zilongwang/ReadingBank huggingface dataset:
business of the Annual General Meeting to receive and discuss Reports including, the Finance Report Statement, elect the Honorary Officers and members of the Committee, appoint Honorary Auditor/s, set the amount of subscription, if appropriate, and any other business relevant to the needs of the community or RRCA. The Honorary Secretary or such other appointed person shall effect not less than 21 days notice in writing or by public notice. 6.3 Special General Meetings of RRCA /Committee may be called by the Honorary Secretary or such other appointed person on the written request of not less than a third of members of RRCA /Committee respectively and endorsed by the Chairperson, stating the reason for the meeting. The Honorary Secretary or such other appointed person shall effect not less than 14 days’ notice of the Special General Meeting in writing or by public notice stating the full reason for the meeting. 6.4 All meetings of RRCA and/or the Committee shall be presided over by the Chairperson of RRCA, or in his/her absence the If neither of the aforementioned officers is present RRCA /Committee may appoint another person to preside over the business of the respective meeting. 6.5 In the case of sub-committee meetings such sub-committees may be chaired by a person from its own number subject to a decision of the Committee. 6.6 Except in the case of proposed amendments (see clause 8) voting at all meetings of RRCA including the Committee and any shall be by a simple majority. In the case of an equal number voting for and against a motion the presiding Chairperson will have an extra and casting vote. QUORUM A quorum of all meetings of RRCA and/or the Committee shall be not less than third of the respective membership of RRCA /Committee. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION Proposals to amend the constitution must be seconded by any member of RRCA. Any such proposals to alter this constitution must be delivered to the Secretary of RRCA in writing not less than 28 days before the date of the meeting at which they are first to be considered. The Honorary Secretary or such other appointed person shall effect not less than 14 days notice in writing or by public notice giving full details of the proposed amendment. Any alteration will require the approval of a two-thirds majority of those present and voting. DISSOLUTION
Form TECH-6 Team Composition, Assignment, and Key Experts’ inputs N° Name Expert’s input (in person/month) per each Deliverable (listed in TECH-5) Total time-input (in Months) Position D-1 D-2 D-3 ........ D-... Home Field Total KEY EXPERTS K-1 {e.g., Mr. Abbbb} [Team Leader] [Home] [2 month] [1.0] [1.0] [Field] [0.5 m] [2.5] [0] K-2 K-3 n Subtotal NON-KEY EXPERTS N-1 [Home] [Field]
Form FIN-3 Breakdown of Remuneration A. Remuneration No. Name Position (as in TECH-6) Person-month Remuneration Rate Time Input in Person/Month (from TECH-6) {Currency # 1- as in FIN-2} Key Experts [Home] [Field] Non-Key Experts [Home] [Field] Total Costs
RECIPIENT APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL FUNDS STATEMENT OF ASSURANCES I, _______________________________________________________________________________, Superintendent of (Print Name) _____________________________________________________________________ Public Schools hereby assures the (District) Oklahoma State Department of Education that _____________________________________________________ Public (District) Schools is in compliance with all of the GENERAL and SPECIFIC ASSURANCES enumerated on the preceding pages. _________________________________________________ ____________________ Signature of Superintendent
2.1 Task 1.0 Site Selection Four potential locations will be considered based on functional concerns, site drainage, site utilities, potential relocation of the parking lot, relocation of the detention basin, and connection to the existing building. The aesthetic design in order to complement the existing building will also be considered. Four feasible options will be considered. The final decision will be determined by a decision matrix to analyze the above considerations. 2.2 Task 2.0 Surveying By surveying the selected site location, the team will determine the area of footprint, finished floor elevation, quantity of cut or fill, and the surrounding facilities needed to move or relocate. 2.3 Task 3.0 Design Documents Review Speedie & Associates prepared the geotechnical reports for the area around International Pavilion in 2013 [2,3]. They did the soil borings and made recommendations for the International Pavilion. According to the soil reports at the vicinity of the expansion site, bearing capacity, the depth to the bedrock, the depth to the water table, and the saturation level of the soil for the additional building site have been determined. This data will be reviewed and foundation recommendations for the new building will be made based upon Speedie’s soil report. Deliverable: A one page summary will be provided after the soil reports are reviewed. The NAU Technical Standards, the City of Flagstaff Engineering Standards, and the International Building Code (IBC) 2012 codes will be referenced for the new building. Time will be allotted to examine the structural codes in order to ensure the new design matches the code. These codes will serve as guidelines for the project. The NAU Technical Standards will help the design to fit the constraints of NAU. The City of Flagstaff Engineering Standards will help tie in any design element with the city of Flagstaff standards. The IBC 2012 will help finalize the design to ensure it meets all design safety requirements. Deliverable: The information important for this design will be summarized into a one-page report and abided by the team throughout the design process.
