type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b'July 29, 2011\n\n\nTO: Federal Co-Chair\n ARC Executive Director\n ARC General Counsel\n\nFROM: Hubert Sparks\n ARC Inspector General\n\nSUBJECT: Report on the Appalachian Regional Commission\xe2\x80\x99s Performance Measures\n OIG Report Number, 11-07\n\n\nThe report highlights some issues related to ARC\xe2\x80\x99s voluntary implementation of the Government\nPerformance and Results Act and includes recommendations pertaining to identifying and updating actual\nresults and use of performance results.\n\nWe appreciate the significant contributions of the Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General\nwho performed much of the work that made this report possible.\n\nThe ARC response to the draft report, including actions applicable to some recommendations and OIG\nfollow-up comments, are included in the report.\n\n\n\n\nHubert Sparks\nInspector General\n\n\n\n\nAttachment\n\x0c Office of Inspector General\n\n\nInspection Report on the Appalachian Regional Commission\'s\n Performance Measures\n\n\n\n\n Appalachian Regional Commission\n\n\n\n\n July 29, 2011\n\n\n\n\n Inspection Report 11-07\n\x0c Table of Contents\n\n\nExecutive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1\nBackground ................................................................................................................................... 3\nFindings.......................................................................................................................................... 5\n Reporting Performance Results................................................................................................... 5\n ARC Reports Grantee Estimates, Not Actual Results ............................................................. 5\n Reported Results Are Unverified ............................................................................................ 7\n ARC Reports Total Results for Split-Funded Projects .......................................................... 10\n Use of Performance Results ...................................................................................................... 11\n Scope of Performance Metrics .................................................................................................. 12\nRecommendations....................................................................................................................... 15\n Management\'s Response to Draft Report .................................................................................. 17\n Office of Inspector General Comments .................................................................................... 20\n\n\nAppendix A: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology.................................................................. 21\nAppendix B: ARC Performance Validation Program- Project Selection ............................. 22\n\x0c Executive Summary\n\n\nThe objectives of this inspection were to assess ARC\xe2\x80\x99s performance metrics and the associated\nresults, particularly their quality, recording accuracy, reporting accuracy, and their usage. This\nreport presents three findings regarding ARC\xe2\x80\x99s performance metrics, reporting of performance\nresults, and use of performance results. ARC voluntarily implemented the Government\nPerformance and Results Act (GPRA) and is continuing progress towards full implementation.\n\nARC obtains projected performance results from grantees at several stages throughout the life of\na project. However, for actual performance results, which are also provided by grantees,\nimprovements are needed with respect to verifying the accuracy of and for disclosures regarding\nthe completeness and the accuracy of reported results information. ARC\xe2\x80\x99s policies and\nprocedures should assure that it obtains actual performance results from grantees that are\naccurate, consistently measured, and adequately supported.\n\nWe found that ARC reports grantees\xe2\x80\x99 initial estimates of performance results in its Performance\nand Accountability Report (PAR) in lieu of reporting actual results. The estimated performance\nresults reported in ARC\xe2\x80\x99s PARs are not being updated with new results once actual performance\ninformation is available. We also observed that ARC includes 100 percent of the results reported\nby grantees, even though ARC provides less than 100 percent of the project funding. This results\nin an overstatement of results by ARC and contributes to double-counting of results by OMB,\nwho also receives performance results from ARC\xe2\x80\x99s partner organizations. We also found a\nsignificant proportion of ARC\xe2\x80\x99s funded projects were not included in the metrics reported in the\nPAR, and a significant proportion of projects did not have any projected performance metrics in\nARC\xe2\x80\x99s grants management system, which is used for tracking program results.\n\nThe PAR does not include several required disclosures including an approximate date when\nactual performance information will be available and an assessment of the completeness and\nreliability of the reported performance data. Disclosures regarding ARC\xe2\x80\x99s use of performance\nresults, the level of assurance obtained from validation visits and project evaluations, and the\nproject selection used in validation visits could be improved.\n\nOur review did not identify systematic or routine use of performance data or evidence that\nperformance results were used by ARC or its state partners to guide funding choices or make\nprogrammatic decisions.\n\nARC is currently making improvements that will resolve some of the issues noted. Our report\ncompliments ARC\xe2\x80\x99s efforts and includes seven recommendations covering ARC\xe2\x80\x99s policies and\nprocedures, use of performance information, and reporting of performance results.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\x0cIn response to the draft report ARC provided comments, copy included, which identified planned\nactions consistent with some recommendations. The response noted that ARC believed prior\nimplementation actions on other noted issues were in line with GPRA provisions and that cost\nfactors would substantially impact implementation of some additional recommended actions.\n\nWe recognize that ARC has allocated and expended substantial resources for voluntary GPRA\nimplementation that has resulted in major actions as reflected by the annual Performance and\nAccountability Reports, and that cost benefits are a factor when considering additional actions.\nWe concur with ARC cost concerns and recommend that for actions ARC deems unreasonable in\nrelation to costs and benefits that consideration be given to using the GPRA alternative form\nprocedure with respect to performance measurement and results.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c Background\n\n\nARC is a cooperative partnership of federal and state governments legislated by Congress in the\nAppalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (ARDA). ARC was established to improve the\nlives of people living in Appalachia, primarily through fostering economic growth and\ndevelopment. Congress provides funding to ARC to make grants benefitting a thirteen state\nregion encompassing Appalachia.\n\nARC follows federal guidance from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the\nOffice of Management and Budget (OMB) in its financial management and its operation of a\nfederally funded grant program. ARC is a designated federal entity and voluntarily complies with\nthe Government Performance Results Act of 1993 (GPRA).\n\nThe GPRA was enacted to improve program performance, and requires agencies to develop\nstrategic plans and prepare related annual performance plans and annual performance reports.\nThe GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 was enacted in January 2011 to, among other purposes,\nupdate the requirements for assessing agency performance and improvement.\n\nOn August 24, 2004, ARC approved Moving Appalachia Forward: Appalachian Regional\nCommission Strategic Plan 2005 \xe2\x80\x93 2010, which lists the following four general goals in\nfurthering the agency\xe2\x80\x99s mission:\n\n 1. Job Growth \xe2\x80\x93 Increase job opportunities and per capita income in Appalachia to reach\n parity with the nation.\n 2. People \xe2\x80\x93 Strengthen the capacity of the people of Appalachia to compete in the global\n economy.\n 3. Infrastructure \xe2\x80\x93 Develop and improve Appalachia\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure to make the Region\n economically competitive.\n 4. Highways \xe2\x80\x93 Build the Appalachian Development Highway System to reduce\n Appalachia\xe2\x80\x99s isolation.\n\nEach fiscal year, ARC submits to the OMB annual performance goals for projects to be funded\nin coming years and reports on progress meeting its goals by including a performance report in\nthe annual Performance and Accountability Report (PAR).\n\nIn addition to the four general goals listed above, ARC has also established two additional sub-\ngoals: (1) leveraging non-ARC project funding and private non-project investments resulting\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0cfrom the completion of ARC-funded projects, and (2) targeting ARC funds to benefit distressed\ncounties and areas. Progress towards these goals are measured and reported for each of the four\ngeneral goals.\n\nARC\xe2\x80\x99s efforts to obtain performance results, some of which help ARC meet compliance with\nGPRA standards, span several different phases of the project life-cycle and include the\nfollowing:\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 During the grant approval process, grantees estimate projected outputs and outcomes.\n The estimates are recorded in ARC\xe2\x80\x99s grant management system (ARC.net) as projected\n outputs and outcomes.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 At grant close-out, the grantees\xe2\x80\x99 final reports to ARC include actual project outputs and\n outcomes. ARC records these results in ARC.net as actual outputs and outcomes.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 During validation visits of 40 to 60 projects funded two to three years earlier, ARC staff\n survey grantee management about project results, including previously reported outputs\n and outcomes. ARC interviews grantee management and other project participants and\n reviews the methodology for how results are compiled. ARC records these results in\n ARC.net as validated outputs and outcomes.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 During independent project evaluations conducted by contractors hired by ARC to\n ascertain the benefits of ARC initiatives and sub-programs. ARC typically funds one\n evaluation per year which generally covers a five year period for a specific ARC\n initiative or program type. ARC does not record these results in ARC.net.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0c Findings\n\n\n\nReporting Performance Results\n\n ARC Reports Grantee Estimates, Not Actual Results\n\nDuring our review, we noted that ARC reports grantees\xe2\x80\x99 estimates of projected performance\nresults in its PAR. The performance results reported in the prior-year\xe2\x80\x99s PARs are not being\nupdated in the current-year PAR, but instead are being rolled forward. Additionally, the PAR\ndoes not include an approximate date when the actual performance information, sufficient to\nmake an accurate comparison with performance goal targets, will be available, or provide an\nassessment of the completeness and reliability of the reported performance data.\n\nThe Government Performance Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) states that each agency\xe2\x80\x99s annual\nperformance plan shall provide a basis for comparing actual program results with the established\nperformance goals. Each program performance report shall set forth the performance indicators\nestablished in the agency performance plan, along with the actual program performance achieved\ncompared with the performance goals expressed in the plan for that fiscal year. 1\n\nAdditionally, OMB Circular No. A-11 states that the annual performance report (APR) required\nby GPRA provides information on the agency\xe2\x80\x99s actual performance and progress in achieving\nthe goals in its strategic plan and performance budget. 2 The required elements of the annual\nperformance report include; 3\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A comparison of actual performance with the target levels of performance at least for the\n prior year and an analysis and explanation of the causes of any variance or change in\n trends including plans and schedules for addressing the problem.