Anger over illegal dumping on Donegal beach

first_imgA large-scale illegal dump on a popular Donegal beach has sparked calls for the community to take action against the issue. Walkers at Rossnowlagh Beach were met with a large pile of domestic waste during the weekend. Items discarded included furniture, DIY materials and general waste.A man, who wanted to remain anonymous, says the alleged incident happened on Sunday night. Illegal dump site at Rossnowlagh on MondayThe act has been described as ‘blatant’ by Cllr Barry Sweeney, who said those responsible ‘dumped the items expecting people to clean up after them’.The incident comes ahead of beach clean-up in the area tomorrow (Tuesday).Speaking to Donegal Daily, the south Donegal Councillor said it was ‘utterly ridiculous’ that people continued to do this.He said: “Tomorrow there is an organised clean-up on the beach so I would nearly question the timing of this incident. “It looks like someone already knew that there would be a clean-up taking place on Tuesday and they have took it upon themselves to dump whatever they want with the expectations that someone will clean it up after them.“It is ignorant, and this stuff is being left to be taken out by the next tide and be washed up along the coastline somewhere else.”Cardboard dumped on Rossnowlagh Beach“There is so much awareness out there now about ocean pollution and I really comprehend people doing that,” Sweeney continued.“They are destroying their own area and beautiful coastline,” he added.“When you’ve got so many brilliant Tidy Town initiatives throughout the county now, it is a real shame that people continue to carry out these actions and I would urge them to stop.” Anger over illegal dumping on Donegal beach was last modified: September 30th, 2019 by Shaun KeenanShare this:Click 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 share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)last_img read more

Doomed Worlds: Planets Seen Disrupting, Not Forming

first_imgMuch as astrobiologists would like to see the birth of a new planet, the ones we observe seem to be dying, not being born.“Newly found planet may turn into dust,” reads a headline on NASA’s Astrobiology Net.  This does not bode well for any inhabitants the astrobiologists would like to meet.  Echoing a press release from MIT, the article described how a planet around a star 1,500 light-years away appears to have a comet-like tail, evidence of a cloud of dust following the planet as it disintegrates.  The press release includes a 40-second animation of how the “doomed world” is shedding its material, and ends with this statement:“This might be another way in which planets are eventually doomed,” says Fabrycky, who was not involved in the research. “A lot of research has come to the conclusion that planets are not eternal objects, they can die extraordinary deaths, and this might be a case where the planet might evaporate entirely in the future.”PhysOrg today described another place where planets are doomed.  Too remote to be observed directly, this system’s dust disk appears to be tugged at by a black hole at the galactic center.  No need to worry about the inhabitants there; there aren’t any.  “Yet, even if planets do form, living near a supermassive black hole is still not a hospitable place for life,” the article said.  “The extreme amounts of UV radiation emitted as the black hole devours gas and dust is likely to sterilize the region.”As referenced in the May 14 entry, New Scientist warned that dust disks around stars can no longer be assumed as planet maternity wards.  “Dust rings not ‘smoking gun’ for planets after all,” wrote Maggie McKee.  (Sorry for the unfortunate mixed metaphors; the thought of a smoking gun in a maternity ward may be disturbing – unless nothing was being born there in the first place.)  The dust surrounding a star can form sharply-defined rings without congealing into a paradise for aliens.Astrobiologists and planet hunters have a new worry announced in Nature today:1 “Startling superflares.” Bradley Schaefer, referencing a study done by the Kepler Spacecraft team published in the same issue of Nature,2 said, “Stars that are just like our Sun have flares more than a million times more energetic than the biggest flare ever seen on the Sun.”  A couple of minutes of exposure to one of these flares would doom the Earth, but some of these flares from other sun-like stars can last for half a day or several days.  The astronomers found no correlation of superflares with hot Jupiters or with rotation rates, leaving them clueless about the causes of the flares.Statistically, superflares are not common on sun-like stars.  