A perfect key to success by these ECSAv10 questions answers

If you really to show your professionalism so just Passing the ECSAv10 exam is not sufficient. You should have enough EC-Council Certified Security Analyst knowledge that will help you work in real world scenarios. Killexams.com specially focus to improve your knowledge about ECSAv10 objectives so that you not only pass the exam, but really get ready to work in practical environment as a professional.

Exam Code: ECSAv10 Practice exam 2022 by Killexams.com team
ECSAv10 EC-Council Certified Security Analyst

ECSA v10 exam info: Credit Towards Certification: ECSA v10
Number of Questions: 150
Passing Score: 70%
Test Duration: 4 Hours

You are an ethical hacker. In fact, you are a Certified Ethical Hacker. Your last name is Pwned. You dream about enumeration and you can scan networks in your sleep. You have sufficient knowledge and an arsenal of hacking tools and you are also proficient in writing custom hacking code.

The ECSA program offers a seamless learning progress, continuing where the CEH program left off.
Unlike most other pen-testing programs that only follow a generic kill chain methodology; the ECSA presents a set of distinguishable comprehensive methodologies that are able to cover different pentesting requirements across different verticals.

1 Penetration Testing Essential Concepts
• Computer Network Fundamentals
• Network Security Controls and Devices
• Windows and Linux Security
• Web Application and Web Server Architecture and Operations
• Web Application Security Mechanisms
• Information Security Attacks
• Information Security Standards
2 Introduction to Penetration
Testing Methodologies
• Penetration Testing Process and Methodologies & Benefits
• Types, Areas and Selection of Pentesting
3 Penetration Testing Scoping and Engagement Methodology
• Penetration Testing Scoping and Rules and Engagement
• Penetration Testing Engagement Contract and Preparation
4 Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT)
• OSINT Through World Wide Web (WWW), Website Analysis, DNS Interrogation
• Automating your OSINT Effort Using Tools/Frameworks/Scripts
5 Social Engineering Penetration
Testing Methodology
• Social Engineering Penetration Testing Techniques & Steps
• Social Engineering Penetration testing using E
6 Network Penetration Testing
Methodology – External
• External Network Information & Reconnaissance
• Scanning, and Exploitation
7 Network Penetration Testing
Methodology – Internal
• Internal Network Information Reconnaissance and Scanning
• Internal Network Enumeration and Vulnerability Scanning
• Local and Remote System Exploitation
8 Network Penetration Testing
Methodology - Perimeter Devices
• Firewall Security Assessment Techniques
• iDs Security Assessment Techniques
• Router and Switch Security Assessment Techniques
9 Web Application Penetration
Testing Methodology
• Web Application Content Discovery and Vulnerability Scanning
• SQL Injection Vulnerability Penetration Testing
• XSS, Parameter Tampering, Weak
Cryptography, Security Misconfiguration and Client side scripting, vulnerabilities penetration techniques
• Authentication, Authorization, session, Web Server Vulnerabilities Penetration Testing
10 Database Penetration Testing
• Database Penetration Testing Techniques & Information Reconnaissance
• Database Enumeration & Exploitation
11 Wireless Penetration Testing
• WLAN Penetration Testing Techniques
• RFID and NFC Penetration Testing Techniques
• Mobile Device Penetration Testing Techniques
• loT Penetration Testing Techniques
12 Cloud Penetration Testing
• Cloud Specific Penetration Testing Techniques and Recommendations
• Cloud Specific Penetration Testing Methods
13 Report Writing and Post Testing
• Penetration Testing Report Writing Process
• Penetration Testing Reporting Formats

EC-Council Certified Security Analyst
EC-Council EC-Council pdf
Killexams : EC-Council EC-Council pdf - BingNews https://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/ECSAv10 Search results Killexams : EC-Council EC-Council pdf - BingNews https://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/ECSAv10 https://killexams.com/exam_list/EC-Council Killexams : NetCom Learning Announces EC-Council Certified Ethical Hacker Version 12

"NetCom Learning launches C|EH v12 training program for organizations looking to train their employees on essential ethical hacking skills"

EC-Council recently announced the launch of the latest version of the world’s no. 1 credential in ethical hacking – C|EH v12. NetCom Learning, a leading IT and business training organization, being an official partner of EC-Council is offering C|EH v12 training program.

C|EH needs no introduction when it comes to ethical hacking. It is well recognized in the cybersecurity industry among the top enterprises. In its 12th version, C|EH not only provides comprehensive training but also in-depth hands-on lab, practice range experience, certification assessments, and global hacking competitions. The C|EH v12 program is curated through a new learning framework: 1. Learn 2. Certify 3. Engage 4. Compete.

The C|EH v12 course and more details about the program can be accessed on NetCom Learning’s website.

The key features of the C|EH v12 training program:

  • Unique learn, certify, engage and compete methodology
  • Structured professional course covering 20 modules
  • Over 220 hands-on labs
  • 500+ unique attack techniques with over 3,500 hacking tools
  • Real-world ethical hacking assignment
  • New challenges every month 

NetCom Learning CEO Russell Sarder commented, "As an Accredited Training Partner of EC-Council, we're thrilled to announce the all-new Certified Ethical Hacker version 12. We emphasize the importance of having skilled cybersecurity professionals in every organization to maintain and enhance its security posture owing to the ever-increasing cyber threats and breaches. Upskilling IT teams regularly helps them tremendously as it bridges the cybersecurity skills gap. We stay true to our commitment to instill lifelong learning, and all our initiatives are carefully planned and executed with this goal in mind.”

