Unexploded Ordinance found in White River Greene Co.
Indiana Conservation Officers were conducting an evidence dive in White River today when they found a little more than what they were looking for. Divers were searching the White River just south of Spencer for evidence from an ongoing investigation when they came across what is believed to be an unexploded ordinance. The mortar round is approximately sixteen inches long and weighs about five pounds.
Members of Indiana State Police EOD team were called in to assist with the ordinance. After examining the round, members of the EOD team felt that it was very possibly still a live, viable round. The EOD team exploded the ordinance on the riverbank.
Indiana Conservation Officers Scuba Team is called on for many types of underwater evidence recoveries. While most of the searches revolve around vehicles, firearms and other items people may try to hide underwater, today’s recovery shows that divers must remain vigilant in safety procedures. The public is also reminded that if you should come across something like this, do not try to move the ordinance. Old ordinances can be very unstable and may explode simply from being moved around.
Companies’ agreement not a requirements contract, 7th Circuit holds
Jennifer Nelson for www.theindianalawyer.com
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated judgment in favor of a company that sued its carbon black supplier after it was unable to fulfill orders, holding the lower court erred in ruling in favor of the purchaser after finding the agreement between the companies was a requirements contract.
BRC Rubber & Plastics Inc. entered into a contract with Continental Carbon Co. for Continental to supply carbon black to the rubber products manufacturer. Continental was unable to complete orders for BRC in April 2011 based on high demand for carbon black and refused to fill subsequent orders by BRC. BRC sued, arguing that Continental had to fill every order BRC placed because it had a requirements contract with Continental. This type of contract is one in which the purchaser agrees to buy all of its needs of a specified material exclusively from the particular supplier and the supplier in turn agrees to fill all of the purchaser’s needs during the contract period.
The District Court agreed with BRC that the companies had a requirements contract, so Continental’s refusal to confirm and ship some orders was a breach and repudiation of the agreement. It awarded BRC nearly $1 million in damages.
“The parties’ agreement was not a requirements contract unless BRC was both obligated to buy some amount of carbon black from Continental and prohibited from buying carbon black from any other seller. In our view, neither condition is met, so we hold that the parties’ agreement was not a requirements contract,†Judge Ann Claire Williams wrote in vacating the lower court Thursday.
The 7th Circuit rejected BRC’s claims that certain language in the contract supported the requirements contract finding. The judges also declined to address BRC’s cross-appeal regarding the exclusion of certain testimony from the damages trial because it is premature. The District Court will need to revisit the lawsuit and make a decision that isn’t premised on the agreement being a requirements contract.
The case is BRC Rubber & Plastics Inc. v. Continental Carbon Company, 14-1416, 14-1555.
Randy Houser “We Went” Tour November 28
|
|||||||
IS IT TRUE NOVEMBER 9, 2015
IS IT TRUE we asked George Fithian, PHR the Executive Director of Administrative Services for the City of Evansville to provide us with a copy of the employee handbook for our review? … Mr. Fithian honored our request in a timely manner? …Attached below is the response from Mr. Fihian concerning our request?
Dear Editor:
This letter is an additional response to your Request for Records dated October 15, 2015. This response is made pursuant to Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”, IC 5-14-3). Enclosed is a copy of the City of Evansville’s Employee Handbook per that request.
However, we need to clarify two issues raised by the request itself.
First, we note the request contains what you may have intended it to be a single request, rather than two requests, because of certain assumptions you may have made. Your request first states you seek “a copy of pension/retirement benefits, sick leave and personal leave”, but then states “Just send me a copy of employee handbook.” It appears you assume the records satisfying the first part of the request (benefits and leave records) would be contained in the record satisfying the second part (employee handbook), which is not entirely true. The employee handbook does contain information about the sick and personal leave benefits. But it only references the pension or retirement benefit without providing any substantial detail, because those details are provided to employees by the Indiana Public Retirement System (“INPRS”), which administers various retirement programs including the Public Employee Retirement Fund (“PERF”). As such, if you in fact wish to request additional pension and retirement plan records not contained in the employee handbook, we might suggest directing that request to INPRS, although we will certainly respond to any request you send to us.
Second, please note that the employee handbook does not cover all City employees. Rather, it only applies to employees who are not part of a collective bargaining unit. The employees who are part of collective bargaining units would find the terms of their employment in their collective bargaining contracts.
Sincerely,
George Fithian, PHR
IS IT TRUE we have attached below a couple sections of the City of Evansville Employee Handbook we found interesting?
