Report to President on Gun Control Legislation

Report to President on Gun Control Legislation According to the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it has been guaranteed to the people, a right to keep and bear arms and such rights shall not be infringed. The result is that generally there is a heated debate regarding the gun-control legislation. While there are many who want to increase the regulation of firearms, many people oppose such regulation. For example, the article appearing in USA Today, titles as â€Å"Next, Comprehensive Reform of Gun Laws† the introduction of strict gun-control legislation by the Senate has been applauded and the benefits that can be derived by such reform legislation as well as the need for more such laws has been highlighted (USA Today 475). However, the detrimental effect of gun control legislation has also been equally highlighted in the media and also the way such legislation has an impact on the crime rate as well as the safety of the citizens (Gottlieb). In the present report, the arguments made by both sides have been evalua ted and an attempt has been made to provide a critical assessment of the need for gun-control legislation. As mentioned above, the persons who are in favor of the introduction of more gun-control laws claim that the laws that require waiting period as well as the background check of the persons who are willing to hold firearms can help in keeping these firearms away from the reach of criminals. The premise behind this argument shows that the laws that impose a ban on certain types of guns and ammunitions will result in keeping the streets safer because these weapons will not be available to easily. In this way, it is implied that such laws will prevent the criminals from accessing guns and it will also discourage the use of highly dangerous anti-personnel weapons. At the same time, this argument also believes that with the introduction of more such laws, the judicial system will also be in a better position to process the crimes related with guns and at the same time, it will ensure licensing and training for the owners of these guns. Therefore, it can be implied that more such laws shoul d be enacted because it will allow the legal system to work more efficiently and ensure the basic regulatory policies. However there are many who do not agree with this argument. According to these persons, it has been amply supported by statistics that in case of the States where gun control laws have been passed that require waiting period for purchasing guns, the rate of crime has in fact increased. This data is very significant because every time new gun-control legislation is introduced, the rate of violent crime increases instead of going down. Therefore, the opponents of gun control legislation argue that nobody wants an increase in violent crime. Moreover, it is also pointed out that as a result of the gun-control legislation, the streets have become safer for the criminals only while the danger for the victims increase because the victims are not in a position to protect themselves. It is also argued in this regard that it is the fundamental right of a person to protect himself and his family. Keeping in mind the significance of this right, it can be argued that more gun-control legislation should not be introduced in America. However, it needs to be noted in this regard that the introduction of more gun control legislation can be considered as the most significant step that can be taken in order to bring down firearm related crime. By imposing such laws that require waitlist, training, registration and a ban on dangerous weapons, it can be expected that the cities will become safer. The objections raised by the opponents of gun control legislation appeared to be insufficient due to the reason that they rely on the statistical evidence and there is always a chance that such evidence may not be accurate. At the same time, this argument is also based on the assertion that there is always a chance that the sale of guns in black market will increase. However the basis of the belief of the supporters of gun control legislation lies in disarming the criminals and making it difficult for the criminals to purchase guns. While the death of a victim is always unfortunate however the blame cannot be placed on gun-con trol legislation. The purpose of such legislation is to protect the victims. Although it is a way to protect oneself and the family to purchase a gun but it is not the only way. There are several other solutions available instead of using lethal force and the solutions are much more effective. Moreover, statistical data is often used by the opponents of gun control legislation in their support. However, it appears to be highly improbable that the increase in rates of crime is somehow related with firearms waitlist. If gun-control laws were not there, it will be very easy for everyone to have a gun, even if such person was a criminal record. However with the help of gun control legislation, the number of guns that are present on the streets can be reduced. If the number of guns present industries is reduced, the sale of guns in the black market will also decrease. It cannot be denied that it is the main responsibility of the government and protect the fundamental rights of the citizens but at the same time, it is also the responsibility of the government to introduce new laws so that the safety and well-being of the citizens can be ensured. The same is true in case of the area of gun control. The citizens are significantly impacted by the laws that are connected by the government in this regard and it is hoped that the laws will work in the best interests of the citizens. As a result, the citizens are at the core of the issue or the social side of this debate. As the laws in the country are enacted through the vote of the people, as a result, the society plays a significant role in the debate related with gun-control. The question that is generally asked in this debate is if owning the guns can be considered as a significant social reason behind the rate of homicide and suicide in America. This question lies at the base of the debate going on regarding gun control and at the same time, it also provides a significant reason behind the enactment of gun control legislation. Apart