How's the adjustment letter going? It's quite hard. I have to be positive in the letter, right? That's right. No negative words such as, complaint, problem, or saying that your computer technicians cannot speak English. Okay. So I should focus on the improvements. Yes. Write things like, you will be pleased to know that our customer service feedback facility will shortly be upgraded to enable you to contact us through your smartphone. Great. Let me make a note of that. Also, should I apologize to the customer? If we made a mistake, sure we should. But remember to spell apologize, apology, and apologies correctly. I promise I will. I have a new dictionary so that's not a problem. Remember, never promise anything in business. Use words like, assure, or ensure, instead. For example, my new dictionary will ensure that my letters are error-free. I understand. Or I can say that I assure you that my letters will be error-free in future. Thanks for your help. Bye.


Hello and welcome to the session. In this session we are going to discuss the following question and the question says that distance between two cars is 3.45 meters. What is the distance between the cars in feet? Let us start with the solution. We are given the distance between two cars is 3.45 meters. We have to calculate this distance in feet. To calculate this our first step will be to identify initial and desired units. In this question we have to find the distance in feet when distance in meters is given. It means we have to convert meters into feet. It means the initial unit is meters and the desired unit is feet. Step 2 is to identify the unit path. In this case we will have linking units that is to convert meters into feet. We will first convert meters into centimeters then centimeters into inches then inches into feet. So unit path will be written like this. So our next step will be to write the unit path using equivalents as conversion factors to obtain desired units. We know 1 meter is equal to 100 centimeter, 1 inch is equal to 2.54 centimeter and 1 feet is equal to 12 inches. From 1 we have 1 meter upon 100 centimeter is equal to 1 or 100 centimeter upon 1 meter is equal to 1. From 2 we have 1 inch upon 2.54 centimeter is equal to 1 or 2.54 centimeter upon 1 inch is equal to 1. From 3 we have 1 feet upon 12 inches is equal to 1 or 12 inches upon 1 feet is equal to 1. We will choose those conversion factors so that all other linking units and initial units cancel out and we are less with the desired unit that is feet. So we have the following unit path. So here we first convert meter into centimeters using the conversion factor 100 centimeters upon 1 meter. Then we convert centimeter into inches using the conversion factor 1 inch upon 2.54 centimeters. And lastly we convert inches into feet using the conversion factor 1 feet upon 12 inches. So our next step will be to treat units as numbers to obtain answer. For this we shall cancel the units and terms so that we are left with only the desired units. So if we try and cancel out the linking units and the initial units that is meters cancel with meters, centimeters cancel with centimeters and inches cancel with inches. We are left with the desired unit that is feet. So 3.45 meters is equal to 3.45 into 100 into 1 upon 2.54 into 1 upon 12 feet. Which is equal to 3.45 into 1 upon 2.54 into 1 upon 12 feet. That is equal to 135.82 upon 12 feet which is equal to 11.31 feet. So the distance between two cars is equal to 11.31 feet. Which is the required answer. This completes our session. Hope you enjoy the session.


Attention Westwood residents. This is a community notification of a new sexually violent predator in your area. Please stay tuned to the following short program for more information. Hi I'm technician Ron Hackett with the Denver Police Department. The sex offender registration and compliance unit at DPD is responsible for the registration monitoring and tracking of all registered sex offenders and sexually violent predators who live in the city and county of Denver. Here's a brief history of sex offender legislation in Colorado. Our state laws trickle down from federal government mandates. In 1994 we had the Jacob Wetterling Act which mandated that states would establish a sex offender list. Maganslaw of 1996 said that the public would have access to those sex offender registration lists. The Pam Litchner Act of 1996 stated that some offenders might have to have lifetime registrations. In the Adam Walsh Act of 2006 unified sex offender laws across the country. In Colorado the legislature has determined that sexually violent predators by definition pose a higher risk to the community at large and therefore mandated that upon their release from the Department of Corrections the community must be notified. Sex offender notification in Colorado happens in two ways. The first is passive and ongoing through the sex offender registration process which is a list maintained by local police department. The second way is active via community notification for those offenders determined to be sexually violent predators by the courts or by the parole board. Most sex offenders in Colorado are supervised by the criminal justice system in our communities. Most sex offenders engage in crossover behavior which means they may have been arrested for one type of crime but be apt to commit another.  There is no typical sex offender but all tend to be deceptive, manipulative and secretive. 80 to 93% of sex offenses are committed by someone known to the victim. Sexual deviancy begins in mid to late adolescence. Sex offenses are not impulsive.  The community has a vested interest in helping offenders to be successfully managed in the community. Sex offenders have the same need for housing and employment as any other citizen.  There are approximately 16,500 registered sex offenders in the state of Colorado. About 65% of convicted sex offenders are placed in the community on probation. The remainder are in the department of corrections or community corrections. Offenders may be caught for one type of offense but be at a high risk to commit another type. Crime of conviction is only one indicator of risk.  The offender's residence must be verified quarterly by the Denver Police Department. The full sex offender registration list is available by calling the Denver Police Department Identification Bureau at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Convicted felons and those with multiple convictions are posted online at denvergov.org slash police.   Now, here's a look at the newest sexually violent predator living in Denver. Here's an overview of the registered sex offenders currently living in Denver. There are 2,360 total living within city limits. In Denver Police District 4, there are 519. Precinct 412 has 111 registered sex offenders. Of those, 64 have felony convictions and 47 have misdemeanor convictions. Richard Martinez is a sexually violent predator currently living in Denver. He's 48 years old and was born on January 24th, 1968. He's a Hispanic male, 5 feet 10 inches tall, 175 pounds with black hair and brown eyes. He's currently living at 4620 West Gill Place in the Westwood neighborhood of Denver. Schools located within one mile of this offender include Castro Elementary at 845 South Low Boulevard, NAP Elementary at 500 South Utica Street, Brady Exploration School at 5,220 West Ohio Avenue, Monroe Elementary at 3440 West Virginia Avenue. Parks located within one mile of this offender include Westwood Park, Weir Gulch Trail. Bus routes located within one mile of this offender include Route 3 West Alameda Avenue, Route 4 West Alameda Avenue, Morrison Road, Route 31 South Federal Boulevard, Route 51 South Sheridan Boulevard.  He's not on parole or probation and registered with the Denver Police Department on October 24, 2016 to 4620 West Gill Place in the Westwood neighborhood of Denver. Past charges against this offender include assault, domestic violence, vehicle theft, carrying a concealed weapon, obstruction interference with police. Richard Martinez has been determined a sexually violent predator after meeting the following criteria. Criteria 1, age 18 or older on the date of the offense or under 18 and tried as an adult. The offender was age 40 at the time of the offense. Criteria 2, the crime must have been committed honor after July 1, 1997 and convicted honor after July 1, 1999.  The offender was convicted on June 5, 2009 for attempted sex assault on a child. Criteria 3, the relationship to the victim was one of the following. Victim was a stranger to the offender or the offender established or promoted a relationship with the victim primarily for the purpose of sexual victimization. The victims were a 7 and 10 year old female. The offender was known to the victim. Criteria 4, positive results are the passing of a risk assessment instrument administered by probation parole staff and a qualified treatment evaluator. Positive results include an assessment for the presence of a mental abnormality, a level of denial regarding the offense, treatment appropriateness and motivation, presence of sexual deviant interests. The offender was evaluated by the Denver district courts with positive results, determining him to be a sexually violent predator.


