Recommendation by Board Sample Clauses

Recommendation by Board. Where the Fox Lake Resource Management Board considers a request or application under subsection 6.7.4, the Fox Lake Resource Management Board may submit recommendations to the Party which forwarded the request or application under subsection 6.7.2 or 6.7.3, in which case the procedures set out in subsections 6.6.1 to 6.6.8, inclusive, will apply with necessary modifications.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Recommendation by Board

  • ACTION BY BOARD In the absence of a recommendation from the superintendent pursuant to this section, or when the board of education chooses not to accept the superintendent's recommendation, the board may initiate action without such recommendation provided that it adheres to the other provisions of this policy.

  • FINAL DETERMINATION BY BOARD The Board shall have the right and power to adjust and determine finally all questions as to the proper and timely performance of the work and the amounts earned under this Contract, all as provided in General Conditions.

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

  • Recommendation The Sheriff recommends approval of the Board Order. The County Administrator concurs with the recommendation of the Sheriff. Should the Board of Commissioners concur with their recommendations, approval of the Board Order will implement that action. Respectfully submitted, /s/ XXXXX XXXXXX Xxxxx Xxxxxx County Administrator

  • 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.

  • Decision of Board ‌ The decision of the majority shall be the decision of the Board. Where there is no majority decision, the decision of the Chair shall be the decision of the Board. The decision of the Arbitration Board shall be final, binding, and enforceable on the parties. The Board shall have the power to dispose of a discharge or discipline grievance by any arrangement which it deems just and equitable. However, the Board shall not have the power to change this agreement or to alter, modify, or amend any of its provisions.

  • 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.

  • Recommendations It is recommended that:

  • Composition of Board of Arbitration When either party requests that a grievance be submitted to arbitration, the request shall be made by registered mail addressed to the other party of the Agreement, indicating the name of its nominee on an Arbitration Board. Within five (5) days thereafter, the other party shall answer by registered mail indicating the name and address of its appointee to the Arbitration Board. The two appointees shall select an impartial chairperson.

  • Decision of the Board The decision of the majority shall be the decision of the Board. Where there is no majority decision, the decision of the Chairperson shall be the decision of the Board. The decision of the Board of Arbitration shall be final, binding and enforceable on all parties, and may not be changed. The Board of Arbitration shall not have the power to change this Agreement or to alter, modify or amend any of its provisions. However, the Board shall have the power to dispose of a grievance by any arrangement which it deems just and equitable.

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