from taking the guns away from the common citizens, we reviewed to ensure their safety, there is another reason behind the enactment of gun control legislation. This reason is to prevent the guns from reaching the hands of criminals. But generally, the criminals do not face any barriers in acquiring deadly firearms although there are several laws that prevent the ownership of these weapons. There are certain laws that prohibit that any person was being accused or convicted of a deadly crime which carries a sentence of more than one year is prevented from possessing a gun. However, these laws have not proved to be very effective. It needs to be noted in this regard that the debate related with gun-control has three aspects, social, political and criminal. There is a significant relationship between the three. For example the criminal aspect of gun control has resulted in considerable social strife and as a result, political action has to be taken. The combined effect of these three aspects working jointly is to promote or prevent the introduction of gun control legislation as these laws significantly impact each and every person, regardless of the position taken by such a person (Cavett). Due to the fact that a large number of groups are involved in the issue of gun control, it is likely that the debate that is going on in this case is not going to fade very soon. However it is almost certain that significant changes have to be introduced in the present policy related with the possession of firearms. Some of the questions that can be asked in this regard is if the gun-control legislation is going to help or h urt the citizens to which they are trying to protect. Similarly another question that can be asked in this regard is if the enactment of these laws take away any of the fundamental rights enjoyed by the citizens. All these questions have to be considered carefully while dealing with this question. A much has been suffered by the nation at the hands of the dangerous people who have used terms in order to comment various acts of violence. Although most of the gun owners are law abiding and responsible and guns are used by them safely (Lund 127). However, the issue of gun control is a very complex issue. Therefore it becomes important that well founded, truthful statistics as well as scientific research is used to deal with the issue and find the basic causes behind the misuse of our arms and also crimes that are committed with the help of guns (Nocera). It will be very helpful for society if the general public as well as the main source of information of the public, media, adopts a critical skepticism and a responsible approach towards the claims made by the parties on both sides of this debate. In the end, it can be said that after considering the arguments forwarded by both sides regarding the issue of gun control, and examining the stands and weaknesses of the arguments from both sides in order to deeply analyze the competing views, it appears that the arguments in favor of the introduction of more gun-control legislation are in a better position as compared to the arguments that are given against the introduction of such legislation (Berzon). The arguments made by the supporters of gun control legislation have been significantly successful in explaining the benefits that can be provided by the introduction of more gun-control laws (Cullen). At the same time, the supporters of gun control legislation also provides solutions and the solutions are delivered clearly and concisely (Whitehead 13). On the other hand, the opponents of gun control legislation generally rely too heavily on unsupported statistics. In the absence of supportive evidence, it can be believed that the a rguments made by the opponents of gun control legislation do not hold much weight. At the same time, the assumption that is generally made by the opponents of such laws that the introduction of these laws will result in an increase in the sale of guns in black market is also not supported by facts. However, both the opponents as well as the supporters of gun control legislation want to protect the lives of innocent citizens and reduce the crime rate. However the solution lies in the introduction of more gun-control legislation.

Free Narrative Essays - I Was Poor, Not Low Class :: Example Personal Narratives

I Was Poor, Not Low Class Remember as a child people would tell you, "You are what you eat." When you are fed fat, you will become fat. When fed violence, you become violent. A diet of anger will make you hate. Hunger will make you hungrier, or so it would seem. I think it is ironic that we teach children at a young age to judge people by means other than the content of their character. Then, we expect children to be honest and loving after being labeled by how others view them. After all, how many people, besides your closest friends and family, can walk into your room and point to items that give a reflection of who you really are? The thought of being that shallow and simple is unthinkable for most of the human species. Instead of being labeled by the world as it sees me, I plan to introduce myself to the world for who I really am. I have eaten from the plate of materialism, only to find that it tasted foul in my mouth. I bought the high-end stereo and the large television. I soon realized these possessions made me feel guilty because I was ignoring my upbringing. I was betraying all of the feelings that I felt as a child in a poor family. Now, my walls are bare because I do not like to surround myself with propaganda. The same propaganda advertisers flaunted in front of me while I was growing up in a lower income family, not lower class. The notion that the country's population is separated into classes by wealth, with the least wealthy deemed the lower class, is repulsive to me. I refuse to conform to the typical American consumer stereotype who needs material possessions to feel validated, ever again. My dorm room is highlighted by a loft I built myself. The loft was not purchased from a hardware store or from a designer catalog. I used my carpentry knowledge and my own two hands to carefully construct the perfect loft. The loft does not symbolize convenience or organization as most may think. It is a symbol of my incredible independence, even to a fault.

