type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 20.4.2015
 MT
 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea
 C 127/40
 Rikors ippreżentat fit-2 ta’ Frar 2015 – ZZ vs Il-Kummissjoni
 (Kawża F-17/15)
 (2015/C 127/56)
 Lingwa tal-kawża: l-Ingliż
 Partijiet
 Rikorrenti: ZZ (rappreżentant: D. Fouquet, avukat)
 Konvenuta: Il-Kummissjoni Ewropea
 Suġġett u deskrizzjoni tat-tilwima
 Annullament tad-deċiżjoni tal-Awtorità tal-Ħatra li ma temendax ir-rapport ta’ evalwazzjoni 2013 tar-rikorrenti.
 Talbiet tar-rikorrenti
 —
 tannulla d-deċiżjoni adottata fil-31 ta’ Ottubru 2014 mill-Awtorità tal-Ħatra (HR.D.2/AS/ca/Ares82014) bi tweġiba għall-ilment imressaq minn ZZ (Nru R/781/14);
 —
 tikkundanna lill-konvenuta sabiex tadotta deċiżjoni ġdida għal dan il-każ, billi tosserva l-konklużjonijiet tat-Tribunal, u partikolarment billi tneħħi s-sentenza kkontestata mir-rapport ta’ evalwazzjoni tar-rikorrenti;
 —
 tikkundanna lill-Kummissjoni Ewropea għall-ispejjeż.


type: contracts

text:
 Ważna informacja prawna
 |
 21996D0523(03)
 Dziennik Urzędowy L 124 , 23/05/1996 P. 0015 - 0015
 Decyzja Wspólnego Komitetu EOGnr 13/96z dnia 1 marca 1996 r.zmieniająca załącznik XX (Środowisko) do Porozumienia EOGWSPÓLNY KOMITET EOG,uwzględniając Porozumienie o Europejskim Obszarze Gospodarczym, dostosowane Protokołem dostosowującym Porozumienie o Europejskim Obszarze Gospodarczym, zwane dalej "Porozumieniem", w szczególności jego art. 98,a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:załącznik XX do Porozumienia został zmieniony decyzją Wspólnego Komitetu EOG 75/95 [1];do Porozumienia należy włączyć dyrektywę Rady 94/66/WE z dnia 15 grudnia 1994 r. zmieniającą dyrektywę 88/609/EWG w sprawie ograniczenia emisji niektórych zanieczyszczeń do powietrza z dużych obiektów energetycznego spalania [2],STANOWI, CO NASTĘPUJE:Artykuł 1W załączniku XX do Porozumienia pkt 19 (dyrektywa Rady 88/609/EWG) dodaje się następujące tiret:"zmieniona- 394 L 0066: dyrektywą Rady 94/66/WE z dnia 15 grudnia 1994 r. (Dz.U. L 337 z 24. 12.1994, str. 83)."Artykuł 2Teksty dyrektywy Rady 94/66/WE w języku islandzkim i norweskim, które są załączone do poszczególnych wersji językowych niniejszej decyzji, są autentyczne.Artykuł 3Niniejsza decyzja wchodzi w życie dnia 1 kwietnia 1996 r., pod warunkiem że wszystkie notyfikacje na mocy art. 103 ust. 1 Porozumienia zostały dokonane wobec Wspólnego Komitetu EOG.Artykuł 4Niniejsza decyzja zostaje opublikowana w sekcji EOG i w dodatku EOG do Dziennika Urzędowego Wspólnot Europejskich.Sporządzono w Brukseli, dnia 1 marca 1996 r.W imieniu Wspólnego Komitetu EOGP. BenavidesPrzewodniczący[1] Dz.U. L 57 z 7.3.1996, str. 41.[2] Dz.U. L 337 z 24 12.1994, str. 83.--------------------------------------------------


text:
 19.2.2011
 DE
 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union
 C 55/37
 Klage, eingereicht am 8. Oktober 2010 — AM/Parlament
 (Rechtssache F-100/10)
 2011/C 55/68
 Verfahrenssprache: Französisch
 Parteien
 Kläger: AM (Málaga, Spanien) (Prozessbevollmächtigte: Rechtsanwälte L. Lévi und C. Bernard-Glanz)
 Beklagter: Europäisches Parlament
 Streitgegenstand und Beschreibung des Rechtsstreits
 Aufhebung der Entscheidung, mit der die Einstufung des Schlaganfalls, den der Kläger erlitten hat, als Unfall im Sinne von Art. 73 des Statuts und Art. 2 der Gemeinsamen Regelung zur Sicherung der Beamten der Europäischen Gemeinschaften bei Unfällen und Berufskrankheiten abgelehnt wurde.
 Anträge
 Der Kläger beantragt,
 —
 die Entscheidung der Anstellungsbehörde vom 12. November 2009, mit der die Einstufung des Schlaganfalls, den der Kläger erlitten hat, als Unfall im Sinne von Art. 73 des Statuts und Art. 2 der Sicherungsregelung abgelehnt wurde, sowie, soweit erforderlich, die Entscheidung der Anstellungsbehörde über die Zurückweisung der Beschwerde aufzuheben;
 —
 folglich darauf zu erkennen, dass die Prüfung des vom Kläger nach Art. 73 des Statuts gestellten Antrags durch einen neuen Ärzteausschuss wieder aufzunehmen ist;
 —
 den Beklagten zum Ersatz des durch die angefochtenen Entscheidungen erlittenen und nach billigem Ermessen auf 50 000 Euro festgesetzten immateriellen Schadens zu verurteilen;
 —
 den Beklagten zum Ersatz des durch die angefochtenen Entscheidungen erlittenen und vorläufig auf 25 000 Euro festgesetzten materiellen Schadens zu verurteilen;
 —
 den Beklagten zur Zahlung von Verzugszinsen auf das nach Art. 73 des Statuts geschuldete Kapital zu einem Zinssatz von 12 % für einen spätestens am 15. März 2007 beginnenden Zeitraum bis zur vollständigen Zahlung des Kapitals zu verurteilen;
 —
 dem Europäisches Parlament die Kosten aufzuerlegen.


type: legislation

text:
 EUROPEISKA GEMENSKAPERNAS KOMMISSION
 Bryssel den 12.12.1996
 KOM(96)671 slutlig
 Förslag till
 RÅDETS FÖRORDNING (EG^
 om medlemsstaternas tilldelning för 1997 av vissa fångstkvoter för fartyg som fiskar i
 Färöarnas vatten
 (framlagt av kommissionen)
 ---pagebreak--- ---pagebreak--- MOTIVERING
 De överläggningar som hölls mellan gemenskapen och Färöarna i Bryssel den 22 oktober
 1996 resulterade i ett avtal om ömsesidiga fiskerättigheter för 1997. I avtalet föreskrivs
 bland annat vissa fångstkvoter för gemenskapsfartyg i Färöarnas vatten.
 Syftet med detta förslag till förordning är att tilldela medlemsstaterna de kvoter som är
 tillgängliga 1997 för gemenskapsfartyg som fiskar i Färöarnas vatten i enlighet med
 ovannämnda avtal.
 £
 ---pagebreak--- Förslag till
 RÅDETS FÖRORDNING (EG) nr /96
 av den .... december 1996
 om medlemsstatemas tilldelning för 1997 av vissa fångstkvoter för fartyg som fiskar i
 Färöarnas vatten
 EUROPEISKA UNIONENS RÅD HAR ANTAGIT DENNA FÖRORDNING
 med beaktande av Fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen,
 med beaktande av rådets förordning (EEG) nr 3760/92 av den 20 december 1992 om ett
 gemenskapssystem för fiske och vattenbruk0 \ ändrad genom Anslutningsakten för
 Österrike, Finland och Sverige, särskilt artikel 8.4 i denna,
 med beaktande av kommissionens förslag, och
 med beaktande av följande:
 I enlighet med det förfarande som föreskrivs i fiskeavtalet mellan Europeiska ekonomiska
 gemenskapen å den ena sidan och den danska regeringen och Färöarnas landsstyre å den
 andra, har de båda partema hållit överläggningar om de ömsesidiga fiskerättighetema
 för 1997.
 Dessa överläggningar har lett till att de båda partema har kommit överens om ett avtal
 för 1997 enligt vilket gemenskapsfartyg tilldelas vissa fångstkvoter i Färöarnas fiskezon.
 För att säkerställa att de tillgängliga fiskemöjligheterna förvaltas effektivt bör de fördelas
 mellan medlemsstaterna som kvoter i enlighet med artikel 8 i förordning (EEG)
 nr 3760/92.
 De kontrollåtgärder som avses i rådets förordning (EEG) nr 2847/93 av den 12 oktober
 1993 om införande av ett kontrollsystem för den gemensamma fiskeripolitiken(2) skall
 tillämpas på de fiskeaktiviteter som omfattas av denna förordning.
 I enlighet med bestämmelserna i artikel 2 i rådets förordning (EG) nr 847/96(3) om
 ytterligare villkor för förvaltning av totala tillåtna fångstmängder (TAC) och kvoter med
 fördelning mellan åren kunde inte avtal nås med Färöarnas.
 HÄRIGENOM FÖRESKRIVS FÖLJANDE.
