ARMY COMMUNITY SERVICE EMPLOYMENT READINESS BRANCH“Your Job Search Network,” the Employment Readiness Branch provides information and referral services in local employment, education, employment training, transition and volunteer opportunities. This program provides the competitive edge needed to secure employment and provides current, in-depth, timely information and other supportive services necessary to minimize the employment challenges associated with relocation. More than 75 percent of program participants secured employment. Program services are available to active-duty military, Reserves, retirees, Department of Defense civilian employees and their Family members. Located in Building 4220, South 77th Street, phone 254-288-2089 or visit the website https://hood.armymwr.com/programs/employment-readiness. The office is open 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Closed federal holidays.CIVILIAN PERSONNEL ADVISORY CENTERIndividuals who are interested in civil service or nonappropriated fund (NAF) employment should visit the Job Information Center at 4820 Washington St. The center provides information about employment opportunities, special employment programs such as the program for individuals with disabilities and the Veterans Readjustment Appointment Program. For a current listing of appropriated fund jobs, visit www.USAJOBS.gov. You may narrow your search to Texas and enter “Hood” as the installation. NAF employment information can be obtained at the Job Information Center from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may visit the Job Information Center or call 254-288-2002 for specific information. The Nonappropriated Fund Human Resources office posts a list of open continuous and special announcements. Special announcements have specific opening and closing dates. Applications must be accepted by the closing date if the applicant wishes to be considered. Open continuous announcements will be used to fill current and future vacancies. There are no closing dates associated with open continuous announcements, and applications may be submitted at any time. You may also go to www.army.mil to obtain additional information about the Morale, Welfare and Recreation Referral Program.FEDERAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT FOR SPOUSESSpouse Employment PreferenceBuilding 4220, 77th Street and Copperas Cove RoadPhone 254-288-2002DSN 738-2002(Recording, follow voice prompts)Special Military Spouse Hiring Authority: Under a personnel hiring rule, some military spouses could be quickly hired for federal jobs without going through the usual competitive process. Eligible individuals include spouses of active-duty service members who have been called on to relocate. This includes spouses of Guardsmen or Reservists who’ve been called up for more than 180 days of active service other than training. Eligible spouses must be moving to another duty station accompanied by their service member husband or wife. Spouses of former service members listed as 100 percent disabled and separated or retired, as well as widows or widowers of service members who died on active duty and who have not remarried also are eligible. Applicants still must meet specific job-qualification criteria listed for individual positions. Visit www.USAjobs.gov for specific details.PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT RESOURCESSoldier For Life – Transition Assistance ProgramBuilding 126 (behind 121, Rivers Building)Phone 254-288-ACAP (2227)DSN 738-ACAPPhone 254-288-JOBS (5627)DSN 738-JOBSReception services: 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday; full services: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; closed 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Friday for trainingThe SFL-TAP center provides transition assistance to Soldiers who are separating from active duty, Department of Defense civilian employees in a reduction-in-force status or who are retiring, and their Family members. All transitioning Soldiers receive pre-separation counseling. This includes benefits information, career guidance, job search skills development, job search assistance, veteran’s benefits counseling and other guidance relevant to a thorough transition. SFL-TAP staff members also conduct unit briefing about policies, procedures and services. They also sponsor two Mega Career Fairs, in January and June, drawing hundreds of employers to Fort Hood. Call 254-288-2227, or 254-288-(JOBS) 5627 for information and location of services. The following website offers resources in preparation for separation from the Army: www.sfl-tap.army.mil.WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS OF CENTRAL TEXASWorkforce Solutions of Central Texas (WSCT) Career Center and Veterans Department has computers, printers, copiers and faxes to use free for job search purposes. The WSCT also offers Child Care Services, Business Resource Center and Jobs 4 Military Families programs. The center is a source of information for the many contractors on Fort Hood looking for employees. The center is at 300 Cheyenne Drive and is open 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. Career Center late night is 7 p.m. Tuesday.FAMILY MEMBER EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (FMEAP)Building 4220, 77th Street and Copperas Cove RoadPhone 254-288-2089DSN 738-20897:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through FridayThe FMEAP assists eligible Family members in locating employment on Fort Hood and in the surrounding communities.AAFESBuilding 4262, 79th Street and Copperas Cove RoadPhone 254-532-9514/3123Taking applications 8:30 a.m. to noon Monday through Friday at http://odin.aafes.com/employment.NONPAID OR VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIESInstallation