type: wikipedia

text:
Avianova è stata una compagnia aerea regionale italiana fondata a Olbia nel 1986 come sussidiaria di Alisarda.
 Storia
 La compagnia è stata fondata nel 1986 da Alisarda come sua sussidiaria per voli a corto raggio e iniziò le operazioni nel 1987 con 2 ATR 42. Nel 1989 il 50% delle sue quote è stato acquistato da Aero Trasporti Italiani, che le fornì alcuni suoi ATR 42: in questo contesto ha subito una ristrutturazione del network e dell’amministrazione, tra cui il trasferimento dell'hub da Olbia a Fiumicino. Nello stesso anno Avianova ha assorbito la compagnia Aliblu Airways.
 Nel 1993 il pacchetto azionario era costituito per il 45% da ATI, il 33% da IMI Bank Luxembourg, l'11% da Iccri Bruxelles Lambert S.p.A. e l'11% da Meridiana Finanza S.p.A.. Contestualmente alla variazione delle partecipazioni avvenuta in quell'anno, la livrea è stata modificata passando dallo schema blu, rosso, arancione e bianco ad aerei completamente bianchi con il logo di Alitalia sulla coda e il logo di Avianova sulla parte bassa anteriore della fusoliera. Nel 1994 ATI venne chiusa e nel 1995 Avianova venne interamente acquistata da Alitalia per 19,7 miliardi di lire.
 Il 23 febbraio 1995 Avianova ha ricevuto 4 ATR 72 e il 6 dicembre dello stesso anno ha ricevuto il primo di 15 Fokker F70 da Alitalia, che a sua volta li aveva ottenuti in leasing da ILFC. A causa delle difficoltà finanziarie che Fokker stava attraversando e di una controversia sindacale in merito a disparità salariali tra i piloti di Avianova e gli omologhi di Alitalia, però, solo 5 dei 15 F70 vennero consegnati.
 Nel novembre 1996 Avianova entrò a far parte di Alitalia Team, una divisione della compagnia caratterizzata da contratti meno onerosi, mentre nel 1997 venne integrata nella neonata Alitalia Express.
 Flotta storica
 Nel corso della sua vita operativa Avianova ha operato con i seguenti aeromobili:
 Note
 Altri progetti
 Collegamenti esterni
 Aziende fondate nel 1986
 Compagnie aeree del passato italiane
 Compagnie aeree regionali


type: other

text:
Ποιοι μπορούν να πάρουν για δεύτερη φορά επίδομα ανεργίας απο τον ΟΑΕΔ | Psithiroi.gr
 Ποιοι μπορούν να πάρουν για δεύτερη φορά επίδομα ανεργίας απο τον ΟΑΕΔ
 Τη δυνατότητα έχουν ορισμένοι άνεργοι να πάρουν δεύτερη φορά επίδομα ανεργίας ΟΑΕΔ αφού το συγκεκριμένο επίδομα αποτελεί μία από τις β...
 http://www.psithiroi.gr/2018/05/blog-post_45.html
 Τη δυνατότητα έχουν ορισμένοι άνεργοι να πάρουν δεύτερη φορά επίδομα ανεργίας ΟΑΕΔ αφού το συγκεκριμένο επίδομα αποτελεί μία από τις βασικές παροχές του ΟΑΕΔ και δεν δίνεται μόνο μια φορά.
 Η Τακτική Επιδότηση Ανεργίας είναι μια παροχή που χορηγείται σε μισθωτούς, ασφαλισμένους στον κλάδο ανεργίαςτου ΟΑΕΔ των οποίων η εργασιακή σχέση είτε έληξε (σύμβαση ορισμένου χρόνου) είτε καταγγέλθηκε από τον εργοδότη, με χρονική διάρκεια από πέντε έως 12 μήνες ανάλογα με τις ημέρες εργασίας που έχουν πραγματοποιήσει οι δικαιούχοι σε συγκεκριμένα χρονικά διαστήματα πριν από τη λύση ή τη λήξη της εργασιακής τους σχέσης, που ορίζονται ως κρίσιμα.
