LAURA MENDES AMANDO DE BARROS
Auditoria democrática: instrumento de controle social na Administração Pública brasileira
Tese apresentada à Banca Examinadora de Pós- Graduação em Direito, da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de São Paulo, como exigência parcial para a obtenção do título de Doutora em Direito, na área de concentração Direito do Estado, sob a orientação do Professor Doutor Gustavo Justino de Oliveira.

 

LAURA MENDES AMANDO DE BARROS
Democratic Auditing: An Instrument of Social Control in Brazilian Public Administration
Thesis presented to the Examining Board of Postgraduate Studies in Law, Faculty of Law, University of São Paulo, as a partial requirement for obtaining the title of Doctor of Law, in the area of ​​concentration State Law, under the guidance of Professor Gustavo Justino de Oliveira.

 

MINT, Myriad. The Democratic Audit of Australia. Your Democracy. 19 maio 2005. Disponível em: <http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/1035>. Acesso em: 7 jul. 2017.

7123712_Tese_Parcial.pdf

 

LAURA MENDES AMANDO DE BARROS

Doctor and Master in State Law from the University of São Paulo. Specialist in 'Local Authorities and the State' from the École Nationale d'Administration - ENA, Paris, France; in Civil Procedural Law from the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo and in Public Law from the Paulista School of Magistrates of São Paulo. Scientific coordinator of the Journal of Third Sector Law. Vice-coordinator of the Center for Studies and Research in Democratic Administrative Law of the University of São Paulo - NEPAD/USP. Attorney for the Municipality of São Paulo. Former Comptroller General of the Municipality of São Paulo. Professor at Insper.

 

=====================

 

If you’ve done any volunteering, looked into work with NGOs (non-governmental organizations) or researched not-for-profits, you’ll have interacted with the third-sector without even realising it. 

But what exactly does the phrase mean? What sort of organisations does it cover? And what sort of careers are available in it? We’ve put together a guide answering all of these questions and more.

What does the third sector mean?

The third sector covers charity and voluntary work, and is also known as the ‘not-for-profit’ industry. The organisations it includes are neither public (owned by the state) or private (owned by individuals), which is where the name third sector comes from. Registered charities, social enterprises, cooperatives, research institutions and NGOs all fall into this category.

In order to be classified as third-sector, an organisation must fulfil the following three conditions:

• Non-governmental: They cannot be owned or controlled by the state. That said, they will often cooperate with the government, and might receive state funding.
• Not-for-profit: While they must have a way of covering their own operational costs (e.g. staff wages, rent, advertising), third-sector companies should put their profits towards the improvement of society, rather than their founders’ personal gain.
• Socially focused: Third-sector organisations should be driven by a vision of improving the social or environmental landscape. Their focus may include human rights, environmental sustainability or education services, amongst other things.

Which organisations are included in the third sector?

The third sector is extensive; in England and Wales there were over 168,237 registered charities in 2018! Most of these organisations are SMEs (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises), but the UK is also home to several national and international projects. We’ve listed a selection of examples of Third-Sector Organisations (TSOs), which you can explore further by following the links to their own webpages.

https://www.oxfordscholastica.com/blog/career-preparation-articles/what-is-the-third-sector/

 

READ FROM TOP.

PLEASE VISIT:

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

         WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….

 

The Dishonest Politics Club

By Margo Kingston

 

[2013] IA republishes in full the Australians for Honest Politics chapters of Margo Kingston's book 'Still Not Happy, John!', as well as reams of documents released by the AEC.

Abbott's initial letter to the AEC about the Australians for Dishonest Politics Trust. Did he mislead a Government agency, and therefore commit a crime, by saying he obtained legal advice before setting up the Trust? CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO READ EXTENSIVE DOCUMENTATION FROM AEC.

AFTER THE PUBLICATION of my book Not Happy, John! in 2004, former Liberal Party staffer Christian Kerr, then political correspondent for Crikey, told me the ʻAustralians for Honest Politicsʼ chapter was dynamite, ʻthe most importantʼ in the book.

"But it wonʼt get followed up," I asked him, "will it?"

"No," he replied.

Christian did his best in ʻTony Abbott's unholy dealings with the AEC’ — but Abbott is something of a protected species in Australian politics. When push comes to shove, press gallery heavies circle the wagons around Tony and our supposed electoral watchdogs file him away in the bottom drawer.

As recently as December 17 last year, The Monthly aptly described ʻa scandalous lack of curiosityʼ in the media about the Ashby scandal — just the latest attempt by Liberal Party players to use the courts to destroy their political opponents.