 (i)
 EGTnr L 389, 31.12.1992, s. 1.
 (2)
 EGT nr L 261, 20.10.1993, s. 1.
 (3)
 EGTnr L 115,9.5.1996, s. 3.
 ---pagebreak--- Artikel 1
 Från och med den 1 januari till och med den 31 december 1997 skall fångster som, i
 enlighet med avtalet om ömsesidiga fiskerättigheter för 1997 mellan gemenskapen och
 Färöarna, landas av fartyg som för en gemenskapsstats flagg i vatten som faller under
 Färöarnas fiskejurisdiktion, inte överskrida de kvoter som anges i bilagan.
 Artikel 2
 De fiskbestånd som anges i bilagan skall inte omfattas av villkoren i artiklarna 2, 3
 och 5.2 i rådets förordning (EG) nr 847/96.
 Artikel 3
 Denna förordning träder i kraft den 1 januari 1997.
 Denna förordning är till alla delar bindande och direkt tillämplig i alla
 medlemsstater.
 Utfärdad i Bryssel den december 1996.
 På rådets vägnar
 Ordförande
 7
 ---pagebreak--- BILAGA
 Fördelning av gemenskapens fångstkvoter
 i Färöarnas vatten för 1997 i enlighet med artikel 1
 (ungefärlig farskvikt i ton)
 Art ICES-område Gemenskapen Kvoter fördelade på
 s fångstkvoter medlemsstater
 Torsk, kolja Vb 1 500 Frankrike 60
 Tyskland 10
 Förenade kungariket 430
 Gråsej Vb 2 500 Belgien 50
 Frankrike 1 510
 Tyskland 310
 Nederländerna 50
 Förenade kungariket 580
 Kungsfisk Vb 7 000 Belgien 50
 Frankrike 435
 Tyskland 6 440
 Förenade kungariket 75
 Birkelånga, Vb 3 600(,) Frankrike 2 340
 långa Tyskland 1 055
 Förenade kungariket 205
 Blåvitling Vb 25 000 Danmark 11 000
 Frankrike 1
 Tyskland J 3 000
 Nederländerna
 Förenade kungariket 1 1 000
 Plattfisk Vb 1 000(2) Frankrike 140
 Tyskland 180
 Förenade kungariket 680
 Makrill Vb 3 270 Danmark 3 270
 Andra arter Vb 760 Frankrike 275
 Tyskland 305
 Förenade kungariket 180
 (1)
 Bifångster av skoläst och dolkfisk skall räknas av från kvoten.
 { )
 " Inbegripet liten hälleflundra.
 S
 ---pagebreak--- ---pagebreak--- ISSN 1024-4506
 KOM(96) 671 slutlig
 DOKUMENT
 SV 03 11
 Katalognummer : CB-CO-96-683-SV-C
 ISBN 92-78-13447-3
 Byrån för Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella publikationer
 L-2985 Luxemburg
 C


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b'U.S. Department of the Interior\nOffice of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n AUDIT REPORT\n\n FEDERAL GRANTS ADMINISTRATION,\n GUAM COMMUNITY COLLEGE\n\n REPORT NO. 95-I-1202\n AUGUST 1995\n\x0c United States Department of the Interior\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Washington, D.C. 20240\n\n\n\n\nMEMORANDUM\n\nTO:\n\nFROM:\n\n\nSUBJECT SUMMARY: Final Audit Report for Your Information - \xe2\x80\x9cFederal\n Grants Administration, Guam Community College\xe2\x80\x9d (No.\n 95-I-1202)\n\nAttached for your information is a copy of the subject final audit report.\n\nThe Community College did not allocate salaries based on actual work load\ndistribution for full-time employees, and it incorrectly charged overtime wages to\nFederal grants. The College also paid and charged Federal grants for part-time\nwages that were unallowable under Federal grant regulations, were in excess of\nemployment contract rates, or were not. supported. This resulted in questioned\npersonal services charges of $157,204.\n\nBased on the College\xe2\x80\x99s response, we considered two recommendations resolved. The\nrecommendations pertained to: (1) ensuring that charges to Federal grant programs\nare made in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-21, \xe2\x80\x9cCost\nPrinciples for Educational Institutions\xe2\x80\x9d; and (2) ensuring that policies related to dual\nemployment are implemented. However, the College was requested to reconsider\nthe recommendation regarding questioned costs and either provide the supporting\ndocumentation for the costs incurred or advise the grantor agencies as to how it\nintends to resolve the questioned costs.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nIf you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at\n(202) 208-5745.\n\n\n\nAttachment\n\x0c N-IN-GUA-011-93\n\n\n United States Department of the Interior\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Headquarters Audits\n 1550 Wilson Boulevard\n Suite 401\n Arlington, VAi 22209\n\n\nDr. Richard G. Tennessen\nChairman, Board of Trustees\nGuam Community College\nP.O. BOX 23069\nGMF, Guam 96921\n\nDear Dr. Tennessen:\n\nSubject: Final Audit Report on Federal Grants Administration, Guam Community\n College (No. 95-I-1202)\n\nThis report presents the results of our review of Federal grants administration by\nGuam Community College. The objective of the review was to determine whether\nGuam Community College administered Federal grants (other than Federal student\nfinancial assistance programs) in accordance with grant agreements and applicable\nlaws and regulations. Our review covered expenditures charged to Federal grants\nin fiscal years 1992 and 1993.\n\nOur audit disclosed that the Community College did not allocate salaries for full-\ntime employees on the basis of actual work load distribution and that it incorrectly\ncharged overtime wages to Federal grants. Further, the Community College paid\nand charged to Federal grants part-time wages that were unallowable under Federal\ngrant regulations, in excess of employment contract rates, or not supported. These\nconditions occurred because the Community College did not have procedures that\nwould ensure compliance with Federal and local requirements pertaining to personal\nservices charges. As a result, we questioned personal services charges of $157,204.\n\nTo correct the conditions noted, we recommended that your office request the\nCommunity College President to ensure that charges to Federal grant programs for\npersonal services are in accordance With-Office of Management and Budget Circular\nA-21 and Title 4, Guam Code Annotated.\n\nBased on the response (Appendix 3) to the draft report from the Chairman, Board\nof Trustees, Guam Community College, we consider one recommendation resolved\nand implemented, one recommendation resolved but not implemented, and one\nrecommendation unresolved (see Appendix 4). Also based on the response, we\nrevised two recommendations and did not include the discussion of equipment that\nwas contained in our draft report.\n\x0cThe Inspector General Act, Public Law 95-452, Section 5(a)(3), as amended, requires\nsemiannual reporting to the U.S. Congress on all audit reports issued, the monetary\nimpact of audit findings (Appendix 1), actions taken to implement audit\nrecommendations, and identification of each significant recommendation on which\ncorrective action has not been taken.\n\nIn view of the above, please provide a response, as required by Public Law 97-357,\nto this report by October 20, 1995. The response should provide the information\nrequested in Appendix 4. A copy of your response should also be provided to our\nNorth Pacific Region, 238 Archbishop F.C. Flores Street, Suite 807; Pacific News\nBuilding; Agana, Guam 96910.\n\n\n\n\n a\n\n\n\ncc: President Guam Community College\n Director, Bureau of Budget and Management Research\n\x0c CONTENTS\n\n\n Page\n\nINTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...1\n\n BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...1\n OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...2\n PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...2\n\nFINDING AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...4\n\n PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..4\n\nAPPENDICES\n\n 1. CLASSIFICATION OF MONETARY AMOUNTS . . . . . . . . . . . . 9\n 2 . SCHEDULE OF CHARGES TO FEDERAL GRANT\n PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...10\n 3. GUAM COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESPONSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11\n 4. STATUS OF AUDIT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . 20\n\x0c INTRODUCTION\n\n BACKGROUND\n\nGuam Community College, an autonomous entity of the Government of Guam, was\nestablished by Guam Public Law 14-77 on November 11, 1977. The Community\nCollege consists of three instructional divisions. The Secondary Division operates\nGuam\xe2\x80\x99s vocational-technical high school. The Post Secondary and Continuing\nEducation Division provides degree and nondegree vocational-technical and career\nprograms. The Apprenticeship Training Division was established to develop\napprenticeship training programs in view of the local needs for employees skilled in\nvarious crafts and trades. In the fall 1993 semester, enrollment in the Community\nCollege was as follows: the vocational high school, 1,441 students; the adult high\nschool, 329 students; the post secondary school, 2,217 students; the Criminal Justice\nAcademy, 138 students; and the apprenticeship program, 352 students. The\nCommunity College is administered by a seven-member Board of Trustees appointed\nby the Governor subject to confirmation by the Legislature. Day-to-day operations\nare managed by the President of the Community College, who is appointed by the\nBoard of Trustees.\n\nThe Community College maintains its records and accounts separate and apart from\nother Government of Guam accounting activities. For fiscal years 1992 and 1993,\nthe Community College had revenues of $20 million and $15.4 million, respectively\n(including Government of Guam subsidies of $16.4 million and $13.6 million,\nrespectively), and expenditures of $19.8 million and $17.8 million, respectively. The\nCommunity College charged expenditures of $1.8 million to 16 Federally funded\nprograms in fiscal year 1992 and $1.02 million to 11 Federally funded programs in\nfiscal year 1993 (see Appendix 2).\n\nThe criteria for administering Federal grants are contained in Office of Management\nand Budget Circular A-110, \xe2\x80\x9cUniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and\nAgreements With Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Nonprofit\nOrganizations,\xe2\x80\x9d and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-21, \xe2\x80\x9cCost\nPrinciples for Educational Institutions.\xe2\x80\x9d In addition, Title 4 of the Guam Code\nAnnotated contains the criteria applicable to employees of the Government of\nGuam, and Title 5 of the Guam Code Annotated contains the criteria for the\nprocurement of goods and services.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\x0c OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE\n\n The objective of our audit was to determine whether Guam Community College\n administered Federal grants (other than Federal student financial assistance\n programs) in accordance with the grant agreements and applicable laws and\n regulations. Our grant audit covered Federal grant expenditures that occurred\n during the period October 1, 1991, through September 30, 1993. Audit work was\n performed at the Community College and the Guam Department of Education.