phughes's blog

My blog

The LCO's Relationship with the Community Legal Clinics

05/29/2013

Last Friday, I had the opportunity to make a presentation to the Association of Community Legal Clinics of Ontario (ACLCO) AGM about the way the clinics have contributed to the LCO's work and the few ways the LCO has returned the favour, as well as to talk a little bit about the clinics' first Strategic Plan.

I spoke a bit about my own "connection" to the clinics. When I was a student at Osgoode, Professor Fred Zemans had me doing research on the legal clinics - this was my introduction to the system and I was taken with this distinctive way to offer legal services to low income people. I remember today the discussion at Parkdale about the community work that enriched the legal work and, as I remember it, at any rate, the injured workers clinic in Hamilton where I had grown up. While in the years following I was a participant in roundtables about legal aid and had written about it, I'll flash forward to a couple of years ago to when Lenny Abramowicz, ED of ACLCO, asked me to join The Friends of the Community Legal Clinics, a group of people who in one way or another have been involved (far more than I have) in the clinic system. Its chair is The Honourable Roy McMurtry, former Attorney General and Chief Justice, under whose auspices the clinic system was established. I remain of the view that the clinic system is a star in the legal services firmament.

At the LCO, we've had a relationship with the clinics since our first project on charging fees to cash government cheques when the submissions from clinics helped us to develop our recommendations and, in fact, to change the way we had been looking at the project. Since then, some 25 clinics have been involved one way or another in our projects. Clinic reps sit on advisory groups and clinics make submissions in response to consultation papers and interim reports and help us organize focus groups with persons they serve (with their consent, of course). In several cases, they have worked with us on more than one project. Our main collaborations have been with ACE and ARCH in our framework projects on older adults and persons with disabilities. They are also involved in our new capacity project and in the project we've just been asked by the government to undertaken, on RDSPs. ACE was also involved in helping organize an elder law conference with us (and with the Canadian Centre for Elder Law in BC whose annual conference it was). I'm not going to list all the clinics we've had the pleasure to work with - they're all identified in our reports, but they cover the territory of geographic-based clinics, speciality clinics, including clinics designed to assist particular ethno-cultural groups, Aboriginal clinics, francophone clinics.

And what have we at the LCO done? Not a great deal in return. We've made presentations mostly and from time to time shared our expertise.

What does all this tell me about the way the LCO and the clinics operate? And about the characteristics they share? We have a shared commitment to expertise and community engagement in the process of law reform. This reflects the clinics' recognition that there are time individual responses are insufficient and that (for them) advocacy on a broader scale is required; for us, this involves the impartial assessment we bring to our law reform projects, since we're not advocates except in the broad sense that we are "advocates" for increasing access to justice.

Clinics are able to make these contributions to low income communities because of their close connection to the communities they serve (with the help of their community boards) and they develop expertise in proverty law and in specific areas of poverty law because they address similar and related problems on a regular basis. And - and this cannot be treated lightly - the people who serve these
communities who have made a conscious decision to practice law in a
particular way have been integral to the clinics' successes.

It may seem with all they do, that the clinics don't have a great deal of time for introspection. But they clinics have recently adopted their first Strategic Plan. As a Friend, I had the oppportunity to give some minor input into the Plan, but generally, I look at it as an "outsider" to the clinic system, albeit one who is supportive of the concept and in operation (we can all improve and this is what the Strategic Plan is about - figuring out how the clinic system and the clinics can most effectively fit into the current and future world of legal services delivery). I see the Plan as a bold statement about clinic values and recognition of what is required today to deliver effective povery law services. The Strategic Plan is intended to challenge, as strategic plans should, and this is never easy. Yet at the AGM I heard the clinics responding to that challenge in positive and innovative ways.

An important characteristic of the clinic system is that while it has been a system, the clinics themselves have responded in many ways individually to the demands placed on them, as they respond to distinct geographic communities and soci-ethnic and other communities. Yet even while the clinics have had individual identities, they have worked together to deliver poverty law services, to undertake law reform and otherwise increase access to justice.

The Strategic Plan, though, takes "working collectively" (the term used in the plan) to a new level, recognizing that the clinics are crucial components in a clinic system. Their strength - their capacity to serve low income Ontarians - derives from this interrelationship. The clinics gain a great deal from being part of the system, yet the system works effectively only because the individual clinics have developed their various forms of expertise.

