Change has come to America
Check out President Obama's new website at whitehouse.gov

Watching the inauguration at the Downtown Reno Library

A view of the Knowledge Center at the University of Nevada

Timeline of the Financial Crisis

Agencies Move to Restrict FOIA Access in Last-Minute Regs

NASA - Report of Columbia Accident Investigation Board, Volume I

Reid names chairmen for next Senate session

Mon Dec 15, 6:37 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kerry will be the next Foreign Relations Committee chairman while Sen. John D. Rockefeller will take over the committee that will help write the economic recovery package, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced Monday.

Kerry, D-Mass., the former Democratic presidential nominee, will take over the committee that has been headed by Vice President-elect Joe Biden, D-Del.

Reid’s recommendations to the Senate Democratic Steering committee will be formally approved when the 111th session of the Senate convenes in January.

The major lineup changes result from Biden’s departure and the decision of 91-year-old Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., to step down as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, which crafts annual spending bills. Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii will chair Appropriations, and Rockefeller will move up to chair the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee that Inouye had led.

Rockefeller will leave his post as head of the Select Committee on Intelligence, to be replaced by Dianne Feinstein of California. Feinstein in turn gives up her position as Rules and Administration chair to Charles Schumer of New York.

The chairmanship of the Small Business Committee, which has been held by Kerry, will go to Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

Other positions will not change. They include:

Tom Harkin of Iowa at Agriculture; Patrick Leahy of Vermont at Judiciary; Carl Levin of Michigan at Armed Services; Chris Dodd of Connecticut at Banking; Kent Conrad of North Dakota at Budget; Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico at Energy and Natural Resources; Barbara Boxer of California at Environment and Public Works; Max Baucus of Montana at Finance; Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts at Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Daniel Akaka of Hawaii at Veterans Affairs; independent Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut at Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; Byron Dorgan of North Dakota at Indian Affairs; and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin at the Special Committee on Aging.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081215/ap_on_go_co/senate_chairmen_2

The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) has released a report entitled "Cost of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other Military Operations Through 2008 and Beyond."
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20081215.Cost_of_th
e_Wars_i/R.20081215.Cost_of_the_Wars_i.pdf
Since it is a long link, be sure to copy the whole thing into your browser or go to http://www.csbaonline.org/2006-1/index.shtml

The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism has published a survey - "Public Response to Terrorism:
Findings from the National Survey of Disaster Experiences and Preparedness."
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/sciprc/pdf/NC+START+Descriptive+Report.pdf

December in the Downtown Library

House report - Disclosure of CIA Agent Identity

The House Oversight & Government Reform Committee approved a report "finding that President Bush made a "legally unprecedented and an inappropriate use of executive privilege" when he directed Attorney General Mukasey to withhold Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's interview of Vice President Cheney from the Committee."



The draft report and appendices and related information can be found at
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=2282



The information related to the entire investigation can be found at
http://oversight.house.gov/investigations.asp?ID=115

The Genocide Prevention Task Force has released its report Preventing
Genocide: A Blueprint for U.S. Policymakers. The direct link for the full report is
http://www.usip.org/genocide_taskforce/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf



The main website with the report broken into parts is http://www.usip.org/genocide_taskforce/report.html



The Joint Forces Command released is Joint Operating Environment 2008 report. This report outlines threats and opportunities U.S. joint forces may confront in the next 25 years. The JOE 2008 report is available at http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2008/JOE2008.pdf

Greetings to all.

We hope everyone had a fun & refreshing Thanksgiving holiday. Ours were well spent with family and plenty of good food however we received some distressing news upon returning to work. We learned that the Nevada State Library and Archives has decided to eliminate the position, Head of Government Publications. The reason we are distressed is because this position is crucial for the capturing, cataloging, and dissemination of state publications and we fear that without the leadership that this position provides Nevada publications will slip into oblivion to the detriment of the people – the people whose taxes pay for this research and are therefore entitled to the opportunity to access this information.

