Vermont Business Magazine The Greater Burlington Multicultural Resource Center, organizers of the annual Burlington Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr Remembrance, have announced that Ilyasah Shabazz – civil right activist, author, and 3rd daughter of Malcolm X – will deliver the 2016 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr Day keynote address on Sunday, January 17, at 3PM at the First Unitarian Universalist Church at 152 Pearl Street in Burlington. Shabazz is known for her memoir, Growing up X for which she won the NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Nonfiction Literary Work. At the event, the Greater Burlington Multicultural Resource Center with honor this year’s recipients of the 2016 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Award: Jan Demers, Executive Director of the Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity (CVOEO), for her work helping homeless and economically disadvantaged community members; and Jay Diaz, Public Advocate for the ACLU of Vermont, for his untiring work to promote stability, access and equal opportunity to low income Vermont children.Ilyasah ShabazzThe event is free and open to the public, though tickets are required. Free tickets may be obtained at both Fletcher Free Library and City Market in Burlington. This event is made possible though sponsorship from the City of Burlington, United Way of Chittenden County, KeyBank, NBT Bank, Champlain Housing Trust, Spruce Mortgage, People’s United Bank, Church Street Market Place, Leonardo’s Pizza, the Law Office of Robert Appel and the Vermont Office of Economic Opportunity.As part of Burlington’s annual Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Remembrance, the public is also invited to attend a panel discussion Racial Profiling, A Community Response on Monday, January 18, at 3PM at the Echo Science Center. The panel includes Stephanie Seguino, T.J. Donovan, Bill Lippert and Yacobre Bogre, and will be moderated by Robert Appel. The January 18 event is free to attend and no tickets are required.JANUARY 13, 2016 (South Burlington, VT): The Greater Burlington Multicultural Resource Center
Pursuant to Standing Board Policy 1.60, the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar hereby publishes this notice of intent to consider or take final action at its December 14 meeting in Amelia Island on the following items. These matters are additionally governed by Rule 1-12.1, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, where applicable. Most amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar that are finally acted upon by the board must still be formally presented to the Supreme Court, with further notice and opportunity to be heard, before they are officially approved and become effective. To receive a full copy of the text of any of these proposed amendments call (850) 561-5751. Reference any requested proposal by its title or item number and date of this publication. RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR Chapter 1 General Subchapter 1-3 Membership 1. Rule 1-3.10 Appearances by Non-Florida Lawyers in a Florida Court Summary: Within subdivision (b), allows a Florida resident who has a pending application for admission to The Florida Bar and who has not previously been denied admission to The Florida Bar to move to appear pro hac vice. Subchapter 1-4 Board of Governors 2. Rule 1-4.3 Committees Summary: Adds the chair of the disciplinary review committee to the executive committee. Chapter 3 Rules of Discipline Subchapter 3-3 Jurisdiction to Enforce Rules 3. Rule 3-3.2 Board of Governors of The Florida Bar Summary: Within subdivision (b) re authority to file complaints based on felony charges, adds that a grievance committee chair’s decision to not file a complaint may be reviewed by the full committee, which may affirm or reverse the chair’s decision; also adds a decision of the Florida Supreme Court imposing judicial discipline in an action brought by the Judicial Qualifications Commission to the list of events that authorizes the filing of a formal lawyer disciplinary complaint; includes other non-substantive edits, adds appropriate subdivision titles and numbers consistent with controlling editorial protocols, and revises other affected subdivision entries as necessary. Subchapter 3-7 Procedures 4. Rule 3-7.2 Procedures Upon Criminal or Professional Misconduct; Discipline Upon Determination or Judgment of Guilt of Criminal Misconduct Summary: Adds new subdivision (m) re discipline upon removal from judicial office, to require notice to the bar of any order of the Supreme Court removing a member from judicial office; also authorizes the bar, upon receipt of such order, to file a formal complaint with the court and to seek appropriate discipline; further provides that the findings of fact by the court in any proceedings resulting in the removal of a member from judicial office shall be conclusive proof of such facts in bar disciplinary proceedings. 