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 An assessment by the agency head of the reliability and completeness of the performance\n data included in the report.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Identify those performance goals where actual performance information is missing,\n incomplete, preliminary, or estimated. For such goals, the APR should indicate the\n approximate date when the actual performance information, sufficient to make an\n accurate comparison with performance goal target levels, will be available.\n\n\n\n1\n Government Performance Results Act of 1993, Section 4(b)\n2\n OMB Circular No. A-11, Part 6, Preparation and Submission of Strategic Plans, Annual Performance Plans, and\n Annual Program Performance Reports, Section 230.1(a)\n3\n OMB Circular No. A-11, Section 230.2(a)\n\n 5\n\x0cDuring the grant approval process, grantees are required to identify which of the four general\ngoals \xe2\x80\x93 job growth, people, infrastructure, or highways \xe2\x80\x93 the grant will help to advance, and\nestimate the projected outputs and outcomes that will be achieved. This information is entered\ninto ARC\xe2\x80\x99s database and becomes the basis for the annual performance report included in the\nPAR. ARC clearly states in the PAR that these reported results are estimates. When grants are\nclosed-out, the final report to ARC includes actual results, as reported by the grantee, which is\nalso entered into the database.\n\nAlthough the original reporting of performance information may be missing, incomplete, or\npreliminary, once actual performance information is available it should be reported in the\nsubsequent annual performance reports. 4 As indicated above, projections from grantees form the\nbasis for the performance results reported in the PAR, however, as grants are closed out and\nactual results are reported, ARC makes no changes to the performance results reported in the\nPAR. For example, the fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009 PARs all reported the original estimate\nof 28,642 jobs created/retained for fiscal year 2007.\n\nIncluded in the PAR are the results of validation visits and independent project evaluations.\nGenerally, ARC obtains updated outcomes of 40 to 60 projects funded two to three years earlier,\nallowing time for most projects to be completed. Project evaluations of ARC initiatives and sub-\nprograms are performed by independent or external organizations to evaluate the outcomes and\noverall effectiveness of projects. Results of validation visits and project evaluations are reported\nin the PAR; however, prior-years\xe2\x80\x99 performance estimates are not updated in the PAR and do not\nreflect actual results reported by grantees at project close-out, even though recorded in ARC\xe2\x80\x99s\ngrants management system.\n\nARC management has stated that ARC is in compliance with OMB reporting requirements\nbecause OMB accepts its budget justification report each year. However, acceptance of the\nbudget justification report by OMB does not by itself demonstrate compliance with GPRA or\nOMB Circular A-11, both of which clearly state that actual performance results shall be\ncompared to performance goals in the APR.\n\nARC has conveyed to us that most projects require time after project close-out to develop actual\nresults. Therefore, the actual performance results reported by grantees at close-out are\nincomplete and should not be reported in the PAR. But OMB requires that actual results, and the\ntime at which future results will be available, be disclosed.4 Validation visits and project\nevaluations are currently the only methods ARC utilizes to report actual performance results.\nCurrently, ARC is in the process of developing a survey that will be sent to all projects at\ndesignated intervals after close-out to obtain more complete results information. We believe, this\nsurvey, and usage of the actual results reported at project close-out will provide the complete\n\n\n\n4\n OMB Circular A-11, Section 230.2(b)\n\n 6\n\x0cinformation ARC desires and recommend that ARC use these sources of information to provide a\nmore complete reporting of actual results in the PAR.\n\n\n\n Reported Results Are Unverified\n\nARC obtains estimated performance results from grantees during project acceptance. Actual\nperformance results are reported by all grantees at project close-out and updated results are\nobtained for selected projects during validation visits and project evaluations. ARC does not\nverify the accuracy of performance results reported by grantees. ARC also does not provide\nadequate disclosure of the completeness and accuracy of reported performance results.\n\nPerformance data must be accurate and reliable in order to measure the progress towards\nachieving performance goals. Proper verification and validation of performance data aids in the\naccuracy and reliability of performance information, reduces the risk of inaccurate information,\nand provides confidence that the information is credible. OMB Circular A-11 describes\nverification as \xe2\x80\x9ca process of checking or testing performance information to assess other types of\nerrors\xe2\x80\xa6\xe2\x80\x9d, and validation as \xe2\x80\x9can effort to ensure that data are free of systematic error or bias and\nthat what is intended to be measured is actually measured.\xe2\x80\x9d Agencies should have validation and\nverification techniques that will ensure the completeness and accuracy of reported performance\ninformation. The recommended verification and validation factors include having; well defined\nand documented source data, available and used performance metric definitions, documented and\navailable collection standards, documented and followed data entry methodology, readily\navailable and maintained supporting documentation, verified data, and certifications by\nresponsible officials that data accuracy has been checked each reporting period. 5\n\nWe observed that ARC has a list of the most commonly used performance outputs and outcomes\nfor standardized project types. The list does not define how performance results should be\nmeasured or what documentation should be maintained as support. ARC states that project\ncoordinators are aware of the methodology to measure performance metrics and that guidance is\nprovided throughout the grant process. However, during an evaluation of ARC\xe2\x80\x99s tourism,\ncultural heritage and natural asset-related projects, an ARC contractor found that it was likely\nthat grantees \xe2\x80\x9cdo not have robust or consistent understanding of the measures that ARC focuses\non. Unless everyone is on \xe2\x80\x98on the same page,\xe2\x80\x99 it is unlikely that reported results can be\nmeaningfully compared to the original projections.\xe2\x80\x9d 6 Without established, consistent\nmethodologies for measuring performance results that are available to grantees, ARC is at risk of\nreceiving inaccurate and inconsistent performance information.\n\n\n\n\n5\n OMB Circular A-11, Section 230.5\n6\n Program Evaluation of ARC\xe2\x80\x99s Tourism, Cultural Heritage and Natural Asset-Related Projects, September 2010\n\n 7\n\x0cARC does not have written procedures for entering performance information into ARC.net.\nDuring our review, we compared the performance metrics listed in Project Approval Memos to\ninformation in ARC.net for 20 projects. We found differences in six of the projects and an\nadditional six projects that did not have assigned performance metrics. Furthermore, ARC\nidentified 76 changes that were necessary during a review of performance information in\nARC.net prior to compiling results for the fiscal year 2010 PAR. A documented and followed\nmethodology for entering data into ARC.net may reduce these errors and the potential that such\nerrors are included in reported performance results.\n\nARC asserts that it obtains evidence of the accuracy of performance results through validation\nvisits and project evaluations conducted by independent contractors. However, our review of the\nscope and methodology of several recent project evaluation reports did not provide any evidence\nthat the contractors are reviewing documentation to support grantees\xe2\x80\x99 reported performance\nresults. Furthermore, we found that the validation visits do not provide evidence of the\ncompleteness and accuracy of self-reported performance results and that ARC\xe2\x80\x99s reporting of the\nresults should be improved.\n\nTo determine the projects that will be included in the validation visits, ARC obtains a listing of\nprojects from ARC.net, excluding projects for LDDs, interns, conferences, research, and the\ndevelopment of plans as these projects do not have anything to visit. ARC also excludes grantees\ncurrently being audited, projects where the grantee has closed or key personnel have left. The list\nof remaining projects is circulated among the project coordinators and projects may be excluded\nbased on their feedback. ARC does not use statistical or random sampling, but selects projects to\nvisit from the remaining list, attempting to provide for geographical and project-type variety.\n\nARC uses a questionnaire to standardize the information collected during all validation visits.\nAlthough the questionnaire includes a request for updated actual results, there is no specific\nprocess or requirement to obtain supporting documentation or otherwise verify the accuracy of\nreported results.\n\nWe reviewed the results of ARC\xe2\x80\x99s validation visits for fiscal year 2010 in which 55 projects were\nvisited. ARC excluded 32 projects from the potential list of projects to visit. Based on the lack of\ncomplete documentation for project selection and exclusion, we were unable to determine the\nreason why each project was excluded. However, we noted several projects were rejected based\non the possibility that projects would not be able to support performance results. Included in the\nreasons for rejection were comments such as:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cNot recommended \xe2\x80\x93 management issues\xe2\x80\x9d\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cNot worth visit. Program did not have participation expected.\xe2\x80\x9d\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cNot recommended \xe2\x80\x93 implementation issues\xe2\x80\xa6 and inability to collect outcome data\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0cTo determine the possible effects of including the rejected projects in the results of validation\nvisits, we obtained the actual outcomes for the rejected projects as recorded in ARC.net at\nproject close-out. These outcomes were combined with the validated results. Due to the lack of\ncomplete records, we were also unable to determine whether ARC included all excluded projects\nin the list of excluded projects. As shown in Table 1 below, factoring in the excluded projects\ncould have a significant impact on the results of the validation visits. While this example could\nbe considered a worst-case scenario, we believe it illustrates the possible effects of selection bias\nin the validation visit results.\n\n Table 1. Inclusion of Rejected Projects in FY2010 Validation Visit Results\n ARC Original VV Results Adjusted VV Results\n Validated/\n Performance Projected Validated % of Projected Actual % of\n Metric Results Results Goal Results Results Goal\n Jobs Created/\n Retained 12,943 11,104 85.79% 13,531 11,104 82.07%\n Students/ Trainees\n with Improvement 3,269 3,488 106.70% 5,744 3,495 60.85%\n Households\n Served 1,586 1,621 102.21% 1,586 1,621 102.21%\n Source: OIG from ARC.net data\n\n\nOMB Circular A-11 requires that significant or known limitations of performance data be\nidentified and described in the performance plan, including the impact the limitations have on\ngoal achievement and what action will be taken to correct the limitations. 7 The examples of data\nlimitations provided include imprecise measurement and recordings, incomplete data, and\ninconsistencies in data collection procedures.\n\nWe reviewed ARC\xe2\x80\x99s description of the validation visits in the PAR and found that it does not\nprovide any disclosure of the project selection process or state that the results of the validation\nvisits may not be an accurate representation of the results of the non-surveyed projects. While we\nbelieve more projects should be eligible for further review, providing disclosure of the selection\nprocess enables the results of validation visits to be put into better context.\n\nARC also describes the validation visits and project evaluations as critical components to its\nGPRA compliance as they confirm actual project outcomes. 8 As ARC does not obtain\ndocumentation supporting or otherwise confirming actual results during validation visits or\nproject evaluations, ARC should adjust its reporting to more accurately describe the level of\nassurance obtained.