2013년 12월 31일 화요일

UK Warned that Ban of Popular African Muslim Drug May Cause Terrorism


UK Warned that Ban of Popular African Muslim Drug May Cause Terrorism



By Daniel Greenfield

The UK is experiencing an interesting reversal of the Opium War. Now Africa is forcing the UK to buy drugs. Some have blamed Khat for destroying entire societies. But on the plus side, it supposedly doesnt make its users violent so maybe a plus for social harmony.
Multiculturalism now comes with drug use tolerance included.Britains plan to ban khat, a leafy plant chewed as a stimulant in the Horn of Africa and the Arabian peninsula, should be dropped because it could alienate immigrants and damage counter-terrorism operations, lawmakers said on Friday.
How could banning a drug damage counterterrorism?Banning the use of khat, or qat, would create tension between the police and immigrants, particularly Somalis who have settled across Britain, the committee said in a report.
“It is baffling that potential friction, between already disadvantaged communities and the police, has not been fully considered,” said committee chairman Keith Vaz. “We cannot afford for those who are already marginalized to be pushed towards criminality or extremism.”
Vaz was the guy who got out front to call for a Satanic Verses ban back in the day. While hes all for banning books that offend Muslims, he warns ever so subtly that banning a popular African drug will lead to Islamic terrorism.It would also be seen as a betrayal by Kenya, where growing khat is a big source of income in some areas, the panel added. Any damage to bilateral relations could undermine the two countries joint fight against militants.
Why not legalize heroin? Afghanistan will see it as a betrayal if the UK doesnt and it will push the Taliban toward extremism.Home Secretary (interior minister) Theresa May said in July that the ban would help prevent Britain from becoming a hub for the illegal trade in khat to countries where it is banned. She also cited evidence that khat has been linked to “low attainment and family breakdowns”.
Otherwise known as multiculturalism.
In Somalia, 80 percent of the men are on Khat. (Why yes we do need more immigration from Somalia. And as a bonus, 4 out of 5 Somali immigrants will be junkies.)The US Drug Enforcement Agency website (www.usdoj.gov/dea) report that khat seizures increased from 17.6 metric tons in 1996 to 37.2 metric tons in 2001 indicating substantial amounts of khat are consumed in the US.
Khat is illegal in the United States of America, cathinone is a Schedule I drug (the same as heroin and cocaine), and cathine is a Schedule IV drug.
Khat is considerably more expensive in North America than in those countries where it remains a legal drug: in the US street value is $400
Its like importing immigrants from junkie societies increases drug use… and terrorism. Does Khat fund Islamic terrorism? Oh yes.
frontpagemag


Support Staff Thank-You Cards


Support Staff Thank-You Cards


Each year we have an event at work where we thank all of our support staff - Teacher Assistants, Student Helpers, etc. Without them, our job would be even harder!

This is part of my contribution to the group we were assigned to. Turns out this year, I work with all 5 ladies, two of which I work quite closely.

Each of these cards uses the "new" Thinlits Flip card die; labels, and circle. I did make one big change. I thought the cards were way too small until I found THIS video which shows how to extend the cards to give you room to write on the inside flap! {Sorry about the ads at the beginning of the video - they are so annoying!}

Card 1

Here's a view of the unfolded flap with coordinating paper decorations... and lots of room for my team to write messages. YAY!Card 1 inside view

Card 2
Card 2 inside view

Card 3
Card 3 inside view
Card 4

Card 4 inside view

Card 5
Card 5 inside view


The entire set of 5 cards came from one paper stack: Gingham Garden with the main colors of: Night of Navy, Melon Mambo, Island Indigo, Daffodil Delight, Pear Pizzazz, and Whisper White.

I also got out the chalks, and used complimentary colors to chalk the flower embossing on the front and inside views.

Please enjoy!
Have a wonderful day.



Parable of the Wheat and the Tares (Matthew 1324-30; 36-43 Teaching Outline)


Parable of the Wheat and the Tares (Matthew 1324-30; 36-43 Teaching Outline)


Introduction: The December 18, 2001 entry of Our Daily Bread seeks to apply this parable for us. I want to quote it in full in order to illustrate an important issue when seeking to interpret this parable correctly:For 11 years, an official at a Michigan community college impressed fellow workers as a highly qualified and faithful administrator. He did his work so well that the Board of Trustees named him as a finalist in their search for a new president of the school. Then a routine background check was made on him. What it turned up surprised everyone. No documentation could be found for the man's master's and doctoral degrees.When told about the problem in a special meeting, the man excused himself from the room to get his transcripts—and never came back. What seemed so bizarre to his fellow workers was that he had been such an excellent administrator for so long.Just as that administrator was able to deceive his colleagues, so also spiritual counterfeits are able to deceive their friends in the church. They have cleverly faked credentials of belief and may remain undetected until God's judgment.We know that counterfeit Christians are in our churches. So we need to be alert to problems they can cause, like false teaching and spreading strife. But we also need to be careful about making false judgments about others. According to Jesus, many of “the tares” won't be revealed until the final judgment (Matthew 13:36-43).
This interpretation of the parable makes the focus on the issue of counterfeit Christians being in the church along with genuine Christians, and it basically communicates the idea that we just have to accept this fact. But is this what this parable is really supposed to be about? I don't think so. In fact, I think thisview demonstrates very well a common problem with the interpretation of this parable – and many other parables of Jesus for that matter – a problem I hope to highlight as we examine the parable today. You see, far too many commentators and preachers make the parables speak to issues that are not a central focus of the individual parables themselves. They also read more into minor details than they should, while ignoring the more explicit emphases in the context.

I hope to do better than that today. I hope to show the proper way to understand this parable in its own context. To that end, I will discuss the parable under two main headings: 1) the expression (or telling) of the parable, and 2) the explanation of the parable.

I. The Expression of the Parable(vss. 24-30)

Since we have Jesus' explanation of the parable later in the chapter, I just want to focus on some key information about the parable that will help us to better grasp His explanation when we get to it.