 Οικονομία 4735781353067574359


jurisdiction: US

text: b' UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION \n\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL \n\n REGION V \n\n III NORTH CANAL, SUITE 940 \n\n CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 \n\n I\n FAX: (312) 353-0244\n Audit\n (312) 886-6503\n Investigation\n (312) 353-7891\n I\n\n\n Control Number ED-OIG/A05-D0021\n\n\n Mr. Thomas D. Watkins, Jr. \n\n NOV 2 1 2003\n Superintendent of Public Instruction \n\n Michigan Department of Education \n\n P.O. Box 30008 \n\n Lansing, Michigan 48909 \n\n\n Dear Mr. Watkins:\n\n This Final Audit Report presents the results of our audit of the Detroit City School\n District\'s (District) administration of Title I, Part A (Title I) ofthe Elementary and\n 2\n Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended l (the Act), Set-Aside programs for the\n period July 1,2002, through May 31,2003. Our objectives were to determine whether\n the District (1) consulted with private school officials prior to making decisions\n concerning Set-Aside services provided from Title I funding, and (2) provided equitable\n Set-Aside services and other benefits to private school participants with Title I funds.\n\n We found that the District (1) did not provide meaningful consultation to private school\n officials during the design and development of Set-Aside programs; (2) used Title I funds\n totaling $8,442,270 to provide Set-Aside services for public school participants, but did\n not provide equitable services to private school participants; (3) used Title I funds\n totaling $278,414 to pay for services that did not benefit Title I participants; and (4) did\n not submit complete Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133 audit\n reporting packages for fiscal years 1999 through 2002.\n\n We recommend the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education direct\n the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) to require that the District (1)\n immediately develop and implement a comprehensive consulting plan to ensure it\n consults with private school officials; (2) obtain and submit to MDE signed affirmations\n from private school officials that consultation occurred; (3) provide an equitable share of\n Set-Aside services to private school participants in future school years; (4) provide\n services in the upcoming school year, in consultation with private school officials, to\n\n\n 1 The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of\n 2001, enacted January 8, 2002.\n 2 Before calculating the per-pupil amount for public and private school children from low income families,\n the local education agency may set aside Title I funds for district-wide programs.\n\n\n Our mission Is to promote the efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity of the Department\'s programs and operations.\n\n\n\n\n.--- ---------------------------------------\xc2\xad\n\x0cFinal Audit Report\t ED-OIG/A05-D0021\n\n\ncompensate for the inequitable Set-Aside services to private school participants during\nour audit period; (5) restore $278,414 to its Title I allocation for unallowable costs; (6)\nsubmit complete OMB Circular A-133 audit reporting packages; and (7) establish and\nimplement written policies ensuring it provides an equitable share of Set-Aside services\nto private school participants, only charges allocable costs to the Title I program, and\ntimely submits OMB Circular A-133 audit reporting packages in the future.\n\nWe provided a draft of this report to MDE and the District. In its faxed response received\non November 6, 2003, MDE stated that its Office of Field Services is working with the\nDistrict to develop a consultation plan and procedures to ensure signed affirmations are\nobtained. MDE also stated that it relies on the single audit process to determine\ncompliance with the requirement to provide equitable services to private school\nparticipants, and to determine whether Title I funds benefited Title I participants.\nHowever, the single audit process for our audit period has not been completed. In\naddition, MDE agreed that the District must submit complete OMB Circular A-133\nreporting packages, and said it will work with the District to ensure it establishes a\nprocedure to comply with the reporting requirement. MDE\xe2\x80\x99s response did not cause us to\nchange our findings or recommendations. We have summarized MDE\xe2\x80\x99s comments after\neach finding and included them in their entirety as an attachment.