Latest news with #apportionment
Time of India
14 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
Public toilets in Swachh city to get tech tonic for real time hygiene monitoring
Indore: In a significant technological upgrade, Indore city plans to transform 350 public and community toilets with Internet of Things (IoT) capabilities to enhance user experience and monitor water consumption and waste handling in real time. Indore Municipal Corporation (IMC) has launched a tender process to convert these facilities into smart spaces. The initiative aims to monitor visitor numbers, air quality, odours, water tank levels, complaints and waste management whilst incorporating public feedback. The sophisticated IoT system will monitor over 12 predetermined parameters, primarily focusing on sanitation, hygiene, and water management. The system will generate alerts to staff across hierarchical levels if issues remain unresolved within specified time frame. "We are implementing IoT across public toilets to improve hygiene standards and monitor vital parameters in real-time, enabling efficient problem resolution," said IMC additional commissioner Abhay Rajangaonkar. He said, "This will reduce water wastage, ensure timely cleaning, and minimise manual oversight. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Following the tender process, implementation should commence within a month. All toilet data will integrate into our portal, generating real-time alerts for relevant officials." The issuance of a work order to contracted party is underway and the work on the IoT platforms for the public toilets is expected to start in a month's time. The installed sensors will detect water leakages from tanks, unpleasant odours, and cleanliness-related concerns. According to the contract specifications, the selected party will manage and maintain these IoT-enabled facilities for 60 months. Previously, IMC had equipped 120 city toilets with odour-detecting sensors. IMC is also considering to include other tech solutions and platforms to improve efficiency and enhance public experiences across sectors. Recently, the corporation sought proposals from IIT Indore and Mumbai to conduct a source apportionment study for Indore to identify the sources of pollution and emission inventory.
Yahoo
14-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump administration sued after taking down public spending tracker
The Trump administration was accused of breaking the law in a recent lawsuit after taking down a website meant to show the public how federal funding is disbursed to agencies. A new lawsuit filed in federal court in D.C. accused the Trump administration of violating federal law last month when the online database overseen by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 'went dark, without explanation.' 'Congress mandated prompt transparency for apportionments to prevent abuses of power and strengthen Congress's and the public's oversight of the spending process,' the complaint reads. 'Absent this transparency, the president and OMB may abuse their authority over the apportionment of federal funds without public or congressional scrutiny or accountability.' The suit cites legislation enacted during the Biden administration that required the budget office to make such 'apportionments' of congressionally approved funding public. Under the apportionment process, agencies are given limited authority to spend funding allocated by Congress in installments. The Hill has reached out to the OMB for comment. The lawsuit, brought by nonprofit Protect Democracy Project, names OMB and its director, Russell Vought, as defendants. The group argued Monday that the apportionment disclosures provide 'the only public source of information on how DOGE (Trump's Department of Government Efficiency) is being funded — information that Congress and journalists have used in reporting and oversight.' The move comes as Democrats have been sounding alarm over the removal of the website in recent weeks, accusing the Trump administration of unlawfully hiding how agencies are directed to spend allocated funding. Vought said in a letter last month that was shared and criticized by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, that the agency determined it could 'no longer operate and maintain this system because it requires the disclosure of sensitive, predecisional, and deliberative information.' 'By their nature, apportionments and footnotes contain predecisional and deliberative information because they are interim decisions based on current circumstances and needs, and may be (and are) frequently changed as those circumstances change,' the letter stated. But the Government Accountability Office (GAO) also took issue with the Trump administration's argument in a letter addressed to Vought last week that Democrats say confirms the site's removal is unlawful. 'We understand that OMB took down the website taking the position that it requires the disclosure of predecisional, and deliberative information,' the letter from the congressional watchdog stated. 'We disagree.' The GAO notes that 'apportionments are legally binding decisions on agencies under the Antideficiency Act' and said 'such information, by definition, cannot be predecisional or deliberative.' 'OMB also noted that apportionments may contain sensitive information which, if disclosed publicly automatically, may pose a danger to national security and foreign policy,' the GAO continued. 'While there may be some information that is sensitive if disclosed publicly, it is certainly not the case that all apportionment data meets that standard.' It also noted what it described as a 'statutory requirement for OMB to post the apportionment data on a public website' in previous legislation passed in recent years. The lawsuit is the latest challenge the Trump administration has faced over the move. The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington also sued the Trump administration after the OMB's apportionments page was taken down. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