5. Rule 3-7.7(c)(6) Procedures Before Supreme Court of Florida; Procedure for Review Summary: Within subdivision (c)(6), adds new provisions specifying that, where appropriate, the judgment from the Supreme Court shall indicate the party to whom costs are awarded, the persons to whom restitution is ordered, or the persons to whom a fee is ordered to be forfeited; also adds subdivision titles to address such new matters. Chapter 4 Rules of Professional Conduct Subchapter 4-3 Advocate 6. Rule 4-3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal Summary: Amends commentary from rule 4-3.3 addressing perjury by a criminal defendant in accordance with other changes clearly indicating there is no difference between the obligations of a civil lawyer and a criminal defense lawyer. Also amends commentary on remedial measures, clearly indicating that withdrawal alone will likely never be adequate remedial measures when there has been a misrepresentation to the court. Subchapter 4-7 Information About Legal Services 7. Rule 4-7.2 Communications Concerning A Lawyer’s Services Summary: Amends rule 4-7.2 to remove language regarding exemption from filing as redundant and confusing, adds a reference to a rule subdivision to clarify which subdivision is meant, moves prohibition on use of a celebrity and on the use of prohibited sounds from the rule on television and radio to the general rule, expanding the prohibition to cover all media, and changes the prohibition on any background sound to a prohibition on sounds that are deceptive, misleading, manipulative, or likely to confuse in conformity with the rule on verbal and visual portrayals. 8. Rule 4-7.4 Direct Contact With Prospective Clients Summary: Corrects grammatical issue by changing “in” to “on.” 9. Rule 4-7.5 Advertisements in the Electronic Media Other Than Computer-Accessed Communications Summary: Moves prohibition on use of a celebrity and on the use of prohibited sounds from the rule on television and radio to the general rule, expanding the prohibition to cover all media. 10. Rule 4-7.7 Evaluation of Advertisements Summary: Amends rule to conform to style requirements of Supreme Court of Florida in subdivisions (a)(1) and (2) and (a)(2)(B), adds requirement that a filing includes a printed copy of on-screen text in subdivisions (a)(1)(B) and (b)(3), adds 5 days mailing time to 15 day deadline for review of television and radio advertisements in subdivision (a)(1)(C), clarifies that advertising opinions are binding on The Florida Bar in a grievance proceeding in subdivisions (a)(1)(F) and (a)(2)(F) and the comment, adds to comment that Florida Bar members should obtain notice of compliance for television and radio advertisements before airing them. Chapter 5 Rules Regulating Trust Accounts Subchapter 5-1 Generally 11. Rule 5-1.2 Trust Accounting Records and Procedures Summary: Within subdivision (b) re minimum trust account records, deletes the requirement that original canceled checks be maintained, and substitutes a legible copy requirement provided that such copies include all data contained in the original. Chapter 6 Legal Specialization and Education Programs Subchapter 6-3 Florida Certification Plan 12. Rule 6-3.5 Standards for Certification Summary: Within subdivision (c)(4), adds new language that would require certification exams to include ethics and professional responsibility components. Subchapter 6-13 Standards for Certification of a Board Certified Appellate Lawyer 13. Rule 6-13.4 Recertification Summary: Within subdivision (b), adds language to allow the appellate practice certification committee to waive the requirement for 15 appellate actions, for good cause, for applicants who have been certified in appellate practice for 14 years or more; and creates new subdivision (g) – “Good Cause” – to specify various considerations for determining good cause under subdivisions (b) & (c) when the minimum requirements for appellate actions or oral arguments have not been met. 14. Subchapter 6-27 Standards for Certification of a Board Certified Education Lawyer Summary: New subchapter, setting forth standards for an additional certification area in education law. 15. Subchapter 6-28 Standards for Certification of a Board Certified Adoption Lawyer Summary: New subchapter, setting forth standards for an additional certification area in adoption law. Chapter 10 Rules Governing the Investigation and Prosecution of the Unlicensed Practice of Law Subchapter 10-6 Procedures for Investigation 16. Rule 10-6.3 Recommendations and Disposition of Complaints Summary: Changes order of sentences for clarity; clarifies role of the board of governors. Subchapter 10-7 Proceedings Before a Referee 17. Rule 10-7.1 Proceedings for Injunctive Relief Two Proposals Under Consideration Option 1 Summary: Within subdivision (d)(1), deletes provisions re imposition of a civil penalty not to exceed $1000 per incident of UPL; adds within (d)(2), as an allowable cost, a litigation expense in an amount up to $1000 per incident, to encompass litigation costs not otherwise specified; revises other affected subdivision entries as necessary; within (d)(3) adds a provision to allow the referee to consider testimony as well as documentary evidence when reviewing a restitution request; within subdivision (e)(2), deletes provision that court orders of restitution contain a requirement that the respondent provide to the bar monthly reports of payment to the complainant, instead adding a new requirement that such orders specify that payment be sent to the bar, payable to the complainant, and forwarded by the bar to the complainant; further specifies that if the complainant cannot be located such restitution shall be returned to the respondent by the bar. Option 2Summary: Within subdivision (c)(2), adds new requirement that, if civil penalties are requested, the referee’s order following a case management conference shall include notice to respondent re respondent’s burden to show an inability to pay such penalty; within subdivision (d)(3), deletes provision that states restitution shall be paid before costs, and adds provision to allow the referee to consider testimony as well as documentary evidence when reviewing a restitution request; creates new (d)(4) – civil penalty – requiring the referee’s determination and report of the respondent’s ability or inability to pay such penalty in unstipulated cases, confirming the respondent’s burden to show inability via sworn affidavit, and specifying the application of statutory indigency criteria in the process; revises other affected subdivision entries as necessary; adds new (d)(6) – timing of payment – specifying that the order of payment in such cases is restitution, then costs, and then civil penalty; and within subdivision (e)(2) re Supreme Court review, adds new provisions specifying the Court’s determination of whether civil penalties shall be awarded, that orders imposing restitution or civil penalties require their transmittal to the bar – with restitution payable to the complainant and civil penalties payable to the Court – for forwarding by the bar to those respective payees; further specifies that if the complainant cannot be located such restitution shall be returned to the respondent by the bar. 18. Rule 10-7.3 Enforcement of Award of Civil Penalty Summary: New rule, authorizing The Florida Bar to conduct discovery in aid of execution if a respondent fails to timely pay a civil penalty; allows dissolution of the penalty by the court on motion of the Bar stating that the respondent is unable to pay; if discovery shows otherwise, allows the penalty to stand and authorizes the Bar to file a petition for indirect criminal contempt. STANDING BOARD POLICIES 1000 Series Program Evaluation and Strategic Planning Policy and Procedure 19. SBP 10.50 Strategic Planning Policy Summary: Within subdivision (d), adds PEC chair, Council of Sections chair, and PEC chair-elect to the strategic planning committee. 1500 Series Lawyer Regulation Policies 20. SBP 15.77 Access to Designated Reviewer Summary: New policy, to formalize the manner in which access to a designated reviewer may be obtained and to clarify the role of bar counsel in the event of such contact. BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION AND EDUCATION POLICIES BLSE Policies – 200 Series – Florida Certification Plan 21. BLSE Policy 2.02 Areas of Certification Summary: Within subdivision (b), adds intellectual property law and state and federal government and administrative practice to the approved areas of certification; adds new subdivision (c), to ensure bar sections, divisions, and related substantive committees are afforded the opportunity to offer comment on proposed amendments to certification standards before referral to the BLSE, Program Evaluation Committee, and the board of governors. 22. BLSE 2.04 Certification Fees Summary: Within subdivision (c), increases the annual fee for certification, from $125 to $150. 23. BLSE 2.05 Applications for Certification Summary: Within subdivision (e), assigns intellectual property law and state and federal government and administrative practice to the second application filing cycle. 24. BLSE 2.08 Peer Review Summary: Within subdivision (3), codifies the practice of excluding members of the Supreme Court from the solicitation of peer review for certification applicants. 25. BLSE 2.10 Approved Continuing Legal Education Summary: Within new subdivision (b), codifies the practice of awarding CLE credit for grade review panel service, up to 5 hours of credit; revises other affected subdivision entries as necessary. 26. BLSE 2.11 Exam Preparation and/or Review Courses Summary: Within subdivision (a), revises language to permit certification committees to release one or more sample questions and answers from past certification exams; also eliminates restriction on providing such samples only to review course “attendees”; within subdivision (c), provides BLSE authority, along with the certification committee, to determine where and when an exam may be administered. 27. BLSE Policy 2.12 Grading, Review, and Petition Process Summary: Within subdivision (b), reduces opportunity to review exam to one expanded session and deletes current provisions re a separate notice of intent to petition for grade review and the provision of a record three days after the more limited “initial” exam review now allowed; also amends subdivision (b) to afford BLSE the right to determine the specific location and date of such exam review; further adds a new 30-day deadline to file a grade review petition after any exam review; revises subdivision title accordingly and conforms other text as appropriate. 