\n\nOur review was made, as applicable, in accordance with the \xe2\x80\x9cGovernment Auditing\nStandards,\xe2\x80\x9d issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Accordingly,\nwe included such tests of records and other auditing procedures that were considered\nnecessary under the circumstances.\n\nAs part of our audit, we evaluated the system of internal controls related to the\nadministration of Federal grant programs at the Community College. We did not\nreview the internal controls relating to travel charges because these controls were\nincluded in the Office of Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s audit report on the Government of\nGuam\xe2\x80\x99s travel practices (see Prior Audit Coverage). We found internal control\nweaknesses in the charging of costs for personal services. This weakness is discussed\nin the Finding and Recommendations section of this report. Our recommendations,\nif implemented, should improve the internal controls in this area. Also, based on the\nCommunity College\xe2\x80\x99s response to the draft report, we did not include in this report\nthe discussion of equipment that was contained in our draft report.\n\nPRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE\n\nDuring the past 5 years, neither the U.S. General Accounting Office nor the Office\nof Inspector General has issued any reports that addressed the administration of\nFederal grants at the Community College. However, the Office of Inspector General\nissued a report in November 1993 entitled \xe2\x80\x9cTravel Practices, Government of Guam\xe2\x80\x9d\n(No. 94-1-106), which included the Community College. The report concluded in\npart that the need for travel was not adequately justified and per diem was not\nlimited to amounts authorized by law for travel expenditures of $1,456. In addition,\nthe Community College did not require travelers to file travel documents after they\ncompleted travel.\n\nA certified public accounting firm issued a single audit report on the Community\nCollege for fiscal years 1987 and 1988. The report stated that no material instances\nof noncompliance were identified and that the Community College had complied, in\nall material respects, with requirements applicable to major Federal financial\nassistance programs. However, the report stated that the financial status reports\nused to claim grant expenditure reimbursements did not agree with the financial\n\n\n 2\n\x0cstatements, resulting in unreimbursed Federal grant expenditures of $526,000. In\naddition, the report questioned expenditures of $5,012 that were incorrectly charged\nto Federal grants.\n\x0c FINDING AND RECOMMENDATIONS\n PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS\n\n In charging personal services costs to Federal grant programs, Guam Community\n College: (1) did not allocate employees\xe2\x80\x99 salaries on the basis of actual work load\n distribution and incorrectly charged overtime wages; (2) included additional part-time\n wages (paid to full-time employees), which was not allowable under Federal grant\n 1\n regulations and was contrary to local law; and (3) included part-time wages that\n either were in excess of employee contract rates or were not supported for the\n Federal programs for which they were charged. These conditions occurred because\n the Community College did not have procedures to ensure: (1) that charges to\n Federal grants for personal services were based on a system of work load monitoring\n or personnel activity reports; and (2) that the College\xe2\x80\x99s employment practices\n complied with the restrictions imposed by Federal grant regulations and local law.\n As a result, for fiscal years 1992 and 1993, we questioned personal services costs of\n $157,204: payroll wages, $94,958; additional wages, $39,355; excess wages, $1,799;\n and unsupported wages, $21,092.\n\n Payroll Wages\n\nThe Community College charged full-time and overtime wages to Federal grant\nprograms that were not allocable to those programs. This occurred because the\nCommunity College did not base charges for personal services on either a system of\nmonitored work load or a system of personnel activity reports. As a result, the\nCommunity College charged, to Federal grant programs, personal services costs of\nat least $94,958 ($51,178 for fiscal year 1992 and $43,780 for fiscal year 1993) that\nwere not allocable to those programs.\n\nCircular A-21 provides that a cost is allocable to a Federal program if it is incurred\nsolely to advance the work under the program. The Circular also provides that these\ncosts may not be shifted to other grant programs in order to meet deficiencies caused\nby overruns or other fund considerations, to avoid restrictions imposed by law or by\nterms of the grant or for other reasons of convenience. In addition, the Circular\nrequires that Federal grant charges for compensation for personal services be based\non either a system of monitored work load or a system of personnel activity reports.\n\nIn fiscal years 1992 and 1993, the Community College charged wages to Federal\ngrant programs as follows: full-time wages, $873,319 ($512,634 in fiscal year 1992\n\n1\n 0ffice of Management and Budget Circular A-21 contains the cost principles applicable to Federal\ngrants, and Title 4 of the Guam Code Annotated contains provisions applicable to all employees of\nthe Government of Guam.\n\n 4\n\x0c and $360,685 in fiscal year 1993); part-time wages, $384,681 ($220,753 in fiscal year\n 1992 and $163,928 in fiscal year 1993); and overtime wages, $20,439 ($447 in fiscal\n year 1992 and $19,992 in fiscal year 1993).\n\n We reviewed documentation supporting full-time wages of $850,626 charged to\n Federal grants for 30 employees, and we interviewed 23 of these employees to\n determine whether their wages were charged to the proper grants. We determined\nthat $76,433 of the $850,626 was not charged to the proper grant programs. For\nexample, our review of one employee\xe2\x80\x99s full-time salary for fiscal year 1992 indicated\nthat 99 percent of his $53,872 annual salary was charged to the Vocational Education\nProgram and 1 percent was charged to the Adult Education Program, both Federally\nfunded programs. There was no documentation to support the Community College\xe2\x80\x99s\nbasis for allocating the employee\xe2\x80\x99s wages between the two programs. In addition, the\nemployee stated that he performed services for the Vocational Education grant only\n50 percent of the time but that the majority of his salary was charged to the\nVocational Educational Program because more funds were available in that program.\nThis resulted in the Vocational Education grant being overcharged by $26,397 and\nthe Adult Education Program being undercharged by the same amount.\n\nOf the $850,626 in full-time wages we reviewed, we were not able to determine\nwhether full-time wages of $188,266 were charged to the proper Federal grant\nprograms because the Community College did not maintain the required activity or\nconfirmation records and the employees were not available for interview.\n\nThe Community College did not have documentation to support that $18,525 charged\nto Federal grants for overtime work directly benefited Federal grant programs. Also,\nthe Community College did not document why the cost of overtime work was\ncharged to Federal grant programs while the cost of work performed during the\nemployees\xe2\x80\x99 base salary period was charged entirely to local programs. As a result,\nwe questioned overtime charges of $18,525.\n\nDuring the last 3 months of fiscal year 1993, the Community College charged\nFederal grant programs overtime costs of $3,575 that were paid to a procurement\nsection administrative assistant to the Federally funded Drivers Education Program,\nalthough the employee\xe2\x80\x99s regular salary, as well as $6,153 in overtime paid during the\npreceding 8 months, was charged to local. funds. The Community College could not\nprovide documentation to support the allocation of the overtime to a Federal grant\nprogram. Further, the employee stated that his regular duties included responsibility\nfor coordinating the maintenance of the Community College\xe2\x80\x99s fleet of cars, including\nDrivers Education Program cars, and that he was regularly paid overtime.\nTherefore, based on the duties performed by the employee, the amounts paid\nrepresent an indirect cost and are not allowable as a direct cost of the grant.\nAccordingly, we questioned overtime costs of $3,575 charged to the grant.\n\n\n 5\n\x0cAdditional Wages\n\nThe Community College charged at least $39,355 ($18,739 for fiscal year 1992 and\n$20,616 for fiscal year 1993) to Federal grant programs for part-time wages paid to\nemployees in addition to their full-time salaries. Both Circular A-21 and Title 4 of\nthe Guam Code Annotated contain restrictions on compensation in excess of base\nsalary for personal services not related to teaching activities. This occurred because\nthe Community College did not have procedures to ensure that its employment\npractices complied with the restrictions imposed by Federal grant regulations and\nlocal law.\n\nFor example, a financial aid office employee whose regular full-time wages were\ncharged to local program funds was paid additional wages of $4,509 in fiscal year\n 1992 and $9,378 in fiscal year 1993 that were charged to a Federally funded program.\nAccording to the Community College Assistant State Director, the Community\nCollege knew that paying part-time wages to this employee in fiscal year 1992 was\nprohibited \xe2\x80\x9cdual compensation.\xe2\x80\x9d The Community College subsequently discontinued\nthe part-time pay. However, in fiscal year 1993, the Community College paid the\nsame employee overtime wages in lieu of part-time wages, apparently to avoid a\nviolation of Guam law. Accordingly, we questioned both the part-time wages paid\nin fiscal year 1992 and the overtime wages paid in fiscal year 1993.\n\nExcess and Unsupported Compensation\n\nThe Community College charged Federal grant programs for part-time wages that\neither were in excess of employment contract wage rates or were unsupported.\nSpecifically, of the part-time wages reviewed, we determined that the Community\nCollege charged $1,799 ($996 in fiscal year 1992 and $803 in fiscal year 1993) more\nto Federal grants than the amount specified in the employees\xe2\x80\x99 teaching contracts.