Nevertheless, our sun is special, as Schaefer explained:The possibility that the Sun has superflares is not realized. Historical and geophysical records show that the Sun has not had any superflares in the past two millennia, and no superflares with more than roughly 1036 erg for perhaps a billion years. Maehara et al. show that only 0.2% of Sun-like stars have superflares, so it is unlikely that the Sun has such events. With their average rate of occurrence (once every 100 days for 1035-erg flares) and their observed size distribution (with a power-law index of roughly −2.0), the expected frequency of 1032-erg flares on all superflare stars should be very high. In stark contrast to this, the Sun has one 1032-erg event roughly every 450 years and so is completely different from superflare stars.While recognizing the deadly force of a superflare, Schaefer exercised a vivid imagination by thinking of ways they might be good for evolution:Superflares have implications far beyond being just a challenge for stellar physics. If a superflare’s energy is linked to the orbital energy of a hot Jupiter, then three events a year on the star would make its planetary companion spiral in towards it on a timescale of a billion years. The huge energy output of superflares could make any planets around the star uninhabitable for far-future human colonization, and astrobiologists will have to consider the effect of the superflares on possible alien life. Superflares might provide the high-energy radiation required to create organic molecules, so perhaps superflare systems are a good place to look for alien life that has evolved to avoid the effects of the huge flares.1. Bradley Schaefer, “Startling superflares,” Nature 485 (24 May 2012), pp. 456–457, doi:10.1038/nature11194.2. Maehera et al., “Superflares on solar-type stars,” Nature 485 (24 May 2012), doi:10.1038/nature11063.Preach it, Bradley; Darwin comes to the rescue to create aliens that evolve the ability to avoid being fried to a crisp.  Why not test your idea by looking for imaginary friends on Venus or the Sun?The findings do not support the bottom-up view that everything emerges from nothing.  Instead, they are consistent with the top-down view of the universe: the universe, stars and planets were created perfect and are degenerating under entropy.  Planets and stars are not being formed now; they are disrupting and getting fried.  Were it not for providential design of our star and planet, it could happen to us, too.The findings are also consistent with the Privileged Planet hypothesis of Jay Richards and Guillermo Gonzalez, that our planet was designed for life and for scientific discovery.  The only place in the universe we know about where sentient beings can observe distant stars and see that they have superflares is Earth.  Those same beings can notice that our sun is remarkably stable and life-sustaining.Intelligent design, of course, is not at all surprising to Biblical creationists who read the words of Isaiah, revealing God’s purpose in making the Earth:For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.  (Isaiah 45:18)With great privilege comes great responsibility, as the Lord, speaking through Isaiah, continued in the next verses (referring back to Genesis 1 as His revelation):Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the Lord? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.  Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.   I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.  Surely, shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.  (Isaiah 45:21-24) (Visited 21 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Darwinism Still Corrupts Culture

first_imgThe bad fruits of Social Darwinism are well known. Less well known are ongoing negative influences of modern Darwinian ideas on human behavior.How Do You Correct Behavior Based on Fake Science?Have you been led to believe that men are naturally more promiscuous because sperm cells are cheap? that women are more choosy because eggs are costly? It’s all bunk. Phys.org just published the following headline: “Data should smash the biological myth of promiscuous males and sexually coy females.” That’s strong wording: smash, myth. New findings are teaching the opposite: men can be coy, and women promiscuous. But both ideas, being based on Darwinian ideas that people are just animals, can have unspeakably horrible consequences for marriage, family, and civilization.The article is merciless in its attack on this myth:These ideas, which are pervasive in Western culture, also have served as the cornerstone for the evolutionary study of sexual selection, sex differences and sex roles among animals. Only recently have some scientists – fortified