Classification Plan Revisions A. The Employer will provide to the Union, in writing, any proposed changes to the classification plan including descriptions for newly created classifications. Upon request of the Union, the Employer will bargain, in accordance with Article 37, Mandatory Subjects, the effect(s) of a change to an existing class or newly proposed classification.
Procedure for Benefits Modifications 1. Proposals for major retirement benefit modifications will be negotiated in joint meetings with the certified employee organizations whose memberships will be directly affected. Agreements reached between Management and organizations whereby a majority of the members in LACERS are affected shall be recommended to the City Council by the CAO as affecting the membership of all employees in LACERS. Such modifications need not be included in the MOU in order to be considered appropriately negotiated.
REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS Any revisions or amendments to this Agreement must be made in writing and signed by both parties.
Benefits on Lay-off In the event of a layoff of a full-time employee, the Hospital shall pay its share of insured benefits premium up to three (3) months of the end of the month in the which the layoff occurs or until the laid off employee is employed elsewhere, whichever occurs first.
Benefits on Layoff (The following clause is applicable to full-time employees only) In the event of a lay-off of a full-time employee the Hospital shall pay its share of insured benefits premium up to three (3) months from the end of the month in which the lay-off occurs or until the laid off employee is employed elsewhere, whichever occurs first.
SEP Plans Under a simplified employee pension (SEP) plan that meets the requirements of IRC Sec. 408(k), your employer may make contributions to your Traditional IRA. Your employer is required to provide you with information which describes the terms of your employer’s SEP Plan. No SEP plan contributions may be made to a Xxxx XXX.
Plan Arrangements Eligibility – Claim Types All claim types are eligible to be processed through Inter-Plan Arrangements, as described above, except for all dental benefits, and those prescription drug benefits or vision benefits that may be administered by a third party contracted by us to provide the specific service or services. BlueCard® Program Under the BlueCard® Program, when you receive covered healthcare services within the geographic area served by a Host Blue, BCBSRI will remain responsible for doing what we agreed to in the contract. However, the Host Blue is responsible for contracting with and generally handling all interactions with its participating providers. When you receive covered healthcare services outside our service area and the claim is processed through the BlueCard Program, the amount you pay for covered healthcare services is calculated based on the lower of: • the billed covered charges for your covered services; or • the negotiated price that the Host Blue makes available to BCBSRI. Often, this “negotiated price” will be a simple discount that reflects an actual price that the Host Blue pays to your healthcare provider. Sometimes, it is an estimated price that takes into account special arrangements with your healthcare provider or provider group that may include types of settlements, incentive payments and/or other credits or charges. Occasionally, it may be an average price, based on a discount that results in expected average savings for similar types of healthcare providers after taking into account the same types of transactions as with an estimated price. Estimated pricing and average pricing also take into account adjustments to correct for over- or underestimation of past pricing of claims, as noted above. However, such adjustments will not affect the price we have used for your claim because they will not be applied after a claim has already been paid. Negotiated (non–BlueCard Program) Arrangements With respect to one or more Host Blues, in certain instances, instead of using the BlueCard Program, we may process your claims for covered healthcare services through Negotiated Arrangements for National Accounts. The amount you pay for covered healthcare services under this arrangement will be calculated based on the negotiated price (refer to the description of negotiated price in the BlueCard® Program section above) made available to us by the Host Blue.
Meal Plans Residents living in Residence Facility are required to purchase a University meal plan. Information regarding the meal plan options can be obtained by contacting the meal plan office at 000-000-0000.
Revisions With respect to Contracts that are “electronic chattel paper”, the related Receivables have been established in a manner such that (a) all copies or revisions that add or change an identified assignee of the authoritative copy of each such Contract must be made with the participation of the Trust Collateral Agent and (b) all revisions of the authoritative copy of each such Contract are readily identifiable as an authorized or unauthorized revision.
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.
