Successful Conference Events by Conference Facilitators

Every company or organization has to organize different events and conferences so that they can operate and expand their businesses and launch their products successfully. Conference events play a crucial role for them.

Various corporate meetings, which are organized as events to attract people, can be called corporate events. They can be held differently as per number of speakers, participants and delegates. It requires expertise and skills to plan a successful and effective meeting.

Conference events can cover lots of topics; an agenda can be presented for the corporate policies, industrial issues, social accountability issues and pollution control policies. There is a difference between a meeting and a conference. In meeting, there are low publicity efforts while they are very high in a conference.

So, conferences which organize effecting meetings to plan corporation strategies are very crucial part of every big and small company. The meetings can be for various purposes. It can be for sales, annual general meetings, community services, team building Sydney and town hall. So, a conference or meeting is held for a specific purpose.

At present, they are being organized by the professionals who are not their employees. Since they have the required expertise and skills to make a conference successful, they plan Corporate Events in such a way that is necessary to get the optimum benefits out of these corporate events.

So, the role of a conference facilitator is very crucial. They are trained professional and have a lot of experience in organizing conference successfully. Their services are very much in demand because they know how they can organize corporate events in a successful way.

Conference facilitators can help you save time and efforts and product good results. They know what approaches are better to save money and time. Firstly, they will formulate a strategy so that the desired results can be achieved without much wastage of resources and efforts. In other word, your money and sources will be fully utilized to organize successful conference meetings.

The main difference between and a conference is publicity, whatsoever be the objectives. The professions, who are expert in organizing successful conferences, ensure that the conference obtains sufficient media exposure. At times, they plan publicity campaigns to get more participants. Many meeting planning sessions happens between the professionals and the organization that is holding it. A strategy is formulated to make the conference successful and effective. A conference facilitator’s role is increasingly becoming important for every company.

Who Does The US Conference of Catholic Bishops Really Represent?

Most American Catholics are unaware of the breadth of the lobbying of Congress effort by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). The official list of their issues with the current Congress runs thirteen pages. Although I can agree with many things in it there are many with which I do not.

The Bishops delve deeply into both foreign and domestic policy whether it affects the Church or not. It essentially is an attempt to impose Canon Law on the entire country.

However, that is not the point of this article. The question is: For who are the Bishops lobbying and why?

Except for first American Bishop, John Carroll of Baltimore in colonial days, none have ever been elected by members of their Dioceses. The decision as to who will serve as Bishop is reserved to the Pope and precautions are taken to assure that the people of the diocese involved have no input into that decision.

Once selected, a Bishop is not required to even ask the opinions of his flock. Therefore, is no rationale for the claim that Bishops, individually or collectively represent the views of American Catholics.

The Pope, acting through the Bishops can effectively squelch any opposition to his wishes by excommunicating dissidents and they have no inherent right of appeal. Therefore, it is only the wishes of the Pope that the Bishops speak about to Congress.

In addition, the Bishops can and have attempted to affect free elections of our Senators, Representatives and even some Presidents. They have done this by publicly embarrassing the candidates with a refusal to give them access to the sacraments simply because they have voted the consensus of their constituents. Upon their ordination, all Bishops make a solemn vow of loyalty to the Pope. Bishops are not accountable to the people of the Dioceses, but only to the Pope.

Consider the current situation in Ireland where Cardinal Sean Brady is the Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland. He has been proven to have been mainly responsible for the cover-up of child sex abuse by priests going back to 1975.

The laity of Ireland, the vast majority of their priests and several theologians have demanded that Brady resign but he has refused. He recently issued a statement saying, “I sometimes wonder if we are in danger of losing our sense of mercy and forgiveness in Ireland today.” His problem is their fault. How arrogant is that!

The only person who can remove him from office is the Pope. His failure to do so can only be interpreted as that he tacitly approves of the Cardinal’s actions.

The Pope is the absolute ruler of the Vatican City State. As head of a foreign state he should not be allowed to interfere with the orderly working of our government or the freedom of our citizens to vote as they see fit and retain the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church.

Private Property, Public Benefit

New York’s rent regulations have produced all sorts of strange ways to think about real estate. So while a recent court decision does not necessarily make the city’s housing market better in any way, it at least makes a formerly implicit result an explicit one.