with modern data – begun to question their underlying assumptions and the resulting paradigm.If Thomas Kuhn were still living, he would have here a great new illustration of his theory of paradigm shifts and scientific revolutions. The article fingers Charles Darwin himself as the mastermind of this fake science. His disciples took it and ran with it.These simple assumptions are based, in part, on the differences in size and presumed energy cost of producing sperm versus eggs – a contrast that we biologists call anisogamy. Charles Darwin was the first to allude to anisogamy as a possible explanation for male-female differences in sexual behavior.His brief mention was ultimately expanded by others into the idea that because males produce millions of cheap sperm, they can mate with many different females without incurring a biological cost. Conversely, females produce relatively few “expensive,” nutrient-containing eggs; they should be highly selective and mate only with one “best male.” He, of course, would provide more than enough sperm to fertilize all a female’s eggs.Surely this notion was tested, right? The article explains how Angus Bateman, a botanist, ran some experiments one time in 1948 on fruit flies (not human fly-by-nighters). Telling a whopper from this miniscule test, he alleged that the promiscuous-male-choosy-female scenario “was a near-universal characteristic of all sexually reproducing species.” In 1972, Robert Trivers amplified on the idea, talking about males’ “cheap investment” in sperm. Read the following quote, and think about what sexually active guys in dorm rooms are supposed to think about normal behavior after evolutionary biology class:In other words, females evolved to choose males prudently and mate with only one superior male; males evolved to mate indiscriminately with as many females as possible. Trivers believed that this pattern is true for the great majority of sexual species.The problem is, it isn’t true! The article explains many counter-examples. Men have just as much reason to be careful about their sex cells. It’s not the number; it’s the biological cost, the article explains. Semen contains many compounds that are expensive to produce. Men can run out of sperm. Consequently, males have every reason to be “choosy” about mating, too. Think of the consequences of poorly-tested bad ideas:The problem is, modern data simply don’t support most of Bateman’s and Trivers’ predictions and assumptions. But that didn’t stop “Bateman’s Principle” from influencing evolutionary thought for decades.Now get this: the article—still founded on evolutionary notions that people are just animals—makes matters even worse. Based on the latest Darwinian notions about sex, the article claims that females tend to be just as promiscuous as males. Think about how that will influence college students!If you think nobody teaches “Bateman’s Principle” any more these days, look at another post on Phys.org that came about the same time, like two ships passing in the night. Steiner Branslet writes about “One night stand regrets.” Another study supposedly shows that women have more regrets than men about casual sex. Look what it’s based on:“Women and men differ fundamentally in their sexual psychology,” says Professor Buss. “A key limitation on men’s reproductive success, historically, has been sexual access to fertile women. These evolutionary selection pressures have created a male sexual mind that is attentive to sexual opportunities.“The quality of one’s sexual partner in short-term relationships plays a lesser role biologically for men. Assuming women did not avoid having sex with them, men who ran from woman to woman and got them pregnant would have scored best in the evolutionary race.Sounds like Bateman’s Principle, right? Sure. Men just act the way evolution makes them act. “Female choice—deciding when, where, and with whom to have sex— is perhaps the most fundamental principle of women’s sexual psychology,” says one of the evolutionists in the article, referring implicitly to the views of Darwin, Bateman and Trivers. How about the guys? “These evolutionary selection pressures have created a male sexual mind that is attentive to sexual opportunities.”Take these quotes and apply them to the dormitory. Think of all the blessed effects on marriage and family down the line; after all, “Culture does not change biology,” this article admonishes. We can’t fight natural selection. Nor should we.An overall explanation presumably lies in the fundamental differences between men and women.The study results support theories of parental investment and sexual strategy: men and women have throughout generations invested differently in their relationships