About NetCom Learning

NetCom Learning supports the development of innovative learning organizations in the workplace by structuring a more knowledgeable workforce, enabling changes, and stimulating growth. Since 1998 we have been empowering organizations to reach optimal performance results and address challenges by managing all aspects of organizational learning.

NetCom Learning helps build innovative learning organizations in the workplace by structuring a smarter workforce, supporting changes, and driving growth. With more than 23 years of experience, NetCom Learning has been empowering innovative learning organizations to adapt and drive growth in this fast-paced world by closing critical skills gaps and ensuring smooth deployment, implementation, and consumption through authorized training delivered by Certified Trainers.

Like us on Facebook. Follow us on LinkedIn. Tweet us on Twitter.

Media Contact
Company Name: NetCom Learning
Contact Person: Media Relations
Email: Send Email
Phone: (212) 629-7265
Address:252 West 37th Street Suite 1200W
City: New York City
State: NY 10018
Country: United States
Website: https://www.netcomlearning.com/


Press Release Distributed by ABNewswire.com
To view the original version on ABNewswire visit: NetCom Learning Announces EC-Council Certified Ethical Hacker Version 12

© 2022 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

Mon, 10 Oct 2022 19:07:00 -0500 text/html https://www.benzinga.com/pressreleases/22/10/ab29209996/netcom-learning-announces-ec-council-certified-ethical-hacker-version-12
Killexams : European Commission presents report to the European Parliament and Council on the functioning of the EU Securitisation Regulation

Tuesday, October 11, 2022

Executive Summary

  • The Commission has published its review of the EU Securitisation Regulation.

  • The review specified that EU investors should only invest in securitisations which comply with Articles 6 (Risk Retention), 7 (Transparency) and 9 (Credit Granting) of the EU Securitisation Regulation. This effectively means the Commission is of the view that EU investors must verify that a non-EU Securitisation complies with the full transparency and information requirements of Article 7 (see “Jurisdictional Scope: Is this the end of EU-Lite Transactions? – Sell-side Obligations”).

  • The Commission provided certain interpretative clarifications on scope regarding non-EU AIFMs operating within the EU and compliance with the EU Securitisation Regulation (see “Jurisdictional Scope: Is this the end of EU-Lite Transactions? – AIFM Investors”).

  • ESMA has been invited to review and adjust the asset level reporting templates under Article 7 and to consider the creation of a simplified template for the reporting of private securitisations with a focus on information for supervisors (see “Due Diligence and Transparency” and “Private Securitisations”).

  • The Commission determined that no STS equivalence regime will be introduced at this point in time, including in respect of UK STS securitisations (see “STS Equivalence”).

  • The EBA report suggestions to include a sustainable securitisation framework within broader EU Green Bond Standards rather than as a separate framework and to provide for principal adverse sustainability impact disclosures for all securitisations was accepted by the Commission (see “Sustainable Securitisations”).

  • The risk retention requirements remain unchanged, though the Commission may examine the use and efficacy of particular retention methods (see “Risk Retention”).


On 10 October 2022, the European Commission (the “Commission”) published its report (the “Report”)1 to the European Parliament and Council on the functioning of Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 (the “EU Securitisation Regulation”) as required pursuant to Article 46 of the EU Securitisation Regulation. 

The Report comes more than three years after the entry into application of the EU Securitisation Regulation and covers a broad range of issues taking into account issues raised by the European Supervisory Authorities (the “ESAs”)2, an opinion given by the Joint Committee of the ESAs (the “JCO”)3 and a public consultation undertaken by the Commission in preparation for this report (the “Consultation”). Please note that following the UK’s departure from the European Union this report has no effect on the EU Securitisation Regulation as implemented in the UK.4

As a general matter, the Commission stated that it does not see the need for major legislative change at this stage, it has acknowledged there is room for “fine-tuning” in some cases, and has sought to clarify certain aspects of the EU Securitisation Regulation that until now were the subject of some market uncertainty.

The most significant aspect of the Report is the Commission’s interpretation of the jurisdictional scope of the EU Securitisation Regulation, in particular, the Commission directly addressed the applicability of Article 7 of the EU Securitisation Regulation (“Article 7”) and specifically whether EU institutional investors in securitisations issued outside the EU (i.e., where none of the originator, sponsor, original lender or “securitisation special purpose entity” or “SSPE” are established in the European Union (“non-EU Securitisations”)) are required to receive all of the information specified in Article 7 in order to fulfil their due diligence requirements as set out in Article 5(1)(e) of the EU Securitisation Regulation (“Article 5”). As discussed below, this clarification will have a significant impact on non-EU Securitisations which are sold to EU institutional investors.

Jurisdictional Scope: Is this the end of EU-Lite Transactions?

For a number of years, the jurisdictional scope of many of the obligations in the EU Securitisation Regulation have remained unclear. In 2021 the ESAs issued the JCO, considering among other things the jurisdictional scope of the EU Securitisation Regulation, which the Commission has considered in detail.5

Sell-side obligations

There has been some uncertainty in regards to the direct applicability of Articles 6 (Risk Retention), 7 (Transparency) and 9 (Credit Granting) of the EU Securitisation Regulation to non-EU Securitisations. This has resulted in a number of differing interpretations as to whether some or all of these Articles apply to non-EU Securitisations. Many non-EU Securitisations include a covenant to hold risk retention in accordance with Article 6 (Risk Retention) but specifically provide that the securitisation will not comply with the information and reporting requirements of Article 7 (“EU-Lite Securitisations”). The ESAs in the JCO made a number of recommendations to address these issues.