First, we need todiscern the intended audience of the parable. To whom does the word them refer in verse 24? Let's take another look at the context to find out:vss. 1-3 – them refers to the multitude of people.
vs. 10 – them again refers to the multitude of people.
vs. 34-36 – them again refers to the multitude of people.
So, the parable is told to the crowds, with the disciples present,although only the disciples will get to hear the explanation. This is important because it indicates that Jesus is speaking to a mixed group that includes both unbelievers and believers, both those who are followers of Jesus and those who are not. In other words, as we will discover in our further study, Jesus is telling the parable to both wheat and tares.

Second, we need some information about the plant life that grows in Palestine, information which most of the original hearers would have understood. This will help us to better understand the true focus of the parable as it is initially told by Jesus. D.A. Carson is helpful in explaining this information in his discussion of verses 25-26:“Sleeping” (v. 25) does not imply that the servants were neglectful but that the enemy was stealthy and malicious. What he sowed was zizania (“weeds”)—almost certainly bearded darnel (lolium temulentum), which is botanically close to wheat and difficult to distinguish from it when the plants are young. The roots of the two plants entangle themselves around each other; but when the heads of grain appear on the wheat, there is no doubt which plant is which (v. 26). This weed the enemy sowed “among the wheat”; the Greek suggests thorough distribution. The growing plants gradually become identifiable, and the servants tell their master about the weeds. (EBC, Vol. 8, p. 316)
This information has led some commentators and preachers to try to get a lot of mileage out of the idea that the weeds look so similar to the wheat. Thus they see an emphasis here on the fact that there will be many counterfeit Christians – who may look to us like true Chrisitans–in the Church. However,while this may be true and may be clearly taught in a number of Scripture passages and may even perhaps be hinted at here,the real issue in the parable is not the similarity in appearance of the weeds and the wheat. Rather the focus appears to be on the fact that – by the time that they were clearly distinguishable from one another – the roots of the weeds would already have been entangled with the roots of the wheat.

As Klyne Snodgrass observes in his discussion of this parable:The surprise of the servants and the conclusion drawn by the master both presume something not explicit in the parable, that the number of weeds was far beyond normal. This presumption is again typical of the brevity of parables. The number of weeds resulting from sabotage would far exceed those occurring normally, and if the issue were merely naturally occurring weeds, neither the servants' nor the master's conclusion would have arisen.[And he goes on to add that:] As far as can be determined, normal practice would be to weed early as much as possible, and this is implied in the servants' question. The decision not to weed can only be based on the large number of tares and the fact that at this stage of growth the two would have become entangled. Even at an early stage, tares sufficient in number to be recognized as the work of an enemy would not be easily removed without damage to the wheat. (Stories With Intent: A comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus, pp. 201-202)
So, the primary emphasis of the parable as the Lord Jesus told it is notfocused onthe similar appearance of the weeds to the wheat, for they were clearly distinguishable to the servants at this time in their growth. Rather it is about the fact that the Sower wants a good harvest, and this means waiting until harvest time to reap the wheat, which in turn means that the weeds will have to grow with the wheat until then.

Third, we must recognize that there are details in the parable that are not repeated in Jesus' explanation. For example, in His interpretation Jesus does not say anything about the men sleeping or about the enemy leaving after he sowed the tares in the field (vs. 25). Nor does Jesus mention again the servants and their questions (vss. 27-28). We must be careful, then, not to make more of these elements in the parable than the context warrants. For, although these details add color to the story and give it an additional note of realism, Jesus' interpretation of the parable does not emphasize these details as crucial to the point He is seeking to make. And this leads us next to an examination of …

II. The Explanation of the Parable (vss. 36-43)

We will examine Jesus' explanation of the parable verse by verse, beginning in verse 37.NKJ Matthew 13:37 He answered and said to them: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man.”
The term Son of Man is, of course, one of Jesus' favorite ways of referring to Himself as the Messiah. Let's take a look at just a couple of examples earlier in Matthew:NKJ Matthew 8:19-20 Then a certain scribe came and said to Him, “Teacher, I will follow You wherever You go.” 20 And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.”NKJ Matthew 9:2-6 Then behold, they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, be of good cheer; your sins are forgiven you.” 3 And at once some of the scribes said within themselves, “This Man blasphemes!” 4 But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Arise and walk'? 6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins” -- then He said to the paralytic, “Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.”
That this title is one way in which Jesus claimed to be the Messiah is clear, since it is taken from an Old Testament Messianic prophecy:NKJ Daniel 7:13-14 I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. 14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed.
As matter of fact, later at His trial before the High Priest, Jesus clearly alluded to this very passage from Daniel:NKJ Matthew 26:63-64 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” 64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
So, when Jesus refers to the sower in this parable as “the Son of Man,” He is referring to Himself as Messiah as well as the ultimate Judge of men – as we will see emphasized later in verses 41-43.

But before we go any further, there is one more point worth making: Since Jesus is the Son of Man, who is the sower of the good seed in the parable, then He is also the owner of the field in the parable. For example:1) Verse 24 says that the field is “his field.”
2) Verse 27 says that the “servants of the owner came to him.”
This is an important thing to realize as we approach the next verse.NKJ Matthew 13:38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one.
The implication is that the world belongs to Jesus. It is a claim that He makes for Himself in the way that He tells and explains the parable, and it is tantamount to claiming that He is the God and Creator of the world.

Notice also that,when Jesus says that the field is the world, He is not talking about the Church and how there are going to be counterfeit Christians in the church, as so many commentators seem to understand this parable. Rather He is talking about how it is that believers will have to co-exist with unbelievers in the world for the time being. And the reason that this needs to be emphasized is because the disciples were consistently of the mindset that the Messiah would bring judgment and the ultimate fulfillment of the kingdom at that time, whereas Jesus teaches that this will only come about at His second coming.

Earlier in the passage – in verses 10-11 –when the disciples asked Jesus, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” He answered, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.”

Well, this is one of the “mysteries of the kingdom,” namely that their will be an intervening period between the first and second coming of Christ, which was not so clearly revealed in the Old Testament. The disciples were going to have to wrap their minds around this idea. Jesus isn't yet going to usher in the New Heavens and the New Earth, and He is not yet going to take believers out of this world. Remember also His prayer the night before He was killed:NKJ John 77:14-16 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.
And so in this parable Jesus refers to His disciples asliving nowin this world as wheat among the tares. This is His will for them, even if they cannot yet fully understand it. They must live as “sons of the kingdom” among “sons of the wicked one,” and this will be the case until the harvest time comes. He takes this up in the next verse.NKJ Matthew 13:39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels.
Jesus makes three unambiguous assertions here.