and any children that resulted.We’re talking evolution psychology here.Of course, if humans are more than mere animals, the whole conversation is fake science. We have comprehensive instructions from an all-wise Creator on how we are are to choose our sexual behaviors. But to the consensus, that doesn’t qualify as science. They feel we must derive our sexual ethics from the blind processes of natural selection, which couldn’t care a whit about morals.Other Darwin Fake Science with Evil FruitBateman’s Principle is not the only example of fake science that corrupts culture. Here are more interested readers can investigate:Social Darwinism in 2017. Can you get away with racism today? Evolutionists appear to have no qualms. In a PNAS paper entitled, “Selection against variants in the genome associated with educational attainment,” no less than 15 evolutionists claim that Icelanders with less education have more kids. “The rate of decrease is small per generation but marked on an evolutionary timescale,” they say. “Another important observation is that the association between the score and fertility remains highly significant after adjusting for the educational attainment of the individuals.” Figure this conundrum out: “This is thus a striking case where a variant associated with a phenotype typically regarded as unfavorable could nonetheless be also associated with increased ‘fitness’ in the evolutionary sense.” Well, if that’s the case, might as well go with the flow. Quit school and have more sex. Darwinism is as Darwinism does.Myth-busting Neanderthal narrative takes decades. A lengthy piece in the New York Times shows how long it has taken to overcome what CEH calls “historical racism,” the myth that fossil humans were “other” than human. That’s why we give them other species names, like Homo neanderthalensis. NY Times reporter Jon Mooallem interviews the work of Clive Finlayson at Gibraltar who shows many reasons why “Neanderthals were people, too.” He tells how Frenchman Marcellin Boule in 1911 propagated the Neanderthal myth of stoop-shouldered, beetle-browed imbeciles on their way to the cave cookout. “A lot of what he said was wrong,” Mooallem finds from Finlayson. “Still, Boule’s influence was long-lasting. Over the years, his ideologically tainted image of Neanderthals was often refracted through the lens of other ideologies, occasionally racist ones.”LGBT tales. The inverse influence of culture on science is a fascinating area of philosophy. Check for it in a book review in Science Magazine this week, where Sheri Berenbaum wrestles with the normality of deviant gender roles while reviewing Cordelia Fine’s new book, Testosterone Rex Myths of Sex, Science, and Society (Norton, 2017). Approach this quote like a qualified observer of social influences on science, paying attention to Berebaum’s use of culturally-popular buzzphrases as she plays the academic “On the one hand this, but on the other hand that” game:I welcome and applaud Fine’s efforts to ground policy in science and to spotlight the false reasoning and dichotomies that appear in popular books and some policies (such as single-sex education). I also recognize (and regret) the long history—and present—of using biology to justify inferior treatment of women. This no doubt contributes to resistance to evidence of biological differences among those seeking gender equality.The challenge is not to dismiss biological explanations of sex differences but to articulate clearly their implications. We can accept that biology contributes to behavioral sex differences and simultaneously argue that gender inequalities are not intractable. Rather than rejecting biological differences, we must seek to reveal the nonsense in the arguments that brain and behavioral sex differences justify discrimination, segregation, and differential treatment of the sexes.Shocking but true. At Live Science, Jonathan Sadowsky of Case Western Reserve University tells about “the wild history of electroconvulsive therapy.” Early shock treatments were horrifying to watch; modern ones are milder, he says. While not directly tied to Darwinian theory, this article assumes the brain is merely a physical organ, and that shocking it with electrical impulses can help with “mental illnesses” that are assumed to be mere biological abnormalities. While some forms of depression have biological causes, what about mental illnesses that have a spiritual root or stem from true guilt? The following quote shows how scientific thinking is often tied to the culture of the day. This example is from the 1950s. Are scientists today culpable of such “medicalizing behavior”?At that time, ECT was also used as a “treatment” for homosexuality, then