While the Commission did not accept some of the more controversial recommendations of the ESAs, particularly, the recommendation that one of the originator, sponsor, original lender or SSPE (“Sell Side Parties”) must be located in the EU in order for EU competent authorities to enforce the obligations of such parties under the EU Securitisation Regulation, it did clarify the scope of Article 7 and Article 5(1)(e).

Investor Due Diligence Requirements: Can EU Investors invest in EU-Lite Securitisations

The Report’s most impactful statements apply in the context of EU institutional investors investing in non-EU Securitisations.

The Commission specifically referenced the uncertainty around whether EU investors must confirm that the information provided in a non-EU Securitisation complies with the requirements of Article 7 and the related regulatory technical standards regarding Article 7. This would include pre-pricing disclosures, quarterly asset and transaction reporting using the prescribed ESMA templates and event reporting.

While the Commission acknowledged that there have been differing interpretations of Article 5(1)(e), the Commission made it clear that EU investors investing in non-EU Securitisations must ensure that the Sell Side Parties agree to comply with all aspects of the EU Securitisation Regulation prior to investing. The effect of this interpretative guidance is that EU institutional investors may not invest in non-EU Securitisations which do not comply with all the requirements of Article 7.

The Commission stated that the legislative intent was not to create a different scope of information to be provided depending on whether the securitisation is issued by an EU entity or an entity based in a third country, since this fact in itself should not impact the proper performance of diligence by those investors. As such, the Commission’s interpretation is that in order for an EU institutional investor to invest in a non-EU Securitisation, the pre-pricing disclosures and on-going reporting requirements of Article 7 must be complied with in their entirety. This would include reporting of transaction and loan level information using the templates prescribed under the EU Securitisation Regulation and the European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA”) reporting templates.

In order for a securitisation to satisfy the requirements of Article 7 a number of requirements need to be complied with at the securitisation level including, broadly, to provide to investors:

  • a transaction summary (certain offering memorandums will largely satisfy this requirement) and the underlying transaction documentation essential for understanding the transaction;

  • quarterly asset level reporting and investor level reporting completed in the relevant specific template format; and

  • reporting without delay on an ad hoc basis, “significant events”.

For further information on the detail of the transparency reporting requirements, please see our Clients & Friends memorandum “EU Securitisation Regulation Disclosure Templates Published in the EU Official Journal” published on 3 September 2020.6

Market participants should note that the Report is the Commission’s interpretation of  the current legal framework. The Commission sets the policy and legislative agenda for the European Union and its statements and guidance hold significant weight in the interpretation of the EU Securitisation Regulation. It is certain that the ESAs and EU competent authorities will follow any guidance or statements issued by the Commission.  As such EU investors need to consider very carefully any interpretation and guidance provided by the Commission.

AIFM Investors

The Commission also sought to clarify the position regarding alternative investment fund managers (“AIFMs”) as EU institutional investors in securitisations, in particular as to whether non-EU AIFMs managing or marketing an alternative investment fund (“AIF”) in the EU and certain smaller “sub-threshold” AIFMs would be covered by the EU Securitisation Regulation as EU institutional investors.

The Commission clarified that the AIFMs marketing and managing funds in the EU will have to comply with the due diligence requirements for securitisation investments and that such interpretation is not in its view extraterritorial given it is the activity, rather than the entity, that is considered relevant. As such, the EU Securitisation Regulation should apply to non-EU AIFM only in respect of funds marketed in the EU or managed in the EU. This is a welcome clarification from the Commission. The Commission is also going to consider amendments to remove any uncertainty in a future proposal to amend the EU Securitisation Regulation.

As regards sub-threshold AIFMs, the Commission determined that the EU Securitisation Regulation (and related regulation) does not distinguish between larger or smaller AIFMs and therefore sub-threshold AIFMs will be considered EU institutional investors for the purpose of the EU Securitisation Regulation.

Due Diligence and Transparency

As discussed above, under Article 7 SSPEs, originators and sponsors are required to make available transaction documentation in respect of the securitisation and to provide ongoing data by means of standardised reporting templates. Under Article 5(1)(e) of the EU Securitisation Regulation EU institutional investors are also required to verify that the SSPE, originator or sponsor has made such information available.

The Commission acknowledged in the Report that certain respondents to the Consultation found these requirements to be disproportionate in scope, too prescriptive, strict and, in particular, that the requirements fail to take into account whether the particular securitisation is public or private. Respondents suggested that private transactions should have reduced requirements, as investors are actively involved in negotiating private transactions and thus are able to determine the scope of the information they require.

The Commission further acknowledged that it may be necessary to re-visit the scope of the information provided to investors, taking into account any information that investors do not deem relevant or necessary. The Commission requested in the Report that ESMA review the asset level reporting templates to address any difficulties in completing fields, inviting ESMA to potentially adjust the templates to remove unnecessary fields and to more closely align the fields with investors’ needs. Furthermore, the Commission has asked ESMA to consider whether the loan-by-loan information is useful and proportionate to investors’ needs for all types of securitisations (potentially being not required for larger portfolios). 

The Commission’s decision to request a review by ESMA of the asset level reporting templates is a welcome one. Cadwalader has worked with the Loan Market Association (“LMA”) and other industry groups in raising concerns over certain aspects of Article 7 and the corresponding reporting templates. We will continue to work with the LMA and other industry groups to raise these issues with ESMA as they begin the review requested by the Commission.