\n\n\n7\n OMB Circular A-11, Section 230.5\n8\n ARC\xe2\x80\x99s Fiscal Year 2007, 2008, and 2009 Performance Reports\n\n 9\n\x0cARC is currently working on the development of a survey that will be sent to all projects at\ndesignated intervals after close-out. The survey will be used to obtain more complete actual\nperformance results than are available at project close-out. We encourage ARC to use the\nsurveys and/or validation visits as a method to request and obtain supporting documentation\nfrom grantees to validate reported performance results. Doing so would also provide ARC\nevidence as to the completeness and accuracy of reported performance measures.\n\n ARC Reports Total Results for Split-Funded Projects\n\nDuring our review, we noted that ARC includes 100 percent of the results, stated as outputs and\noutcomes, reported by grantees in its PAR, even though ARC provides less than 100 percent of\nthe project funding. In many cases, ARC funding is less than a majority of the total funding.\nThis results in an overstatement of results by ARC as well as contributing to double-counting of\nresults by OMB, who also receives performance results from ARC\xe2\x80\x99s partner organizations.\n\nIn 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviewed ARC\xe2\x80\x99s programs using the\nPerformance Assessment Rating Tool (PART). The PART was created to review factors that\naffect and reflect program performance including program purpose and design, performance\nmeasurement, evaluations, strategic planning, program management, and program results. OMB\ndid not agree with ARC\xe2\x80\x99s reporting of total project results, stating:\n\n For example, while ARC contributes less than 6 percent of federal dollars to projects\n encouraging job creation and retention and ensuring adequate water and sewage\n infrastructure, ARC claims 100 percent credit for number of jobs created and number of\n households served. While agencies should be in no way penalized for leveraging other\n federal dollars, ARC efficiency measures should consider all federal dollars.\n\nOMB\xe2\x80\x99s analysis recommended that ARC accurately reflect its contribution to performance\nresults by reporting only the percentage of project results related to their funding, or finding an\nalternative that would credit ARC with leveraging private investment but also allow for\ncomparisons with other economic development programs and federal agencies. The analysis\npointed out that if ARC reports total project results while partner agencies report results for the\nsame projects, total performance results will be double-counted. OMB included in its resulting\nimprovement plan that ARC will be \xe2\x80\x9cRevising performance measure methodology to eliminate\ndouble-counting of performance due to commission and non-commission funding.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nARC has attempted to satisfy OMB\xe2\x80\x99s recommendations by including leveraged private\ninvestment and reporting the funds provided to projects by ARC\xe2\x80\x99s partner organizations. While\nwe agree that reporting funds leveraged from other sources is a legitimate indicator of ARC\xe2\x80\x99s\nimpact on the region, we recommend that ARC\xe2\x80\x99s reported performance results include results\nattributable to both ARC and its partner organizations.\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0cUse of Performance Results\n\nOur review did not identify a systematic or routine use of performance data or that performance\nresults were routinely used by ARC to guide funding choices or make programmatic decisions.\n\nThe purposes of the GPRA includes improving program effectiveness and public accountability,\nimproving internal management, and improving service delivery by requiring managers to plan\nfor meeting program objectives and providing them with information about program results. 9,10\nIt is apparent that GPRA intends to provide managers with performance information that can be\nused to improve program results. OMB Circular A-11 states that senior agency leaders should\nreview progress on agency priorities through goal-focused, data-driven reviews at least on a\nquarterly basis. The reviews should assure that follow-up steps are taken to improve the\nlikelihood of realizing better outcomes and higher productivity. 11\n\nWe interviewed ARC\xe2\x80\x99s Executive Director and staff from the Regional Planning and Research\nDivision (RPRD) and Program Operations Division (POD) to identify the uses of performance\nresults data at ARC. Staff mentioned ad hoc reports were written to provide performance results\ninformation requested by stakeholders, as well as yearly meetings to discuss the results of\nvalidation visits. However, these reports primarily used projected performance results.\n\nARC only reports performance information after project close-out through validation visits and\nproject evaluations. Therefore, if a project takes longer to develop performance results and is not\nincluded in either process, there is no means to evaluate its results. Several staff mentioned they\nwould use performance results to analyze projects if ARC had more complete, actual\nperformance results.\n\nGrant Coordinators said that member states have control over the selection of projects that are\nsubmitted to ARC for approval. Therefore, managerial decisions on project selection are made\nby the states on behalf of ARC. ARC personnel believes that member states are aware of\nperformance results through the yearly reports on the results of validation visits, program\nevaluations, and the PARs. However, there is no formal process to ensure that the states are\nusing the performance results to shape their decisions on what projects to submit to ARC for\napproval.\n\nThe ARC Code describes a joint decision-making process that balances the interests of the\nFederal government with the interests of the states and their subsidiary units. States have a\nprimary role in the initiation of plans and projects as only programs and projects submitted\n9\n Items stressed in the GPRA Modernization Act include: increased emphasis on the usage of results information,\n and the appropriate adjustment of priorities; development of quarterly reviews (and reports) and performance\n milestones and targets within the agency, and from OMB; an agency corrective action plan for unmet goals; a\n requirement to review trend information and agency goals that relate to Federal goals; and increased\n transparency.\n10\n Government Performance Results Act of 1993, Section 2(b)\n11\n OMB Circular A-11, Section 200.3\n\n 11\n\x0cthrough and approved by a state can be considered by ARC. 12 States can submit project\napplications for any project that complies with an approved State Appalachian Development Plan\nand its Annual Strategy Statement. 13\n\nARC was established through the Appalachian Regional Development Act, which is codified in\nTitle 40 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). The Act states that ARC should, while evaluating\nand prioritizing potential projects and grants, consider the extent to which projects provide for\ndetailed outcome measurement by which grants may be evaluated. 14 Furthermore, the Act\nrequires an affirmative vote by ARC\xe2\x80\x99s Federal Cochairman for projects and grants to be\napproved. 15 Therefore, it is within the Federal Cochairman\xe2\x80\x99s authority to influence, by not voting\nin the affirmative, project approval if projects are not expected to provide sufficient or adequate\nperformance results.\n\nWe agree that states have a primary role in the formation of state plans and the submission of\nproject applications to ARC. Since the use of performance information is the key element of a\nsuccessful program, we believe that a more formalized process of ensuring that states are using\nperformance results in their decision-making process is consistent with the use of performance\nresults envisioned by GPRA, the federal/state partnership outlined in the ARC code, and the\nFederal Cochairman\xe2\x80\x99s authority.\n\nAgencies are required to describe if and how they use performance results data to improve\noutcomes. 16 ARC asserts in its PARs that \xe2\x80\x9cAt quarterly intervals throughout the fiscal year, ARC\nstaff review performance measurement data in ARC.net to better understand emerging trends,\nimprove data integrity, and shape policy to improve the ARC programs.\xe2\x80\x9d 17 Consistent with this\nstatement, ARC should revise its PAR to more accurately describe its use of performance data.\n\n\n\nScope of Performance Metrics\n\nWe found that ARC\xe2\x80\x99s reported metrics generally demonstrate results, are limited to several vital\nmeasures, respond to multiple priorities, and are linked to the responsible programs. However, a\nsignificant proportion of ARC\xe2\x80\x99s funded projects were not included in the metrics reported in the\nPAR and a significant proportion of projects did not have any projected performance metrics in\nARC\xe2\x80\x99s grants management system (ARC.net).\n\n\n\n\n12\n ARC Code, Section 2.1.a.\n13\n ARC Code, Section 5.5\n14\n 40 U.S.C. \xc2\xa714524(a)6.\n15\n 40 U.S.C. \xc2\xa714302 and 14332(c)\n16\n OMB Circular A-11, Section 230.2(a)\n17\n ARC\xe2\x80\x99s Fiscal Year 2007, 2008, and 2009 Performance Reports\n\n 12\n\x0cGPRA requires that: (1) each agency\xe2\x80\x99s annual performance plan establishes performance goals to\ndefine the level of performance to be achieved by a program; and (2) express such goals in an\nobjective, quantifiable, and measurable form. 18 Performance measures can be either outputs or\noutcomes. Outputs are the direct products or services delivered while outcomes are the results of\nthose products or services. Outcomes are generally better indicators of program goals because\nthey are more closely related to the societal benefits of carrying out the program, whereas\noutputs have more to do with process.\n\nARC tracks both outputs and outcomes related to its four general goals, as previously discussed.\nThe following outcomes are reported in the PAR: jobs created and retained, students and\nworkers/trainees with improvements, households served, and additional miles (net increase) of\nthe ADHS opened to traffic.\n\nFor each of the general goals, ARC also has the additional goals of leveraging ARC funding\nthrough additional funding from other sources and targeting ARC funds to distressed areas.\nAdditional outputs and outcomes, which are tracked internally, include: businesses served,\nincrease in export dollars, health professionals, linear feet of pipe, new businesses created, new\nprograms developed, new strategic plans developed, new telecom sites, patients served, and\nproject participants. ARC is currently finalizing a new list of performance metrics that will\nexpand the number of outputs and outcomes that are tracked but not reported in the PAR.\n\nIn the Government Accountability Office\xe2\x80\x99s (GAO) report titled GAO Review of Performance\nMeasures at the Corporation for National and Community Service, GAO identified four\ncharacteristics for sound sets of performance measures. Performance measures should\ndemonstrate results, be limited to the vital few measures, respond to multiple priorities, and be\nlinked to the responsible programs. 19\n\nGPRA requires each agency\xe2\x80\x99s performance measures to cover each program activity in its\nfederal budget. 20 ARC\xe2\x80\x99s federal budget lists the following program activities: 21\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Appalachian development highway system\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Area development and technical assistance program\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Local development districts program\n\nWe obtained ARC\xe2\x80\x99s compilation of performance data for the fiscal year 2010 PAR, which is\nderived from data in ARC.net. We noted that the projects reported under the four general goals\naccounted for approximately $49.5 million, or roughly 66 percent, of the total $75.1 million\nfunded during the period.\n\n18\n Government Performance Results Act of 1993, Section 1115(a)(1)\n19\n GAO Review of Performance Measures at the Corporation for National and Community Service (GAO-10-886)\n20\n Government Performance Results Act of 1993, Section 1115(a)\n21\n Budget 2011 Appendix: Other Independent Agencies\n\n 13\n\x0c Table 2. Projects Reported in the FY2010 PAR by General Goal\n Number ARC Percent of Total\n General Goal of Projects Funds ARC Funding\n Job Growth: Jobs Created/Retained 142 $ 2,048,160 2.7%\n Infrastructure: Households Served 56 21,376,602 28.5\n People: Students/Workers Improved 73 22,469,252 29.9\n Highways: Access Road Miles 18 9,146,831 12.2\n Total 220 $49,527,805 65.9%\n Source: OIG from ARC.net data\n Note: The column totals do not sum correctly as some projects included performance results in\n more than one general goal.