Latest news with #OfficeoftheInspectorGeneral
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Student-athletes allegedly sexually harassed at Haskell Indian Nations University: Report
LAWRENCE (KSNT) – Federal officials have released the results of an investigation into claims of sexual harassment at a local university. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) with the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) released a report on May 5 regarding an investigation into claims of sexual harassment against a Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) employee. The employee was accused of sexually harassing student-athletes associated with the Haskell Indian Nations University Women's Basketball team. The OIG reported that its investigation found the employee allegedly made comments of a sexual nature and crude jokes to students. The OIG also found the employee allegedly made unwelcome physical contact with at least one student and that students felt uncomfortable with going to the athletic training room to receive treatment. The employee's alleged actions violated the DOI Personnel Bulletin and the Haskell Standard Operating Procedures handbook, according to the investigation's findings. Lastly, the OIG said the employee's supervisor and other staff knew about the alleged harassment but did not report it as required by the DOI Personnel Bulletin or Haskell Standard Operating Procedures. Kansas ranchers hit hard by cattle theft operations The OIG forwarded its findings to the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts and the BIE for review. You can find the summary of this report on the OIG's website by clicking here. For more crime news, click here. Keep up with the latest breaking news in northeast Kansas by downloading our mobile app and by signing up for our news email alerts. Sign up for our Storm Track Weather app by clicking here. Follow Matthew Self on X (Twitter): Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - ‘Politics' is not a valid reason to abort the TSA's Quiet Skies program
The Trump administration announced on June 5 that it is ending the Transportation Security Administration's Quiet Skies program. Launched in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Quiet Skies focused on surveilling and tracking people based on their behavior and other information that made them an elevated risk to the air system. Issues cited to support its termination include its costs and purported ineffectiveness in identifying any terrorists. However, the real reason may be that the administration believed it was misused by the Biden administration, targeting former President Joe Biden's adversaries while giving his friends a free pass. Let's put the politics aside. Although the program certainly required long-overdue adjustments, as prior investigations by the Office of the Inspector General recommended, it complete abandonment is not in the interest of securing the nation's air system. The TSA's federal air marshal program and Quiet Skies program are closely intertwined. Air marshals are strategically deployed on the ground (including at airports) to make behavioral observations of passengers, and on flights based on the risk profile of its passenger pool. The federal air marshal program has been under scrutiny for some time. Given that the team of air marshals must be deployed to cover flights that are deemed high risk, scheduling them has made their utilization challenging. Many serve on international flights with origination and destinations around the world, often demanding they work long hours, which makes it difficult to schedule much-needed downtime. Since there have been no reports of federal air marshals apprehending any suspected bad actors on flights based on the Quiet Skies watch list, some may argue that in the interest of saving money (to the tune of $200 million annually), it would be reasonable to end Quiet Skies entirely. That is like saying a community should cut its fire department because it has never put out any fires. It is shortsighted at best. Indeed, the effectiveness of the Quiet Skies and federal air marshal programs may lie in their deterrence benefit — admittedly can be challenging to quantify — and the unpredictability that they inject into aviation security operations. Moreover, since the Transportation Security Administration's aviation security strategy embodies a disparate collection of layers — some of which are highly visible, like the physical screening operations at airport security checkpoints, and some of which are hidden from most travelers, like risk-based security strategies including the Secure Flight program — the law of unintended consequences means that removing any one layer must be done thoughtfully and cautiously. David Pekoske was relieved of his duties as the TSA administrator in January, meaning the organization has been rudderless, without significant changes made, ever since. If strategic or tactical changes are to be made, a new administrator should be in place to ensure that the new protections are appropriate to maintain the security of the air system, while serving the best interests of all travelers. Past assessments of the Quiet Skies program have uncovered many deficiencies. Yet none of the points raised have captured the deterrence benefit of maintaining a Quiet Skies watchlist and deploying federal air marshals on flights based on such information. The issue of concern here is when reasons for its dismantling are based on poorly framed justifications, including politics. In the current divisive climate in Washington, politics has become the backstop reason anytime one party wants to change something that they perceive has had a negative effect on them or a positive benefit for their opposition. Clearly, changes in the federal air marshal and Quiet Skies program have been needed for some time. Sunsetting the Quiet Skies program before the TSA had the opportunity to fully address and vet all such concerns is premature. The agency not having a permanent administrator in place further exacerbates an already tenuous decision. With one fewer security layer now available, the air system may indeed be no more risky, as the secretary of Homeland Security claims. It is, however, difficult to believe that it will be more secure. Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a professor of computer science in the Grainger College of Engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He applies his expertise in data-driven risk-based decision-making to evaluate and inform public policy. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
10 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
‘Politics' is not a valid reason to abort the TSA's Quiet Skies program