Volunteer Service BranchBuilding 16005, T. J. Mills Boulevard and Central AvenuePhone 254-287-8657YOUTH EMPLOYMENTFort Hood holds youth career and job fairs annually usually in the spring. This free event is open to youth and young adult job seekers, ages 16 to 22. The fairs provide information and support to those searching for employment and training opportunities. The job fair is sponsored by the Army Community Service and Child, Youth and School Services. The partnership is meant to provide young adults professional insight on launching an effective career search. Employers from diverse fields, such as customer service, retail, administration, military service, automotive, financial, general labor, warehouse and food service usually participate.Fort Hood also hosts an annual Career Launch seminar. Developed by the Boys & Girls Club of America, the program is designed to help job seekers review information about them in order to make informed decisions about a career path. For more information, call 254-286-6684/288-2089 for self-assessments that enable seekers to find job markets according to interests and aptitudes.EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMSMILITARY EQUAL OPPORTUNITYThe Military Equal Opportunity Office assists and advises commanders, managers, supervisors and Soldiers about equal opportunity matters. Each Major Subordinate Command is assigned a trained EO advisor to assist and advise the commander. Military personnel requiring assistance should contact their chain of command, EO advisors or phone the III Corps and Fort Hood Equal Opportunity Office, Building 1001, 761st Tank Battalion Avenue at 254-287-6242.FORT HOOD CIVILIAN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYThe Fort Hood Civilian Equal Employment Opportunity Office is also in Building 1001, Room W209. This office provides services to about 5,500 civilians and reports directly to the Garrison Commander. This service includes appropriated and nonappropriated fund, permanent and temporary employees and several thousand applicants seeking employment at Fort Hood who feel they’ve been subjected to unfair treatment because of their race, color, gender, age (40-plus), national origin, religion or handicapping condition. The EEO Office is open 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Individuals seeking service from this office should visit Room W209 of the Headquarters Building 1001 on 761st Tank Battalion Avenue or call 254-287-3602.
Subscribe Get instant access to must-read content today!To access hundreds of features, subscribe today! At a time when the world is forced to go digital more than ever before just to stay connected, discover the in-depth content our subscribers receive every month by subscribing to gasworld.Don’t just stay connected, stay at the forefront – join gasworld and become a subscriber to access all of our must-read content online from just $270.
THE beginning of a new year is a time for resolutions and making plans – but it’s also a time…[To read the rest of this story Subscribe or Login to the Gazette Access Pass] Thanks for reading the Pakenham Berwick Gazette. Subscribe or Login to read the rest of this content with the Gazette Digital Access Pass subscription.
INTERROGATOR: Hello Sally, my name is Todd, and I work in the loss prevention department. My role in the company is to investigate loss, but truthfully I have lots of stores to cover and I’m spread pretty thin. Regardless of not having much evidence against you, I want to ask you: Did you steal the bank deposit yesterday?SALLY: Yes, I took it, and I feel awful about it.INTERROGATOR: Do you feel so bad that you’d like to pay us back the entire amount?- Sponsor – SALLY: Yes, I’d be glad to, and I should probably lose my job for having such a poor lapse in judgment.INTERROGATOR: I agree, Sally. In fact, some friendly police officers outside will ensure you make it right for the company.SALLY: Well, that’s okay. I guess it’s only fair since I was dishonest and stole from the company.INTERROGATOR: Thank you, Sally, for telling me the truth.Until people start being this remorseful or they stop stealing altogether, there will always be a need for the employee theft investigation process. Whether an individual is new to the LP industry or a veteran executive, no one can deny how fascinating this process has become. After watching CSI, 24, and too many Law and Order marathons, many people think they know what occurs during the interrogation process. However, once the average, non-LP practitioner looks behind the scenes, the perspective changes.The complexities of the process are revealed, leaving rarely addressed questions:How do LP practitioners deal with the pressures of conducting internal theft interrogations in a forthright and honest way?What are the boundaries when it comes to obtaining an admission?How are job performances of interrogators measured, and does that affect how internal theft interviews are conducted?Broaching these questions raised an abundance of opinions from retailers, academics, technique experts, and industry consultants. Responses from more than 25 interviews covered integrity, interview and interrogation techniques, rationalizations, measurement, and controls as well as skills required for professional excellence.This post addresses the first two questions raised regarding interrogator conduct and boundaries around obtaining an admission. The responses are summarized using the collective “we” in reference to the industry perspectives revealed via these conversations.Interviewing vs. InterrogationMany practitioners interviewed felt it was important to make a clear distinction in terminology, especially between “interview” and “interrogation.”