So, I look forward to the LCO's continuing to work with the clinics and I hope, sharing whatever expertise and experience we have with them, although I know now that that will be slight compared to the way their work and expertise can inform our law reform projects.

LCO joins in "Dialogue" with self-represented litigants (& others!) in Windsor

05/15/2013

I was at the Windsor Law School last week joining with about 65 other justice sector partners talking about how to improve the legal system with a focus on self-represented litigants.

The "Dialogue" was organized by Professor Julie Macfarlane of Windsor who has just completed a report on the challenges facing self-represented litigants (SRLs) in the civil system, particularly in family law. She interviewed SRLs in B.C., Alberta and Ontario. The Dialogue was designed to follow up the report and to bring to bear the unique perspective of SRLs themselves. The LCO was pleased to support the attendance of SRLs from Ontario. The work we've done for our family law project (final report coming soon, I promise!) made it clear to us that the current system doesn't provide the kind of services many SRLs require.

Other invitees included legal aid providers, folks doing public legal education, reps from community clinics, law society reps and employees, pro bono professionals, judges and others involved in the court system, lawyers and paralegals, academics, funders and others involved in the system. There were guests from outside the country, too.

We heard first from SRLs (articulating horror stories from the legal process), from courts administrators and policy-makers and from judges and lawyers. The rest of the first day we met in self-selected groups addressing a wide range of services and approaches, with the groups composed of a wide range of people, although obviously the group's "topic" was found to influence who was in it, reporting back at the end of the day.

I was in "court-based and community/alternative services for SRLs", along with SRLs, Ida Bianchi from LAO (and a former project head for our family law project), Marion Boyd (Ontario's former attorney general, current Law Society of Upper Canada lay bencher, co-chair of the Law Society's Access to Justice Committee and a leader for the Treasurer's access to justice advisory group of which the LCO is a member), Jacqueline Schaffter (the CEO of Legal Aid Alberta), David Medeirios (the Manager of Court Operations at the OCJ, in Brampton), Julie Mathews (ED of CLEO with whom the LCO has worked in the past), Elizabeth Goldberg (CEO of the Law Foundation of Ontario, one of the LCO's funders), Matt Cohen (Director, Pro Bono Ontario) and Barb Turner (the head of the Legal and Legislative Initiatives branch with Alberta Justice and Solicitor General). Our shifting membership also included John Graecen, a consultant from New Mexico who works with the courts and is a fan of using technology to advance access to justice, and Rick Craig (the ED of the Justice Education Society of British Columbia). What a group! Knowledgeable and full of ideas.

On Saturday, we heard from John Graecen, Rick Craig, Barb Turner and Matt Cohen about innovations in their jurisdictions intended to assist SRLs before returning to our groups and finally a plenary session.

This was a very energetic and committed group of people. And in many cases, people optimistic about moving forward. Several of us were also in Vancouver at the CBA's Envisioning Equal Justice event just a couple of weeks before and it was clear that that was still in our minds.

As a result, for some people the focus was on SRLs and what was needed for them, while for others of us, the issue of reforming the system and making it more accessible was broader, although obviously, a piece of that is definitely those who have to represent themselves entirely or at different points in the process.

Some of the major issues: the provision of information and forms - hard to understand, hard to complete; the complexity of the process and at times the picayune demands placed on litigants (filings refused because they lacked a table of content - and initially weren't in a binder (fixed) and then didn't have tabs (fixed by the court worker with stickies); the challenges of technology - yes, it is not only the future, but now, but what about those who cannot access it for various reasons - what are the complementary processes and services for them? There were some comments that suggested this group on one side of the "digital divide" was small and therefore not of concern. Absolutely wrong! Technology is becoming more and more sophisticated, but we always have to remember that now and in the foreseeable future there will always be those for whom it alone isn't an answer.

Some of the SRLs had had lawyers early in their case and then couldn't afford them, or decided the lawyers hadn't helped them, suggesting better communication at the least and possibly better representation in the worst cases. The SRLs stories were moving and frustrating. Of course, they represented one side of the story and life is always more complicated. Nevertheless, they revealed a great deal about the deficiencies of the system and
reflected much of what at least some of the others who were there "knew"
from their own work, albeit not from their own experiences.