Hotspur and Hal is the main theme in Henry IV part one Essay

The contrast between Hotspur and Hal is the main theme in Henry IV part one and creates an enthralling play. Hal and Hotspur are total opposites in some ways but when examined more closely one sees that their moral values are the same. They are both ambitious and determined to succeed but only one can prevail. At the beginning of the play Henry IV draws a clear contrast between Hotspur and his son, whose reputation is sullied by â€Å"riot and dishonour†. The king then goes so far as to wish they had been exchanged when infants, so strongly does he feel the difference between them. There are many examples of the way that the two cannot exist at the same time. Hal and Hotspur are both heroes who want to win. Falstaff is the other main character in the play. Falstaff has a totally different view on honour to that of Hotspur. This is shown in Act II when Falstaff runs away from the two robbers, he values his safety much more than his reputation. Hotspur would never think about doing anything like that he would prefer to fight. In between these two extreme ideas of honour is Hal Throughout the play Shakespeare juxtaposes from one scene to another. One scene may be very solemn and serious and then the next scene amusing. For instance Act II scene iii is not one of merriment and mirth, Hotspur talks about the rebellion and how serious it is getting. The next scene, Act II scene iv, shows Hal in the tavern joking with Falstaff. Shakespeare juxtaposes to show the contrast between Hal and Hotspur. The juxtaposition shows how each hero copes with the situations that they find themselves in. It also shows how two people have different qualities and they are two different types of leaders. Shakespeare is asking what qualities does a good leader possesses As his nickname suggests, Harry Percy is an impulsive and reckless character that acts first and thinks later. His bravery and rashness are the two qualities constantly commented on by the other characters in the play. Henry sees Percy as a young god of war, â€Å"Mars in swathling clothes† and says he is acknowledged by all as the holder of â€Å"military title capital†. He is regarded as the greatest soldier in Europe. On the whole it is his bravery which impresses them most, for them he is the epitome of honour, the living example of those chivalric values to which a noble youth should aspire. By the end of the play however, we have had an opportunity to see Hotspur in perspective and our judgement of him is not so favourable. We realise that, brave and likeable as he is, his pursuit of honour is dangerously obsessive, so much so that it leads him to threaten the peace and unity of the kingdom. His cause however is right, Mortimer has more right to the throne than He nry. He is very proud and would hate to look anything but the best. At the conclusion of the play Falstaff reduces honour to an empty concept. For Falstaff life is valuable and must be preserved at any price. He sees the brave Sir Walter Blunt’s corpse and exclaims â€Å"There’s honour for you† Yet he confesses a moment later, that he has deliberately allowed his men to be killed in order to line his own pockets. † Give me life; which if I can save, so; if not, honour comes unlooked for, and there’s an end† Falstaff’s version of honour licenses him to do anything so long as his own life is preserved. If we are in doubt that Falstaff’s honour is as dangerous and empty an idea as Hotspur’s, then we are finally convinced by his shocking mutilation of Hotspur’s corpse. The irony, of course, is that Falstaff commits this cowardly act in order to gain the rewards of the honour he despises. Between the two extreme attitudes to honour is the figure of Hal. At the beginning of the play, as his father points out, his reputation is the very opposite of Hotspurs. As the play goes on Hal begins to present a changed public image. The rebel Veronon describes his preparations for war in terms which depict Hal as the very soul of honour. Being honourable doesn’t make you a good leader it is the opposite in fact. Hal is a good leader and he is quite dishonourable, Hotspur is the epitome of honour but isn’t a good leader. To be a good leader you need to be able to use rhetoric and be very cunning and a bit dishonest. Hotspur is none of these and this is why he is not a good leader. Hal is the central character in the play and in his progress to maturity we see a princes education as he learns the nature and responsibilities of kingship. Hal has a reputation for being part of a low life circle that spend most of their time getting drunk, womanising and thieving. Hal is sly and sneaky; this is shown in his soliloquy at the end of Act 1 scene ii. He says that he is aware of the nature of his tavern companions but will put up with their idleness for a while. He will imitate the sun by allowing himself to be covered with clouds, so that when he reappears it will be amazing, â€Å"My reformation glittering o’er my fault shall show more goodly and attract more eyes† In some ways this is quite childish and immature. For just as Hotspur is over anxious to monopolise honour, Hal here seems over anxious to present his reformation