\nIn addition, the Community College could not support whether part-time wages of\n$21,092 ($14,890 in fiscal year 1992 and $6,202 in fiscal year 1993) paid to full-time\nemployees benefited the Federal grant programs for which they were charged.\n\nRecommendations\n\nWe recommend that the Chairman, Board of Trustees, Guam Community College,\nrequest the President of the Community College to:\n\n 1. Ensure compliance with the requirement in Office of Management and\nBudget Circular A-21 that the allocation of personal services charges to Federal\ngrant programs should be based on either a system of monitored work load or a\nsystem of personnel activity reports.\n\n\n 6\n\x0c 2. Ensure implementation of the Community College\xe2\x80\x99s policies and\nprocedures related to \xe2\x80\x9cdual employment.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n 3. Advise the grantor agencies of the questioned costs and either resolve\nquestioned costs with the grantor or arrange for repayment.\n\nGuam Community College Response\n\nThe November 9, 1994, response (Appendix 3) to the draft report from the\nChairman, Board of Trustees, Guam Community College, cited written procedures\nthat are in place to address Recommendations 1 and 2 and did not concur with\nRecommendation 3.\n\n Recommendation 1. The Community College stated that it had used a\nmonitored work load system before the end of 1992. The College further stated that\nthe system had been \xe2\x80\x9crevised and modified and made even more specific,\xe2\x80\x9d including\nthe incorporation of nonregulatory guidance provided by the U.S. Department of\nEducation on time distribution for entities governed by Office of Management and\nBudget Circular A-87.\n\n Recommendation 2. The Community College stated that it already has\nregulations and procedures \xe2\x80\x9cthat would stop any questionable practices with regard\nto \xe2\x80\x98dual employment,\xe2\x80\x99\xe2\x80\x9d and it included information in its response that it said\nsupported this statement. The College further stated that the Personnel Services\nAdministrator will be requested to ensure that issues regarding dual employment are\nmade a part of the College\xe2\x80\x99s Personnel Policies and Procedures.\n\n Recommendation 3. The Community College stated that \xe2\x80\x9cthere should be no\nquestioned costs\xe2\x80\x9d for the three examples cited in our report as follows: First the\nwork load related to grant assignments was being documented by the College \xe2\x80\x9cwithin\nthe parameters of the Federal requirements for the period audited.\xe2\x80\x9d Second, since\nmanagement is authorized by the Guam Code to assign duties that may require\novertime, the report\xe2\x80\x99s conclusion that overtime costs for the Drivers Education\nProgram employee should have been indirect costs and therefore not charged to\nFederal grants was \xe2\x80\x9cincorrect.\xe2\x80\x9d Third, since the \xe2\x80\x9cfundamental tasks\xe2\x80\x9d in the agreement\nfor the Women\xe2\x80\x99s Program relate to \xe2\x80\x9ccounseling and instruction,\xe2\x80\x9d it therefore\n\xe2\x80\x9cappears\xe2\x80\x9d that this activity is covered by that part of the law that \xe2\x80\x9cclearly allows\xe2\x80\x9d for\ndual employment when the second employment relates to instructional activities,\nwhich is indicated as a duty in the position description of the Financial Aid Officer.\nThe Community College also stated that it could not respond to the section \xe2\x80\x9cExcess\nand Unsupported Compensation\xe2\x80\x9d because \xe2\x80\x9cspecifics were not mentioned.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0cOffice of Inspector General Comments\n\nBased on the response from the Community College, we consider Recommendation\n1 resolved and implemented, Recommendation 2 resolved but not implemented, and\nRecommendation 3 unresolved (see Appendix 4).\n\nIn its response to Recommendations 1 and 2 in our draft report, the Community\nCollege said that it did have written procedures in place to address these\nrecommendations. Therefore, we revised these recommendations for our final report\nso that compliance with these written procedures would be ensured.\n\nRegarding Recommendation 3, even though we accept the Community College\xe2\x80\x99s\nstatement that it has the necessary systems, regulations, and procedures to provide\nadequate supporting documentation for the costs incurred (Recommendations 1 and\n2), adequate documentation was not provided during the audit or in the Community\nCollege\xe2\x80\x99s response for the questioned costs discussed in this finding. Therefore, we\nrequest that the Community College reconsider its response to the recommendation\nand either provide the supporting documentation or advise the grantor agencies as\nto how it intends to resolve the questioned costs. Also, Community College officials\ncan review, upon their request, specific information on the questioned costs that is\ncontained in our working papers.\n\x0c APPENDIX 1\n\n CLASSIFICATION OF MONETARY AMOUNTS\n\n Finding Questioned Costs*\n Fiscal Year 1992 Fiscal Year 1993 Total\n Personal Services\n\n\n\n\n*Amounts represent Federal funds.\n\x0c APPENDIX 2\n\n\n SCHEDULE OF CHARGES TO FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS\n\n\n FY 92 FY 93\n Program Amount Amount\n Vocational Education $395,936 $513,376\n Adult Education 231,415 100,392\n Cooperative Education 32,440 14,903\n National Literacy Workplace 123,045 N/C\n Engineer Achievement 4,100 N/C\n Federal Endowment 500,000 N/C\n Project 3-D 8,528 N/C\n Drivers Education 20,550 29,153\n Technology Education 114,171 36,670\n Special Education 251,182 204,449\n Drug Free Program 26,002 22,116\n Career Outreach 3,528 N/C\n Title III 91,050 N/C\n Facility Grant 7,588 N/C\n Headstart 1,129 1,803\n Suicide Intervention 1,035 N/C\n Manhita Todo N/C 48,363\n Child Care and Development N/C 4,029\n Pacific Vocational Educational\n Improvement 47,914\n\n Total\n\n\n\n\nN/C - No charge to the program.\n\n\n 10\n\x0c APPENDIX 3\n Page 1 of 9\n\n\n\n\n Kulehon Kumunidat Guahan\n Accredited by the\n Western Association of\n Schools and Colleges\n\n\n November 9, 1994\n\n\n\nSam W. Gillentine\nRegional Audit Manager\nOffice of Inspector General\nNorth Pacific Region\n238 Archbishop F. C. Flores Street\nPDN Building, Suite 807\nAgana, Guam 96910\n\nRe: Letter of September 27, 1994; assignment N-IN-GUA-011.93.\n\nDear Mr. Gillentine:\n\nGuam Community College (GCC) is in receipt of your draft audit and letter dated\n9/27/94. This letter represents GCC\xe2\x80\x99s response to various recommendations\nmade in the audit plus comment about the findings.\n\nA. PERSONAL SERVICES FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\n\nRecommendation 1\n\n Develop and implement written procedures with regard to the charging of personnel activity\n to Federal grant programs.\n\n Prior to the end of 1992, GCC utilized a monitored work load system\n whereby a limited number of personnel were assigned to grants and if\n necessary personnel costs were transferred to/from the grants to reflect the\n assignment and activity of the employees. On November 25, 1992, Winifred\n Warnet, Director of Vocational-Technical Education for the Federal\n Government issued \xe2\x80\x9cNon-Regulatory Guidace Regarding Time Distribution\n Records.\xe2\x80\x9d (Emphasis added; see Appendix A-A). This document provided\n information on additional suggested ways of recording record keeping on\n employees who worked on grants. GCC immediately reviewed the memo\n (see Appendix A-B) and also distributed Dr. Warnat\xe2\x80\x99s memo. During the\n rest of FY 93, during the time that the memo was being studied and\n implemented, documentation on grant effort was handled as noted in the\n memo to the file from the Administrative Semites Officer (ASO) (See\n Appendix A-C). In that memo the ASO notes that during that period\n\n\n\n P.O. Box 23069, Barrigada, Guam 96921 * Phone: (671) 734-4311 * Fax: 734-1003\n 11\n\x0c APPENDIX 3\n Page 2 of 9\n\n\n\n\n Page 2\n Letter to Sam W. Gillentine\n Re: Assignment N-IN-GUA-011.93\n November 9, 1994\n\n\n time keepers and employees were contacted to verify the proper allocation of time\n and effort. Starting with FY 94, GCC put into place a time and effort reporting\n system (See Appendix A-D). This system has been revised and modified and made\n even more specific. It has been discussed with federal personnel who have visited\n GCC and it has been additionally revised in accord with certain of their suggestions\n (See Appendix A-E).\n\n Per this review it can be clearly said that GCC has in place a system for tracking the\n allocation of personal services charges to Federal grant programs. Based on this\n review it can also be said that GCC has been responsive to even the \xe2\x80\x9cnon-regulatory\n guidance\xe2\x80\x9d of the federal government with regard to tracking personal activity on\n formula and other grants. It has been and continues to be the policy of the Board\n of Trustees and the management of GCC to follow the federal rules and regulations\n that apply to grants and contracts at GCC. While the DOI Auditor may not like the\n level of documentation that was available in FY 92 and FY 93, GCC believes that at\n that time it was being responsive to the requirements of the federal government for\n formula and other grants. This is especially so because the memo from the Federal\n government suggesting additional documentation requirements (Appendix A-A)\n clearly indicates that it is \xe2\x80\x9cnon regulatory\xe2\x80\x9d and it did not cite other federal regulations\n for its suggestions. It should also be noted that formula grants do not allow for\n indirect costs to be charged to them in any way.\n\nRecommendation 2\n\n Develop and implement written procedures to ensure that GCC does not hire personnel contrary\n to the \xe2\x80\x9cdual employment\xe2\x80\x9d rule in Guam law.\n\n The memo from GCC\xe2\x80\x99s Personnel Services Administrator indicates that GCC put in\n place regulations and procedures that would stop any questionable practices with\n regard to \xe2\x80\x9cdual employment.\xe2\x80\x9d See Appendix A-F. In addition the Personnel Services\n Administrator will be asked to make sure that issues with regard to dual employment\n are made part of GCC\xe2\x80\x99s Personnel Policies and Procedures.\n\nRecommendation 3\n\n Advise grantor agencies of questioned costs and resolve any related issues.