20th meeting of the 2013 Common Council meeting Monday, January 21st. Call the rolls, click. Bellinger. Here. Warren. Here. Carlson. Here. Decker. Here. Johnny Hugh. Here. Hammond. Here. Heidemann. Here. Coth. Here. Lassard. Here. Lewandowski. Here. Madicek. Present. Reisler. Here. Van Akron. Here. Excused. 15 present. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Approval of the minutes. Hold them in Hammond. Thank you. I move that we approve the minutes of the previous council meeting. Second. I approve and seconded that we approve the minutes of the previous council meeting. Is there any changes or additions? Bring non-clerk all the roll. Warren. Here. Carlson. Here. Decker. Here. Johnny Hugh. Here. Hammond. Here. Heidemann. Here. Lassard. Here. Lewandowski. Here. Madicek. Here. Reisler. Here. Van Akron. Ballinger. Hi. 15. Motion carries. The public forum tonight. It will be Joel Wood. Is Joel Wood here this evening? Your address please, Joel. 2914 South 15th Street. Thank you. You'll have five minutes. Okay. I'd just like to start with what I think is the main reason for this sewage backup and there was construction being done about three weeks to a month prior to this, not 10 feet away from where this occurred. And my insurance company denied my claim because it was sewage from the city sewer line that they said I needed to file a claim at the city. Also on my neighbors, if you look at your line, these are my neighbors, they, all of their insurance companies told them the same thing. I've got over $4,000 worth of lost property and basically I had a finished basement and now I don't. I missed almost a full day of work with the cleanup plus all the supplies. That's all. That's pretty much it. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Joel. Is there any other? And I'd like to proceed with a proclamation for National Wear Red Day. If Irene Dreska joins me, the proclamation reads as follows. Whereas Go Red for Women celebrates the extraordinary progress in women's heart health and recognizes the more need to be done in Sheboygan to safeguard women's health for generations to come. And whereas heart disease is the number one killer of women and whereas most women do not know heart disease is a woman's problem that they do not take seriously. And whereas the Heart Truth Campaign and the red dress symbol of building awareness for women's heart disease and risking empowering them to reduce the risk of heart disease. Now therefore, Sheboygan women need to take action to make heart health a priority for themselves and for their families and to become aware of heart disease risks and take action to control their risks. Or I, Teri Vanakeren, as Mayor of Sheboygan, do hereby proclaim Friday, February 1, 2013 as National Wear Red Day and encourage all citizens to work together to promote the health of all women and increase awareness of understanding of women and heart disease. Hi, everybody. The reason that we got Teri involved is because heart disease in women is the number one killer of women and a lot of people are unaware of that. One of the things that we really, really, really try to do is to better educate women need to be diagnosed accurately and we need to ensure that there's proper treatment given for people. I'd like to thank you for having me. I think this is, what an honor this is and you'll be seeing some things go up through the course of the next week or so. Up on 8th Street, we're going to try to get the businesses to get a little bit more involved. It's the number one killer of women and I thank you so much for having me and thank you. Thanks, Teri. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor's announcements, a couple things tonight. Excuse me. The ice skating rink sponsored by Blue Harbor is open for skating. Located just west of the triple play building. Rental skates are available at Blue Harbor rink. The rink has been flooded by off-duty firefighters, including our chief. So we want to thank them for that and it's open to the public. So thank you very much. Also today is Martin Luther King Day. I was at a program at the Armory. It's an honor to represent the city at programs in which Martin Luther King talked about community and being involved in community. I'm proud of this community and how many things that we have people volunteer and take care of each other and that's what it was all about. So glad that our community can celebrate and think about Martin Luther King and the things that he did. Tonight we also are going to be talking about the combined dispatch. There's a lot of people who think and I'll do that now. This is something that's been going on for 30 years.  I want to thank, this has been going on for 30 years, but the discussion was just about dead. Alderman Hammond. I want to thank you for your persistence and leadership. You sat down and got the ball rolling again and something that I think we all thought was not going to happen. It looks like it's going to come to happen and you need to be recognized for your leadership and taking the part on that. You and I and Chief Damongowski, Chief Herman and Jim Memorial sat in through many sometimes interesting discussions with the community, I mean with the county over the last few months and it looks like we're finally coming to closure on a good end. So thank you for your leadership. Chiefs and Jim Memorial, thank you for your involvement too. This was a long, hard discussion that we had and thank you guys for being involved in this. Thank you for the county. The sheriff, Todd Paribi, the county board chairman, Adam Payne, the county board administrator. Again, all of us working together finally did get something that after 30 years, I think we're going to have a good result that's good for both the city and county. So thank you all for your hard work and for your leadership. Consent agenda. Alderman Hammond. Thank you. I move to accept and file all ROs, accept and adopt all RCs and pass all resolutions. Second. It's been moved and seconded to accept all ROs, accept and adopt all RCs, accept and pass all resolutions and general ordinances. 2-1 through 2-22, but I know somebody wants to pull some of those. So Alderman Raceler. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to pull 2-5, 2-6, 2-7 and 2-8 and you can put them all together for a separate vote. Second. We're going to pull in 2-5, 2-6, 2-7 and 2-8 and we'll vote on those separately. And the motion then on those will still be to accept and file. Is there any discussion on those four items? Alderman Raceler. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I didn't support him at finance and I obviously don't want to support him on the floor. The real short and just of it is what actually Mr. Wood talked about in the public forum. The water main had broken and eroded the soil between the water main and the sewer main and fell into that and broke it, thus causing the sewer to back up. Kind of an unusual sewer back up and as Mr. Wood said, the insurance companies didn't cover anything and I guess it's just my opinion that there might be a little bit more liability than what we thought. So I'm going to not support filing it and vote no. Any other discussion? Any other discussion on 2-5 through 2-8? Alderman Bourne. Thank you, Mayor. I wasn't at that finance committee meeting so I'm just wondering what the rationale was for the notice of disallowance. Is this past practice that we've done this? And it seems like what Alderman Raceler described is kind of an unusual circumstance where we may have some exposure. So if Attorney McLean or somebody from the finance committee would like to explain that please. Steve. I can say that the claims were turned over to the water utility initially and they had their insurance company look at them. They recommended denying the claims on the basis that there was no negligence on the water utility's part or the city's part. The city staff looked at it, made the same recommendation to the finance committee. The finance committee reported out with that same recommendation to deny on the basis that the city was not negligent. Alderman Bourne. Well, when would the city be negligent under a situation like this? Is it even a gray area or is it just cut and dried that we're not negligent? Water mains break now and then. If the city's, the law is not that any time a water main breaks and somebody receives damage as a result that the city is liable for that. Those things happen and we typically don't approve those claims on the basis that the city is not legally liable. Legally liable for those damages. I guess the rationale, partially there is statutes and the legislature are protective of governmental bodies from paying out a lot of claims. And they're trying to protect the purse of the taxpayers. And sometimes innocent parties barely brunt. That's no doubt about that, but that's the recommendation. Alderman Donahue. Thank you, Mayor. These are really cruel cases as we talked about in finance because absent a showing of negligence as attorney McLean said on the part of the city, there is no recovery. If you want to sue someone for having damaged you, you need to show that that person was somehow negligent unless there's some sort of strict liability that applies. And there really is not strict liability here. It is a cruel result. And if you don't have a sewage backup endorsement on your homeowner's policy, you're out of luck there. But it's just one of those, not every wrong has a legal remedy. That's why the finance committee voted to deny these claims, not because of anything the homeowners did or not at fault at all. But also the city was not at fault. These are, as we understand it, these are just things that happen. And it's nothing that the city did wrong. And so that was the basis for denying the claim. Attorney McLean also indicated, which I think is really important for us to consider as we think about voting on this issue, that if we approve these claims now, anything that goes wrong at any time in the city with a water main or a sewage line will be the city's responsibility, even if the city was not negligent, even if there is no blame to be placed. And so from the perspective of just protecting the taxpayer dollars, I think it's really important that we do deny these claims, even though it is cruel and it is, in some respects, unjust. It is the law, and I think that we really need to stay with it because what we do now sets a precedent. And if that, if it's a bad precedent, then we have to live with that for quite a long period of time. Thank you. Holloman Lussard. Thank you, Mayor. I think I just need more specificity on what happened. The water main broke, but did I hear you say a pipe fell and broke the sewer line? And the sewer was the backup and not the water line? Did a pipe fall and break? And how did that pipe fall and break? So I need someone to give me clarity on the incident itself. Part of the issue was that with the water main break, there was a lot of water that collected along the pipes there and washed out the support for the pipe. And my understanding is it sank down and somehow, I don't know if it broke the sewer main or affected the rings near the manhole for the sewer, but all this volume of water from the water main that had washed out a lot of sand and everything, ended up going down the manhole in the sewer, and that was too much water in the sewer and caused the backups. And most of the backups were a couple inches of water in the basements in about five houses, all in the vicinity of the intersection near Mr. Wood's place there. There was a lot of sand that was found in the basements that had washed out, and it was a matter of that nobody knows for sure, but that water main had probably been broken for several days to a week, so there was big volume of water that was washing out the subsurface underneath the street there and it ended up causing kind of a domino effect. I can't really explain exactly how the water ended up in the basements, but that's what the reports are, is that the water main broke, ended up the fire hydrant that was there collapsed, and I don't know if the fire hydrant had an impact on the sewer, but in some way there the sewer started collecting a great volume of water and couldn't handle it all. Thank you. Alderman Bellinger. Thank you, Mayor. I feel some empathy for Mr. Woods as well. A number of years