There will be follow up to the "Dialogue", just as there will be follow up to the CBA's Envisioning Equal Justice. For me, our own work and these conferences have reaffirmed that most people will need help in the form of in-person assistance at some stages of their legal problem and that some people will require it throughout. Without it, we'll perpetuate what is now very much a "class" system of justice in Canada.

LCO welcomes our summer 2013 student researchers!

05/08/2013

The LCO offices have suddenly acquired new energy with the arrival of our summer students: Diriana Rodriguez Guerrero of the University of Ottawa, holder of a BA in International Relations and Legal Philosophy from York, who is trilingual in English, French and Spanish; Otto Phillips, from Osgoode, who has a PhD in Philosophy from McMaster (dissertation on dministrative law review standards); and Cody Yorke, at Queen's, with an MA in Women's Studies from York. We expect our graduate student, Megha Jandyala, SJD candidate at Toronto, will join us soon. We're also pleased that Busayo Ayodele, from Osgoode, is with us as a work placement student.

We're lucky that they are all working out of our offices this year. They began on Monday and are already immersed in their initial assignments. Yesterday, though, we all spent the entire day - a very intense day! - in their orientation. Organized by Lauren Bates, the LCO's Senior Lawyyer, who supervises the student progam, the student orientation involves all the LCO staff, legal and administrative.

We always begin with my introduction to the LCO and its approach to law reform (with a bit of history about the development of law reform bodies thrown in for context). Each project head discusses the project for which they are responsible, Lauren talks about our actual practice as we proceed through the projects and I talk about how we develop new projects. This year, Sue Gratton and Sarah Mason-Case talked about doing law reform research and Joanna Birenbaum about the relationship between law and policy. Janice Williams explains how integral the work by the admin staff is to our success and some basic expectations the students need to keep in mind. Amanda Rodrigues explains how we use the stakeholder database and the importance of keeping it up to date (over 3,000 individuals and organizations!). To some extent, it's like being thrown in the deep end (or maybe that's just me), but it helps the students to get an overall picture of the LCO and see how their work fits into it.

Later in the summer, it will be the students' turn as they discuss their research and their final work at a couple of sessions. And we always have an opportunity to get to know one another better over lunch at these events!

Optimistic Outlook for Access to Justice?

04/29/2013

I came back yesterday from two days and a bit with some 230 other people searching for remedy to the A2J deficiency. Led by the CBA, with the support of others, the Envisioning Equal Justice Summit: Building Justice for Everyone, the "conversation" portion of a larger CBA initiative, brought together persons involved in legal aid delivery, reps of government and law societies, NGO members, funders, academics, lawyers and others to engage in -- as it turned out -- very intensive discussions about equal justice. Folks came from every province and territory and from other countries to add to the ongoing debate -- dialogue, chatter, confab -- (depending on the context) about what equal justice looks like (easy to say in broad strokes, not as easy as it might seem in detail, given different perspectives) and how to achieve it (not at all easy).

The Summit started with a role play on Thursday evening to give people a (very slight) sense of what it is like to navigate life for persons in poverty. (Something like living on $1.75 a day for a week, but less so.) Participants reported how they felt they had no control, how they had to face dilemmas about whether to give up their child in order to make sure she had adequate food, how frustrated they felt by the hardness of the system and of the people who made it run, how they started to think about how to get around it instead of working in it. We heard from real people the next day in a video of commentaries about what people thought about the justice system - let's just say you wouldn't want to ask them for a reference.

Friday we started in earnest, a morning plenary, five parallel workshops, a lunchtime debate (very clever (funny clever) and thought provoking about whether there should be a "national justice care" system in Canada - or whether we should recognizing reaching too far risks losing everything and put effort and resources into extending legal aid), another plenary, another five parallel workshops and a final session on funding the system. Saturday saw us in more plenaries, workshops, listening to a keynote address by Mr. Justice Thomas Cromwell and a closing session of cartoonish figures representing the worst in legal system actors (silo thinkers all) to provide the background to our working in groups to identify the major reason we don't seem to be able to increase access to justice in fact, given all the ideas circulating and reports released.

What stood out for me? I heard little that was actually new and that tells me that we really have to stop studying and talking and start pressuring for change. "Fiscal reality" reared its ugly head - we heard how the American Bar Association is looking for new ways to fund legal aid - and how US judges (judges!) are getting training in lobbying legislatures for increased funding. My favourite session: Sam Muller, the Director of The Hague Institute for the Internalisation of Law, whose clearly articulated recipe for making the case should have led to a longer conversation about how to apply it in the Canadian context. I moderated a workshop with legal aid providers from BC, Alberta and Ontario and a rep from the Ottawa Connecting Communities initiative who gave us examples of policies and programs designed to reach out to various communities - Aboriginal, cultural, people with mental disabilities - on the ground examples of inclusivity in delivering services.