\n\n Response. Questioned costs fundamentally relate to three items. Item one is\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0c APPENDIX 3\n Page 3 of 9\n\n\n\n\nPage 3\nLetter to SamW. Gillentine\nRe: Assignment N-lN-GUA-011.93\nNovember 9, 1994\n\n\n documenting work load related to grant assignments. Based on the discussion in\n recommendation one noted above, GCC believes that they were documenting\n workload within the parameters of the Federal requirements for the period audited.\n Therefore there should be no questioned costs with regard to that item.\n\n Item two relates to the charging of overtime work to federal grants. The only\n example the audit cites is the instance of the Driver\xe2\x80\x99s Education Program. The\n employee cited was interviewed. He indicated that the statement in the audit was\n incorrect. During the period mentioned his regular duties did not include\n \xe2\x80\x9cresponsibility for coordinating the maintenance of the Community College\xe2\x80\x99s fleet of\n cars.\xe2\x80\x9d This was also confirmed by the employee\xe2\x80\x99s vice president. Therefore the\n conclusion in this section of the audit about \xe2\x80\x9cindirect cost [s]\xe2\x80\x9d is incorrect. Appendix\n A-G notes the authority of management in GovGuam to assign additional or collateral\n duties (p 15). This includes the authority to assign duties that may require overtime.\n Because management may legitimately make such assignments there should be no\n questioned costs with regard to this item.\n\n Item three relates to the payment of part-time employment for employees who are\n also working full-time at the college. The example cited was of an financial aid office\n employee who also had responsibility for running the Women\xe2\x80\x99s Program. The\n Assistant State Director was quoted in this section of the audit. He has been\n interviewed and he indicates that quote is incorrect in that it implies that he knew of\n a problematic situation in FY 92. In any case the task requirements of the grant\n have been reviewed. A summary is included as Appendix A-H. It indicates that the\n fundamental tasks in the program agreement relate to counseling and instruction.\n Given this fact, it appears that this activity comes under that part of the law that\n clearly allows for dual employment when the second employment relates to\n instructional activities. Also see Appendix A-1 which shows that counseling activities\n are considered a subset of inspection activities (see section C.2). See also the\n memo of the Financial Aid Officer indicating the instructional and counseling nature\n of the position (Appendix A-J). In any case in FY 93 GCC switched to the use of\n overtime based on the analysis done by the Personnel Services Administrator (see\n Appendix A-K and Appendix A-G). It is c!ear that the use of overtime is correct and\n falls within the parameters of GovGuam law. Therefore there should be no\n questioned costs with regard to this item.\n\n The final section covers Excess and Unsupported Compensation (p 9). Since\n specifics were not mentioned, it is not possible to respond specifically except to\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0c APPENDIX 3\n Page 4 of 9\n\n\n\n\nPage 4\nLetter to SamW. Gillentine\nRe: Assignment N-IN-GUA-011.93\nNovember 9, 1994\n\n\n mention that this appears to be a continuation of the issues noted in\n recommendation one above. Those concerns were dealt with in that\n recommendation. Therefore it there should be no questioned costs with regard to\n this item.\n\n\nB. EQUIPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS\n\nRecommendation 1\n\n Develop and implement procedures to ensure that procurements funded by Federal grants\n comply with grant terms and conditions and prior grantor approval.\n\n As noted in Recommendation one under PERSONNEL it has been and continues\n to be the policy of the Board of Trustees and the management of GCC to follow the\n federal rules and regulations that apply to grants and contracts at GCC as well as\n any related GovGuam rules and regulations. However it should be noted that there\n has been a fundamental error made in this audit. Please review the faxed letter from\n the Office of Vocational and Adult Education (Appendix B-A). It clearly indicates that\n any need for prior approval for equipment purchases has been waved by the Office\n of Vocational and Adult Education for their formula grants. Since the great bulk of\n the findings relate to an incorrect audit assumption, significant revision of the audit\n findings is necessary. In addition it should be noted that it was pointed out to the\n auditors while they were at GCC that formula grants such as VEA and ABE did not\n require prior approval.\n\n The audit indicates that 90 out of 91 purchases did not have prior approval from the\n federal granting agency (p 12). Based on the notification above, this is clearly an\n incorrect statement. \\\n\n In the same section the audit questions the purchase of a greenhouse for lack of\n prior approval and for the fact that the greenhouse was not mentioned in the state\n plan. Since prior approval is not necessary, specific mention of items in the State\n plan is not necessary. However it should be noted that the Annual Plan for\n Horticulture for FY 93-94 includes the purchase of a greenhouse (Appendix B-B).\n In addition the approved Guam State Plan (Appendix B-C) includes the objective of\n providing \xe2\x80\x9cdirect program support in terms of staff and material.\xe2\x80\x9d The postsecondary\n program agreement (Appendix B-D) under which the greenhouse was purchased\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0c APPENDIX 3\n Page 5 of 9\n\n\n\n\nPage 5\nLetter to Sam W. Gillentine\nRe: Assignment N-IN-GUA-011.93\nNovember 9, 1994\n\n\n includes as an objective the purchase of \xe2\x80\x9cnecessary materials, books, and\n equipment for the start-up of new courses and programs.\xe2\x80\x9d Horticulture was a new\n program and GCC\xe2\x80\x99s standard process of review includes the review of departmental\n annual plans. Therefore it can be clearly said that the purchase of the greenhouse\n was within parameters of the requirements of the formula grants involved and the\n required planning processes including the state plan.\n\n [n the section Grant Related Use (p 13) the audit criticizes GCC for purchasing\n furniture for the library because such purchase was not in the state plan and\n because the furniture \xe2\x80\x9cbenefits all of the Community College Programs.\xe2\x80\x9d First a\n review of the paragraphs above clearly show that specific mention in the state plan\n is not required. The relevant section of the approved state plan notes the following:\n \xe2\x80\x9cGOAL: The goal of the vocational program renovation activities is to improve the\n College\xe2\x80\x99s instructional stations and laboratories (Appendix B-E).\xe2\x80\x9d The same plan\n also notes the objective to \xe2\x80\x9crenovate existing vocational and technical education\n facilities...\xe2\x80\x9d Therefore the purchase was within the parameters of the formula grants\n involved. In addition it should be noted that formula grants provide for\n supplementing state funds in support of programs that are related to grant outcomes\n (Appendix B-F). The Perkins II act itself says \xe2\x80\x9cFunds made available under title ii\n shall be used to supplement, and to the extent practicable increase the amount of\n State and local funds that would in the absence of such Federal funds be made\n available to the uses specified in the application, and in no case supplant such State\n or local funds.\xe2\x80\x9d Since the funds involved supplemented GovGuam funds, it is clear\n that it is appropriate that in many cases the outcome benefit all the Community\n College\xe2\x80\x99s programs.\n\n The same section also criticizes GCC for purchasing a van to support the activities\n of the Nursing Assistant Program. As part of the criticism, the act quotes the\n minutes of the departmental meeting of Allied Health. The audit states that the Dean\n of the School of Technology and Allied Health made a statement about the use of\n the van during that meeting and based on that statement, GCC is being criticized.\n It should be noted that the minutes of the meeting show that the dean was not\n present at the meeting and therefore could not have made a statement about the\n van. Further there is nothing in the minutes (Appendix B-G, p 2) that supports the\n quotation noted. The quote is from the Department Head for Allied Health. At that\n point the Department Head is speaking to the other members of the same\n department. Therefore there can be no implication drawn about the van being\n purchased for some other reason than for the needs of Allied Health.\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0c APPENDIX 3\n Page 6 of 9\n\n\n\n\n Page 6\n Letter to Sam W. Gillentine\n Re: Assignment N-IN-GUA-011.93\n November 9, 1994\n\n\n However it should be clearly noted that the audit also incorrectly assumes that\n equipment items may only be directly used for the purposes directly allowed by the\n grant. First of all as noted above, it is the intention of the Perkins Act that its funds\n supplement available GovGuam funds. As part of such a supplement it is c!ear that\n such funds may benefit purposes which are also benefited by GovGuam funds.\n Otherwise the supplement statement could have no meaning. In addition it should\n be noted that Edgar (80.32 c2) states: \xe2\x80\x9cThe grantee or subgrantee shall also make\n equipment available for use on other projects or programs currently or previously\n supported by the Federal Government, providing such use will not interfere with the\n work on the projects or program for which it was originally acquired.\xe2\x80\x9d (Appendix B-\n H). In addition the Perkins Act itself, under which the van was purchased, says:\n \xe2\x80\x9cEquipment purchases pursuant to sections 231 and 232, when not being used to\n carry out the provisions of this Act, may be used for other instructional purposes if\n\n (A) the acquisition of the equipment was reasonable and necessary for the\n purpose of conducting a properly designed project or activity under\n this title;\n (B) is used after regular hours or on weekends; and\n (C) such other use is\n i incidental to the use of that equipment under this title, and\n ii does not interfere with the use of that equipment under this title;\n and\n iii\n does not add to the cost of using that equipment under this title\n (Appendix B-1)\n\n This van was purchased because it was necessary for the purposes of conducting\n a properly designed project. It is available to be used by other departments only\n when it is not needed by Allied Health; its use is incidental to its use for Allied Health\n and does not interfere with Allied Health\xe2\x80\x99s needs and does not add to the cost of\n using that equipment under this title. The recorded use of this van falls entirely\n within the parameters of the grant.