1.0 Personnel Classification Hours Rate, $/hr Cost PM 172 195 $33,540 PE 340 103 $35,020 CADDM 170 80 $13,600 Total Personal $82,160 2.0 Surveying Equipment Rentals 10 20 $200
Targeted school-based site visits are conducted regularly under the direction of the School Chief, school leadership team, and as needed, core curriculum directors. These visits take the form of comprehensive walk-throughs where effective instructional practices and indicators are reviewed, including performance-based data, evidence of differentiation, school climate, and attendance. Following the walk-through, various forms of debriefing sessions take place to plan for, and then ensure, appropriate levels of subsequent action. I.C.iv. Delivery Details for Planned Interactions The Offices of School Innovation and Teaching and Learning will work collaboratively to support the implementation of the SIG plans. Details regarding these interaction are included in Table 1 below. Table 1. District Transformation Support Plan Interaction Frequency Person Responsible Performance Management Plan Every 5 weeks OSI Executive Director; South Zone School Chief; Chief of School Transformation; Deputies; Director of Expanded Learning; Principal; Partners Fiscal Performance Review Monthly Office of School Innovation Budget Personnel Office of Professional Learning Deputy Superintendents Office of Grants Budget Review Biweekly Office of School Innovation Office of Grants Senior Budget Analysts School Visits Biweekly (at a minimum) School Chief; Chief of School Transformation School-Based Planning Team Monthly Principal Integrated Intervention Team (IIT) Visit 2015-2016 School Year NYS IIT DTSDE Review Year-End RCSD DTSDE Team SCEP and Related Data Review Quarterly (at a minimum) Executive Cabinet & School Teams Coaches Daily ELA and Math Coaches I.D. Teacher and Leader Pipeline I.D.i. Recruitment Strategies That Ensure Equal Access to High-Quality Educators Successful recruitment efforts rely heavily on strategic efforts, not just when vacancies occur, but all throughout the year. The need to promote flexibility in teaching staff reaches beyond recruitment of new teachers. Teachers with multiple certifications provide many benefits to the educational system. Each year, RCSD is faced with displacement or elimination of teachers and/or administrators who are critical to programs within schools due to statutory and contractual
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations: AVC – Advanced Video Coding BL – Base Layer CABAC – Context Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding CTB – Coding Tree Block CTU – Coding Tree Unit CU – Coding Unit DASH – Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP EL – Enhancement Layer FPS – Frames per second HD – High Definition HEVC – High Efficiency Video Coding HLS – High Level Syntax HTTP – Hyper Text Transfer Protocol ILR – Inter Layer Reference JCTVC – Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding Mbps – Megabits per second MPD – Media Presentation Description MPEG – Moving Picture Experts Group JPEG- Joint Picture Experts Group MV – Motion Vector PSNR – Peak Signal to Noise Ratio PU – Prediction Unit SAO – Sample Adaptive Offset SHVC – Scalable High Efficiency Video Coding SNR – Signal to Noise Ratio SPIE – Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers TU – Transform Unit UHD – Ultra High Definition URL – Uniform Resource Locator Overview: Due to the increased efficiency of video coding technology and the developments of network infrastructure, storage capacity, and computing power, digital video is used in more and more application areas, ranging from multimedia messaging, video telephony and video conferencing over mobile TV, wireless and Internet video streaming to standard- and high-
Product 2 Commercial Name: Type of Product: Aim of Use: Production Field: Standard of Harmonize reference: Origin of Raw Material: Applied Welding Methods: Stock Place: Product 3 Commercial Name: Type of Product: Aim of Use: Production Field: Standard of Harmonize reference: Origin of Raw Material: Applied Welding Methods: Stock Place: Number of Employee who works in scope of Factory Production Control Head Office Subsidiary plant Subtotal Employee Status Engineer Foreman Workman Staff Is the production performed by shifts? If yes, please indicate number of shift and number of employee who works in shift. NO Employee who does not work in shift Number of Shift 1.Shift 2.Shift 3.Shift YES Execution Class EXC 1 EXC 2 EXC 3 EXC 4 Are the Initial Type Tests performed by producer? Product 1 YES NO Product 2 YES NO Product 3 YES NO Is there factory process control system for the products? Product 1 YES NO Product 2 YES NO Product 3 YES NO Has the statement of performance for the products been issued? Product 1 YES NO Product 2 YES NO Product 3 YES NO
No. ; Title: Proposal Sponsor: Name, Position and Contact Information: Policy/Rule Administrator: Name, Position and Contact Information: Summary: AAG Meeting Date: Review Period Ends: Assigned Review Track: ____ Academic Track ____ Administrative Track Assigned Review Groups: ACADEMIC DEANS COUNCIL (ADC) EHSRM (Environmental Health Safety and Risk Management) FS – FACILITIES AND SERV. ADI EMPLOYEE COUNCIL POLICE ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT’S ADVISORY COUNCIL (PAC) ARROWHEAD CENTER UNIVERSITY ADVANCEMENT REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATE DEANS ACADEMIC COUNCIL HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES UNIVERSITY RESEARCH COUNCIL ASSOCIATED STUDENTS OF NMSU ICT – INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY VP SAEM COMMUNITY COLLEGE PRESIDENTS’ COUNCIL NMDA All Academic Track Proposals are Subject to Final Review and Recommendation by the Faculty Senate. ALL PROPOSALS are Subject to Final Review and Recommendation by the University Administrative Council.
