Tag Archives: Money

How to Handle Raise Request

“Can I have a raise?”

Five little words cause a lot of stress and frustration. In many smaller organizations — and even some larger ones — there’s no formal compensation policy. There may not even be an HR professional available to consult on merit increases and other pay issues. In these companies, you are likely to encounter direct requests from your staff members for a raise. Absent a policy, people assume that if they want a raise the only way they can get one is to ask for it.

Of course, the best solution to this problem is to set some kind of compensation policy so these decisions don’t have to be handled in a one-off, spur-of-the-moment fashion. But as a manager, you may not be in a position to determine what your company’s policy will be, particularly if your company is a small owner-operated firm and you aren’t the owner. To have to say, “You’ll have to talk to Mr. Jones about that,” lets everyone know that you have no power or authority in the really important areas.

Raise-requesters usually offer up a combination of reasons why they deserve a pay increase: They’ve done an outstanding job and therefore deserve an increase. (Regardless of the truth of the assertion, this reason is almost always offered.) The scope of the job has significantly widened. The person is underpaid compared with peers in the office or what the going rate for the job is at other organizations. The cost of living has gone way up since the last salary adjustment. And there’s always the universal “I just need more money” motive.

If you are the decision-maker, the best approach is to thank the person for bringing the matter to your attention along with a promise to get back with an answer by a specific date. From there, talk to other people in leadership positions in your company about the whole issue of compensation. Is this raise request a unique event, or is it the tip of an iceberg of compensation grumbles?

Then, fairly assess the situation. Keep in mind the difference between the value of the role that employees perform and their value as individuals. They’re not the same. Every job is worth a certain amount. That amount is determined by the market, not by the quality of the individual’s performance or their need for a greater income. It may be that the limit of the value that can be placed on a particular role has simply been reached. The refusal to grant a salary increase here is not a reflection on the person’s value as an individual but the worth of the job to the company, no matter how well it’s performed.

But let’s say a review of the individual’s salary-change request tells you that a pay increase is appropriate — the person is, in fact, underpaid compared with others in the company who are doing similar work, or it would be difficult to replace the individual if she left at anywhere near the salary the raise-requester is currently getting. Don’t immediately grant the increase. If a salary increase is granted directly following a request, word may spread that all individuals in the organization are underpaid. The unfortunate precedent will be set that the way to get a salary increase is simply to ask for it. You will then be held hostage to all the other raise requests that will immediately follow.

Instead, initiate a second conversation. Explain how the amount of money paid an individual is a function of two things: the value of the job itself and the quality of performance of the person doing the job. Ask the individual to examine both how she might enhance her performance and how her job can be made more valuable to the organization. What additional duties might she assume? How much extra responsibility is she willing to take on? How much extra effort is she willing to put forth?

When these issues have been successfully settled, the pay increase can be granted with both you and your subordinate can leave the table satisfied. With a few extra steps and strategic thinking, answering difficult compensation questions can be a breeze — and not a headache.

by Dick Grote  The Conversation- Harvard Business Review

WIA FUNDING WILL BE CUT—WILL YOU HELP US?

***WIA FUNDING will be cut-we need your help!!***
The skinny on the funding-Underemployed and Unemployed constituents that are receiving TANF, Food stamps, Unemployed benefits, are eligible to go to school and receive the funding. It pays for their training. Please click the links and ask to NOT CUT the funding. You need to submit to both links!
WIA info link.
Thank you,
On-Site Computer Training Staff

Need to Refinance? Read this First!

Home Loan Blues: Refinancing Isn’t So Easy
by WENDY KAUFMAN
</aNovember 10, 2010
Mortgage rates are at all-time lows. Rates range from 4 percent to 4.5 percent for some borrowers.

It's a great time to refinance — if you can.

Many homeowners who would love to lower their mortgage payment don't qualify. And many who do are discovering that getting a new loan isn't as easy as it used to be.