\n\nRecommendation 2\n\n Develop and implement procedures to ensure that procurements are conducted competitively\n in accord with appropriate law.\n\n It has been and continues to be the policy of the Board of Trustees and the\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0c APPENDIX 3\n Page 7 of 9\n\n\n\n\nPage 7\nLetter to Sam W. Gillentine\nRe: Assignment N-IN-GUA-011.93\nNovember 9, 1994\n\n\n management of GCC to follow the applicable GovGuam procurement rules and\n regulations as well as any Federal rules and regulations that may additionally apply\n to grants and contracts at GCC. The most recent evidence of this is from the\n revised BOT Policy Manual (Appendix B-J). GCC is in the process of revising these\n rules and regulations in accord with the changes that have already been approved\n for the GovGuam Department of Education as well as those changes that are\n currently under review for the GovGuam Department of Administration. These\n revisions include the upward revision of purchasing limits in accord with the\n limitations already approved by the Federal government for Guam. These include\n the new limit of $25,000 for sealed bid procurements.\n\n With regard to the purchase of eight computers for $22,970 it should be noted first\n of all that the audit is incorrect. The vendor from which the computers were\n purchased has a Guam business license. It is not correct to say that the company\n involved was an off-island business. Second the machines ordered came with the\n three year warranty, That warranty was significantly longer than that offered by any\n other vendor. Third this warranty is honored on-island, something that was not true\n of other companies and machines reviewed. Fourth, GCC had bad experience with\n other on-island vendors in terms of their performance and follow through after\n winning bids. In some cases specified items were not delivered or were delivered\n very late. At other times items were delivered without appropriate configurations or\n went bad very quickly.\n\n In order to meet these problems, GCC went on a search for a local vendor who\n could supply proven brand name product(s), could warrant those products and\n repair them on-island, and could demonstrate some level of deliverability and\n reliability. Because GCC had also experienced severe problems with a lack of\n comparability between computer brands, it was also determined to be important that\n GCC standardize on a limited set of PC brands. A number of vendors were\n reviewed and price quotes were obtained from them. Initially GCC issued the\n attached memo (Appendix B-K) Subsequently Digital Equipment Corporation and\n its reps were added to the list. The review indicated that at the time the only\n vendors who could come close to meeting the established standards were Digital\n Equipment Corporation (DEC) and Computerland. Even Computerland had\n demonstrated a lack of follow through on some of the bids they had won. However\n their performance appeared to be adequate overall. Therefore since that time GCC\n has standardized on both DEC computers from Digital Equipment Corporation and\n NEC computers from Computerland. Periodically GCC checks with other suppliers\n\x0c APPENDIX 3\n Page 8 of 9\n\n\n\n\nPage 8\nLetter to Sam W. Gillentine\nRe: Assignment N-IN-GUA-011.93\nNovember 9, 1994\n\n\n to see if the situation has changed.\n\n AS parti of this analysis the files related to Computerland and DEC were reviewed.\n It was determined that during the period in question twelve quotes and evaluations\n were obtained from nine different companies. Given the number of quotes obtained,\n the extensive evaluation of purchasing alternatives, and the need for standardization,\n GCC believes that it was entireiy within parameters in purchasing the machines\n noted. The same is true of the purchase totaling $1,970.00. AS part of the review\n of this process, the purchase for $22,970 was reviewed with a federal employee sent\n to help GCC review its grant management practices. That employee noted that it is\n entirely within parameters to accept higher bids if that represents legitimately\n established standards or meets other important needs. This is no different than the\n federal government itself settling on a limited set of PC brands.\n\n Periodically GCC management reviews purchasing procedures with GCC employees\n (Appendix B-L). A review of it and GovGuaM purchasing law indicates that it is the\n purpose of purchasing regulations to ensure that the procurement regulations exist\n to \xe2\x80\x9cpromote economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the procurement of supplies,\n services, and construction (Appendix B-M).\xe2\x80\x9d While part of that process is to ensure\n that GovGuam receive a fair price for what is purchased, price is only one part of the\n purchasing process. The purchasing process allows discretion at key points\n including consideration of quality, ability to deliver, and repairability. This even\n extends to the use of sole source under a number of circumstances including \xe2\x80\x9cthe\n compatibility of equipment, accessories, or replacement parts is the paramount\n consideration (Appendix B-N)\xe2\x80\x9d.\n\n While the auditor may not agree with the decision made, it is requested that the\n auditor understand that appropriate efforts are being made at GCC to follow the\n rules and regulations that apply to all purchasing\n . efforts including the ones noted.\n\nRecommendation 3\n\n Establish a property management system that ensures that property acquired with Federal funds\n is accounted for and controlled appropriately.\n\n Guam Community College has been without the services of a property management\n officer for several years. Despite the severe budget cuts in the last two years, GCC\n hired a new property management officer in 11/93. As part of the initial efforts of\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\x0c APPENDIX 3\n Page 9 of 9\n\n\n\n\n Page 9\n Letter to Sam W. Gillentine\n Re: Assignment N-IN-GUA-011.93\n November 9, 1994\n\n\n this person an initial inventory has been taken. In addition, equipment has been\n purchased to allow for better tagging and tracking of equipment This latter process\n is just starting and should be completed as of 07/95. Included in this is the tracking\n and controlling of equipment by the source of funds that purchased the equipment.\n This includes tracking what federal funds purchased what items.\n\nRecommendation 4\n\n Advise grantor agencies of the questioned costs and resolve any related issues.\n\n The analysis in items B-1 and B-2 indicates that the fundamental questions with\n regard to purchases of equipment with federal funds have been answered.\n Therefore there should be no questioned costs to be resolved.\n\nIf there are any other questions, please let me know. Given the thoroughness of the\nresponse, GCC formally requests that this proposed audit be corrected and changed to a\nmanagement letter similar to what was done for the University of Guam.\n\nThank you for your help and consideration as well as that of your staff.\n\n Sincerely,\n\n\n\n RICHARD G. TENNESSEN, Ed.D.\n Chairman\n\n\nRGT:JJT/jjt\n\nc John Cruz, President GCC\n\n\n[APPENDICES TO RESPONSE NOT INCLUDED BY OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.]\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0c APPENDIX 4\n\n\n STATUS OF AUDIT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS\n\n Finding/Recommendation\n Reference Status Action Required\n 1 Implemented. No further action is required.\n\n 2 Resolved; not No further response to the Office of\n implemented. Inspector General is required. The\n recommendation will be referred to\n the Assistant Secretary - Policy,\n Management and Budget for tracking\n of implementation.\n\n 3 Unresolved. Reconsider the recommendation. If\n concurrence is indicated, provide an\n action plan that includes a target date\n and the title of the official responsible\n for advising grantor agencies of\n questioned costs and documentation on\n how issues were resolved.\n\n\n\n\n 20\n*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1995 301-126/00065\n\x0c ILLEGAL OR WASTEFUL ACTIVITIES\n SHOULD BE REPORTED TO\n THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL BY\n\n\n Sending written documents to: Calling:\n\n\n Within the Continental United States\n\n\n U.S. Department of the Interior Our 24-hour\n Office of Inspector General Telephone HOTLINE\n P.O. Box 1593 1-800-424-5081 or\n Arlington, Virginia 22210 (703) 235-9399\n\n TDD for the hearing impaired\n (703) 235-9403 or\n 1-800-354-0996\n\n\n Outside the Continental United States\n\n Caribbean Area\n\n\nU.S. Department of the Interior (809) 774-8300\nOffice of Inspector General\nCaribbean Region\nFederal Building &Courthouse\nVeterans Drive, Room 207\nSt. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802\n\n\n North Pacific Region\n\nU. S. Department of the Interior (700) 550-7279 or\nOffice of Inspector General COMM 9-011-671-472-7279\nNorth Pacific Region\n238 Archbishop F.C. F1ores Street\nSuite 807, PDN Building\nAgana, Guam 96910\n\x0cToll Free Numbers\n1-800-424-5081\nTDD 1-800-354-0996\nFT5/Commercial Numbers\n703-235-9399\nTDD 703-235-9403\n\n\nHOTLINE\nP.O. Box 1593\nArlington, Virginia 22210\n\x0c'


text:
 21.7.2007
 CS
 Úřední věstník Evropské unie
 C 170/27
 Žaloba podaná dne 16. května 2007 – Professional Tennis Registry v. OHIM – Registro Profesional de Tenis (PTR PROFESSIONAL TENNIS REGISTRY)
 (Věc T-168/07)
 (2007/C 170/55)
 Jazyk, ve kterém byla podána žaloba: angličtina
 Účastníci řízení
 Žalobkyně: Professional Tennis Registry, Inc. (Hilton Head Island, Spojené státy) (zástupce: M. Vanhegan, Barrister)
 Žalovaný: Úřad pro harmonizaci na vnitřním trhu (ochranné známky a vzory)
 Další účastník řízení před odvolacím senátem: Registro Profesinal de Tenis, SL (Madrid, Španělsko)
 Návrhová žádání žalobkyně
 —
 zrušit bod 1 rozhodnutí prvního odvolacího senátu ze dne 28. února 2007 (věc R 1050/2005-1), kterým byla zamítnuta přihláška ochranné známky Společenství žalobkyně č. 2 826 709 pro výrobky a služby ve třídách 16 a 41;
 —
 zamítnout námitky proti přihlášce ochranné známky Společenství žalobkyně č. 2 826 709 v celém rozsahu;
 —
 nařídit, aby bylo vyhověno přihlášce ochranné známky Společenství žalobkyně č. 2 826 709 pro výrobky a služby ve třídách 16, 25 a 41, a
 —
 uložit žalovanému náhradu nákladů řízení.