Total amount requested (min: R50 000 / max: R300 000) Workplan Please provide a workplan showing each activity, with detail of when it will be done, who will do it and what resources are required to do it, and any potential obstacles and challenges that could cause delays. This should be in the form of a table as shown below. -XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX- WORKPLAN TEMPLATE (can be attached as a separate document) Activity (provide full description) Responsible person Duration Resources needed Obstacles and challenges that could cause delays and measures to be taken to reduce risk
institution Name of credential X X X X Entrance requirements X X X X Areas of study / Curriculum X X X X Graduation requirements X X X X Total credits X X X X 5.4.2 If a similar program is currently offered at the institution, compare the structure, admission requirements and learning outcomes to the proposed program. If this is a conversion of an existing program (e.g., conversion of an applied degree to a new degree program), provide a table similar to the sample shown below. Instructions: Regardless of whether the example table below is used, the ways in which the structure, admission requirements and learning outcomes of the proposed program differ from any similar program(s) offered at the institution must be clearly identified. Comparison by course – existing program to new program Courses in existing program (NAME) Type of change (if any) Courses in new program (NAME) Comment (e.g., indicate if new course) ABC xxx – title Some content and outcomes added/deleted/altered ABC xxx – title ABC xxx – title Change to number and title and prerequisite added DEF xxx – title ABC xxx – title New course DEF xxx – title New course ABC xxx – title No change ABC xxx – title 5.5 Other elements affecting quality Note any other relevant aspects of the proposed program that might affect quality (e.g., fast-tracking, individual study, parts of the program to be offered in cooperation with another institution, etc.). Section 6: Implementation and Resources 6.1 Program Implementation Plan Provide a program implementation plan by academic year (start to maturity) that includes any elements to be phased in (e.g., new academic staff hires, courses, minors, co-op option). If introduction of this program is dependent on a similar program being phased out, the implementation plan should include how both programs are being supported until the phase out and start up are completed. Instructions: The focus should be on new courses and features, on integration of existing program elements and the plans for winding down existing offerings (if applicable) while preserving quality. 6.2 Staffing Plan 6.2.1 Show how the number (head count and FTE), distribution and qualifications of teaching staff meet Council’s requirements and the objectives of the program as a whole (as described in s.
<Remove after noted: This section will be used by the lead agency to assess the proposal against the “Greenhouse Gas Savings”, “Water Savings” and “Other Benefits and Risks” evaluation criteria listed under section 3, 4 and 5 respectively of the evaluation criteria table (attachment A of Part A) For each site, please complete the following table (excel sheet “Step 2 – Solutions by Site”). If a cogeneration / trigeneration system is proposed, please complete the table outlined in section 5 of this document. <SITE 1> Solution Summary Site 1 GHG (t) Electricity Gas Water Peak (kWh) (kWh) ($) (GJ) ($) (kL) Baseline Consumption - - - - - - - Solution Project Cost Payback Period Annual Project Savings Annual GHG Savings Annual Electricity Savings Annual Gas Savings Annual Water Savings Demand Savings O&M Savings Other Savings M&V Option ($) (yrs) ($) (t) ($) Peak (kWh) (kWh) ($) (GJ) ($) (kL) ($) (kVA) ($) ($) Solution 1 - - - - - Solution 2 - - - - - Solution 3 - - - - - Solution 4 - - - - - Solution 5 - - - - - Solution 6 - - - - - Solution 7 - - - - - Solution 8 - - - - - TOTAL 20,000,000 5 1,111,111 - - - - - - 1,111,111 111,111 - - - -
Proposal Timeline Planning Internal Approval Process Dates Notes / Completed Academic Initiative Planning Checklist Include original with signatures in all internal paperwork Department Curriculum Committee Get department chair and dean signatures before submitting to College Curriculum and/or Graduate Curriculum Committees September October November December January February March April College Curriculum Committee Required for undergraduate and 5-year programs September October November December January February March April Graduate Curriculum Committee Required for graduate and programs Proposals are due to chair and Kathy Charleston one week before meeting September October November December February March April May EPC Proposals are due to chair by noon about one week prior to meeting (see schedule of EPC meetings for exact dates) Include draft of SCHEV proposal cover sheet and narrative September October November December January February March (early) March (late) April Senate EPC submits approved programs to Senate Executive Committee for consideration at indicated Senate meeting September October (Sept. EPC) November (Oct. EPC) December (Nov. EPC) January (Dec. EPC) February (Jan. EPC) March (Feb. EPC) April (early – Mar. EPC) April (late – Apr. EPC) BOV VPAA will submit program summary March June September December
Nov Dec Student survey (within 12 months of SCHEV proposal submission) Year 2 Jan Draft SCHEV proposal to go with EPC documents EPC (with SCHEV draft) Senate Feb Mar Apr May Jun BOV (March or June) Job ads (within 6 months of SCHEV proposal submission) SCHEV consultation and drafts Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov SCHEV proposal submitted Dec Year 3 Jan SCHEV Council agenda (9 months before start) SACSCOC prospectus (6 months before start) Feb Mar Apr May Catalog (SACSCOC approval received) Jun Jul Aug Implementation
Our approach to the assessment of this application The new appointment and variation mechanism, set out in primary legislation, provides an opportunity for entry and expansion into the water and sewerage sectors by allowing one company to replace the existing appointee as the provider of water and / or sewerage services for a specific area. This mechanism can be used by new companies to enter the market and by existing appointees to expand their businesses. When considering applications for new appointments and variations, Ofwat operates within the statutory framework set out by Parliament, including our statutory duty to protect consumers, wherever appropriate by promoting effective competition. In particular, in relation to unserved sites, we consider that we must ensure that the future customers on a site – who do not have a choice of supplier – are adequately protected. When assessing applications for new appointments and variations, the two key policy principles we apply are that: customers, or future customers, should be no worse off than if the site had been supplied by the existing appointee; and Ofwat must be satisfied that an applicant will be able to finance the proper carrying out of its functions as a water and/or sewerage company. We clarified these two policy principles in February 2011 when we published our New appointments and variations – and documents. In November 2012, we published our ‘’. This states that we will adopt a company-based assessment of financial viability, rather than a detailed site-based assessment, where it is appropriate to do so. When we assess whether customers will be no worse off as a result of the appointment, we not only consider the customers on the site but also the generality of customers – ie customers of the existing provider and customers more generally across England and Wales, who in our view benefit from the effective operation of the new appointment and variation mechanism.