ago the pump station on North and 3rd Avenue got struck by lightning, the battery backup failed, I experienced the same exact thing. I got no recourse from the city at all and it affected probably a dozen other of my neighbors. However, you think that you maintain your house in good order and that the city has its infrastructure in good order and you're doing everything you can as a citizen and through no fault of your own you're experiencing this mess that happens. I'm just wondering the question for Attorney McClain. Seeing as how we find the city has no neglect or fault in this instance, is there a recourse from these homeowners now that we demonstrated there is no fault from the city that they can go back to their insurance companies and say, you know, can you relook at this again because there is no fault from the city? I'm just wondering why is this different than a tornado or straight line winds or anything else that would normally be, you know, if there was no fault, they could go back and have that looked at again. Attorney McClain. Yeah, I can't address whether the property owners or Mr. Woods case, he was just a tenant that didn't own the property but I couldn't tell you whether they have any recourse against their insurance carriers. Mr. Woods says the insurance carriers are saying that they're denying coverage to dispute that. The recourse from here is the city denies the claim, sends them notice they've got six months in which to sue. They can still sue the city and if it goes to court, most of these would be small claims, jurisdiction, they're under $5,000. If a court were to find that the city was legally responsible, court would enter judgment accordingly. But I guess it's our position that the city is not at fault and the court would not find the city negligent. And as Alderman Donahue said, this isn't a strict liability situation. Cities, counties, governmental bodies are not held to a standard of strict liability in cases like this. We've got to show that there was some action or inaction or a mission on the city's part for which the city would be liable. So the city went out and had just repaired it and was negligent in its repair. It would be a different story. There's another claim on tonight that dealt with a manhole cover. Individual city employee working in that manhole that day. And the recommendation of the finance committee is different on that claim. So the staff looks at these. The committee looks at them on an individual case-by-case basis and makes the determination as to whether or not the city is legally liable. Now, there's nothing to prevent the council from saying they're going to pay these claims, but as Alderman Donahue also said, you're kind of opening the floodgates there for other potential claims. If you pay one where water main breaks through no fault of the city's, where is the stopping point? At what point do you say, well, we'll pay this claim but not that claim where there's a water main break, where something happens to a sewer? There's perhaps no end to those sorts of things. Streets, we get a million pothole cases where cars hit potholes because the street isn't... Christine does not mean that the city is negligent. We've got a standard of reasonable maintenance to maintain the infrastructure of the city and that's all the courts and the legislature feel that is appropriate to hold a municipality to as a standard of reasonable maintenance, reasonable care and not as a guarantor of, you know, that there's not ever going to be any damage Is your question on the bill? Yes, thank you. Any other discussion? Any other discussion? We'll call the roll on 25 through 28 on disallowance of the claims. We'll call the roll. Point of order, Mayor. I'm sorry. Could you frame the motion? I'm not sure which vote will. Is this a vote to support Alderman Risler? No. To support the finance committees report and disallow the claims. So now I vote... Carlson? Aye. Decker? No. Donahue? Aye. Hammond? Abstain. Heidemann? No. Koth? Aye. Lissard? Aye. Lewandowski? Aye. Manicheck? Aye. Reisler? No. Medakren? No. Vanderweal? Aye. Versey? Abstain. Bellinger? Aye. Boren? No. Eight ayes, five noes, two abstain. Motion carries. Now we'll vote on 22.1 through 24. Plus two eight or two nine through 222. Any discussion? Hearing none, clerk will call the roll. Decker? Aye. Donahue? Aye. Hammond? Aye. Heidemann? Aye. Keth? Aye. Lissard? Aye. Lewandowski? Aye. Manicheck? Aye. Versey? Aye. Bellinger? Aye. Boren? Aye. Carlson? Aye. 15 ayes. Motion carries. 3-1 through 3-8 will be referred. For one resolution from Alderman Hammond, Reisler, Heineman, and Van Ackeren, approving 2013 one-year annual action plan for community development grants. Alderman Hammond. Thank you. First off, I would make a motion to suspend the rules. Second. It's been moved and seconded to suspend the rules. Any discussion on suspension only? All those in favor of suspension signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Alderman Hammond. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move to put the resolution upon its passage. Second. It's been moved and seconded to put the resolution upon its passage. Any discussion under the resolution? Hearing none, clerk will call the roll. Donahue? Aye. Hammond? Aye. Heitemann? Aye. Taff? Aye. Lissard? Aye. Lewandowski? Aye. Manichek? Aye. Reisler? Aye. Van Ackeren? Aye. Vanderwiel? Aye. Versey? Aye. Bellinger? Aye. Boran? Aye. Carlson? Aye. Decker? Aye. The report of committee from salary and grievance recommending filing resolution to extend staffing levels of limitations now in place for firefighters. Alderman Boran. Thank you, Mayor. I would request that this be sent back to salary and grievances. I was unable to appear at that meeting last week because of a family situation that came up suddenly. I did contact the chairman of the committee and he talked to the committee about holding the document for a future meeting and they saw fit not to. I think it's kind of been the practice since I've been on the council that when an Alderman has a document going into a committee and they're not able to be there, that it's been a courtesy in the past that that document be held if the Alderman requests it. One that comes to mind very recently when Alderman Lewandowski was out for his health reasons, he had a document at the public works committee and Alderman Heidemann I believe held that document for three consecutive meetings and the committee agreed to it to hold that until Alderman Lewandowski could appear. I mean we ended up filing the document but at least we extended the courtesy for Alderman Lewandowski to be there and talk about his document. So I was somewhat disappointed. I not only contacted chairman Racler but I also contacted the manager of human resources and let her know that I was not going to be able to be there. So I would just request the courtesy that this go back to the salary and grievance committee and be put on the agenda for their February 11th meeting when I could attend. Thank you. Is that a motion? That's a motion. Second. It's been moved and seconded to re-refer to salary and grievance. Seconded then, please. First. Alderman Versey. Is there any discussion on the motion? Clerk will call a roll on the motion. Hammond. Aye. Heidemann. Aye. Kath. Aye. Lussard. Aye. Lewandowski. Aye. Maddachuk. Aye. Racler. Aye. Van Akron. Aye. Vanderweel. Aye. Versey. Aye. Bellinger. Aye. Donahue. Aye. 15 ayes to re-refer. Motion carries. 5-2 from an RC from strategic planning, fiscal planning, recommending filing resolutions directing chief administrative officer and human resources manager and fire chief to develop a plan for unpaid fire fighters. Alderman Hammond. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move to accept and adopt. Second. It's been moved and seconded to accept and adopt the committee report. Under discussion. Alderman Hammond. Thank you again, Mayor Van Akron. The reason I came forward with this resolution in the first place was I thought we were going at the strategic fiscal planning meetings because of the budgetary difficulties that we're going to be having in 14 and 15 that the chairman and the committee members were looking for possible suggestions for various departments where possibly we could come up with some recommendations. And I came up with this resolution after talking to Chief Herman. I called him up a week or two before I put this resolution in. And I mentioned to him that the budgetary problems that we may be having in 14 and 15. And I asked what he was considering doing because of the budgetary constraints in 14 and 15.  And from previous discussions last year, if we were going to close a couple of fire stations, that would mean building a fire station centrally located and the cost estimates on that initially were around $4 million. In the past, this council and some other councils the last three or four years have been unwilling to close a fire station.  So in lieu of that, of possibly closing a fire station, I came up with this resolution that asks that when some of the fire fighters retire, and again I'm saying the firefighters, the gentlemen that have been with the fire department for many years when they retire, possibly looking into a hybrid type of fire department which would be partly paid full-time and then a part-time on-call firefighting personnel. And I asked very specifically in what I was looking for, for the chief administrative officer, the manager of human resources and the fire chief to look into some very specific things. And I wasn't prejudging this by any means but the strategic fiscal planning committee was looking for suggestions from Alderman for things to do about our budget crunch in 14 and 15. And I was kind of disappointed that I was kind of summarily dismissed that they wanted to file this without even looking into this. And again, I'm not prejudging it and I don't think the council should prejudge it. The only thing that this is going to cost to do this study is some staff time and after the research is done by those individuals that I mentioned, it's going to go back to the Public Protection and Safety Committee. That report would go back to them for vetting. And then it would also go to the committee of the whole for the entire council to consider. So if we're really looking for suggestions from the Alderman as to what we can possibly do to ease this budget crisis in 14 and 15, this is a suggestion that at least I think we should research and again it's going to be staff time. It's not going to be dollars. And what I'm asking for is very specific and it may be somewhat time consuming but I don't know what we're going to do with the fire department and even other departments, the library and the police department for 14 and 15, this is just a possible alternative to having to close fire stations and lay off people. And that's why I would like it researched. I also a couple of days ago got an unsolicited call from an Alderman over in Manitowoc and apparently he got my resolution off of the web and indicated that he and a couple of other Alderman in Manitowoc are thinking very seriously of at least having the research done over there because they've got the same problems, budget problems. In fact Manitowoc budgetarily I believe for the upcoming years is in worse shape than we are. And there was an article in the Manitowoc paper recently where the fire chief over in Manitowoc for 2013 was asking an additional $309,000 for his budget. And he mentioned to the common council and the mayor over there that if he didn't get the $309,000 for 2013 he was going to have to close fire stations and lay people off. Well as it turned out the common council and the mayor over there said chief I guess you're going to have to do what you're going to have to do but in the 11th hour this article was dated November 21st from the Herald Times in Manitowoc between November 21st and December 1st apparently the chief found $309,000 in his budget so that he didn't have to lay off firefighters over there or close a fire station. And I guess he did that by delaying hiring and shifting some dollars around. So I don't want to be in the usual predicament when we get into situations with the fire department that the chief recommends clothing stations and laying people off. I don't think it's going to work. I don't think the community is going to accept it. This is an