Latest news with #publicfunding
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Concerns over ‘wasted' money on admin and consultants
Concerns have been raised about public money being 'wasted' on admin and consultants to deliver vital projects across the West Midlands. Members of the West Midlands Combined Authority's (WMCA) Overview & Scrutiny Committee were told hundreds of thousands of pounds were not being effectively used due to constraints placed on grants received. Ed Cox, Deputy Chief Executive & Executive Director for Strategy, Economy & Net Zero, said since 2016 the authority has been funded by different Government departments giving around 90 grants for specific purposes. But he said, for some projects, the funding awarded would have to be spent within short time scales resulting in the need to outsource the work as they wouldn't be able to appoint staff within the period. In April this year, WMCA was one of just two English regions to receive an Integrated Settlement of £389 million as well as transport funding of £211 million. From 2026/27 it will become a multi-year settlement which bosses say will bring in even more control and flexibility over how funding is spent. At the meeting, members heard how 'government administration costs' saw £700,000 extracted from the £70 million Commonwealth Games Legacy Enhancement Fund. They also heard how £127,400 was spent on consultants to carry out an evaluation of the WMCA Job Rotation Pilot in Coventry. Mr Cox said: 'We have had to receive each individual grant with these terms and conditions and then try to spend it according to a timeline the Government department has dictated to us. 'Because of a limited time frame, we couldn't start appointing staff to do that properly or building our own capacity to do it. 'So the way you've got to do it is get consultants in to do it and we end up with these projects. 'We have consistently said to Government this is no way to treat a serious regional body led by democratic authorities and led by the Mayor. 'We need a better way in which to fund mayoral combined authorities so they have started to make that transition with the Integrated Settlement. 'We're in the first year of that and they've done that for around 20 different grants out of the 90 and now coming together in this year and we're able to be a bit more strategic in the way we fund things.' He added: 'We've had three items on the (meeting) agenda, all of which have been about relatively small amounts of money from relatively short term periods that are given by Government with particular strings attached. 'The way in which they are given to us means we have to spend a disproportionate amount, on other forms of consultancy, simply because there are no other ways to deliver them in that time frame. 'It's a waste of public money, to be frank about it, because we could be building up the capacity of our local authorities or ourselves to do this.'
The Guardian
6 days ago
- Science
- The Guardian
Large language models that power AI should be publicly owned
Large language models (LLMs) have rapidly entered the landscape of historical research. Their capacity to process, annotate and generate texts is transforming scholarly workflows. Yet historians are uniquely positioned to ask a deeper question – who owns the tools that shape our understanding of the past? Most powerful LLMs today are developed by private companies. While their investments are significant, their goals – focused on profit, platform growth or intellectual property control – rarely align with the values of historical scholarship: transparency, reproducibility, accessibility and cultural diversity. This raises serious concerns on a) opacity: we often lack insight into training data and embedded biases, b) instability: access terms and capabilities may change without notice, and c) inequity: many researchers, especially in less-resourced contexts, are excluded. It is time to build public, open-access LLMs for the humanities – trained on curated, multilingual, historically grounded corpuses from our libraries, museums and archives. These models must be transparent, accountable to academic communities and supported by public funding. Building such infrastructure is challenging but crucial. Just as we would not outsource national archives or school curriculums to private firms, we should not entrust them with our most powerful interpretive technologies. The humanities have a responsibility – and an opportunity – to create culturally aware, academically grounded artificial intelligence. Let us not only use LLMs responsibly but also own them responsibly. Scholarly integrity and the future of public knowledge may depend on Dr Matteo VallerianiMax Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin, Germany Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Arab News
7 days ago
- Business
- Arab News
Europe's innovation and tech decline is a cautionary tale
