History Sample Clauses

History. The Work Force Report (WFR) is the document that allows the City of San Diego to analyze the work forces of all firms wishing to do business with the City. We are able to compare the firm’s work force data to County Labor Force Availability (CLFA) data derived from the United States Census. CLFA data is a compilation of lists of occupations and includes the percentage of each ethnicity we track (Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian, Filipino) for each occupation. Currently, our CLFA data is taken from the 2000 Census. In order to compare one firm to another, it is important that the data we receive from the consultant firm is accurate and organized in the manner that allows for this fair comparison. WORK FORCE & BRANCH WORK FORCE REPORTS When submitting a WFR, especially if the WFR is for a specific project or activity, we would like to have information about the firm’s work force that is actually participating in the project or activity. That is, if the project is in San Diego and the work force is from San Diego, we want a San Diego County Work Force Report.1 By the same token, if the project is in San Diego, but the work force is from another county, such as Orange or Riverside County, we want a Work Force Report from that county.2 For example, if participation in a San Diego project is by work forces from San Diego County, Los Angeles County and Sacramento County, we will ask for separate Work Force Reports representing the work forces of
History. The two Boards approved a "Proposed Plan to Further Simplify and Facilitate Transfer of Credit Between Institutions" at their meetings in February 1996. This plan was submitted as a preliminary report to the Joint Legislative Education Oversight Committee in March 1996. Since that time, significant steps have been taken toward implementation of the transfer plan. At their April 1996 meetings, the Boards appointed their respective sector representatives to the Transfer Advisory Committee to direct, coordinate, and monitor the implementation of the proposed transfer plan. The Transfer Advisory Committee membership is listed in Appendix D. Basic to the work of the Transfer Advisory Committee in refining transfer policies and implementing the transfer plan has been the re-engineering project accomplished by the North Carolina Community College System, especially common course names, numbers, credits, and descriptions. The Community College Combined Course Library includes approximately 3,800 semester-credit courses written for the associate degree, diploma, and certificate programs offered in the system. Colleges select courses from the Combined Course Library to design all curriculum programs. Of approximately 700 arts and sciences courses within the Combined Course Library, the faculty and administrators of the community colleges recommended approximately 170 courses as appropriate for the general education transfer core. The Transfer Advisory Committee then convened a meeting on May 28, 1996, at which six University of North Carolina faculty in each of ten general education discipline areas met with six of their professional counterparts from the community colleges. Through a very useful and collegial dialog, these committees were able to reach consensus on which community college courses in each discipline were acceptable for transfer to University of North Carolina institutions as a part of the general education core. This list of courses was distributed to all University of North Carolina and community college institutions for their review and comments. Considering the recommendations of the general education discipline committees and the comments from the campuses, the Transfer Advisory Committee established the list of courses that constitutes the general education transfer core. This general education core, if completed successfully by a community college student, is portable and transferable as a block across the community college system and to all U...
History. The minimum professional qualifications in history are a graduate degree in history or closely related field; or a bachelor's degree in history or closely related field plus one of the following:
History. 1967, Act 236, Imd. Eff. July 10, 1967;—Am. 1974, Act 342, Imd. Eff. Dec. 20, 1974. The People of the State of Michigan enact: 123.811 Mutual police assistance agreements; authorized. Sec. 1. Two or more counties, cities, villages, or townships, whether adjacent to each other or not, may enter into agreements to provide mutual police assistance to one another in case of emergencies. History: 1967, Act 236, Imd. Eff. July 10, 1967;—Am. 1974, Act 342, Imd. Eff. Dec. 20, 1974.
History. ‌ Since the publication of Version 8.0.0, all alterations to LICAD have been recorded in the HISTORY.HTML file. This file can be opened by way of the Internet browser.‌
History. Seller shall prepare and provide Buyer with the Facility’s historical Energy production by fuel type, if applicable. The historical production will be determined and prepared by Seller in a Commercially Reasonable Manner with the intent of being as accurate as reasonably possible. Seller shall update any correction to the history any time information becomes available.