considered by psychiatrists to be an illness. This was not a major part of ECT practice, but this is not a comfort to gay people who received the treatment, for whom it could be traumatizing. The psychiatrists who used ECT in this way sincerely believed they were trying to help sick people, which serves as a warning against “medicalizing” behavior, and assuming that this will reduce stigma. This use of ECT did not last, in part because there was no evidence it did alter anyone’s sexuality. But it survived in the social memory of the therapy.Punish nations with carbon penance. Nature‘s editorial this week says, “Base the social cost of carbon on the science.” The very title assumes that science can speak definitively on something as global as climate a hundred years from now, when we can’t even predict the weather 15 days out. New unknowns and revisions come out weekly, as we have reported (1/18/17); just today, Phys.org said that humans, not climate, caused the extinction of megafauna in Australia 45,000 Darwin years ago. While not tied to Darwinian evolution directly, this editorial shares the assumptions of scientism and millions of years. Nature‘s anti-Trumpism comes out again in the article, accusing the new US president and his appointees of “disregard for science” even though the Editors acknowledge, “There is, of course, plenty of room for debate.”Fake science and false certainty. In closing, we should consider the views  of a Worldview op-ed column in Nature: “Anita Makri argues that the form of science communicated in popular media leaves the public vulnerable to false certainty.” Yet she argues that scientists should “Give the public the tools to trust scientists.” Mouthing Pontius Pilate, she begins, “What is truth?” Of the two groups she works in that are concerned with truth (scientists and journalists), she believes that journalists are doing a good job (despite all the evidence for fake news in the mainstream media, complained about by conservatives, like Breitbart News; see also Breitbart’s report on BBC’s admission they’ve been biased; meanwhile, New Scientist is overtly publishing a very biased and unscientific series, “Resisting Trump”). But “Scientists need to catch up, or they risk further marginalization in a society that is increasingly weighing evidence and making decisions without them.” Science is “losing its relevance as a source of truth,” she worries.Yet further reading reveals her faith in scientism. The only purveyors of fake news are the conservatives, she suggests with a link to another Nature story accusing Breitbart News of that. To Makri, scientists don’t tell lies; they just don’t have all the facts yet. Scientists may have gaps in their knowledge, but it will eventually catch up to the truth, because in scientism, science works as a truth generator in due time—the most reliable truth generator in the world. “Current debates about truth are far from trivial,” she ends. “More scientists and communicators of science need to get involved, update practices and reposition themselves in a way that gets with the times and shows that science matters — while it still does.” In other words, scientists don’t have a truth problem; just a talking points problem (echoed in Nature‘s interviews with three scientists about how to solve “post-truth predicaments”). One wonders what would be these “experts”‘ responses to the paradigms above about promiscuity, Neanderthals, electroshock therapy, racism and the other matters that have really hurt real people under the guise of “scientific truth.”After the historical and current examples we listed above, do you trust scientists when it comes to their pronouncements about how people should live and behave? Jesus said it succinctly with timeless wisdom: “You will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:15-20). A species puts out what is in its genes.One scientist wrote a letter to Nature that bears quoting. “Beware of scientists wielding red pens,” he titles his comment about censorship.By inviting scientists to take their ‘red pens to the Internet’ and grade online sources of science reporting, Phil Williamson implies that science is the primary and final voice in public discussion (Nature 540, 171; 2016). This disregards other ways in which people make sense of their lives through political debate, social context, personal connections or beliefs (see also D. Sarewitz Nature 522, 413–414; 2015). It stems from the naive myth of science as a disinterested producer of neutral truths.Science has a delicate relationship with society. Both have the right to speak and both shape one another — for better or worse. Governance and government rely increasingly on a science that is embedded