The last session was about the barriers to change: the self-interest of the various actors, the lack of public appreciation of the need for publicly funded justice system (compared to the health care system) or even a realization that the system is in crisis, the lack of a "CEO" in charge of justice and on and on. The next step: how to address and transcend these barriers.

The general mood was that we're in a crisis and that crisis has to lead to change: that we're on the cusp of significant reform (or maybe getting close to the cusp), that we're reaching a turning point in the conversation, that there's increasingly a realization that something has to give, that the numbers of people who have limited access to justice has to become a source of public alarm. Attendees talked in optimistic terms, anxious to see the action plan that the CBA is going to create on the basis of the enormous amount of information, the conglomeration of ideas and the passion evident in Vancouver.

I hope that there'll be strategies for encouraging the public to include an equitable justice system one of the issues when pollsters ask what they care about, for making the "business" case with government (it costs more not to have equal access than it does to have equal access, or some reasonable facsimile around that notion), for figuring out how to set priorities when so many (naturally) have an interest in advancing their own (almost always significant) mandates, for ensuring that a equal justice system is sustainable.

The CBA has a formidable task to integrate the couple of days worth of material into a plan for transforming the current legal landscape.

LCO's new final report iniative

04/10/2013

With the release of our Final Report on Vulnerable Workers and Precarious Work, we're trying something new. We've published summaries of the final report in seven languages: English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Tagalog, Thai and Mandarin.

We're sending copies of these summaries to community centres serving these language groups, as well as workers advocacy centres and other relevant organizations.

We prepared similar language summaries earlier in the project, just to let people who do not understand English or French that we were looking at the precarious work issue. I'm not sure we used them effectively, though. We didn't distribute them very widely. It's all part of the learning process.

It seems as if the Vulnerable Workers/Precarious Work Final Report came out at the right time, given the media coverage it's received. There have been several related reports recently, and in some quarters addressing how some workers slip through the cracks of employment standard protection or who are reluctant to enforce their rights for one reason or another has been recogized as an issue whose time has come.

We were pleased to see that the Minister of Labour has indicated he will be reviewing the LCO's recommendations. We divided our recommendations into those that could be implemented in the short term, those that might take a bit longer and those for the future. Funding requirements and complexity both figured into putting the recommendations into these categories. Not everyone agrees with this approach; some would say we should just give the government our best advice and they can select as they wish. Others agree with what they consider a practical approach to seeking change in challenging times.

However, you see this, all the recommendations are there. We're pleased to discuss them with those who are interested and we are considering an event in the future around the final report - we'll see.

In the meantime, we're onto our other projects: the consent and guardianship project (in the first stages and not scheduled to be completed until towards the end of 2015), the Forestry Workers Lien for Wages Act (travelling towards the finishing line) and our newest project, just approved by the Board, a comprehensive look at class actions - more on that later.

The LCO and the Student Hiring Season

03/11/2013

Along with many other organizations, including non-profits, the LCO has just been in the midst of the student hiring season which begins when we review our ad for the current year and ends when the last student is hired, a period of several months. We hire law students from law schools across Ontario, both undergraduate and graduate, full-time over the summer and part-time during the academic year. In each case, we expect to hire four students. We have had some amazing applicants over the years since we began and have been fortunate to have had several excellent students working for us.

Lauren Bates, the LCO's Senior Lawyer, is responsible for our student program and she does a terrific job. Once the competition is closed, Lauren considers all the applications to create a long short list of both JD students and graduate candidates, somewhere between 75 and 100 in total in most years. She applies a range of criteria, including past experience -- academic, volunteer and paid, the kinds of courses students have taken, extracurricular activities, evidence of previous interest in law reform (broadly defined), our own needs, other attributes such as language proficiency (especially in French), how well the applicant has written the cover letter, whether the applicant has followed instructions and other factors. For example, although we tell applicants to include the names of three references and that references should include academic references, it is surprising how many students ignore that instruction. Students can also help themselves by providing contact information for references and the reason they have named the particular individuals - sometimes a name has no apparent connection to the application.