SAMHSA Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration SBA Small Business Administration SOW Statement of Work SPIN Sponsored Programs Information Systems (online database) SRA Society of Research Administrators SRO Sponsored Research Office TBN To be named TDC Total Direct Costs TRB Transportation Research Board UBIT Unrelated Business Income Tax UPAS University Prior Approval System USAF United States Air Force USAID United States Agency for International Development USDA United States Department of Agriculture USGS United States Geological Survey USN United States Navy VA Veterans Administration
PROPOSAL REVIEW AND ENDORSEMENT FORM All grants, contracts or other proposals for external funding require the completion of this endorsement form prior to submission to an external source, to ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the mission and policies of the department, college, and university. The Office of Sponsored Programs and Research (OSPR) will not submit any proposal without first receiving a fully signed endorsement form at least five (5) working days before the submission deadline. For OSPR Use Only Proposal Number Date Received Principal Investigator (1) PI Last Name PI First Name E-Mail Title Department College Phone Committed Effort (% of total work time devoted to grant activities) Proposal Information (2) Proposal Type (Research, Program, Career Development, Fellowship/Training, etc.) Due Date Project Title Sponsor/Grantor Name Are the attached proposal & budget finalized? RFA/RFP/Program Number: Other Key Personnel (3) List other key personnel and/or individuals who qualify as investigators. Use additional sheets if necessary. Last Name First Name Title E-Mail Department College Committed Effort Co-PI Investigator Last Name First Name Title E-Mail Department College Committed Effort Co-PI Investigator Last Name First Name Title E-Mail Department College Committed Effort Co-PI Investigator Budget Information (4) Sponsor Funding Total Budget Period Cost Sharing Requested Start Date: Cost-Sharing Required? Cost % or Ratio: Requested End Date: Total Cost Sharing Budget Total Direct Costs: Total Direct Costs: Total F&A (Facilities & Administrative) Costs: Total F&A Costs: Total Costs: Total Costs: F&A Rate (%)*: *If the F&A Costs are limited (MSU’s Negotiated Rate is 50% of direct salaries including all fringe benefits), please attach a copy of the Sponsor’s guidelines.
FINNAIR PLC PROPOSALS TO THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF 2017 Dividend The Board of Directors proposes to the General Meeting that a dividend of EUR 0.10 per share be paid based on the balance sheet adopted for the financial period ended on 31 December 2016. The dividend shall be paid to a shareholder who on the dividend record date 20 March 2017 is registered as a shareholder in the Company's shareholders' register held by Euroclear Finland Ltd. The Board of Directors proposes that the dividend be paid on 4 April 2017. Proposal for the remuneration of the members of the Board of Directors The Shareholders' Nomination Board proposes to the General Meeting that the annual remunerations of the members of the Board of Directors would remain unchanged and be as follows: - Chairperson 61,200 euros per year; - Vice Chairperson 32,400 euros per year; - Chairpersons of the Audit Committee and Compensation and Nomination Committee 32,400 euros per year, where these individuals are neither the Chairperson nor the Vice Chairperson of the Board; and - Other members 30,000 euros per year. The Nomination Board further proposes to the General Meeting that each member's fee for a meeting of the Board of Directors or its Committee would be 600 euros when the meeting takes place in the board member's country of residence. The proposed fee for other meetings would be 2,400 euros per meeting and for telephone meetings 600 euros per meeting. In addition, the Board members would be entitled to reimbursement of reasonable travel and representation expenses in accordance with the company's general expenses policy. The Nomination Board also proposes that Board members and their spouses would be entitled to discounted travel on the company's flights in accordance with the company's discount ticket policy regarding the Board of Directors. Proposal for the composition of the Board of Directors The Shareholders' Nomination Board proposes to the General Meeting that of the present members of the Board of Directors, Maija-Liisa Friman, Jussi Itävuori, Jouko Karvinen and Jaana Tuominen be re-elected as members of the Board of Directors, and that Colm Barrington, Mengmeng Du and Jonas Mårtensson be elected as new members to the Board of Directors. The Nomination Board further proposes that Mr. Jouko Karvinen be elected as Chairman of the Board.