First, He makes it clear that living in this world means that the devil is the ultimate enemy to be faced. Yes, we will have to deal with many wicked people, but these are merely “the sons of the wicked one” (vs. 38), of the devil. As Peter later warns, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Resist him, steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same sufferings are experienced by your brotherhood in the world” (1 Peter 5:8-9).

Second, Jesus makes it clear that the harvest will notoccur until “the end of the age” (συντέλεια αἰῶνός). But, although we must battle the devil and his minions until the end of the age, it is important to observe that Jesus uses essnetially the same phrase later in the great commission, where He promises that He will be with us until the end of the age:NKJ Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age [τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος].” Amen.
We need not fear the devil, therefore, since our Lord Jesus – who is always with us –is greater than the devil and has given us the victory over him!

Third, Jesus tells us that the reapers will be “the angels.” This fact also helps to locate the time of the harvest as being when Christ returns. For example, Jesus later gave prophecies about His return that included the angels:NKJ Matthew 24:31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.NKJ Matthew 25:31 When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.
So, the angels will play an important role as the reapers in the end time harvest. This role is further described in the following verses.NKJ Matthew 13:40-42 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
These verses are pretty self-explanatory, but there are three matters I would like to highlight.

First, the Lord Jesus will be the one in charge of the harvest and thus also of the judgment that places the wicked in the furnace of fire. This is a side of Jesus too manypeopletoday try tominimize. They don't want to think about judgment or punishment for sin. They would rather sing “Jesus, What a Friend for Sinners” and forget that He is a friend only to those sinners who repent and trust in Him to save them from their sins!

Second, this “furnace of fire” will involve intense pain and anguish for the wicked, which is denoted not only by its being a place of fire, but also by the phrase “wailing and gnashing of teeth.” Those cast there will cry out and grind their teeth in pain. Later – in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats – Jesus describes this place of punishment as “the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (25:41) and as a place of “everlasting punishment” (25:46).

Michael Green speaks of the unpopularity of this message today:All this is very unacceptable to people today: we do not treat evil with great seriousness, and many do not even believe in a future life, a heaven and hell where the great separation will be finalized. But it is an undeniable part of the teaching of Jesus. Are we going to claim to know more about it than he? (The Message of Matthew: The Kingdom of Heaven)
Third, Jesus' statement that the angels will “gather out of His kingdom all things that offend” has led some to see this parable as a reference to the Church. For, they argue, the term kingdom refers to the Church. Hence their interpretation that sees this parable as referring primarily to counterfeit Christians in the Church. But this is wrong. Jesus explicitly said in verse 38 that the field is the world.

So, when Jesus speaks of the kingdom here, He must be speaking more broadly of His reign overthe wholethe world. The term kingdom(βασιλεία , vs. 41) certainly can refer more broadly to Jesus' reign over the whole world, but the term world(κόσμος, vs. 38) cannot refer to the Church.NKJ Matthew 13:43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
This is an allusion to a prophecy in the book of Daniel:NKJ Daniel 12:1-3 At that time Michael shall stand up, the great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, every one who is found written in the book. 2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament, and those who turn many to righteousness like the stars forever and ever.
Thus Jesus has the resurrection in mind, which will takes place when He returns.

As D.A. Carson aptly puts it, “These righteous people (see on 5:20, 45; 9:13; 10:41; 13:17; 25:37, 46), once the light of the world (5:13-16), now radiate perfections and experience bliss in the consummation of their hopes” (EBC, Vol. 8, p. 327).

Conclusion: I would like to conclude by emphasizing that it is only the righteous who are said to be “sons of the kingdom” and to “shine forth in the kingdom of their Father.” But how do we qualify? How can webe numbered among the righteous? Only through Christ, as Paul says, “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21). Thus we are numbered among the righteous only through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, on account of whom we may be justified – declared righteous – in the eyes of God, through the imputation of His own righteousness to us. As Paul again says to the Roman Christians:NKJ Romans 3:21-26 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.


Managing Lender Liability in Equator Principles Implementation - Legacy Liabilities (Post-Loan following Repayment or Default)


Managing Lender Liability in Equator Principles Implementation - Legacy Liabilities (Post-Loan following Repayment or Default)



This post will consider a rather controversial topic - the possible existence of liabilities linked to Equator Principles (EP) implementation that may extend beyond the life of the underlying loan or activity to which the EP were originally applied.

The purpose will be to consider whether there are plausible legacy liability risks affecting EP implementation and, if so, how such risks could be managed by Equator Principles Financial Institutions (EPFI) before they materialize.

Please note that, as this is a blog post, the analysis is high level and intended to raise points for reflection and thought rather than to be an exhaustive review of the law on these subjects. Hopefully it raises some useful considerations and I am very much open to comment (and criticism) of the topic and ideas put forward. The goal is to generate a dialogue that may help push the boundaries of our understanding of these issues.

At a recent speaking engagement I, along with my co-panelists (an environmental lawyer and an environmental engineer), raised the question of how (if at all) legacy liabilities arising from Equator Principles (EP) implementation are managed in practice by Equator Principles Financial Institutions ("EPFI" - meaning Equator Principles signatories). In particular, how decommissioning obligations that are part of the required covenants of the EP are enforced (if at all) if decommissioning does not take place until a loan is repaid.

The question was met, it turned out, with some indignation from the audience that we would even suggest there could be risks or obligations for EPFI extending beyond the life of a loan. Surely it is the case, it was suggested in response to our brazen question, that the EP is only intended to apply during the life of a loan. To think there are any risks or obligations that extend beyond that is therefore absurd and the question we posed, irrelevant.

I must admit, the reaction, and the certainty with which it was delivered, surprised me. It left me wondering whether I (and the panel) was completely off-base to have even asked the question. Or, whether perhaps the audience members who provided the retort were overly optimistic that their lack of control over borrowers once an EP loan is repaid eliminates all risks or legacy liabilities for EPFI from that date forward.