Mario Draghi, the former European Central Bank president, briefly grabbed headlines last September when he pinpointed the root cause of Europe's economic stagnation. 'The EU is weak in the emerging technologies that will drive future growth ... This is an existential challenge,' he wrote in a report. But, as a recent Wall Street Journal report pointed out, Draghi used the opportunity to emphasize the necessity of public funding — complemented by private capital — to spur Europe's lagging tech sector. That conclusion felt counterintuitive in the sense that the US has built a flourishing tech and innovation ecosystem largely through private investments and a culture of risk-taking. So, what are the pitfalls that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and other leading destinations for advanced tech companies should avoid? One of the biggest and most obvious is overregulation. Europe's complex and fragmented rules burden startups with red tape and high compliance costs. Instead of creating an even playing field, the rules often end up helping the same US tech giants that Europe is trying to restrain because they can afford the legal teams and resources to navigate the system. Decision-making is also painfully slow. Getting venture funding approved can take more than a year in some European countries — an eternity in the fast-paced tech world. Compare that with the US, where nimble funding cycles mean entrepreneurs can get ideas off the ground in weeks, not months. Another major roadblock is Europe's fragmented market. Dozens of languages, different legal systems and inconsistent tax regimes make growing a business across the Continent a logistical nightmare. In contrast, a startup in the US has instant access to a vast, unified consumer base under one set of rules. The EU talks a lot about a 'digital single market,' but the reality is still at odds with the rhetoric. Cultural attitudes also play a role. The general consensus is that there is a deeply ingrained aversion to risk in present-day Europe. This is reflected in rigid labor laws, long notice periods, and strict hiring and firing rules. Unlike Silicon Valley, where failure is often seen as just a fact of life, European entrepreneurs often do not get a second chance. That makes people less likely to try bold ideas in the first place. Then there is the venture capital gap. Europe's VC scene is not just smaller, it is also more conservative. Investors often impose unrealistic terms on founders, taking too much equity and leaving them with little control or motivation. The result? Many of Europe's best startups either pack up and move to the US or get acquired before they can grow into global giants. Instead of nurturing homegrown innovation, European policymakers have focused on regulating and fining Big Tech, particularly US firms. While accountability is important, this focus on policing has meant that Europe has not built many champions of its own. The new EU AI Act, for instance, aims to lower risk and enforce ethical standards, but could very well end up stifling experimentation and pushing cutting-edge innovation elsewhere. The US thrives thanks to its light-touch regulations. Arnab Neil Sengupta Europe also suffers from talent drain. It produces world-class engineers and scientists, but many leave for better opportunities in the US or China. High taxes, complex labor rules, and the lack of financial incentives make it harder to retain top talent. Until recently, stock options were taxed so heavily in many European countries that they were hardly worth offering at all. Startups that do get off the ground face slow adoption and evolution. Customers, funders and regulators are all slower to respond than in the US, making it tough to maintain momentum. Many of Europe's best-known tech firms — Spotify, DeepMind, Skype — either moved abroad, got sold to US companies, or partnered with foreign giants. Very few have grown independently into global players. Europe had early success in semiconductors, mobile phones, and chipmaking through companies such as Nokia, ARM, and ASML. But slow decision-making and underinvestment let others take the lead. Today, the Continent is lagging behind in critical areas such as AI, quantum computing, and cloud infrastructure. Instead of nurturing a dynamic private investment landscape, many European governments have been pinning their hopes on public spending programs. But it is private capital — faster, more flexible, and more demanding — that plays a crucial role in spurring innovation. Without it, many startups remain stuck in the early stages of development. Numerous analysts, policy institutes and think tanks have argued that Europe's 'regulate first' approach discourages innovation and limits its appeal to global investors. Meanwhile, the US thrives thanks to its light-touch regulations, strong intellectual property protections, and a culture that celebrates hard-charging entrepreneurs. The US also benefits from something harder for competitors to create: an interconnected innovation ecosystem. Universities, entrepreneurs, investors, and tech companies all feed into each other and contribute to invention and growth. Europe has pockets of excellence, but lacks the same level of synergy and enthusiasm. The EU's Draghi was right to call this an existential challenge. But the answer is probably a mindset shift rather than excessive dependence on government funding. No matter how diverse Europe's views on the appropriate balance between regulation and market freedom, any region that wants to keep pace with technology must prioritize speed, reward risk-takers, simplify regulation, and let private capital do what it does best. Had Europe emerged as an innovation powerhouse full of companies providing strong competition to US Big Tech, the world would have been better off. But the truth is, no systematic attempt has been made at course correction. Unless it shifts gears quickly, Europe will continue to serve not as a rival to US and Chinese tech dominance, but as a cautionary tale of missed opportunities.