in the most dramatic way. Hal has no pride in himself until his reformation when he becomes the prince he should be. Hotspur shows his dislike for rhetoric and his love of truth in Act III. Glendower talks of disturbances of a heavenly and earthly nature at his birth â€Å"at my birth the front of heaven was full of fiery shapes†, Hotspur contradicts these comments. Glendower continues talking about how he is magical. Here Hotspur shows his impetuous side by saying to Glendower, â€Å"let me not understand you then: Speak it in Welsh†, meaning that no men speaks better Welsh (talks nonsense and brags). Hotspur doesn’t like the way Glendower uses rhetoric relentlessly. He prefers to speak the straightforward truth. From this childish exchange we gain further insight into Hotspur’s character, he cannot bear to think that someone else could share glory and honour with him. This also shows that he would prefer to speak the truth rather than made up stories. Hal on the other hand loves to talk in rhetoric and uses it all of the time. He is very good at using language to get his own way. This is shown in Act III scene ii. In this scene we see the King and the Prince together for the first time. The King says that Hal must have been sent by God to punish his own â€Å"mistreadings.† The King can’t understand why in spite of his royal blood Hal is so attached to vulgar pleasures with his unfavourable companions â€Å"such barren pleasures, rude society†. Hal is hurt and in a subdued and repentant mood replies that he is not guilty of everything that he is charged with. He says that the stories are malicious gossip and asks for forgiveness â€Å"As well as I am doubtless I can purge Myself of many I am char’g withal†. The King then goes on to talk about how little respect people have for Hal and how he has lost his place on the council â€Å"thy place in council thou hast rudely lost†. Hal is obviously hurt by the extent to which he has lost his father’s affection and respect and in a passionate speech swears he will redeem himself and kill Hotspur, â€Å"I will redeem all this on Percy’s head†. We know that Hal is very cunning so he might actually be pretending that he is hurt by what his father says so that he can win back his affections. In this scene we see an aspect of Hal that makes him a good leader. He can use rhetoric and acting to get his own way. This is something that Hotspur never does as he prefers to be up front and honest. This is a very important scene for other reasons besides the rhetoric and the reconciliation of the King and the Prince. Here we are made aware of the essential part that the rivalry plays in Henry IV Part 1. In the very first scene of the play we noticed how Henry compares the two, to Hal’s disadvantage; Hotspur is everything he would like his own son to be. Hal and Hotspur are each conscious of the others pursuits; in Act 1 Scene iii Hotspur calls Hal â€Å"that same sword-and-buckler Prince of Wales† While in Act II scene iv Hal characterizes Hotspur as a murderous hothead. Neither judgement reveals the respect they feel for each other. Now we see that their rivalry is to be crucial to the salvation, not only of Hal’s character, but of the kingdom. The personal and political threads of the play are entwined, and we are prepared for the climax, the single combat of Hal and Hotspur in Act V In Act V scene v. When they are about to fight Hal says Hotspur is â€Å"a very valiant rebel† but that they can no longer share in glory. Two stars cannot move in one course and England cannot have â€Å"a double reign† of Hal and Hotspur. It shall not replies Hotspur, â€Å"for the hour is come, To end the one of us† This really shows the great respect that they have for each other. Shakespeare is saying that to be a good leader you need to be able to use language to your advantage. In Act IV scene I we see one of many scenes that show how impatient and impetuous Hotspur is. Hotspur receives a letter from his father saying that he will not be bringing troops as he is sick. Hotspur exclaims that Northumberland’s sickness infects the whole enterprise, â€Å"Tis catching hither, even to our camp† This has greatly reduced the number of troops available for fighting and really they should postpone the attack until other soldiers arrive. Hotspur says that his father’s absence will make their business seem all the more heroic and daring (thus adding to his own honour), â€Å"It lends a lustre and more great opinion, A larger dare to our enterprise†. So they decide to go ahead with the attack against the wishes of Worcester. For Hotspur war is not regarded as something terrible and destructive but is simply a means of more glory. At the end of Act I Scene ii he shows his immature attitude, â€Å"O, let the hours be short, Till fields and blo ws and groans applaud our sport!