\n\n AUDIT RESULTS\n\nFinding Number 1 \t The District Did Not Provide Consultation To Private School\n Officials\n\nThe District did not consult with private school officials during the design and\ndevelopment of Set-Aside programs. Although the District met with private school\nofficials before the start of the 2002-2003 school year, both the District\xe2\x80\x99s Grants\nExecutive Director and Non-Public Title I Supervisor admitted the District did not\nconsult with private school officials regarding Set-Aside programs. The Superintendent\nand Associate Superintendent for Curriculum for the Archdiocese of Detroit and the\nAssistant Superintendent of Lutheran Schools also stated that meetings with the District\ndid not involve consultation on the Set-Aside programs. These private school officials\nwere unaware that some of the Set-Aside programs even existed.\n\nSection 1120 (b)(1) of the Act and 34 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 200.10 (a) and 11 (a) (2002) require that a\nlocal education agency consult with appropriate private school officials. To ensure\ntimely and meaningful consultation, the Act requires that local education agencies consult\nwith appropriate private school officials during the design and development of agency\nprograms on issues such as what services will be offered and the size and scope of the\nequitable services to be provided to eligible private school children. Section 1120 (b)(4)\nof the Act requires that each local education agency maintain and provide to the State\neducation agency a written affirmation signed by participating private school officials\nthat consultation has occurred.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\n\x0cFinal Audit Report\t ED-OIG/A05-D0021\n\n\nThe District did not have procedures in place to ensure it would conduct meaningful Set-\nAside consultation with private school officials, including discussions of services to be\nprovided, the size and scope of services to be provided, or the service delivery\nmechanisms. The District also did not have procedures in place to obtain written\nassurances from private school officials that this consultation occurred. The lack of\nmeaningful consultation and a written assurance increased the risk that services and other\nbenefits of Set-Aside programs would not address the needs of private school\nparticipants, and would not be equitable to those provided to public school participants.\n\nRecommendations\n\nWe recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education\ndirect MDE to\n\n1.1 \t ensure the District immediately develops and implements a comprehensive Title I\n consulting plan that lays out how the District will consult with private school\n officials, including the use of Title I funds. This plan should be developed in\n conjunction with private school representatives, and agreed to and signed by\n private school and District officials to ensure meaningful consultation occurs and\n is documented.\n\n1.2 \t ensure the District obtains, in future years, signed affirmations from participating\n private school officials that consultation occurred and submits the affirmations to\n MDE.\n\n1.3 \t conduct a monitoring visit to ensure the District implemented the consulting plan.\n\nAuditee Comments\n\nMDE agreed that the intended level of consultation did not take place, but asserted that\nsome annual consultation did occur. MDE stated that its Office of Field Services is\nworking with the District to develop a consultation plan and procedures to ensure signed\naffirmations are obtained. MDE also plans to expand materials to assist all Districts with\nconsultation and delivery of service to participating private schools.\n\nOIG Response\n\nMDE did not provide any documentation such as agendas or meeting minutes to indicate\nSet-Aside consultation took place during referenced annual consultation meetings. The\nresponse did not cause us to change our finding or recommendations.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\n\x0cFinal Audit Report\t ED-OIG/A05-D0021\n\n\n\n\nFinding Number 2 \t The District Did Not Provide Equitable Set-Aside Services to\n Private School Participants\n\nThe District used Title I funds totaling $8,442,2703 to provide Set-Aside programs to\npublic school children, parents, and teachers, but did not provide equitable services to\nprivate school participants. The District used Title I funds for the following Set-Aside\nprograms:\n\nProfessional Development $ 2,076,333\nInstructional Specialists $ 1,851,291\nAttendance Centers $ 1,231,5274\nCompact Technicians $ 957,315\nResearch, Evaluation and Testing $ 526,299\nCompensatory Education Support $ 512,244\nEducational Technology $ 386,591\nCurriculum Labs $ 348,114\nExtended Day Kindergarten $ 241,255\nSummer Camp $ 217,552\nReading Recovery Buy-in $ 86,405\nChildren\xe2\x80\x99s Museum Buy-in $ 7,344\n $ 8,442,270\n\nThe District did not notify the private school officials of these Set-Aside programs or\nallow private school children, parents, and teachers to participate in them. The District\xe2\x80\x99s\nGrants Executive Director admitted that these Set-Aside programs were only for the\nbenefit of public school participants. Officials from the Archdiocese of Detroit and the\nAssistant Superintendent of Lutheran Schools stated they were unaware that most of\nthese Set-Aside programs existed, and private school children, parents, and teachers did\nnot participate in any of them.