“The non-accusatory interview is about understanding the facts and receiving an explanation of the facts with relevant details,” said Joseph Buckley, president of John E. Reid and Associates, describing the differences within the context of the Reid method. “Once you’ve completed the initial investigation, you move into the interrogation process that begins with a direct accusation, typically in one of three forms.”“It’s important to adequately differentiate between two disparate interview techniques,” said Donald Horan, CPP, formerly of Gordon Brothers Group. “Today’s loss prevention professional should not engage in an accusatory interview without having the investigative proof of wrongdoing in hand prior to the employee encounter. The fact-finding interview serves to seek only a new direction or new resource from which to continue–or restart–the investigation. The fact-finding interview needn’t yield the culprit, only the means by which an accountable party can be identified.”For the purposes of this article, respondents are discussing the process when an internal theft suspect is being interrogated for wrongdoing.Old vs. New: The Employee Theft Investigation ProcessA conversation about the mindset of LP practitioners regarding employee theft investigation cannot occur without considerations given to the past–both from the legality of the interrogation process and the fact that a large percentage of practitioners had a law enforcement background.Over the years, courts have handed down many rulings regarding truthfulness in the interrogation process. The case law regarding criminal interrogation is clearly on the side of the interrogator. Loss prevention interrogation experts are quick to point out the 1969 landmark decision by the US Supreme Court regulating false statements made to a suspect in the case of Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731. This case involves a homicide suspect confessing after he was falsely told an accomplice had already implicated him in the killing. In short, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of trickery and deceit can be permissible if it does not shock the conscience of the court or community, depending on the circumstances.The case draws clear distinctions regarding the type of false statements allowed specifically about being in possession of evidence that implicated the suspect in the crime, such as eyewitness, fingerprints, and DNA.A later case in 1993 draws even clearer distinctions between intrinsic and extrinsic lies. Intrinsic lies deal with the investigation, and extrinsic lies relate to legal issues or the court system. These two cases are the foundation most interrogators build from in an effort to walk the (often thin) line between what is and is not okay to lie about.But how do these standards fit in the retail world, especially when it comes to internal theft? As loss prevention investigators, aren’t we dealing with an entirely different set of risks when it comes to intentionally deceiving a suspect–rather, one of our own employees?According to Curtis Baille’s March 2010 article, “How Litigation Shapes Retailers’ Security and Loss Prevention Strategies,” in Security Technology Executive, industry figures indicate the cost of successfully defending a lawsuit can be $50,000 or more. As retailers first and loss prevention executives second, the legal risk is often significant each time you walk into an interrogation room.Is the Goal Truth or Admission?The first question most respondents wanted to address was the actual purpose of an internal theft interrogation. Was it to obtain a confession or find the truth of what occurred?“The ultimate goal of any interviewer or interrogator is to determine the truth or facts, not to simply get a confession,” said Paul Jones, former global director of asset protection at eBay.“First and foremost, interviews are not about getting a confession,” said Karl Langhorst, CPP, CFI, former corporate senior director of loss prevention for The Kroger Co. “They are about finding the truth. If your goal is always focused on obtaining admissions, then you’re not open to the possibility of innocence, no matter how slight, and that can cloud your judgment in the process.”The overwhelming response about the goal of an internal theft interview was to obtain the facts around what occurred. So why does this topic spark so much debate and passion? It turns out the devil is in the details of the process.“I believe that every loss prevention professional, regardless of the position within an organization, strives to obtain the admission every time they sit across from someone,” said Jason Jones, former director of loss prevention, risk, and safety for Vans, a division of the VF Corporation. “It’s my opinion that at times the admission can become more important than the reasoning behind what occurred or sometimes the truth itself. Admissions are important, but how many times have we had someone admit to misappropriation for the wrong reasons? The admission of theft may be correct, but the avenue for redemption or acceptance from an interviewer standpoint was incorrect. We have all been trained on the art of minimization and misdirection during an internal theft interview, but is that a skill of the trade or a misguided ideology?”Everyone agrees there has been a sweeping shift within the industry when it comes to acceptable internal theft interrogation practices. Dave Zulawski, CFI, CFE, senior partner of Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates (WZ) agreed, stating, “Back in 1982, when I started in this industry, it was more prevalent to see screaming and yelling tactics employed or keeping a suspect in a room for five or six hours.