The case, as reported by Bloomberg (1), concerned a New York woman who filed for bankruptcy in 2012. A federal judge determined that the value of the lease for her rent-regulated apartment was part of the bankruptcy estate, and thus the landlord could buy the lease from the trustee. The landlord had previously sought to buy out the tenant, who was not interested.

The tenant appealed to the Manhattan-based Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The federal appeals court, in turn, asked the New York Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court) to weigh in on whether tenant privileges under rent regulations are assets subject to bankruptcy proceedings.

The state court concluded last November that they are not, and that a bankruptcy trustee is not allowed to sell them. This decision was adopted in the Second Circuit’s ruling last week, which stated that “a below-market lease is exempt from creditor claims as a public benefit.” (1)

Think about that. Rent-regulated apartments in New York are owned by private parties, but the right to live in them is now considered a “public benefit” afforded by the state – which has never bothered to take the step of actually paying for what it bestows on some of its luckier citizens.

Opponents of New York’s rent regulations, which have been on the books in various forms since 1947, have contended in the past that the rules amount to a taking of private property without compensation. Previously the state resisted this characterization. But now the state is arguing on public policy grounds that a tenant’s right to lifetime renewals of a rent-stabilized apartment lease, along with the right to pass that lease to members of the tenant’s household, is in fact a benefit being conferred by the government. The state court called rent-stabilization rights a form of public assistance, and the Second Circuit followed suit in characterizing them that way.

This, of course, is what New York property owners have known all along. But in this particular case, the real loser is not the tenant’s landlord, who at least understood the deal when he bought the property and offered it for rent. Despite the argument of the Rent Stabilization Association of New York City Inc., a landlord group that called the state court’s decision a “radical interpretation,” (1) it is effectively business as usual for landlords shackled by rent restrictions. The real losers are the tenant’s other creditors, who are required to absorb a loss due to the tenant’s bankruptcy because the landlord is not permitted to buy out the tenant’s lease and thus make the creditors whole. In that respect, too, New York confers benefits to tenants at the expense of private parties: in this case, various creditors.

“Public benefit” thus joins “housing emergency” on the list of phrases that mean something substantially different in the context of New York than they do in the rest of the country. Rent stabilization may indeed benefit individual members of the public – but the state has no part in providing it other than enforcing the laws that require private property holders to offer the “public” benefit to tenants. Elected officials love to confer public benefits that don’t require them to raise taxes or approve a budget line-item.

All of which goes to explain why the 1947 rent regulations and those that followed remain a political if not a practical necessity. It is the reason nobody wants to build rental housing for New York’s masses when that housing is commandeered by the state to provide a benefit for tenants at landlords’ expense. And it is the reason a “housing emergency” that was born out of the Great Depression’s construction slowdown and then the return of World War II veterans to the city’s tenements continues to this very day.

Book Review: ‘Understanding Public Policy’ by Paul Cairney

Book reviews may or may not become a more regular feature on this blog. Evidently, as a PhD student, I read a lot. And every so often, I come across a book that is not only a pleasure to read, but also highly useful to my work and research. It is books like these that I find deserves a broader audience. One such book is ‘Understanding Public Policy’ by Scotsman Paul Cairney, who is otherwise known for having co-authored an introduction to Scottish Politics.

What is in the book?

As with his book on Scottish Politics, Dr. Cairney excels at writing introductions to tough topics that are engaging and informative, yet without compromising on the depth and complexity of the issue at hand.

Understanding Public Policy: Theories and Issues – the title gives it away – introduces the reader to the study of public policy in political science. As it says on the cover, to the theories and issues in this particular field. The emphasis of the book is clearly on the theories, which structure the book. The issues come in throughout the book to illustrate the theoretical points at every step.

The book has 13 chapters, which can roughly be seen as covering 3 parts:

The first two chapters given an introduction and ask “How Should We Study It?”. The second chapter in particular seeks to provide the reader with a quick-guide on why theory, models and heuristics are needed and what they do. It also describes some of the pitfalls of studying public policy. Though the chapter can obviously not compete with book fully dedicated to heuristics and (meta-)theory, it does provide the reader with a good introductory primer. It still is the perhaps weakest part of the book.