alternative and I think you know I would appreciate it if the council tonight would at least vote to go through with the study bring it back to public protection and safety in March and then to the committee of the whole and we can take a look at the numbers. I know I gave this resolution to Alderman Hammond before I submitted it to the council and Alderman Hammond at the time was very interested in number C on the document where it says a detailed cost benefit analysis detailing the possible costs and cost savings of a partially paid on staff for the Sheboygan fire department. So I would ask my former council members tonight to vote not to file this and at least have the chief administrative officer our HR director and our fire chief spend some time and come back with a report that we can digest and make an intelligent decision. Thank you. Alderman Hammond. Thank you Mr. Mayor. The reason I didn't support this was the same reasons I have indicated is in my mind this wasn't a request for a feasibility study. Yes I would love to see what the cost benefit of doing something like this would be but it very clearly states that this would happen starting January 14 with the first fire fires to be hired mid April of 14. I don't know if that's the right timeline why are we as a council again dictating personnel to our department heads. We haven't given the chief any idea of what we would expect for response times. I don't know if this is feasible or not but I'm happy to take a look at the cost benefit but this thing goes a lot further than just cost benefit. It takes it to a point where when you look at the resolves if you will where we're hiring these folks on April of 2014 and we haven't even gotten through the point where we're looking at the cost benefit. So if we're just going to focus on that let's have that conversation and have the chief put it together but if we're going to mandate to put it together. Thank you. Thanks for your comments Alderman Hammond the reason I put a timeline on it that is part of what I want the chief and the chief administrative officer and HR manager of human resources to come back with that would be part of the feasibility study is when as the A through F down there cover the timeline is just a suggestion and as I said I'm not prejudging this after we do a cost benefit analysis it may not be feasible all I'm looking for is an alternative to we're going to close fire stations lay off people jeopardize the staffing for the ambulance service and I just think we need an alternative to the same scenario all the time of closed stations lay off people and this is at least an alternative. After the report is done then we're in a much better position to judge whether this is going to fly or not I made it specific on purpose and if we make a decision on this I want it to be well thought out both cost wise and public safety wise thank you. I have several difficulties with this particular resolution I start with number one it is true that the city is going to has continued to face and will continue to face very serious budgetary constraints budgetary questions and uncertainty about actions in Madison and uncertainty about all sorts of issues that require this council along with department heads and with the mayor to think strategically about how we use our limited resources. A plan like this is not a part of that strategic thinking because it's too narrow because it focuses in number one just on one department number two on one possible scenario to solve a problem in one particular department. We can't really intelligently evaluate that particular solution unless we're looking at the city as a whole. Without a vision the people perish. We've heard that over and over again the vision is for the whole city is not just for three retiring firefighters. So that is my concern number one. Concern number two is what do we mean by paid on call firefighters? Now Alderman Bourne has said it's just staff time that we're going to be using here it's not money well staff time is money and it is the fire chief and it is HR and it is the chief administrative officer and it is the city attorney because this resolution requires a thorough and comprehensive plan that goes way beyond anything that resembles a feasibility study as to what is paid on call. Are we going to have somebody sitting at home paying that person 10 or 11 dollars an hour because he or she is not going to be working that person is going to be on call or is it going to be as we do with our wonderful volunteer firefighters throughout the county and these folks are terrific. I have spoken at every single volunteer fire department in this county and those are wonderful people who do an incredible job but is that what we're looking at and I think that if I mean the feasibility study if we were to do anything would be just to make those definitions number one, number two figure out how much that would cost number three figure out if you can hire those people and then number four did you read the chief's October through December report? On October first my birthday no relation here there were 18 separate fire calls now I know that was an unusual day and if you read through the whole report clearly it was an unusual day but firefighting is all about unusual circumstances and for that reason just even this tiny piece of a quote feasibility study is really not that so we really and I appreciate the thought and the time and the effort that Alderman Bourne put into this resolution because it's pretty detailed we're going to get a detailed outline we're going to have a listing and detailed explanation of all changes to ordinances, resolutions, agreements, policies and procedures in order to implement such a transition we're going to have a detailed cost benefit analysis recommendations on optimum ratio of full time to part time proposed job descriptions and any other information so clearly Alderman Bourne and the other older persons who sponsored this resolution did put a lot of time and effort into it and I appreciate that frankly all of us are going to have to put that kind of time and effort maybe not to this detailed level but we're going to have to do that if we're going to address our budget problems as they come up in 2014 so this is piecemeal it does require a lot of time time is money and for those reasons I think that this is a distraction with all due respect to Alderman Bourne and the other older persons this is a distraction we need to focus on the real target we can't take our eyes off of the prize which is how do we make the city run financially what do citizens want from us how are we going to do it all and I think we're going to have a lot of discussions that we need to be having in the next year or so thank you Alderman Donahue Alderman Billinger thank you mayor I share the same concerns as Alderman Bourne does about 2014 and 2015 there is things that need to be done and things that need to be addressed but for this body I just wanted to let people know that I did receive the former RFP from Bernie for the fire department I'm looking at bringing that back as a resolution in amending it I will certainly pass it along to you for you to look at before I do so I think rather than doing an approach like this taking one area or one narrow thing with the fire department I would like to have a third party again look at the entire operation take the politics the emotions and the biases out of it and come back and look and see if there is some opportunity for savings or efficiencies and as a body if we've got the courage to pass that then I think we should have the courage to adopt whatever comes back in a timely and responsible manner too whether that's hiring more closing the station consolidating paid on call not whatever that is that's why I'm not going to support this because I think there is a better way to look at the the whole department and see if there might be something better for us thank you any other discussion any other discussion see none all clerk will call the roll hi Edamon hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi Edamon thank you I'll go ahead motion carries motion carries yes it does I have three reported committee from law and licensing recommending denying beverage license 6744 Alderman Panda William I'd like to actually refer this back to law and licensing move and second to refer this document back to law and licensing all those in favor signify by saying aye aye motion carries 5-4 committee of the whole recommending authorizing and appropriating city officials to execute combined dispatch intergovernmental cooperative agreement with pleasure Alderman Hammond actually Mr. Mayor I was just going to ask if we can take 5-4 and 5-5 together they're both basically the same document finance came with no recommendation we had four people two had to abstain so that's why there's no recommendation but I leave to Alderman born for the committee of the whole Alderman born thank you I move that the resolution be put upon its passage second it's been moving segregated that the resolution be put upon its passage any discussion and 5-5 and 5-5 will be committee to be accepted in Alderman Bellinger thank you Mayor I would like to thank Don Hammond for the going above and beyond and getting this back on track and coming to a complete resolution even though it may have taken a few years of his life away from him but thank you for doing that I've got a different take on this whole thing I found this whole exercise rather frustrating and extremely disappointing I thought this was going to be a shining example of intergovernmental cooperation instead what I saw was intergovernmental extortion first the county came to us with a 5.7 million dollar offer that we should borrow that much money and I don't know what that was for maybe it was for in addition to the ivory tower I don't know what that was for but then it went down to 4 million then it went down to 3 million and now we're at 2.5 million and I called my county supervisor when it was still at 5.7 million and said where do you stand on this and he told me I support it it's a good deal for the city I'm sure you will warm up to it I didn't you know have very warm feelings for that comment to me and I still am now warm to that whole thing and what really bothers me is that we've got a option where we could do it for $400,000 basically at the new facility that the police just built three years ago so I take a strong view on tax dollars city tax dollars and for the county supervisors that represent the city the city individuals they pay county taxes as well so it just really bothers me that that was not even an option we had a joint meeting in September down at Blue Harbor and I thought that the council and the county board supervisors would sit at the table and we would vet each different option idea let the public in on it and that was nothing but being lectured to and having directives from the county I asked why can't we look at the city option because it's certainly much cheaper and they said that's not even a starting point we will not even discuss it won't put it on the table at all and have anything to do with it so it was just completely shut down the intergovernmental cooperation certainly that spirit wasn't there at that meeting I think the only thing that that was for that meeting was so that they could pose for holy pictures so after being lectured and dictated to you know we're down to where we're at right now and we've got just a cavalier disregard for the taxpayer dollars we're ignoring common sense basic math simple economics and logic so we're going to take 12 to 13 years for the city pack taxpayers to realize the full potential of combined dispatch at an inflated cost of approximately 2.6 million dollars we could have achieved the exact same thing in one to two years at a cost of approximately 4400 thousand at the police facility and the last issue that was brought up was we can't have it at a police facility because it's not a hardened facility well I went and did some research and I've got this document here a staff brief on 911 communications and when a call is placed to 911 it is routed to a public safety answering point or a PSAP I asked the question how many PSAPs are there in the state of Wisconsin there's over 150 of them you can imagine there's at least 72 with each county having its own and then there's