\n\nSection 1120 (a)(3) of the Act requires that educational services and other benefits for\nprivate school children be equitable in comparison to services and other benefits for\npublic school children. Also, 34 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 200.11 (b)(2) states that\n\n Services are equitable if the LEA \xe2\x80\x94 (i) Addresses and assesses the specific\n needs and educational progress of eligible private school children on a\n comparable basis as public school children; (ii) Meets the equal expenditure\n requirements. . . ; and (iii) Provides private school children with an\n opportunity to participate that \xe2\x80\x94 (A) Is equitable to the opportunity provided\n to public school children. . . .\n\n3\n Amount consists of Title I funds expended through April 24, 2003, except for the Professional\nDevelopment and Compensatory Education Support programs. These programs are based on expenditures\nthrough May 21, 2003.\n4\n Total for the Drew, Puritan, and E. McNichols Attendance Centers. The total does not include\nunallowable charges to the closed Woodward Attendance Center.\n\n\n 4\n\x0cFinal Audit Report\t ED-OIG/A05-D0021\n\n\n\n\nThe District did not have a consulting plan in place with procedures to ensure that it\nprovided equitable Set-Aside services to private school participants. As a result, private\nschool participants did not benefit from $8,442,270 of Title I funds. By providing funds\nfor the Set-Aside programs restricted to public school participants, the District did not (1)\naddress the specific needs and educational progress of eligible private school participants,\nor (2) provide private school participants with an opportunity to participate that was\nequitable to the opportunity provided to public school participants.\n\nRecommendations\n\nWe recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education\ndirect MDE to ensure the District\n\n2.1 \t includes, in its consultation plan developed in response to Recommendation 1.1,\n procedures to ensure it will provide equitable Set-Aside services to private school\n participants. The procedures should include meeting with private school officials\n to discuss their needs regarding Set-Aside services. Based on the needs and\n potential activities discussed, the District should use Title I funds to provide Set-\n Aside services for private school participants.\n\n2.2 \t provides an equitable share of Set-Aside services to private school participants in\n future school years.\n\n2.3 \t provides services in the upcoming school year, in consultation with private school\n officials, to compensate for the inequitable Set-Aside services during the audit\n period.\n\nAuditee Comments\n\nMDE stated that it uses the single audit process to determine whether the District is in\ncompliance with the requirement to provide equitable Set-Aside services to private\nschool participants. The single audit has not been completed for the audit period.\n\nOIG Response\n\nMDE did not respond to the recommendations. Therefore, we did not change the finding\nor recommendations.\n\nFinding Number 3 Title I Funds Paid Did Not Benefit Title I Participants\n\nThe District used Title I funds to pay salaries and fringe benefits for which Title I\nparticipants received no benefits. Before fiscal year 2003 began, the District closed the\nWoodward Attendance Center and reassigned its staff. However, the District budgeted\nfiscal year 2003 Title I funds for the Woodward Attendance Center and, during the year,\ncharged Title I for salary and fringe benefits of $278,414.\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0cFinal Audit Report\t ED-OIG/A05-D0021\n\n\n\n\nOMB Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments,\nAttachment A, Paragraph C. 3 (1997) states that a cost is allocable to a particular cost\nobjective in accordance with relative benefits received.\n\nThe District did not have written policies in place to ensure it only charged allocable\ncosts to the Title I program. Title I funds paid for $278,414 of salary and fringe benefit\ncharges for which Title I participants received no benefit. Therefore, the costs are\nunallowable.