“Our industry has evolved out of necessity. In the old days, it was left to the loss prevention professional to make the final decision about firing an employee after an interrogation. With the advent of a more involved human resources role, loss prevention practitioners are held to a higher level of accountability. Out of this expanded accountability came the growing need for company and policy standards as well as the need to certify our knowledge base with programs like the Certified Forensic Interviewer (CFI) and the LPQualified (LPQ) and LPCertified (LPC) certifications. These are our next steps in elevating the profession,” said Zulawski.Langhorst concurred. “From my experience in our industry, you fortunately don’t see much of the old-school way of conducting interrogations anymore that are solely focused on getting a confession, no matter what. Additionally, that old-school thought process is not in alignment with my philosophy as an LP practitioner. Our profession has come a long way from the dark ages of reactive security to business partners who treat employees with respect and courtesy. The strategic shift in our profession is due, in part, to organizations like W-Z and the CFI designation. It’s also due to publications like LP Magazine and industry conferences, where professionals can come together to network and stay abreast of current practices and technology.”“The development of the CFI program has been critically important to demonstrate that LP practitioners have a standard of legal and technical concepts along with a code of ethics,” said Alan Tague, vice president of loss control for Gander Mountain.“In addition to the CFI, the LPC course initiated by the Loss Prevention Foundation is rapidly becoming the benchmark of knowledge for the industry from a strategic business partner and well-rounded executive standpoint,” said Frank Johns, former senior VP of stores, internal audit, AP, ethics, and compliance for A.C. Moore. “With the CFI certifying expertise in interviewing technique and the LPC addressing all other aspects of the business environment, our industry has come so far in such a short time in terms of education standards.”The evolution of our industry from a Hollywood-hyped interrogator applying scare tactics to a strategically trained, professional “behavioral scientist” is attributed to continued education about the correct techniques to apply when dealing with an employee theft investigation.Are We Rational-LYING?According to John E. Reid’s article on PoliceLink titled “The Use of Rationalization During an Interrogation Theme,” two conditions must be satisfied before a person decides to commit a crime. First, the individual must believe that he or she will not be punished for the crime. Second, the person must be able to justify the criminal behavior in some manner.The second condition is what has developed the rationalization, or theme-development, process. The rationalization has been defined by Reid as a defense mechanism individuals use to justify their criminal behavior by psychologically distorting the true intention behind their crime. Among those interviewed for this article, the rationalization process was the most widely debated regarding what was considered acceptable.“Unskilled interrogators can emotionally wound people,” said Zulawski. “The rationalization process helps the interviewer express understanding and a person’s life challenges while removing the individual’s feeling of being judged.”In the article “Compassionate Interviewer” by Wayne Hoover, CFI and Chris Norris, CFI, published on RILA.org, rationalizations are explained this way: “The truly compassionate interviewer helps soften these emotional bumps to encourage the individual to purge themselves of their guilt. The summary of rationalizations provides the first step in the face-saving process at a point where the subject feels he is a victim.”Jason Jones gets to the heart of the matter, stating, “I believe the question that everyone has to ask themselves is: how many times have you used a rationalization that was slightly embellished or modified to fit the investigation?“I know that the best interviewers I have witnessed have pulled from their own personal experiences and examples to connect to the subject during the interview. I myself have used stories and connective examples to obtain admissions that were not personally my own. Is this a lie? I don’t believe so. What I do believe to be unethical and illegal is the promise of absolution of responsibility/accountability in exchange for an admission of guilt” or quid pro quo, explained Jones.The question “How far is too far in the rationalization process?” garnered the most varied responses. The only consensus is the notion it is never okay–and often illegal–to lie about promises of leniency or the use of threatening harm. Many professionals discussed “someone I know” who conducts internal theft interrogations in this manner, but trying to locate these types of professionals for comment was problematic.“I’ve witnessed interrogations using rough-house tactics, like saying the subject would never see their kids again or saying they won’t be prosecuted if they admit,” said a 37-year industry veteran at a large supermarket chain in the Southern United States. “I’d much rather be confident in my evidence than to go into that situation half-cocked. Just sit back and wait; they’ll steal again.”Some practitioners believe the rationalization or theme-development process is fair game for an “anything goes” approach, as long as they concluded the process with an admission.“If I have the evidence I need before I walk in the door, depending on the scenario, I will say whatever is required to get the truth out of a person,” said a Canadian-based LP manager with more than 10 years’ experience. “As long as I don’t make false promises, lying is certainly allowable, acceptable, and part of the process to bend the truth to whatever the subject will relate to. Bottom line, I tell them whatever I need to tell them to get the truth.”