alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DECISION-MAKING MODELS: VOTING VERSUS CONSENSUS | 1 

Exploring Ways to Work Together 

Decision-Making Models: Voting Versus Consensus 

As you begin working with new partners, it’s important to consider how you 

will make decisions—from big resolutions to ordinary, everyday choices. Will 

members be involved in making all decisions, or only some of them? Will the 

majority rule, or will all decisions require unanimous support? Who has the 

ultimate decision-making authority for the team? 

The chart below compares two common decision-making approaches: voting and consensus. Use 

it to determine which method is best for your team. You can also choose a hybrid approach—

inviting members to vote on less weighty decisions while building consensus for more important 

ones. Whichever approach or combination of approaches you choose, what is important is that 

you are transparent about the process so members know what to expect. 

Voting Consensus 

Description • Majority determines decisions 

(with the group first defining 

“majority”)

• Every member voices a position 

• All team members agree to 

support the ultimate decision even 

when it’s not everyone’s favorite 

choice 

Pros • Familiar, conventional, efficient 

• Considered “fair” by most

• Useful when time constraints make 

reaching consensus difficult 

• Ensures buy-in of all members, 

thus increasing the likelihood of 

success 

• Members strive to make the best 

decision for the group rather than 

competing for personal preference 

• All perspectives are considered 
 DECISION-MAKING MODELS: VOTING VERSUS CONSENSUS | 2 

Voting Consensus 

Cons • Does not allow for discussion of 

minority opinions 

• May not encourage full-group 

interaction 

• Creates winners and losers

• Time-consuming 

• The larger the group, the more 

difficult to execute 

• Can be contentious 

• Sometimes tedious

Variations • Plurality: A large block of members 

supports a given decision 

• Range Voting: Each member scores 

each option, then the option with 

the highest average score wins 

• Fist-to-Five: Team members use 

specific hand signals to: block 

consensus (fist), suggest changes 

(one finger), discuss minor issues 

(two fingers), pass without 

discussion (three fingers), affirm 

the decision (four fingers), or 

volunteer to take a lead in 

implementing the new decision 

(five fingers) 

• Red/Yellow/Green-Colored Cards: 

A red card indicates opposition to 

the decision, yellow card indicates 

reservations, and green card 

signifies consent 

Considerations • Group may need to decide which 

individuals are “voting” members 

(e.g., based on length of 

participation, attendance at a 

minimum number of members) 

• Helpful to use an experienced 

facilitator to guide discussions 

• Helpful to record decision points 

on a flip chart to avoid ambiguity 

and ensure that everyone 

understands the different options 

REFERENCE 

Education Development Center, Inc. (2013). How do we make decisions? Retrieved from 

www.promoteprevent.org

SPTAC@edc.org | samhsa.gov/SPTAC
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5079 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 5079

 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to repeal the suspension of 
  eligibility for grants, loans, and work assistance for drug-related 
                               offenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 21, 2020

   Mr. Casey introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to repeal the suspension of 
  eligibility for grants, loans, and work assistance for drug-related 
                               offenses.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stopping Unfair Collateral 
Consequences from Ending Student Success Act'' or the ``SUCCESS Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SUSPENSION OF ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE HIGHER EDUCATION 
              ACT OF 1965 FOR GRANTS, LOANS, AND WORK ASSISTANCE FOR 
              DRUG-RELATED OFFENSES.