\n\nRecommendations\n\nWe recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education\ndirect MDE to ensure the District\n\n3.1 \t restores $278,414 to its Title I allocation in the upcoming school year to provide\n Title I services to Title I participants.\n\n3.2 \t establishes and implements written policies to ensure it only charges allocable\n costs to the Title I program.\n\nAuditee Comments\n\nMDE stated that it uses the single audit process to determine whether the District is in\ncompliance with the requirement to use Title I funds for the benefit of Title I participants.\nThe single audit has not been completed for the audit period.\n\nOIG Response\n\nMDE did not respond to the recommendations. Therefore, we did not change the finding\nor recommendations.\n\n\nFinding Number 4 The District Did Not Submit Complete OMB Circular A-133\n Audit Reporting Packages To The Federal Audit\n Clearinghouse\n\nThe District did not submit correct OMB Circular A-133 data collection forms or\ncomplete reporting packages to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) for fiscal years\n1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. According to the FAC, the District did not submit a correct\ndata collection form for fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and did not submit a complete\nreporting package for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002.\n\nOMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit\nOrganizations, Subpart C, Paragraph 320(d) (1997), requires that all auditees submit to\nthe FAC the data collection form, one copy of the reporting package for the FAC to retain\n\n\n\n 6\n\n\x0cFinal Audit Report\t ED-OIG/A05-D0021\n\n\nas an archival copy, and a copy for each direct federal awarding agency for which audit\nfindings are reported in the schedule of findings and questioned costs, or the summary\nschedule of prior audit findings.\n\nThe District has not submitted both a correct data collection form and complete reporting\npackage for any OMB Circular A-133 audit completed since fiscal year 1998. The\nDistrict did not have procedures in place to ensure it would submit to the FAC a correct\ndata collection form and reporting package for each OMB Circular A-133 audit.\n\nWithout correct data collection forms and complete reporting packages, the FAC is\nunable to make timely and proper distribution of OMB Circular A-133 audits to federal\nagencies. The U.S. Department of Education\xe2\x80\x99s (ED) Office of the Chief Financial\nOfficer, Post Audit Group, relies on these distributions from the FAC to receive reports\nand to ensure that they are resolved. Therefore, by not submitting the required\ninformation, the District is delaying the audit resolution process.\n\nRecommendations\n\nWe recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education\ndirect MDE to ensure the District\n\n4.1 \t submits, to the FAC, a correct data collection form and complete reporting\n package for OMB Circular A-133 audits completed in fiscal years 1999, 2000,\n 2001, and 2002.\n\n4.2 \testablishes written policies and procedures to ensure it timely submits a correct\n data collection form and complete reporting package for each OMB Circular A-\n 133 audit in the future.\n\nAuditee Comments\n\nMDE agreed that the District must submit complete OMB Circular A-133 reporting\npackages to the FAC. MDE said it would work with the District to ensure it establishes a\nprocedure to comply with the reporting requirement.\n\n BACKGROUND\n\nThe No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110) authorized the Title I\nprogram during our audit period. The program provides funds for supplemental\neducational services for eligible public and private school students living in high-poverty\nareas. The program provides, through state educational agencies, formula grants to local\neducational agencies to help low-achieving children meet challenging state curriculum\nand student performance standards in core academic subjects. Title I program services\ntarget children who are failing, or at most risk of failing, to meet state academic\nstandards. Before calculating the per-pupil amount for public and private school children\nfrom low income families, the local education agency may set aside Title I funds for\n\n\n\n 7\n\n\x0cFinal Audit Report ED-OIG/A05-D0021\n\n\ndistrict-wide programs. Allowable Set-Aside programs are contained in 34 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7\n200.27.