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Perspective: The St. Isidore stalemate is a missed opportunity in America's education wars
The Supreme Court's 4-4 deadlock in the case of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School represents far more than a procedural hiccup — it's a perfect encapsulation of America's paralysis when it comes to the explosive intersection of religion, education and public funding. By splitting evenly on whether Oklahoma could fund the nation's first religious charter school, the court avoided making hard choices about fundamental constitutional principles. But this non-decision may prove more consequential than any ruling, leaving educators, policymakers and families navigating an increasingly treacherous legal landscape with no clear map. At its core, the St. Isidore case pitted two bedrock constitutional principles against each other in ways that illuminate the broader culture wars consuming American education. The proposed Catholic virtual school sought to operate as a charter school while maintaining an explicitly religious curriculum, complete with Masses, instruction on Catholic doctrine, and the freedom to hire based on religious preference. This wasn't subtle religious influence— it would be unapologetically sectarian education funded by taxpayer dollars. The school's supporters, including the Oklahoma charter school board, framed this as simple equal treatment under law. They pointed to recent Supreme Court victories where the justices ruled that states cannot exclude religious institutions from generally available public benefits solely because of their religious character. If Oklahoma already funds charter schools 'focused on science, engineering, math, fine arts, language immersion, and tribal identity,' they argued, excluding religious institutions amounts to discrimination against people of faith. This argument has gained considerable traction in recent years as conservative legal organizations have systematically challenged what they see as hostility toward religion in public life. The Supreme Court's increasingly religion-friendly approach under its conservative majority has emboldened advocates who view strict church-state separation not as constitutional principle but as anti-religious bias. For them, St. Isidore represented the next logical step: if religious institutions can receive indirect government funding through voucher programs, why not direct funding through charter school contracts? But Oklahoma's Republican attorney general, Gentner Drummond, made an equally compelling case from the opposite direction. Charter schools, he argued, are fundamentally public institutions created by state law, funded with taxpayer dollars, subject to state curriculum standards and required to serve all students regardless of background. They can be shuttered by the state for poor performance, their boards must follow open-meetings laws, and their teachers can join state retirement plans. In Drummond's view, allowing St. Isidore to proceed would create something unprecedented in American law: a government-funded Catholic school operating under direct state contract — a clear violation of the Constitution's prohibition on state-sponsored religion. The case exposed deep fractures not just between religious liberty advocates and church-state separationists, but within the school choice movement itself. Mainstream charter school advocates found themselves opposing St. Isidore, worried that mixing religion with charter schools would change what makes charters work —their identity as public schools that offer alternatives to traditional districts while staying accountable to taxpayers. Justice Amy Coney Barrett's decision not to participate — likely due to her close friendship with a school advisor — created the mathematical possibility for this deadlock, but the 4-4 split reveals something more significant about the court's internal dynamics. Legal experts speculate that Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in opposing the school, despite his authorship of pro-religious liberty opinions in recent years. If true, this suggests that even some conservative justices recognize limits to how far the pendulum should swing toward religious accommodation. The idea that the government must fund religious education represents such a dramatic departure from traditional American church-state relations that it may have pushed too far even for justices generally sympathetic to religious liberty claims. The distinction between allowing religious institutions to participate in neutral government programs and requiring the government to fund explicitly religious instruction may prove to be a bridge too far for the court's swing votes. This deadlock also highlights the complexity of defining public versus private institutions in an era of increasing public-private partnerships. Charter schools exist in a constitutional gray area —publicly funded but privately operated, subject to some state oversight but granted significant autonomy. This ambiguity, which has fueled the charter school movement's explosive growth, becomes deeply problematic when fundamental constitutional principles collide. The broader implications extend well beyond charter schools. The line between public and private becomes increasingly blurred as government partnerships with religious organizations expand across American social policy. During oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito focused on comments made by Drummond opposing St. Isidore's application, when the attorney general noted that approving the school would mean the board would also have to approve religious charter schools operated by minority religions. Alito suggested this showed 'hostility' to certain faiths, referencing how the court had previously ruled against government officials who showed bias against religious believers. Alito also worried that if religious charter schools were deemed government entities, it could affect other faith-based services that receive government funding, like Catholic Social Services or Catholic Charities. The justices grappled with hypothetical scenarios that revealed the complexity of the issue. Justice Elena Kagan described a potential school in a Hasidic community in New York that wanted to adopt a curriculum focused on ancient religious texts, with instruction in Yiddish or Hebrew. Would New York have to approve this charter school, she wondered, even though the curriculum would be dramatically different from standard public education? The state wanted charter schools to offer flexibility, but a ruling for St. Isidore could require funding all kinds of religious schools. Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt's immediate response to the ruling —dismissing it as a 'non-decision' and vowing to keep fighting —signals that this issue is far from settled. 'There will be another case just like this one and Justice Barrett will break the tie,' he said in a statement. 'This is far from a settled issue.' Legal experts across the spectrum agree the question will return to the court, likely within the next few years, when Barrett will presumably participate and potentially cast the deciding vote. The stakes will be even higher then, as a definitive ruling could reshape not just education policy but the fundamental relationship between religious institutions and government funding. As one legal expert noted, if the court rules for religious charter schools, it could mean that federal law governing charter schools and virtually all state charter school laws would be unconstitutional, because they require charter schools to be non-religious. Until that moment arrives, the St. Isidore deadlock represents a missed opportunity for clarity at a crucial juncture in American education and religious liberty. The court avoided making controversial precedent, but it also left critical questions unanswered about whether America's commitment to religious pluralism requires funding religious education or whether constitutional principles demand maintaining secular public schools. The culture wars over education will continue to rage with no clear rules of engagement and no end in sight, ensuring that communities, courts, and consciences remain divided for years to come. Asma T. Uddin writes on legal issues on her Substack 'Rights & Ruminations' and on love and health on 'The Architecture of Care.'