Private Securitisations

The Commission considered whether the number of “private securitisations” (i.e. a securitisation where the notes are not listed on an EU regulated exchange (as distinct from a multilateral trading facility such as the Euronext Dublin Global Exchange Market) and therefore no prospectus is required to be drawn up in compliance with the Prospectus Regulation7) has increased as a result of the exemption of such transactions from reporting to the securitisation repositories. The Commission at this stage has determined that there is currently insufficient data and intends revisit the question in due course.

The Commission also acknowledged that a number of Consultation responses suggested that template reporting under Article 7 of the EU Securitisation Regulation should not be required for private securitisations given the specific nature of the reporting requirements and the ability of investors in such transactions to request information required on a transaction by transaction basis. However the Commission has maintained the view that template reporting provides information that is sufficiently high in quality while being easy to process.

Notwithstanding that view, the Commission has proposed that for private securitisations, regardless of asset class, there should be a single ESMA template that is tailored particularly to supervisors’ need to gain an overview of the market and of the main features of private transactions. For private securitisations, that single ESMA template would take the place of the existing ESMA reporting templates. We hope that as a result, in the future, private transaction reporting under Article 7 will be simpler and more manageable which may help to mitigate the issues discussed above in respect of non-EU Securitisations.

The Commission also stated that the definition of “private securitisations” should not be amended due in no small part to the lack consensus among market participants as to what the definition should be. Instead, the Commission will look to create a separate template for private securitisation reporting as discussed above.

STS Equivalence

The EU Securitisation Regulation sets out the criteria for “simple”, “transparent” and “standardised” securitisations that must be fulfilled in order to satisfy an “STS” classification, resulting in potential lower risk weighting allocated to the particular securitisation investment. STS securitisations must be issued by an EU entity, however in the Consultation market participants requested that this be expanded to include non-EU issuers.

One suggestion made was the creation of an “equivalence” regime, which would allow non-EU Securitisations to qualify as STS to the extent the standards in the non-EU jurisdiction are sufficiently similar to the EU STS regime. The Commission however considered it “premature” to introduce equivalence. It acknowledged that the UK has a STS regime in place (inherited from the EU Securitisation Regulation as implemented in the UK) but references that the updated on-balance-sheet STS securitisation regime in the EU has not been included in the UK regime.

The Commission has said that it will continue to monitor regulatory developments in third country jurisdictions for potential future equivalence opportunities.

Sustainable Securitisations

Many financial products in Europe are subject to extensive regulation regarding environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) factors, while in the securitisation market, currently only STS securitisations are required to make sustainability disclosures (which may include principal adverse sustainability impact disclosure). Although respondents to the Consultation were generally supportive of information disclosure requirements that would allow them to measure certain ESG factors, respondents also acknowledged that the parameters would potentially not be sufficiently clear in all asset classes for this to be effective.

The Commission considered the European Banking Authority (the “EBA”) report on developing a framework for sustainable securitisation published on 2 March 20228 and certain recommendations of that report were accepted by the Commission such that:

  • given the small number of “green” assets, rather than establishing a dedicated framework for green securitisations, the EU Green Bond Standard (published in July 2021 and not yet final) should be adjusted to cater for securitisations; and

  • principal adverse sustainability impact disclosures currently applicable to STS securitisations (being developed by the Joint Committee of the ESAs) should be developed to cater to all securitisations broadly.

The requirement for further ESG related information will be welcomed by investors (especially those with back-to-back disclosure obligations) however the requirements may cause issues where the underlying asset obligors are not themselves in a position to (or in some cases, required to) provide the information required to be disclosed. It is hoped that the concerns of participants in the Consultation are carefully considered by the EBA and the Commission.

Securitisation Special Purpose Entities (SSPEs)

As required under article 46(h) of the EU Securitisation Regulation the Commission had considered whether a system of limited-licenced-banks could better perform the role currently undertaken by SSPEs in securitisation transactions, but determined that the current framework and use of SSPEs is operating in an adequate manner.  

Risk Retention

Under Article 6 of the EU Securitisation Regulation originators, sponsors, original lenders and (in the case of securitisations of non-performing exposures) servicers are required to hold at least 5 per cent. of the net economic interest in the securitisation. EU institutional investors are also required to verify such risk retention pursuant to Article 5(1)(d) of the EU Securitisation Regulation.

While the Commission did acknowledge that there remains some legal uncertainty as a result of the delay in the adoption of the regulatory technical standards relating to risk retention, at this stage the Commission is not proposing any changes to the risk retention requirements under Article 6.9

The Commission did however leave open the possibility of a future examination as to why and in what circumstances one retention method is favoured over another and how effective each retention method is in retaining a proportion of the transaction.

Third Party Verification of STS Criteria

Under the EU Securitisation Regulation certain third party verification service providers are able to assist market participants by assessing the STS status of a particular securitisation. Only two such service providers exist, with one in particular providing the majority of such verifications.

The Commission considered a potential lack of competition due to regulatory barriers, but determined that this was not the case and has therefore decided not to intervene.

Prudential Treatment of Securitisations

The Commission is in the process of preparing a report which will partly consider the securitisation prudential framework as a whole. Of note here is that the Commission is assessing the appropriateness of the calibration of capital requirements for investments in securitisation tranches by insurance and reinsurance firms (currently in many cases a much higher capital requirement level than holding the underlying asset the subject of the securitisation), however there is no timing specified for the completion of such report.

