Submission of Report and Recommendations on Compensation Sample Clauses

Submission of Report and Recommendations on Compensation. System By March 1, 2000, the Joint Committee on Compensation shall prepare and submit a report and recommendations on the system for employee compensation consistent with the parties intent as set forth in Section 5 of this Article. The report and recommendations shall address: (1) the classified positions as reflected in Appendix A of the Agreement; (2) the salary schedule and ranges as reflected in Appendix B of the Agreement; (3) the process of making selective salary adjustments; and (4) such other matters directly related to compensation of employees as mutually agreed to by the committee. The report and recommendations shall be submitted concurrently to the Union and to the Oregon University System.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Submission of Report and Recommendations on Compensation

  • NOTIFICATIONS AND SUBMISSION OF REPORTS Unless otherwise stated in writing after the Effective Date, all notifications and reports required under this IA shall be submitted to the following entities: OIG: Administrative and Civil Remedies Branch Office of Counsel to the Inspector General Office of Inspector General U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Xxxxx Building, Room 5527 000 Xxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx, XX Xxxxxxxxxx, XX 00000 Telephone: (000) 000-0000 Facsimile: (000) 000-0000 LFAC: Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxx, DPM 0000 Xxxxxxxxxxx Xx. X-000 Xxxxxxxxx, XX 00000 Telephone: (000) 000-0000 Email: xx.xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx Unless otherwise specified, all notifications and reports required by this IA may be made by electronic mail, overnight mail, hand delivery, or other means, provided that there is proof that such notification was received. Upon request by OIG, LFAC may be required to provide OIG with an additional copy of each notification or report required by this IA in OIG’s requested format (electronic or paper).

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

  • Privacy Consent; Consent to Publication of Agreement Contributor consents to the OpenID Privacy Policy and also agrees that OIDF may publish a copy of this Agreement as signed by Contributor via posting on the OIDF publicly-accessible website, and Contributor consents to such publication. If Contributor is a Legal Entity Contributor, it also represents that it has obtained appropriate consent under applicable law from all individuals listed in this Agreement to the publication of this Agreement and their personal information listed herein. The parties have formed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. OPENID FOUNDATION (“CONTRIBUTOR”) By: (Sign) Xxxx Xxxxxx By: (Sign) Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx Name: (Print) Title: Program Manager 7/21/2022 Name: (Print) Title: Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx 7/18/2022

  • Representations and Recommendations Unless otherwise stated in writing, neither Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc, nor its brokers or licensees have made, on their own behalf, any representations or warranties, express or implied, with respect to any element of the Property including but not limited to, the legal sufficiency, legal effect, or tax consequences of this transaction. Any information furnished by either party should be independently verified before that party relies on such information. Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc. recommends that Buyer consult its attorneys and accountants before signing this Agreement regarding the terms and conditions herein and that Seller satisfy itself as to the financial ability of Buyer to perform.

  • SUBMISSION OF REPORTS All applicable study reports shall be submitted in preliminary form for approval by the State before a final report is issued. The State's comments on the Engineer's preliminary report must be addressed in the final report.

  • 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.

  • Certification of Meeting or Exceeding Tobacco-Free Workplace Policy Minimum Standards A. Grantee certifies that it has adopted and enforces a Tobacco-Free Workplace Policy that meets or exceeds all of the following minimum standards of:

  • Accurate and Timely Submission of Reports a) The reports and administrative fees shall be accurate and timely and submitted in accordance with the due dates specified in this section. Vendor shall correct any inaccurate reports or administrative fee payments within three (3) business days upon written notification by DIR. Vendor shall deliver any late reports or late administrative fee payments within three (3) business days upon written notification by DIR. If Vendor is unable to correct inaccurate reports or administrative fee payments or deliver late reports and fee payments within three

  • Certification of claims by Statutory Auditors Any claim or document provided by the Concessionaire to the Authority in connection with or relating to receipts, income, payments, costs, expenses, accounts or audit, and any matter incidental thereto shall be valid and effective only if certified by its Statutory Auditors. For the avoidance of doubt, such certification shall not be required for exchange of information in the normal course of business including the submission of Monthly Fee Statements under Clause 19.5.

  • Certification Regarding Lobbying Applicable to Grants Subgrants, Cooperative Agreements, and Contracts Exceeding $100,000 in Federal Funds Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction and is imposed by section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: (1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of a Federal contract, the making of a Federal grant, the making of a Federal loan, the entering into a cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. (2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal grant or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instructions. (3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all covered subawards exceeding $100,000 in Federal funds at all appropriate tiers and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. I HAVE NOT Lobbied per above If you answered "I HAVE lobbied" to the above Attribute Question If you answered "I HAVE lobbied" to the above Attribute question, you must download the Lobbying Report "Standard From LLL, disclosure Form to Report Lobbying" which includes instruction on completing the form, complete and submit it in the Response Attachments section as a report of the lobbying activities you performed or paid others to perform. Subcontracting with Small and Minority Businesses, Women's Business Enterprises, and Labor Surplus Area Firms. Do you ever anticipate the possibility of subcontracting any of your work under this award if you are successful? IF NO, DO NOT ANSWER THE NEXT ATTRIBUTE QUESTION. . IF YES, and ONLY IF YES, you must answer the next question YES if you want a TIPS Member to be authorized to spend Federal Grant Funds for Procurement. NO

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!