Upon further reflection, I'm only more convinced of the possibility that legacy liabilities exist for EPFI even once loans are repaid. To illustrate the point I've thought of a few possible scenarios where this could be the case, that may be worth considering when drafting EP documentation and managing EP implementation in relation to a project. If I'm indeed right about the plausibility of such scenarios, then any remaining over-optimism may suggest that a review of risk management practices is needed by the industry. I would however, be glad to be wrong. In any event perhaps it will be some food for thought and fodder for discussion.

Scenario 1 - Post-Loan Decommissioning

The most obvious post-loan risk scenario relates to decommissioning. The new EP III requires (as did its predecessor) that, for all Category A and B projects, a client will covenant that they will "decommission the facilities, where applicable and appropriate, in accordance with an agreed decommissioning plan". Nothing in the EP that I've identified makes clear that this requirement is only intended to apply during the life of the loan. The use of the phrase "where applicable and appropriate" tells us
nothing about the nature of this commitment once the loan has been
repaid. In fact the only reference to "during the life of the loan" I have found in the EP III relates to the obligation of the EPFI and borrower to conduct monitoring, which doesn't have any clear relationship to the decommissioning requirements.

As required by Principle 8, this decommissioning covenant will typically be found in the contractual documentation that structures the loan, possibly as a representation of the borrower or as a condition precedent requiring the production of a decommissioning plan prior to the financial close of the deal. However, practically speaking, it will be unlikely a decommissioning plan can be drafted prior to financial close, a period of time possibly prior to construction of the project. Decommissioning plans will be developed when decommissioning is actually being done, at the end of the life of the project. Most project related loans will be fully repaid long before the end of the life of the project. What this means is that an EPFI will have none of the financial leverage over their borrower to enforce this required covenant regarding decommissioning that they would have during the life of the loan. But is that the end of the story? Possibly not.

First of all, if it is known from the outset that decommissioning will not take place until a period of time beyond the life of the loan, then what is the purpose or intention of these decommissioning covenants? Is such language intended to create post-contractual obligations on borrowers to carry out decommissioning in a manner consistent with the EP whenever it happens? Can an EPFI enforce this obligation on a borrower other than through leveraging events of default or collateral? Could, for example, such provisions be enforced beyond the life of the loan through a claim for specific performance or compensatory damages associated with a failure to develop a decommissioning plan?

To put this in context, let's consider a possible scenario. What if there was NGO or Affected Community complaints or protests alleging the failure of an EPFI's borrower to develop and implement a decommissioning plan. The protests tarnish the EPFI with the same brush, accusing the EPFI that sponsored the project of not meeting its commitments regarding decommissioning of the project. Let's imagine the loan has been repaid and the EPFI has no financial leverage over the borrower when the controversy ensues. Let's say also that the borrower has clearly decided not to develop a decommissioning plan in accordance with the standards contemplated by the EP and contracted for in the documentation for the EP loan, that allowed the project to proceed in the first place.

From a simple reputational risk perspective, this scenario would be troublesome for an EPFI. Clearly the borrower's actions have put the EPFI's reputation at risk, causing likely commercial harm. Arguing that the loan had been repaid and that the EPFI has no leverage over the borrower would not absolve the borrower of this necessarily. Would the EPFI have a claim against the borrower for such damages? Could they seek an order requiring specific performance of the decommissioning covenants from the underlying agreement, complying with EP standards?

Let's now imagine that the Affected Community brings a legal claim or lawsuit against the project proponent and the EPFI alleging that their public commitments to decommission the project in accordance with the EP was not carried out. In defending the claim, could the EPFI bring a cross-claim against the project proponent to enforce the decommissioning commitment it had made as part of the loan? This could be a vital defence strategy for an EPFI, that finds itself embroiled in litigation over the decommissioning of a project that has long been off of its books from a financial perspective.

The answers to these questions are not easy to answer without serious reflection and cannot be shunted aside as an "impossibility". In some jurisdictions, the solution could turn on the intention of the contracting parties and the language of contractual documentation. EPFI should therefore give close consideration to what exactly the purpose of the decommissioning covenant is and whether and how it will be effectuated beyond the life of the loan. Importantly, they should consider whether this intention is actually reflected in a plain reading of the EP and their contractual documentation.

If there is no intention on the part of the EPFI to have any involvement in the decommissioning phase of the project, then there should also be thought given to why such language is being included at all (either in the EP as a "required" covenant or in contractual terms). Including such commitments with no intention to implement them could, in itself, create risks of fraudulent misrepresentation that could give rise to undesirable liability for the parties, including an EPFI.

In managing such risks, if not clearly addressed in the loan documentation itself, EPFI could consider whether a post-loan separation agreement with the borrower may be useful and necessary to clearly extinguish the obligations of the EPFI once a loan is repaid. Such agreements could include indemnification language, that would oblige borrowers to indemnify EPFI for claims against the borrower in relation to environmental and social matters resulting from the borrower's failure to meet the expectations of the EP or applicable standards. This might also correct any contracts that exist on an EPFI's books that maybe did not consider these issues adequately when they were originally drafted.

While the above is just brainstorming, it illustrates possible risks and responses facing EPFI post-loan in respect to decommissioning issues.

Scenario 2 - Allegations of EPFI Misrepresentation or Fraud

Another type of post-loan legacy EPFI liability that should be examined is the risk that a representation or finding in relation to EP compliance made during the life of the loan could be found to have been inaccurate or false, leading to possible liability for misrepresentation after the loan has been repaid.

For example, the EP require that project Assessments be conducted and EPFI endorsed Action Plans be developed regarding the legal and regulatory compliance (for environmental and social matters such as labour, ohs, indigenous relations and human rights issues) of the project and where applicable, compliance with the IFC Performance Standards and EHS Guidelines. EPFI commit to monitoring and reviewing such compliance for the life of the loan. Public reporting by the borrower and EPFI takes place, including disclosure of documentation to Affected Communities and other stakeholders. Assessments of legal and regulatory obligations and ongoing compliance monitoring and reviews and development of management plans and action plans regarding project level legal and regulatory compliance are developed as part of the EP implementation process.