Significant Risk Transfer (“SRT”)

The Commission has acknowledged the EBA recommendations to simplify and harmonise the process by which SRT is achieved under the Capital Requirements Regulation and will be aiming to make this more efficient, transparent and consistent. No timescale is given for any potential report or amendments.


Many of the determinations and outcomes of the Report are largely welcome, in particular the Commission’s invitation for ESMA to consider potential adjustments to the template reporting format under Article 7 with the purpose of focusing more on the information required for supervisory assessment rather than information not necessarily utilised by investors.

It should be noted however that the interpretation by the Commission of the applicability of Article 7 and Article 5(1)(e) of the EU Securitisation Regulation in respect of non-EU Securitisations may create additional hurdles in respect of the sale of non-EU Securitisations into the EU, at least until a more appropriate reporting regime is created for private securitisations.


1   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2022%3A517%3AFIN&qid=1665402023328.

2   The ESAs are the European Securities and Markets Authority, the European Banking Authority and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority.


4    Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 which forms part of UK domestic law by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as amended by the Securitisation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 of the United Kingdom.

5   For more information on the contents of the opinion please see our Clients and Friends Memorandum dated 29 March 2021: https://www.cadwalader.com/resources/clients-friends-memos/european-regulators-publish-joint-opinion-on-the-jurisdictional-scope-of-the-eu-securitisation-regulation-.

6   https://www.cadwalader.com/resources/clients-friends-memos/eu-securitisation-regulation-disclosure-templates-published-in-the-eu-official-journal

7   Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading


9  For more information regarding the draft risk retention regulatory technical standards please see our Clients and Friends Memorandum dated 26 April 2022: https://www.cadwalader.com/resources/clients-friends-memos/the-eba-publish-final-draft-rts-relating-to-risk-retention-under-the-eu-securitisation-regulation.

David Quirolo, Nick Shiren, Daniel Tobias, and Alexander Collins also contributed to this article.

© Copyright 2022 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLPNational Law Review, Volume XII, Number 284

Mon, 10 Oct 2022 12:00:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.natlawreview.com/article/european-commission-presents-report-to-european-parliament-and-council-functioning
Killexams : City Council rejects purchasing property on northside for affordable housing

In a close vote on Thursday night, La Crosse City Council decided against the purchase of a commercial property to convert into affordable housing units.

The property is located on the northside of La Crosse on Monitor Street and would have been purchased with funds allocated for housing from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). The plan was to add 30 affordable housing units — meaning residents wouldn’t pay more than 30% of their income for rent.

“I think we have a critical need for all types of housing in the city, affordable housing of any sort,” said council member Jennifer Trost, who voted in favor of the purchase on Thursday night as well as in three other committee meetings.

People are also reading…

Seven members voted against the purchase of the property, and six members voted in favor of the purchase. Those who voted against were Andrea Richmond (District 1), Scott Neumeister (District 2), Larry Sleznikow (District 4), Jenasea Hameister (District 5), Chris Kahlow (District 6), Chris Woodard (District 9) and Mark Neumann (District 13).

“The reason I voted against the purchase of the property was number one, the price tag and number two, I don’t think we should be extinguishing all of our ARPA funds right away,” Woodard said. “We have until 2026 to use them up. Who knows what is going to come down the road for the city of La Crosse?”

Woodard said he would support a developer purchasing the Monitor Street property for apartments, but was not comfortable with the city buying it.

The plan was for the city to purchase the property and prepare the land for a developer. The only cost the city would have incurred for the project was the purchase of the property.

“It’s the government coming in and promoting housing in a way that the free market doesn’t always,” Trost said. “There are all kinds of examples of this kind of process. So I see it as one more in a long line of projects like this.”

Many housing projects the city has undertaken have occurred this way. Current projects that have followed this pattern include the River Point District project and the housing project on Fourth and Jackson Street, in Woodard’s district.

“I think that if we were to bring any other [housing] project on at the same time, we might be shooting ourselves in the foot,” Woodard said.

City staff regularly look for properties in La Crosse that the city could purchase in order to carry out one of the missions of the council to provide more housing.

“If this project didn’t meet [council members] criteria, what sorts of projects would,” Trost said. “I think council members who were uncomfortable with this could help city staff be more directed.”

The purchase price for the property is listed at $2,295,000.

The property at 811 Monitor St. is currently zoned for the Industrial Lighting District. Earlier in the meeting the council voted to rezone the property to the Multiple Dwellings District to be suitable for housing. However, the rezoning was conditional to the purchase of the property.

Fri, 14 Oct 2022 06:08:00 -0500 en text/html https://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/city-council-rejects-purchasing-property-on-northside-for-affordable-housing/article_7b051650-4be3-11ed-8cfc-6f6a39ec06c8.html
Killexams : Common Council to get input on grant app

The Oneonta Common Council will host two public hearings during its meeting Tuesday, Oct. 4.

The council will hear from residents about the plan to apply for a $12 million grant through the Restore NY Communities Initiative Round 6 Municipal Grant Program for the demolition and reconstruction of the property at 27 Market Street.

The demolition of the building and the new building are estimated to cost $16 million. The grant program requires a local match, which is $4 million, the resolution said.

The second public hearing relates to a change in Common Council meetings, which would allow a member of council to attend the meeting via videoconference “under extraordinary circumstances.” The law is in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and would allow council members who has a “disability, illness, caregiving responsibilities, or any other significant or unexpected factor or event which precludes the member’s physical attendance at such meeting” to attend via videoconference, the resolution said.

Earlier this year, the state legislature passed an amendment to Section 103 of the Open Meetings Law that permits public bodies to let their representatives attend meetings by videoconferencing if they pass a resolution doing so.