“Sure, 99 percent of the rationalizations I give are true—the other one percent are because I’m dealing with someone who can’t relate to anything in my background,” said a 10-year industry LP director based in Texas. “I tell the one percent that I actually made the same mistake they’re accused of, and they will typically admit.” These types of approaches beg the question—is the use of lies a necessary part of the rationalization process or is that a misrepresentation of the method?Zulawski disagrees with lying and makes this distinction, stating, “The primary reason people confess is they think you have evidence. If an interrogator is lying to the subject, and they make one small mistake in the facts and the subject catches them, their credibility is shot. Not only is it ethically wrong to lie, it’s unnecessary, and it could hurt your investigation.”Other practitioners agreed with Zulawski and took a more hard-line stance on the issue, stating that it is never acceptable to lie in the internal theft interrogation process.The best rationalizations are those that come from real life, not as a first-person account, but something you’ve seen or read about in the media,” said Tuan Benson, a 30-year industry executive. “It is never okay to lie or mislead a suspect about evidence; and if you’re doing your homework, you won’t need to lie about rationalizations either.”“The best rationalizations don’t have to be fancy—simple, direct, and purposeful,” said a specialty retail LP executive with more than 15 years of experience. “True rationalizations are the easiest to remember, and the simpler, the better.”“I do not believe, nor do I practice or train, that boldface lying is beneficial,” said Doug Newsome, vice president of support services for Goodwill Industries of Upstate/Midlands South Carolina. “I believe that in investigations, just as in life, outright lies will come back to bite you and ultimately be detrimental to the case and your reputation.”Interrogation Skills: It’s a Shade of GrayAfter determining the disparate opinions and practices of LP professionals from varying backgrounds, a new question is raised: what type of LP practitioner resorts to lying during the employee theft investigation process? It was a constant theme that respondents kept addressing. When it comes to rationalizing in an interrogation process, do we all have the necessary skills to keep the interrogation process truthful?One respondent, a former law enforcement officer for 20 years and now a hospitality retail loss prevention practitioner, stated, “Not everyone’s skill set is the same. The majority of people in the field don’t have the skills required to conduct truthful rationalizations. When those folks don’t have the necessary training, they get boxed into a corner and do what they have to do to get the truth.”“Ninety percent of the interrogation happens before you walk into the room by being methodically prepared for all scenarios,” said Stephen Scott, vice president of loss prevention for Tractor Supply Company. “Even though it may be legal to lie, it’s not consistent with the Tractor Supply Company culture and is not taught as part of our interrogation process.“As interrogators, we operate in a narrow shade of gray. Only the most skilled and ethical professionals can be successful in this space. Of course, it starts with treating every person with respect. I think some loss prevention people forget that we shouldn’t feel gratified firing one of our own employees. There is significant capital invested in these individuals, and we always want to focus on prevention and try to prevent the interrogation process by investing in proper training and awareness programs. Who gets a thrill out of putting people in jail?” said Scott.“Some skills can’t be taught,” said Bill Tursi, director of loss prevention at Goodwill Industries of Southwest Florida. “Interrogators must have an inherent ability to read people. They must be sharp and prepared, with the ability to change strategy midstream if something isn’t working. Preliminary work is critical because it forms a foundation to be prepared for the unexpected. The best interrogators are students of the industry—they never stop learning.”Part of operating in that shade of gray includes the bait or enticement question. All practitioners agreed this element of the interview needs to be handled with care. However, it does not cross the line into boldfaced lying.“Part of the interrogation process is to let the interviewee’s imagination run wild and part of that process is for them to fill in the blanks to a question,” said Scott. “By definition, it’s a question and not a lie. Then it’s the interrogator’s responsibility to watch and analyze behavior. What is said in the interview is only a small piece of the puzzle. The questions make them think, eliciting behavior for us to analyze.”“I do think it is acceptable to allow the person to make their own assumptions following statements that the interviewer has the ability to use video surveillance, point-of-sale reports, secret shoppers, etc.,” said Goodwill’s Newsome. “Also, it is completely ethical for an interviewer to address the subject with questions such as, ‘Is there any reason we would have a witness or video surveillance of you giving an unauthorized discount, or in a certain area, or giving away merchandise?’ The interviewer is not stating that the evidence exists, but allowing the subject to draw their own conclusion about whether such material might exist.”According to interviewees’ perspectives, this shade of gray can be a complex burden to carry into each unique situation. Practitioners have strong opinions about overzealous, under-trained investigators who push the envelope when it comes to obtaining internal theft admissions. Overwhelmingly, the sentiment was continually reinforced that these careless LP practitioners make it harder on the majority, who operate respectfully in this risky shade of gray.The Answer Is NoAfter a multitude of interviews, the answer to “Are we the liars?” is clearly “No.” An overwhelming majority of LP professionals believe the most important factor is to treat each internal theft suspect with the utmost respect.While we may not agree with the decisions they made, they are still employees and above all human beings. LP professionals carry the weight of the “truth-seeker” stigma, whether they practice respectful internal theft interrogation processes or not.“We should remember that both the LP professional and the employee started out on the same team,” said a vice president of loss prevention for a specialty clothing retailer based in North Carolina. “We have the opportunity to impact their lives in a positive way; to possibly be that turning point that sends them out to start making different decisions.”As in any profession, a few bad examples taint the practice, which is why most participants agreed on the importance of certifying industry knowledge by using common standards.“I take this part of my job very seriously since it affects another person’s life,” said Melissa Mitchell, CFI, director of asset protection and retail supply chain for LifeWay Christian Stores. “It is not just the legalities of how you get a confession; it is the idea of being willing to walk away if you can’t get the confession fair and square. That is integrity defined as what you do when nobody is looking.”This article was originally published in 2010 and was updated April 18, 2018. Stay UpdatedGet critical information for loss prevention professionals, security and retail management delivered right to your inbox. Sign up now read more
Posted on January 25, 2011June 20, 2017By: Ann Starrs, President and Co-Founder, Family Care InternationalClick to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)When UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon formally launched the Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health last September during the 2010 UN General Assembly meeting, a range of stakeholders made commitments totaling $40 billion for improved maternal and child health programs and services. The Global Strategy, a plan to save the lives of 16 million women and children in the world’s poorest countries, cuts across all the Millennium Development Goals, especially those related to health (MDGs 4, 5 and 6). It is designed to serve as a global roadmap to identify and mobilize resources, policies, and critical interventions, with engagement by governments, donors, academic institutions, health professional associations, NGOs, corporations, and many others.These ambitious goals and generous pledges, promising though they may be, are not enough to bring real change. That will come only when commitments are translated into real money and concrete action. As my organization, Family Care International, wrote in our own commitment to the Global Strategy, “commitments don’t save lives until they are actually delivered.”During a strategy meeting in Washington, DC last Friday, I shared an overview (here) on the Global Strategy, noting that accountability will be the key to ensuring that the Global Strategy drives clear, quantifiable progress toward achievement of MDG targets by 2015. The Global Strategy document stated this clearly:Accountability is essential. It ensures that all partners deliver on their commitments, demonstrates how actions and investment translate into tangible results and better long-term outcomes, and tells us what works, what needs to be improved and what requires more attention.Last month, the UN announced the establishment of a high-level Commission on Information and Accountability for Women’s and Children’s Health, co-chaired by the President of Tanzania and the Prime Minister of Canada. This Commission, with members from developed and developing countries, academia, civil society and the private sector, is charged with developing a framework for tracking resources and results at the global and country levels. Its two working groups — on ‘accountability for resources’ and ‘accountability for results’ – are already hard at work; the Commission’s draft report is due to the UN this May.As a member of the results working group, I will return to the MHTF blog soon to solicit your input on appropriate indicators, measurement needs, and accountability mechanisms (each working group has posted a “discussion forum” page here) , and to report back on our progress.Share this: ShareEmailPrint To learn more, read: read more