 Žalobní důvody a hlavní argumenty
 Přihlašovatel ochranné známky Společenství: Professional Tennis Registry, Inc.
 Dotčená ochranná známka Společenství: Obrazová ochranná známka „PTR PROFESSIONAL TENNIS REGISTRY“ pro výrobky a služby ve třídách 16, 25 a 41 – přihláška č. 2 826 709
 Majitel ochranné známky nebo označení namítaných v námitkovém řízení: Registro Profesinal de Tenis
 Namítaná ochranná známka nebo označení: národní obrazové ochranné známky „RPT Registro Profesional de Tenis, S.L“ a „RPT European Registry of Professional Tennis“ pro služby ve třídě 41.
 Rozhodnutí námitkového oddělení: zamítnutí námitek v celém rozsahu.
 Rozhodnutí odvolacího senátu: částečné zrušení rozhodnutí námitkového oddělení a zamítnutí přihlášky ochranné známky Společenství pro výrobky a služby ve třídách 16 a 41.
 Dovolávané žalobní důvody: porušení čl. 8 odst. 1 písm. b) nařízení Rady č. 40/94 tím, že odvolací senát došel k závěru, že existuje podobnost, která by mohla vyvolat záměnu mezi přihláškou ochranné známky Společenství žalobkyně a staršími ochrannými známkami Registro Profesional de Tenis. Odvolací senát neprovedl vhodné posouzení zásad použitelných v případech, kdy jsou dotčenými ochrannými známkami kombinované ochranné známky.


type: wikipedia

text:
Antun Molnar (Antal, Antonius) (Szukó, Mađarska, 20. veljače 1797. – Zagreb, 10. prosinca 1878.), profesor prava i pjesnik
 Životopis
 Pravo i filozofiju doktorirao 1824. u Budimpešti; na tamošnjem Pravnom fakultetu predavao 1828--1835. U Zagrebu je od 1836. do umirovljenja (1868.) redovni profesor na Kraljevskoj akademiji znanosti, preustrojenoj 1850. u Pravoslovnu akademiju (iz koje će kasnije nastati današnji Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu).
 M. je u pedeset godina između 1828. i 1878. objavio sedamdesetak prigodnih pjesama, najviše na latinskom (59), ali i na mađarskom i hrvatskom. Pjesme izlaze kao zasebne svečane knjižice ili u novinama i časopisima (Luna, Agramer Zeitung, Narodne novine itd). Od 1854. M. često objavljuje dvojezično, dodajući izvorniku hrvatski prepjev. Nešto M. rukopisa (pisma i pjesme) nalazi se u NSK Zagreb.
 Adresati su M. prigodnica poznate osobe političkog i kulturnog života, npr. ban Franjo Haller, članovi carske obitelji Habsburg, kardinal Juraj Haulik, biskup Josip Juraj Strossmayer, jezikoslovac Adolfo Veber Tkalčević, Petar Preradović, Vjekoslav Babukić. M. pjesme postaju to složenije i duže što osjetljiviju propagandnu zadaću moraju izvršiti; usp. refleksivne elemente i političke aluzije u odama banovima Šokčeviću (1861.) i Rauchu (1868). Na nepovoljan prijem svojih pjesama M. se tuži u pismu Ivanu Mažuraniću (1861): "moje Ode, napose pako Strossm[ajerova] i Sokčevićeva navukle su na mene takovu meržnju, da s menom neće drugovati više nitko."
 Literatura: "Građa za bibliografiju radova prof. dr. Antuna Molnára", u: Pravni fakultet u Zagrebu IV. Građa za bibliografiju nastavnika Fakulteta, sv. 1, 1776-1926, Zagreb 1997, 89-104.
 Molnar, Antun
 Molnar, Antun
 Molnar, Antun


text:
Στα διακριτά μαθηματικά, στη μαθηματική λογική, στη θεωρητική πληροφορική και στη γλωσσολογία, μια τυπική γλώσσα (formal language) ή απλώς γλώσσα είναι η γλώσσα που ορίζεται από ακριβείς μαθηματικούς τύπους, ή τύπους που μπορεί να επεξεργαστεί μια μηχανή. Πιο αναλυτικά, μια γλώσσα ορίζεται ως ένα πιθανώς άπειρο σύνολο από πεπερασμένου μήκους σειρές από στοιχεία προερχόμενα από ένα καθορισμένο, πεπερασμένο σύνολο (αλφάβητο). Ο κλάδος που μελετά τις ιδιότητες των τυπικών γλωσσών λέγεται θεωρία τυπικών γλωσσών.
 Όπως και οι γλώσσες στη γλωσσολογία, οι τυπικές γλώσσες έχουν γενικά δυο πλευρές:
 Το συντακτικό μιας γλώσσας έχει να κάνει με το πώς φαίνεται η γλώσσα, ή, πιο επίσημα, είναι το σύνολο όλων των πιθανών εκφράσεων που ανήκουν στη γλώσσα.
 Η σημασιολογία (ή σημαντική) έχει να κάνει με την ερμηνεία των φράσεων της γλώσσας, και ορίζεται επίσημα με διάφορους τρόπους, ανάλογα με το είδος της εκάστοτε γλώσσας.
 Ορισμός
 Έστω:
 ένα σύνολο ,
 μια διάταξη με επανατοποθέτηση της μορφής πεπερασμένου μήκους , κατασκευασμένη από στοιχεία του συνόλου ,
 το σύνολο όλων των δυνατών διατάξεων στοιχείων του που έχουν πεπερασμένο μήκος, και
 ένα υποσύνολο .
 Τότε ορίζουμε ότι:
 Το σύνολο είναι μια τυπική γλώσσα.
 Το σύνολο λέγεται το αλφάβητο της γλώσσας.
 Κάθε στοιχείο λέγεται σύμβολο ή χαρακτήρας του αλφαβήτου.
 Κάθε διάταξη πεπερασμένου μήκους λέγεται συμβολοσειρά του αλφαβήτου, και επιπλέον αν τότε λέγεται και λέξη.
 Παράδειγμα
 Συνήθως, μια τυπική γλώσσα αποτελείται από δύο μέρη. Ένα αλφάβητο και κανόνες συντακτικού. Το αλφάβητο είναι οποιοδήποτε σύνολο από σύμβολα. Οι κανόνες του συντακτικού είναι σχέσεις που πρέπει να ικανοποιεί μια συμβολοσειρά από τα σύμβολα αυτά για να θεωρείται μέρος της τυπικής γλώσσας.
 Θεωρήστε ένα απλό παράδειγμα, το αλφάβητο {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, +, =}, και τους ακόλουθους συντακτικούς κανόνες:
 Κάθε συμβολοσειρά που δεν περιέχει + ή = και δεν αρχίζει με 0 ανήκει στη γλώσσα.
 Η συμβολοσειρά που αποτελείται από το σύμβολο 0 ανήκει στη γλώσσα.