Perhaps surprisingly, these legal and regulatory assessments, plans and compliance reviews are often not developed or even reviewed by qualified lawyers. Should such assessments be incomplete, inaccurate or incorrect, despite the commitments of the EPFI to address such matters in partnership with their clients, could this create risk of a misrepresentation that could create liabilities even after the loan has been repaid?

Let's consider a couple of scenarios that may illustrate the potential manifestation of such risks. What if, post-loan, the project itself was sold. Typically in an acquisition process there will be a process of due diligence and commitments from the seller to the purchaser that there has been legal compliance and that certain business practices have been followed. There may also be representations and warranties regarding environmental and social liabilities that may be passed onto the purchaser. External reviews of legal and regulatory and risk management practices would certainly be relevant to such due diligence.

Would a purchaser (or a borrower being legally challenged by a purchaser) be entitled to rely upon the representations of legal and regulatory and best practice compliance overtly or tacitly endorsed by an EPFI in the course of their EP oversight activities? If such assessments were inaccurate, deliberately or negligently, would there be the potential for recourse against the EPFI by the interested purchaser, or borrower in the nature of a cross-claim? What liability risks exist for representations regarding EP compliance made by EPFI or their agents? Do these risks extend beyond the life of the underlying financing?

Considering a slightly different scenario, what if an Affected Community has relied on representations made by or on behalf of the borrower and EPFI in the course of stakeholder engagement or in carrying out the project. Would those stakeholders potentially have a claim against the EPFI in the event that (even post-loan repayment) it were discovered that the project had in fact not been carried out in accordance with the legal and regulatory and best practice expectations of the EP? Could an intentional misrepresentation even be considered fraudulent? These are all very complex legal questions that cannot be answered in this short post, but should be the subject of further reflection by EPFI and their counsel.

So how could these types of risks be managed? First and foremost, the best management strategy would be to ensure that EP commitments are properly carried out. This would mean having properly qualified advisors involved in making assessments about compliance (which is primarily legal and regulatory compliance in accordance with Principle 3 of the EP) on the project. The independent review process would be a critical time to ensure this is done. Aside from the obvious benefit of having properly trained persons making the required compliance assessments, there is also the issue of professional indemnity insurance which typically does not cover advice that falls outside of the competency of the professional giving the advice. This could affect the ability of the EPFI to recover for negligent advice that affects their own legal situation.

As with the decommissioning scenario, there may be a need for a "close-out" type of agreement that clearly defines the end of an EPFI's responsibilities.

Indemnification language may also be prudent to shift the monetary effect of any possible liability onto the borrower, if this is the desired outcome when the initial financing is being negotiated.

Finally, contractual language should be as clear as possible that the contract itself does not create rights for third party beneficiaries who may seek to enforce the contract. This topic of third party beneficiary rights will be the subject of a future post.

Scenario 3 - Regulatory prosecutions for Co-Manager Liabilities

The EP III states that: "As financiers and advisors, we work in partnership with our clients to identify, assess, and manage environmental and social risks and impacts in a structured way, on an ongoing basis." Throughout the EP III (and its predecessor) reference is made to the EP as a "risk management" framework.

It is well known that lender liability risks for environmental and social matters may arise from operational or managerial control by a lender over a project. Most legal regimes impose liability for environmental, health and safety and labour standards on those persons or organizations with operational or managerial control, possibly including lenders. There may also be personal liability for managers and directors of a project, where environmental or social liabilities arise. Moreover, there can be liability for "aiding" or "abetting" regulatory violations, meaning that a person (including possibly a lender) knew or ought to have known about a regulatory violation but did nothing to prevent it. This type of liability could easily arise in the course of EP implementation, where EPFI are auditing and assessing legal and regulatory compliance of their borrowers, and even suggesting management approaches through the Action Plan and monitoring and review processes.

To the extent that amanagerial relationship with a project proponent were found and a project became the subject of a regulatory prosecution for environmental and social issues, it is conceivable that an EPFI holding itself out as working "in partnership with our clients...to manage environmental and social risks" could be sucked into the resulting litigation. This could potentially include the risk of personal liability for employees, directors and officers of EPFI.

While there may be time limitations for government regulators to take action for regulatory violations, but it is possible that such limitations could expire well beyond the life of a loan. As such, there is the possibility that an EPFI could become embroiled in litigation as a legacy to a loan which had already been repaid. This creates a clear legacy liability that reamins on an EPFI's books and must be managed to the extetn possible.

To avoid this particular risk, EPFI should avoid the mantle of "co-manager" of a project and not exercise operational control over the project to the extent possible. This may be quite challenging since the EP itself is worded as a process involving EPFI as partners in management of environmental and social risk. What will be more important than wording, however, will be the actual role of the EPFI in the operational decision making of the project. In practice, the EP were not designed to create operational control of projects by lenders, but rather to act as a private governance framework for the project administered through contractual relationships.

Avoidance of managerial control would not, however, alleviate the risks associated with aiding and abetting regulatory offences. Another important step will therefore be to ensure that assessments of compliance, including legal and regulatory compliance of the project, are as accurate as possible. Again, this can be done by ensuring qualified professionals are opining on compliance questions. Doing so will avoid the risk of regulatory prosecutions that such compliance oversight is designed to identify and avoid.

As well, in order to avoid complete disclosure of all internal documentation regarding legal compliance assessments (which could be held against the borrower or EPFI in a regulatory prosecution) to investigating regulatory authorities, legal professional privilege should be attached to internal analyses to the extent possible. This necessitates that the document originate in the provision of legal advice from a qualified legal practitioner when the document is created, in the provision of legal advice. Action plans, Assessments and independent monitoring and review reports created in the implementation of the EP, opining on the legal and regulatory compliance of the project, could reasonably be considered as legal opinions deserving of legal professional privilege, so long as they are created by qualified legal professionals. Legal professional privilege plays a critical role in managing the context and disclosure of information to regulators scrutinizing an EPFI or borrower's conduct in relation to a possible regulatory offence.