the university system there's a federal one at Fort McCoy but it adds up to there's over 150 I asked three different respected individuals who are experts in this field how many of those facilities are hardened and nobody could give me an answer other than to say it was very rare due to the extreme cost of having a hardened facility so I don't have an exact number they didn't have one but they said it was extremely rare so to use the excuse that we have to go to the county because it's a hardened facility I think it's just a facade as well so for an additional $2.6 million over 12 or 13 years I think it is ridiculous and I'm just extremely disappointed in this whole process that we're going down I will however be voting in favor of this because for the greater good the county residents, the city residents deserve combined dispatch it's gone on way too long 40, 50 years however in seeing this process how it works I'm surprised it's not still going on and that we're at a resolution today because thank you Alderman Hammond I got to follow that I'm going to take a little bit of a different twist it was quite a process I will certainly give you that but with any of these types of things when it's been this in grain for 40 some years there's going to be some give and take that goes along with it is it a perfect nope does it get us to our end goal some of these things are obviously a lot more important than just dollars and cents dollars and cents of course are important but I think both chiefs and the sheriff would talk about the public safety aspect of this too and how important that is to the end so again as I mentioned on Thursday night I just want to thank everybody that was involved with this there was a lot of people, a lot of meetings a lot of back and forth a lot of times where quite frankly we walked away going I think this is going to happen but it did so again I appreciate everybody's support on this document and look forward to this getting carried through by the end of 2015 thank you thank you very much this actually could have been done about three years ago for about $2 million but the hang up on that was the question of supervision the number of supervisors they wanted to hire I see the document now we've got it down to four I forgot what it was back then it was about eight or nine but we could have actually done it for about $200,000 now it's $200,000 $2.5 million and I have to agree with Alderman Bellinger that we could have done this and I've got the list right in front of me here it's actually $361,855 if we could have had it over at the police department and I believe the vote back in April by the county board the president of the county board at that time took that vote on the basis I believe in April that it was going to go at the police it was going to be at the police department and then all of a sudden he and a number of other county supervisors said nope we can't do it over at the police department it's not a hardened facility it's not convenient if we want to have meetings and so we got to build it over at the courthouse and it's going to cost as Alderman Bellinger started out many many more millions of dollars and now we're down to $2.5 million and you know we're doing all this bonding it's going to be probably $2.5 million for to build this on to the county courthouse and then as I was talking about earlier apparently if we're going to close fire stations it's going to be 4 million bucks or at least 4 million bucks for a new centrally located fire station when does it end the city's debt end I too am going to vote for this tonight it's one of these where I'm definitely going to hold my nose combined dispatch was on my bucket list when I when I got on the council seeing that this come to fruition and even before Alderman Hammond was on board there were several of Alderman myself Alderman Gisha, Alderman Hammond and Alderman Verhassel who used to be the district that kept this thing on I hate to use the word life support but that's what it was we got at least the votes back then I think it was in 2008 to keep the discussions going when they looked like they were going to be dead so I'm going to reluctantly vote for this tonight because eventually I think we're going to see some benefit but we certainly could have done this for $361,000 and had a wonderful dispatch center but for the convenience of the county we have to spend $2.5 million, thank you Alderman Lassard Thank you Mayor I want to thank Alderman Hammond for all the work he did on this particular topic and I'm quite proud to be one of the people that's going to be voting to finally get combined dispatch to me public safety and protection is of the utmost importance in this city taking care of our citizens and it seems that the majority of the time this council is either attacking our fire department or police department or our ambulance service so I have great pride I don't like the deal the whole deal is the way it went down but I'm quite proud of the fact that after 40 some years we're actually going to be having combined dispatch cutting down the problems when there are calls to be made and perhaps saving a number of lives and making our city a lot safer for our staff payers and our constituents are asking for our times are tough right now I'm sure everyone's read the paper this weekend and things are not getting better, they're getting worse so we need to address that and it's refreshing to be in support of our public safety and departments in our city Thank you Any other discussion? So none clerk will call the roll Lassard You want to check? Aye Racler? Abstain Van Akron? Abstain Vanderweel? Aye Percy? Aye Bellinger? Aye Moran? Aye Carlson? Aye Decker? Aye Donahue? Abstain Hammond? Aye Heidemann? Aye Peth? Aye Board Committee from Sowering Grievance who met and discussed amended 2012 benefit proposal Alderman Racler Thank you Mr. Mayor I move that the report of committee be accepted and adopted Second I move that the committee report be accepted and adopted Any discussion? Alderman Bourne Thank you Mayor Van Akron Chairman Racler I read the document but I'm just wondering if you could explain it to the rest of the council while we're going down to a $600 payback for the part timers what was behind that Sure This is a bio program for not going on our health insurance and before the part timers were actually eligible for a full $1200 and it was the community's recommendation that they had the option of actually now purchasing the insurance 50% of what the premium was before it was all paid and it was the committee's recommendation that they would then receive 50% of the buyout instead of the full $1200 so it's kind of a making it even I could just follow up about how many people does this affect I think it was 5 to 8 or someone sing 4 so I would 4 people will affect Thank you Any other discussion The none of the clerk will call the roll Liwadoski Maticek Racelor Ben Akron Vanderweel Bursi Bellinger Boran Carlson Dekker Donahue Hammond Hammon Carlsson Petty cash Alderman Hammond Thank you I would ask for a motion a motion to suspend the rules Second Any discussion on suspension only All those in favor of suspending signify by saying aye Opposed Motion carries Thank you Second Any discussion The none of the clerk will call the roll Maticek Racelor Ben Akron Vanderweel Bursi Bellinger Boran Carlson Dekker Hammond Bursi Bursi Bursi Berlowski All right Motion carries Six to ordinance by Alderman Hammond will be referred Matters laid over Resolution Number 120 1213 by Alderman Packman Authorizing executing a one-year lease agricultural property in the Town of Wilson Alderman Hydeman Put the resolution upon its passage. Is there any discussion? We're in none all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye opposed Motion carried other matters city attorney The next matter is Then move the second to do adjourn all those in favor signify by saying aye Motion carried. We're adjourned


Sit down. I have an announcement and also an opening statement with the announcement first, and that's most important. I have this afternoon nominated Elizabeth Dole, who has been performing magnificently as my assistant for public liaison on the White House, and nominated her to be Secretary of Transportation. And she will be replaced in her present position by our present ambassador to Switzerland, Faith Ryan Whittlesey. So welcome to the cabinet, can't say welcome to the family, you've been part of it for so long. Thank you very much. Well thank you. And now the opening statement. I know many of you have questions on the budget and related matters, and since I'm in the midst of making the final decisions, I'd like to address most of those questions when I present the State of the Union and the budget later this month. But let me make a few points now that might anticipate some questions. Clearly we're facing very big deficits unless we take action. And we will take action because the deficits are unacceptably large in the out years. The federal budget must not become a roadblock on the path to long-term economic recovery. I'm consulting now with a wide variety of people and I look forward to working with Congress this year on the issues. The choices we face as a people are difficult, but in the long run I believe the budget should have three fundamental objectives. It must meet our basic human and defense needs. It must treat the people fairly. It must move toward balance, helping lower the interest rates and providing a basis for sustained economic growth. I am confident that working together we can meet these goals. And now as I say, since I'll be involved for at least another week in intensive meetings and decisions, I want to hold off on any detailed discussion of the budget as well as major pronouncements on the various options before us until later this month. And Helen? Mr. President, you may not like this question, but philosophically many of your own party leaders are calling for cuts in military spending and they have described the deficits as terrifying. They also say that you're in concrete on the subject. My question to you is how high does unemployment have to go and how much does the economy have to deteriorate before you are willing to accept cuts in the defense budget? Well, first of all, Helen, I don't think the economy is deteriorating further because all of the signs for seven of the last eight months, the group of economic signs regarding that are taken as indicators, have been up. Retail sales are up 6 percent over last year. Home sales are up 66 percent, I mean, building of houses is up 66 percent over last year. The sale of new homes is up 47 percent over last year. We have brought the interest rates down to the point that inflation is, as you know, the lowest it's been in 10 years, four and a half percent. And I think that all of the indicators are there to indicate that the economy is getting better, not getting worse. And as for employment, that, of course, is the most grievous problem and the one that's always the last to get well. And yet for the last several weeks, the numbers of people who are applying for unemployment insurance are fewer than they have been. But also, greater numbers than those applying are at the same time each week leaving unemployment. Now, admittedly, some of those may leave because they come to the end of their payments, but also a great many of them are leaving because they found employment. There may be some fluctuations in the tenths of percentage points in the present rate, but I believe that we're on the road to the kind of recovery we've been talking about. What are the impacts, sir, on defense spending increases in military spending? Well, you're, again, you're trying to get me into the details that I've said. There are no decisions that have been made. I will look at everything. Let me also say something about the concern on the defense spending. I don't question the fact that the people are concerned because they have been receiving, through much of the media, a constant drumbeat that somehow there is a needless extravagance and that we're overboard on this particular subject. On the chart, you will find that in constant dollars, the defense budget is just about the same as it's been all the way back to 1962. You will also find that as a percentage of gross national product, it is smaller than it was in the Eisenhower and