PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 28. Acceptance of this Settlement Agreement shall be sought at a hearing of the Central Regional Council of the MFDA on a date agreed to by counsel for Staff and the Respondent.
Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:
Procedure for Approving Settlement a. Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement by the Court.
PURPOSE/JUSTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION The purpose of the Agreement is to provide the City with the services for one full-time equivalent senior criminalist from the Department to perform DNA testing, analysis, and forensic-related consulting as requested by the City, effective July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2021. The City’s current agreement with the County for this position expires on June 30, 2016. This Agreement will not result in the creation of an additional senior criminalist position, as the position was created during the previous agreement.
Procedures for LNP Request The Parties shall provide for the requesting of End Office LNP capability on a reciprocal basis through a written request. The Parties acknowledge that Verizon has deployed LNP throughout its network in compliance with FCC 96-286 and other applicable FCC Regulations.
Conclusions and Recommendations The demonstration and evaluation process provided an opportunity to test community specific tools with a range of end users from the memory institution domain and to gain greater insight into both the current and future evolution of the SHAMAN prototypes for preservation, access and re-use. Xxxx et al. (2000) in their user evaluation study of the Alexandria Digital Library which incorporated the evaluation of a Web prototype by earth scientists, information specialists and educators raised four key questions in relation to their findings that SHAMAN may be well advised to consider, they are paraphrased here with our conclusions from the investigations. What have we learned about our target organizations and potential users? Memory institutions are most definitely not a homogenised group; their needs and requirements differ greatly across the domain. Representatives of the archives community are agreed on the benefits of SHAMAN‟s authenticity validation function. The representatives of government information services remained unconvinced as to the need or benefit of grid technologies or distributed ingest while librarians saw the value of grid access as an asset of the framework. What have we learned about the evaluation approach for digital preservation? Within the limits of the exercise, in terms of time-frame and resources, the approach adopted has generated useful information for the further development of demonstrators and for the development of the SHAMAN framework overall. What have we learned about the SHAMAN ISP1 demonstrator? Respondents to the evaluation questionnaires and the focus groups indicate that, overall, the presentation of the demonstrator worked effectively and that, in general, participants in the demonstration and evaluation events were able to understand the intentions of the demonstration and to apply the ideas presented to their own context. What have we learned about the applicability of the SHAMAN framework to memory institutions? Respondents to the questionnaires and participants in the focus groups readily identified the value of the SHAMAN framework to their own operations. The majority had not yet established a long-term digital preservation policy, but recognized the need. Generally, the concepts of distributed ingest and grid operations found favour. Virtually all practitioners in the focus groups, however, drew attention to need of a lower level demonstration that would be closer to their everyday preservation troubles, especially for digital preservation to be applied to non-textual materials, such as film, photographs and sound archives. In addition to the criteria suggested by Xxxx et al., we can add a further project-related question: What have we learned that has implications for the training and dissemination phase of the Project? It was not part of the remit of the demonstration and evaluation specifically to discover information of relevance to the training and dissemination function. However, a number of factors will affect the efficacy of any training programme in particular. o First, no common understanding of digital preservation can be assumed of the potential target audiences for training. Consequently, it is likely that self-paced learning materials will be most effective in presenting the SHAMAN framework. o Secondly, the aims of SHAMAN as a project must be conveyed clearly: specifically, that it is a kind of „proof-of-concept‟ project and is not intended to deliver a package of programs capable of being implemented by institutions. o Thirdly, it needs to be emphasised that the SHAMAN framework is not limited to text documents; it can be applied to materials of all kinds. However, the demonstrations relate to bodies of material that were actually available for use. o Fourthly, the existing presentation materials are capable of being adapted for use in training activities. o Finally, the target audiences will appreciate the possibility of online access to the demonstrator, which will need to have very great ease of access in order that people with diverse backgrounds are able to use it with equal facility. We believe that, overall, WP14 has met its aims and objectives in this demonstration and evaluation of ISP1. Valuable lessons have been learnt by all parties involved, which will be transferred to the evaluation of ISP2 in the coming months.
Manufacturer's Recommendations All work or materials shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and requirements. The Contractor shall obtain the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements, for its use at the Site in executing the Work, copies of bulletins, circulars, catalogues, or other publications bearing the manufacturer’s titles, numbers, editions, dates, etc. If the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements are not available, the Contractor shall request installation instructions from the Design Professional.
JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1.
PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION A. The evaluations of school year employees covered by this agreement shall be completed no later than May 30 of each school year for 9-month employees and by June 30 for 10/12-month employees. The evaluation shall be reviewed with the employee, with a copy given to the employee at the conclusion of the review. An employee may present written comments, which shall be attached to the written evaluation document. The evaluator and employee shall sign the evaluation document. The employee’s signature does not constitute approval or disapproval, but only that the evaluation has been reviewed with the employee.
PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING NEGOTIATIONS Either party may request negotiations for a successor Agreement by issuing a notice to negotiate to the other party between one hundred twenty (120) and ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of this Agreement. The State Employment Relations Board will also be notified of the intent to open negotiations at this time. Within fifteen (15) days of receipt of said notice, representatives of the parties shall meet and submit proposals for the successor Agreement. Said proposals shall be comprehensive in nature and no additional issues shall be introduced after the first session without mutual agreement. Subsequent bargaining sessions shall be set at times and dates as are mutually agreed to by the teams. Negotiation teams will be limited to five (5) members each. Both sides may agree to change this size by mutual agreement. Negotiation sessions shall be conducted in executive session; however, this does not prohibit the flow of information to either party’s constituency. The style of bargaining shall be mutually decided by the parties prior to negotiations. Upon request of either bargaining team, a bargaining session may be recessed to permit a caucus. When negotiations are conducted during regular school hours, release time shall be provided for the Association’s bargaining team. (Reference: Article 18) There shall be three (3) signed copies of the final agreement. One (1) copy shall be retained by the Board, one (1) by the Association, and one (1) shall be submitted to the State Employment Relations Board. As tentative agreement is reached on each issue, it shall be so noted and initialed by each party. When consensus is reached covering the areas under discussion, the proposed Agreement shall be reduced to writing as a tentative agreement and submitted to the Association and the Board for approval. Following approval by the Association and Board, a contract shall be entered into by both parties. The Association and the Board agree to abide by the terms of the Agreement. The final Agreement, as adopted by the Board and ratified by the Association, will be printed and presented within thirty (30) days. The cost of such printing, including labor and material shall be borne by the Board In the event an agreement is not reached after forty-five (45) days from the first bargaining session, either of the parties shall have the option of requesting the assistance of a federal mediator under the guidelines of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. In the event that the services of a mediator are called upon, the mediation process will last twenty-one
