Hearing Officer’s Recommendation to Full Commission Sample Clauses

Hearing Officer’s Recommendation to Full Commission. 1. Recommendations concerning the findings should be made to the Commission within 30 days after conclusion of the hearing. The Commission may accept, reject or call for additional evidence deemed material, and the Commission's order or decision, with or without such additional evidence, shall be final. Any rejection or amendment shall be based on a review of the transcript of the hearing or upon results of such supplementary hearing or investigation as the Commission may order.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Hearing Officer’s Recommendation to Full Commission

  • 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.

  • DIRECTORS’ RESPONSIBILITY STATEMENT The Directors collectively and individually accept full responsibility for the accuracy of the information given in this announcement and confirm after making all reasonable enquiries that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, this announcement constitutes full and true disclosure of all material facts about the Proposed Acquisition, the Company and its subsidiaries, and the Directors are not aware of any facts the omission of which would make any statement in this announcement misleading. Where information in this announcement has been extracted from published or otherwise publicly available sources or obtained from a named source, the sole responsibility of the Directors has been to ensure that such information has been accurately and correctly extracted from those sources and/or reproduced in this announcement in its proper form and context.

  • 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.

  • Franchise Tax Board Review (a) In addition to the reporting requirements in section 6, Taxpayer agrees to comply with the FTB’s review of the books and records for purposes of determining if Taxpayer has complied with the requirements of this Agreement.

  • Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:

  • RECOMMENDATION OF LEGAL AND TAX COUNSEL By signing this document, Xxxxx acknowledges that Xxxxxx has 210 advised that this document has important legal consequences and has recommended consultation with legal and tax or other counsel 211 before signing this Buyer Listing Contract.

  • National Board Certification A teacher who receives or holds a valid National Board Certification will receive a five hundred dollar ($500.00) stipend in each year the certification is valid and the teacher is actively teaching in the area of certification.

  • Notification to Employer The Union shall notify the Employer of the names of the Employees, including the department wherein the Employee is employed, who are members of the Board of Directors, the Union Executive and Council Committees.

  • FISCAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Recognizing the value of Union input on behalf of employees, the parties agree to the following:

  • NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CERTIFICATION Contractor certifies that no more than one (1) final unappealable finding of contempt of court by a Federal court has been issued against Contractor within the immediately preceding two-year period because of Contractor's failure to comply with an order of a Federal court, which orders Contractor to comply with an order of the National Labor Relations Board. (Pub. Contract Code §10296) (Not applicable to public entities.)

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.