Abbott has relentlessly pursued Prime Minister Gillard over what is, in the end, an allegedly misleading letter she sent – before entering politics, as a lawyer – to the Western Australian corporate watchdog. He said she had committed the crime of misleading a government body, while failing to produce the evidence or to refer his allegation to the police. Instead, he demanded that she prove her innocence and promised a judicial inquiry — once he had taken her job.

 

Abbott's promise to Terry Sharples that he would not be left out of pocket did not, according to him later, entail any promise of monetary compensation. CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO READ MORE DOCUMENTATION RELEASED BY AEC.

Yet he has not called a press conference – or even agreed to an interview – to discuss and answer serious questions about the involvement of senior liberal figures in the Ashby case, and has assiduously avoided accounting for his actions and knowledge about the affair. Last week, for instance, he almost ran from a press conference that was ostensibly about the surplus when someone asked him a question about Ashby.

The Liberals have a long history of using the courts to destroy their political rivals, as Mike Seccombe reported in his ʻTricks of the tradeʼ article in the Sydney Morning Herald in 2003. They nearly wrecked the Western Australian Democrats, and Abbottʼs backers funded the beginning of the case that would eventually see Hanson sent to jail — until her harsh conviction was quashed on appeal.

There are many similarities between the Abbott/Hanson scandal and the Ashby affair. Both involved moles in the camps of opponents. Both see the use of these moles to take court action designed to financially and politically ruin those rivals. The funding for both stings remains shrouded in mystery. As Party leaders, Howard and Abbott fobbed off questions about what they knew; and as protagonists, Abbott and Brough initially lied about their involvement. And the media, as a whole, does not want to investigate.

The two chapters of my book about Tony Abbottʼs inaptly named Australians for Honest Politics Trust are a character study of the alternative Prime Minister, which I hope Australians of all political stripes will take the time to read. They show he is a serial liar, thinks nothing of misleading a government watchdog, holds ordinary Australians in contempt, and believes his financial backers should remain a secret from the Australian people.

There are several Liberal frontbenchers, "small l" liberal and "big C" conservative, who are strong, ethical, open and worthy of asking the Australian people to lead them. I hope that the Liberal Party will ensure that Abbott is removed as leader, and replaced with one of these women or men, for the sake of all of us.

Thank you to Penguin for giving Independent Australia permission to publish two chapters of Still Not Happy, John! Defending our Democracy (2007). For now, we are publishing the PDF's. IA hopes to have these chapters in e-book format soon. Penguin will also be publishing the entire book as an e-book in the near future.

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-dishonest-politics-club,4843

 

========================

 

Tony Abbott's role in Pauline Hanson's imprisonment

 

A common claim is that Tony Abbott had nothing to do with Pauline Hanson's imprisonment. That is not entirely accurate, but the reality is more nuanced than some people suggest.

To be clear, Abbott did not prosecute Hanson, convict her, sentence her, or send her to prison. Those decisions were made by Queensland authorities, a jury and the courts.

However, Abbott was a leading opponent of One Nation in its early years and openly worked against the party. He helped establish the Australians for Honest Politics Trust*, which supported legal challenges against One Nation. While Abbott was not involved in the judicial process itself, he was certainly part of the broader political campaign against Hanson and her party.

Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge were later convicted on electoral fraud charges. Hanson spent 78 days in prison before the Queensland Court of Appeal overturned the convictions, finding that the legal basis for them could not be sustained (surprise, surprise!)

Some argue that hers was a politically-motivated jailing. Others argue that the case was simply the enforcement of electoral law and that the successful appeal reflected a legal error rather than political influence.

Whatever view you take, Abbott was not the person who jailed Hanson. But it is equally difficult to argue that he played no role at all in the events surrounding One Nation during that period.

*The Australians for Honest Politics Trust was a secret political fund established in 2003 by then-Workplace Relations Minister Tony Abbott. It raised approximately $100,000 to privately finance civil court cases against Pauline Hanson's One Nation party, which ultimately led to Hanson's temporary criminal conviction for electoral fraud.

Key Details of the Trust:

* Purpose: To weaken a political rival. The legal actions were designed to expose alleged electoral fraud in One Nation's registration in Queensland, effectively neutralizing the party as an electoral threat.

* Controversy: Abbott consistently refused to publicly reveal the identities of the donors who contributed to the fund.

Abbott did not push the final domino, but he was among those helping to push the first ones.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1497621008117980/posts/1669726834240729

 

=======================

 

READ FROM TOP.

PLEASE VISIT:

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

         WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….