Pennsylvania resident Jeff Marsico has been with the same lender for 15 years. He's had two houses and has never missed a payment. With equity in his house, a solid income and credit score, he figured refinancing with his existing lender would be fairly simple. It wasn't.

It took 90 days to get the loan — and along the way the lender inundated him with requests for documents: every page — even the blank ones — of his brokerage statements, and every page and schedule of his two most recent tax returns.

Tips For Refinancing

Research Your Credit Score. The credit score cutoff to get any home loan is substantially higher today than it used to be. People are often surprised by their actual score. Check out your score ahead of time. Consumers are eligible to receive a free annual credit report through AnnualCreditReport.com, a website underwritten by Equifax, Experian and TransUnion. You can also purchase your FICO score from Myfico.com.

Shop Around. Rates can be lower at regional lenders and independent mortgage brokers than at the top three lenders — Bank of America, Chase and Wells Fargo.

Safeguard Personal Information. If you're researching a mortgage refinance, be sure you're dealing with a legitimate enterprise. Don't disclose any personal information until you've confirmed that you're dealing with a bona fide lender.

Lock In A Great Rate. Rates can change quickly. If you're quoted a great rate, then lock it in that day. This requires filling out an application, which can be done online. Your lender can help you calculate how much you'll save by refinancing. HSH.com and Bankrate.com have lists of lenders nationwide and online calculators for determining how much money refinancing could save you.

Don't Delay. Rhonda Porter, a blogger and mortgage originator in Kent, Wash., says not to postpone refinancing — especially if it requires an appraisal (most mortgages do require one). If a neighbor's home goes into foreclosure, it has an impact on surrounding property values. As a result, your home could be appraised for "less than originally expected," and have a negative impact on your refinancing application, Porter says.

Expect Fees, Strict Documentation Requirements. Consumer Reports says to expect to pay for an appraisal. What's more, because of stricter lending standards, it's likely that you'll have to provide more documentation then you might have thought necessary.

—Joshua Brockman

Sources: NPR, Mortgageporter.com, Consumer Reports

"Many of you who use accountants probably know that accountants staple the top of the tax return," Marsico explains. "So, in order for me to scan those documents I was pressing the paper up against the scanner and it left a black mark at the top."

But it wasn't pristine enough for the lender who wanted blotch-free pages. Marsico undid the staples and rescanned the pages.

There were lots of other frustrations too. But in the end, he got a 4.375 percent loan that will save him about $1,000 a year on his mortgage payment.

But not everyone will be so fortunate. The days of easy-to-get mortgages are over, says Greg McBride, a senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com.

"Prior to the credit crunch, if you had a pulse you got a loan," he says.

But today, he says, many homeowners can't refinance because they don't have enough equity, their incomes are too low, their debt is too high or their credit scores aren't good enough.

The Role Of Credit Scores

FICO scores — the ones used by nearly all the big lenders, range between 300 and 850. These days, a score of 740 or even higher is required to get the best rate. Three years ago a score in the 700 range might have sufficed.

Similarly, McBride says, the cutoff to get any loan is substantially higher than it used to be. Today, if a borrower's score is below about 660, it may be tough to get an attractive rate. And, McBride says, if the score is below 620, the borrower may not find any loan at all.

"Lenders are still pretty skittish because of the high level of mortgage default[s] and borrowers have to bring more to the table than a smiling face," he says.

Seattle area mortgage originator Rhonda Porter says people are often surprised by their credit score.

"They might think they have a 740 score, but when I see the report it's 720," Porter says.

Score Analysis, Low Rates On The Horizon

Part of the reason may be that credit scores provided to mortgage lenders are tweaked slightly differently from those provided to auto dealers or credit card companies.

Lenders typically look at scores from all three of the major credit reporting agencies and use the middle score in assessing the borrower's credit history.

Something as seemingly insignificant as a $550 balance rather than a $500 balance on a credit card could hurt your score, Porter says.

"Credit scoring is not an exact science and yet people are judged heavily by it," she adds.

