items are covered by management policies, rather than negotiated items. We’re working on making past labor contracts available in our new website archives.
We hope you were able to join us for our 50th Anniversary Annual Meeting and Golf Event. Click here for the powerpoint presentation given by President Steve Kordosky at the event. Thanks again to our event sponsors who support the event and golf prizes.
New for this year- MGEC is starting some “Regional Networking Events” in addition to our Annual Meeting. This event is intended to be an opportunity for members to meet the MGEC board, and one another for an evening reception and social. We have done boating events in the past in the Twin Cities. We’re now looking at doing some new things in new places. Send your suggestions along on what you might like to do to network with your local, regional, and state-wide colleagues and MGEC directors.
Are there things you are looking for on the MGEC website but can’t find? Are there things you want to know about our contract or about MGEC activities through the year. As we develop the new website we will be adding content and photographs. If there are things you’d like to see, please contact us.
Janus versus AFSCME. Could it lead to a Right to Work?
MGEC negotiates with MMB in collective bargaining, seeking wages and benefits that compare to the engineering industry. The Janus versus AFSCME decision made it unconstitutional to collect involuntary Fair Share Union dues. If more and more MGEC members opt not to be full members, or opt not to voluntarily contribute to MGEC, erosion of the Union and collective bargaining occurs. Ultimately, this could lead to a “Right-to Work” workplace. Wisconsin, Michigan, South Dakota, and North Dakota are now all “Right-to Work States”. Top Salary for Senior Engineers in these states compared to Minnesota are shown below. Protect your wages and your benefits, be a full MGEC member.
The US Supreme Court ruling in the Janus Case v. AFSCME case impacted the relationships and fee structure within union membership. MGEC memberships are outlined in its constitution and by-laws. Consequently, MGEC is in the process of updating its types of membership, dues/fees rights associated with such membership. The next step will be submitting to full members those constitutional/by-law changes with the membership for a vote this autumn.
MGEC will have an election for the following positions this November. Vice President (three year term by serving one year as VP, one year and President, and one year as Past President), Secretary (two year term) and Director (five openings with two years terms). Members interesting in being nominated for one of these positions can self-nominate themselves by September 22, 2018 by sending an e-mail to MGEC@mgec.org. Terms begin January of 2019.
Applications should be in to MGEC@mgec.org by May 13, 2019.
Scholarships – Members and MGEC Family members may apply for MGEC scholarships to members and the family members.
Distinguished Citizenship – recognizing outstanding effort in civic or other community service, which has included both international and local service to a community, and/or for service to the MGEC community.This program provides a unique opportunity to recognize some of the very special members of our organization.
The MGEC Website is going to be “refreshed” (rebuilt) from the ground up. Please bear with us over the coming weeks as that process begins. We welcome photos from members of state infrastructure so that the website reflects the work MGEC members do for the State of Minnesota. Send your photos to MGEC.
The MGEC Golf Event and Annual Meeting will be Monday, June 3, 2019 at Oak Marsh Golf Club, Oakdale, MN.
To improve and maintain the union relationship between members, MGEC is developing key people to facilitate members participation with MGEC. Those people have been asked to be a first contact between MGEC and new hires as well as existing employees. To facilitate worksite meetings of MGEC members. To assist in communication, problem identification and a referral source to employee MGEC board leaders and staff.
The next step will be for the contract to be submitted to the Legislature for passage. MGEC members will contact members of the Legislative Subcommittee for Employee Relations to encourage passage and explain support for the contract and key unresolved compensation issues.