\n\n\n\nAll ARC-assisted projects are required to contain detailed outcome measurements from which\ngrant expenditures can be evaluated. 22 Our review of ARC\xe2\x80\x99s compilation of performance data for\nthe fiscal year 2010 PAR also found that 144 of the 467 projects funded did not have any\nprojected performance metrics. As shown in the table below, the total funding for those projects\nwas approximately $14.7 million, or 19.6 percent, of the total $75.1 in projects funded during the\nyear.\n\n\n\n Table 3. FY2010 Projects with No Performance Metrics by Project Category\n Number\n Project Category of Projects ARC Funds\n Business Development 14 $ 1,538,672\n Community Development 8 852,600\n Education and Job Training 13 1,074,023\n Environment and Natural Resources 5 420,000\n Health 1 30,000\n Highways and Access Roads 3 -\n Leadership and Civic Capacity 6 260,957\n Local Development District\n Planning and Administration 72 7,044,355\n Research and Technical Assistance 22 3,466,563\n Total 144 $ 14,687,170\n Source: OIG from ARC.net data\n\n\n\n\n22\n ARC Code, Section 7.3(c)9\n\n 14\n\x0cWhile GPRA allows for the aggregation, disaggregation, or consolidation of program activities,\nthe aggregation or consolidation cannot \xe2\x80\x9comit or minimize the significance of any program\nactivity constituting a major function or operation\xe2\x80\x9d. 23 As shown above, roughly half of the\nprojects that were not assigned performance metrics were grants for planning and administration\nat Local Development Districts (LDDs), which are listed in ARC\xe2\x80\x99s federal budget. 24\n\nProviding for, and reporting on, performance metrics for LDDs would reduce the percentage of\nfiscal year 2010 projects without performance metrics from 19.6 percent to 10.2 percent, and\nwould increase the percentage of projects reported in the PAR from approximately 66 percent to\nroughly 75 percent. We believe ARC should, prior to implementing its new performance metrics,\nreview its methodology and formally assess whether its reported performance metrics\nsufficiently report the results of operations or if additional performance metrics should also be\nreported.\n\n\n\n\n23\n Government Performance Results Act, Section 1115(c)\n24\n In response to OIG Inspection Report 09-03 in July 2009, ARC management stated that ARC was working with\n the LDDs to \xe2\x80\x9cdevelop appropriate metrics and devise a method for reporting such data in accordance with our\n established goals.\xe2\x80\x9d In a March 25, 2011 policy memorandum titled Documentation and Administrative\n Requirements for ARC E-Files, ARC stated it will require LDD and Consolidated Technical Assistance grants to\n contain performance measures beginning in 2012. As a result, we did not make a recommendation in this report\n for reporting performance results for these grants.\n\n 15\n\x0c Recommendations\n\n\n\nWe recommend ARC\xe2\x80\x99s Executive Director require that:\n\n 1. ARC\xe2\x80\x99s disclosures in the PAR incorporate or be modified to ensure proper and adequate\n disclosures for: the approximate date when actual performance results information will\n be available, an assessment of the completeness and accuracy of reported performance\n data, ARC\xe2\x80\x99s actual use of performance results, the project selection methodology utilized\n for validation visits, and the level of assurance obtained from validation visits and\n project evaluations.\n 2. ARC\xe2\x80\x99s PAR provide a more complete reporting of prior actual results, and update prior\n actual results when information is available.\n 3. ARC implement policies and procedures to ensure that actual performance results\n reported by grantees are accurate, consistently measured, and adequately supported. The\n policies and procedures should include:\n a. Written procedures for entering performance information into ARC.net to ensure\n recorded data is complete and accurate.\n b. A defined list of performance metrics, including the methodology for calculating\n them and requirements for the adequacy and retention of supporting\n documentation. This guidance should be provided to grantees to ensure ARC is\n receiving consistent results from all grantees.\n c. Using the survey and/or validation visit processes to obtain documentation from\n grantees supporting self-reported performance results.\n 4. ARC\xe2\x80\x99s PAR only recognizes ARC program results in proportion to the direct effects of\n its funding, as recommended by OMB, or identify an alternative measure that adequately\n portrays project results were not fully funded by ARC.\n 5. ARC develop and implement a systematic approach to assure states are aware of and use\n performance results during their project selection process\n 6. Consistent with the requirements of the ARC Code and GPRA for all budgeted programs,\n that ARC develop evaluative metrics and report results using those metrics in its PAR\n reporting.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0c Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response to Draft Report\n\n\nThis memorandum responds to the Draft Inspection Report on the ARC\'s Performance Measures\nfrom the ARC Inspector General\'s Office. While the Report contains several valuable\nsuggestions for improving the ARC Performance Measurement system, its primary\nrecommendations would require the Commission to undertake extensive and detailed follow-up\nreviews of project performance for each grant funded by ARC. We do not agree that our method\nof collecting and confirming results, which relies on in-depth validation visits and periodic program\nevaluations, does not comply with the general requirements of Government Performance and\nResults Act (GPRA) and OMB Circular A-11. We believe the Commission has adopted and\ncontinues to implement an efficient method of tracking project results within budgetary constraints\nthat has shown itself to be an effective aid to the evaluation of Commission programs. \'\n\nWhen GPRA was enacted Congress made clear that performance measurement was not\nintended to "be a major additional cost item or paperwork burden imposed on Federal programs. "\nS. Rep. No. 103-58, at 13 (1993) The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has confirmed\nthat it expects agencies to take "reasonable cost" into consideration in designing performance\nplans and specifically \xe2\x80\x9cthe extent to which benefits obtained from providing the data outweigh the\ncosts of producing it. " GAO/GGD-1O. 1. 2D Guide to Assessing Agency Annual Performance\nPlans, p. 40. GAO has also recognized sampling as a legitimate alternative method when "the\n 2\ntime and cost of collecting comprehensive data can be burdensome. " GAO/GGD-99-16\nMeasuring Performance Results, p.16.\n\nWithin this framework, the Commission has been providing performance reports on its programs\nsince 1998 using essentially the same format. This format emphasizes the collection of data\nrelated to the expected outcomes of ARC funded projects followed up by in-depth validations of a\nsignificant number of projects annually with periodic independent results evaluations of major\nprograms and initiatives.\n\n\n\n\n1\n We note that the Commission is not subject to the specific requirements of GPRA because it is not a\nFederal Agency. The Commission, however, has voluntarily complied with GPRA since it was enacted.\n2\n It is not clear from the Draft Report whether it was prepared with the understanding that a large number of\nARC projects, often more than half in a year, are not directly administered by ARC but by another federal\nagency. Typically for these projects, ARC will have no direct contact with the Grantee after project approval.\nThis element of the design of the ARC program was intended in part to minimize its administrative cost and\nmaximize the flow of grant dollars to projects. To impose an additional data collection requirement on ARC\nfor these projects would eliminate this benefit of the ARC program by increasing ARC\'s administrative budget\nby an unacceptably large amount.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0c This approach has provided important data to support the Commission\'s development of its two\n most recent Strategic Plan documents in 2004 and 2010. Accordingly, the Commission does not\n agree with the Draft Report\'s suggestion that ARC should abandon its proven effective method of\n measuring results and adopt a much more burdensome and costly method, which would involve\n returning to each grantee at regular intervals to update project results and require extensive\n supporting documentation. The Commission is especially unwilling to act upon such a\n recommendation as there is no clear indication that such an approach would be productive of\n increased benefits for the ARC program or the Region.\n\n\n The Commission, however, is appreciative of several worthwhile recommendations for improving\n the quality of its performance measurement efforts contained in the Draft Report. Listed below\n are several actions we have taken or intend to take in response to the contents of the Draft\n Report.\n\n1. ARC conducts a thorough and unbiased selection process for reviewing a sample of projects for\n annual validation, taking into consideration many factors, including cost-effectiveness of traveling\n to site, grant scale/scope, and maturity of outcomes. However, ARC will clarify this process by\n unequivocally stating in the new guidelines (attached) that under no circumstances will an ARC\n project be excluded simply based on the possibility that the project may not be able to support\n performance results. Also, the guidelines will clarify that statistical or random\n sampling is not ideal for the purposes of the validation visits because of the diversity and scope\n of ARC project types. Developing a rough sample of ARC projects based on geographical and\n project-type variety is more meaningful for program assessment because it allows for diverse\n and innovative projects to be reviewed.\n2. ARC believes it makes a good faith effort to corroborate stated final performance measures\n during its onsite visits, including gathering available documentation such as rosters of\n students/trainees, tally of number of businesses/organizations assisted, participation\n surveys/questionnaires, evidence of equipment purchased, and photo/news-related articles when\n appropriate. Nevertheless, we recognize that we have a responsibility to strengthen the system\n and make these requirements clearer and more consistent for all site visits. Therefore,\n we will ask for relevant documentation to support evidence of performance measures. In\n addition, we will strive to ensure that all grantees are aware of the purpose of the visit\n beforehand and have adequate time to gather final documentation, especially if this requires\n extra work on the part of the grantee. Note that in most cases the grantee wishes to have this\n information not just for other funders who want to better account for their investments, but also\n for internal program review and assessment.\n3. ARC will improve its system for disseminating performance reports by providing a report to the\n ARC local development districts and the ARC states at the annual Development District\n Association of Appalachia (DDAA) conference held in March. The report will cover the validation\n visits conducted during the past year and the project evaluation reports concluded during the\n past year. Approximately 300 of the Commission\'s key partners and the Region\'s funding\n decision makers attend the DDAA annual conference. Since the DDAA members package\n projects for the Commission and the State partners review and develop projects for the\n Commission, a presentation at the DDAA conference provides an opportunity to guide future\n\n\n\n 18\n\x0cARC investments by sharing validation and evaluation results. In addition, starting in FY 2012,\nARC will identify 40 to 60 validated projects to feature in various forums as examples of best\npractice for the 4 ARC goal areas. The examples will be highlighted on the ARC webpage, at\nconferences and identified for field visits for staff and our states.\n 4. The Commission believes that its performance measurement presentation accurately\n displays the level of the Commission\'s participation in the projects it funds and the amount\n of additional investment in the Region by other funders. We note, however, that OMB has\n under consideration a government-wide approach to reporting results derived from\n projects with multi-agency funding. ARC will follow OMB guidance on this matter when it is\n issued.\n 5. The performance review noted that all budgeted programs do not have evaluation metrics.