28. BLSE 2.13 Applicant Review Process for Certification or Recertification Summary: Within subdivision (e), modifies language to allow certification committees discretion in determining if supplemental documentation submitted by an applicant warrants or makes appropriate further investigation of the applicant’s qualifications for certification or recertification. 29. BLSE 2.16 Revocation Summary: Complete revision of current policy; references chapter 6 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar as authorization for BLSE revocation of certification; outlines instances in which a member’s certification can be automatically revoked; specifies instances in which BLSE may use discretion in considering certification revocation; sets forth procedures for discretionary revocation; and clarifies BLSE’s right to suspend certification of members currently under investigation for offenses related to professional integrity. BLSE Policies – 500 Series – Course Approval 30. BLSE 5.01 Course Approval Administration Summary: Within subdivision (k), adds CDs and DVDs as credit-eligible media for CLE courses. 31. BLSE 5.04 Course and Credit Approval Summary: Deletes subdivision (b) and related language elsewhere re maximum credit hours per CLE cycle in law office management and economics, computer training, ethics, substance abuse, self improvement, stress management, mental illness, and other non-law courses; revises other affected subdivision entries as necessary; and adds new language that further defines ethics and substance abuse for application of the CLE ethics requirement. 32. BLSE Policy 5.06 Complimentary Audiotapes Summary: Changes policy number and revises title, to read “5.07 – Complimentary CLE” and adds new language that would require The Florida Bar to provide 10 credit hours of CLE materials to each county law library per year, as well as to out-of-state bar associations that meet required criteria. 33. BLSE Policy 5.06 Accreditation Revocation Summary: Proposed new policy, to provide the BLSE authority to rescind CLE credit if the course content or speaker credentials do not reflect the accreditation standards set forth by BLSE. SECTION BYLAWS 34. Elder Law Section Summary: Within Article I (Name and Purpose), streamlines purpose language, re-styled as “mission”, and revises subdivision titles accordingly; within Article II (Membership), deletes provision limiting affiliate members to one-third of active membership, to allow limitations as set by executive committee; also revises limitations on at large members, from “1 or 2” to “no more than 5”; further, re affiliate members who are legal assistants, deletes provisions re their adherence to NALA code of ethics; within Article III (Officers), revises elections provisions, to allow member nominations at the called “executive council” rather than “annual” meeting, and election at the “April executive council” rather than “annual” meeting; also deletes provisions specifying the chair-elect serves as chair of the legislative committee, that the secretary is responsible for records of all section committees, that the vice chair of the administrative division becomes chair elect at the conclusion of their vice chair duties and upon election, and that the vice chair of the substantive division becomes vice chair of the admin division at the conclusion of their duties as substantive division vice chair and upon election; also re extraordinary vacancies in the offices of chair and chair elect, changes the election from “the next annual meeting of the section” to the “following April meeting of the executive council”; within Article V (Committees) and throughout, changes “executive board” to “executive committee”; also revises nominating committee procedures, to set a deadline of March 15 for the slate of officer nominees and to relax current limitations on members of the committee who are considered for nomination, excusing them from committee deliberations and votes; creates new committees and revises various other committee names and duties within the administrative and substantive divisions; also deletes current aspirational provision that a member of the executive committee serve as an ex officio member of each standing committee; clarifies that committee reports are due 2 weeks prior to executive council as well as section meetings; within Article VI (Meetings) increases from 2 to 3 the minimum number of regular executive council meetings each year and clarifies that council business may be conducted by various remote means; reduces the advance notice requirements for executive committee meetings to 5 instead of 7 days, to now be sent to each committee member rather than every officer; includes other non-substantive edits. November 15, 2007 Notices Notice: Proposed board actions Notice: Proposed board actions
Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week.
