Vigorous Discussion Sample Clauses

Open Split View

Download

Share

Cite

Vigorous Discussion. We understand the Process will involve vigorous good faith discussions.

Sample 1

Save

Copy

Related to Vigorous Discussion

• Discussion Staff has reviewed the proposal relative to all relevant policies and advise that it is reasonably consistent with the intent of the MPS. Attachment B provides an evaluation of the proposed development agreement in relation to the relevant MPS policies.

• Informal Discussion If an employee has a problem relating to a work situation, the employee is encouraged to request a meeting with his or her immediate supervisor to discuss the problem in an effort to clarify the issue and to work cooperatively towards settlement.

• Informal Discussions The employee's concerns will be presented orally by the employee to the appropriate supervisor. Every effort shall be made by all concerned in an informal manner to develop an understanding of the facts and the issues in order to create a climate which will lead to resolution of the problem. If the employee is not satisfied with the informal discussion(s) relative to the matter in question, he/she may proceed to the formal grievance procedure.

• Mutual Discussions The Employer and the Union acknowledge the mutual benefits to be derived from dialogue between the parties and are prepared to discuss matters of common interest.

• Settlement Discussions This Agreement is part of a proposed settlement of matters that could otherwise be the subject of litigation among the Parties hereto. Nothing herein shall be deemed an admission of any kind. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and any applicable state rules of evidence, this Agreement and all negotiations relating thereto shall not be admissible into evidence in any proceeding other than to prove the existence of this Agreement or in a proceeding to enforce the terms of this Agreement.

• PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 16, 2008, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“AT&T Illinois”) and Vertex Broadband, Corp. d/b/a AthenaTel d/b/a Reason to Switch d/b/a TownLink Communications d/b/a INT Connections (“Vertex”), filed a joint petition for approval of the 1st Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated May 6, 2008 under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. § 252 et seq.) (“the Act”). The 1st Amendment to the Agreement was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. Xxxx, Xx. on behalf of AT&T Illinois and by Xxxxxx X. Xxxxx on behalf of Vertex, stating that the facts contained in the petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter came on for hearing by the duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on June 9, 2008. Staff previously filed the Verified Statement of A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division on June 6, 2008. At the hearing on June 9, 2008, AT&T Illinois, Vertex and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Subsequently Xx. Xxxxxxx’x Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”

• Results and Discussion Table 1 (top) shows the root mean square error (RMSE) between the three tests for different numbers of topics. These results show that all three tests largely agree with each other but as the sample size (number of topics) decreases, the agreement decreases. In line with the results found for 50 topics, the randomization and bootstrap tests agree more with the t-test than with each other. We looked at pairwise scatterplots of the three tests at the different topic sizes. While there is some disagreement among the tests at large p-values, i.e. those greater than 0.5, none of the tests would predict such a run pair to have a significant difference. More interesting to us is the behavior of the tests for run pairs with lower p-values. Table 1 (bottom) shows the RMSE among the three tests for run pairs that all three tests agreed had a p-value greater than 0.0001 and less than 0.5. In contrast to all pairs with p-values 0.0001 (Table 1 top), these run pairs are of more importance to the IR researcher since they are the runs that require a statistical test to judge the significance of the per- formance difference. For these run pairs, the randomization and t tests are much more in agreement with each other than the bootstrap is with either of the other two tests. Looking at scatterplots, we found that the bootstrap tracks the t-test very well but shows a systematic bias to produce p-values smaller than the t-test. As the number of topics de- creases, this bias becomes more pronounced. Figure 1 shows a pairwise scatterplot of the three tests when the number of topics is 10. The randomization test also tends to produce smaller p-values than the t-test for run pairs where the t- test estimated a p-value smaller than 0.1, but at the same time, produces some p-values greater than the t-test’s. As Figure 1 shows, the bootstrap consistently gives smaller p- values than the t-test for these smaller p-values. While the bootstrap and the randomization test disagree with each other more than with the t-test, Figure 1 shows that for a low number of topics, the randomization test shows less noise in its agreement with the bootstrap com- pared to the t-test for small p-values.