\n In FY2012 ARC will develop and use performance measures for all ARC grants. The\n Consolidated Technical Assistance Grants (14 projects in FY2010), the LDD\n Administrative Grants (72 projects in FY201O), and other grants currently without\n measures (50 projects in FY2010) will have new measures in FY2012. Research projects\n noted in the performance review should be considered contracts not grants and contracts\n are not required in the ARC Code to have performance metrics.\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0c Office of Inspector General Comments\n\n\nWe concur with the actions planned. With respect to overall comments, including concerns and\ndisagreements with recommended actions relative to obtaining, verifying and reporting on actual\nresults, we recognize ARC\xe2\x80\x99s positions including the costs associated with some aspects of GPRA\nimplementation. As previously noted we also recognize and appreciate that ARC voluntarily\nimplemented GPRA, has allocated considerable resources to this effort and has made substantial\nstrides towards implementation of GPRA requirements.\n\nHowever, since actual and updated results are a key element of GPRA we continue to\nrecommend that ARC consider actions that will better identify and update actual results for\ncomparison with estimated results noted in grant approvals. Use of periodic surveys to grantees\nand additional use of grant close out reports would provide updated information at limited costs.\n\nAbsent additional actions with respect to performance results, and consistent with ARC cost\nconcerns, we recommend that ARC enact the alternative form permitted by the GPRA with\nrespect to issues for which cost benefits of additional actions are not considered practical.\n\nAnother comment pertains to reporting of results when ARC\xe2\x80\x99s investment is small compared to\ntotal investments, including other Federal funds, matching funds and leveraged private\ninvestments in approved projects. OMB previously recognized the difficulty of performance\nmeasurement since ARC co-funds projects with other agencies but recommended that ARC\nrevise performance measurement methodology to eliminate double-counting of performance.\n\nThe ARC response notes that OMB is considering a government-wide approach on this issue and\nit will follow future OMB guidance on this matter. Although the FY 2010 Performance and\nAccountability Report notes the dollar extent of ARC and other investments, as a minimum and\npending additional OMB guidance, ARC should, in our opinion, note that reported results reflect\nthe outcomes of the total of project investments. Use of a standard percentage reflective of\nresults attributable to other investments is also an interim alternative that reduces the potential\nfor double-counting of performance by Federal agencies pending additional OMB guidance.\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\x0c Appendix A: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology\n\n\n\nThe objectives of this inspection were to assess ARC\xe2\x80\x99s performance metrics and the associated\nresults, particularly their quality, recording accuracy, reporting accuracy, and their usage.\nSpecifically, the objectives were met by reviewing whether:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 ARC is reporting project performance metrics and results in accordance with accepted\n criteria and best-practices;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 ARC uses performance results to make appropriate program changes;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 ARC-wide and program metrics provide a meaningful method to measure performance of\n projects;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 ARC\xe2\x80\x99s validation visits provide assurance that ARC receives accurate long-term results\n information; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 ARC\xe2\x80\x99s procedures and controls ensure grantees report accurate performance results to\n ARC.\n\nOur audit methodology included (1) review of ARC project files, policies and procedures, and\nreports; (2) interviews with ARC staff; (3) review of electronic data from ARC\xe2\x80\x99s grant\nmanagement system (ARC.net); and (4) contacting federal agencies to identify best-practices.\nWe reviewed for relevant guidance and criteria, including GPRA, GAO and other related reports,\nand ARC Code. We did not review performance information related to the Appalachian\nDevelopment Highway System.\n\nThe inspection covered ARC\xe2\x80\x99s fiscal years 2007 through 2009, with updates for some\ninformation through the current period. We conducted our fieldwork in December 2010 through\nFebruary 2011 at the Appalachian Regional Commission office in Washington, DC, and the\nDepartment of Commerce, Office of Inspector General office in Seattle (DOC OIG),\nWashington. Our inspection was performed in accordance with the Quality Standards for\nInspections adopted by the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, dated\nJanuary 2005, and under the authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended.\n\nThe DOC OIG, under a Memorandum of Understanding with the ARC OIG, provided an auditor\nwho did much of the field work and report writing for this inspection. The auditor\xe2\x80\x99s work was\nsupervised by the ARC OIG who also contributed to the report and held discussions with\nmanagement.\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\x0c Appendix B: ARC Performance Validation Program- Project Selection\n\n ARC PERFORMANCE VALIDATION PROGRAM\n\n VALIDATION PROJECT SELECTION:\n\nGuiding Principle\n\nARC strives to conduct a thorough and unbiased selection process for reviewing a sample of\nprojects for annual validation, taking into consideration many factors, including cost-\neffectiveness of traveling to site, grant scale/scope, possibility of visiting project in future years,\nand maturity of outcomes.\n\nUnder no circumstances will an ARC project be excluded simply based on the possibility that the\nproject may not be able to support performance results.\n\nStatistical or random sampling is not ideal for the purposes of the validation visits because of\nthe diversity and scope of ARC project types. Developing a rough sample of ARC projects based\non geographical and project-type variety is more meaningful for program assessment because it\nallows for diverse and innovative projects to be reviewed.\n\nSelection Process\n\n\nEach April, Regional Planning & Research (RP&R) staff runs a report in arc.net on all projects\nfunded two and three fiscal years prior. This yields a universe of approximately 900 projects.\n\nRP&R staff then removes projects that are still open, about 35-40% of the entire list, yielding\napproximately 350 closed projects eligible for review.\n\nRP&R staff immediately excludes projects not appropriate or eligible for onsite validation visit.\nThese include LDD administration grants, consolidated technical assistance grants, conferences,\nresearch reports and internships. Additionally, approximately 45 projects having already\nreceived validation visits within the past five years are excluded.\n\nThis list of approximately 185 projects is sent to each project coordinator for their expertise and\ncomment on the performance, effectiveness, and appropriateness of each project. Based on\ncomments provided by the project coordinators and additional research, a list of about 100\nprojects is sent to the state program managers for their comment and review.\n\nNote that projects are excluded from the list only for very explicit reasons. These include\nevidence that the project has experienced significant management turnover, precluding the\nlikelihood that new management has sufficient knowledge of the project to provide adequate\nfeedback. Similarly, the project management position may be vacant and there may be no one\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\x0consite to discuss the project. Projects may be suggested for review the following year, when\nperformance outcomes are more likely to mature. Finally, in certain (rare) cases projects may\nbe excluded if there is knowledge of an ongoing legal dispute and/or Inspector General\ninvestigation.\n\nFinally, staff reaches a balance of projects based on state (5-7 projects each), type, and\nperformance measures. The goal is to visit a diverse mix of ARC project types across all 13\nstates while visiting at least 12 construction/infrastructure, 12 education/health/ leadership,\nand 12 business development/entrepreneurship projects since they fall under the three main\nARC goals (excluding highways) and the three main performance measures ARC reports to the\nOffice of Management and Budget: households served, students/workers with improvements,\nand jobs created. If we find that there are major gaps, we may go back and pull projects that\nwere closed between the first data pull and closer to the time of the visits to see if they can be\nadded to the list.\n\n\nProjects that showcase innovation or can be replicated across states are always encouraged,\nmainly for the potential for lessons learned and broader information dissemination including\nthe ARC web site and Appalachia magazine stories.\n\nThe final list comprises approximately 70-80 projects that are closed and thoroughly\nresearched. Inevitably, some projects are not reviewed due to scheduling difficulties,\ngeography, timing and other issues.\n\nUnder certain circumstances where few infrastructure projects are found within a given state,\nstaff will look at projects funded four fiscal years prior to determine suitability for visitation.\nIncluding these additional projects may help ensure there is a balanced mix of project types for\neach of the three main ARC goal areas.\n\nUltimately, RP&R staff visit a rough sample of approximately 55-65 projects for onsite\nvalidation and review.\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\x0c'


text:
Hotărârea 293/2019 | Legislatie gratuita
 Hotărârea 293 2019 modifica Hotărârea 13 2017
 Hotărârea 293 2019 modifica Hotărârea 1881 2005
 Hotărârea Nr.293 din 14.05.2019
 Având în vedere dispoziţiile art. 21 şi 22 din Ordonanţa Guvernului nr. 81/2003 privind reevaluarea şi amortizarea activelor fixe aflate în patrimoniul instituţiilor publice, aprobată prin Legea nr. 493/2003, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, precum şi ale art. 2 alin. (1) şi (2) din Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 1.705/2006 pentru aprobarea inventarului centralizat al bunurilor din domeniul public al statului, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare,în temeiul art. 108 din Constituţia României, republicată, al art. 867 din Legea nr. 287/2009 privind Codul civil, republicată, cu modificările ulterioare, al art. III alin. (1) din Legea nr. 72/2011 pentru modificarea şi completarea Legii nr. 45/2009 privind organizarea şi funcţionarea Academiei de Ştiinţe Agricole şi Silvice „Gheorghe Ionescu-Şişeşti" şi a sistemului de cercetare-dezvoltare din domeniile agriculturii, silviculturii şi industriei alimentare şi al art. 20 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 213/1998 privind bunurile proprietate publică, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare,Guvernul României adoptă prezenta hotărâre. Articolul 1Se reorganizează Institutul de Cercetare-Dezvoltare pentru Protecţia Plantelor Bucureşti, cu sediul în municipiul Bucureşti, bd. Ion Ionescu de la Brad nr. 8, sectorul 1, în instituţie de drept public organizată ca instituţie publică, cu personalitate juridică, în subordinea Academiei de Ştiinţe Agricole şi Silvice „Gheorghe Ionescu-Şişeşti", denumit în continuare Institutul. Articolul 2
 (2) Institutul administrează suprafaţa de teren agricol şi neagricol din domeniul public al statului, potrivit anexei nr. 3 la Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 1.705/2006 pentru aprobarea inventarului centralizat al bunurilor din domeniul public al statului, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, înscrisă în inventarul bunurilor din domeniul public al statului la numărul de inventar MFP 117261, cu suprafaţa de 30,909 ha, din care suprafaţa de 17,1497 ha reprezintă suprafaţa indispensabilă activităţii de cercetare-dezvoltare-inovare şi multiplicării materialului biologic, având datele de identificare prevăzute în anexa nr. 2.10 la Legea nr. 45/2009 privind organizarea şi funcţionarea Academiei de Ştiinţe Agricole şi Silvice „Gheorghe Ionescu-Şişeşti" şi a sistemului de cercetare-dezvoltare din domeniile agriculturii, silviculturii şi industriei alimentare, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare.
 (4) Bunurile imobile de natura construcţiilor care se înscriu în inventarul bunurilor din domeniul public al statului şi se dau în administrarea Institutului sunt prevăzute în anexa nr. 3. Articolul 3