The Mortgage Bankers Association expects that higher credit scores, more equity and higher income-to-debt ratios will remain extremely important to lenders.

And will the low rates continue? The association believes rates will rise to just over 5 percent next year and up to 5.5 percent in 2012.

For more information go to: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131193402

To Add Insult to Injury…You May Not Get The Job because You’re Behind on Your Mortgage or Credit Card Payments?…Say it Aint So!

</aBy Katie Leslie and Marcus K. Garner
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Applying for a job comes with a certain degree of anxiety: Will they like me? Is my resume spotless? Are my references strong?
A growing number of people affected by record joblessness and foreclosure rates in metro Atlanta and nationwide have a new worry: Will bad credit keep me from getting the job?

While the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reviews testimony regarding the use of credit background checks for employment, supporters say the checks are a smart business tool for certain industries and critics counter that the reports unfairly discriminate against minorities and those affected by the recession.

Atlanta-based CredAbility has clients who fear they’ve been denied employment based on poor credit reports, including a woman who made it to the final interview stage with a mortgage brokerage firm and submitted to a credit report check, knowing she was behind on mortgage payments. The woman, who did not want to be identified, didn’t get the job.

“It’s hard to say because the potential employer didn’t say, ‘You lost the job because of something on your credit report,’” said John McCosh, CredAbility spokesman. “But with the timing of it, we can see why people reach that conclusion.”

Credit background checks are one of several topics up for EEOC debate in a series of commission hearings examining employment barriers, an EEOC spokeswoman said. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, employers are required to receive written authorization from an applicant to run the report and then must provide that person, or employee, with a copy of the information. Similar to the reports a consumer can obtain for free each year through credit reporting agencies, employers receive a report that lists debt. The reports do not, however, give an applicant’s credit score.

Sarah Crawford, senior counsel for the Washington, D.C.-based Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, testified before the EEOC last week against the use of credit checks. Research indicates African-Americans and Hispanics tend to have poorer credit than whites, and credit background checks, while applied broadly, can have a second-hand effect of screening out minorities, she said.

“I think the assumption that is made is, if somebody is behind on their bills, then it tells something about their integrity or responsibility, but in many cases that assumption is flawed,” Crawford said. “You have somebody who has fallen behind on their bills because they’re out of their job in this economy, and because they’ve fallen behind on their bills, they can’t get a job.”

Credit check supporters say this is only one step of the hiring process for certain industries, such as financial institutions or retail and real estate firms, in which employees handle money or have access to confidential information. Nearly 60 percent of employers use credit background checks in some way, according to the Society of Human Resource Management.

Credit checks typically are performed during the final stages of interviewing, or when an offer has been made, because of the cost involved, said Mike Aitken, SHRM director of government affairs.

“It’s one piece of the puzzle; it’s not the over-riding factor,” Aitken said. “If somebody just lost their job and fell behind on bills, that’s not what they’re looking at. They’re looking at their track record for five or six years. They’re looking at a pattern and practice of not being able to meet their obligations.”

Only 13 percent of businesses use credit background checks on all job candidates in today’s market, compared with 19 percent in 2004, according to SHRM. Another 47 percent said they use credit background checks for selective job candidates, compared with 42 percent in 2004 that reported rarely or sometimes using the checks.

Aitken said credit reports should be applied only in specific instances. For example, a software company that conducted a credit background check on a chief financial officer candidate found that person had $35,000 in gambling debt.

“That was one of those things the employer didn’t want to take a risk with,” Aitken said.

SHRM, however, doesn’t believe credit report checks are necessary for all industries.

“You can’t really argue that a maintenance person or somebody who doesn’t have access to financial information should be having a credit report performed on them; it’s pretty hard to justify that,” Aitken said.

Heather Donnelly, director of operations for Atlanta’s Paces Staffing, said credit background checks aren’t as commonly requested as criminal or social security checks. Credit background checks are typically requested for mid-to-high level accounting or finance positions, she said.

“In certain positions they are looking for someone who is going to manage their money, and they are looking for someone who can show personal responsibility in their own life as well,” Donnelly said.

