Home » Blogs » admin's blog

FTP works to stop proposed AMP-Ohio coal plant from being built

Submitted by admin on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 13:59.

Our group is organizing to prevent a proposed, additional AMP-Ohio coal-fired power plant from being constructed. Why? Many reasons, but here are a few: This would be the FIFTH plant within an 11.5 mile radius; the cost estimate has skyrocketed from $1.2 billion in 2005 to $3.4 billion-plus in 2008 (this is not a final estimate, and does not include the cost of financing); it would lock member communities into a 50-year contract to buy coal-fired power, at a time when alternatives are becoming more and more attainable--and alternatives would create significantly better jobs in greater quantity; the negative health effects of Orwellian "clean coal" on local people and our Planet are staggering; and all taxpayers in Ohio could be paying for this plan, because they've admitted they need state & local subsidies to build it. Talk about a dirty deal! (Especially during this time of recession.)

For more information:

The Ohio Student Environmental Coalition
Website: http://oh-sec.org/
Facebook Group: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=7461526853

Ohio Citizen Action
Website: http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/coal/amp_ohio.html
Facebook Group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=65410845659
Office: 513-221-2100

Are you interested in making a difference?

Then come to FTP's weekly meeting & join our Facebook group below. Our newly-approved campaign focuses on how Ohio State's community can directly advocate for specific, responsible choices from governmental decision makers--and illuminate Big Coal's wanton cycle of oppression for Ohio, disenfranchised communities, future generations, and our warming Planet.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=62367277775&ref=mf#/group.php?gid=...

Its time to be the change.

~Glenn

Traditionally, three IT

Submitted by linos on Sat, 03/20/2010 - 12:56.

Traditionally, three IT governance models have been distinguished. In each model, stakeholder constituencies take different lead roles and responsibilities for IT decision-making across the IT portfolio. In the centralized model, business web hosting management has decision-making authority concerning IT infrastructure and IT applications. In the decentralized model, division IT management and business management have authority for IT infrastructure and IT applications. In the federal model, corporate IT has authority over IT infrastructure, and (either or both) division IT and business-units have authority over IT applications. In general, it is argued that centralization provides greater efficiency, ftp hosting control, and standardization, while decentralization improves business ownership, flexibility, and responsiveness. Literature suggests that the federal model provides the benefits of both centralization and decentralization . Research indicates that organizations adopt a federal model when pursuing multiple services. Drivers and design of IT governance. While the federal model seems to be the dominant configuration in contemporary firms, empirical studies regarding the complexity of this shared web hosting configuration are sparse. Specifically, allocation of IT decision-making authority does not resolve the need for effective coordination between corporate IT, division IT and business unit management. Continuous differentiation leads to fragmentation, unless a corresponding process of integration
complements it.