Marvin Gillfillan has joined BASF Automotive Refinish as vice president, Automotive Refinish Solutions, North America at its Southfield, Michigan, location.AdvertisementClick Here to Read MoreAdvertisement“Marvin brings a wealth of global experience and knowledge of the automotive aftermarket,” said Chris Toomey, BASF senior vice president, Coatings Solutions NA. “His expertise in the automotive collision industry will be very beneficial to our customers.”A graduate of Ohio State University, Gillfillan has a Bachelor of Science in accounting. Most recently, he was vice president and general manager of Illinois Tool Works.
Subscribe Get instant access to must-read content today!To access hundreds of features, subscribe today! At a time when the world is forced to go digital more than ever before just to stay connected, discover the in-depth content our subscribers receive every month by subscribing to gasworld.Don’t just stay connected, stay at the forefront – join gasworld and become a subscriber to access all of our must-read content online from just $270.
Get instant access to must-read content today!To access hundreds of features, subscribe today! At a time when the world is forced to go digital more than ever before just to stay connected, discover the in-depth content our subscribers receive every month by subscribing to gasworld.Don’t just stay connected, stay at the forefront – join gasworld and become a subscriber to access all of our must-read content online from just $270. Subscribe
Subscribe now for unlimited access Get your free guest access SIGN UP TODAY Stay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.Limited access to building.co.ukBreaking industry news as it happensBreaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest accessExisting subscriber? LOGIN Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leadersOur league tables, cost models and economics dataOur online archive of over 10,000 articlesBuilding magazine digital editionsBuilding magazine print editionsPrinted/digital supplementsSubscribe now for unlimited access.View our subscription options and join our community
A tribunal for resolving financial disputes in which claimants can bring cases ‘without the need for a lawyer’ will give SMEs the tools they need to fight large corporations, according to a parliamentary debate yesterday in which lawyers’ efforts to prevent wrongdoing were also called into question.The calls were made during a House of Commons debate on the scandal enveloping Royal Bank of Scotland and its Global Restructuring Group (GRG). The bank is accused of putting 16,000 business customers into its GRG division, telling many it was there to help turn their fortunes around. Norwich South MP Clive Lewis, who called for the debate, said an independent inquiry into the treatment of SMEs by financial institutions should be held as well as ‘the rapid establishment of a tribunal system to deal effectively with financial disputes involving SMEs’.The debate took place following articles by barrister Richard Samuel, a tenant at 3 Hare Court, who said the Financial Services Tribunal (FST) would help SMEs and make it easier for claimants.MPs said the tribunal would have low fees and would not necessarily require a lawyer to run the case. Christine Jardine, MP for Edinburgh West, added: ‘The process would be cheaper and less formal, and complainants would not need a lawyer. We know that such a process works in other places.’However, MPs also called into question the role of solicitors and other legal practitioners during the GRG affair. Chris Ruane, MP for the Vale of Clwyd, said: ‘The web of deceit between a whole range of organisations is highly complex, from the big banks—RBS and Lloyds—to accountants, solicitors and valuers.’Norman Lamb, MP for North Norfolk and himself a qualified solicitor, said: ‘What of the role of lawyers in managing the conflict of interest, or of the accountants, or of the auditors? Who was complicit in this scandal?’According to Lewis: ‘The introduction of a tribunal system will help to rebuild the strong relationships that once existed between SMEs and their banks, helping the growth of our economy and the international reputation of our financial sector.’Samuel told the Gazette the tribunal system does not usually rely on lawyers to put a forward case on behalf of a client.‘In this instance, the judge is the inquisitor. They ask questions of both sides and determine the appropriate outcome,’ Samuel said.He added: ‘Tribunals always exist where there is an imbalance of power. In employment tribunals, you may have a large employer against an employee, or in immigration tribunals an individual against the state. Overall its more flexible and cheaper than going to court.’However, Samuel denied that lawyers would be completly bypassed and could still provide early stage advice on the merits of a claim.