Below is a letter of protest that you can cut & paste into a new message to send to Ms. Daphne DeLeon and Mr. Michael E. Fischer. Please feel free to edit the letter to personalize it or write your own. Don’t forget to sign your name at the bottom complete with your organization and title.

Here are their email addresses, please include both in the “Send To” line:

Daphne DeLeon, ddeleon@nevadaculture.org

Michael E. Fischer, mfischer@nevadaculture.org

One last thing, please send a blind copy of your email to Ian Campbell (icampbell@washoecounty.us) and Lisa Printz (lprintz@washoecounty.us).

Thank you and hopefully together we can make a difference,

Ian and Lisa

Attn: Daphne DeLeon, Division Administrator, Nevada State Library & Archive

Michael E. Fischer, Director, Nevada Department of Cultural Affairs

It was with shock and dismay that we learned about the Nevada State Library's decision to eradicate the position, Head of Government Publications. And it is with the great concern stimulated by this decision that we are writing to request that the state reconsider what we believe to be a short-sighted decision that will negatively impact current and future Nevada residents' access to critical information. When one considers that the federal government produces 70% of the world's information it becomes apparent that federally funded information is invaluable and since tax-payers dollars purchase or support these research endeavors the citizens of this nation have a right to access this information. Much of the states' research receives partial funding from the federal government and therefore is included in the figure (70%) given above. Compounding traditional problems of access to government funded research are the changes in the dissemination of this information to the populous. Due to advances in technology and in an effort to save money most government funded research is only available online therefore, capturing and cataloging this information for the purpose of retrieval are vital to the community's information needs especially since governmental agencies are not obligated to maintain access to this information. So, much of this information is ephemeral in its availability unless someone captures and catalogs it. Currently, there is a phenomenal amount of previously released information that needs to be captured and cataloged in addition to the present research being released now and future research that will require capturing and cataloging for without this work preserving access to federal and state research will not be possible. While there are many individuals attempting to apply order to federal documents, there are far fewer that work towards capturing, cataloging, and disseminating state government publications. This position, Head of Government Publications, fulfills this role and provides much needed leadership in the enactment of the NRS 378.170 and for the state of Nevada in developing a Nevada state publications depository to ensure the permanent retention of state publications. We feel that this position, Head of Government Publications, serves a critical and vital gap in the public's information needs and we therefore, strongly urge the Nevada State Library to reconsider this decision.

Thank you and sincerely,

From The New York Times:

---

November 25, 2008

Iraq Ally Lists Were Altered, Study Shows

By THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON — Before invading Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration mounted a significant diplomatic offensive to rally international support, and officials at the White House, Pentagon and State Department went to great lengths to trumpet those nations that joined what they termed “the coalition of the willing.”

But historians researching those early alliance-building efforts say they are troubled by what seem to be deletions of and alterations to the early official lists of nations that supported the war effort. The lists were posted on the White House Web site.

While administration officials acknowledged that the number of nations supporting the war changed over time, academic researchers say three official lists appear to have been changed, yet retained their original release date, making them appear to be unaltered originals.

Two other White House lists appear to have been taken off the Web site, according to a study of the documents by Scott L. Althaus and Kalev H. Leetaru of the Cline Center for Democracy at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

There were 45 coalition members on the eve of the Iraq invasion, but subsequent deletions of the earlier lists and revisions to critical documents made it seem that there were 49, the researchers found.

Two other countries that appeared on early lists of alliance partners were removed, but those updated rosters carried the original date and no mention that they had been changed.

White House officials confirmed Monday that the names of two countries were removed from the list of coalition partners initially listed on the Web pages, an action taken at the request of those nations. Costa Rica and Angola were dropped, but Angola subsequently reappeared.

In recent years, the White House has adopted a policy that requires its official Web site to note when such changes are made to an online item, a spokesman said Monday.

