As 2009 draws to a close, I’ve noticed a proliferation of annual surveys. Two, in particular – one by The National Law Journal (NLJ) and the other by Law360 – captured my attention because they’re focused on the number of women partners at law firms. The survey results were a mixed bag. While the number of women partners rose slightly in 2009, only 18.47 percent of all partners are women, according to the NLJ. In the article “Women Still Number Too Few in Partner Ranks,” Law360 expressed concern that while women make up approximately half of law school graduating classes, many women are “leaking out” of the pipeline, whether due to family reasons or unfair stereotypes. However, Law360 also pointed out that some corporate clients are applying pressure on law firms to become more diverse, which will benefit women attorneys.
Following up on an earlier blog post, on Tuesday, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources sent a letter to the British Columbia Utilities Commission advising it that the Section 5 Transmission Inquiry has been suspended until May 31, 2010.
Here is a copy of the Minister’s letter to the BCUC.
The BC Government announced today that it wants to hear from the public about its ideas on the future of clean and renewable energy in British Columbia.
The Green Energy Advisory Task Force met for the first time over two days at the end of last week and it now invites submissions from the public on any of the four task force groups topics:
- clean energy procurement and regulatory reform;
- carbon pricing, trading and clean energy export market development;
- community engagement and First Nations partnerships; and
- clean energy resource development.
Following up on the BC Government’s August 2009 throne speech and the Premier’s announcement on November 2, 2009, today, the BC Government announced the members of, and the terms of reference for, BC’s Green Energy Advisory Task Force.
BC Hydro announced today that it has narrowed the field of proponents for its 2008 Clean Power Call and intends to award EPA’s in December.
- 21 were eliminated either through proponent withdrawal, they did not meet the CPC requirements or were considered too high a risk;
- 13 were identified as the most cost-effective and are now moving forward with direct post-proposal discussions with BC Hydro with the goal of signing electricity purchase agreements (EPA’s); and
- 34 still remain possible, provided the proposals are made more cost-effective.
During my career, I have encountered many worthwhile non-profit organizations that promote the interests of women. It’s vital that for-profit firms and companies become involved with women’s organizations—especially as event sponsors. Sponsorships not only provide the women’s organization with critical financial assistance, but also help in marketing the event.
I am very pleased that my firm, EpsteinBeckerGreen, has been involved with numerous women’s organizations, such as the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) and Corporate Counsel Women of Color (CCWC). NAWL is the leading national voluntary organization devoted to the interests of women lawyers and women’s rights. The CCWC promotes the career advancement and success of women attorneys of color, as well as global diversity in the legal profession and workplace.
With the rejection in the Senate Finance Committee of two separate proposals to create a substantial public health insurance option and, instead, the approval of the relatively weak co-op proposal (which the CBO estimates to be unlikely to establish a meaningful presence and will result in only half the budget amount of $6 billion will be spent) it seemed as though the public option had breathed its last breath. However, new developments indicate that the public option, in various forms, is still alive.
Senator Schumer (D-NY), having failed to pass his “level playing field” public health insurance option proposal in the Finance Committee, is pushing a new public health insurance option that would allow states to “opt out” of the public plan. The opt-out proposal is gaining fans in the Democratic Caucus, even amongst conservative Democrats who are worried the effects a public plan could have on their state.
I just found an interesting article on theglasshammer.com called “Goldman Sachs Returnship (SM) Program Helps Top Women On-Ramp Into Finance.” In it, we learn about Goldman Sachs’ “returnship” program, which lasts eight weeks and begins on October 19, 2009. The program will offer training and guidance to help highly skilled women return to the financial workforce after having taken voluntary breaks that may have lasted anywhere from a few years to a couple of decades. While participants are not guaranteed jobs at Goldman Sachs at the end of the program, Goldman Sachs has hired more than half of the participants from last year’s returnship program.
What are “returnships”? They are similar to internships, except that returnships are targeted toward experienced workers who want to return to the workforce full time. The returnship program may or may not pay the participants, and it may last weeks or months.
In addition to the many hotly contested insurance and access-related provisions in the America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009, the Chairman’s Mark from Senator Baucus on behalf of the Senate Committee on Finance, released Wednesday, there is in the bill a section that addresses in a substantive way reform of the health care delivery system with a focus on quality. Much of the underlying thinking in Title III of the bill, entitled “Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Health Care,” draws from the Institute of Medicine’s seminal publication in 2001 of Crossing the Quality Chasm. Especially in Subtitle A, “Transforming the Health Care Delivery System” (pages 75 to 110), one can see the impact of the IOM’s definition of quality as six aims: care that is safe, effective, efficient, patient-centered, equitable and timely. As a current member of the IOM’s Board on Health Care Services, I am gratified to see these ideas captured in important proposed legislation.
Perhaps in recognition of its benefits to areas affected by shortfalls in specialists and primary care physicians or the need for remote monitoring, telemedicine received significant funding in the ARRA. For instance, the Rural Utilities Service was allocated $2.5 billion to fund “shovel-ready” distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband program; the Indian Health Services received $85 million to fund telemedicine; and a portion of the $2 billion allocated to the Office of the National Coordinator is to be used to support the “infrastructure and tools for the promotion of telemedicine.” However, in contrast to the ARRA, the current reform proposals publicly available are missing language facilitating telemedicine which otherwise could be a key component to one of the goals of health reform, bending the cost curve.
The only attention telemedicine receives in the House Tri-Committee Bill – the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 – is in the creation of the Telehealth Advisory Committee. This Committee will advise and make recommendations to the HHS Secretary regarding policies for payment of telemedicine services. However, the Senate HELP’s Bill – the Affordable Choices Act – does not even mention telemedicine.