Unemployment data for each month is gathered from companies the week of the 12th every month, and that week in April there were fewer people on temporary layoff than the same week in the past few months.Wood doesn’t know if that means the manufacturing sector is getting more work, or if factories were able to keep more people on during that particular week last month.The April jobless rate in Morgan County was 5.3 percent, down 2 percentage points from March 2004, and down 1.3 percentage points from April 2003.
Across the state, the economy continues to show Inspection Proccess signs of improvement.Alabama’s unemployment rate dropped 0.1 percentage points in April, representing a gain of 2,500 jobs in the state over the past month and continuing the recent trend of marginal employment growth.Last month also demonstrated a gain of 100 jobs in Alabama over April 2003.”Through four months in 2004, Alabama’s average unemployment rate is also 5.8 percent,” said Phyllis Kennedy, director of the Alabama Department of Industrial Relations.
Three years ago, there were 59,476 initial claims in January 2001 and 29,382 in April 2001.Lawrence County’s unemployment rate improved from March, dropping from 7.5 percent to 6.2 percent.This is an increase from April 2003, however, when the rate was 5.8 percent.In Madison County, joblessness dropped from March at 4.5 percent to April’s figure of 4.4 percent.This is a decrease in unemployment from last year, when the April figure was 5.7 percent.Limestone County’s unemployment rate for April was 4.9 percent, down from 5.5 percent in March, and down from 7.3 percent in April 2003.
The Decatur metropolitan area’s unemployment rate fell from 7.4 percent in March to 6.3 percent in April. In April 2003, it was 6.0 percent.Huntsville’s metro unemployment, which includes Limestone County, also dropped last month, from 4.7 percent in March to 4.5 percent in April.st month, from 4.7 percent in March to 4.5 percent in April. This is an increase compared to April 2003, when Huntsville had 4.4 percent unemployment.Visitors to Karen Lockhart’s office in the Morgan County Courthouse know how busy it gets for the Veterans Affairs assistant.
George’s disclosure statement showed a continued trend of him receiving more contributions than both Kennemer and Terry Brown, his other challenger for the GOP nomination, as well as Rickey Borden, the Democratic nominee. Overall, George received more donations than all candidates in the District Home Inspection 4 race and the chairman races for the County Commission. He received a total of $4,355 from 20 contributors, and four donors gave $1,150 for advertisement for his campaign, according to current statement.
His overall expenditures for the reporting period amounted to $5,031. Brown received $400 from two donors and he loaned his campaign $4,000 for this reporting period, records show. Borden received $500 from two contributors and he spent $1,189. David Wood, who is seeking the GOP nomination for District 3, received $1,050 from two donors and $1,335 from other sources not listedHe spent $1,721, records show. Kevin Murphy, who is vying for the Republican nomination for District 3, also, received no contributions and he spent $2,468.
District 3 Commissioner Don Stisher, who does not have primary opposition, reported no contributions and spent $559, records show. District 1 Commissioner Jeff Clark, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for chairman, received a total of $1,800 from five contributors and he loaned his campaign $3,687, records show. His opponent, Mike Flowers, received no contributions and spent $558, according to records. District 2 Commissioner John Glasscock, who is vying for the GOP nomination for chairman, received $700 from three contributors and he gave his campaign $1,200.
James Ray Bowling, another challenger for the Republican nomination for chairman, received no contributions and he spent $511, reports show. Disclosure documents were not available for John Mitchell, a third candidate in the GOP race for chairman. Mitchell said however, that he received no contributions and he has spent about $6,000. County Board of Education candidate Gary Cobb reported no contributions and he spent $180. Board member, Dora Woodard filed a waiver because she does not have primary opposition.
The Republican nominee will face Democrat John Rochester, a Clay County circuit court judge from Ashland, in November. With the votes found Wednesday, unofficial returns showed Bolin with 99,904 votes to Stokes’ 51,794. Montgomery County District Judge Peggy Givhan had 34,306 and Houston County Circuit Judge Denny Holloway had 13,908. Bolin said he had not seen the figures but did not think the extra votes change anything. “The people helping me with my campaign are saying you’re still 70 (votes) short,” he said.
Termite Inspection you are a senior citizen who is eligible for the new Medicare-approved Blue Cross and Blue Shield Blue Rx prescription drug discount card, use caution if you get a phone call from someone asking for your credit card number to charge the sign-up fee. No one is authorized to call you for such information, Blue Cross of Alabama spokesman Jim Brown said Wednesday. Brown said the health insurance giant is getting reports from clients who have received the calls.
Someone is basically asking people for their credit card numbers to charge a fee for the new Blue Cross Blue Rx card,” Brown said. There is no fee for the card and we have nobody calling, asking people to pay a fee. Brown said if you are on Medicare and you receive such a call, phone the toll-free number (888) 258-3617, and report the scam. In Washington, Peter Ashkenaz with the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said there is no fee to sign up for the program in any state. His office has heard about scams in other parts of the country.
Ashkenaz has a warning for seniors to use if someone tries to get them to give out personal financial information such as a credit card number as a way to sign up for the drug discount card. MONTGOMERY — Former Gov. Don Siegelman is scheduled next week to make his first court appearance since being indicted in a bid-rigging scheme involving his administration. In an e-mail Wednesday, Siegelman said U. S. Attorney Alice Martin of Birmingham is pursuing the case for political reasons.
Mr Q said that DTI were obliged to provide him with this information as part of the pre-action behaviour in respect of the legal action he was pursuing. On 13 March the then Permanent Secretary wrote to Mr Q saying that DTI had already given him their account of the telephone conversation and that they were under no obligation to disclose any such particulars in advance of legal action.
In respect of DTI’s refusal to make available to Mr Q the report completed by the Director, the then Permanent Secretary said that Mr Q had already been given a summary of the reasoning behind the Director’s. However, because the report was essentially a review of how GOL arrived at their decision, First Property Inspection much of the information in it constitutes internal discussion whose disclosure.
The then Permanent Secretary added that, between 10 November 1999 and 31 March 2000, Mr Q had frequently threatened to take legal action against DTI over the treatment of his application. As the Director’s report was likely to feature prominently in any proceedings brought by Mr Q, DTI were of the opinion that the information contained within the report constituted.
The then Permanent Secretary had also considered Mr Q’s request that DTI provide him with a witness statement from the colleague of the Director who had been present during the disputed telephone conversation. The then Permanent Secretary said that THIs position remained as set out in his letter of 13 March 2000 to Mr Q.
The then Permanent Secretary went on to say that, from 4 August 2000, the Smart scheme has ceased to be a competition so that, by definition. release of the information relating to the assessment of Mr Q’s application and the report completed by the Director would no longer give Mr Q an unfair advantage over other applicants. However, DTI still had a duty to ensure equality of treatment to all applicants, even though they were no longer in competition.