REVIEW OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RECOMMENDATION BY HOUSING AUTHORITY, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Sample Clauses

REVIEW OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RECOMMENDATION BY HOUSING AUTHORITY, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS a. The recommendation of the Board of Adjustment shall be submitted to the Board of Commissioners of the AUTHORITY for final decision within ten
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to REVIEW OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RECOMMENDATION BY HOUSING AUTHORITY, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

  • SYSTEM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 16.1 In compliance with Section 204, Title II, of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, there is hereby established a System Board of Adjustment for the purpose of adjusting disputes or grievances which may arise under the terms of this Agreement and which are properly submitted to it after all steps for settling disputes and grievances as set forth in Article 15 have been exhausted.

  • 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.

  • MILWAUKEE BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS AUTHORITY It is hereby agreed and declared that this Contract is made expressly subject to the powers granted to said Milwaukee Board of School Directors, by the applicable provisions of Chapter 119 and Sec.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Scope of the Committee The Committee shall not have the power to bind the Union or its members, or the Employer to any decision or conclusion reached in discussion. The Committee shall not have jurisdiction over any matter contained in this Collective Agreement, including its administration or renegotiation. The Committee shall not supersede the activities of any other committee of the Union or of the Employer.

  • Mandate of the Committee The mandate of the Education Worker Diverse and Inclusive Workforce Committee is to jointly explore and identify best practices that support diversity, equity, inclusion and to xxxxxx diverse and inclusive workforces reflective of Ontario’s diverse communities.

  • Composition of the Board of Arbitration When a party has requested that a grievance be submitted to arbitration, it shall indicate to the other party to the Agreement within seven days:

  • 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.

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