Crawford said there is little research, however, that demonstrates a correlation between credit and talent.

“To my knowledge there isn’t any research out there that makes the critical link between what shows up on a credit report and information that gets to whether someone will be able to perform the job,” Crawford said.

For that reason, SunTrust mortgage company does not conduct credit background checks, spokesman Hugh Suhr said.

“We researched the issue a number of years ago and did not find sufficient data to support a correlation between a score and job performance and risk,” Suhr said.

The federal government and some states are considering legislation that would prohibit employers from using credit background checks, with certain exceptions.

Congress last year considered House Resolution 3149, which was known as the Equal Employment for All Act and sponsored by Steve Cohen, D-Tenn. Among the co-sponsors, John Lewis, D-Georgia, said the legislation was written to halt what he called discrimination against people who were unemployed because of the bad economy, and had credit standings that suffered as a result. The resolution remains at committee level.

“If people cannot earn some money to pay their bills, they will be in a hole forever,” Lewis said.

Sarah Grathwohl of Roswell submitted to a credit and criminal background check for her former job with a development and real estate company in Athens. The company conducted checks for all job positions, and she didn’t think twice about it. She was hired as an assistant to the CEO and later helped with the company’s hiring process. She never knew of an applicant denied a job because of his or her credit.

Grathwohl, 29, supports the use of credit background checks in some instances, though she still isn’t sure why it was necessary for her former position.

“I think anytime you’re handling anyone else’s money or assets, it makes sense to me, and as a consumer it makes sense to me,” she said. “With my previous employer, it didn’t bother me, but I don’t see that it was extraordinarily necessary or related to what I did at all.”

43% of Black Males Graduate High School in the State of Georgia…Only 34% of Black Males Graduate in the City of Atlanta! You think that’s bad…Check out NY City!


Welcome to The Schott Foundation for Public Education’s web-based 50 State Report on Public Education and Black Males. This website is a data portal that provides parents, educators, media, policymakers, elected officials—and anyone who cares about education and equity—direct access to important, alarming data on the devastating reality of education for Black males across all 50 states.

Yes We Can: The 2010 Schott 50 State Report on Black Males in Public Education reveals that the overall 2007/8 graduation rate for Black males in the U.S. was only 47 percent. Half of the states have graduation rates for Black male students below the national average. The report highlights concerns that New York’s graduation rate for its Regents diploma is only 25 percent for Black male students. New York City, the district with the nation’s highest enrollment of Black students, only graduates 28 percent of its Black male students with Regents diplomas on time. Overall, each year over 100,000 Black male students in New York City alone do not graduate from high school with their entering cohort. These statistics—and the other alarming data in this fourth biennial report— point to a national education and economic crisis.

Without targeted investments to provide the core, research-proven resources to help Black male students succeed in public education, they are being set up to fail.

The report highlights the success of New Jersey’s Abbott plan, which demonstrates that when equitable resources are available to all students, systemic change at the state level can yield significant results. New Jersey is now the only state with a significant Black population with a greater than 65 percent high school graduation rate for Black male students.

By providing the public with this data, we hope to continue to spark action from advocacy and philanthropic communities to hold policymakers and school districts accountable for facilitating changes needed to provide Black male students the opportunity to learn and succeed.

PLEASE CHECK OUT THE FULL REPORT AT: http://www.blackboysreport.org/
I bet you never new how bad it really is in some states.

Too little income to afford an education?…NOT ANY MORE! WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT (WIA) IS YOUR ANSWER!

The federal Workforce Investment Act was signed into law in August 1998, and went into effect in Georgia in July 2000. The Governor designated the Georgia Department of Labor (GDOL), under the leadership of Commissioner Michael L. Thurmond, as the state agency responsible for implementation of WIA. The Governor also appointed the State Workforce Investment Board to help plan and develop Georgia’s overall workforce system. The State Board is composed of a private sector majority with a business sector chair, and various workforce development, government, youth, labor, and human services representatives.