The Trump administration announced on June 5 that it is ending the Transportation Security Administration's Quiet Skies program. Launched in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Quiet Skies focused on surveilling and tracking people based on their behavior and other information that made them an elevated risk to the air system. Issues cited to support its termination include its costs and purported ineffectiveness in identifying any terrorists. However, the real reason may be that the administration believed it was misused by the Biden administration, targeting former President Joe Biden's adversaries while giving his friends a free pass. Let's put the politics aside. Although the program certainly required long-overdue adjustments, as prior investigations by the Office of the Inspector General recommended, it complete abandonment is not in the interest of securing the nation's air system. The TSA's federal air marshal program and Quiet Skies program are closely intertwined. Air marshals are strategically deployed on the ground (including at airports) to make behavioral observations of passengers, and on flights based on the risk profile of its passenger pool. The federal air marshal program has been under scrutiny for some time. Given that the team of air marshals must be deployed to cover flights that are deemed high risk, scheduling them has made their utilization challenging. Many serve on international flights with origination and destinations around the world, often demanding they work long hours, which makes it difficult to schedule much-needed downtime. Since there have been no reports of federal air marshals apprehending any suspected bad actors on flights based on the Quiet Skies watch list, some may argue that in the interest of saving money (to the tune of $200 million annually), it would be reasonable to end Quiet Skies entirely. That is like saying a community should cut its fire department because it has never put out any fires. It is shortsighted at best. Indeed, the effectiveness of the Quiet Skies and federal air marshal programs may lie in their deterrence benefit — admittedly can be challenging to quantify — and the unpredictability that they inject into aviation security operations. Moreover, since the Transportation Security Administration's aviation security strategy embodies a disparate collection of layers — some of which are highly visible, like the physical screening operations at airport security checkpoints, and some of which are hidden from most travelers, like risk-based security strategies including the Secure Flight program — the law of unintended consequences means that removing any one layer must be done thoughtfully and cautiously. David Pekoske was relieved of his duties as the TSA administrator in January, meaning the organization has been rudderless, without significant changes made, ever since. If strategic or tactical changes are to be made, a new administrator should be in place to ensure that the new protections are appropriate to maintain the security of the air system, while serving the best interests of all travelers. Past assessments of the Quiet Skies program have uncovered many deficiencies. Yet none of the points raised have captured the deterrence benefit of maintaining a Quiet Skies watchlist and deploying federal air marshals on flights based on such information. The issue of concern here is when reasons for its dismantling are based on poorly framed justifications, including politics. In the current divisive climate in Washington, politics has become the backstop reason anytime one party wants to change something that they perceive has had a negative effect on them or a positive benefit for their opposition. Clearly, changes in the federal air marshal and Quiet Skies program have been needed for some time. Sunsetting the Quiet Skies program before the TSA had the opportunity to fully address and vet all such concerns is premature. The agency not having a permanent administrator in place further exacerbates an already tenuous decision. With one fewer security layer now available, the air system may indeed be no more risky, as the secretary of Homeland Security claims. It is, however, difficult to believe that it will be more secure. Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a professor of computer science in the Grainger College of Engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He applies his expertise in data-driven risk-based decision-making to evaluate and inform public policy.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Trump's new budget bill hides an assault on hospice
President Trump's 'big beautiful bill,' which passed the House with almost unanimous Republican support on May 22, mandates $500 billion in cuts to Medicare. This is a cruel assault on some of the most vulnerable Americans that will strip them of vital health care services. It will also take an axe to hospice, which relies on Medicare reimbursement to function. Since 1982, when Medicare first began covering hospice, Americans have turned to it for essential end-of-life services that address the specialized needs of the dying and allow for death with dignity. Our current system doesn't always run perfectly and would benefit from greater funding and support. I know this because when my mother was 99.5 years of age and less than six months away from her death, medical staff at our local hospice agency determined she was not, in fact, dying soon enough. Presumably adhering to Medicare guidelines, they callously discontinued our hospice services. The abrupt cessation of care prompted my debilitated mom's eviction from an assisted living facility. The chaotic aftermath necessitated medicine, schedule and equipment adjustments for her and delivered a massive blow to me, her primary caregiver. Fewer resources means this financially draining and emotionally wrenching situation will become more common — perhaps even the norm. The shifting demographics make the picture even bleaker. The U.S. is a rapidly aging population, with the number of Americans ages 65 and older expected to more than double over the next 40 years. At a time when we should be buttressing hospice services, our government is threatening to starve them. According to the Office of the Inspector General, 'About 1.7 million Medicare beneficiaries receive hospice care each year, and Medicare pays about $23 billion annually for this care.' Hospice is an interdisciplinary service that provides everything from pain relief to spiritual support to medication management to dietary consulting to mobility equipment to bereavement counseling. While the price tag may sound hefty and our current administration would like us to believe that public services are an unbearable financial burden, an investigation published in the Journal of American Medical Association Health Forum found that hospice saves Medicare money. Research shows that hospice significantly benefits dementia and cancer patients at the end of