    (a) Repeal.--Subsection (r) of section 484 of the Higher Education 
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091(r)) is repealed.
    (b) Revision of FAFSA Form.--Section 483 of the Higher Education 
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1090) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``(i) Convictions.--The Secretary shall not include any question 
about the conviction of an applicant for the possession or sale of 
illegal drugs on the FAFSA (or any other form developed under 
subsection (a)).''.
    (c) Conforming Amendments.--The Higher Education Act of 1965 is 
amended--
            (1) in section 428(b)(3) (20 U.S.C. 1078(b)(3))--
                    (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``485(l)'' and 
                inserting ``485(k)''; and
                    (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``485(l)'' and 
                inserting ``485(k)'';
            (2) in section 435(d)(5) (20 U.S.C. 1085(d)(5))--
                    (A) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``485(l)'' and 
                inserting ``485(k)''; and
                    (B) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``485(l)'' and 
                inserting ``485(k)'';
            (3) in section 484 (20 U.S.C. 1091), by redesignating 
        subsections (s) and (t) as subsections (q) and (r), 
        respectively;
            (4) in section 485 (20 U.S.C. 1092)--
                    (A) by striking subsection (k); and
                    (B) by redesignating subsections (l) and (m) as 
                subsections (k) and (l), respectively; and
            (5) in section 487(e)(2)(B)(ii)(IV) (20 U.S.C. 
        1094(e)(2)(B)(ii)(IV)), by striking ``(l) of section 485'' and 
        inserting ``(k) of section 485''.
                                 <all>
```
AAM-13-298-E

May 01, 2013

 Exemption No. 10257A

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0419

Mr. Gordon Mills

Alpine Aviation

13310 Nevada City Avenue

Grass Valley, CA 95945

Dear Mr. Mills:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 

10257. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions and 

limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated April 19, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Alpine Aviation for an exemption from part 120 Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would permit Alpine Aviation, which is 

operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under 

one testing program.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Alpine Aviation.
2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10257

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Alpine Aviation are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all 

times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Alpine Aviation part 135 operation, not under the part 91.

This exemption terminates on May 31, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

James R. Fraser, M.D.

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

YANMEI MORALES,

Appellant,

v.

MOTOR VEHICLES DIVISION TEXAS

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOTR VEHICLES

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 22

- 00219

- CV

Direct Appeal from the

Director of the

Department of Motor Vehicles

MVD Case No. 22

- 0009875

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no reversible

error in the agency ’ s order of July 27, 2022. We therefore affirm the agency ’ s order of said date

.

The appellant sha ll pay all cost s relating to this appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023.

GINA M. PALAFOX

, Justice

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
----

|  | Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.777 Old Saw Mill River RoadTarrytown, New York 10591Fax: (914) 789-2817(914) 789-2800www.progenics.com |
|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Contact: | Amy Martini |
|----------|-------------|

----

| · | Compelling data in a phase 2 registrational trial for pheochromocytoma, an ultra-orphan adrenal tumor indication |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| · | Is in development under a Special Protocol Assessment with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration using a surrogate marker registrational endpoint |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| · | Potential for use in neuroblastoma and other neuroendicrine diseases |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|

| · | Phase 2 study ongoing in metastatic prostate cancer |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|

| · | Highly sensitive and selective radioisotope small molecule targeting PSMA uses technetium-99m for metastatic and localized prostate cancer imaging and detection |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| · | Designed as an improved imaging agent that identifies cancer cells in soft tissue and bone, where current agents are insufficient |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| · | Targets the PSMA antigen with a radioactive payload |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|

| · | In preclinical development with evidence of dose-dependent enhanced tumor kill and prolonged survival in animal models of human prostate cancer |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| · | Investigator-initiated study in Germany of men with late-stage metastatic prostate cancer demonstrated tumor reduction for more than 14 days and a greater than 50% decrease in PSA levels in eight of 14 evaluable patients. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
-90

 -85 -80 -75

 35

 40

 45

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲

▲ ▲ ▲

 1000

 1500

 2000

 1000

18 12 06 00

07/03

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 03 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL
### SUBCHAPTER CII—ALLEGHENY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
#### § 93.515 Appearance of disease among swine in quarantine.

If any contagious disease appears among swine during the quarantine period special precautions shall be taken to prevent spread of the infection to other animals in the quarantine station or to those outside the grounds. The affected swine shall be disposed of as the Administrator may direct, depending upon the nature of the disease.
MAKE REGULAR CONVERSATIONS PART OF 

THE ROUTINE.

Know the risks of underage drinking and be prepared to talk about them.

Establishing yourself as a trustworthy source of information on alcohol will make your child more 

inclined to ask questions and look to you for support and guidance. For tips on how—and when—to 

begin the conversation, visit 

www.underagedrinking.samhsa.gov

#TalkTheyHearYou PEP20-03-01-026
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jameel Gordon, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 94]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J., at hearing; William A. Wetzel, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered June 20, 2005, convicting defendant of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reducing the conviction to assault in the third degree and remanding for resentencing, and otherwise affirmed.

