Mediaboss Marketing

The Student Government Association (SGA) Senate rejected two amendments to SGAs Constitution and celebrated its last regular season meeting Tuesday.

Attendees were rambunctious and sentimental with many exclaiming aw as Senate Speaker Daniel Gaffin struck the lectern with his gavel to commence the session for the final time.

Senior Senator Emily Butters proposed two amendments to SGAs Constitution, both of which were rejected by the senators. This is the first time an amendment has been rejected at SGA.

The first amendment proposed wouldve added a fifth clause in Article X, titled Amendments. The amendment proposed for any change to be made to the constitution, it must be approved by a majority vote by the student body.

Butters proposed this amendment to increase SGAs accountability to the student body and focus on the good of students when passing resolutions.

Junior SGA Representative Matt Haynicz disagreed with Butters, calling the reasoning behind the amendment confusing and said the student body would be making decisions on the Senates governing document.

If you were to ask most students at this school to say anything about student government, they probably wouldnt be able to tell you a lot, Haynicz said. It is confusing that they would be making decisions on the governing documents.

Junior Marcus Rand, SGAs sergeant-at-arms, agreed with Haynicz and said putting the constitution in the student bodys hands was a bad precedent to set. Rand also said this amendment poses the risk of giving the student body voters fatigue when theres already a low turnout for schoolwide elections.

Butters and senior Student Body President Shawdee Bakhtiari argued SGA should include the student body in its proceedings, but it wasnt enough to sway the Senates opinion.

Butters second amendment wouldve changed the current 14 academic college senator limit which was proposed by sophomore Academic Affairs Chair Zachary Fleming and approved by the SGA on Feb. 23 to 50 total across all seven academic colleges.

The amendment would also allow all academic college senators, graduate senators and class council members to participate in the election of the next Speaker to the SGA Senate.

Butters said the goal of the SGA is to represent, serve and inform, which she feels isnt being fulfilled by the low limitation number for academic college senators which could be counteracted by increasing the maximum number of academic college senators to 50.

Sophomore SGA Senator Lexi Alston, said the 14-senator limit in Flemings original amendment made the most sense because students in each academic college knew who their two representatives were and would feel comfortable approaching them.

Alston also added the 14 seat limitation increases competition in elections, which she compared to the real U.S. Senate, which has two Senators per state.

Fifty is an ideal number, but unfortunately right now there is not enough interest. That is the baseline of the issue, sophomore Representative Brielle Lacroix said. I think having two people per college is what we need for what the current student body is.

Bakhtiari, who supported the amendment, told the Senate theyll never be able to grow if they keep stopping themselves because of lack of a student body interest.

Butters called for a line-item vote to decide the amendments fate. This allowed the Senate to vote on specific parts of the amendment instead of all of it at once

Voting was divided into two parts, one for the 50-limit academic college senators and the other for allowing academic college senators, graduate senators and class council members to participate in the election of the Speaker to the SGA Senate.

Haynicz motioned for a roll-call vote to determine the approval of changing the senator limit. Twelve senators voted against the proposal, shooting it down. Eleven senators were in favor of the amendment and 11 senators abstained from voting. The proposal for participation in the election of the Speaker to the SGA Senate failed due to two-thirds of the Senate failing to approve.

See original here:
Amendment rejected for first time this year during last SGA Senate - The Breeze

By Greg and Joyce Husen

Recently, a news report quoted a local leader of a Second Amendment advocacy group as saying the one incident of the Saint Francis shooting last June should not impact Oklahomans' Second Amendment rights.

What happened that horrific day was not just one incident. For the families and loved ones, it was four murders, one suicide and countless lives forever changed.

For the police officers and first responders, it was a chaotic scene where split seconds saved lives. For the hundreds of health care professionals and patients on lockdown, it was wondering, "Are we next?"

It was five loved ones who did not return home that night. It was five funerals. It was five lives with belongings painstakingly sorted and donated to loved ones or people in need.

For the families, friends and co-workers of those impacted, it involves counseling and ongoing nightmares. It is endless hours of trying to make sense of why and how this happened, and then trying to explain it to your children.

People are also reading

From June 2 through Dec. 31, 2022, there were 448 mass shootings across the United States, seven occurring in Oklahoma. In total last year, there were 646 mass shootings in the country, with eight in our state, according to the Gun Violence Archive.