\n\nMDE allocated $121,902,716 in Title I funds to the District for fiscal year 2003. Of this\namount, the District budgeted a total of $61,301,019 for Set-Aside programs, as outlined\nbelow:\n\nTransportation and Supplemental Educational Services $24,231,7745\nCentral Programs (public school participants) $34,279,677\nPrivate Schools Allocation $ 2,789,5686\n $61,301,019\n\nThe District budgeted the $34,279,677 for Central Programs for the following uses:\n\nInstructional Specialists $ 6,093,622\nProfessional Development $ 5,835,703\nIndirect Cost (4.25%) $ 4,165,076\nPreschool $ 3,805,638\nHeadstart Supplement $ 3,308,203\nAttendance Centers $ 1,846,454\nCompact Technicians $ 1,573,274\nParental Involvement $ 1,188,667\nOffice of Compliance $ 1,116,074\nResearch, Evaluation, Testing $ 1,004,183\nCurriculum Labs $ 844,949\nEducational Technology $ 746,154\nExtended Day Kindergarten $ 616,646\nCompensatory Education Support $ 596,574\nEnrichment Program Institutionalized\n Children - Neglected $ 528,072\nSummer Camp $ 492,328\nSocial Work $ 175,577\nReading Recovery Buy-In $ 145,000\nChildren\xe2\x80\x99s Museum Buy-In $ 102,642\nHomeless $ 94,841\n $34,279,677\n\nThe consultation and equitability requirements of the Act do not apply to Transportation\nand Supplemental Educational Services, Indirect Cost, Preschool, Headstart Supplement,\nEnrichment Program Institutionalized Children-Neglected, Social Work, and Homeless.\n\n\n\n\n5\n Represents funds set-aside for students attending public schools identified for school improvement, as \n\nrequired by Sections 1116 (b) (1) (e), and 1116 (b) (10) of the Act. \n\n6\n This amount includes per-pupil allocation, Central Support, and Parental Involvement. \n\n\n\n 8\n\x0cFinal Audit Report\t ED-OIG/A05-D0021\n\n\n OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY \n\n\nThe objectives of our audit were to determine whether the District (1) consulted with\nprivate school officials prior to making decisions concerning Set-Aside services provided\nfrom Title I funding, and (2) provided equitable Set-Aside services and other benefits to\nprivate school participants with Title I funds. Our initial audit period was from January\n8, 20027, through March 31, 2003. However, after beginning our field work, we\nmodified the audit period to July 1, 20028, through April 24, 2003, based on the\nexpenditure reports the District provided. Based on additional expenditure data the\nDistrict provided, we further extended the audit period for Professional Development,\nParental Involvement, and Compensatory Education Support through May 21, 2003, and\nfor the Woodward Attendance Center through May 31, 2003.\n\nTo accomplish our objectives, we\n\n 1. \t reviewed the financial statement and OMB Circular A-133 audit report for the\n year ended June 30, 2002, prepared by an independent accountant;\n 2. \t reviewed the District\xe2\x80\x99s 2003 Consolidated Application;\n 3. r\t eviewed the District\xe2\x80\x99s organization chart, expenditure reports, documentation\n of the uses of Title I funds for Set-Aside services, and other documents\n provided by District and private school officials;\n 4. \t reviewed MDE\xe2\x80\x99s District Study Guide, dated December 3, 2002, and its\n policies and procedures for monitoring the District\xe2\x80\x99s compliance with\n consultation and equitability requirements; and\n 5. \t interviewed various District employees, Archdiocese of Detroit officials, a\n Lutheran Schools official, MDE personnel, and ED personnel.\n\nThe Superintendent of the Archdiocese of Detroit contacted the Office of Elementary and\nSecondary Education (OESE) with a concern about the District\xe2\x80\x99s lack of consultation and\npoor quality services. OESE also received a complaint from a citizen stating that the\nDistrict had no parental involvement programs for public school children. OESE visited\nthe District to discuss parental involvement and talked to parents, the citizen who raised\nthe complaint, and the District. It did not look at parental involvement activities for\nprivate school participants. OESE found that the District and MDE were not in\ncompliance with parental involvement because the District did not provide parental\ninvolvement activities. We selected the District based on these concerns.\n\nWe conducted our field work at the District\xe2\x80\x99s administrative offices in Detroit, Michigan,\nduring the period April 21, 2003, to May 9, 2003, and at MDE\xe2\x80\x99s administrative offices in\nLansing, Michigan, during the period April 30, 2003, to May 1, 2003. We discussed the\nresults of our audit with District and MDE officials on July 9, 2003.\n\n\n7\n Date the No Child Left Behind Act was enacted.