14-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump administration sued after taking down public spending tracker
The Trump administration was accused of breaking the law in a recent lawsuit after taking down a website meant to show the public how federal funding is disbursed to agencies. A new lawsuit filed in federal court in D.C. accused the Trump administration of violating federal law last month when the online database overseen by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 'went dark, without explanation.' 'Congress mandated prompt transparency for apportionments to prevent abuses of power and strengthen Congress's and the public's oversight of the spending process,' the complaint reads. 'Absent this transparency, the president and OMB may abuse their authority over the apportionment of federal funds without public or congressional scrutiny or accountability.' The suit cites legislation enacted during the Biden administration that required the budget office to make such 'apportionments' of congressionally approved funding public. Under the apportionment process, agencies are given limited authority to spend funding allocated by Congress in installments. The Hill has reached out to the OMB for comment. The lawsuit, brought by nonprofit Protect Democracy Project, names OMB and its director, Russell Vought, as defendants. The group argued Monday that the apportionment disclosures provide 'the only public source of information on how DOGE (Trump's Department of Government Efficiency) is being funded — information that Congress and journalists have used in reporting and oversight.' The move comes as Democrats have been sounding alarm over the removal of the website in recent weeks, accusing the Trump administration of unlawfully hiding how agencies are directed to spend allocated funding. Vought said in a letter last month that was shared and criticized by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, that the agency determined it could 'no longer operate and maintain this system because it requires the disclosure of sensitive, predecisional, and deliberative information.' 'By their nature, apportionments and footnotes contain predecisional and deliberative information because they are interim decisions based on current circumstances and needs, and may be (and are) frequently changed as those circumstances change,' the letter stated. But the Government Accountability Office (GAO) also took issue with the Trump administration's argument in a letter addressed to Vought last week that Democrats say confirms the site's removal is unlawful. 'We understand that OMB took down the website taking the position that it requires the disclosure of predecisional, and deliberative information,' the letter from the congressional watchdog stated. 'We disagree.' The GAO notes that 'apportionments are legally binding decisions on agencies under the Antideficiency Act' and said 'such information, by definition, cannot be predecisional or deliberative.' 'OMB also noted that apportionments may contain sensitive information which, if disclosed publicly automatically, may pose a danger to national security and foreign policy,' the GAO continued. 'While there may be some information that is sensitive if disclosed publicly, it is certainly not the case that all apportionment data meets that standard.' It also noted what it described as a 'statutory requirement for OMB to post the apportionment data on a public website' in previous legislation passed in recent years. The lawsuit is the latest challenge the Trump administration has faced over the move. The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) also sued the Trump administration after the OMB's apportionments page was taken down.
Politico
27-01-2025
- Politics
- Politico
Will Trump's immigration crackdown come for the census?
TOP LINE Donald Trump is quietly reigniting a fight over the Census that could have major implications for power and policy — including the reapportionment of House seats and billions in federal funding. Trump pushed hard to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census — which critics argued would discourage people from participating, even if they are in the country legally — with the ultimate goal of excluding immigrants in the country illegally from the count for apportionment. Historically, that's not how it's been done; the 14th Amendment requires House seats be apportioned by 'counting the whole number of persons in each State,' and non-citizens have never been excluded from apportionment totals. Adding the question was litigated heavily, with the Supreme Court ultimately ruling that the Trump administration could not do so, largely on procedural grounds. Had Trump won this fight it would have been hugely consequential. The census is a massive, constitutionally-mandated undertaking that has a dramatic effect on American politics — resetting the number of House seats (and therefore the number of Electoral College votes) each state gets and directing billions of federal dollars. The Trump administration pivoted to issuing an executive order demanding that government agencies produce 'administrative records' to determine the number of non-citizens, and a memorandum 'on excluding illegal aliens' from apportionment, which drew yet another lawsuit. (The Supreme Court punted on this one.) This was all mostly moot, because the pandemic significantly delayed the release of census data until well into Joe Biden's term, and he revoked both of