in socio-political arenas populated by scientists, policymakers and citizens, among others. Not every expertise is equally credible, but a democratic society should allow each one to have a voice.To discredit them online may feel like defending the honour and public status of science, but it is a form of censorship. Science cannot impose its truths through power play — it must convince through symmetrical and open conversation. Whoa! Did you get that?In that second link, Sarewitz had said this:Scientists are not elected. They cannot represent the cultural values, politics and interests of citizens — not least because their values may differ significantly from those of people in other walks of life. A 2007 study on the social implications of nanotechnology, for instance, showed that nanoscientists had little concern about such technologies eliminating jobs, whereas the public was greatly concerned (see ‘A matter of perspective’). Each group was being rational. Nanoscientists have good reason to be optimistic about the opportunities created by technological frontiers; citizens can be justifiably worried that such frontiers will wreak havoc on labour markets. Unfortunately, such voices of reason are often drowned out by Big Scientism.(Visited 133 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

WeConnect International celebrate women in business

first_imgGive them enough to want to know more, says Tania Reid of iThemba Office Solutions, giving advice perfecting business pitches. She was one of the speakers at the WeConnect International conference in Johannesburg.Minister of Women in the Presidency, Susan Shabangu is of the speakers on 11 May 2017 at the WeConnect International conference in Johannesburg, South Africa. (Image: The Presidency, Flickr)Melissa JavanThe WeConnect International conference in South Africa was aimed at celebrating and training female-owned businesses. It took place from 9 to 11 May 2017.The second annual event, themed Bold steps for growth, provided attendees with presentations, informative workshops and networking opportunities.Training and workshops were held for the first two days, and the conference on the final day.According to Jean Chawapiwa, country director of WeConnect International in South Africa, the aim is to grow female-owned business and create further understanding about working successfully with multinational corporations.Chawapiwa explained that WeConnect International is the only non-profit organisation in South Africa that provides a seal of certification, unique to women business enterprises (WBEs), and also, that connects these WBEs to multinational corporate purchasing organisations across diverse industries.“Our signature seal of certification is a formal guarantee to corporations that they are purchasing goods and/or services from South African businesses that meet universal standards for WBEs,” said Chawapiwa.Here are some of the insights shared on Twitter on Thursday, 11 May:Government, Corporate and Women Owned Business in one room discussing solutions. #WeConnectSA #WomeninBusiness pic.twitter.com/9DhDKvLyGR— WW Solutions4Africa (@WinWinS4Africa) May 11, 2017When you go out and get something, don’t come back till you get it – @zaizai7 #WeConnectSA— WeConnect SA (@WeConnect_SA) May 11, 2017You need to become innovators, learn to leverage with your suppliers – Linda Basson @Accenture— WeConnect SA (@WeConnect_SA) May 11, 2017We all want to stand up and do well…but it’s more profound to help others stand up and do well. @jessyelapenn #WeConnectSA— WeConnect SA (@WeConnect_SA) May 11, 2017Great speech by @jessyelapenn about ‘being bold’ @WeConnect_SA today! #WeConnectSA— Tara Turkington (@taraturk1) May 11, 2017If you don’t bring value to the table with the right skills, we cannot assist – Ziaad Suleman IBM #WeConnectSA— WeConnect SA (@WeConnect_SA) May 11, 2017WorkshopsThe workshops were run by corporates and certified women’s business enterprises.Perfecting your Pitch was facilitated Lorenzo Bell Jr (EY Diversity and Inclusiveness Procurement ), Chawapiwa, and Tania Reid (CEO of iThemba Office Solutions).This workshop focussed on ensuring that women entrepreneurs pitch their businesses in the best way possible, said Chawapiwa.Other workshops were the Boost your Business with Facebook, the BBBEE or SMEs, Legal Boot Camp, and the Optimising processes within a business.Here are tweets about the Perfecting your Pitch workshop:If you can’t pitch because of fear, rather fear the fact the doors will not be open. #WeConnectsa pic.twitter.com/ukLVqeFi5J— Sandiso Sibisi (@sandisosibisi) May 11, 2017Your pitch is part of a bigger engagement . What is your moment of truth? – Shaheems Adam #PerfectingYourPitch #WeConnectWorkshops pic.twitter.com/z00e9KMfgK— WeConnect SA (@WeConnect_SA) May 9, 2017Give them enough to want to know more – Tanya Reid #PerfectingYourPitch #WeConnectWorkshops pic.twitter.com/QzudWf6FGS— WeConnect SA (@WeConnect_SA) May 9, 2017WBE’s given 60 seconds to present their business to the room. All doing very well actually. #PerfectingYourPitch #WeConnectWorkshops pic.twitter.com/dXrP3Ko6gB— WeConnect SA (@WeConnect_SA) May 9, 2017The winner of our Perfecting your Pitch competition @newmedia_indigo delivers her winning pitch to our corporates as promised #WeConnectSA pic.twitter.com/n7bL4r0b8O— WeConnect SA (@WeConnect_SA) May 11, 2017Source: WeConnect International in South Africa, Twitter.Would you like to use this article in your publication or on your website? See Using Brand South Africa materiallast_img read more

House approves Chatfield bill averting election confusion in Sault Ste Marie

first_img06Sep House approves Chatfield bill averting election confusion in Sault Ste. Marie Categories: Chatfield News Sault Ste. Marie City Manager Oliver Turner, right, testifies in support of the bill Wednesday before the House Elections and Ethics Committee. At left is Chris Hackbarth, director of state and federal affairs for the Michigan Municipal League.The Michigan House of Representatives today approved legislation introduced by state Rep. Lee Chatfield providing a one-time solution for communities dealing with a mix-up over the filing deadline for candidates seeking local office.Chatfield, of Levering, introduced the bill following a mistake in Sault Ste. Marie that would leave a number of candidates intending to run for city office off the November ballot.“While the circumstances that resulted in the need for this legislation are not ideal, it is my job to fight for the people of my district and ensure they have a smooth and fair election process,” Chatfield said. “This bill eliminates the confusion, while also providing some accountability measures to safeguard against similar mistakes in the future.”A state law passed in 2014 requires nominating petitions for candidates seeking office be filed at least 15 weeks before the August primary. However, Sault Ste. Marie’s city charter still identifies the filing deadline as 12 weeks before the primary. The mix-up means the names of five candidates running for city council and two running for mayor could be left off the ballot, despite the fact that they filed before the 12-week cutoff provided by the city clerk.The cities of Tecumseh, Bessemer and Lake Angelus made similar errors.Chatfield’s legislation ensures mayoral and city council candidates who filed petitions with the necessary signatures will be placed on the ballot for the November election.The bill requires the four cities in need of the legislative fix abide by the following accountability provisions:The city clerk must attend annual training seminars.The city clerk must submit nominating petitions, calendars and correspondence regarding elections to the Secretary of State (SOS) for approval.The SOS will conduct post-election audits after the November 2017, 2018 and 2019 elections.The SOS will conduct an administrative audit this summer and report findings by Feb. 28, 2018.There will be pre-election precinct election inspections and training.center_img State Rep. Lee Chatfield, right, speaks on behalf of his legislation to ensure mayoral and city council candidates in Sault Ste. Marie who filed petitions with the necessary signatures will be placed on the ballot for the November election. Rep. Bronna Kahle, of Clinton, joins him before the House Elections and Ethics Committee.In addition, an amendment made during the legislative process would impose a $2,500 civil fine on the four affected communities, which would be used to offset costs associated with the additional tasks required of the Secretary of State’s Office.Chatfield said he’s pleased the House took quick action on the measure, and is hopeful for similar results in the Senate.“State law requires absentee ballots go out to military and overseas civilian voters by Sept. 23,” Chatfield said. “Time is of the essence if we’re going to give these communities enough time to print ballots and send them out by the deadline.”Sault Ste. Marie City Manager Oliver Turner joined Chatfield this morning to speak on behalf of the bill in front of the House Elections and Ethics Committee.“The proposed legislation would preserve the integrity of our local elections process, promote stability, and would not imperial the ability of all of our voters – including overseas veterans – to vote,” Turner said.House Bill 4892 now moves to the Senate for consideration.###last_img read more