In Georgia, there are 12 service delivery regions and 20 local service delivery areas. In each of the 20 areas there is a local Workforce Investment Board, appointed by local elected officials. Local Workforce Boards are made up of a private sector (business) majority, various human services agency representatives, parents, and other workforce-related customers and interested parties. WIA requires each Local Board to have a Youth Council, as a subgroup of the full Board, to maximize youth involvement in the One-Stop System. The degree of authority and autonomy of the Youth Council is defined at the local level and may be different for each area. Local Workforce Boards are responsible for designing local One-Stop Workforce Systems that are employer-led, demand-driven, customer-friendly, and continuously improving. No two local workforce systems in Georgia look alike, since no two communities are alike.

Each workforce area has at least one “official” comprehensive One-Stop Center where various human services organizations assist employers and job seekers with their workforce needs. In Georgia, there are over 45 comprehensive WIA One-Stop Centers, and nearly three-quarters of these are GDOL Career Centers. WIA requires the participation of certain partners in local workforce systems, but many systems have expanded to include any and all organizations meeting workforce-related needs in the community. In addition to these comprehensive sites, many communities have other locations for customers to access workforce services, often called “satellites.” These locations may include libraries, technical colleges, welfare offices, community based organizations, and mall kiosks.

A wide range of quality workforce services is available at no cost to employers and job seekers at One-Stop Centers. Typical services for employers include rooms to interview job applicants, and access to PCs, laser printers, Internet, email, telephone, fax, and labor market information. Employers who have special education and training needs for their businesses may want to explore on-the-job training or customized training.

Typical workforce services for individuals include exploration of training/education offerings, financial aid application assistance, labor market information about high growth occupations and salary ranges, and tips for surviving a layoff. Many of these basic services are available on a self-service basis via computer. Career advisors are available for customers who want more intensive help. If certain criteria are met, some customers are eligible for Workforce Investment Act funding through the WIA Individual Training Account Eligible Provider/Program List system: (http://www.dol.state.ga.us/js/wia_ita_providers.htm). Customers seeking WIA funding for training must work with a career advisor to determine eligibility for services.

Find a One-Stop Center (by county): (http://www.dol.state.ga.us/find_one_stop_centers.htm). Contact the administrator serving your area for additional information about a specific local workforce system (left-hand side of the drop-down box), or contact the local One-Stop Center serving a specific county to learn about available workforce services (right-hand side of the drop-down box). (GEORGIA DEPT OF LABOR)

Follow or copy and paste the links below into your browser for just a few of the many participants of the WIA program:

http://www.pegatech.edu/wia-workforce-developmet

http://www.gpc.edu/orgdev/pmwia.htm

http://www.highlands.edu/site/sss-wia

Georgia Works Program…Shouldn’t this be shouted to the world when you enter the unemployment Office?…Spread the word!

By Michelle Chen

Honeywell, an aerospace and consumer products company headquartered in New Jersey, is participating in the Georgia Work$ program.
With thousands of workers grappling for any kind of job, Georgia is making unemployed residents an offer they can’t refuse—an offer that some critics worry is capitalizing on people’s desperation.

The Georgia Work$ program has for several years connected the jobless to jobs by letting them basically work for free at private companies. It’s a triple-win for all stakeholders, the state argues: government saves by moving people into the job market efficiently, workers gain credentials that help them find real work, and employers bank on free temporary help.

NPR reports on the program’s seeming impressive gains:

So far, almost 8,400 employers have signed up, and about 7,800 workers have participated in training. Businesses are not required to hire workers, and those who don’t get jobs will continue to receive their unemployment checks. But nearly half of the trainees — more than 3,700 people — now have jobs.

“The average length, the duration of unemployment in Georgia, is now at about 15 weeks. So when a person is hired within six weeks, then you’ve saved nine weeks of unemployment insurance benefits,” says Michael Thurmond, Georgia’s labor commissioner. “That has generated some $6 million in savings for our Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund.”