Each of these one incidents injured or killed four or more people. Each incident required a law enforcement response and left families to deal with the aftermath of a senseless act of violence.

There have been many more in 2023, including recently in a Nashville, Tennessee, elementary school. How many more one incidents of gun violence do we have to observe before we look at public safety differently?

June 1, 2022, was not one incident. What happened that day was not a Second Amendment issue. It was a public safety issue.

It was an infringement on Oklahomans' rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Gun safety and responsible gun ownership are public safety issues.

We have many rules and regulations implemented in other areas of our lives. Speed limits, seat belts, drinking ages, food preparation regulations and smoking bans are all public safety measures. Simple gun safety legislation would save lives and help the citizens of Oklahoma heal from the Saint Francis tragedy.

Because our legislators fail to act, many believe nothing can be done. If you are affected by one of these incidents, saying nothing can be done is not an option.

Survivors and family members of gun violence cannot change things by ourselves.

Contact your legislators and tell them you are concerned about public safety. Tell your legislators you want them to support gun safety legislation to make Oklahoma a safer place for your family.

Tell them that expanding access to firearms to younger Oklahomans and reducing training requirements are not the path to a safer Oklahoma.

Educate yourself and understand a candidates position on public safety issues, including gun safety, before you vote in the next election. Survivors and family members of gun violence will never stop trying to make Oklahoma a safer place, but we need more voices.

Another way to have your voice heard is by wearing orange on June 2. City leaders across Oklahoma have agreed to issue proclamations in their communities to support and promote National Gun Violence Awareness Day on June 2 and Wear Orange Weekend on June 3-4.

Wear Orange is a nationwide event honoring survivors and victims of gun violence by turning landmarks, businesses and communities orange with lights, signs and clothing.

For more information on how you can participate, go to wearorange.org. Our family will wear orange in honor of our daughter, Dr. Stephanie Husen, Dr. Preston Phillips, Ms. Amanda Glenn and Mr. William Love and far too many others who have been victims of gun violence.

Greg and Joyce Husen are the parents of Dr. Stephanie Husen, a sports medicine physician who died in a mass shooting at Saint Francis on June 1 last year. They wrote this op-ed on behalf of her family.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Read this article:
Opinion: What happened on June 1 last year is not just 'one incident' - Tulsa World

SC Senate to take up bill allowing for Constitutional Carry

House passed bill allowing for permitless carry in February

Updated: 6:14 PM EDT Apr 11, 2023

South Carolina lawmakers are considering whether to allow gun owners to carry a firearm without a permit. A bill allowing for what is being called Constitutional Carry passed the House back in February. Last week, a Senate Subcommittee heard testimony from law enforcement on a similar bill in the Senate.The House Bill's main sponsor, Upstate Rep. Bobby Cox, said the goal is to give families the option to protect themselves without having to get a permit. TRENDING STORIESBody found in Upstate; death investigation underway, coroner saysCoroner releases name of man found dead after fire in outbuilding'Fess up when you mess up': Sheriff in SC apologizes for what happened at a woman's homeSouth Carolinians can still get the training they need, but they don't need a permission slip to exercise that right," he told the Associated Press.Last week, the police chiefs of Myrtle Beach, Conway, Columbia and Anderson testified before a Senate subcommittee, sharing their input. We asked Greer Police Chief Matt Hamby about that. "We totally believe in and support the Second Amendment and we want to make sure that as laws are made that we follow the legislation that's passed and we do our job to enforce the laws," he said. Hamby said one concern among some police chiefs around the state is that there is no requirement for training, including how to properly use guns and make decisions on when you can or cannot lawfully shoot. "Those are the things that we're just trying to make sure that our lawmakers are aware of, what our concerns are," he said. "But again, we are absolutely in support of Second Amendment rights, and we want to make sure that just all of the issues are considered as lawmakers are making their decisions." The Senate's version of the bill is now in a Senate committee. If it passes the committee, it will go before the full Senate for debate.

South Carolina lawmakers are considering whether to allow gun owners to carry a firearm without a permit.

A bill allowing for what is being called Constitutional Carry passed the House back in February.

Last week, a Senate Subcommittee heard testimony from law enforcement on a similar bill in the Senate.

The House Bill's main sponsor, Upstate Rep. Bobby Cox, said the goal is to give families the option to protect themselves without having to get a permit.