The company must keep records of the examination of material, arrangements, and activities to include the name of the person who examined it, the date of examination and what was examined. Companies shall preserve the documentation and the relevant accompanying information for not less than three years after the final use of the material or the date of the meeting and produce them on request from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency or the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority.’ Reason The arrangements for examination should be set out and must be such as to ensure that quality is maintained. Examination can be undertaken by one person and it is for companies to determine who that person is depending on the nature of the material etc to be examined. * * * * * AMENDMENT NUMBER 18 Clause 15.3 Supplementary Information – Health Professionals’ Codes of Conduct Current text ‘The General Medical Council is the regulatory body for doctors and is responsible for giving guidance on standards of professional conduct and on medical ethics. In its guidance, the GMC advises doctors that “You must not allow any interests you have to affect the way you prescribe for, treat, refer or commission services for patients” and “You must not ask for or accept – from patients, colleagues or others – any inducement, gift or hospitality that may affect or be seen to affect the way you prescribe for, treat or refer patients or commission services for patients. You must not offer these inducements”. The General Pharmaceutical Council is the regulatory body for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. The Council’s Standards of conduct, ethics and performance state “Do not ask for or accept gifts, rewards or hospitality that may affect, or be seen to affect, your professional judgement”. The Code of the Nursing & Midwifery Council, Standards of conduct, performance and ethics for nurses and midwives, states “You must not abuse your privileged position for your own ends” and “You must ensure that your professional judgement is not influenced by any commercial considerations”.’ Proposal Amend to shorten. To read: ‘The General Medical Council, the General Pharmaceutical Council and the Code of the Nursing & Midwifery Council, set out requirements for doctors, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, nurses and midwives. Further details are given in the supplementary information to Clauses 18.1 and 22.’ Reason
12.0 End Date - defaults from Proposal but can be modified 13.0 Award Documents – Optionally add any award documents Click add, upload attachment 15 6 Award Setup Information Complete the below fields as needed; 1.0 Cumulative Awarded Amount –defaults from Award Notification but can be modified 2.0 Funded Amount to Date - defaults to $0 but can be modified 3.0 Indirect Cost Rate – Enter the rate 4.0 Salary Cap - defaults to $0 but can be modified 5.0 Does this Award include cost sharing – select yes or No Enter No The Award Setup Information form is displayed Data is updated 7 Award Funding Proposals 1.0 Proposals Funded by this Award –defaults from Award Notification. The Award Funding Proposals form is displayed 8 Terms and Conditions Optionally select any that apply Terms and Conditions –Select any that apply Special Terms and Conditions – Click add, Add any special terms and conditions. (Optional) NOTE: Clicking add opens another form to allow for Free form text to be added The Terms and Conditions form is displayed Data is updated 9 Project Award Budgets Click either Add, Update or Remove existing Budget Periods. (Optional) Click on UPDATE to open the Edit Funding Allocation Form The Edit Funding Allocations form displays Note: You can set up allocations and reconcile them to budget periods either while you are setting up an award or
afterward. Once an award is activated, you must create an award modification to change the award. 10 Edit Funding Allocations Click on Update for each award period. On the Edit Funding Allocations form fill out the below fields; 1.0 Name –defaults from Proposal but can be modified 2.0 Description – Optional free form field 3.0 Associated Funding Proposal – Defaults from proposal 4.0 Account - NOT USED BY RF 5.0 Start Date - defaults from Proposal but can be modified 6.0 End Date –Defaults from the Award letter received form 7.0 Sponsor award ID - defaults from Award letter received but can be modified 8.0 Period Number - defaults to 1 and then sequential for next period 9.0 Indirect Rate: The indirect rate will be used for indirect rate calculations on the reconciliation page. 10.0 Authorized – Select yes or No Enter the awarded direct and Indirect amounts for the period. Click Continue Use Defaults Data excepted Note: If there is a split in the award funds for a period, for example, multiple departments splitting the funds, the allocations will be grouped by the period number. Note: Yes” means the sponsor has authorized spending of the allocation. Only allocations with “Yes” will be available to reconcile with a budget period.