Kennedy years. We repeatedly see the figure over a five-year period of a trillion and a half or a trillion point six. Well, we're still spending more than $2 trillion in that five years on the social programs. The thing about defense also that I think should be pointed out is that in February of 1981, when we presented a five-year plan to try and refurbish our military because it was in desperate straits, we certainly could not claim that we were meeting the first priority of government, which is to protect the national security or provide the national security. But from that time, since that time, we have cut our original program by $41 billion and done this by reason of inflation coming down, which lowered the cost of some things, fuel and so forth, by improved management procedures and improved procurement. And we're still looking at that and have just had a team of a task force of outside volunteers, all skilled and knowledgeable in business who have been reviewing and examining the whole defense department, and their recommendations will be coming to us shortly. So if it can be cut, it will be cut. But the priority must be not if it means reducing our ability below the level at which we can declare ourselves safe. Mr. President, perhaps the question of higher taxes fits into the category of decisions which haven't been made. But we all hear, of course, that you are adamantly opposed to it. I was wondering how ironclad is that opposition and your commitment not to raise taxes, particularly in view of the fact that a year ago you voiced such a commitment, and then again in September you did. And we did have two different sorts of tax decreases last year. Well, the one tax that I know many of you have portrayed as in keeping with my saying it would take a palace coup, when I said that the gasoline tax was being proposed as just a part of general revenues, but for more than a year. It was a year ago that Secretary Drew Lewis presented the plan and the necessity for rebuilding our roads, our highways and our bridges because we're faced with possibility of tragedy in some instances. And I'd asked him more than a year ago if he would wait a year and bring that back again, and he did. And the proposal was, as we called it, a user's fee to differentiate between that this is not a tax for general revenues, this is a tax to do this particular task, which will now very shortly come under the direction of Elizabeth Dole. With regard to taxes now, I think it's just, it's a common rule and an accepted fact that increasing taxes is not the way out of a recession. The tax cuts that we put into place were supposed to and have helped stimulate savings with the additional cut that is coming up in July. We believe that this can also increase consumption, and we must realize that these deficits, more than half of the deficit is due to the recession, to the fact that people are not working and paying and that instead are indeed being a cost item to the government because of the need to help them in their time of unemployment. The other part of the deficit that must be met by those of us here in government and solved and has been there for a long, long time is structural. It is built in increase that requires no further legislation over which no one in government has any control unless they go back and change the basic legislation that just has, in what are called the entitlement programs, an increase that automatically takes place. And this is the line on the chart that is going up at the steepest pitch of any spending of government. And this, we must meet both of these problems, but the real answer to the deficit is recovery of the economy. And therefore, whatever we do, we must not be tempted into some temporary treatment of a deficit before us. We want them reduced, but what we must do is get the economy restored on a long-time, permanent basis, and everything we do must be directed toward that. Well, will that conclude why our taxes is coming here? Well, I just said that a tax is the wrong thing to do when you're trying to come out of a recession. Yes. Mr. President, I can't imagine that you're satisfied with the progress of the Middle East initiative that you announced last summer. The Israelis are still in Lebanon. The Syrians are still in Lebanon. The fighting is still going on at Tripoli. And I'd like to know what you are doing to speed things up, especially at the State Department. Well, we're calling back Mr. Habib from his vacation. He's going to join Ambassador Draper. Ambassador Habib will be there now. Jerry, it is not unexpected to us. We would have liked to have had this whole thing move faster, but in view of the situation, not only in Lebanon, but the whole Middle East, we never had any illusions that this could be done overnight. And the negotiations are underway now that will lead to the removal of the foreign forces. And you said that the fighting was still going on in Tripoli. I think it's just started going on recently, and it is a tragedy that is taking place. But that, again, is why we want the outside forces out so that the new government of Lebanon can begin to keep order itself and establish its sovereignty. Loy. Mr. President, when are you going to decide in your own mind? When do you think you should decide in your own mind whether you are going to run again? And when do you think the rest of us might find out about it or lives or someone else's? I suppose sometime this year. Could you narrow it down a little bit? No, I don't think that there's any way to set a date for that. I think it's... I don't know when the time comes, Sam. Mr. President, Speaker O'Neill said the other day that he doesn't think you'll get any cuts. You'll be lucky to get any cuts in the social programs. He said $30 billion a figure that had been banded about was out of the question. And your old friend Paul Laxalt said that they were pretty close to the bone, meaning that he doesn't think there's much there. Do you agree or do you think there is some sizeable amount that can be cut from that area of the budget? Well, I heard on the tube the speaker say that, and I thought to myself, I assume that from now on he will have nothing to say about us being responsible for the deficit since he has made it plain that he will refuse to approve any reductions in spending.  And I hope that he'll rethink his position on that. I'm sure there are others that don't feel the same way. He wasn't apparently talking about any reduction in spending. He was talking about the social programs, the controllable social programs. Well, again, you would be getting me into the details that I'm not prepared to talk about now, because no decisions have been made. Nothing has been closed, Ralph. Mr. President, there have been a number of approaches to the West recently by the Soviet Union. Today, the Warsaw Pact proposed a non-aggression pact with NATO. And two weeks ago, as you're now Mr. Andropov, raised the idea of a summit with you. What's your reaction to these new developments? Well, this is something I think to be certainly to be considered, if that's what he is proposing, is a non-aggression pact. But with regard to a summit, I am in principle in favor of that. I proposed a meeting Mr. Brezhnev in New York at the time of the United Nations Disarmament Conference, believing that he would be there. And then we know now, I'm sure, why he couldn't make that trip, and so we didn't. But I think that a summit is something requires some planning. I don't think you just say, let's get together, sit around a table, and then say, well, what do we talk about? I think you have to plan and you have to know and believe that you can accomplish something. And when we can be sure of that, no, I would welcome a summit, just as I welcomed his suggestion about continuing the talks on reducing of arms. Mr. Brezhnev, what about today's proposal for a non-aggression pact between NATO and the Warsaw Pact? Well, as I say, I think this is something that's just happened, and this is something that requires consultation with all of our allies in NATO. Mr. President, a couple of weeks ago, you made a public appeal to American businessmen for each of them to hire one unemployed person. Can you tell us what reaction you've gotten from them to that so far? Well, I can't say that I've suddenly received well, it hasn't been long enough to receive mail that I've received a flood. I have had comments made to me by people who have approved of that, and some of them from businessmen who have said that it has caused them to think and that they're going to give that some thought. Bill? Mr. President, Republicans and Democrats both on your Social Security Commission seem to have indicated today to the White House that they can go no further in their deliberations until they get some kind of guidance from you. Are you prepared, can you tell us tonight, if they recommend some balance between the raising of Social Security taxes and the lowering of benefits or the growth rate of benefits in the future? Bill, our people have been in touch with the Commission, but I have to point out something. Social Security was made a political football and not by us and not by me. To the place where there was no serious consideration given to any effort to try and meet the fiscal problems of Social Security. As a matter of fact, those who were making it a political football more than a year ago denied that it was facing that kind of problem. When we said that it couldn't get by July of 1983 without a correction being made, they denied that. At least we've learned that from the Commission. They have now verified that we were right in that kind of desperate straight. And the fact that we've already had to borrow some money to send the checks is there. But the appointment of the Bipartisan Commission was to get it out of the arena of politics and let a bipartisan group come back with if they could not reach consensus at least with some alternatives. And then I think is the time that we join together and seek to work out a compromise. I believe that for me to now impose myself I don't care how much they ask for it for me to impose myself on the Commission and say, hey fellas this is the way I want you to go I would then stand back and cock my ear and wait for the loud outcry from Capitol Hill and the same old political football would be seen going up in the air like a punt on third down. Sir, if that's what it takes if that's what it takes to get this thing going are you willing to do it? I think that the alternative is very simple if they cannot come to a conclusion then they'll let them submit to us the things that they have proposed and where there are their differences between them and then it will be up to us. I do know that Chairman Rostankowski ways and means has made it known to me that he's going to begin hearings and he is ready to cooperate with us and knows that we must have a solution. President, there have been many allegations that the Bulgarian intelligence service was behind the attempt to assassinate the Pope and that the Soviet intelligence service the KGB may have ordered the whole thing. What do you believe? Do you believe the Russians and the Bulgarians were behind it? I know that the Italians are investigating and in view of their procedures and their handling of the General Dozier case I have great confidence in their abilities but as long as they're investigating I don't think it would be proper for me to make a comment on this because I would have no information except the same things that all of us know about this. If it turned out that the Bulgarians and the Russians were behind it what impact would that have on Soviet-American relations? Well I think that it certainly would have an effect I think it would have an effect worldwide and I'd meet that problem when we got to it but until we do Bob Thompson? President, as you know concern has arisen in the financial community over the large debts accumulated by some developing nations I believe 300 billion in Latin America alone Do you see any danger to the banking system as a result of these large debts and what steps is your administration taking to deal with this problem? Well of course there's a risk I think it's a touchy financial situation worldwide just as this recession is worldwide We have been taking a number of steps with regard to the international monetary funds that