In addition to the two public hearings, the council will discuss a resolution to change the rules pertaining to off-campus housing for fraternities, sororities and other associations. Council members discussed the resolution during its Sept. 20, meeting and decided it needed further discussion during their next meeting.

“The proposed revision to section 300-34 ‘Fraternity, sorority and membership association houses’ is intended to update and clarify the language to ensure the permitting process satisfies the legislative intent,” city Administrator Greg Mattice said in an email to The Daily Star.

Code Enforcement Officer Stephen Yerly said during the Sept. 20, meeting, “We want to allow the council to be representative of communities that are saturated with fraternity and sorority housing as all members represent a different ward.”

The council will also vote on applying for a $300,000 grant from the state Department of Environmental Conservation to install electric vehicle charging stations at the parking garage, the agenda said.

According to the agenda, the council will also discuss the lower Wilber Park basketball court.

Tue, 04 Oct 2022 02:02:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.thedailystar.com/news/common-council-to-get-input-on-grant-app/article_cdb587c2-4332-11ed-9962-cbd1010ec424.html
Killexams : Council deletes proposed pet ordinance from agenda

SIOUX CITY -- The Sioux City Council unanimously voted Monday to delete from its agenda the second studying of an ordinance that would have treated other domestic animals the same as dogs and cats. 

"Public input has been very negative on this," Assistant City Attorney Steven Postolka told the council, before recommending the item be deleted. 

If it had been approved, the ordinance would have expand the definition of "domestic animals" to any species that "normally is bred, raised, and is accustomed to live in or about human habitation." The list of domesticated animals would have included, but not been limited to, dogs, cats, snakes, lizards, rodents, rabbits, ferrets, and birds. 

The city currently allows no more than three dogs or cats, with a limit on no more than two of the same species. For example, residents can own two dogs and one cat or two cats and one dog.

People are also reading…

"We do have tools in terms of if keeping pets is a danger to public health. Obviously, we have our inspections ordinances, red tag ordinances, things of that nature," Postolka told the council. "If we have a situation, as occurred previously, where there's a large number of snakes at a residential complex and they're being bred for profit, zoning laws would come into play there, too."

During its Oct. 3 meeting, the council voted in a split decision on first consideration, in favor of the ordinance. The initial studying of the ordinance passed 3 to 2, with Matthew O'Kane and Alex Watters casting "no" votes. Three readings are required before any ordinance can pass.

The new household limits on pets were proposed after 58 snakes were removed from a townhouse at 4624 Harrison St. on July 11. Animal control officers took them after one of the 50 ball pythons escaped from an enclosure in Parker Moos' home and the owner of the adjoining townhouse found it in her garage and called police. Ball pythons are among the species classified under city code as dangerous animals, and are not permitted within city limits.

On July 26, authorities returned 50 ball pythons to Moos, who found a temporary home for them at a rural residence near Lawton, Iowa. He previously told The Journal he still has three king snakes and about a dozen corn snakes at his townhouse. Such non-venomous snakes are both permitted under city code.

The Council, by voting in favor of its consent agenda, approved a subordination agreement, which will allow a Georgia-based developer to obtain the necessary financing needed to transform the former Sioux City Hotel & Conference Center into an upscale downtown senior living facility.  

Chris Myres, economic development specialist for the city, previously told The Journal that there is an old development agreement on the property and that Heritage Bank won't provide Amera SL of Sioux City financing for the project unless the subordination agreement is approved. 

According to city documents, on Sept. 21, 2015, the city council entered into a development agreement with Star Hospitality, LLC, the former owner of the property. The agreement conveyed the city-owned former escalator atrium space to Star Hospitality and required that they invest $160,000 to Excellerate the space and maintain it as a functional portion of the hotel. 

"Only very minor renovations were made to the atrium space prior to the hotel property's sale to Amera SL of Sioux City, LLC. Due to lack of maintenance, the atrium space is now in a state of extreme disrepair," the documents stated.

Tue, 11 Oct 2022 05:36:00 -0500 en text/html https://siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/sioux-city-council-nixes-pet-ordinance-proposal-from-agenda/article_115aba8d-4c70-5f51-9f4d-7d0c535e8ec6.html
Killexams : Lynchburg business owner seeks at-large seat on city council

Larry Taylor has had one message throughout the Lynchburg City Council campaign season: Bring the local government back to the people.

“I want to be [on council] to look the people in the eyes and say, ‘Talk to me, I’m here for you,’” Taylor, a local business owner and career carpenter, said in a accurate interview.

This year is the third time Taylor has pursued a seat on council, having run both times prior to represent Ward II. Taylor was defeated by Ceasor Johnson in 2012 and by current Ward II Councilman Sterling Wilder in 2020.

“It’s the love of people, you know. Even in 2012 and 2020, it’s the same story. They say ‘Larry, who is serving us downtown?’ My desire is to serve the people and bring the government back to the people. The Constitution says ‘we the people,’ not ‘they’re the people.’”

People are also reading…

Council is made up of seven members, four of whom represent the city’s four wards and three of whom are chosen at large. This year, the three at-large seats will be on the ballot, with the three highest vote-getters earning four-year terms.

Taylor joins other new candidates Patrick Earl, Marty Misjuns, Stephanie Reed and Walter Virgil Jr., as well as incumbents Treney Tweedy and Beau Wright on the ballot, rounding out all of the candidates for this November’s election.