† Hal is in no way impatient and impetuous, Hal is scheming and thinks about what he has to do rather than rushing in. He knows what he wants this is shown in his soliloquy in Act I. This is one of the reasons why he is a really good leader. He doesn’t get flustered, he holds his cards close to his chest. Hotspur has a bad temper that flares up over of the slightest thing. He is depicted as a fiery red head who acts first and thinks later, even his name suggests this. In Act I scene iii Hotspur is in the court with the King. Hotspur is refusing to give the King any prisoners unless he pays ransoms for Mortimer who has been captured. The king refuses saying that Mortimer is a traitor â€Å"redeem a traitor home, Let him starve on the Welsh mountains† This is too much for Hotspur who flies into one of his tempers and exclaims â€Å"revolted Mortimer†. He tries to explain that Mortimer fought bravely for the king â€Å"Those mouth wounds, which valiantly he took, When on the gentle Severn’s sedgy bank†. Henry doesn’t listen and departs from the court. Hotspur is beside himself with rage; he wants to express his feelings even at the risk of his own safety, and attempts to follow the King â€Å"An if the devil come roar for them, I will not send them† he will not give up the prisoners. He is restrained by his father, but continues to rant. This is the reason that the rebellion begins. Hotspur doesn’t think straight when he is in one of his tempers and is lucky that his father was there to restrain him. This is also an example of the way that Hotspur takes action rather than thinking about it. Hal is cool headed but can be nasty towards Falstaff. He knows that one day soon he will have to break his ties with Falstaff. Deep down Hal knows that Falstaff is a thief, and a king cannot be friends with him. As the play draws on Hal drifts slowly away from Falstaff. In the midst of the battle Falstaff offers Hal a bottle of wine instead of a weapon, Hal angrily throws it back, underlining the desperate circumstance by his question â€Å"is it a time to jest and dally now†. Hal has realized when play must stop and serious life begin, but Falstaff has not. A number of times during the play Hal blames Falstaff of corrupting him but it is the other way round. Hal is the corrupter. In act V scene iv Falstaff stabs Hotspur’s dead body and pretends that he has killed him. He says that Hal is lying and did not kill Hotspur. Hal isn’t angry with him and even offers him help. This shows that Hal has not completely tired of Falstaff’s company. He is torn between princely leadership and princely fun. Hotspur is extremely ambitious. He believes that he can do anything he wants to. He believes he can â€Å"pluck bright honour from the moon†- â€Å"An if the devil come roar for them I will not send them†. This shows how Hotspur has the utmost confidence in himself. Sometimes his ambition can over rule reason. His main ambition in life is to get honour. Since he wants to monopolize honour, he must defeat any possible rival, in this case Hal. Hotspur rebels against the king because he feels that his honour is threatened by the Percy’s association with what he calls â€Å"this ingrate and cankered Bolingbroke†. He doesn’t wants to be King. He is just trying to do what he believes is right. Mortimer is the rightful King and even though to rebel is wrong in this case it is right. But what is honour. In act V Falstaff explicitly states his notion of honour. He wittily reduce honour to an empty concept. The difference between Hal and Hotspur is that Hal’s attitude to honour is neither obsessive nor unreflective. Hal certainly wants to gain honour and defeat Hotspur, but he does not lack a sense of proportion or of the human cost of war. When Hal makes his challenge it is as much â€Å"to save blood on either side†. When Hotspur wishes for single combat with Hal I feel that he does so because it might increase the glory for him if he wins. We first see Hotspur’s private life in Act II scene iii. At his castle in Northumberland where he has received a letter he is not happy about. His wife Kate enters and shows her concern for him. In this scene we see a tender side of Hotspur we have not seen until now and will not see much of again. She is worried about why for the past few weeks he has been so distant and preoccupied â€Å"For what offence have I this fortnight been A banish’d woman from my Harry’s bed†. Hotspur changes the subject, but it is brought straight back up by Kate. He says that this is a world for battles not for love. When Hotspur tells her he does not love her, Kate seems upset by this and is not sure if he is joking or not. But, says Hotspur, when he is on his horse then he will swear he loves her â€Å"And when I am o’ horseback, I will swear I love thee infinitely†. He reassures her, saying â€Å"Whither I go, there shall you go too†. This view of Hotspur with his wife allows us to see that he is not completely rash and unfeeling. Most noblemen wouldn’t let their wife’s near the battle field but Hotspur wants her near and she is going to follow the next day. His exchanges with his wife reveal a tender and affectionate aspect of his character, an aspect that he represses in pursuit of honour. Hal has a different social life to Hotspur. He spends most of his time in the tavern with his friends. He drinks and plays practical jokes on other people. He is very quick witted and loves to use rhetoric. There is no sign of him having any lady friends as he was probably too busy drinking. Falstaff is a womaniser but there is no reason to make us believe that Hal is too. He never seems to get anxious