In a dramatic climax to one of the closest seasons in years, the 2008/09 Be Active Super League finals have seen Fremantle break a 20 year Men’s Open title drought with their Men’s Open win, while Northern claimed the Women’s Championship, and Tompkins Park became the new title holders of the Mixed Open.The Freo Men survived semi final drop-off against Tompkins Park earlier in the day, where scores were locked at 9-all on full time. Displaying cool heads, the young Fremantle line-up held Tompkins out in the first set of six, then went to the other end, drew a penalty, and were able to finish the game off to progress to the final. And they weren’t done there! The Freo boys stayed in touch with Brothers early, and held a narrow 4-3 half time lead.There were some star performers in the final for Freo, especially Tate Alexander with three touchdowns and both Tynan Smith and Erom Edwards with two apiece, helping Fremantle to a 9-5 win over Brothers. Fremantle Vice President Stephen French was appropriately on hand to blow the full time siren on a result that broke the long standing drought.In the Women’s Open, Perth Brothers hadn’t been challenged in a game all season, and went into the final with plenty of confidence that they could claim the title with a third victory for the season over Northern Districts. Jodie Wielgomasz and Tara Smith both scored doubles for Brothers, but an even contribution across the park from Northern, lead by Shelley Matcham had them holding a 3-2 half time lead. Brothers were able to draw level on several occasions during the second, but on each occasion Northern were able to again move ahead – the decisive touchdown coming in the dying minutes to seal the 6-5 victory.Earlier, Tompkins Park held off a strong Bunbury team to win the Mixed Open Super League title, 8-5 in the final. Both teams had fought out a draw in the round game earlier in the day, and were deserving of a place in the final after neither dropped a game.Our thanks goes to Freda Black for her ongoing efforts with the Referees. A number of Referees were rewarded for the efforts during the season, with the following awards:Most Improved Referee – Dave McKendrickUpgrade Level 2 to Level 3 – Paul Hogg and Chris TraynorThe Be Active Super League season also saw individual players vying for the awards of the Keith Harris-Walker Medal (Men’s Open) and the Karamea Dorset Medal (Women’s Open).The Super Six in each division were:Men’s OpenArmis Black – Perth BrothersCraig Boston – Southern DistrictsAndrew Knox – Southern DistrictsNathan Roberts – Northern DistrictsCraig Sealey – Perth BrothersTrevor Twose – Tompkins ParkKeith Harris-Walker Medallist – Craig BostonWomen’s OpenDebby Hodgkinson – Northern DistrictsShelley Matcham – Northern DistrictsJenaya Quan – FremantleRebecca Senior – Southern DistrictsCharli Simpkins – Perth BrothersRoxy Waru – Perth BrothersKaramea Dorset Medallist – Charli SimpkinsThanks to Matt Bamford for providing the article content.Both the Men’s and Women’s Finals featured the top two teams from the season, and the way matches have unfolded to date, it should have been no surprise to see Fremantle and Northern holding trophies even though they hadn’t been able to beat their rivals in two attempts during the rounds. read more
Washington DC: No date has been set yet for a summit meeting between US President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, the White House said on Monday noting that the trade negotiations between the two countries still continues. “In terms of whether or not we have a date set, not yet. We’re continuing the negotiations with China.” “When we have an announcement for the two leaders to sit down, we’ll certainly let you know,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters at her news conference. Also Read – Imran Khan arrives in China, to meet Prez Xi JinpingShe was responding to questions on reports that a summit meeting at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in the US state of Florida has been put off as China considers the US President as “unreliable” in view of him walking away from talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Sanders ridiculed such a view. “I would say that’s absurd. The President is going to make a deal if it’s a good deal. He’s going to make a deal if it’s in the best interest of America. If he doesn’t feel like it’s a good deal, it’s not worth just signing a piece of paper,” Sanders Also Read – US blacklists 28 Chinese entities over abuses in Xinjiangsaid. She argued that the President didn’t feel like what was on the table was enough. “The President is 100 per cent committed to denuclearization of the Peninsula, and he’s going to make sure that whatever we do furthers that process.” “We’ll see what happens with North Korea, the same way we’re going to see what happens in the negotiations with China. They’re ongoing,” she said. Trump is going to make sure whatever deal the US gets is in its best interest — that it’s fair and reciprocal trade; that it protects intellectual property; and that it actually has safeguards to make sure that the Chinese follow through with whatever commitments that they make, Sanders said. The two leaders will sit down for talks only when the negotiations are complete, she asserted. Agencies read more
United Nations: Stepping up the international pressure to designate Jaish-e-Mohammed chief Masood Azhar as a global terrorist, the US, supported by France and the UK, has moved a draft resolution in the UN Security Council to blacklist the Pakistan-based terror group’s chief. Two weeks after China put a hold on a proposal to list Azhar under the 1267 Al Qaeda Sanctions Committee of the Council, the US on Wednesday circulated the draft resolution to the powerful 15-nation Council to blacklist the leader of the Pakistan-based terror group and subject him to a travel ban, an assets freeze and an arms embargo. Also Read – India gets first tranche of Swiss bank a/c details UN sources told PTI that this is the “first time” the US, the UK and France have moved a draft resolution directly in the Security Council to designate Azhar. The previous have been listing proposals in the Sanctions Committee of the Council to designate Azhar. Unlike a listing proposal, which is generally under a 10- day no objection period, the draft resolution is not under any no-objection provision. Sources said that the draft resolution will be discussed informally and then it goes to the Council. Also Read – Tourists to be allowed in J&K from Thursday However, it’s not yet decided by when a vote would be held on the