But that appears not to have been in effect for posts released early in the war effort.

In their study, the two University of Illinois researchers wrote that “whether by design or neglect, the result is the same: The removals and revisions of White House documents distort the historical record of what our government has said and done.” In the new study, the researchers traced five online documents that listed the number and names of coalition partners.

The researchers report finding that two were removed, one in late 2004, and another in late 2005 or early 2006. “These two ‘missing’ lists represent earlier and smaller lists of coalition members,” the researchers said.

One list posted by the White House on March 21, 2003, identified 46 countries in the coalition, including the United States. In April 2003, the list was updated to add Angola and Ukraine, bringing the total number of coalition countries up to 48, the researchers found.

“But instead of issuing a new list with a new date, the White House took the unusual step of retroactively revising the original March 21 press release, without indicating that the document had been modified from its original form,” the researchers wrote.

On or before April 13, 2003, the White House posted an updated alliance list that added Tonga to the previous list of 48. This list was temporarily removed from public view in 2004, but by Nov. 3, 2004, the list had been restored with changes.

The revised list also carried a publication date of March 27, 2003, more than a year and a half before the revisions were made, the researchers report. The backdated list was modified again by changing the number of coalition countries back to 49, even though the document lists only 48 by name — without Costa Rica.

John Gage
National President
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO 80 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

Dear President Gage,

I am writing to share my views with you regarding the importance of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in an Obama Administration. The mission of the EPA is to protect the environment of the nation. In recent years, however, the pursuit of this goal has slowed, and in some cases, has been jeopardized outright.
This is due to the failed leadership of the past eight years, despite the strong and ongoing commitment of the career individuals throughout this agency. During this same period, inadequate funding for the EPA has resulted in the ineffective allocation of resources, thus weakening enforcement and oversight of many environmental laws and regulations that protect the American people.

That's why I am committed to pursuing greater funding for the EPA so that its responsibilities are carried out. Clean water, land and air, and ensuring the health and safety of our citizens, especially children, will be high priorities in an Obama Administration.

In addition, EPA was established to be the nation's leader in environmental science, research, and education - yet these are the three fields which have been damaged by politics and ideology. I strongly oppose attempts by the Bush Administration to thwart publication of EPA researchers' scientific findings, as well as the attempt to eliminate the agency's library system. In an Obama Administration, the principle of scientific integrity will be an absolute, and I will never sanction any attempt to subvert the work of scientists.

Thank you, John, for all you and AFGE's members do for America, and for the protection of our environment.

Sincerely,
Barack Obama

The Reno-Sparks area ranks 93rd out of 184 for the healthiest residents for the top metro areas in the United States, according to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control. The Las Vegas area was not good at 139th.

The survey asked residents to rate their own health as excellent, very good, good, fair or poor.

The healthiest place was the Lincoln, Neb. area, and the least healthy was the Huntington-Ashland, W.Va. area. Texas, Florida and general Southern areas seemed to rate low, although a few were quite high.

You can read a short WebMD article on it here; this is the list, ranked by which places had the most residents ranking their own health as good or better:

• 1. Lincoln, NE Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 2. Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 3. Boulder, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 4. Burlington-South Burlington, VT Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 5. Ogden-Clearfield, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 6. Provo-Orem, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 7. Concord, NH Micropolitan Statistical Area
• 8. Sioux Falls, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 9. Barre, VT Micropolitan Statistical Area
• 10. Cambridge-Newton-Framingham, MA Metropolitan Division
• 11. West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Boynton Beach, FL Metropolitan Division
• 12. Nassau-Suffolk, NY Metropolitan Division
• 13. Barnstable Town, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 14. Hilton Head Island-Beaufort, SC Micropolitan Statistical Area
• 15. Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 16. Fort Collins-Loveland, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 17. Worcester, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 18. Charleston-North Charleston, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 19. Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 20. Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 21. Rapid City, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 22. Colorado Springs, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 23. Gainesville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 24. Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 25. Casper, WY Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 26. Salt Lake City, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 27. Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 28. Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA Metropolitan Division
• 29. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 30. Bethesda-Gaithersburg-Frederick, MD Metropolitan Division
• 31. Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 32. Lebanon, NH-VT Micropolitan Statistical Area
• 33. Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 34. Olympia, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 35. Bismarck, ND Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 36. Manchester-Nashua, NH Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 37. Springfield, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 38. Bellingham, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 39. Bremerton-Silverdale, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 40. Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 41. Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division
• 42. Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 43. Denver-Aurora, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 44. Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 45. Austin-Round Rock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 46. New Haven-Milford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 47. Rutland, VT Micropolitan Statistical Area
• 48. San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 49. Wichita, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 50. Rockingham County-Strafford County, NH Metropolitan Division
• 51. Spokane, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 52. Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ Metropolitan Division
• 53. Cheyenne, WY Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 54. Kansas City, MO-KS Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 55. Wenatchee, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 56. Boise City-Nampa, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 57. Topeka, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 58. Edison, NJ Metropolitan Division
• 59. Tallahassee, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 60. Raleigh-Cary, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 61. Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 62. Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 63. Dover, DE Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 64. Indianapolis-Carmel, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 65. Bangor, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 66. Norwich-New London, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 67. Boston-Quincy, MA Metropolitan Division
• 68. Greeley, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 69. Palm Coast, FL Micropolitan Statistical Area
• 70. Philadelphia, PA Metropolitan Division
• 71. San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 72. Billings, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 73. Honolulu, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 74. Columbus, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 75. Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, MI Metropolitan Division
• 76. Anchorage, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 77. Kennewick-Richland-Pasco, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 78. Kahului-Wailuku, HI Micropolitan Statistical Area
• 79. Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 80. Essex County, MA Metropolitan Division
• 81. Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 82. Memphis, TN-MS-AR Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 83. Baltimore-Towson, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 84. Columbia, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 85. Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 86. Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 87. Durham, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 88. Santa Fe, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 89. Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 90. Akron, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 91. Pittsburgh, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 92. Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 93. Reno-Sparks, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 94. Richmond, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 95. Albuquerque, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 96. Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 97. Idaho Falls, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 98. Kalispell, MT Micropolitan Statistical Area
• 99. Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 100. Baton Rouge, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 101. Canton-Massillon, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 102. Naples-Marco Island, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 103. Riverton, WY Micropolitan Statistical Area
• 104. St. Louis, MO-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 105. Augusta-Waterville, ME Micropolitan Statistical Area
• 106. Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Tonawanda, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 107. Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX Metropolitan Division
• 108. Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Division
• 109. Jacksonville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 110. Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 111. Newark-Union, NJ-PA Metropolitan Division
• 112. Kapaa, HI Micropolitan Statistical Area
• 113. Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 114. Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 115. Tucson, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 116. Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 117. Tulsa, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 118. Greenville, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 119. Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 120. Sioux City, IA-NE-SD Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 121. Lake Charles, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 122. Grand Island, NE Micropolitan Statistical Area
• 123. Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 124. Seaford, DE Micropolitan Statistical Area
• 125. Greensboro-High Point, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 126. Port St. Lucie-Fort Pierce, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 127. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 128. Louisville, KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 129. Farmington, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 130. Jackson, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 131. Oklahoma City, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 132. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 133. Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 134. Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 135. Tacoma, WA Metropolitan Division
• 136. Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 137. San Antonio, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 138. Hilo, HI Micropolitan Statistical Area
• 139. Las Vegas-Paradise, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 140. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 141. Orlando-Kissimmee, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 142. New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 143. Dayton, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 144. Tuscaloosa, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 145. Toledo, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 146. Wilmington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 147. Camden, NJ Metropolitan Division
• 148. Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, MI Metropolitan Division
• 149. Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 150. Key West-Marathon, FL Micropolitan Statistical Area
• 151. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 152. Gulfport-Biloxi, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 153. Homosassa Springs, FL Micropolitan Statistical Area
• 154. Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 155. Lake City, FL Micropolitan Statistical Area
• 156. Birmingham-Hoover, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 157. Clewiston, FL Micropolitan Statistical Area
• 158. New York-White Plains-Wayne, NY-NJ Metropolitan Division
• 159. Montgomery, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 160. Ocala, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 161. Nogales, AZ Micropolitan Statistical Area
• 162. Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 163. Panama City-Lynn Haven, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 164. Lewiston, ID-WA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 165. Las Cruces, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 166. Sebring, FL Micropolitan Statistical Area
• 167. Fayetteville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 168. Yuma, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 169. Charleston, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 170. Wauchula, FL Micropolitan Statistical Area
• 171. Arcadia, FL Micropolitan Statistical Area
• 172. Yakima, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 173. Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 174. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA Metropolitan Division
• 175. Kingsport-Bristol, TN-VA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 176. Fort Smith, AR-OK Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 177. Chattanooga, TN-GA Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 178. El Paso, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 179. Okeechobee, FL Micropolitan Statistical Area
• 180. Brownsville-Harlingen, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 181. Mobile, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 182. McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 183. Laredo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area
• 184. Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