DISCRIMINATION & HARASSMENT POLICY STATEMENT
IS IT TRUE part of this section states that “It is the policy of the City of Evansville that all employees have the right to work in a professional atmosphere and be treated with respect and dignity. The City of Evansville expects all employees to be business like and free of bias,  prejudice, and harassment”. …its unfortunate that that the Employee Handbook doesn’t address how city employees should treat citizens of this community?  …later this week will give you documentation why we feel the Public Information Officer of the EPD not only censored but also discrimated against the CCO?  …we are in the process of filing a formal complaint against him with the Indiana Public Access Counselor and the EPD Merit Commission?
POLITICAL ACTIVITY
IS IT TRUE can you tell us how many current city employees has violated this section of the Employee Handbook?  …the City Employee Handbook states that; ” as an employee of the City of Evansville, you are entitled to exercise your rights as a citizen, to express your opinions, and to cast your vote.  As a public employee however, you may not engage in political activities during work hours.  You may not wear clothing or buttons demonstrating political affiliation.  Displaying stickers or other political items in your work area or on City property is also prohibited.  Failure to comply with this notice will subject you to the appropriate disciplinary action by your Supervisor.”
EMPLOYEE CONDUCT
IS IT TRUE that the City of Evansville Employee Handbook addresses Employee Conduct? Â …it states “Our goal is to provide quality service to the residents of the Evansville community. Your actions toward fellow employees and the general public directly affect the public’s perception of the City’s ability to effectively manage City services. Â You are expected to treat all employees and the general public with courtesy, fairness, and impartiality. There should be no intentional or unintentional conflicts between your interests and the interests of the general public.” Â …we look forward to hearing what our buddy George Lumley has to say about this policy listed in the City Employee Handbook?
IS IT TRUE the Employee Handbook states; “The City of Evansville expects our employees to conduct business according to the highest ethical standards of conduct. Â Employees are expected to devote their best efforts to the interests of the City of Evansville.” Â “A conflict of interest occurs when an employee’s private interest interferes or even appears to interfere in any way with the interest of the City.” Â “The existence of a conflict depends upon the circumstances, including the nature and relative importance of the interest involved. A conflict of interest may be present when an employee takes actions or has interests that impair the employee’s ability to performhis/her job duties objectively and effectively. Â A conflict of interest may occur when an employee improperly receives personal benefits as a result of his/her position with the City.” Â “An employee may not receive any payment, fees, services, vacations, or other unusual favors from any person or business organization that does or seeks to do business with the city. If an employee has any question whether an action or proposed course of conduct would create a conflict of interest, he/she should immediately contact their Supervisor or the Personnel Department to obtain advice on the issue”.
ANTI-NEPOTISM
IS IT TRUE that the Employee Handbook states; “The employment of relatives can cause various problems, including charges of favoritism, conflicts of interest, family discord, and scheduling conflicts that work to the disadvantage of both the City of Evansville and its employees”. Â “Therefore, immediate family may not be hired if employment would:
1. create a supervisor/subordinate relationship with a family member; have the potential for creating an adverse impact on work
3. create either an actual conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest”.
City of Evansville Handbook Revised February 2015
IS IT TRUEÂ CCO has posted the entire City of Evansville Handbook policies as revised in the February 2015?
IS IT TRUEÂ attached below is a link to the entire City of Evansville Employee Handbook for your review and comments?
Employee Handbook REVISED 2015
Adopt A Pet
This sweetie is Vidia, a 10-month-old Shepherd/Lab puppy! She’s the last remaining of her litter of eight. Vidia is a very sweet & social girl. She and her siblings used to live outside & didn’t even have names. Vidia loves to snuggle and bond with people! Her $100 adoption fee includes her spay, microchip, vaccines, & more. Visit www.vhslifesaver.org or call (812) 426-256
COPY OF BOLIN PETITION FILED WITH UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court of the United States CASE Nos. 15-566 Was Docketed on November 2, 2020
Title:
Billy Bolin, et al., Petitioners
v.
Louise Milan
Docketed: November 2, 2015
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Case Nos.: (15-1207)
Decision Date: July 31, 2015
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 29 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 2, 2015)
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Patrick A. Shoulders Ziemer Stayman Weitzel & Shoulders, LLP pshoulders@zsws.com
Counsel of Record 20 N.W. First Street
P.O. Box 916
Evansville, IN 47706
8124247575
Party name: Billy Bolin, et al.
November 06, 2015| Version 2014.1
Home| Help| Site Map| Contact Us| About Us| FAQ| Jobs| Links|Building Regulations
Website Policies and Notices|Privacy Policy| USA.GOV
Supreme Court of the United States