draft resolution, during when it could again face a veto by China, which has in the past blocked bids to blacklist Azhar. Sources said the draft resolution would condemn “in the strongest terms the heinous and cowardly suicide bombing” on February 14 in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pulwama district that killed 40 CRPF personnel. An annex to the draft resolution says Azhar is associated with the Islamic State terror group, Al-Qaida for “participating in the financing, planning, facilitating, preparing, or perpetrating” or “supplying, selling or transferring arms and related material” or supporting acts of Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM). It says that Azhar founded JeM after his release from prison in India in 1999 in exchange for 155 hostages held on an Indian Airlines flight that had been hijacked to Kandahar, Afghanistan. It adds that Azhar was previously the leader of the terrorist group Harakat al Mujahadin, also known as Harakat ul-Ansar, and that most of these groups’ members subsequently joined Jaish under Azhar’s leadership. In 2008, JeM recruitment posters contained a call from Azhar for volunteers to join the fight in Afghanistan against Western forces. The Sanctions Committee makes its decisions by consensus of its members. However, for a resolution in the Security Council to pass, it needs nine votes in favour and no vetoes from any of its five permanent members – China, Russia, the United States, France and the UK. France, the UK and the US on February 27 moved a proposal to designate Azhar under the 1267 Al Qaeda Sanctions Committee. It was under the no-objection period and Committee members had a period of 10 working days to raise any objections to the proposal. More than a dozen member states had co-sponsored the proposal. About an hour before the no-objection deadline was to expire on March 13 at 3 PM, China blocked the proposal by putting a hold on it. India expressed disappointment by the outcome, saying in a statement “this has prevented action by the international community to designate the leader of JeM, a proscribed and active terrorist organisation which has claimed responsibility for the terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir on 14 February 2019”. Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made an apparent reference to China blocking the proposal to designate Azhar as a global terrorist at the UN Security Council when he said Wednesday that China abuses over a million Muslims at home, but “protects” violent Islamic terror groups from UN sanctions. “The world cannot afford China’s shameful hypocrisy toward Muslims. On one hand, China abuses more than a million Muslims at home, but on the other it protects violent Islamic terrorist groups from sanctions at the UN,” Pompeo said in a tweet, without mentioning the JeM or the outfit’s chief. The February proposal was the fourth such bid at the UN in the last 10 years to list Azhar as a global terrorist. In 2009, India moved a proposal by itself to designate Azhar. In 2016 again India moved the proposal with the P3 – the US, the UK and France in the UN’s 1267 Sanctions Committee to ban Azhar, also the mastermind of the attack on the air base in Pathankot in January, 2016. In 2017, the P3 nations moved a similar proposal again. However, on all occasions China, a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council, blocked the proposals from being adopted by the Sanctions Committee. A UNSC designation will subject Azhar to an assets freeze, travel ban and an arms embargo. An assets freeze under the Sanctions Committee requires that all states freeze without delay the funds and other financial assets or economic resources of designated individuals and entities. The travel ban entails preventing the entry into or transit by all states through their territories by designated individuals. Under the arms embargo, all states are required to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale and transfer from their territories or by their nationals outside their territories, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of arms and related materiel of all types, spare parts and technical advice, assistance or training related to military activities, to designated individuals and entities. read more
New Delhi: Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been honoured with Russia’s highest state decoration, the Order of St Andrew the Apostle, for his role in promoting close ties between the two countries.The award comes days after the United Arab Emirates announced conferring Modi with ‘The Order of Zayed’. The Russian government said Modi is given the highest state decoration of Russia for “exceptional services” in promoting special and privileged strategic partnership between Russia and India and friendly relations between the Russian and Indian peoples. A Russian official said the ‘Order of St Andrew the Apostle’ is awarded to prominent statesmen, public figures and those working in the fields of science, culture and arts in recognition of their exceptional services in promoting prosperity and glory of Russia. The order can also be awarded to foreign heads of state for outstanding services. The Order of St Andrew the Apostle is the highest order of the Russian Federation. The foreign awardees of the award included President of China Xi Jinping, President of the Republic of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev and President of the Republic of Azerbaijan Geydar Aliev. The award ceremony is usually held at the St Andrew Hall of the Grand Kremlin Palace. The Order was established in 1698 by Tsar Peter the Great, in honour of Saint Andrew, the first apostle of Jesus and patron saint of Russia, said the official. read more