INSTRUCTIONS & FORMAT RFP – Swine Disease Matrix Antigen Detection Research, Preliminary Proposal May 2, 2016 Thank you for your interest in the Research Program of the Swine Health Information Center! Please read the following instructions completely. COMPLETE PROPOSAL The proposal must be typed in the required format on the following page. Your proposal must be typed in 12-point font size, Times New Roman font, with margins of .5” on left, right, top and bottom. Proposals should be submitted as a WORD file – not PDF. PLEASE REMEMBER TO TURN OFF TRACKING CHANGES BEFORE SUBMITTING THE PROPOSAL! Save your proposal with the file name of: “LAST NAME, FIRST INITIAL – Title of Proposal”. Example: SMITH,J – Proposal.doc. If you are submitting more than one proposal, please use SMITH,R-2 – Proposal.doc. Proposals should be emailed to and received before 12:00 AM, May 31, 2016 PLEASE DELETE THIS PAGE OF INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE YOU SUBMIT YOUR PROPOSAL. THANK YOU Swine Health Information Center Swine Disease Matrix Research Preliminary Proposal Cover Page
3 Project Leader/Professor Name Faculty/Department Email Address Contact No. 4 Deputy Project Leader Name Faculty/Department Email Address Contact No. 5 Project Team Name Faculty/Department Email Address Contact No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 Name of Collaborator [if any] Name of Collaborator’s Institution 1 Research Sector Dry Rubber/Latex/Automation/Infrastructure and Construction 2 Focus Product 3 Type of Research Applied/Experimental Development/Pre-commercialization/ Commercialization 4 Project Title 5 Keywords (minimum of 3 keywords) i. ii. iii. iv. v. 6 Project Duration (Months) Year Start: Month Start: Year End: Month End: 7 Project Cost (RM) 1 Project Status (Please tick on appropriate box) New Project Modified/Extended (Please write the previous project title) _____________________________________________________________________
Rentals 20__ 20__ 20__ Research Materials and Supplies 20__ 20__ 20__ Minor Modification and Repairs 20__ 20__ 20__ Special Services 20__ 20__ 20__ Prototype Development 20__ 20__ 20__ Total Expenses
Suggest self-revocation clauses for transitional arrangements so that after transition these (i.e. clause 2.2) no longer appear in the Code. If this is addressed by other means this should be noted in the Approval Report MPI The FSANZ Act provides for Minor Procedure Proposals as a means to remove Code provisions that have ceased to have effect. Reliance on this expedited procedure enables simpler and clearer provisions and requirements, particularly for stakeholders The intent is that the Code will be amended to remove sections 1.2.3—1A and S10—1A after they cease to have effect (i.e. once the prescribed transitional period expires). This will occur by means of a code maintenance proposal. Association of Analytical Communities is developing a reference method for lupin. Australian laboratories are not currently NATA accredited for lupin testing. It is unknown whether non-European importers have facilities for lupin testing. New South Wales Food Authority Advice from analytical laboratories confirms that ELISA kits are available to detect lupin (see section 2.3.4) Development of NATA accreditation is demand driven. NATA accreditation will increase with the need for lupin analysis. Costs to industry and government have been inadequately addressed and are likely to be underestimated New South Wales Food Authority FSANZ does not accept that such costs have been inadequately addressed or underestimated in its assessment. See in this regard, section 2.4 and the Decision RIS at Attachment C. The Decision RIS was subject to independent assessment by the Office of Best Practice Regulation. FSANZ adopted a cautious approach in estimating cost. For example, upfront costs of implementation to government are estimated to be around $28,400 per jurisdiction - $20,000 for staff training and $8,400 for integrating new regulation into their administrative procedures. However such costs may well be less given that the change involves adding one additional allergen to an existing allergen management framework rather than implementing a new procedure. Due regard was also given to the increased need for and cost of food testing and analysis for compliance purposes. The cost to government and industry of this measure was taken into account by FSANZ. However, FSANZ considers that these costs are outweighed by the benefits to consumers due to reduced number of adverse health reactions associated with consumption of lupin and lupin products and reduced financial and wellbeing costs to lupin sensitive individuals.
Works. Aerial imagery, including Pictometry, will also be made available by the client if the project requires use of them. Data Sources New Braunfels centerline shapefile – Client supplied New Braunfels city limit shapefile – Client supplied New Braunfels parcels shapefile – Client supplied Digital Elevation Model (need more info) – Client supplied 2009 Pictometry of New Braunfels (as needed) – Client supplied Street rating database – Client supplied Software Requirements ESRI ArcGIS 10 (ArcMap, ArcCatalog) Adobe Dreamweaver CS5.5 Microsoft Office 2010 (Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Access) Methodology Database Design To meet the GIS needs of New Braunfels Public Works, our first priority with this project is to create a preliminary structure for the geodatabase in ArcGIS as well as a data input form of the drainage infrastructure for New Braunfels. The basic framework in ArcGIS will include relevant information on several drainage and right-of-way infrastructure features, including, but not limited to: sidewalks, crosswalks, curbs, ditches, gutters, and storm drains. Desired data on key characteristics of each feature-- such as sidewalks’ width, curb attachment, and Americans with Disabilities Act compliance-- will be recorded as unique attributes associated with the features within the database. We will create drop-down menus and fields for data entry in order to record data in a uniform method according to the specific needs of the New Braunfels Public Works Department. A notes field