\n\n8\n We modified the audit period from January 8, 2002 to July 1, 2002, because the District did not separate\n\ntransactions prior to No Child Left Behind Act and after the law went into effect and because this was the \n\nfirst full year the District had to follow the No Child Left Behind Act. \n\n\n\n 9\n\x0cFinal Audit Report ED-OIG/A05-D0021\n\n\nOur audit was performed in accordance with generally accepted government auditing\nstandards appropriate to the scope of audit described above. To achieve our audit\nobjectives, we did not rely on computer-processed data.\n\n STATEMENT ON MANAGEMENT CONTROLS\n\nWe did not assess the District\xe2\x80\x99s management control structure applicable to Title I funds\nbecause it was not necessary to achieve our objectives. However, our audit disclosed\ninstances of non-compliance with federal law, regulations, and cost principles. These\ninstances led us to believe weaknesses existed in the District\xe2\x80\x99s controls over Title I funds.\nThese weaknesses and their effects are discussed in the AUDIT RESULTS section of\nthis report.\n\n ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS\n\nStatements that managerial practices need improvements, as well as other conclusions\nand recommendations in this report, represent the opinions of the Office of Inspector\nGeneral. Determinations of corrective action to be taken will be made by the appropriate\nED officials.\n\nIf you have additional comments or information that you believe may have a bearing on\nthe resolution of this audit, you should send them directly to the following ED official,\nwho will consider them before taking final Departmental action on this audit.\n\n Assistant Secretary\n Office of Elementary and Secondary Education\n U.S. Department of Education\n 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 3W315\n Washington, DC 20202\n\nIt is ED\xe2\x80\x99s policy to expedite the resolution of audits by initiating timely action on the\nfindings and recommendations contained therein. Therefore, receipt of your comments\nwithin 30 days would be greatly appreciated.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n 10\n\n\x0cFinal Audit Report ED-OIG/A05-D0021\n\n\nIn accordance with the Freedom ofInformation Act (5 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7552), reports issued by\nthe Office of Inspector General are available to members of the press and general public\nto the extent information contained therein is not subject to exemptions in the Act.\n\n Sincerely,\n\n\n\n w\n Regional Inspector General\n for Audit\n\n\nAttachment\n\ncc: Dr. Kenneth Stephen Burnley, CEO, Detroit City School District\n\n\n\n\n 11 \n\n\x0cED-OIG/A05-D0021 Attachment\n\n\n\n\n STA\xc2\xb7t\'E O F MICHIOAN\n DEPARTMENT OF E DU CATION MIC~~\n EducatIOn\n LANSING\n TMOfI\'IAS O. WATKINS, JR.\n JENNIFER Il0l , GRANHOt.fI\'I tu ~(RIN"\'NDENTOF\n GOVERNO R PU8UC ONSTRUCTlON\n\n\n\n\n OcIObcr 17,2003\n\n\n Mr. RichardJ . Dowd\n United States Department of Education\n Office of Inspe<:tor General\n III North Canal Stm:t. Suite 940\n Chicago, IL 60606\n\n Dear Mr. Dowd:\n\n The Michigan Department of Education re\xc2\xabived the dmft audit report of the results of the audit of the\n Detroit City School District\'s administration of Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary\n \xc2\xa3docation Act of 1965, as ammded, Sct-Aside prognms for the period July I , 2002 , through May 3 1,\n 2003. The l udit requiml a dTall ~ from the Detroit C ity Sehool district and the preliminary\n version of the district\'s response was received by the Michigan Department of Education 0f1 Friday,\n Oetober 10, 2003.\n\n The Office ofField Services, which manages tbe Title I program in the department, is ~viewing the\n respoIl5C from Detroit City Sehool District, and working with the district throughout thi s n:view to\n provide technical assistance. "The assistance will foo:::us on the develo pment of a consultation plan and\n proctdu~s to ensure that signed affirmations an: obtained. The offi ce plans to expand materials to assist\n all disaicil with consultation and delivery of service to participating pri vale schools.\n\n If you have additional questions, please do not hesitale to contact the Office ofField Servi ces al\n 5 17-373-4 588.\n\n Sincen:ly,\n\n\n\n Tom Watkins\n\n Allachment\n\n\n\n\n ITATI! BOARDOI\' I!OUCATION\n\n IIA T""::EN N . STRAUS - PRESIDENT \xe2\x80\xa2 HlER8ERT S , ~R _ VICE PftESIOENT\n CAROlYN~ . CI.IRTIN _ SECRETARY . _WINE YAREDMCGOIRE _ NA.S8E DELEGATI!\n JOHN C . AUSTIN \xe2\x80\xa2 EllZA8ETH w. BALlER\n R\xc2\xa3GlNAlD .... T\\JRNER \xe2\x80\xa2 EILEEN LAPPIN ""\'ISER\n\n _WEST AlLEGAN STREET \xe2\x80\xa2 P,O.aox_ . L.ANSING, ...ICli<GAN._\n .........mid\'>iCI ...._ _ \xe2\x80\xa2 (817) 373-3:U.