Taylor, along with Misjuns and Reed, have been endorsed by the Lynchburg Republican City Committee.

A 34-year resident of the city, Taylor operates his own construction company, Larry Taylor Restoration. He said he still can remember coming to the city for the first time looking to build something for himself.

“I was lost. I had lost a job, but I had tools left and a 10-speed bicycle. I would ride to the job sites on my bicycle with my tool belt on,” Taylor said.

Now, Taylor said, he wants to give back to the city that gave him a place to grow.

Taylor’s main priority is public safety, citing accurate criminal activity in Lynchburg as proof that current leadership isn’t working.

“We’ve had quite a few robberies in the last few weeks, stabbings, open-air shooting. Is crime down? It doesn’t sound like crime is down to me,” Taylor said. “We need to be able to prosecute our criminals, not just say, ‘Here’s a slap on the wrist and go home.’ They need to be straightened up or they’re going to jail.”

In accurate campaign events, Taylor has said the city needs to make criminals “uncomfortable,” especially in neighborhoods like his own, White Rock Hill, which he has called “crime-ridden.”

In addition to what he has called “proactive policing,” Taylor has advocated better community relations when it comes to public safety, saying “it starts in the home” in regards to building a community that follows the law.

Additionally, Taylor believes the same approach will work with the school system, saying, “Discipline starts at home. We need to teach our parents ... that you do not allow your kids to go to school and disrupt classrooms.

“Our teachers get paid, but I don’t think they get paid enough to be subject to children in that way.”

During town halls and in a accurate interview, Taylor said he would completely support elected school boards in Lynchburg.

“Friendship is fine, but friendship is not always right,” Taylor said about the current appointment process for the Lynchburg City School Board. “We’ve got to give that decision back to the people.”

Taylor also is focused on economic development. His neighborhood is home to KDC/One, which announced in June it will be closing its Lynchburg facility at the end of 2023.

“We’re losing KDC,” Taylor said. “We need to have a plan in place right now that when that place closes, we have another business ready to come into that neighborhood.”

In a prior town hall, Taylor said he would “take the lead” on finding businesses that would be interested in opening up shop in the neighborhood, if he is elected.

The White Rock Hill neighborhood is special to Taylor, beyond the fact that he’s a resident.

Just a couple of years ago, Taylor said, he took a plot of land where a derelict house sat in that neighborhood and went through the demolition process.

On that land now sits a community playground used by many residents in the neighborhood. And soon, Taylor said he has plans to expand the park into an adjacent lot that currently has a derelict house.

That’s the mentality he said he wants to bring to city council.

“I’m a doer,” Taylor said. “... Let’s get this done for the people.”

Fri, 14 Oct 2022 03:09:00 -0500 Bryson Gordon en text/html https://newsadvance.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/lynchburg-business-owner-seeks-at-large-seat-on-city-council/article_522a63c6-4b24-11ed-8432-af6ac70ec91c.html Killexams : Los Angeles leader in racism scandal resigns Council seat

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The former president of the Los Angeles City Council resigned from public office Wednesday, three days after a recording surfaced of her making racist remarks in a meeting that is now the subject of a state investigation.

Nury Martinez, the first Latina to hold the top post on the council, announced her decision in a press release following a groundswell of outrage and calls for the resignations of her and two other council members involved in the conversation recorded last year.

Martinez made racist remarks about the Black son of a white councilman and other crude comments.

Her resignation statement did not address those comments, though in words directed at her daughter she said she had fallen short of expectations recently and added: "I vow to you that I will strive to be a better woman to make you proud.”

The announcement was made several hours after Attorney General Rob Bonta said he would investigate Los Angeles’ redistricting process that the three council members discussed with a labor leader in which they schemed to protect Latino political strength in council districts.

Martinez had stepped down as president Monday while still holding onto her council seat. Her decision to give up her seat came as President Joe Biden was due to arrive in Los Angeles a day after he condemned the remarks and called on all three council members — Martinez, Kevin de Leon and Gil Cedillo — to resign.

Bonta, a Democrat like the three council members, said his investigation could lead to civil liability or criminal charges, depending on what is found.

“It’s clear an investigation is sorely needed to help restore confidence in the redistricting process for the people of LA,” he said.

Bonta spoke in Los Angeles while the council tried unsuccessfully to conduct business nearby amid the uproar that exposed City Hall’s racial rivalries. Those involved in the leaked conversation were all Latinos, while Bonta is the first Filipino American to hold the top law enforcement job in the nation’s most populous state.

The council reconvened Wednesday, possibly to censure the three members, but it was unable to do business because a crowd of about 50 protesters drowned out the acting president chanting slogans such as, “No meeting without resignation.”

A minimum of 10 out of 15 members necessary for a quorum had assembled, but the meeting was adjourned when one left. None of the three embattled council members showed up.

“Who shut you down? We shut you down!” the raucous crowd cheered as the lights were being turned down.

Acting Council President Mitch O’Farrell said that with no sign of anger subsiding, he didn't think the council could resume its work until all three are gone, which he said is inevitable.

“For Los Angeles to heal, and for its City Council to govern, there must be accountability," he said in a statement. "I repeat my call on Councilmembers de Leon and Cedillo to also resign. There is no other way forward.”

The council cannot expel members — it can only suspend a member when criminal charges are pending. A censure does not result in suspension or removal from office.

In the recorded conversation, Martinez called council member Mike Bonin a “little bitch.” She described the behavior of his Black son on a parade float when he was 2 as “parece changuito,” or “like a monkey,” the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday.