Scenario 4 - Borrower Default and Bankruptcy

Another scenario I've come across in the literature is the situation of a default or bankruptcy resulting in a lender taking ownership and control of a borrower's operations. It
is possible, in other words, in the event of a borrower default, that an EPFI or its agent could takes a controlling interest and managerial role in the project as part of a bankruptcy
or collateral arrangement. This could contingency could give the EPFI a clear
operational role in managing the project or status as a project owner that could enhance the potential for liability of the EPFI for the environmental and social liabilities of the project. It would also heighten the importance of good environmental and social practices for the project.

Such risks could be managed by contingency planning to account for the heightened control of a project that may result from a default, in light of EP obligations. Such contingency planning should take into account the risk of enhanced environmental and social liabilities, including those arising from the application of the EP to the project. This could include taking steps to avoid operational and managerial control over the project, as discussed in scenario 3 above. It is also a reason to ensure that the EP is implemented as accurately as possible, to avoid the assets being tarnished by poor environmental and social practices - which is the basic purpose of the EP in any event.

A note on EP Document Retention

In light of the foregoing risks, it is also imperative that EPFI give consideration to document retention of contracts, Assessments, Action Plans, monitoring information and reviews. Such materials and other EP documents (including even notes and correspondence) could be of critical importance to addressing legacy liability issues long after a loan is repaid. In the event of litigation, there could even be legal requirements to ensure such documentation is available and not purged or destroyed. Identifying the proper retention period for such EP related documents should consider these potential legacy issues and not simply when the loan is financially off-the-books. This easily overlooked point highlights why consideration of these post-loan issues is important from both a strategic and administrative perspective.

Conclusions

In light of the foregoing, it is, in my view, prudent to consider legacy liabilities in developing strategies for both how EP contracts are developed and how the EP is implemented. Such planning and foresight must look past simply the financial end of a EP financing and instead look to the types of liabilities that can extend beyond that point.

Questions for Discussion:

To readers involved in the banking and risk management industry, here are some questions:

1. What (if any) other legacy risks do you think there are for EP implementation?

2. What strategies do you think should be implemented to manage them?

3. How should the foregoing hypothetical scenarios be addressed, if at all?

4. What would be a proper retention period for EP related documents?




Hunkering Down - Sun., Nov. 24


Hunkering Down - Sun., Nov. 24


Going to Austin today did not sound like fun. Weather service forecast was for 42 degrees, 80% chance of rain, and wind gusts to 20 mph. Throughout the day, the temperature was supposed to drop, not go up. By 3:00 p.m. the rain had a chance to turn to sleet. With Austin being 1-1/2 hours north of San Antonio, it could have been a dangerous drive home. We opted not to go.

The other Susan and I will see how the weather looks for walking Monday. If we can, we plan to do the new Mission Reach Volksmarch in San Antonio.

Here's what hunkering down looks like:


Football, Bob with the remote, and snoozing kitties.


We took a break from hunkering down, braved the chill, and headed to Green Vegetarian Cuisine for dinner. On the way home, we drove a way we hadn't explored yet. We headed east on Grayson St. and ended up in Government Hill Historic District.

Government Hill's history is linked to the development of Ft. Sam Houston. The City of San Antonio donated 93 acres to the War Department in the 1870s. Construction of Ft. Sam Houston started in 1876. By 1918, the Fort had grown to 193 acres. Government Hill became home to over 12,000 people. Turn-of-the-century one- and two-story buildings on North New Braunfels Ave. served as the area's main street.

We wandered past The Lambermont, also known as the Terrell Castle. Bob was driving and didn't see it, so we drove around the block and went back to it. It was worth a few photos. There are no historic markers around this masterpiece so I Googled it when we got home.

This Romanesque Revival-style "castle" was built in 1894 for Edwin Terrell (lawyer and ambassador to Belgium during Benjamin Harrison's presidency) by San Antonio architect Alfred Giles. It was built to resemble the castles and chateaus of Belgium and France. The family lived in the home until Terrell died in 1910. It is now an event venue. Renting the space includes four guest rooms in the estate. From what I can tell, it is used quite frequently for weddings.







After we returned to the 5er, my equal-opportunity lap cats warmed me up for an hour.

Changing of the lap for 60 Minutes Amazing Race.So that's what hunkering down looks like in our fifth wheel.

Have a good week wherever you may be, and safe travels during Thanksgiving weekend.


Drastically Reducing Manhattan


Drastically Reducing Manhattan



The South Court addition which in 2002 added another 42,222 square feet of needed space to the 42nd Street Central Reference LibraryThe New York Public Library (NYPL) is in the middle of drastically reducing the space in Manhattans most important central, destination libraries.

When do you suppose the NYPL was last expanding the space it is now reducing, asserting at the time that the space they then had was insufficient? . .

. . A not so unimportant, `by the way on this (before we revel the answer) is that the huge upcoming reduction of space the NYPLs proposes in its Central Library Plan (aka “42nd Street Library Renovation), the elimination of 300,000 square feet of space will come at significant New York City taxpayer expense, at least $150 million dollars. . . Just as the not so long ago expansion of space came at New York City taxpayer expense.

The NYPLs significant reduction of important midtown Manhattan library space began in 2007 with the sell-off of the Donnell Library on 53rd Street across from MoMA between 5th and 6th Avenues. The 97,000 square foot, five-story library was sold off at far less than its value to the public.

When then do you think the last expansion of library space before that was?

Was it in 1992 when the city-paid-for Bryant Park expansion was completed? This expansion, begun in 1987, involved closing Bryant Park for more than four years in order to put 84 miles of bookshelves underneath it and was designed to take the 42nd Street Reference Librarys immediately accessible book collection up to a capacity of 6.2 million books, may be as many as 6.7 million books in a pinch.- No, the last expansion wasnt in 1992.

Was it in 1996 when the expansion effected by the city-paid-for Science, Industry and Business Library expansion was completed with the opening of that library?- No, the last expansion wasnt in 1996.

What about 2000 when the NYPL put out its plans to expand (nearly double the size of) the Mid-Manhattan Library by 117,000 square feet? Or 2001, the year that the Giuliani administration awarded the city funds to effect that expansion? 2003, when those Mid-Manhattan expansion plans were still in effect, the NYPL still intending to go forward with them? (The Mid-Manhattan expansion plans were set aside later after Chief Operating Officer David Offensend joined the NYPL in 2004.) No, it was not 2000, 2001 or 2003.