 (1) Institutul are ca obiect principal activitatea de cercetare-dezvoltare în domeniul protecţiei plantelor şi desfăşoară şi alte activităţi codificate potrivit Ordinului preşedintelui Institutului Naţional de Statistică nr. 337/2007 privind actualizarea Clasificării activităţilor din economia naţională - CAEN, astfel:a)diviziunea 01 Agricultură, vânătoare şi servicii anexe; grupa 011 Cultivarea plantelor nepermanente; clasa 0111 Cultivarea cerealelor, exclusiv orez, plantelor leguminoase şi a plantelor producătoare de seminţe oleaginoase; clasa 0113 Cultivarea legumelor şi a pepenilor, a rădăcinoaselor şi tuberculilor; clasa 0119 Cultivarea altor plante din culturi nepermanente; grupa 012 Cultivarea plantelor din culturi permanente; clasa 0121 Cultivarea strugurilor; clasa 0124 Cultivarea fructelor seminţoase şi sâmburoase; clasa 0125 Cultivarea fructelor, arbuştilor fructiferi, căpşunilor, nuciferilor şi a altor pomi fructiferi; clasa 0128 Cultivarea condimentelor, plantelor aromatice, medicinale şi a plantelor de uz farmaceutic; clasa 0129 Cultivarea altor plante permanente; grupa 013 Cultivarea plantelor pentru înmulţire; clasa 0130 Cultivarea plantelor pentru înmulţire; grupa 014 Creşterea animalelor; clasa 0141 Creşterea bovinelor de lapte; clasa 0142 Creşterea altor bovine; clasa 0146 Creşterea porcinelor; clasa 0149 Creşterea altor animale; grupa 016 Activităţi auxiliare agriculturii şi activităţi după recoltare; clasa 0161 Activităţi auxiliare pentru producţia vegetală; clasa 0163 Activităţi după recoltare; clasa 0164 Pregătirea seminţelor; b)diviziunea 10 Industria alimentară; grupa 103 Prelucrarea şi conservarea fructelor şi legumelor; clasa 1032 Fabricarea sucurilor de fructe şi legume; clasa 1039 Prelucrarea şi conservarea fructelor şi legumelor neclasificate altundeva „n.c.a."; grupa 108 Fabricarea altor produse alimentare; clasa 1084 Fabricarea condimentelor şi ingredientelor; c)diviziunea 11 Fabricarea băuturilor; grupa 110 Fabricarea băuturilor; clasa 1101 Distilarea, rafinarea şi mixarea băuturilor alcoolice; clasa 1102 Fabricarea vinurilor din struguri; clasa 1103 Fabricarea cidrului şi a altor vinuri din fructe; clasa 1104 Fabricarea altor băuturi nedistilate, obţinute prin fermentare; d)diviziunea 20 Fabricarea substanţelor şi produselor chimice; grupa 202 Fabricarea pesticidelor şi a altor produse agrochimice; clasa 2020 Fabricarea pesticidelor şi a altor produse agrochimice; e)diviziunea 38 Colectarea, tratarea şi eliminarea deşeurilor; activităţi de recuperare a materialelor reciclabile; grupa 383 Recuperarea materialelor; clasa 3832 Recuperarea materialelor reciclabile sortate; f)diviziunea 41 Construcţii de clădiri, grupa 412 Lucrări de construcţii a drumurilor şi a căilor ferate; clasa 4120 Lucrări de construcţii a clădirilor rezidenţiale şi nerezidenţiale; g)diviziunea 46 Comerţ cu ridicata, cu excepţia comerţului cu autovehicule şi motociclete; grupa 461 Activităţi de intermediere în comerţul cu ridicata; clasa 4611 Intermedieri în comerţul cu materii prime agricole, animale vii, materii prime textile şi semifabricate; clasa 4612 Intermedieri în comerţul cu combustibili, minereuri, metale şi produse chimice pentru industrie; grupa 462 Comerţ cu ridicata al produselor agricole brute şi al animalelor vii; clasa 4621 Comerţ cu ridicata al cerealelor, seminţelor, furajelor şi tutunului neprelucrat; clasa 4622 Comerţ cu ridicata al florilor şi plantelor; grupa 463 Comerţ cu ridicata al produselor alimentare, al băuturilor şi al tutunului; clasa 4631 Comerţ cu ridicata al fructelor şi legumelor; grupa 467 Comerţ cu ridicata specializat al altor produse; clasa 4675 Comerţ cu ridicata al produselor chimice; clasa 4676 Comerţ cu ridicata al altor produse intermediare; grupa 469 Comerţ cu ridicata nespecializat; clasa 4690 Comerţ cu ridicata nespecializat; h)diviziunea 47 Comerţ cu amănuntul, cu excepţia autovehiculelor şi motocicletelor; grupa 471 Comerţ cu amănuntul în magazine nespecializate; clasa 4711 Comerţ cu amănuntul în magazine nespecializate, cu vânzare predominantă de produse alimentare, băuturi şi tutun; grupa 472 Comerţ cu amănuntul al produselor alimentare, băuturilor şi al produselor din tutun, în magazine specializate; clasa 4721 Comerţ cu amănuntul al fructelor şi legumelor proaspete, în magazine specializate; clasa 4729 Comerţ cu amănuntul al altor produse alimentare, în magazine specializate; grupa 474 Comerţ cu amănuntul al echipamentului informatic de telecomunicaţii în magazine specializate; grupa 477 Comerţ cu amănuntul al altor bunuri, în magazine specializate; clasa 4776 Comerţ cu amănuntul al florilor, plantelor şi seminţelor, comerţ cu amănuntul al animalelor de companie şi al hranei pentru acestea, în magazine specializate; i)diviziunea 49 Transporturi terestre şi transporturi prin conducte; grupa 493 Alte transporturi terestre de călători; clasa 4939 Alte transporturi terestre de călători neclasificate altundeva „n.c.a"; grupa 494 Transporturi rutiere de mărfuri şi servicii de mutare; clasa 4941 Transporturi rutiere de mărfuri; j)diviziunea 52 Depozitare şi activităţi auxiliare pentru transporturi; grupa 521 Depozitări; clasa 5210 Depozitări; k)diviziunea 58 Activităţi de editare; grupa 581 Activităţi de editare a cărţilor, ziarelor, revistelor şi alte activităţi de editare; clasa 5811 Activităţi de editare a cărţilor; clasa 5812 Activităţi de editare de ghiduri, compendii, liste de adrese şi similare; clasa 5814 Activităţi de editare a revistelor şi a periodicelor; clasa 5819 Alte activităţi de editare; l)diviziunea 62 Activităţi de servicii în tehnologia informaţiei; grupa 620 Activităţi de servicii în tehnologia informaţiei; clasa 6201 Activităţi de realizare a softului la comandă; m)diviziunea 63 Activităţi de servicii informatice; grupa 631 Activităţi ale portalurilor web, prelucrarea datelor, administrarea paginilor web şi activităţi conexe; clasa 6311 Prelucrarea datelor, administrarea paginilor web şi activităţi conexe; n)diviziunea 68 Tranzacţii imobiliare; grupa 682 Închirierea şi subînchirierea bunurilor imobiliare proprii; clasa 6820 Închirierea şi subînchirierea imobilelor proprii sau închiriate; o)diviziunea 69 Activităţi juridice şi de contabilitate; grupa 692 Activităţi de contabilitate şi audit financiar, consultanţă în domeniul fiscal; clasa 6920 Activităţi de contabilitate şi audit financiar, consultanţă în domeniul fiscal; p)diviziunea 70 Activităţi ale direcţiilor, birourilor administrative, centralizate: activităţi de management şi de consultanţă în management; grupa 702 Activităţi de consultanţă în management; clasa 7022 Activităţi de consultanţă pentru afaceri şi management; q)diviziunea 71 Activităţi de arhitectură şi inginerie: activităţi de testări şi analiză tehnică; grupa 712 Activităţi de testări şi analiză tehnică; clasa 7120 Activităţi de testări şi analiză tehnică; r)diviziunea 72 Cercetare-dezvoltare; grupa 721 Cercetare-dezvoltare în ştiinţe naturale şi inginerie; clasa 7211 Cercetare-dezvoltare în biotehnologie; clasa 7219 Cercetare-dezvoltare în alte ştiinţe naturale şi inginerie; s)diviziunea 73 Publicitate şi activităţi de studiere a pieţei; grupa 732 Activităţi de studiere a pieţei şi de sondare a opiniei publice; clasa 7320 Activităţi de studiere a pieţei şi de sondare a opiniei publice; ş)diviziunea 74 Alte activităţi profesionale, ştiinţifice şi tehnice; grupa 742 Activităţi fotografice; clasa 7420 Activităţi fotografice; grupa 749 Alte activităţi profesionale, ştiinţifice şi tehnice n.c.a.; clasa 7490 Alte activităţi profesionale, ştiinţifice şi tehnice n.c.a.; t)diviziunea 77 Activităţi de închiriere şi leasing; grupa 773 Activităţi de închiriere şi leasing cu alte maşini, echipamente şi bunuri tangibile; clasa 7739 Activităţi de închiriere şi leasing cu alte maşini, echipamente şi bunuri tangibile n.c.a.; clasa 7731 Activităţi de închiriere şi leasing cu maşini şi echipamente agricole; ţ)diviziunea 78 Activităţi de servicii privind forţa de muncă; grupa 782 Activităţi de contractare, pe baze temporare, a personalului; clasa 7820 Activităţi de contractare, pe baze temporare, a personalului; u)diviziunea 81 Activităţi de peisagistică şi servicii pentru clădiri; grupa 813 Activităţi de întreţinere peisagistică; clasa 8130 Activităţi de întreţinere peisagistică; v)diviziunea 85 Învăţământ; grupa 855 Alte forme de învăţământ; clasa 8559 Alte forme de învăţământ; w)diviziunea 94 Activităţi asociative diverse; grupa 941 Activităţi ale organizaţiilor economice, patronale şi profesionale; clasa 9411 Activităţi ale organizaţiilor economice şi patronale; clasa 9412 Activităţi ale organizaţiilor profesionale.
 (2) Institutul desfăşoară şi dezvoltă relaţii ştiinţifice internaţionale, relaţii de cooperare şi de comerţ interior şi exterior cu diferite instituţii, organizaţii şi operatori economici, potrivit prevederilor art. 32 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 45/2009, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare. Articolul 4Pentru realizarea unor proiecte şi lucrări în domeniul agricol, Institutul se poate asocia cu alte unităţi de cercetare-dezvoltare de interes public şi privat, cu instituţii de învăţământ acreditate şi cu operatori economici din ţară şi străinătate, potrivit prevederilor art. 39 alin. (2) din Legea nr. 45/2009, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare. Articolul 5Finanţarea activităţii Institutului se realizează potrivit prevederilor art. 35 din Legea nr. 45/2009, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare. Articolul 6Institutul poate beneficia prin alocare directă de fonduri din bugetul Ministerului Agriculturii şi Dezvoltării Rurale, prin bugetul Academiei de Ştiinţe Agricole şi Silvice „Gheorghe Ionescu-Şişeşti", potrivit prevederilor art. 27 lit. c) din Legea nr. 45/2009, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare. Articolul 7
 (2) Situaţiile financiare se aprobă de consiliul de administraţie al Institutului, potrivit prevederilor art. 34 lit. f) din Legea nr. 45/2009, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare. Articolul 8
 (4) Pentru activităţi cu caracter sezonier, Institutul poate încheia contracte de prestări de servicii, potrivit prevederilor art. 43 din Legea nr. 45/2009, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare. Articolul 9Numărul maxim de posturi aprobat pentru Institut este de 110. Articolul 10
 (3) Excedentele rezultate din execuţia bugetului de venituri şi cheltuieli ale Institutului se regularizează la sfârşitul anului cu bugetul din care se finanţează, în limita sumelor primite de la acesta. Articolul 11Institutul efectuează operaţiunile de încasări şi plăţi, potrivit prevederilor art. 37 şi 38 din Legea nr. 45/2009, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare. Articolul 12
 (1) Regulamentul de organizare şi funcţionare şi structura organizatorică ale Institutului se aprobă prin decizie a preşedintelui Academiei de Ştiinţe Agricole şi Silvice „Gheorghe Ionescu-Şişeşti", potrivit prevederilor art. 34 lit. d) din Legea nr. 45/2009, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare.
 (2) Directorul instituţiei îndeplineşte atribuţiile ordonatorului terţiar de credite, potrivit prevederilor art. 21 alin. (4) din Legea nr. 500/2002 privind finanţele publice, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare. Articolul 13
 (3) Atribuţiile conducerii se stabilesc prin regulamentul de organizare şi funcţionare al Institutului. Articolul 14Activitatea ştiinţifică a Institutului este coordonată de un consiliu ştiinţific conform regulamentului de organizare şi funcţionare al acestuia, aprobat potrivit prevederilor art. 34 lit. b) din Legea nr. 45/2009, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare. Articolul 15Institutul are în dotare un parc auto format din: un autoturism pentru transportul persoanelor din aparatul propriu şi pentru activităţile de cercetare-dezvoltare, un autolaborator şi un autoturism de teren. Articolul 16
 (1) Anexa nr. 3 la Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 1.705/2006 pentru aprobarea inventarului centralizat al bunurilor din domeniul public al statului, publicată în Monitorul Oficial al României, Partea I, nr. 1.020 şi 1.020 bis din 21 decembrie 2006, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, se modifică după cum urmează:a)actualizarea valorii de inventar, denumirii, descrierii tehnice şi a adresei, după caz, pentru bunurile din domeniul public al statului aflate în administrarea Institutului, potrivit anexelor nr. 1 şi 2 la prezenta hotărâre; b)înscrierea în inventarul bunurilor din domeniul public al statului şi darea în administrarea Institutului a bunurilor prevăzute în anexa nr. 3 la prezenta hotărâre; c)comasarea bunului imobil cu nr. MF 116344 - Laborator agrochimie, corp B, cu bunul imobil cu nr. MF 116337 - Corp dependinţe, corp C, potrivit anexei nr. 2 la prezenta hotărâre.