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has said it is making changes to ensure that expert witnesses it instructs in future trials are sufficiently capable, including prioritising due dillegence checks, following a judgment in which the office was heavily criticised for its use of a witness.In R v Alex Julian Pabon, last month the Court of Appeal dismissed ex Barclays trader Alex Pabon’s bid to overturn a conviction for rigging the Libor interest rate. But the court said the SFO’s decision to call ex-trader Saul Haydon Rowe as a witness in the intiail trial turned out to be an ‘embarrassing debacle’.#*#*Show Fullscreen*#*# David GreenIn a letter to the Justice Committee, which the committee published today, SFO chief David Green said the office had ‘reviewed its process’ since the judgment and is planning several modifications.Green, who departs the SFO this week, said that although he remained of the view that ‘Rowe’s conduct reflected a lack of integrity on his part’ the SFO had taken the opportunity to review its processes as it told the court it would.The planned modifications include:Frontloading due diligence checks prior to formal evaluation of expert witnesses;Requiring individuals to confirm understanding of their legal duties and disclosure obligations at an early stage, at the time of instruction and before giving evidence;Ensuring consistency of approach to formal evaluation by scoring perspective witnesses against standardised criteria to assess their suitability and expertise.Implementing enhanced conflict checks.In 2016 Pabon was jailed alongside three other traders for conspiracy to defraud. He was released last year.In his bid to overturn the conviction Pabon, represented by London firm IBB Solicitors, argued that the evidence Rowe gave during his initial trial was incomplete or inaccurate and could have damaged his credibility.On appeal, Lord Justice Gross, Mr Justice Sweeney and Mr Justice Haddon-Cave said that although Rowe’s evidence had ‘significant failings’ it had ‘no impact on the outcome of the case’.Rowe was paid by the SFO to give evidence in Libor prosecutions. His failings, according to the court, included obscuring the role of others during the prosecution and not informing the SFO or court of the limits of his expertise.
INTERNATIONAL: Amid a flurry of flashbulbs and a deluge of controversy, the governing body of world football FIFA announced on December 2 that Russia and Qatar would host the 2018 and 2022 World Cup tournaments respectively.Within days of the announcement in Zürich, the first details of planned transport investment to support the influx of fans were revealed. The Russian government has selected a ‘cluster’ approach aimed at mitigating the vast distances between host cities, although FIFA documents note that ‘surface transport connections only seem to be feasible in the case of a few host cities’. Nevertheless, the selection of both Krasnodar and Sochi as provisional venues for matches will give added impetus to the upgrading of the North Caucasus Railway, already underway as part of the preparations for the 2014 Olympic Winter Games (RG 7.10 p60). The recent investment in main lines between Moscow, St Petersburg and Helsinki seems certain to continue, whilst the award will surely accelerate RZD’s efforts to raise speeds and capacity on routes running towards western Europe from Moscow. Yet the required rate of railway construction in Qatar is likely to dwarf that of Russia, albeit on a far more condensed geographical scale. The Gulf state’s plan envisages investment of US$24bn in transport infrastructure, including high speed rail links to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and construction of a 340 km public transport network serving Doha and its environs. It is notable that Qatar had already developed the design of its network for its unsuccessful bid for the 2016 Olympic Games, which will be staged instead in Rio de Janeiro. Speaking in São Paulo in November, Regina Amelia Oliveira, Transport Director of the Rio Games Organising Committee, surprised even a mostly local audience by outlining plans for 120 route-km of bus rapid transit routes, whilst suggesting that a mere 9·5 route-km of metro would open by the time of the opening ceremony. ‘BRT is a proven concept in Latin America and a suitable mode for this region’, she argued. This reflects a rather different philosophy to that adopted in the two preceding Olympic host cities, Beijing and London, where rail was the mode of choice for transporting spectators. Some observers raised particular scepticism over the planned BRT route to and from Rio’s Jobim International Airport, leading Oliveira to respond that ‘some thing are already defined, but other things or not. We hope our Games will be at least as sustainable as London.’