TRENDING STORIES

South Carolinians can still get the training they need, but they don't need a permission slip to exercise that right," he told the Associated Press.

Last week, the police chiefs of Myrtle Beach, Conway, Columbia and Anderson testified before a Senate subcommittee, sharing their input.

We asked Greer Police Chief Matt Hamby about that.

"We totally believe in and support the Second Amendment and we want to make sure that as laws are made that we follow the legislation that's passed and we do our job to enforce the laws," he said.

Hamby said one concern among some police chiefs around the state is that there is no requirement for training, including how to properly use guns and make decisions on when you can or cannot lawfully shoot.

"Those are the things that we're just trying to make sure that our lawmakers are aware of, what our concerns are," he said. "But again, we are absolutely in support of Second Amendment rights, and we want to make sure that just all of the issues are considered as lawmakers are making their decisions."

The Senate's version of the bill is now in a Senate committee. If it passes the committee, it will go before the full Senate for debate.

Visit link:
SC Senate to take up bill allowing for Constitutional Carry - WYFF4 Greenville

Item 1.01 Entry Into a Material Definitive Agreement

As previously disclosed, on October 20, 2020, PNM Resources, Inc., a New Mexicocorporation ("PNMR"), Avangrid, Inc. ("Avangrid"), a New York corporation, andNM Green Holdings, Inc., a New Mexico corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary ofAvangrid ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (asamended by the Amendment to Merger Agreement dated as of January 3, 2022, the"Merger Agreement") pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into PNMR(the "Merger"), with PNMR surviving the Merger as a direct wholly-ownedsubsidiary of Avangrid. The Merger Agreement provides that it may be terminatedif the Effective Time shall not have occurred by April 20, 2023 ("End Date"),provided that PNMR and Avangrid may mutually agree to extend the End Date toJuly 20, 2023 if all conditions to Closing have been satisfied other than theobtaining of all Required Regulatory Approvals.

On April 12, 2023, PNMR, Avangrid and Merger Sub entered into Amendment No. 2 tothe Merger Agreement (the "Second Amendment") pursuant to which PNMR andAvangrid each agreed to extend the "End Date" until July 20, 2023. The partiesacknowledge in the Second Amendment that the required regulatory approval fromthe New Mexico Public Regulation Commission ("NMPRC") has not been obtained andthat the parties have reasonably determined that such outstanding approval willnot be obtained by April 20, 2023.

The foregoing description of the Second Amendment is qualified in its entiretyby reference to the Second Amendment, a copy of which is filed as Exhibit 2.1hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Item 8.01. Other Events.

On April 12, 2023, PNMR issued a press release announcing the Second Amendment.A copy of the press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and incorporatedherein by reference.

Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.

Statements made in this Current Report on Form 8-K for PNMR that relate tofuture events or expectations, projections, estimates, intentions, goals,targets, and strategies are made pursuant to the Private Securities LitigationReform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements generally includestatements regarding the potential transaction between PNMR and Avangrid,including any statements regarding the expected outcome of the Appeal, thetimetable for completing the potential Merger, the ability to complete thepotential Merger, the expected benefits of the potential Merger, and any otherstatements regarding PNMR's and Avangrid's future expectations, beliefs, plans,objectives, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows, or futureevents or performance. Readers are cautioned that all forward-looking statementsare based upon current expectations and estimates and apply only as of the dateof this report. Neither Avangrid nor PNMR assumes any obligation to update thisinformation. Because actual results may differ materially from those expressedor implied by these forward-looking statements, Avangrid and PNMR cautionreaders not to place undue reliance on these statements. Avangrid's and PNMR'sbusiness, financial condition, cash flow, and operating results are influencedby many factors, which are often beyond its control, that can cause actualresults to differ from those expressed or implied by the forward-lookingstatements. For a discussion of risk factors and other important factorsaffecting forward-looking statements, please see PNMR's Form 10-K and Form 10-Qfilings and the information filed on PNMR's