The last expansion of the NYPLs Manhattan space was in 2002 with the completion of a city-paid-for expansion of the Central Reference Library that boosted the size of the Main Building by about 8%, 42,222 square feet, because, as the then President of the NYPL said, additional space was needed. The expansion was the addition of the Central Reference Librarys new South Court.

Building up library space at taxpayer expense until 2002 and then selling it starting with Donnell in 2007?: There's a startling lesson in how fast ambitions can pivot.

Schematic of the South Court addition published in Metropolis MagazineThe South Court expansion is an addition to the library that is likely off most peoples radar even though it was quietly spectacular about the way it squeezed in extra hidden space. Thats because it involved filling in what had been a central courtyard within the building and much of it was built underground. See: Inside Stories / Six new floors rise within the main branch, Lifestyle Newsday, May 21, 2002, by Mary Voboril.

Schematic of the South Court addition published in Metropolis Magazine


South Court looking up from main entryThe South Court expansion was built when Dr. Paul LeClerc was president of the NYPL. The project took two and half years starting in 1999 and finished in 2002 at a total cost of $29 million. Most of that cost, $17.5 million, was paid for by the city. The six-floor project with 40 feet below street level, going below the original foundations, added 42,222 square feet to the main building's 527,000 square feet. (Others supply what may be rounded off figures of 40,000 square feet added to 500,000 square feet.) The above-ground portion of the expansion brings it to about the same height as the rest of the building. Originally, when approvals were being sought for a smaller version, the public was inaccurately told that building deeper underground was not possible.

Indeed, South Court has a lot of space that was squeezed in by adding it undergroundContemplation of such a project went back to the 1980s before the SIBL expansion and was undertaken shortly after completion of the SIBL expansion and the renovation of the Rose Reading Room. In 1998 it was originally envisioned as a smaller expansion of 28,400 square feet of space that would have cost considerably less, only $10 million, to build and another $5 million to equip. In September of 2000 when construction was underway it was estimated that the cost of the project would be significantly less than it turned out to be: $22.5 million vs. the final $29 million.

On the south side of the 42nd Street Central Reference Library, the arch leading into the South Court where horse-drawn carriages once entered The courtyard was open and viewable from the street through an arch that used to admit horse-drawn carriages and was used for loading and unloading. The space had been used to an extent in other ways: “A trellis-covered bungalow” was added in 1919 as a “rest and luncheon room” for employees.” And there was a “shed” in it used by exhibition staff. (See: For Public Library, New Building Within the Old One,
By Edwin McDowell, September 17, 2000 and Metropolis Magazine December 1969 / Taming the NYPLs LionsTaming the NYPLs Lions, by Karen Steen.)

In 1998 the Slavic and Baltic Division overlooked the 80 x 80 foot court yard where the 73 by 73 foot expansion was built, leaving 3 1/2 foot clearance all around.

The Slavic and Baltic Division? Now closed!

From the NYPL, South Court years ago


South Court before constriction of the expansion published in Metropolis MagazineSaid President Le Clerq at the time:As we renovated public spaces in the building, including moving the copying center from the main reading room, we knew we needed some place for people we were displacing.
Another change since 2002, Metropolis Magazine reporting on the addition and interviewing Le Clerq explained how the Central Reference library stacks could be seen then from the new South Court and referred to those stacks as "sacrosanct": South Court even gives
patrons a glimpse of the books themselves—through narrow windows that
look in on the sacrosanct stacks.
As part of the Central Library Plan the current library administration has envisioned demolishing the "sacrosanct" stacks and decommissioning them from their intended use around which the entire 42nd Street Central Reference Library was designed.

South Court no longer gives
patrons a glimpse of the books themselves. Now you see the empty bookshelves


Glimpse into the now empty research stacks from South CourtNeeded more space in 2002?

From 1987 to 1992, the years during which the Bryant Park expansion of the stacks and books was being constructed, the total NYPL central destination Manhattan library space was 763,000 square feet. That figure includes the main buildings, not the book storage space in the 42nd Street Annex building the NYPL also owned and now no longer owns, additional real estate it has divested itself of. In 2002 when South Court was completed, the square footage of such NYPL space (again, not counting the purely book storage space like the additional stacks under Bryant Park) was 965,222 square feet with the NYPL planning to go up to 1,082,222 square feet with the planned Mid-Manhattan expansion.

From 1987 to
an envisioned 2015 (with an implemented Central Library Plan), total
actual midtown Manhattan Library destination space actual and planned,
first going up and then going lower than ever beforeBut now Donnell is gone, the $100 million SIBL which increased space substantially, is being sold off. The consolidating shrinkage of the Central Library Plan would shrink current space down to just 569,222 square feet, significantly less than the 763,000 figure for the late 80s and early 90s and certainly less than the recently envisioned 1,082,222 square feet. If the largely underground and bookless replacement for Donnell is completed by 2015 as the NYPL says it currently hopes, that figure would be just a bit larger, 597,222, still below the figures for the space the library had in the 1980 when the city had a population about a million fewer than the slightly over 8 million population in New York City now.

Does any of this make sense except in terms of handing off real library real estate to developers in deals that benefit them, but not the public? Including what was spent to put stacks under Bryant Park, over $150 million was spent since the end of the 1980s to expand library space.

Yesterday, at the NYPLs trustees meeting, the trustees were told that the NYPL still envisions going forward with the Central Library Plan, that it is "moving along." In that regard it was reported to the trustees that the NYPL was having 'conversations and "working with" with Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio and, in addition, the members of the City Council and the members of the entire new, incoming administration. . . "to make sure we are all, as it were, headed in the same direction." “Working on” these people might have been a better phrase.