At another point on the hourlong recording, Martinez called indigenous immigrants from the Mexican state of Oaxaca ugly, and made crass remarks about Jews and Armenians.

Martinez made history in 2019 when she became the first Latina elected to the council presidency and described herself as “a glass-ceiling shattering leader who brings profound life experience as the proud daughter of working-class immigrants” on her website. She is the daughter of Mexican immigrants and was born and raised in the San Fernando Valley.

The discussion with a powerful Latino labor leader, who has since resigned, centered on protecting Latino political power while redrawing council district boundaries. The once-a-decade redistricting process can pit one group against another to gain political advantage in elections.

Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor who previously was a member of the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission, said she did not see evidence in the recordings that would prompt criminal charges, although Bonta left open that possibility.

However, she said a probe could force redrawing council districts even though the current maps are being used to choose new council members next month.

“It is so rare to have audio where … it gives the impression that they’re explicitly drawing lines on the basis of race,” Levinson said. “If in the end we determine these lines were illegally drawn, there needs to be a remedy for that, even though practically ... it’s a disaster.”

Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer has called for creating an independent commission to draw redistricting maps.

“It should be clear to everyone by now that if you leave in the hands of elected officials the power to determine their own political districts, this is a recipe for conflict of interest and it is an invitation to backroom deals,” Feuer said.

The Los Angeles Times reported that the recording was posted on the social medial site Reddit by a now-suspended user. It is unclear who recorded the audio, who uploaded it to Reddit and whether anyone else was present at the meeting.

Thompson reported from Sacramento. Associated Press writers John Antczak and Amancai Biraben in Los Angeles, Sophie Austin in Sacramento and Julie Watson in San Diego contributed to this report.

Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

Wed, 12 Oct 2022 11:36:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.news-gazette.com/news/nation-world/los-angeles-leader-in-racism-scandal-resigns-council-seat/article_7a1751e2-a545-55cf-9efe-afe524e0ec51.html
Killexams : UN Security Council splits, again, over North Korea missiles

Debate over how to handle a North Korean ballistic missile launch over Japanese territory split an already deeply fractured U.N. Security Council on Wednesday, with Russia and China insisting that U.S.-led military exercises in the region had provoked North Korea into acting.

Wednesday’s session ended with no agreement on next steps, despite warnings from the U.S. and its allies that the council’s inability to reach consensus on North Korea’s record number of missile launches this year was emboldening North Korea and undermining the authority of the United Nations' most powerful body.

”This council should be mindful that it is being tested and its credibility is at stake. This council should act, and produce an action that restores its credibility,” said Hiroshi Minami, Japan's deputy representative to the U.N. and one of those unsuccessfully urging the council back into its formerly unified stand over North Korea’s launches.

People are also reading…

North Korea’s missile flight Tuesday was its longest-range weapons test ever, a nuclear-capable ballistic missile that soared over Japan and had enough punch to reach the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam and beyond. It forced the Japanese government to issue evacuation alerts and halt trains.

The U.N. said the North Korea’s unprecedented number of ballistic missile launches this year, now numbering more than 40, comes as North Korea also appears to be moving toward a seventh test nuclear blast. Early Thursday, North Korea launched two ballistic missiles toward its eastern waters just 22 minutes apart, officials said.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is pushing to develop a fully fledged nuclear arsenal capable of threatening the U.S. mainland and the territory of U.S. allies, with a goal of wresting concessions from those countries, some experts say.

Tuesday's launch was the first that Kim has aimed over Japan since 2017. It came within days of a U.S.-led military exercise in the Sea of Japan with allies Japan and South Korea. The exercise included a nuclear-powered U.S. aircraft carrier.

Russia’s deputy U.N. representative, Anna Evstigneeva, insisted to Security Council members that it was the “irresponsibility” of that U.S.-led exercise, along with growing U.S. alliances with partners in the Asia-Pacific region, that prompted North Korea’s action.

China’s deputy U.N. representative, Geng Shuang, depicted the matter as a confrontation between the U.S. and North Korea, and urged a more conciliatory approach by Washington.

Wednesday’s session ended only with a vague call for more discussion on the matter. It served as the latest example of a growing polarization pitting Russia and China against fellow permanent Security Council members the United States, United Kingdom and France.

Brought to the forefront by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China’s military assertiveness in the Asia-Pacific region and the U.S. response to it, and other matters, the divide has paralyzed the Security Council on many key actions. That’s because all five permanent members have the power to veto council actions.

The Security Council imposed sanctions after North Korea’s first nuclear test explosion in 2006, and tightened them over the years seeking to rein in its nuclear and ballistic missile programs and cut off funding.

In May, however, China and Russia blocked a Security Council resolution that would have toughened sanctions over the missile launches, in the first serious rift on the council over the sanctions against North Korea.

Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., told Security Council members Wednesday that “two permanent members of the Security Council have enabled Kim Jong Un.”

Past missile launches this year had clearly been launched without any concurrent U.S. military exercises or any other clear triggers, Thomas-Greenfield said, calling North Korea's a “self-initiated escalation.”

“We won’t tolerate any country blaming our defensive actions…as somehow the inherent cause of these threats,” she said. She added, “The United States will not stand by as the DPRK directly threatens” the U.S. or its allies.

Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

Wed, 05 Oct 2022 11:25:00 -0500 en text/html https://omaha.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/un-security-council-splits-again-over-north-korea-missiles/article_ec1a6b5d-c40e-5a34-97d9-2d98e2e37b90.html
ECSAv10 exam dump and training guide direct download
Training Exams List