their lives. On May 19, 2025, the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society published a study of 51,300 assisted living residents that concluded, 'Higher frequency of hospice staff visits was associated with better perceived hospice quality. Policies supporting greater hospice staff engagement, including nonclinical staff, may enhance end-of-life care experiences for assisted living residents.' The report matters because the findings illuminate the humane need for both clinical and nonclinical treatment that provides for medical and emotional support as life ends. We all heard President Trump campaign on promises to protect Medicare, but Richard Fiesta, executive director of the advocacy group Alliance for Retired Americans, describes the ongoing national budget scene as 'an all-out assault on Medicare and Medicaid that will hurt older Americans in every community across the country.' And Shannon Benton, the executive director of the Senior Citizens League, another advocacy group, now warns that the potential Medicare cuts could lead to lower reimbursement rates. This would be disastrous for millions of Americans and would threaten to eradicate end-of-life care as we know common belief, hospices are not run by volunteers. Volunteers might become part-time visitors or assistants for a variety of tasks, but hospice administrations are led by professionals who are evaluated on financial performance and organizational viability. Palliative care is free to recipients and families and available at all income levels, but hospices are businesses, and they must raise sufficient funds through donations, gifts, bequests and reimbursements to compensate employees, repay loans, cover operating costs, and plan for exigencies. Simply put, much of that money comes from Medicare. Specialized care for the dying was introduced to the U.S. in 1963, when Yale University's then dean Florence Wald invited Dame Cicely Saunders of the U.K. to participate in a visiting lecture at Yale. At that time Saunders said, 'We will do all we can not only to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die.' Four years later, in 1967, Saunders created St. Christopher's Hospice in the U.K. Later, in 1974, Florence Wald founded Connecticut Hospice in Branford, Connecticut — America's first hospice. Within five years and after several national conferences, the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare acknowledged that hospices provided alternative care programs for Americans losing their lives to terminal illnesses. Federal hospice regulations were drafted. In 1982, Medicare added hospice care to its benefits, and in 1985, Medicare hospice coverage became permanent. With that, the U.S. recognized the right of its citizens to die with dignity. Forty years later, our government has signaled that a rollback of that right may be on the horizon. Eventually, my mother died in a highly regarded long-term care complex without hospice support and with no prescribed opioids. It was an unnecessarily excruciating death that exacerbated my and my family's grief. The trauma we suffered was destabilizing and healing from it was slow and difficult. If Trump's Orwellian-named 'big beautiful bill' passes the Senate, I fear our experience will have been an ugly preview of what is to come.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Yahoo
Investigation launched into Tory Lanez prison stabbing
An investigation is underway after Tory Lanez was stabbed in prison, The Post can confirm. A representative from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation told The Post exclusively that 'an investigation has been initiated' by the California Correctional Institution, the state's prison system where Lanez is behind bars. We're also told that the state's prison-oversight agency, the Office of the Inspector General, 'has been notified' about the incident. The Kern County District Attorney's Office will be ready to step in if investigators find a reason to pursue charges against any of the involved parties, with a spokesperson telling The Post, 'Our office awaits a formal complaint following the investigation.' The rapper, 32, whose real name is Daystar Peterson, was stabbed on Monday morning by another inmate at the Tehachapi prison where Lanez is serving 10 years after being convicted of shooting Megan Thee Stallion in 2020. 'At approximately 7:20 a.m. today, Daystar Peterson ([inmate number] BW0168) was attacked by another inmate at a housing unit in the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi. Staff immediately responded, activated 911 and began medical aid. Peterson was subsequently transported to an outside medical facility for further treatment,' the CDCR spokesperson confirmed to The Post. The representative also handed out Lanez's mug shot, taken in October 2023, which he said is the 'latest photograph' of the rapper. It was likely taken when he entered the Tehachapi facility. After the stabbing, Lanez was taken to a nearby hospital in Bakersfield, California, via an ambulance and treated for non-life-threatening injuries, according to TMZ, which first broke the story. At this time, the motivation behind the attack remains unclear. The Post reached out to Lanez's rep for comment but did not immediately hear back. On Thursday, the 'Alone at Prom' rapper shared a photo on Instagram of him with fellow inmates in jail, and teased that he's dropping an album soon. 'UPDATE : 2025 …. IYKYK . LESS IMPORTANT UPDATE : 2ND ALBUM 100 % RECORDED, MIXED & MASTERED NEW ALBUM. NEW GENRE : S—-Y BASS SUMMER 2025,' he wrote. Lanez was taken into custody immediately following his conviction in December 2022. He was found guilty of three felonies: assault with a semiautomatic firearm, having a loaded and unregistered firearm in a vehicle and discharging a firearm with gross negligence. Megan, 30, took the stand during his trial and emotionally detailed her lasting scars from being shot by Lanez after leaving a party at Kylie Jenner's home on July 12, 2020. The 'WAP' rapper testified that Lanez fired the gun at her feet and shouted for her to 'dance b—-' as she exited and began walking away from the vehicle they were both riding in. She also claimed that Lanez offered her a whopping $1 million to keep quiet. Megan was forced to undergo surgery to remove the bullet fragments that were lodged in her feet. The Grammy winner took a beating from the hip-hop community after coming clean about the shooting, with several in the music industry showing their public support for Lanez. Megan was granted a five-year restraining order against Lanez in January after claiming he was still harassing her during his incarceration. 'I feel like maybe he'll shoot me again, and maybe this time I won't make it,' she reportedly stated in her request. The restraining order is effective until 2030. Lanez will be eligible for parole in 2029.