It was in the news that Mayor-elect de Blasio was visiting the “talking transition tent” yesterday (the transition tent was set up independent of de Blasio.) Though it was not reported elsewhere in the news, NYPL president Tony Marx told the trustees that he had been at the talking transition tent when de Blasio was there. (It was reported that the NYPL was doing what it could to influence public feedback input to the transition tent operation, including linking to the online transition tent survey with its questions about libraries.- Or ideas can be submitted too.) At about the same time Mayor-elect de Blasio was at the talking transition tent troops from Citizens Defending Libraries (I'm a cofounder of CDL) were also there handing out flyers urging that city libraries not be sold, shrunk and underfunded as under the Bloomberg administration. More Citizens Defending Libraries and Committee to Save the New York Public Library troops were outside (and at) the trustees meeting delivering the same message.

Troops gathered at the beginning of a more than two hour protest outside Wednesday's NYPL trustee meetingMr. Marx and the rest of those running the NYPL are aware that unless the NYPL can convince Mayor de Blasio and new administration cohorts to spend $150 million taxpayer dollars and allow what might be close to a half billion in public funds in total to be spent on selling and shrinking libraries, the Central Library Plan wont proceed as planned. Spend all that public money on shrinking and selling libraries? Does the NYPL have any reason to be optimistic that they can swing de Blasio on this? The trustees were told that so far the "conversations" were going "very well" and in the perverse view of the NYPL, "going in a positive direction." - The direction of shrinking way down the recently increased space?

Photo and drawings by Simon Verity

Blog Overhaul


Blog Overhaul


Hello all,

I've not felt like writing or doing anything at all with this blog for some time now, but I've decided to give it one last go and to start with a complete blog overhaul. The look has changed, the content may change some I'm not sure, but hopefully it will definitely change in how often I post.
Not too much has changed in my life in the last few months as far as work goes, its a constant thing, which I'm extremely grateful for (my jobs) but at the same time wears me out, though I've been coping better. I've been getting out to do a little bit more, so hopefully will have some more content for interesting posts! For a while there I was hiding away, from doing anything except working really. I've had ups and downs, but I'm making it through! Unbelievably, it's been a year since I moved to my current location. That went so fast to me that my head is still trying to figure out what just happened! This has been a year of self discovery, and in many ways of maturing and growing as a person. Things have happened that have revealed things to my self about the type of person I am, how I cope with changes, and what I need to do to get myself past my fears and continue to grow. I've got to thank my boyfriend, parents, and friends for being my support system always, without which I could not do any of the things which I've been able to do. I hope that everyone else in this blogging community has been doing well, I've to my shame still not kept up with everyone as I should have. Sometimes I felt like I should delete this blog since I've failed to be dedicated, but I'm just not ready to let it go yet. I've sounded like a broken record in my last few posts though, sorry!! Please let me know what you all think of the new look as I've not quite decided how I feel about it! There will probably be more changes coming as I feel inspired to tweak things to my liking, I'm certainly open to any suggestions that will make things easier to read or more eye catching. Thanks for sticking with me!





50 Years - How much change has occurred


50 Years - How much change has occurred


I vividly remember the 1960s. I remember watching Dr. King speak live. I remember listening to the debates about civil rights, and eventually participating in them. I remember the news reports and the reactions to the murder of Medgar Evers, just shortly before the March on Washington.

The fearful identified with the words that Yeats had used to characterize Europe ravaged by World War I: “anarchy is loosed upon the world…the ceremony of innocence is drowned; the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” The hopeful, however, espoused the vision of Dylan that “times they are a changing”. They heard his call to “gather round people wherever you roam,” admonishing the “writers and critics,” “senators, congressmen,” and “mothers and fathers” to lend a hand in deconstructing old systems to create a new world that would serve everyones needs.

In matters of race at that time, overt discrimination had the acceptance, if not the approval, of many in the majority community. Even in the north, landlords and real estate agents could admit they would not show rental or sales properties to Blacks. Some chose to leverage that stance as a selling point. Although the government had tried to remedy employment discrimination in its civilian and military work forces at least as early as the 1940s, legislation to guide private employers did not arrive until the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I remember one of my relatives who was ostracized by coworkers because he had hired a Black military veteran to work as a janitor in an otherwise all-white business.

These are some of my memories, but what about some facts? Do the data tell us that any of the basic elements of quality of life have changed for the races over these past 50 years?

Nationally, the Economic Policy Institute suggests that the dreams of Dr. King and the other speakers on August 28, 1963 have not yet reached fruition. Unemployment was twice as high for Blacks than for Whites in 1960—it had the same two-to-one ratio in 2012. Integration of our schools has not occurred: three quarters of Blacks attend schools where more than half of students are persons of color. Although the gap in poverty rates between Whites and Blacks has narrowed since 1960, the Black poverty rate remains twice as high as the White rate.

What about Minnesota?

If the dream of those who marched in August of 1963 included equality of opportunity, it looks like Minnesota falls short. The latest data for our state, published just yesterday, shows a 33 percentage point gap between the proportions of White and Black students meeting state reading standards.

If the dream envisioned equality of outcomes, we fall even shorter. For example, in 1960, in Minnesota, White household income was 50% higher than the household income of persons of color (Whites: $4,695; Persons of color: $3,116). In 2011, the difference had increased to 60% (Whites: $57,150; Persons of color: $35,500). For Black Minnesotans, the figure drops to $25,410. So, despite achievements in legislation to promote equality, the numbers, at least for income, suggest greater, not less, disparity between Whites and Blacks.

In 1960, in Minnesota, Whites and persons of color had very similar rates of labor force participation: Just over half of both groups (who were age 14 and older) participated in the labor force. Fifty years later, the situation shifted: About 78% of Whites (ages 16 to 64) participated in the labor force, compared to 65% of persons of color in that age group.

In fact, Minnesota is currently home to some of the very largest White – Of Color gaps in the nation including disparities in poverty rates (7th largest racial gap among states); proportion of adults working (5th largest); and home ownership rate (the largest gap in all of the 50 states). Unfortunately our “above average” quality of life, regularly touted in national media, while true for the state as a whole, is not shared in all quarters of our state.

Should the numbers discourage us? I dont think so. Our efforts over the past 50 years have changed attitudes, and we have influenced culture. We have improved life for many, even if we have not succeeded in improving life for all. I remain inspired by Dr. Kings assertion that “I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be, and you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the inter-related structure of reality.”

On that note, we need to persevere. As we make life better for any of us, we make life better for all of us.