those decisions on his first day in office, issuing his own executive order saying apportionment numbers should be produced 'without regard to immigration status,' in line with historical practice. But now Trump is back — and on his first day this term, Trump revoked Biden's apportionment order. The White House, the Census Bureau and the Commerce Department (which oversees the Bureau) did not respond to questions about Trump's plan on the census and citizenship. But advocates who fought Trump's first push on citizenship and apportionment fear he'll try again.'I expect that this second Trump administration will pursue that again, to the detriment, I believe, of having a decennial census that's able to be as complete and accurate as possible,' said Arturo Vargas, the chief executive officer for the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials and the chair of the 2030 Census Advisory Committee. The outcome of this fight can have major implications. A Pew Research report from before the release of the 2020 census data estimated that excluding unauthorized immigrants would cost Texas, Florida and California a House seat that each state otherwise would have if every person is counted. And outside of apportionment, some scientific organizations opposed pushes to add a citizenship question to the census because it could 'undermine participation' and 'ultimately diminish the quality and utility of decennial census data.' Trump's administration could still have long-term sway over how it is conducted in 2030 and beyond, even though he won't be in office. Preparations for the census is a decade-long project. And federal law requires proposed census questions to be submitted to Congress two years before it is conducted, within Trump's term. Other Republicans have also been pushing to exclude noncitizens. The GOP-controlled House passed a bill that would have done so last Congress. And in the waning days of the Biden administration, a quartet of Republican states attorneys general sued to exclude some non-citizens in apportionment. The states sought an order from the courts that any apportionment calculation that 'does not use the best available methods to exclude illegal aliens and nonimmigrant aliens' is unconstitutional, and asked the Department of Commerce and the Census Bureau to include questions about citizenship on the 2030 census. An early sign on how the Trump administration plans to proceed with the 2030 count will be their response to this lawsuit. Danedri Herbert, a spokesperson for Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, who is one of the leaders of the suit, said they are gearing up for a fight ahead of the 2030 count. 'The case may take two years if it goes to the Supreme Court, and the relief will need to be in place before the 2030 Census begins,' Herbert said. Happy Monday. Thank you to Zach for today's Topline. Call me, beep me at amutnick@ and @allymutnick. Days until the 2025 election: 282 Want to receive this newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. You'll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day's biggest stories. CAMPAIGN INTEL STAYING PUT — Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) decided not to run for governor in New Mexico, saving Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer 'the trouble of a future Senate vacancy.' It was Trump's first week in office that tipped the scales, per Semafor's Burgess Everett. Heinrich said of the governor's race: 'There was a while where I was leaning heavily that way. And this week in particular has made me feel really good about the importance of, at the very least, the next four years here.' RETURNING HOME — Former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, a Democrat, is eyeing a return to Georgia politics, per WSB-TV. When asked what she might be interested in seeking: 'Well, there will be a governor's race on the ballot.' MONEY MOVES — Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) 'raised $1 million across his reelection, leadership and joint fundraising committees,' in the fourth quarter of 2024, per Punchbowl News' Max Cohen. He's facing a tough primary challenge after voting to convict Trump in his second impeachment. TAKING A STAND — A coalition of Democratic and progressive groups, led by Arena, a training organization, released a 'Democratic Power Building Pledge' and called on DNC chair candidates to sign it. The pledge urges leaders to commit to building a permanent organizing infrastructure, invest in training and retaining campaign staff, and increase diversity in the party. POLL POSITION GARDEN STATE — Emerson College Polling/PIX11/The Hill released a poll of the 2025 New Jersey governor race that found 56 percent of Democratic primary voters undecided. Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.) had the most with 10 percent, followed by New Jersey Education Association President Sean Spiller and Newark Mayor Ras Baraka with 8 percent each. The poll of 437 likely voters was conducted Jan. 18-21 and has a margin of error of +/- 4.6 percentage points. IN THE LEAD — Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) 'would be the 'clear frontrunner' in the 2026 GOP primary for governor if she decided to run, Donald Trump's longtime pollster tells' Axios' Marc Caputo. 'The fact that Tony Fabrizio is polling for Blackburn indicates that she's seriously thinking about leaving the U.S. Senate next year.' QUOTE OF THE DAY 'If post-2016 was like a sort of street fight — a little bit sloppy, a lot of wild swinging — then I think 2025 has to be more like the close -quarters combat that I learned in the Army, which is like a mix of jiu-jitsu and judo and a few other things where you're using your enemies' mistakes against them,' Rep. Pat Ryan (D-N.Y.) told Playbook.