Meanwhile, federal unemployment aid has been in limbo for months, as a polarized Congress has dithered on extending benefits for the long-term unemployed. States are growing increasingly desperate to close the yawning deficit in viable jobs, even amid questions about whether programs like Georgia Work$ are more exploitative than innovative.

The controversy over programs like Georgia Work$ stems from the blurring line between vocational training and the types of work that require fair compensation. According to a recent Labor Department memorandum, the Wage and Hour Division uses the following guidelines “to evaluate whether a worker is a trainee or an employee for purposes of the [Fair Labor Standards Act]”:

1. The training, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to what would be given in a vocational school or academic educational instruction;
2. The training is for the benefit of the trainees;
3. The trainees do not displace regular employees, but work under their close observation;
4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the
activities of the trainees, and on occasion the employer’s operations may actually be impeded;
5. The trainees are not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the training period; and
6. The employer and the trainees understand that the trainees are not entitled to wages for the time spent in training.

For work that matches these criteria, “an employment relationship does not exist under the FLSA, and the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime provisions do not apply to the worker.”

A system like Georgia Work$—which is theoretically voluntary and doesn’t obligate employers to pay normal wages nor to hire people for the long-term—raises questions of equity, possible impacts on the regular labor market, and measuring success.

Participants, according to the program’s website, spend up to 24 hours per week working, receive a small training stipend, and “qualify for up to $600 in training stipends (an average of $100 weekly) to help defray training related costs such as child care and transportation.” So far, the state government estimates a job placement rate of about 50 percent.

The data may be promising, but the number of actual jobs generated seems miniscule compared to the 463,000 unemployed people in the state in 2009. And those who remain locked out of the anemic job market might be left wondering about the opportunity cost of all those hours of labor they contributed.

While Georgia Work$ focuses broadly on the unemployed and not just the poor, state-sponsored welfare-to-work programs may offer lessons on potential pitfalls in the initiative. New York City’s Back to Work program, for instance, has drawn criticism from anti-poverty activists for failing to provide welfare recipients with meaningful work experiences. Community Voices Heard reported in a 2008 analysis that the program had led to weak job placement rates and “a frustrated client population” who were routinely “channeled towards jobs with low wages and little opportunity for career advancement,” like housekeeping or warehouse work.

The core dilemma in the Georgia Work$ concept may be that the ultimate winners are not so much struggling workers, but the businesses that can use them at no cost. The National Employment Law Project fears that employers will be encouraged to tap a basic public benefit, unemployment insurance, as a free labor pool. NELP deputy director Andrew Stettner told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: “We reviewed Georgia Works. It looks more like work than training… You can’t try someone out and not pay them. It’s not allowed under our nation’s labor laws.”

Stettner added, “ ‘If a lot of businesses can bring in a lot of people’ essentially working for free, ‘somebody else [working full-time] isn’t getting an extra shift or extra work hours.’ ”

Georgia Work$ boasts that the average participating employer saves nearly $5,000, which adds up to a statewide employer “savings” of over $14.7 million. The biggest boost workers can hope for, meanwhile, is a foothold in a precarious job market with a few more skills under their belt.

Media coverage of Georgia Work$ has featured success stories of happily re-employed individuals.

The overall value of such workforce development systems, however, is more ambiguous: advocates warn that some re-employment strategies based on the federal Workforce Investment Act have proven dismally inadequate in alleviating the unemployment crisis. One consequence of this, according to MDRC, is that “the system focused on quick placement into jobs of a relatively more advantaged population needing less intensive investments and services.”

Will the supposed success of Georgia’s program trickle down to marginal sectors of the jobless population—those with limited formal education, conviction records, or other common barriers to employment?

Will Georgia Work$ become the primary main job-creation strategy at the expense of other, potentially more targeted workforce measures that are not embedded within the limits of the unemployment bureaucracy?