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Forms 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), which factorsare specifically incorporated by reference herein and the risks anduncertainties related to the proposed Merger with Avangrid, including, but notlimited to: (i) the expected timing and likelihood of completion of the pendingMerger, including the timing, receipt and terms and conditions of any remainingrequired governmental and regulatory approvals of the pending Merger that couldreduce anticipated benefits or cause the parties to abandon the transaction,(ii) the occurrence of any event, change or other circumstances that could giverise to the termination of the Merger Agreement, (iii) the risk that the partiesmay not be able to satisfy the conditions to the proposed Merger in a timelymanner or at all, and (iv) the risk that the proposed transaction could have anadverse effect on the ability of PNMR to retain and hire key personnel andmaintain relationships with its customers and suppliers, and on its operatingresults and businesses generally. Other unpredictable or unknown factors notdiscussed in this communication could also have material adverse effects onforward-looking statements. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance onthese forward-looking statements that speak only as of the date hereof.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

View post:
PNM RESOURCES INC : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Other Events, Financial Statements and Exhibits (form 8-K) - Marketscreener.com

There were those in the South who fought and lost a war over whether white-skinned people were superior to others. They also thought they were entitled to gain wealth from the labor of people they had shipped here from Africa.

Defeated, some put on costumes and terrorized those who had been freed of slave labor. This was in 1868, down near the Alabama border, at Pulaski, Tennessee. A racist, President Woodrow Wilson so liked D.W. Griffiths Ku Klux Klan-promoting film Birth of a Nation that he had it shown at the White House.

Memphis, Tennessee, the Mississippi River city where slaves rolled bales of cotton onto steamboats for shipment to cotton mills, is more famous as the place where city leaders conspired with a marksman to kill the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. 55 years ago this month.

Some books are banned in Tennessee, but on the positive side, at Fisk University in Nashville, Diane Nash, along with John Lewis, organized freedom rides to end segregation on buses in the South.

Tennessee stays in the news, just now with mentally challenged white supremacist legislative majority adherents to Republican extremism voting to expel two Black legislators from their chamber for breaking decorum, mainly because they are Black.

They were demonstrating to pressure the House to pay attention and act: Children had just been murdered in a nearby school. Several years ago, John Lewis and others did the same thing in Congress to make an important point.

The issue is guns, specifically military-style weapons, and particularly those chosen to kill children in schools.

Ever since the U.S. military fought the Moros in the Philippines, it has desired weapons that fire rapidly, with ammunition that more effectively kills. The weapon of choice by those who have been coming into schools to kill teachers and schoolchildren is the AR-15. When converted to fully automatic operation, it can fire hundreds of rounds per minute, and these bullets are designed to tumble and tear the victims insides.

About 45,000 Americans are killed by guns each year. An increasing number are children. Guns account for more child deaths here in the U.S. than any other cause.

Our Constitutions Second Amendment provides, A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (The first 12 words are conveniently omitted when the NRA quotes.)

This amendment was on the Founders minds in the hour when Washingtons forces fighting the British were significantly militias from the colonies. Future defense of the country was expected to come from state militias. The colonists feared a national army.

The militias created in the South were formed to defend against slave rebellions and to keep slaves from running away. Southerners demanded such an armed militia provision be put into the Constitution. In the Militia Act of 1903, Congress created the National Guard, an expression of how the Second Amendment was to deliver its promise.

In short, the Constitution did not grant possession of guns for indiscriminate killing of others. That is something some justices of the Supreme Court have decided to interpret from their reading of the Second Amendment and to allow to happen.

In the interest of public safety, the District of Columbia (Washington) had a law limiting possession of firearms. A man named Heller challenged the law. In 2008, based on their interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Heller. For the majority, Judge Antonin Scalia wrote, There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred right to keep and bear arms.

Had he been wiser, he could as easily have interpreted the amendment as the Framers intended. This narrow ruling has led to much greater proliferation of guns and more killings. The number of guns possessed long ago exceeded the number of people living in the United States. Ironically, Justice Scalia died of heart failure eight years later while out hunting carrying a gun.

Democrats are on record to once again ban possession of military-style weapons. Republicans could win votes, and hearts, by joining in this effort, but the gun lobby pays for their campaigns, and they will join no effort to reduce gun deaths. Like banning abortion, this is a vastly unpopular long-term losing political strategy.

Hunters, relax. We need to outlaw possession of all military weapons and also confiscate them under severe penalty of law. Only an inept hunter needs an AR-15.

Charlemont resident Carl Doerner is an author and historian, currently editing his new work, Breaking the Silence: Revisioning the American Narrative.

Originally posted here:
My Turn: Gun control voices in Tenn. met with same old suppression - The Recorder