 (2) Ministerul Agriculturii şi Dezvoltării Rurale îşi va actualiza în mod corespunzător datele din evidenţa cantitativ-valorică şi, împreună cu Ministerul Finanţelor Publice, va opera modificarea corespunzătoare a anexei nr. 3 la Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 1705/2006, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, potrivit prevederilor art. 2 alin. (2) din aceeaşi hotărâre a Guvernului. Articolul 17La data intrării în vigoare a prezentei hotărâri, anexa nr. 4a) la Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 13/2017 privind organizarea şi funcţionarea Ministerului Cercetării şi Inovării, publicată în Monitorul Oficial al României, Partea I, nr. 44 din 16 ianuarie 2017, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, precum şi anexele nr. 11, cu excepţia punctului 1, şi 11a) la Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 1.881/2005 privind înfiinţarea unor institute şi centre de cercetare-dezvoltare agricolă prin reorganizarea unor institute, centre, staţiuni şi societăţi comerciale de cercetare şi producţie agricolă, publicată în Monitorul Oficial al României, Partea I, nr. 106 şi 106 bis din 3 februarie 2006, cu modificările ulterioare, se abrogă . Articolul 18 Anexele nr. 1-3 fac parte integrantă din prezenta hotărâre.PRIM-MINISTRUVASILICA-VIORICA DĂNCILĂContrasemnează:p. Ministrul agriculturii şi dezvoltării rurale,Dumitru Daniel Botănoiu,secretar de stat Ministrul cercetării şi inovării,Nicolae Hurducp. Ministrul muncii şi justiţiei sociale,Elena Solomonesc, secretar de stat Ministrul finanţelor publice,Eugen Orlando TeodoroviciANEXA Nr. 1Bunurile imobile de natura construcţiilor din domeniul public al statului, aflate în administrarea Institutului de Cercetare-Dezvoltare pentru Protecţia Plantelor Bucureşti - C.U.I. 14785469
 Nr. MFP Cod de clasificare Denumire Descriere tehnică pe scurt Adresa Valoarea de inventar (lei)
 116348 8.28.10 Clădire anexă Parter; Sc = 313 mp; C4 - CF nr. 264492 Ţara: România; municipiul Bucureşti; sectorul 1; bd. Ion Ionescu de la Brad nr. 8 191.904
 116353 8.29.08 Clădire principală P + 1; Sc = 1.634 mp; Sd = 3.268 mp; C1 - CF nr. 264492 Ţara: România; municipiul Bucureşti; sectorul 1; bd. Ion Ionescu de la Brad nr. 8 5.178.033
 121575 8.28.12 Clădire de locuit, magazie, garaj S + P + 1; Sc = 316 mp; Sd = 664 mp; C5 - CF nr. 264492 Ţara: România; municipiul Bucureşti; sectorul 1; bd. Ion Ionescu de la Brad nr. 8 258.307
 147541 8.28.13 Centrală termică Ţara: România; municipiul Bucureşti; sectorul 1; bd. Ion Ionescu de la Brad nr. 20 1.994
 TOTAL 5.630.238
 ANEXA Nr. 2Bunurile imobile de natura construcţiilor din domeniul public al statului, aflate în administrarea Institutului de Cercetare-Dezvoltare pentru Protecţia Plantelor Bucureşti - C.U.I. 14785469, care se comasează potrivit cărţii funciare nr. 264492
 Nr. MFP Cod de clasificare Denumire Descriere tehnică pe scurt Nr. MFP după comasare Cod de clasificare după comasare Denumire după comasare Descriere tehnică pe scurt după comasare Adresa Valoarea de inventar (lei)
 116337 8.28.10 Corp dependinţe, corp C P, hală, grajd, atelier, S = 1.334 mp 116337 8.28.06 Hală, grajd, atelier, laborator agrochimie Hală, grajd, atelier, laborator agrochimie; parter; Sc = 1.280 mp; C2 - CF nr. 264492 Ţara: România; municipiul Bucureşti; sectorul 1; bd. Ion Ionescu de la Brad nr. 8 805.272
 116344 8.28.03 Laborator agrochimie, corp B P; S = 182 mp
 ANEXA Nr. 3Bunurile imobile care se înscriu în inventarul domeniului public al statului şi se dau în administrarea Institutului de Cercetare-Dezvoltare pentru Protecţia Plantelor Bucureşti - C.U.I. 14785469
 Cod de clasificare Denumire Descriere tehnică (pe scurt) Vecinătăţi (după caz, pe scurt) Adresa Anul dobândirii/ dării în folosinţă Valoarea de inventar (lei)
 8.28.12 Clădire de locuit P + 1; Sc = 65 mp; Sd = 130 mp; CF nr. 264492 - C6 N-E: DSV Ilfov; S-E: Paul Philippe al României; S-V: Paul Philippe al României; E: INMA; N: INMA; N-V: Paul Philippe al României Ţara: România; municipiul Bucureşti; sectorul 1; bd. Ion Ionescu de la Brad nr. 8 1932 226.855
 8.28.10 Biostaţie pentru creştere insecte utile S + P; Sc = 185 mp; Sd = 370 mp; CF nr. 264492 - C3 E: INMA; S: ICDPP; V: ICDPP; N: INMA Ţara: România; municipiul Bucureşti; sectorul 1; bd. Ion Ionescu de la Brad nr. 8 1942 34.505
 COMENTARII la Hotărârea 293/2019
 Momentan nu exista niciun comentariu la Hotărârea 293 din 2019
 Alte acte pe aceeaşi temă cu Hotărârea 293/2019
 Hotărârea 13 2017


type: wikipedia

text:
Gdańsk () er en havneby i Polen ved floden Wisłas tidligere munding, i Pommern, hovedstad i det voivodskabet Pommern, den største by i det nordlige Polen, den største havneby i Polen og den sjette folkerigeste by i hele landet med indbyggere. Den største by i Trójmiasto, et vigtigt polsk kulturelt, videnskabeligt, industrielt og akademisk center.
 En by med en rig, over tusind år gammel historie og kultur, med mange imponerende monumenter af gotisk, renæssance og barok arkitektur.
 Den største havneby i Polen siden middelalderen, undtagen episoderne af udenlandsk regel (Tyske Orden i 1308-1454, preussisk i 1793-1807 og 1815-1871, tysk i 1871-1920 og 1939-1945) og korte perioder med autonomi som bystat. Byen var tidligere en hansestad, den kongelige by af den polske krone, og i tidlig moderne tid til begyndelsen af det 18. århundrede var det den største by i Polen (før den hurtige vækst i Warszawa). I mellemkrigstiden var byen fristad under Folkeforbundet. Byen blev efter 2. verdenskrig overdraget til Polen.
 Navnet
 Byen nævnes for første gang i 999 hos benediktineren Jan Kanaparius som Gyddanyzc urbs. Navnet Gyddanyzc kommer fra gammelslavisk Gdaniesk (Gdańsk); begge former har præfikset "gd", som er knyttet til «fugtighed» eller «vådhed». Navnet har ikke nogen kendt tilknytning til dansk, som det tidligere er foreslået.
 Den germaniserede form Danzig er gennem tiderne blevet transformeret og deformeret fra det polske Gdańsk. I historiens løb er navnet blevet skrevet på flere forskellige måder – Kdanzc (1148), Gdanzc (1188), Gdansk (1236), Danzk (1263), Danczk (1311, 1399, 1410, 1414-1438), Danczik (1399, 1410, 1414), Danczig (1414), Gdansk (1454, 1468, 1484), Gdańsk (1590), Gdąnsk (1636), Dantzigk (1645). I latinske dokumenter finder man navnene Gedanum og Dantiscum.
 Historie
 Byen blev omtalt som en kasjubisk fiskerby i 997 beliggende ved udløbet af floden Wisła (i dag er denne flodarm udtørret, og floden udmunder længere mod øst). Fra middelalderen tilhørte byen Polen. I 1263 modtog Gdańsk byrettigheder. I 1308 blev Gdańsk erobret af den Tyske Ridderorden, som udførte et massakre af beboere. Byen blev en magnet for tyske købmænd. Som købmands-, handels- og havneby blev byen en magtfaktor i hele østersøområdet. Byen blev 1308/09 underlagt den Tyske Ridderorden og blev et af de ledende medlemmer af Hanseforbundet. Den kom senere i krig med dronning Margrete. Under den polske-teutoniske krig, i 1410 anerkendte byen Gdańsk kongen af Polen som den retmæssige hersker, men efter fredsaftalen i 1411 måtte den vende tilbage til den Tyske Orden. I 1454 anerkendte byen Polen som sin overherre mod løfter om rettigheder og autonomi. Polske konger besøgte byen mange gange, og den repræsentative rute af byen blev traditionelt kaldt den Kongelige Vej. Som en af de ti største og mest indflydelsesrige byer i Polen havde Gdańsk ret til at deltage i valget af konger i Polen (efter indførelsen af et valg i 1569). I sin økonomiske storhedstid omkring år 1650 havde byen nærved 80.000 indbyggere og var den rigeste og største by i Polen-Litauen, foran Lwów, Kraków, Warszawa og Vilnius. Den 28. november 1627, i nærheden af Oliwa (nu distriktet Gdańsk) fandt en af de største søfartskampe i polsk historie sted, hvor polakkerne besejrede svenskerne. Under Polske Arvefølgekrig blev Gdańsk belejret af russerne i 1734.
 Efter Polens 2. deling i 1793 blev byen indlemmet i kongeriget Preussen. I 1797 forstyrrede de preussiske myndigheder forsøget om elevopstandet i Gdańsk. Under Napoleonskrigene blev byen ikke en del af Storhertugdømmet Warszawa, men fik en speciel status som fristad i årene 1807-1814. Reelt var byen dog under fransk kontrol, men blev tilbageleveret til Preussen ved fredsslutningen i 1815. 1815-29 og fra 1878 var Danzig hovedstad i den preussiske provins Vestpreussen.
 Efter Første Verdenskrig besluttede sejrherrerne, at byen skulle omdannes til en fristad i toldunion med Polen under Folkeforbundets overhøjhed. Det var et af den amerikanske præsident Woodrow Wilsons berømte 14 punkter for den kommende fred. Wilson anså ordningen for at være et kompromis mellem tyske og polske interesser. Polen ønskede at indlemme byen for at sikre sig en havn ved Østersøkysten, mens Tyskland ønskede at beholde kontrollen over byen. Den engelske regering arbejdede på at overtale Polen til at overtage byen Klaipėda (tysk: Memel) i stedet. Denne by forblev en del af Litauen indtil i Tyskland annekterede den i 1939.
 Af de 330.000, der levede i Danzig ved folketællingen i 1910, var over 95 % tyskere og 3% polakker. I 1923 havde 97,6 % af befolkningen tysk som modersmål. Ved krigsudbruddet 1939 blev Danzig igen en del af Tyskland og fungerede som hovedstad i provinsen Danzig-Vestpreussen.
 Byen blev indtaget af den Røde Hær i 1944 og reelt ødelagt. Næsten hele befolkningen flygtede eller blev deporteret på linje med de tyske indbyggere i de øvrige områder, som tilfaldt Polen og Sovjetunionen. Byen blev overgivet til Folkerepublikken Polen efter 2. verdenskrig. Omkring 100.000 af byens indbyggere omkom under krigen, og omkring 1950 levede ca. 285.000 tyske danzigere i eksil. Byen blev i 1950'erne og 1960'erne genopbygget og fremstår i høj grad i dag i sin tidligere skikkelse.
 Sport
 De mest populære sportsklubber i byen er Wybrzeże Gdańsk (speedway og håndbold), Lechia Gdańsk (fodbold og rugby), Lotos Gdańsk (volleyball) og Stoczniowiec Gdańsk (ishockey). Der er også fodboldklubber Gedania og Polonia Gdańsk.
 Gdańsk var en af værtsbyerne i Europamesterskabet i basketball 2009, Europamesterskabet i fodbold 2012, Europamesterskabet i volleyball 2013, Verdensmesterskab i volleyball 2014 for mænd, Europamesterskabet i håndbold 2016 for mænd og Europamesterskabet i volleyball 2017.