As Georgia prepares to expand its program, will it hold employers accountable for connecting workers to decent-paying, secure jobs, maybe even jobs with unionized workplaces that will ensure sustained support for workers after the state reaches its job-placement benchmark? In this economy, any policy that helps the unemployed get a foot in the door is a welcome boost. But what does it say about the government’s role in fostering opportunity when the door must be propped open with free labor?

Should Undocumented people have access to Georgia’s Colleges/Univ. even if willing to pay out of state tuition?

(CNN) — Georgia’s public colleges have adopted new policies that officials say will prevent illegal immigrants from attending five high-demand schools and from being admitted ahead of legally and academically qualified residents at the rest of the state’s public institutions of higher learning.
The State Board of Regents, which oversees public colleges in Georgia, also approved legal penalties for providing incorrect information on tuition-related forms.
The regents, who have been under public pressure about the admission of illegal immigrants, say the issue not been a significant problem.
Only 501 of 310,000 students within the university system are undocumented and they already pay out-of-state tuition, said regents spokesman John Millsaps.
But the new tuition policy, which takes effect in fall 2011, enables Georgia to “strengthen the ability of institutions to properly classify students for tuition purposes,” the board said in a statement after the vote Wednesday.
“We are an educational agency in the business of preparing individuals for careers requiring knowledge and skills,” said regent James Jolly. “We are not in the immigration business, nor are we equipped to serve as the immigration authorities.”
The regents want to ensure that undocumented students — no matter how academically qualified they may be — don’t move ahead of academically and legally qualified applicants at schools that for the past two academic years had to reject qualified applicants because of a lack of space or other reasons.
Not all of the 510 undocumented students are illegal immigrants, the regents say. Some may have lost their legal status or cannot affirm citizenship. Regents ordered schools to verify a legal presence in the United States for those seeking in-state tuition.
Under the new policy, illegal immigrants will not be able to attend the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia Tech in Atlanta, the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta, Georgia State University in Atlanta and Georgia College & State University in Milledgeville, all of which have turned away students.
That list of banned schools may change each year, depending on circumstances.
Those five schools had only 27 undocumented students enrolled this fall, officials said.
The system’s other 30 colleges and universities will be able to admit undocumented students if they pay out-of-state tuition, which more than covers the cost of educating a student who pays it, and if they are not accepted ahead of qualified students, according to Millsaps.
The space crunch at the five named schools is not usually present at the other 30, which accommodate all students who meet academic standards.
“Not enough Georgians graduate from high school and pursue post-secondary education,” Millsaps said. “We need more Georgians to pursue higher education.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia decried the vote and said undocumented college students are “by and large talented high achievers who arrived in the U.S. as children because of the choices their parents made. They grew up in this country and persevered against the odds” to graduate from high school.
The ACLU also argues federal databases used for some legal status verification are error-filled.
Controversy over admissions erupted after a student at Kennesaw State University in the Atlanta suburb of Kennesaw was found to be in the United States illegally. She was being charged in-state tuition.
The issue has come up in the gubernatorial race this fall in Georgia. Democrat Roy Barnes and Repulican Nathan Deal both oppose allowing illegal immigrants to attend public colleges in the state.
South Carolina does not allowed undocumented students in public colleges.
(CNN’s Phil Gast contributed to this report).

Is This Greed? or Owed To Them?

On behalf of The Siemon Law Firm posted in Child Support on Wednesday, August 25, 2010

An extremely unusual child support lawsuit is coming up for trial in California. Two grown children of billionaire land developer Donald Bren are suing him for $400,000 per month in back child support. Each. For fourteen years.

The total amount sought by the two children is said to be over $134 million, or more than $67 million for each child. This despite the fact that he has already paid $9 million in child support over the years for the two children.

The case has major implications both for child support policy and for fathers’ rights. The 78-year-old billionaire has been extremely private about his personal fortune and spending habits, but Forbes has estimated is fortune at around $12 billion. He is known as a generous philanthropist and has a reputation as a major political donor.

More important, his situation sheds a spotlight on questions about how much child support is fair and reasonable.

http://www.fultoncountydivorcelawblog.com