are available for bailouts and so forth increased the contributions to those We have taken unilateral action with some of our neighbors as you know to tide them over and help and a number of the countries as a result are engaging in austerity programs I'm inclined to believe that we're going to come through this all right if there was widespread default there would of course be some very severe financial problems Nancy? Mr. President, during the linked-up session with Congress the House and Senate each individually approved the jobs program they subsequently withdrew them at your request and your threatened veto yet at the same time they asked you to include a jobs program in your budget Will you do so in your budget will you offer any kind of a detailed job creating program? Well we think that we've done several things along that line and then I would answer as to why the threat of a veto or the customary job type of program first of all we have a billion dollar program that's going to train a million people a year and part of our unemployment just like the deficit is structural there are jobs that people have been laid off from that will not exist ever again there is a structural change in our workforce that is going on and again you've heard me say it before but on the weekend again I was looking at some of the help wanted ads and the ads are becoming really desperate in companies that are advertising for people with certain skills which indicates that the people the workers aren't out there with those skills that's one we have twice extended the unemployment insurance payments to help we have passed and I have signed the trade export bill which we think is going to increase the number of businesses in this country that are going to get into the export field and each billion dollars of export makes about 40,000 jobs we also I think while it was not for jobs the program was really designed to meet an emergency in our transportation system that is also going to provide 300 to 350,000 jobs but let me point out that the housing subsidy bill vetoed last summer vetoed it because by that program had been signed would probably just begin now or in the near future to be operative but suddenly in this same period of time by depending on the market forces housing starts are up 66% general construction is also up the trouble with those so-called job bills one of them that was talked of in the congress and that I refused and said I wouldn't sign wasn't slated to go into operation until 1985 that's a long time to wait for some jobs most of them have the fault that they create maybe some employment over here in the public sector but no one ever turns around to see what the spending over here did to create some unemployment over here in a different section so I just don't think it's the answer I think that most job bills come down to being pork barrel Mr. President do you share the view of elected officials in Miami that deriding there over the holidays was brought on as much by joblessness and economic hardship as by racial tensions and if you don't share that view do you see any danger in people with their backs up against the wall in this recession and acts of crime and violence I would hate to see that happen and it certainly would be a difference in the character of our people because in the Great Depression nothing like that ever took place when the situation was much worse and there was no unemployment insurance and there was no for a time not even any welfare programs of any kind to help out I think though that when responsible leaders publicly voice their opinion that this is going to happen they're encouraging it and I think they ought to think again before they open their mouths yes Andrea Mr. President without getting into any details which I know you don't want to get into do you agree with Senator Laxall that there are ways to remember we don't have the military industrial complex that we once had when President Eisenhower spoke about it the military lines had to be put together and started up again to meet the demand for the weapons systems now you can't say to someone who has gone into business purely to provide us with what we've ordered you can't suddenly say to him everybody go home and wait a while we're not going to take these things if there can be a stretch out that does not shut down you're part of your industry but again in defense the biggest portion of the spending is not weapons systems 75% of the defense budget is payroll for the troops readiness and maintenance and only a fourth of the budget has to do with weapons systems Mr. President do you think a stretch out is possible or perhaps you prefer the freeze ideas on both defense and non defense here I thought I explained it all at the very beginning and you keep on asking those questions all of those things we will look at Mr. President returning to self security the chairman of your commission, Mr. Greenspan says that after meeting with your aides and with people on the hill that there is a consensus that the solution revolves around speeding up a payroll tax and slowing down a future benefit growth does that mean that the White House has indicated is willing to pay payroll tax speed up as part of an overall package we're going to look at all the things that they present to us maybe this is an opportunity to let the people know something that I don't think very many people understand that in 1977 when the payroll tax for social security was increased the increase just didn't take place then it goes on all the way to 1990 there's just been a payroll or an increase in the social security tax for people above a certain level of income because they raise the amount of income that is taxable there are three more increases in the social security tax rate that are due and practically every year there's an increase in the amount of salary that is subject to the tax now all of these things I know from my own people having in contact with commission are things that they're looking at but I have to point out there is a limit in regard to how far you can go on the tax and the limit is caused with the fact that a big proportion of our working people today are paying a greater tax in social security than they are in the income tax but there's Mr. Greenspan's comments indicate that as part of an overall package you might be willing to accept some form of payroll tax speed up as I've said we will look at that the other thing I want to ensure lest there be some misunderstanding the one thing that I don't think the commission is suggesting this those people presently dependent on social security are going to get their checks and their checks are not going to be reduced below what they're presently getting I think those people have been scared enough by the demagoguery that they've heard for political purposes throughout this last election year and even before and I want to reassure them no plan is going to reduce their checks or take those checks away from them each year picking up on something you said earlier each year this government pays out millions of dollars to workers who lost their jobs or to firms that lost part of their markets due to foreign competition now in light of the prospects for future hundred billion plus federal deficits and the fact that many economists have said that industries like steel auto and textiles must undergo permanent and basic restructuring to survive doesn't it make sense for this administration to drop the trade adjustment assistance program and instead use these funds to retrain workers for new jobs jobs that will exist in the future well we are going to we do have to have to be more of that I will agree because I think in this restructuring of our workforce we're going to find that there are industries that have traditionally been at a certain level in our country and we're going to find that we have switched to other lines of industry to service types of industry rather than being a small stack industry type things of this kind those changes are being made and are taking place all the time we're going to have to prepare for them Sarah would you look into this piece Jack Anderson said the other day on a program where he was going to do about a 700 club that we have service representatives from defense contractors in the field still working with the troops on complicated defense weapons that the troops are too unable to ignorant and too unable to operate and he said that the Israelis take our planes and take off all that expensive electronic gadgetry which our military contractors put on these planes which are not necessary he said and which he said add to the great cost of these weapons the Israelis take these off of their planes and learn to fly them effectively and better than any planes ever flown would you look into that yes Sarah first of all I don't think it's true but I also think that the Israelis have proven that those planes must be pretty good on the other hand with regard to our troops then it would be very strange if we're faced with such ignorance because the truth of the matter is now that our voluntary military that two years ago we were being told was a failure and could never succeed I am proud to say now has a level intelligence level that is higher than in any army in our past history even including the draft we also have the highest number or percentage of high school graduates in that military force than we've ever had before we have the highest retention rate and the highest re-enlistment rate and we've got a military that's got an esprit de corps that should make every one of us proud of this is true Sarah a lot of those high school graduates don't forget women they're more women high school graduates I want to point out to you that what he said it was not denouncing the intelligence of the men it was just saying that these weapons are too complicated for anyone to use in battlefield conditions and therefore they have many many factory representatives who have to go to war with the troops Sarah I have to say that there's only one criteria and that is if we're going to ask an American young man or woman but I don't think the young women in those combat front ranks we're ready I'll tell them they've got one volunteer already but if we're going to put those young men out there they're entitled to have every technological aid that can ensure that they can do the job and that will protect their lives I never got all the way around did I again tell us you can tell us that well I was going to correct you on a lot of things that you've been saying lately that aren't true the Russians say our talks are stalemated in Geneva and it's your fault how do you answer that sir the Russians say no they're not they know better than that as a matter of fact general Rowney believes that within a year we've got a possibility of having an agreement on the start I can't answer questions here I'll be cheating on the rest go ahead and cheat you're going to be here at eight o'clock I should have said if I wasn't here start without me hi can you think about the ERA reintroduction Mr. President you're going to support it become a real pragmatist you're going to become a real pragmatist and support the ERA well I'll tell you I think that we've been doing something that's got far more meat to it than the ERA can Phil Graham help you as much as as a Republican as he did as a Democrat Phil Graham, Congressman Graham yes that's another question somebody should have asked you too I think it's this first place the man who put country before party has been thrown out of that are you considering the freeze seriously the freeze on the budget sitting there seriously I can't answer those questions do you mean support ready Matthea do you support ready Matthea do you have any plans to all open the doors before closing I'm leaving I'm leaving you