 Μια συμβολοσειρά που περιέχει το = ανήκει στη γλώσσα, αν και μόνον αν υπάρχει ακριβώς ένα = το οποίο τη χωρίζει σε δυο συμβολοσειρές, που ανήκουν στη γλώσσα.
 Οποιοσδήποτε αριθμός συμβόλων + μπορούν να υπάρχουν σε μια συμβολοσειρά, αρκεί να περιβάλλονται από σύμβολα διαφορετικά από + και =.
 Δεν ανήκουν άλλες συμβολοσειρές στη γλώσσα εκτός από αυτές που ικανοποιούν τους παραπάνω κανόνες.
 Υπό αυτούς τους κανόνες, η συμβολοσειρά "23+4=555" ανήκει στη γλώσσα, ενώ η συμβολοσειρά "-234=+" δεν ανήκει. Η τυπική γλώσσα αυτή περιγράφει αριθμούς, καλώς ορισμένες εκφράσεις πρόσθεσης, και καλώς ορισμένες εξισώσεις προσθέσεων, αλλά εκφράζει μόνο το πως φαίνονται (το συντακτικό τους), και όχι το τι σημαίνουν (τη σημασιολογία ή σημαντική τους). Για παράδειγμα, δεν ορίζεται πουθενά στους παραπάνω κανόνες ότι το σύμβολο 0 σημαίνει τον αριθμό μηδέν ή ότι το σύμβολο + σημαίνει πρόσθεση.
 Θεωρία τυπικών γλωσσών
 Ο κλάδος των μαθηματικών και της επιστήμης υπολογιστών που μελετά αποκλειστικά τη θεωρία της σύνταξης των τυπικών γλωσσών λέγεται θεωρία τυπικών γλωσσών. Στη θεωρία τυπικών γλωσσών, μια τυπική γλώσσα δεν είναι τίποτα παραπάνω από το συντακτικό της. Η θεωρία τυπικών γλωσσών δεν ασχολείται καθόλου με την ερμηνεία, και είναι επομένως τελείως ουδέτερη ως προς το τι εννοούν τα σύμβολα και οι λέξεις. Για παράδειγμα, στη γλωσσολογία, η θεωρία τυπικών γλωσσών μπορεί να εφαρμοστεί ταυτόχρονα σε πολλά διαφορετικά επίπεδα για την περιγραφή μιας γλώσσας:
 Στο συντακτικό, που περιγράφει πώς λέξεις στο λεξικό ή λεξιλόγιο συνδυάζονται για να δημιουργήσουν προτάσεις.
 Στη μορφολογία, που περιγράφει πώς μέρη λέξεων συνδυάζονται για να δημιουργήσουν λέξεις.
 Στην ορθογραφία που περιγράφει πώς χαρακτήρες (που ανήκουν στο αλφάβητο) συνδυάζονται για δημιουργήσουν λέξεις.
 Στη φωνολογία που περιγράφει πώς φωνήματα συνδυάζονται για να δημιουργήσουν λέξεις.
 Προδιαγραφή
 Μια τυπική γλώσσα μπορεί να προδιαγραφεί με αρκετούς διαφορετικούς τρόπους, όπως:
 Συμβολοσειρές παραγόμενες από μια τυπική γραμματική (βλ. Ιεραρχία Τσόμσκι).
 Συμβολοσειρές παραγόμενες από μια κανονική έκφραση (regular expression).
 Συμβολοσειρές που γίνονται αποδεκτές από κάποιο αυτόματο, όπως είναι μία Μηχανή Τούρινγκ ή μία μηχανή πεπερασμένων καταστάσεων (finite state machine).
 Από ένα σύνολο σχετιζομένων λογικών ερωτήσεων, εκείνες οι ερωτήσεις που έχουν απάντηση ΑΛΗΘΗΣ (βλ. Πρόβλημα απόφασης).
 Παραδείγματα τυπικών γλωσσών
 Παρότι το αλφάβητο είναι πεπερασμένο σύνολο και κάθε συμβολοσειρά έχει πεπερασμένο μήκος, η γλώσσα θα μπορούσε να αποτελείται από άπειρο πλήθος λέξεων (επειδή δεν τέθηκε άνω πέρας στο μήκος των συμβολοσειρών).
 Το αλφάβητο έστω ότι είναι το . Παραδείγματα γλωσσών τότε είναι:
 το σύνολο όλων των συμβολοσειρών που σχηματίζονται από
 το σύνολο , όπου n είναι πρώτος αριθμός και σημαίνει σειρά χαρακτήρων που είναι στο πλήθος
 w αποτελείται από πλήθος , όπου πρώτος αριθμός
 πεπερασμένες γλώσσες, όπως η
 ή επίσης γενικότερα παραδείγματα:
 το σύνολο των συντακτικά σωστών προγραμμάτων σε δεδομένη γλώσσα προγραμματισμού
 το σύνολο των εισόδων για τις οποίες μια δεδομένη μηχανή Τούρινγκ σταματά.
 Πράξεις
 Αρκετές πράξεις πάνω σε γλώσσες είναι κοινές, όπως οι πρότυπες πράξεις συνόλων: ένωση, τομή και συμπλήρωση. Μια άλλη τάξη πράξεων είναι η εφαρμογή των πράξεων των συμβολοσειρών, στα επιμέρους στοιχεία δυο γλωσσών.
 Για παράδειγμα, αν και είναι γλώσσες που ορίζονται πάνω σε ένα κοινό αλφάβητο, τότε:
 Η συνένωση (concatenation) αποτελείται από όλες τις συμβολοσειρές μορφής όπου η είναι συμβολοσειρά της και η είναι συμβολοσειρά της .
 Η τομή (intersection) των και αποτελείται από όλες τις συμβολοσειρές που ανήκουν και στις δύο γλώσσες.
 Η ένωση (union) της με την αποτελείται από όλες τις συμβολοσειρές που περιέχονται στην ή στην .
 Το συμπλήρωμα (complement) της γλώσσας αποτελείται από όλες τις συμβολοσειρές που σχηματίζονται από το αλφάβητο της γλώσσας, αλλά δεν περιέχονται στην .
 Το δεξιό πηλίκο (right quotient) της δια της αποτελείται από όλες τις συμβολοσειρές για τις οποίες υπάρχει μια συμβολοσειρά στην τέτοια ώστε η συνένωση να περιέχεται στην .
 Το Άστρο του Κλήνυ (Kleene star) αποτελείται από όλες τις συμβολοσειρές που μπορούν να γραφούν στην μορφή , όπου οι συμβολοσειρές περιέχονται στην και . Περιλαμβάνεται και η κενή συμβολοσειρά επειδή επιτρέπεται το .
 Το αντίστροφο περιέχει τις αντίστροφες (παλίνδρομες, καρκινικές) μορφές όλων των συμβολοσειρών της .
 Το ανακάτεμα των και απαρτίζεται από όλες τις συμβολοσειρές που μπορούν να γραφούν στην μορφή όπου και οι είναι συμβολοσειρές που η συνένωσή τους τους περιέχεται στην και οι είναι συμβολοσειρές που η συνένωσή τους περιέχεται στην .
 Τέτοιες πράξεις χρησιμοποιούνται στη διερεύνηση της κλειστότητας σε σύνολα γλωσσών. Ένα σύνολο γλωσσών είναι κλειστό ως προς μια πράξη, όταν η πράξη αυτή εφαρμοζόμενη σε γλώσσες του συνόλου, δίνει πάντοτε γλώσσα που ανήκει στο ίδιο σύνολο. Για παράδειγμα, οι γλώσσες χωρίς συμφραζόμενα είναι κλειστές ως προς την ένωση την συνένωση και την τομή με κανονικές γλώσσες, αλλά όχι ως προς το συμπλήρωμα.
 Βιβλιογραφία
 H.R. Lewis, C.H. Papadimitriou, Elements of the Theory of Computation, Prentice Hall, 2nd Edition
 Δείτε επίσης
 Αλφάβητο
 Γλώσσα προγραμματισμού για εφαρμογές τυπικών γλωσσών σε προγραμματισμό υπολογιστών
 Κανονικές εκφράσεις (regular expressions)
 Τυπική σημασιολογία
 Συμβολοσειρά (string)
 Περαιτέρω διάβασμα
 Χόπκροφτ και Ούλμαν (Hopcroft, J. & Ullman, J), 1979 : Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. (Εισαγωγή στις θεωρίες Αυτομάτων, Γλωσσών, και Υπολογισμών), Addison Wesley, ISBN 0-201-02988-X
 Ρόζενμπεργκ και Σαλόμα (G. Rozenberg, A. Salomaa eds.), Handbook of Formal Languages (Εγχειρίδιο Τυπικών Γλωσσών), Springer-Verlag, (3 τόμοι)
 33η Διεθνής Συνάντηση (Colloquium) ICALP 2006 για Αυτόματα, Γλώσσες και Προγραμματισμό
 10ο Διεθνές Συνέδριο (Conference) DLT 2006 για εξελίξεις στην Θεωρία Γλωσσών
 Αναφορές
 Τυπικές γλώσσες
 Μαθηματική λογική
 Θεωρητική πληροφορική