Reese-Weber, M., & Smith, D. M. (2011). Outcomes of child sexual abuse as predictors of later sexual victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1884-1905. doi: 10.1177/0886260510372935 Resick, P. A., Nishith, P., Weaver, T. L., Astin, M. C., & Feuer, C. A. (2002). A comparison of cognitive-processing therapy with prolonged exposure and a waiting condition for the treatment of chronic posttraumatic stress disorder in female rape victims. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 867-879. Rothschild, B. (2000). The body remembers: The Psychophysiology of trauma and trauma treatment. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Sanderson, C. (2006). Counselling adult survivors of child sexual abuse. Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Self-defense. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-defense Sochting, I., Fairbrother, N., & Koch, W. J. (2004). Sexual assault of women: Prevention efforts and risk factors. Violence Against Women, 10, 73-93. doi: 10.1177/1077801203255680 Southern, S. (2007). The developmental research and utilization model. Unpublished manuscript, Texas A & M University-Corpus Christi. Stenius, V. M. K., & Veysey, B. M. (2005). “It’s the little things”: Women, trauma, and strategies for healing. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1155-1174. doi: 10.1177/0886260505278533
community visitor schemes that can make in-person visits either in response to particular complaints or with a view to identifying problems through a schedule of random visits. Table 2 summarises the arrangements that are currently in place by jurisdiction. Table 2: Complaints handling agencies by jurisdiction Jurisdiction Requirements for providers Funding/management agency for complaints handling External complaints investigation/dispute resolution bodies (for disability services) Commonwealth Funding agreements Complaints Resolution and Referral Service (outsourced by the Department of Social Services (DSS) Unresolved complaints can be escalated to the DSS complaints system or the Ombudsman if the complainant is not satisfied with the action of the Department New South Wales Legislative requirements The Department of Family and Community Services — able to request copies of a provider’s complaints register and copies of all correspondence and other materials Official Visitors Ombudsman Victoria Legislative requirements and service agreements Complaints policy Public Advocate Community Visitors Disability Services Commissioner Ombudsman Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (statutory regulator for Children’s Services Act 1996) Some Early Childhood Intervention Services (ECIS) providers Queensland Certification requirements, legislative requirements and funding agreements Central Complaints and Review Unit for government and government-funded NGO services Community Visitors Scheme Office of the Public Guardian Office of the Queensland Ombudsman Western Australia Legislative requirements under s. 48 of the WA Disability Services Act and service agreements Review during independent quality evaluation and reporting through annual organisational Council of Official Visitors (mental health) Health and Disability Services Complaints Office
Budget The budget would comprise expenses for editorial services (approximately $700). Timeline No Stage Description Date (expected) 1 Proposal defense Literature review, problem statement, and statistical method description part of the thesis proposal is ready. Currently, formatting of the final version is in progress. February 1 2 Finalizing the statistical analysis Data set will cover 16 Malaysian Islamic banks for the period from 2005 to 2011. This new data set is larger than the initial proposed dataset (i.e., five Malaysian banks for the period from 2005 to 2010). February 15 3 Finalizing the first draft of the thesis Information needed for preparing the first draft is also ready – articles to be included in the thesis have been selected and reviewed. Discussion should be held with supervisors regarding additions. March 10 4 Submission of the final thesis and defense After completion of the first draft of the thesis, and after receiving approval, it will be sent to the editor. March 25
PHASE TWO - Post-Build: Revenue and Analysis Picture of completed building (insert below). Key features of YOUR design. Architecture concept Explanation of aesthetic design and how this design will increase revenue for the building owner Structural concept: Clear and in-depth explanation of any deviations from original design/proposal and reasons for those changes. Clear and in-depth explanation problems associated with building a model to match the proposed design. Observations: What happened during YOUR test? Did any parts of the design seem to fail before the rest? Why? Future Modifications: What specifically would you change about your design? Design Features Analysis: Look at the acceleration averages we collected on the test days. Can you identify a relationship between the force measured by the sensor and design features (height, width, bracing style, etc.)? Explain by using data. Of all the structures we've seen, which design features were most effective? What made the designs effective?
B. Revise list of participating organisations & update existing application eForm Throughout this section of the guide, the function 'Revise list of participating organisations and update existing application eForm' is abbreviated to the phrase 'revise-and-update'. When to use the 'revise-and-update' function The following table explains when you need to use this function and when you don't. Please note that this revision can only be performed if your eForm has not already been submitted. Type of change Revise and update eForm? Action to take One or more participating organisations has withdrawn from the application * No Simply delete the organisation(s) from the eForm using the delete organisation button. Check that your organisation profile still meets any eligibility criteria that apply to your selected funding opportunity! One or more additional organisations will participate in Yes The organisation(s) must first be registered in the EACEA Participant Portal. Then use the function to incorporate them.
Milestone (MS) Description Schedule Date Payments in Euro from ESA to Prime Contractor Progress (MS 1): Upon successful completion of … and … the Agency’s acceptance of To + … months Progress (MS 2): Upon successful completion of … and … the Agency’s acceptance of To + … months Final Settlement (MS 3): Upon the Agency’s acceptance of all deliverable items due under the Contract and the Contractor’s fulfilment of all other contractual obligations including submission of the signed Contract Closure Documentation. To + … months (not less than 15%) TOTAL For information purposes only: Payment amount in Euro to Contractor and Sub-contractor(s) Contractor Sub-contractor … [OPTION: ESA may insert the following additional request in case Advance Payments are allowed, including a maximum percentage] [In case you require an Advance Payment to be made, please fill-in the following table and add the relevant justification] Prime (P) Company Name Vendor Code (1..) Advance Payment Euro Offset against Offset by Euro Condition for release of Advance Payment P Amount [Option 1 for not SME] not exceeding 15% [End of Option1] [Option 2 MS 1 Amount Upon signature of the Contract by both Parties.