Students apply for many positions and I know that it can be difficult to land one, but it is still disappointing to receive a "form" cover letter that makes no reference to the LCO and its work or when it does, it is simply pro forma. Worse still is when the student has failed to replace references to "your firm", thereby also failing to acknowledge that the LCO is not a law firm. Call us needy, but we'd like to think students have some interest in us. When I used to ask my students why they were taking my constitutional law seminar, I'd laugh when one of them would say, "it fit into my schedule". Even though we're realists, we allow ourselves minor delusions and the message is that, whether we're talking about an applicant for a job or enrolment in a class, this student really isn't interested in being here.

As for references, depending on the law school (but only to a certain extent) we know it is difficult for students in first year to identify professors who know much about them or who know how good their research skills are or how well they can write. We're less sympathetic to second year students. And we're astonished when graduate students do not name the professors closest to their work -- it's a bit of a red flag. Although students will undertake different kinds of work, most of what they will do will be research and writing and we need to know how well they can perform in these areas.

Once Lauren has whittled the applications down, I review the applications on the long short list and then she and I talk about the students and identify those who are our first choices. Lauren calls most of the references; I will contact those I know personally. Most references are quick to respond, and we've "met" references who are out of the country, but let us know and make an effort to arrange to provide the reference. We've had a few references, though, who have become the bane of our existence. We have had circumstances in which references have never responded to our requests for a reference, despite phone calls and emails. At least we understand when someone leaves an email or phone message that indicates they are unavailable, but not to hear from them is unfair to the student for whom they agreed to provide the reference. Lauren spends an undue amount of time on this kind of thing and she will ask the student to provide another reference whenever possible.

From time to time, when the named references simply haven't given the kind of assessment we need, Lauren will ask the student for another name and she will contact that person. Finally on the reference front, an honest reference is the most useful, not only for us, but for other students in the future. Some people are named by many students and somehow all these students are fantastic with no weaknesses -- we are sceptical about these assessments, especially when they are not matched as enthusiastically by other references we contact. More importantly, it tends to diminish the significance of that person's assessment of other students in the future. As an academic, I know there are profs who don't want to say no -- not always a good policy. And glossing over difficulties that subsequently have an impact on how well the student performs is a good way to ensure that you, as a reference, are not treated very seriously in the future. Weaknesses are pretty much inevitable and a weakness is not necessarily a barrier to being hired - it just allows us to respond more effectively to it when we see it in the student's work. (This last point applies equally to references for full-time staff, as I've learned to my dismay.)

Once we've heard from the references and are satisfied with what we've heard, Lauren will interview the candidate by phone. This can be illuminating, sometimes confirming concerns, sometimes revealing new ones, sometimes alleviating concerns. Generally, we find that these conversations are consistent with what we've been told by professors and others. And by this point, although we give students a day or two to decide, most are pleased to receive the offer.

It is helpful when students let us know that they have accepted another position. We spend time contacting references and they spend time responding to us - great for the student to have found a summer job he or she wants, just let us know. And worst of all is when we have gone through the entire process and the applicant says no on the basis of reasons that were known all along. We have to start all over again. These summer jobs are not for life or even long-term, they don't require anyone to move across the country, there is no negotiation over salary, all the kinds of things that can make someone turn down a position even after going through the process. I've been on both sides of this situation and I know life can look somewhat different when the job has actually been offered than when it was theoretical. Nevetheless, it's a good idea for students to think their way through why they might not want employment or not this employment.

We're nearly finished our hiring for this year and we're excited about our choices. Our new students will join us in May, with a full day's orientation to begin. We'll bring in any students who are going to work from a home base outside Toronto for a couple of days for the orientation and a couple of times throughout the summer. This year, though, it looks as if we'll be fortunate in having all our students with us. We're happy when the students are with us - it livens up our office!

LCO has opportunity to engage with students in Maryland

02/22/2013

I had fun the other day skyping with students in a comparative law reform course offered by the Francis King Carey School of Law at the University of Maryland. As part of the course requirements, students are placed at law reform commissions around the world and we have been fortunate enough to have had students placed with us for a month or six weeks over the summer. Three years ago, Professor Crystal Edwards invited me to speak to the class about the LCO and so once a year since I've had the pleasure of engaging with the students in the course for an hour or so.