Chapters 3 to 7 cover the “big” theories in the field, from Institutionalism to Rational Choice. Here, Cairney’s strength comes into its own. Each of these fields is a gargantuan literature in itself. He does and excellent job of covering the basics, highlighting formative and current debates and illustrate them with actual issues.

Chapters 8 to 12 cover some of the more specialist theories, ranging from Multi-Level Governance to Policy Transfer. Once more, Cairney’s skill in condensing the key elements of these scholarships into readable chapters, studded with definitions and explanations, makes these chapters and the book in general such a highly informative read.

Why should read it and why?

The book makes an excellent introduction for students or scholars entering the field of public policy. These are arguably its main audience and the book does an excellent job speaking to them.

I especially liked the short side-bar definitions of key terms and the occasional box that highlights some of the odder twists and turns that this literature has taken on some public policy questions in the past.

Cairney’s ability to draw from both classic and the most recent papers to present the discourse in each of these fields also makes the book an excellent for everyone seeking to refresh his knowledge in one of the fields covered by Cairney. Every chapter is, in essence, an up-to-date (to the publication) literature review of its field, which provides the reader with a solid basis and understanding. From there, it is easy to plunge in, to read, explore and write on any particular research-topic within the field.

I have found the book incredibly useful when I drafted a new conference paper. I recently set out to write on my personal subject of interest, aid evaluation, from a new angle of policy transfer. I couldn’t have hoped for a better rough guide to the literature than the one I found in ‘Understanding Public Policy’. Highly recommended.

National Planning Policy Framework

The Planning Minister, Greg Clarke, today introduced to the House the National Planning Policy Framework following consideration of consultation responses to the Draft NPPF published last year.

The policy guidance document comes into effect immediately.

It remains to be seen whether casting aside over 1,000 pages of policy guidance can in practice be replaced by a document of some 50 pages.

The cynical may feel that this will produce a mandate for Planning Barristers to line their pockets.
What is clear is that the presumption in favour of sustainable development has made its way into the final document, again time will tell whether the definition of sustainable development is sufficiently robust to ensure that development proposals are truly sustainable.

The Minister in presenting the guidance to the House emphasised the importance of high quality design and expressed regret that despite the lowest house building figures for over 100 years this had not raised the bar in terms of quality of design.

The challenge for professionals will thus be to produce schemes which meet the Government’s sustainability objectives whilst creating homes which people want to live in and meet the stated objective of high quality design.

It is relatively easy for a “grand design” type project, building a one off house, to make this both architecturally pleasing and sustainable. It is a significantly more demanding task for those designing new residential communities, where both the developer and indeed the buying public still seek traditional brick built housing, which has changed little since the end of the last War.

At a recent Royal Town Planning Institute hosted conference delegates considered the implications of the impended planning policy changes. By cutting policy advice guidance down to 52 pages the concern raised by a number of the speakers was that minimising detail at the national level meant there was a real danger that Local Authorities and other bodies would seek to publish their own much more detailed policy guidance at the local level in order to address the perceived policy vacuum.

It was interesting that the overwhelming majority of Local Authority representatives at the conference indicated that they felt that the NPPF would not benefit them in their work; whilst the private sector delegates considered that the new system would have a positive impact upon their work.!

Greg Clarke announcing the guidance to the House confirmed that protection would be put in place to ensure that Green Belts, SSSI’s and cherished towns and villages etc. would be protected and time will tell whether the scaremongering from the press in response to the draft document has any justification in real terms. It is to be anticipated that there will be teething problems whilst everyone involved in the planning system gets to grips with the NPPF and these will be challenging and interesting times for all. It remains to be seen whether the community will grasp this opportunity to steer future growth, and indeed whether it will in practice remove what the business community currently perceive as an impediment to growth. The track record for communities seeking to proactively steer development in a certain direction is not good, however, this may be the fault of an overly complex and inaccessible planning system which disenfranchise the public from the decision makers.

It would be unrealistic to expect any major change overnight as this new guidance will require a significant period of readjustment and re-education.