 Berømte indbyggere i byen
 Świętopełk (1191-1266)
 Jan Dantyszek (1485-1548)
 Abraham van den Blocke (1572-1628)
 Izaak van den Blocke (1572-1626)
 Jeremiasz Falck (1610-1667)
 Jerzy Strakowski (1614-1675)
 Jan Heweliusz (1611-1687)
 Aleksander Benedykt Sobieski (1677-1714)
 Gabriel Daniel Fahrenheit (1686-1736)
 Daniel Gralath (1708-1767)
 Daniel Chodowiecki (1726-1801)
 Adam Kazimierz Czartoryski, (1734-1823)
 Jan Uphagen (1731-1802)
 Krzysztof Celestyn Mrongovius (1764-1855)
 Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
 Konstantyn Dominik (1870-1942)
 Lech Bądkowski (1920-1984)
 Günter Grass (1927-2015)
 Lech Wałęsa (1943)
 Krzysztof Kolberger (1950)
 Jan de Weryha-Wysoczański (1950)
 Jerzy Owsiak (1953)
 Ludwik Prądzyński (1956)
 Donald Tusk (1957)
 Paweł Huelle (1957)
 Dariusz Michalczewski (1968)
 Galleri
 Se også
 Union of the Baltic Cities
 Trójmiasto (den polske "Tristad", Gdansk, Gdynia og Sopot.)
 Den europæiske rute for teglstensgotik
 Referencer
 Eksterne henvisninger
 Tidligere tyske byer
 Polen i middelalderen
 Havnebyer i Polen
 Hanse


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
1 . 6 . 96 PT 1 Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias N: C 158 /7
 as à transposição da Directiva 91 /674/CEE do Conselho, Acção intentada em 3 de Abril de 1996 pela Comissão das
 de 19 de Dezembro de 1991 , relativa às contas anuais e Comunidades Europeias contra a República Helénica
 às contas consolidadas das empresas de seguros ('), ( Processo C-1 12/96 )
 — condenar a República Helénica nas despesas da instân ( 96/C 158/ 15 )
 cia .
 Deu entrada em 3 de Abril de 1996 no Tribunal de Justiça
 Fundamentos e principais argumentos das Comunidades Europeias uma acção contra a República
 Nos termos do artigo 189?, terceiro parágrafo, do Tratado Helénica , intentada pela Comissão das Comunidades Euro
 que institui a Comunidade Europeia, as directivas vinculam peias, representada por Dimitrios Gkoulosis , consultor
 os Estados-membros destinatários . Até ao momento, a jurídico da Comissão, com domicílio escolhido no Luxem
 República Helénica não adoptou as medidas adequadas à burgo no gabinete de Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, membro do
 transposição integral da directiva em causa na ordem Serviço Jurídico da Comissão, Centro Wagner, Kirch
 jurídica grega , nem evidentemente, comunicou essas medi berg .
 das à Comissão .
 A autora conclui pedindo que o Tribunal se digne :
 ( 1 ) JO n? L 374 de 31 . 12 . 1991 .
 — declarar que a República Helénica não cumpriu as
 obrigações que lhe incumbem por força do Tratado CE,
 porque não adoptou e, a título subsidiário , porque não
 comunicou à Comissão dentro do prazo , as medidas
 Acção intentada em 3 de Abril de 1996 pela Comissão das legislativas, regulamentares e administrativas necessá
 Comunidades Europeias contra a República Helénica rias à transposição da Directiva 92/96/CEE ( ! ) do
 ( Processo C-111 /96 ) Conselho, de 10 de Novembro de 1992 , que estabelece a
 ( 96/C 158/ 14 ) coordenação das disposições legislativas, regulamenta
 res e administrativas relativas ao seguro directo vida e
 Deu entrada em 3 de Abril de 1996 no Tribunal de Justiça que altera as Directivas 79/267/CEE ( 2 ) e 90/619/CEE ( 3 )
 das Comunidades Europeias uma acção contra a República ( terceira directiva sobre o seguro de vida ),
 Helénica, intentada pela Comissão das Comunidades Euro
 peias, representada por Dimitrios Gkoulousis, consultor — condenar a República Helénica nas despesas da instân
 cia .
 jurídico da Comissão, com domicílio escolhido no Luxem
 burgo no gabinete de Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, membro do
 Serviço Jurídico da Comissão , Centro Wagner, Kirch Fundamentos e principais argumentos
 berg.
 Nos termos do artigo 189?, terceiro parágrafo , do Tratado
 A autora conclui pedindo que o Tribunal se digne : que institui a Comunidade Europeia, as directivas vinculam
 os Estados-membros destinatários . Até ao momento, a
 — declarar que a República Helénica não cumpriu as República Helénica não adoptou as medidas adequadas à
 obrigações que lhe incumbem por força do Tratado CE, transposição integral da directiva em causa na ordem
 porque não adoptou e, a título subsidiário, porque não jurídica grega , nem evidentemente , comunicou essas medi
 comunicou à Comissão dentro do prazo, as medidas das à Comissão .
 legislativas, regulamentares e administrativas necessá
 rias à transposição da Directiva 92/49/CEE ( ] ) do (M J O n. L 360 de 9 . 12 . 1992 .
 Conselho, de 18 de Junho de 1992 , relativa à coorde ( 2 ) JO n? L 63 de 13 . 3 . 1979 .
 nação das disposições legislativas, regulamentares e ( ? ) JO n? L 330 de 29 . 11 . 1990 .
 administrativas respeitantes ao seguro directo não vida e
 que altera as directivas 72/239/CEE (2 ) e 88/357/CEE ( 3 )
 ( terceira directiva sobre o seguro não vida ),
 — condenar a República Helénica nas despesas da instân
 cia . Pedido de decisão prejudicial apresentado por decisão do
 Bundessozialgericht de 8 de Fevereiro de 1996 no processo
 Fundamentos e principais argumentos entre 1 . Manuela Gomez Rodriguez, 2 . Gregorio Gomez
 Rodriguez contra o Landesversicherungsanstalt Rhein
 Nos termos do artigo 189?, terceiro parágrafo , do Tratado provinz
 que institui a Comunidade Europeia , as directivas vinculam
 os Estados-membros destinatários . Até ao momento, a ( Processo C-113/96 )
 República Helénica não adoptou as medidas adequadas à ( 96/C 158/16 )
 transposição integral da directiva em causa na ordem
 jurídica grega, nem evidentemente, comunicou essas medi Foi submetido ao Tribunal de Justiça das Comunidades
 das à Comissão . Europeias um pedido de decisão prejudicial por decisão do
 Bundessozialgericht de 8 de Fevereiro de 1 996 no processo
 (') JO n? L 228 de 11 . 8 . 1992 . entre 1 . Manuela Gomez Rodriguez, 2 . Gregorio Gomez
 ( 2 ) JO n ? L 228 de 16 . 8 . 1973 .
 (') JO n? L 172 de 7. 7 . 1988 .
 Rodriguez contra o Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinpro
 vinz que deu entrada na Secretaria do Tribunal em 5 de Abril
 de 1996 .


text:
La cascina Lanfroia è una cascina posta nel territorio del comune lombardo di Massalengo, a nordest del centro abitato.
 Fino al 1841 costituì un comune autonomo.
 Storia
 La località anticamente comprendeva la frazione Priora per un totale di 72 abitanti.
 In età napoleonica, 1809, Lanfroia divenne frazione di Massalengo.
 Recuperò l'autonomia con la costituzione del Regno Lombardo-Veneto, 1815, e fu inserita nel distretto di Borghetto della provincia di Lodi e Crema.
 Il governo austriaco tornò sui suoi passi il 22 gennaio 1841 e soppresse nuovamente e definitivamente il comune annettendolo a Motta Vigana. Nel 1879 Motta Vigana fu poi aggregata a Massalengo.
 Note
 Collegamenti esterni
 Massalengo
 Lanfroia
 Lanfroia


text:
Name: DJ HAMIDA A LA BIEN MIX PARTY 2011 TELECHARGER GRATUIT
 A TELECHARGER LA GRATUIT PARTY BIEN DJ HAMIDA 2011 MIX
 Actualités récentes. Biographie. Il est d’origine algérienne et a grandi au. dj hamida a la bien mix party 2011 telecharger gratuit Bendjebar est né le 17 juin 1982 dans le quartier d’Orgeval à Reims, dans le département de la Marne. dj hamida Mp3 est un (e) chanteur (se) de musique, dj hamida Mp3 est très connu pour sa belle voix, quand dj hamida Mp3 chante on sent une voix douce et à la fois.
 DJ A 2011 TELECHARGER LA PARTY GRATUIT MIX BIEN HAMIDA
 Il dj hamida a la bien mix party 2011 telecharger gratuit est d’origine algérienne et a grandi au. Biographie. dj hamida Mp3 est un (e) chanteur (se) de musique, dj hamida Mp3 est très connu pour sa belle voix, quand dj hamida Mp3 chante on sent une voix douce et à la fois. Bendjebar est né le 17 juin 1982 dans le quartier d’Orgeval à Reims, dans le département de la Marne. Actualités récentes.
 HAMIDA BIEN LA 2011 PARTY A MIX GRATUIT DJ TELECHARGER
 Dj hamida Mp3 est un (e) chanteur (se) de musique, dj hamida Mp3 est très dj hamida a la bien mix party 2011 telecharger gratuit connu pour sa belle voix, quand dj hamida Mp3 chante on sent une voix douce et à la fois. Actualités récentes. Il est d’origine algérienne et a grandi au. Biographie. Bendjebar est né le 17 juin 1982 dans le quartier d’Orgeval à Reims, dans le département de la Marne.
 LA GRATUIT PARTY HAMIDA A MIX BIEN 2011 TELECHARGER DJ
 Actualités récentes. Il est d’origine algérienne et a grandi au. dj hamida Mp3 est un (e) chanteur (se) de musique, dj hamida Mp3 est très connu pour sa belle voix, quand dj hamida Mp3 chante on sent une voix douce et à la fois. Bendjebar est né le 17 juin 1982 dans le dj hamida a la bien mix party 2011 telecharger gratuit quartier d’Orgeval à Reims, dans le département de la Marne.
 GRATUIT DJ 2011 BIEN TELECHARGER PARTY A MIX HAMIDA LA
 Il est d’origine algérienne et a grandi au. Actualités dj hamida a la bien mix party 2011 telecharger gratuit récentes. Biographie. Bendjebar est né le 17 juin 1982 dans le quartier d’Orgeval à Reims, dans le département de la Marne. dj hamida Mp3 est un (e) chanteur (se) de musique, dj hamida Mp3 est très connu pour sa belle voix, quand dj hamida Mp3 chante on sent une voix douce et à la fois.
 Il est d’origine algérienne et a grandi au. Bendjebar est né le 17 juin 1982 dans le quartier d’Orgeval à Reims, dans le département de la Marne. dj hamida a la bien mix party 2011 telecharger gratuit dj hamida Mp3 est un (e) chanteur (se) de musique, dj hamida Mp3 est très connu pour sa belle voix, quand dj hamida Mp3 chante on sent une voix douce et à la fois. Biographie.