• Notification; Procedural Matters Promptly after receipt by an Indemnified Party under Section 3.1 of notice of any claim or the commencement of any action, such Indemnified Party shall, if a claim in respect thereof is to be made against the Indemnifying Party (or if a claim for contribution is to be made against another party) under Section 3.1, notify the Indemnifying Party (or other contributing party) in writing of the claim or the commencement of such action; provided, however, that the failure to notify the Indemnifying Party (or other contributing party) shall not relieve it from any liability which it may have under Section 3.1 except to the extent it has been materially prejudiced by such failure; and provided, further, however, that the failure to notify the Indemnifying Party shall not relieve it from any liability which it may have to any Indemnified Party (or to the party requesting contribution) otherwise than under Section 3.1. In case any such action is brought against any Indemnified Party and it notifies the Indemnifying Party of the commencement thereof, the Indemnifying Party shall be entitled to participate therein and, to the extent that, by written notice delivered to the Indemnified Party promptly after receiving the aforesaid notice from such Indemnified Party, the Indemnifying Party elects to assume the defense thereof, it may participate with counsel reasonably satisfactory to such Indemnified Party; provided, however, that if the defendants in any such action include both the Indemnified Party and the Indemnifying Party and the Indemnified Party or parties shall reasonably have concluded that there may be legal defenses available to it or them and/or other Indemnified Parties that are different from or additional to those available to the Indemnifying Party, or if the use of counsel chosen by the Indemnifying Party to represent the Indemnified Parties would present such counsel with a conflict of interest, the Indemnified Party or parties shall have the right to select separate counsel to assert such legal defenses and to otherwise participate in the defense of such action on behalf of such Indemnified Party or parties. Upon receipt of notice from the Indemnifying Party to such Indemnified Party of its election so to assume the defense of such action and approval by the Indemnified Party of such counsel, the Indemnifying Party shall not be liable to such Indemnified Party under this paragraph for any legal or other expenses subsequently incurred by such Indemnified Party in connection with the defense thereof, unless (i) the Indemnified Party shall have employed separate counsel (plus any local counsel) in connection with the assertion of legal defenses in accordance with the proviso to the immediately preceding sentence, (ii) the Indemnifying Party shall not have employed counsel reasonably satisfactory to the Indemnified Party to represent the Indemnified Party within a reasonable time after notice of commencement of the action or (iii) the Indemnifying Party shall have authorized the employment of counsel for the Indemnified Party at the expense of the Indemnifying Party. No party shall be liable for contribution with respect to any action or claim settled without its consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. In no event shall the Indemnifying Party be liable for the fees and expenses of more than one counsel (in addition to any local counsel) separate from its own counsel for all Indemnified Parties in connection with any one action or separate but similar or related actions in the same jurisdiction arising out of the same general allegations or circumstances.

• Sampling and Analysis The Seller has sole responsibility for quality control of the coal and shall forward its “as loaded” quality to the Buyer as soon as possible. The sampling and analysis of the coal delivered hereunder shall be performed by Buyer and the results thereof shall be accepted and used for the quality and characteristics of the coal delivered under this Agreement. All analyses shall be made in Buyer’s laboratory at Buyer’s expense in accordance with ASTM standards where applicable, or using standards mutually acceptable to both parties. Samples for analyses shall be taken by any ASTM standards or standards mutually acceptable to both parties, and may be composited and shall be taken with a frequency and regularity sufficient to provide reasonably accurate representative samples of the deliveries made hereunder. Seller represents that it is familiar with Buyer’s sampling and analysis practices, and finds them to be acceptable. Buyer shall notify Seller in writing of any significant changes in Buyer’s sampling and analysis practices. Any such changes in Buyer’s sampling and analysis practices shall, except for ASTM or mutually agreeable changes in practices, provide for no less accuracy than the sampling and analysis practices existing at the time of the execution of this Agreement, unless the Parties otherwise mutually agree. (1) part shall be used for analysis by Buyer; one (l) part shall be used by Buyer as a check sample, if Buyer in its sole judgment determines it is necessary; one (1) part shall be retained by Buyer (LG&E) until the twenty-fifth (25th) of the month following the month of unloading (the “LG&E Disposal Date”) or Buyer (KU) until thirty (30) days after the sample is taken (the “KU Disposal Date”), the LG&E Disposal Date and the KU Disposal Date are collectively the “Disposal Date”), and shall be delivered to Seller for analysis if Seller so requests before the Disposal Date; and one part (“Referee Sample”) shall be retained by Buyer until the Disposal Date. Seller shall be given copies of all analyses made by Buyer by the tenth (10th) business day of the month following the month of unloading. Seller, on reasonable notice to Buyer shall have the right to have a representative present to observe the sampling and analyses performed by Buyer. Unless Seller requests a Referee Sample analysis before the Disposal Date, Buyer’s analysis shall be used to determine the quality of the coal delivered hereunder. The Monthly Weighted Averages shall be determined by utilizing the individual shipment analyses. If any dispute arises before the Disposal Date, the Referee Sample retained by Buyer shall be submitted for analysis to an independent commercial testing laboratory (“Independent Lab”) mutually chosen by Buyer and Seller. For each coal quality specification in question, a dispute shall be deemed not to exist and Buyer’s analysis shall prevail and the analysis of the Independent Lab shall be disregarded if the analysis of the Independent Lab differs from the analysis of Buyer by an amount equal to or less than: (i) 0.50% moisture (ii) 0.50% ash on a dry basis (iii) 100 Btu/lb. on a dry basis (iv) 0.10% sulfur on a dry basis. For each coal quality specification in question, if the analysis of the Independent Lab differs from the analysis of Buyer by an amount more than the amounts listed above, then the analysis of the Independent Lab shall prevail and Buyer’s analysis shall be disregarded. The cost of the analysis made by the Independent Lab shall be borne by Seller to the extent that Buyer’s analysis prevails and by Buyer to the extent that the analysis of the Independent Lab prevails.

• Procedural Matters The Trustee may maintain a proceeding even if it does not possess any of the Notes or does not produce any of them in such proceeding. A delay or omission by the Trustee or any Holder in exercising any right or remedy following an Event of Default will not impair the right or remedy or constitute a waiver of, or acquiescence in, such Event of Default. All remedies will be cumulative to the extent permitted by law.