The 2008 edition of the United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions, commonly known as the Plum Book, is now available from the U.S. Government Printing Office.

Alternately prepared after each Presidential election by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform, the Plum Book provides comprehensive information on thousands of Federal civil service leadership and support positions in the legislative and executive branches of the Federal Government that may be subject to noncompetitive appointment, nationwide. It provides a current list of data, which includes the following major categories of
positions:

* Executive Schedule and salary-equivalent positions paid at the rates established for levels I through V of the Executive Schedule;
* Senior Executive service "General" positions;
* Senior Foreign Service positions;
* Schedule C positions excepted from the competitive service by the President, or by the Director, Office of Personnel Management, because of the confidential or policy-determining nature of the position duties;
* Other positions at the GS-14 and above level excepted from the competitive service by law because of the confidential or policy-determining nature of the position duties.

The Plum Book also provides information on SES appointments.
Additionally, appendices provide information on the positions listed and the Federal salary schedules under which they are paid.

The digital version is available on GPO Access at . It has been made available in its entirety, as a single PDF file. GPO has refined the
2008 Plum Book by adding bookmarks to it and optimizing it for the web.
The report is also available as a collection of smaller PDFs arranged in a browse table based on the Plum Book's table of contents. You can download entire chapters, or just information on individual commissions, councils, corporations, departments, offices, etc.

In addition to being available on GPO Access, the 2008 the United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions (Plum Book) is also available through the U.S. Government Online Bookstore and the Federal Depository Library Program.

Copies are available for purchase at: under
S/N: 052-070-07534-1.

The Federal Reserve System is revamping their site with new information because of the current crisis.


Dynamic maps of Bank Card and Mortgage Delinquencies in the United States

http://data.newyorkfed.org/creditconditionsmap/

There is also a notice that the Statistical Supplement to the Federal Reserve Bulletin will cease both online and print versions at:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/supplement/default.htm

Of current topical interest is the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) Information page at:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/tarpinfo.htm
which it describes:

"The federal banking and thrift regulatory agencies encourage all eligible institutions to use the Treasury Department's Capital Purchase Program and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program. On October 14, 2008, the U.S. government announced a series of initiatives to strengthen market stability, improve the strength of financial institutions, and enhance market liquidity. Treasury announced a voluntary Capital Purchase Program to encourage U.S. financial institutions to build capital to increase the flow of financing to U.S. businesses and consumers and to support the U.S. economy. Under the program, Treasury will purchase up to $250 billion of senior preferred shares on standardized terms."