Project Name: Infrastructure Evergreening Funding Year: 2016-17 Prepared By: Infrastructure Breakdown (in $000’s) Type Item Description/Rationale Cost Servers Equipment Name Description of the item being purchased, with details about changes in pricing, warranty and features/capabilities Storage Network Total 0 Updated Cost Estimates (in $000’s) One-Time Costs (in $000’s) Budget Year (2016/17) Year 2 (2017/18) Year 3 (2018/19) Grand Total TSC Capital Costs Servers 0 Storage 0 Network 0 Total Capital Costs 0 0 0 0 Authority Signatures Mgr. Infrastructure Services Signature: _______________________ Date: _____________
PROPOSAL: To amend the CSHP Regulations for the House of Delegates. SUBMITTED BY: The Blue Ribbon Committee (BRC) on Governance and the Board of Directors DATE SUBMITTED: September 27, 2016 SITUATION: In calling, planning and executing the CSHP Special House of Delegates in July 2015, multiple inconsistencies were found in the governing documents (Bylaws, Regulations of the HOD) and the Board Administrative Policies of CSHP. At the recommendation of the CSHP Special House of Delegates, a BRC on Governance was appointed by President-Elect Kethen So in August 2015 to review the CSHP Governing Documents and to provide the CSHP Board of Directors with recommendations on identified issues and inconsistencies. The BRC was also charged to provide suggestions to ensure checks and balances within the governance structure. The Board of Directors (BOD) concurrently established a Board Working Group (BWG) to review the Bylaws from their perspective. In Spring 2016 the two groups merged to jointly review governance documents, as they were both identifying similar problems. Changes to the CSHP Bylaws must be approved by the House of Delegates. Certain sections of the Bylaws must then proceed to the full membership for approval, The House of Delegates are governed Bylaws, Article VIII and by the Rules of the House of Delegates. There is also language about meetings of the HOD elsewhere in the Bylaws, in Article V, Meetings of the Society. Article VI. Directors (f) addresses the election of the Chairperson of the House of Delegates. Issues in the governing documents specifically identified included: There are duplicative and confusing sections (Articles V, VI and VIII and the Regulations of the HOD) A need to clarify the membership of the HOD A need to clarify the purpose of the HOD and eliminate other activities not under their purview Clarify who can be seated at the HOD Cap the number of student delegates based on the increase in pharmacy schools Clarify who can call for a special meeting of the HOD and the procedure to do so Allow that members from other state societies are to be members in good standing The HOD is a group and cannot have the rights of a member It is recommended that items pertaining to the purpose, composition, allocation, selection and responsibilities of the House of Delegates remain in the bylaws. Procedural rules as to how the House of Delegates is conducted are recommended delineated in the Regulations
1. In August 2014, citrus, stone fruit and table grape growers in the Greater Sunraysia area voted to establish a Greater Sunraysia Pest Free Area Industry Development Committee (the Committee). The Committee collects money from citrus, stone fruit and table grape growers to pay for Queensland Fruit Fly (QFF) management in the Greater Sunraysia area. The Committee is established by government through the Greater Sunraysia Pest Free Area Industry Development Order 2014 (the existing Order). The Order expires this year (10 December 2018). Growers will decide if the Committee is to continue. This Victorian Government report provide information to help citrus, stone fruit and table grape growers in the Greater Sunraysia area decide whether to support a new Order and continue the Committee. A new Order (the proposed Order) would be called the Greater Sunraysia Pest Free Area Industry Development Order 2018.The proposed Order is provided at the end of this report (Attachment 1). The proposed Order would start on 1 July 2018 and finish on 30 June 2022. This report covers: What are Industry Development Committees? What is the Greater Sunraysia Pest Free Area? What is the Greater Sunraysia Pest Free Area Industry Development Committee? What is the proposed Greater Sunraysia Pest Free Area Industry Development Order 2018? What is the process for deciding if the proposed Order goes ahead? Growers are invited to the following consultation sessions for further information, to provide feedback on the proposed Order and to ask questions: Barham Barham Services Club, Murray Street Monday 5 February 3:00pm Swan Hill Commercial Hotel, Curlewis Street Monday 5 February 7:15pm Euston Euston Club, Nixon Street Tuesday 6 February 7:15pm Mildura The Settlers Hotel, Eighth Street Wednesday 7 February 7:15pm Growers or other interested people with any questions can contact: Kevin Cock (Citrus) 0418 502 293 Michael Tempini (Stone fruit) 0438 372 927 Jeff Scott (Table grapes) 0417 122 086 Mara Putnis (Agriculture Victoria) (03) 8392 7125