History. Effective May 1, 1998; amended effective July 1, 2000; July 1, 2002; July 1, 2004; July 1, 2010; April 1, 2016; July 1, 2018. General Authority: NDCC 53-06.1-01.1 Law Implemented: NDCC 53-06.1-01.1, 53-06.1-06
History. From a historical perspective, the majority of federal policies directed at American Indian people provided an experience that was extremely negative. In particular, both Indian tribes and child welfare professionals were critically concerned about the results of federal, as well as state and local child welfare policies, in terms of the destruction of Indian families. Prior to 1978, Indian children were being placed in xxxxxx care at a nationwide rate ten to twenty times that for non-Indian children. These children often lost all connections with their families, extended families, tribes, and cultural heritage. Public Law 95-608, the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq., was passed to remedy this problem of disproportionately large numbers of Indian children being placed in xxxxxx care. The law recognized "that there is no resource . . . more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children" and that there has been a failure by non-Indian agencies "to recognize the essential tribal relations of Indian people and the culture and social standards prevailing in Indian communities and families." 25 U.S.C. § 1901. In passing the Indian Child Welfare Act, Congress stated: It is the policy of this Nation to protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families by the establishment of minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families and the placement of such children in xxxxxx or adoptive homes which will reflect the unique values of Indian culture, and by providing for assistance to Indian tribes in the operations of child and family service programs. 25 U.S.C. § 1902. Minnesota established the above concepts as state policy and passed the Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act (Minn. Stat. §§ 260.751 to 260.835) in 1985 to strengthen and expand parts of the federal act. The Minnesota law and its amendments emphasize the State's interest in supporting the preservation of the tribal identity of an Indian child and recognize tribes as the appropriate entities to provide direction to the State as to the best interests of tribal children. In addition, Minnesota child protection statutes must be construed consistently with the Indian Child Welfare Act. See Minn. Stat. § 260C.168 (2006). These two laws apply specifically to the provision of child welfare services to Indian children. Indian child...
History. Legislation authorizing a tuition reciprocity agreement between Minnesota and Wisconsin was enacted by the Legislature in 1965 and ini- tially included only three UW campuses (La Crosse, Superior, and River Falls), seven Minne- sota junior colleges, UM-Twin Cities, UM- Duluth, and Winona State. The agreement pro- vided for the transfer of a limited number of stu- dents from each state, with the number of stu- dents attending individual institutions specified. To be eligible, the student had to be an under- graduate whose legal residence or high school was no more than 40 miles from the institution attended in the other state. With the creation of the current University of Wisconsin System in 1971, the Legislature au- thorized HEAB to negotiate tuition reciprocity agreements under Section 39.42 of the statutes and, in 1973, the Legislature authorized separate agreements with Minnesota under Section 39.47 of the statutes. In 1972-73, the restrictions based on student residence and eligible campuses were eliminated and reciprocity was extended to voca- tional and technical college students. In 1974-75, the agreement was revised to in- clude graduate and professional students and all restrictions on the number of participating stu- dents were lifted. In addition, each state was to determine annually the "net tuition loss" resulting from charging resident rather than nonresident tuition and the state with the greatest tuition loss would be reimbursed by the other state. The re- imbursement did not apply to students enrolled in technical or vocational schools. When the agreement was renegotiated for the 1979-80 academic year, a major change was made in the determination of the liability obliga- tion of each state. Since Minnesota's resident tui- tion had historically been higher than Wiscon- sin's, it was agreed that the amount a state owed would be based on a formula that reflected actual educational costs rather than the tuition differen- tial. Each state's liability would be the difference between the calculated cost of educating its stu- dents attending schools in the other state and the total amount of tuition paid by those students. The state with the higher liability obligation would pay the other state the difference between the two states' liability obligations. This method of calculating liability is still used under the cur- rent agreement. In 1987-88, medical, dental, and veterinary students were excluded from the agreement at Wisconsin's request. Wi...