Credibility. Be objective, and insure through our actions and decisions the impartial treatment of others.3 • Communicate all internal and external information to the management in a truthful and accurate manner to facilitate timely execution of their entrusted responsibilities.2 • Recognize and avoid personal conflicts of interest3 or the appearance thereof in all transactions.
Credibility. In Nevada, the only way to earn credibility is through hard, honest work. Our staff is among the most respected public policy professionals in the State. We’ve built our reputation on our experience and the successes we’ve achieved with our clients, not by seeking publicity and fanfare for ourselves. Teamwork. Each member of the Carrara Nevada team is available to meet the needs of our clients. Our statewide presence enables us to combine unwavering personal attention with the diverse talents of our entire firm. The Carrara Nevada Team: The Carrara Nevada lobbying team will consist of Xxxxx Xxxxxxx, President and CEO of the firm, and Xxxxx Xxxxx, Vice President of the company who is well versed in local government issues. In addition, we will use the combined talents of the rest of our staff in developing strategy and meeting the needs of the City outside the halls of Xxxxxx City. Outlined below are the backgrounds of the lobbying team members who will be working as part of the legislative team in Xxxxxx City. XXXXX XXXXXXX is the President and CEO of Carrara Nevada. Xx. Xxxxxxx manages and oversees the day-to-day operations of the firm’s lobbyists, and he has served as the Chief Lobbyist for the City since the 2007 session. He works extensively with the company’s clients developing legislative strategy, drafting of legislation and developing sound public policy. He is an experienced lobbyist in Xxxxxx City and is versed in lobbying at local level in Southern Nevada. With over two decades of experience developing public policy at federal, state and local levels, Xx. Xxxxxxx is accomplished in legislative and political affairs. He has served as chief of staff to the chairman of the Honolulu City Council, he was the assistant in Washington, DC for the former Governor of Hawaii’s monitoring federal issues on behalf of the state, and also served as a state policy analyst in the Governor’s Office. He provides a solid statewide perspective to all of our clients. He holds a degree in Political Science from Xxxxx and Xxxxx College in Oregon. Xx. Xxxxxxx has served on the Board of Directors for the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada (EDAWN) and the Board of the Southern Nevada American Lung Association. XXXXX XXXXX is Vice President for the firm and works alongside Xx. Xxxxxxx as the lead lobbyist internally within the firm while in Xxxxxx City. Xx. Xxxxx is well respected within the halls of Xxxxxx City, and is universally recognized for her integrit...
Credibility. Medical personnel have an advantage on other types of source in the IR fields, because our cultures assign high recognition to the competence of doctors. It should be part of the year- round work of official sources to establish, through concrete demonstrations and displays, that they are competent in the knowledge of their field – but this must be tempered also by the relational aspects of communication. Doctors successfully obtain the recognition of their high scientific competence in the context of listening to the patients’ complaint and providing a workable solution or cure. For other sources, this situation might be reproduced by outreach to the persons affected by the application of IR. For these official sources, the demonstrations of their competence, and their ability to provide solutions, should be achieved in contexts of partnering with communities or civil society to solve issues that matter to those people. Good practice in getting credibility in the population’s perception is: - when the source of information about IR risk has a recognized competence, and - when it can also point to positive achievements and successful judgments in areas that really matter to individuals. It means expressing the information in a way that takes into account the center of concern as defined by the people. - when the source is someone you know and who, you feel, is part of your community or attuned to its concerns. A doctor is indeed a respected, wise member of the community and perceived as having people’s best interest at heart. Source institution officials cannot impose themselves in the community but they can work over time to earn such positive visibility and to learn about the interests and concerns of the people, which they can support and respect. Bad practice to be avoided is: - when the source of information is arrogant, creating a sense of distance measured between his expertise and the listener’s ability to grasp the facts, and - when the source considers that technical expertise in a particular subject constitutes expertise also in communication. In fact, sources lose in credibility when they fail to deliver their message in an understandable, appropriate way. - when the source stays in a centralized location and never ventures out to dialogue and learn, humbly, what are the needs and concerns of affected persons and communities.
Credibility. 93. The claimant has proved to be a witness whose acquaintance with the truth is sometimes fleeting, she has been seen on occasion to be an untruthful and wholly unreliable witness, and wherever there is a dispute of fact, Xx Xxxxxxxx invites the Tribunal to find that the Respondent’s evidence should be preferred unless there is otherwise objective evidence to support the claimant’s account. The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples demonstrating C’s unreliability.
Credibility. Credibility means that interpretations are based on multiple sources (triangulation) and/or the respondent confirms the interpretation of the researcher.
Credibility. The results of the participatory evaluation method are seen as credible because the results are based on multiple sources and in many cases, interview respondents have confirmed the interpretations of the researchers. Triangulation is one of the main strength of the participatory evaluation method and the method involved a series of ‘checks and balances’. All case study teams performed interviews with a wide range of stakeholders at different stages of the research and often contacted them several times to validate the interpretations. Other sources for triangulation were literature studies, questionnaires, workshops, and focus group discussions with different groups of stakeholders. In the Latvian xxxxx case study, triangulation led to the identification of controversial chain elements and to the detection of contradictory information from different stakeholders. The City University team added that the data quality check was an important way to demonstrate the quality of the data, especially regarding the recentness and the origin of the data.
Credibility. Results of the LCA analysis need to be understood considering the context. The method itself does not include triangulation of sources but the method and results can be explained to stakeholders to enable them to give feedback. This can increase the credibility of the results.
Credibility. Results of the shadow price methodology are generally not triangulated, as the cost of environmental externalities is a hypothetical concept which is hardly comparable with other information. The inference of interpretations based on shadow prices is not debatable; it is rather the way of monetising that could lead to discussions about the credibility of the results.
Credibility. Results of the metabolic analysis are very credible. In order to build the models, data from different sources have to be compared and there are checks at different analytical levels to confirm the fit of the data. Moreover in theory, the metabolic analysis should build on a participatory approach and include stakeholders in the research process.
Credibility. A measure of the statistical predictability of a group’s experience. Current Procedural Terminology, Fourth Edition (CTP-4) A manual which assigns five-digit codes to medical services and procedures to standardized claims processing and data analysis.