or get cross; he is too cool headed. Hotspur seems to be over confident, he always seems to be sure that he is right and that the rebels will win. He doesn’t wear his heart on his sleeve and covers up his feelings so that it doesn’t make him look weak, but deep down or subconsciously he is quite nervous about the rebellion. This is shown in Act II scene iii. In his sleep he has murmured of war and weapons. His wife says â€Å"In thy faint slumbers I by thee have watch’d and heard thee murmur tales of iron wars† Hotspur might look confident on the surface but deep down is he. Hotspur is a great competitor and doesn’t like to lose, he wants to reign supreme. Hal doesn’t like losing, this is another reason that Henry IV part 1 is such a great play. The rivalry is phenomenal and neither wants to lose but only one can triumph. Hal on the other hand is quietly confident about everything that he is going to do. This is shown in the soliloquy in Act I. As the play goes on he becomes more and more self-assured. In Act II Hal becomes extremely confident, in some ways over confident, after he has listened to his father telling him that he is failing him Hal states that he will kill Hotspur. It is a bit presumptuous of him seeing as Hotspur is the greatest soldier in Britain at that time. Hal must have spent time training and learning how to fight when he was younger or he must have been learning in between being in the tavern, he knew that his time would come. Throughout the play Shakespeare asks questions about leadership and what characteristics you need to have to be a good leader. Shakespeare exaggerates Hal and Hotspurs faults, this is because he is querying political power. He is hinting that all political power is corrupt. What is power and how do you get it? He shows that the better leader will be the one that can use language to manipulate people. Hotspur has some very good characteristics but he is not a good leader. Hotspur needs to play the political game, you can’t be honest and be a good leader. The play also shows that you will get punished if you rebel. The characteristics that your must have to be a good leader are being dishonourable, using language to great effect, being ambitious but not shouting about it, being dishonest and being very cunning. These are the qualities that Hal posses, even though Hotspur is probably the better person morally he has not got the characteristics to be a good leader.

Duckettville Branch Library Case Study - 1036 Words

Introduction This case study is about Meredith, the assistant manager of the Duckettville Branch Library, who felt dissatisfied, overworked, and burned out. She felt that everyone was relying on her too much all the time. She also started to resent her manager, Pam, for constantly handing out more tasks to her, while she herself seemed to have a lighter workload. In this regard, this paper will address the questions: What policies can be adopted to keep Pam from transferring so many duties to Meredith? What may be Pam’s motives in assigning so much work to Meredith? What could Meredith do in this situation? Discussion What policies can be adopted to keep Pam from transferring so many duties to Meredith? I do not know if there are†¦show more content†¦On the other hand, perhaps Pam expects Meredith to assign many of these tasks to the other employees as what a leader is supposed to do. What could Meredith do in this situation? Meredith has two options in this case. Option one is she could stay and try to implement some changes in the way work is assigned and done in the library, if she still likes her job and wants to stay on. Option two is to move on and find another employment in another library since she has already demonstrated that she is a capable assistant manager and might be even ready for a higher position. If she decides on the first option, she should engage Pam in a discussion again. They should agree on the scope and expectations of her job. Prior to that, she could list all her tasks and during the discussion, she should consult with Pam to identify which tasks are top priorities, and which can be delegated. By showing her the task list, Meredith could demonstrate that she is indeed overwhelmed with the workload. She should make sure to communicate in a logical and respectful manner and let Pam understand that having a heavy workload impacts her abil ity to satisfy the job requirements. Further, she should offer options and solutions. Otherwise, she would just come off as complaining, which is counterproductive. In any case, Meredith must practice her delegation capabilities because it is an essential aspect of leadership and somethingShow MoreRelatedLibrary Management204752 Words   |  820 PagesLibrary and Information Center Management Recent Titles in Library and Information Science Text Series Library and Information Center Management, Sixth Edition Robert D. Stueart and Barbara B. Moran United States Government Information: Policies and Sources Peter Hernon, Harold C. Relyea, Robert E. Dugan, and Joan F. Cheverie Library Information Systems: From Library Automation to Distributed Information Access Solutions Thomas R. Kochtanek and Joseph R. Matthews The Complete Guide to Acquisitions