Live from San Francisco, California, extracting the signal from the noise, it's theCUBE, covering DockerCon 2015, brought to you by SiliconANGLE Media, with special thanks to Docker. Now your hosts, John Furrier and Jeff Frick. Okay, welcome back everyone. We are here live in San Francisco for DockerCon 2015. This is theCUBE SiliconANGLE's flagship program. We go out for the events and extract the super news. This is day two of two days of coverage, Walter Wall, DockerCon, John Furrier, with my co-host Jeff Frick, with SiliconANGLE, and our next guest is Jason McGee, IBM Fellow, VP and CTO, Cloud Foundation Services with IBM. Welcome to theCUBE. Thanks, good to be here. I'm great to see you.  That's right. That's IBM language. When you become a Fellow, you've made it. IBM speak, yes. Look at a tenured professor. You can't mess with me now. We have good domain. We'd love the Fells on theCUBE. I want you to get your technical take. How real is Docker from a mainstream perspective? Obviously, the vibe here is solid. It's in all the conversations, whether you're at OpenStack, big data, Watson Analytics, software developers, people talk about containers. What's your take on it from an evolution standpoint, technically? Yeah, my take is we're right on the cusp of it being really real. You know, like, I think, as I talk about a little bit this morning in the keynote, I think everybody over the last year has learned what it is. Everyone intends to use it and we're right on that cusp where we're starting to deliver the capabilities needed to take it to production and to use it for real, right? So I think it's right there.  A lot more to do. We had only one guy who said, I'm really using it in real production. Right, right. I mean, a little more to do to get us over the line where those things can start and people can really get going on production. But I haven't talked to anybody in the last six months who isn't working on, how does this affect me? How do I factor in architecture? And all of them want to go to production, absolutely. So the conversations are elevated from tire kicking, POCs to what's the production use case is. How do I get there? How do I get there? Which is the tipping point. Right, absolutely. All right, so you guys have a huge customer base IBM. So, you know, one of the things that we're seeing in the software business is architectural shifts. And these happen once every few decades. You know, mainframe, mini, these things. What's the big architectural game changer of the cloud? That levels the playing field and or causes innovation disruption? Well, I think there's a couple things that are going on right now, Ron Claude. So one is microservices, right? And this idea that architecturally people are really starting, not so much microservices about the technology but about the culture change that's happening, right? People are really focused on like, how do I deliver at much higher velocity? And I think the combination of those ideas with cloud as a delivery platform with technologies like Docker that start to fill in the kind of technical enablers to get there is really changing how people think about building applications. I think the other piece that's really pivotal right now in driving this whole adoption is the whole notion of hybrid, right? That people really recognize that they're going to have to run stuff in the cloud, on premise, that where they run it today is and where they're going to run it next week or next year. And so they're looking for ways to kind of build that next generation of applications with enough flexibility built in to adapt. But it's not a mutually exclusive scenario. On-prem is still going to be around for multiple years. That's pretty clear. Cloud has got economics that you cannot deny. So the question is, what software runs on which and that's the big conversation like, I don't want to have the version of software from XYZ vendor. And I got another vendor over here, say it's IBM software. I'm running Amazon or something else. So this is kind of where the battleground is. For software portability, code, if you will. Explain that concept. Because a lot of people aren't getting their heads around that. Yeah, so I think you're right. I think there's a couple of dimensions to what people have to think about to make this real. I mean, first is, as an application developer, I think the center point should be, I'm building applications. How do I move those applications? And how does the infrastructure that I choose on-prem or off support that? You need a way, first and foremost, as a developer to package up the code and deliver it in a way that doesn't have to change as I move it between God environments, different hypervisors, on-prem, off, whatever. And running on some sort of hardware at the end of the day, right? Right. Whether it's Flash, memory, or Flash Drive. It's got to run somewhere. So that's where I think container fits into the picture. The second piece, I think, is no software today is built completely self-contained collection of components. In fact, one of the challenges I think the Docker community has is to open up their thinking around not everything is just a collection of containers. That you're going to have containers. You're going to have services on the cloud that you just call and use as APIs. You're going to have existing systems that you go back and connect to. So how do you make those services and APIs you're using available in a consistent way across on-premise and off-premise systems? And then the third piece is just what's the delivery process around? How do you do DevOps? How do you do delivery and things like that? You got to get to some consistent model for how you deliver and what the people processes are on delivering those things into these different environments. But you're right that we're not going to get, this is not like a temporary transition from state A to state B. I think the only thing IT's taught us is nothing ever completely goes away. Everything adds to the past and containers and microservices and all these things I think are the same. How do we have them compliment the things that we did before? Well, our Wikibon research team identified three areas that customers are interested in. You know, outside of the speeds and feeds, they have different linguistics. They say, I have new apps I'm deploying, completely clean sheet of paper. I have existing apps, I got to modernize and I want to migrate stuff to the cloud. So it seems to be the top three conversations that we're hearing. Can you talk about the dynamics on those relative to the cloud? Because cloud will be an enabler on all three. So, because whether it's on-prem, existing, the software matters, right? So I can't have cloud software running differently. So talk about that, those three dynamics. Yeah, so I think one of the ways that we've looked at that problem is to say really what you need is a platform that delivers across kind of a spectrum of delivery models that is a real trap in thinking that one approach is going to solve all of those problems. And so you need a platform for rapid development and that's where container certainly plays a role there, what we've been doing around cloud foundry and that approach plays a role there. You have the modernization space. One of the things we've been working with our customers, for example, is how do you take Java Webster-based applications and bring them into the cloud model. Sometimes that's of the shape of I want to kind of extract a set of services, do some refactoring and modernize that application. Sometimes that's the third case, which is just I want to just lift up what I had, run it in the cloud. I don't want to change a lot about it. I realize I'm not going to get all the benefits. What I am going to get is kind of cloud operational models, more elasticity, automated deployment, more efficient resource management. So I get kind of caught operations for existing things. And no one approaches the right one. It depends on what you're doing and you want a single consistent platform. Technically they should co-exist, right? I mean, I want to move a workload into the cloud. I don't want to have to do anything. I should be able to just kind of just move it out there. And that thing that I move might be sitting side-by-side with some brand new application on building and they have to talk to each other. So you want really a consistent platform. And I think that's one of the areas where the industry is still maturing and you have certain people are great off-premise, infrastructure, other people are great on-premise, some have a good pass. But you really need that full spectrum if you really want to address the broader landscape of applications that people are dealing with. Yeah, we're short on time. We've got somebody waiting in the way. All right, final question I got to ask because we love talking to IBM. We had a great event last week at Spark Summit. Great conversations, a lot of stuff going on in memory. So there's a final question. Hardware, software, we're in a software-led infrastructure now. And so software is the key, that's the value. Cloud is not a race to zero because the value's shifting. Marginal economics still apply if you do it right. So what's the deal with hardware's role in this software dev house role? Because at a surface you can extract away the hardware. Should it be optimized for performance? Oracle certainly says, hey, we will run Oracle up and down to the end to end. But not everyone has Oracle everywhere. So that kind of teases out what Amazon's shown to end to end. So is there an end to end future where hardware gets smarter? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, you know, the great mystery of the cloud, right? That all this stuff actually runs on hardware somewhere and that hardware matters. And I think there's a lot of, you know, I think maybe the balance is shifting where we're trying to build from the application down. And so you want models where the application can be simple and portable but where the optimization of the hardware can show through. I mean, a simple example, the container services we're doing on Bluemix are sitting on top of the bare metal capability that we're running in SoftLayer. So we can actually get bare metal performance out of an application running in a container on the cloud without the developer having to kind of deal with the complexities of managing a bare metal system. So there's a nice balance there. But hardware and hardware optimization is going to play a role for the, you know, forever. Certainly the flash and memory stuff is going to be. Flash and memory, processor upgrade, GPUs, all that stuff makes a huge difference. So would you agree we're at the beginning of this front wave? I mean, just early days? Yes, I think so. I think we're at the beginning of kind of thinking through how do we now introduce hardware optimization ideas back into shared multi-tenant cloud environments, right? So there's going to be a before cloud and after cloud. You know, BC, we're one BC right now. One AC, after cloud. Some people think the cloud game is won. The cloud games just started. There's so much more to do. It's totally just started. But the numbers are clear. Oracle had their first quarter of their quotes. Cloud business, no matter what you believe, the numbers are coming out. You guys are shifting 100% behind cloud. Absolutely. Yeah, so good stuff. Great stuff. Great to chat with you. Thanks for sharing. Thank you. We'll be back with more live here in San Francisco right after this short break.


guys it's a beautiful day today and guess what we're shipping out packages so please come with me got one stack here and one stack there let's get it baby into the truck put that thing in drive oh drive would you look at that i got curly hair let's go drive drive drive and we're back we got some packages here got some more to put on it i want to thank you guys for all your support truly it means everything to me i'll put some more right there walk back to the car and get some you guys are amazing can't wait to keep doing this even more if you want your own custom piece go to the link in my bio or email me at johnnyqarts at gmail.com one last spot here we go baby boom there it is love that okay you guys are awesome thanks so much much love


The method of shortcuts to adiabaticity is applied to non-equilibrium systems for unitary dynamics, where the system Hamiltonian is separated into two parts that define adiabatic states and prevent non-adiabatic transitions. This property is used to separate the entropy production into two parts, which represents the Pythagorean theorem for the Colbach-Liebler divergence and an information geometric interpretation is obtained. Additionally, a lower bound of the entropy is studied to derive a trade-off relation between time, entropy, and state distance. This article was authored by Kazataka Tokohoshi.