I do talk about the LCO and our projects and approach to law reform and, of course, the kind of experience we hope students will have with us. Students from Maryland have undertaken research on several of our projects. They also have a chance to attend advisory group meetings or consultations or participate in whatever opportunities are available while they are here. And they're able to meet Canadian students up close!

Much as I always enjoy talking about the LCO and the great work our lawyers and admin staff do, the chance I have to respond to the students' questions is something special. Professor Edwards obviously does a terrific job of teaching the students because the questions they ask are directly on point. And so it was this year: the students asked about relations with government, the difficulty of knowing whether you've heard the full picture about the different views held by members of a particular group when you do consultations, whether concerns about what the media will say affect the projects commissions undertake or the recommendations they make, the impact of measuring a commission's success on the basis of implementation of its recommendations. The students are thoughtful and articulate and I have fun (not so sure about whether they do!).

So my thanks to Professor Edwards for the opportunity and kudos to the students for exhibiting a real flare for the challenges facing law commissions!

#LCO ready to move ahead

01/21/2013

We hope that everyone who attended enjoyed our "thank you" reception last Thursday night as much as we did. We're grateful to all those (from the Law Foundation of Ontario, the Ministry of the Attorney General, Osgoode Hall Law School, the Law Society, the law deans and the judiciary) who spoke about the LCO to those who gathered at Osgoode's Convocation Hall on Queen Street West. We had members of all groups making up the LCO "family", from our funders, supporters, Board, Community Council, Law School Research Group, project advisory groups, our staff and students and others who have contributed to our work attending.

The symposium the next day brought together some 120 experts in the areas of disability and aging to talk about the relationship between academia and law reform, the importance of inclusivity in the law reform process, the interaction between disability and aging and issues relevant to our new project on the law of capacity, consent and guardianship. We were inspired by the keynote address by His Honour David C. Onley, the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. We were pleased to hear that our two framework projects, one relating to older adults, one to persons with disabilities, have been valuable already to different constituencies and that our new project is needed. We've started it - Lauren Bates, the project head, has already held about 60 interviews and has created an advisory group which meets for the first time at the end of this month.

I was pleased to hear the Deputy Attorney General tell the assembled at the symposium that he wants to discuss how the Ministry might respond to the LCO's Modernization of the Provincial Offences Act Final Report. I know there are others who are hoping to see this report go places.

The Board of Governors has created a Project Selection Committee which will begin its work shortly, recommending to the Board projects we can begin soon and a process for attracting new project proposals for the longer term.

We'll also soon have new people at the LCO, one our new research lawyer and the other the successor to our excellent current MAG counsel. More on both later.

I heard yesterday on the CBC a good interview about different approaches to public safety. This is an area in which we are planning a roundtable for later in the spring. We want to build on the work that is being done and, we hope, to develop a project for the LCO to undertake.

Lots more coming up in the future....

#LCO ready to move ahead

01/21/2013

We'll also soon have new people at the LCO, one our new research lawyer and the other the successor to our excellent current MAG counsel. More on both later.

Lots more coming up in the future....

LCO's first event of 2013!

01/08/2013

We've (or some of us, Janice Williams and Lauren Bates, especially) have been hard at work finalizing plans for our first big events of 2013, our Celebratory Reception on January 17th and our Symposium on January 18th.

It's been a year since our renewal (can't believe where the time has gone!), but we haven't had time to really mark it and show our appreciation to our funders and our supporters. We'll be doing that on the evening of January 17th. We'll have members of our Board, our Community Council and our Law School Group there, and we'll be honouring our past chair and previous Board members. In short, the spirit will be all about celebration and thanks.

The next day, we're hosting a day long seminar to talk about our two largest - and related - projects, our frameworks and background reports relating to older adults and to persons with disabilities. A variety of speakers will talk about inclusivity in law reform, academic research and law reform, the relationship between aging and disability and issues in consent and guardianship. We'll "formally" launch our new project on consent and guardianship. We're going to put our money where our mouth is (or, let's be blunt, the money of our funders) and apply the frameworks we have developed to this new project. It's only right we try to do it with something substantive ourselves.

I'm looking outside at pale sunshine and banking on promises of increasingly warm weather as I finish this - I confess winter isn't my season. So my hope is that for those who ski or engage in other winter sports, there will be snow where you need it to enjoy life, and that the roads remain free of ice and snow all winter long.

Now back to reality....