Election Day at the Downtown Reno Library

An army of observers watch over voting at the Downtown Reno Library.

WASHOE COUNTY READIES FOR HISTORIC ELECTION DAY

Reno, Nevada. November 3, 2008. After setting a new record for early voters last week, Washoe County election officials are getting ready for what they expect may be another record-breaking voter turnout on Election Day, November 4^th.

“While voter turnout percentage may not set a new record, I think we’ll definitely see the highest number of actual voters on Election Day turn out tomorrow,” states Dan Burk, Washoe County Registrar of Voters. Burk is predicting that voter turnout could be as high as 80% or more.

New Records Set. The 2008 Election has already seen unprecedented numbers of Washoe County registered voters (231,470) with about 25,000 new registered voters since the August primary. A new record was set by early voters last week with 101,604 people casting their ballots during the 14-day early voting period that ended Friday, October 31^st. This represents about 44% of total registered voters and a 142% increase over total number of early voters in the 2006 Election.

Election Day. Polls open at 7 a.m. tomorrow and close at 7 p.m. If there are people in line at 7 p.m., the polling place will stay open until the last person in line by 7 p.m. has a chance to vote. There are 99 polling locations throughout Washoe County; 70% are school locations and 30% are other public facilities with a limited number of church buildings. Tuesday, November 4^th is an in-service teacher training day for Washoe County schools so students have the day off; Washoe County is grateful to the school district for helping facilitate voting through their training schedule.

Nearly 1,000 poll workers will work the locations on Election Day; 150 of them are county employees serving most of the poll manager positions. For the first time, recruited student poll workers (16 years and older) will be participating as part of the County’s new Youth Vote Program.

Below are the names and locations of polling manager who are willing to be interviewed by the media:

Justin Champagne, Gomm Elementary School, 4000 Mayberry Drive, Reno

Mike Sullens, Bennett Elementary School, 5900 Sidehill Drive, Sun Valley

Naomi Duerr, Reno Livestock Events Center-Exhibit Hall, Reno

Jeremy Bosler, Swope Middle School, 901 Keele Drive, Reno

Jeff Knight, Billinghurst Middle School, 6685 Chesterfield Lane, Reno

Don Jeppson, Damonte Ranch High School, 10500 Rio Wrangler Drive, Reno

Kathy Garcia, South Valleys Library, 15650 Wedge Parkway, Reno

Paul Jalbert, Vaughn Middle School, 1200 Bresson Vanue, Reno

If you are interested in interviewing a student poll worker, please contact Liz Ortiz at 813-0799.

Media Inquiries. There will be two County Public Information Officers facilitating media inquiries on Election Day. Mimi Fujii-Strickler (313-7292) will be working 5 a.m. to 2 p.m.; please contact her directly if you would like to set up interviews for the morning newscasts. Kathy Carter (772-7930) will be coordinating media inquiries from approximately 12 noon until election results are declared. Both PIOs will be stationed at the County Registrar’s Office.

Citizen Inquiries. The most common question voters have on Election Day is, “where do I go to vote?” Voters should look on the back of their sample ballot to find their polling location; VOTERS MUST VOTE AT THEIR ASSIGNED POLLING PLACE ON ELECTION DAY. If they don’t have their sample ballot, they can go to the County’s website at www.washoecounty.us and check their voter registration record on-line (link is on the frontpage). Or, they can call the Registrar’s Office at 327-3670 or the Spanish-speaking line at 325-8176; poll workers assigned to the phone bank will be receiving calls that come in.

No Electioneering. Once again, voters are reminded that state law prohibits advocacy of a candidate or ballot question less than 100 feet from a polling place. Known as “electioneering,” this type of advocacy is not restricted to people carrying signs, but also to voters who enter the polling place wearing buttons, clothing or other items that advocate for a candidate, party or ballot question outcome. The same is true for items advocating not voting for a particular candidate, party or issue.