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Cavs, Guardians concerned about sin tax with Browns plan to build dome
CLEVELAND (WJW) – The FOX 8 I-Team has found the Cleveland Cavaliers and Cleveland Guardians now talking about more money for their stadiums. This comes in the midst of a firestorm over public funding to help the Browns build a dome in Brook Park. The Haslam Sports Group plans to spend more than $1 billion on the $2.4 billion project. The team is proposing a public, private partnership and asking for public money, including $600 million from the state. That's money the state would borrow in bonds and profits from the project would be used to pay back the bond debt. Council meeting about Cleveland Heights mayor turns contentious, ends abruptly A decision on that funding is expected in the next few weeks. State Senator Jerry Cirino told the I-Team that lawmakers are taking 'a careful and deliberate look at it.' Now, the owner of the Guardians and the group managing Rocket Arena are writing to local leaders about their concerns with the county sin tax. The I-Team obtained copies of the letters that were sent to the Greater Cleveland Partnership on May 21. 'As you are probably aware, the Sin Tax is an existing excise tax that is used by Cuyahoga County, through the Gateway Economic Development Corporation of Greater Cleveland, to fund major capital repairs on the publicly owned arena. In exchange, we make annual rent payments and fund capital repairs and maintenance expenses under S500K associated with the arena. Both the capital repair and lease payment responsibilities are dictated by the current lease we have in place with Gateway. This is all relevant because, as you may be aware, Sin Tax revenue has not kept up with the expenses it was originally intended to cover. Essentially, the county and the city are forced to rely on 1990 dollars to pay for 2025 expenses. In partnership with the city and the county, we have worked with the other professional sports teams in Cleveland, local business leaders, the Greater Cleveland Partnership, and the state of Ohio to improve the current Sin Tax mechanism so that it can become the sustainable source of funds it was originally intended to be,' the letter from Nic Barlage, Rock Entertainment Group CEO states. 'To be clear, these activities have been as transparent and inviting as possible to ensure the inclusion of all interested parties, while allowing for flexibility and thoughtful collaboration. We have worked hard to build consensus through a vision of mutual benefit rather than through pressure. 'Our approach was working. Policymakers locally and in Columbus acknowledged the value of our work and indicated support for allowing the people of Cuyahoga County to determine whether the Sin Tax should be updated to account for today's costs. 'Despite months of work toward achieving a solution that could accommodate venue needs well into the future, it has recently become clear that this positive momentum is at risk. The optimism conveyed in GCP's 'World-Class Stadiums and World-Class Waterfronts' statement obscures the complex political considerations involved with the Cleveland Browns' planned move to Brook Park and silences the impact of these considerations on the public-private efforts to modernize the Sin Tax. We believe, based on our engagement locally, that a Sin Tax modernization effort, which is intertwined with the Brook Park plan and strips local control from the decision-making process, undoing decades of precedent, is doomed to fail-leaving all worse off. Merging the issues of the future home of the Browns (which we have been and will remain neutral on) with the Sin Tax is not only problematic because it imperils our fundamental ability to modernize the Sin Tax through a ballot initiative, but also because (i) there is a clear lack of consensus among members on the issue, and (ii) a comprehensive and transparent discussion of the issues has not occurred with either the executive committee or the broader board. Given all of this, we are left with the unshakable impression that the interests of all GCP members are not equal, which belies the basic principles of partnership.' Guardians owner Paul Dolan also sent a similar letter outlining his concerns about the sin tax, which is a tax on beer, wine and cigarettes to help pay for major repairs to Cleveland sports stadiums. The letter from Dolan adds, 'we believe it is essential the future needs of Progressive Field are also prioritized.' Guardians pitcher Ben Lively out the rest of the season, needs surgery The Browns are not counting on the sin tax to help with construction of the enclosed stadium project in Brook Park, but the Browns have always been in favor of continuing the current approach that shares the Sin Tax proceeds across the three teams in the county. A spokeswoman with Cuyahoga County sent us the following statement: 'The sin tax covers capital repairs for all three stadiums. Money goes to Gateway for Progressive Field and The Rocket Arena and to the City of Cleveland Stadium Fund for the Browns Stadium. Our agreement is with the City of Cleveland and not the Browns. We collected $13,293,716.47 in 2024 from the sin tax. One-third went to the City of Cleveland for the benefit of the Browns. The other 2/3 benefits Gateway facilities (Progressive Field and Rocket Arena). Per Ohio Revised Code, sin tax can only be used to fund capital related items. All payments are made on behalf of capital repair expenditures or debt services related to those expenditures. ' Meanwhile, the letters we obtained about the sin tax come just months after another big investment in the ballpark and Rocket Arena. The city and the county were asked for an 'extra' $40 million. Money for major repairs that are separate from major renovations. Late last year, Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne spoke of finding a better way to fund the sports stadiums long-term. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