Following an altercation with the victim, the intoxicated defendant drove his car in the victim’s direction and hit him, causing serious physical injury. In his statements and trial testimony, defendant asserted that he did not intend to hit the victim, but that he tried to get around him. The jury acquitted defendant of attempted murder but convicted him of assault predicated on depraved indifference (Penal Law § 120.10 [3]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as well as under the court’s charge, we find that it was legally insufficient to establish that defendant acted with the culpable mental state of depraved indifference to human life *(see People v Feingold,*7 NY3d 288 [2006]; *People v Suarez,*6 NY3d 202 [2005]). There was no evidence of extreme brutality, risk to persons other than the victim, or any other factor that would satisfy the element of depraved indifference. However, we do not find that the evidence could only support a conviction of an intentional crime. The evidence, with particular reference to defendant’s version of the incident, supports a finding of recklessness, and thus would permit a conviction of third-degree reckless assault (Penal Law § 120.00 [3]) as a lesser included offense *(see People v Swinton,*7 NY3d 776 [2006]). Although the evidence would have also supported convictions of second-degree assault pursuant to Penal Law § 120.05 (4) and second-degree vehicular assault pursuant to Penal Law § 120.03 (1), neither crime is a proper lesser included offense of depraved indifference assault under the impossibility test *(see People v Glover,*57 *317NY2d 61, 64 [1982]; *People v Green,*56 NY2d 427, 430-431 [1982]). Finally, we conclude that defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is preserved for review as a matter of law; in any event, were we to conclude otherwise, we would nevertheless modify in the interest of justice.

The hearing court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no evidence to cast doubt on the voluntariness of any of defendant’s statements. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Mazzarelh, Nardelli, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
§ 385.716 Reopening (Rule 716). ( a ) *General rule.* To the extent permitted by law, the presiding officer or the Commission may, for good cause under paragraph (c) of this section, reopen the evidentiary record in a proceeding for the purpose of taking additional evidence.
( b ) *By motion.* ( 1 ) Any participant may file a motion to reopen the record.
( 2 ) Any motion to reopen must set forth clearly the facts sought to be proven and the reasons claimed to constitute grounds for reopening.
( 3 ) A participant who does not file an answer to any motion to reopen will be deemed to have waived any objection to the motion provided that no other participant has raised the same objection.
( c ) *By action of the presiding officer or the Commission.* If the presiding officer or the Commission, as appropriate, has reason to believe that reopening of a proceeding is warranted by any changes in conditions of fact or of law or by the public interest, the record in the proceeding may be reopened by the presiding officer before the initial or revised initial decision is served or by the Commission after the initial decision or, if appropriate, the revised initial decision is served.
[Order 225, 47 FR 19022, May 3, 1982, as amended by Order 375, 49 FR 21316, May 21, 1984]
# C_2011232EN.01001502.xml

| 6.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/15

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 11 May 2011 — Leyla Ecem Demirkan v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-221/11)

(2011/C 232/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Leyla Ecem Demirkan

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the passive freedom to provide services also fall within the scope of the concept of freedom to provide services within the meaning of Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey of 23 November 1970 (1) (Additional Protocol)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the passive freedom to provide services also fall within the scope of the concept of freedom to provide services within the meaning of Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey of 23 November 1970 (1) (Additional Protocol)?

| 2. | In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: does the protection of the passive freedom to provide services under the law on the Association Agreement, specifically pursuant to Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol, also extend to Turkish nationals, who — like the claimant — do not wish to enter the Federal Republic of Germany in order to receive a specific service, but for the purposes of visiting relatives for a stay of up to three months and rely on the mere possibility of receiving services in the Federal territory? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: does the protection of the passive freedom to provide services under the law on the Association Agreement, specifically pursuant to Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol, also extend to Turkish nationals, who — like the claimant — do not wish to enter the Federal Republic of Germany in order to receive a specific service, but for the purposes of visiting relatives for a stay of up to three months and rely on the mere possibility of receiving services in the Federal territory?

---

(1)  OJ 1972, L 293, p. 4 (no official translation published in English).

---
§ 380.2 Definitions and terminology. For purposes of this part— ( a ) *Categorical exclusion* means a category of actions described in § 380.4, which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and which the Commission has found to have no such effect and for which, therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. The Commission may decide to prepare environmental assessments for the reasons stated in § 380.4(b).
( b ) *Commission* means the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
( c ) *Council* means the Council on Environmental Quality.
( d ) *Environmental assessment* means a concise public document for which the Commission is responsible that serves to: ( 1 ) Briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact.
( 2 ) Aid the Commission's compliance with NEPA when no environmental impact statement is necessary.
( 3 ) Facilitate preparation of a statement when one is necessary. Environmental assessments must include brief discussions of the need for the proposal, of alternatives as required by section 102(2)(E) of NEPA, of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons consulted.
( e ) *Environmental impact statement* (EIS) means a detailed written statement as required by section 102(2)(C) of NEPA. DEIS means a draft EIS and FEIS means a final EIS.
( f ) *Environmental justice community* means any community that has been historically marginalized and overburdened by pollution. Environmental justice communities include, but may not be limited to, minority populations, low-income populations, or indigenous peoples.
( g ) *Environmental report* or ER means that part of an application submitted to the Commission by an applicant for authorization of a proposed action which includes information concerning the environment, the applicant's analysis of the environmental impact of the action, or alternatives to the action required by this or other applicable statutes or regulations.
( h ) *Finding of no significant impact* (FONSI) means a document by the Commission briefly presenting the reason why an action, not otherwise excluded by § 380.4, will not have a significant effect on the human environment and for which an environmental impact statement therefore will not be prepared. It must include the environmental assessment or a summary of it and must note other environmental documents related to it. If the assessment is included, the FONSI need not repeat any of the discussion in the assessment but may incorporate it by reference.
[Order 486, 52 FR 47910, Dec. 17, 1987, as amended by Order 1977, 89 FR 46734, May 29, 2024]