\n\n\n\n\n-\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\n\x0cED-OIG/A05-D0021 Attachment\n\n\n\n\n Draft Audit Findings Response\n October 17, 2003\n\n\n\n\n Finding No. I Tbe District Did No t Provide Consuluulon To Pri Yaie School Officials\n\n The department agrees thaI the intended level of consultation did nOI talce place, however, the\n department asserts that some consultation did occur annually.\n\n\n Finding No.2 The Diuriel Did Not Provide Equitable Set\xc2\xb7 Aside Ser vices To Pri vate\n Scbool Participants\n\n The department uses a singl e audit process to delenninc the district\'s compliance with this\n requirement. The single audit has not been completed for the period oflhis review. The stale\n does have a Mi chigan Audit Manual, which is updated annually to ensure accurate and timely\n audits.\n\n\n Finding No.3 Title I Funds Paid Did Not Benefit Title I Part icipants\n\n This finding would also require data from the single audit.\n\n\n Finding No. 4 Tbe District Did Not Submil Complete OM.8 C ircular A-JJJ Audil\n Reporting Plckagn To The Federal Aud it Cleuinghouse\n\n The OMB Circular A-I JJ to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse is a standard part of the\n department\'s process. The department does agree that the district must submit complete\n documents. The department does oot agree with the recommendat ion lhat the Michigan\n Department of Education add additional written policies and procedures. The requirement to\n report is in place. The department rc:ceives audits in a timely maimer and reviews them in a\n timely manner. The department will work with Detroit City School District to ensure that a\n procedure is established to compl y with this reporting req uirement.\n\n\n\n\n\xc2\xb7 --\n\n\n 2\n\n\x0c'


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 19.3.2009
 ET
 Euroopa Liidu Teataja
 L 73/36
 EMP ÜHISKOMITEE OTSUS
 nr 4/2009,
 5. veebruar 2009,
 millega muudetakse EMP lepingu II lisa (tehnilised normid, standardid, katsetamine ja sertifitseerimine)
 EMP ÜHISKOMITEE,
 võttes arvesse Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingut, mida on muudetud Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingut kohandava protokolliga, edaspidi „leping”, eriti selle artiklit 98,
 ning arvestades järgmist:
 (1)
 Lepingu II lisa on muudetud EMP Ühiskomitee 26. septembri 2008. aasta otsusega nr 98/2008. (1)
 (2)
 Lepingusse tuleb inkorporeerida komisjoni 30. jaanuari 2008. aasta direktiiv 2008/5/EÜ, mis käsitleb muude kui Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiivis 2000/13/EÜ nimetatud kohustuslike üksikasjade esitamist teatavate toiduainete märgistuses (kodifitseeritud versioon). (2)
 (3)
 Lepingusse tuleb inkorporeerida komisjoni 4. detsembri 2007. aasta otsus 2007/802/EÜ, millega muudetakse otsust 2002/840/EÜ seoses toidu kiiritamiseks kinnitatud kolmandate riikide rajatiste loeteluga. (3)
 (4)
 Lepingusse tuleb inkorporeerida komisjoni 28. märtsi 2007. aasta soovitus 2007/196/EÜ furaani esinemise seire kohta toiduainetes. (4)
 (5)
 Direktiiviga 2008/5/EÜ tunnistatakse kehtetuks komisjoni direktiiv 94/54/EÜ, (5) mis on lepingusse inkorporeeritud ja mis tuleb sellest tulenevalt lepingust välja jätta.
 (6)
 Käesolevat otsust ei kohaldata Liechtensteini suhtes,
 ON TEINUD JÄRGMISE OTSUSE:
 Artikkel 1
 Lepingu II lisa XII peatükki muudetakse järgmiselt:
 1.
 Punkti 54zc (komisjoni direktiiv 94/54/EÜ) tekst jäetakse välja.
 2.
 Punkti 54zze (komisjoni otsus 2002/840/EÜ) lisatakse järgmine taane:
 „—
 32007 D 0802: komisjoni otsus 2007/802/EÜ, 4. detsember 2007 (ELT L 323, 8.12.2007, lk 40).”
 3.
 Punkti 54zzzv (komisjoni direktiiv 2006/141/EÜ) järele lisatakse järgmine punkt:
 „54zzzw.
 32008 L 0005: komisjoni direktiiv 2008/5/EÜ, 30. jaanuar 2008, mis käsitleb muude kui Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiivis 2000/13/EÜ nimetatud kohustuslike üksikasjade esitamist teatavate toiduainete märgistuses (kodifitseeritud versioon) (ELT L 27, 31.1.2008, lk 12).”
 4.
 Punkti 63 (komisjoni soovitus 2007/331/EÜ) järele lisatakse järgmine punkt:
 „64.
 32007 H 0196: komisjoni soovitus 2007/196/EÜ, 28. märts 2007, furaani esinemise seire kohta toiduainetes (ELT L 88, 29.3.2007, lk 56).”
 Artikkel 2
 Direktiivi 2008/5/EÜ, otsuse 2007/802/EÜ ja soovituse 2007/196/EÜ islandi- ja norrakeelne tekst, mis avaldatakse Euroopa Liidu Teataja EMP kaasandes, on autentsed.
 Artikkel 3
 Käesolev otsus jõustub 6. veebruar 2009 tingimusel, et kõik lepingu artikli 103 lõikes 1 ettenähtud teated on EMP Ühiskomiteele esitatud. (6)
 Artikkel 4
 Käesolev otsus avaldatakse Euroopa Liidu Teataja EMP osas ja EMP kaasandes.
 Brüssel, 5. veebruar 2009
 EMP Ühiskomitee nimel
 eesistuja
 Alan SEATTER
 (1) ELT L 309, 20.11.2008, lk 19.
 (2) ELT L 27, 31.1.2008, lk 12.
 (3) ELT L 323, 8.12.2007, lk 40.
 (4) ELT L 88, 29.3.2007, lk 56.
 (5) EÜT L 300, 23.11.1994, lk 14.
 (6) Põhiseadusest tulenevaid nõudeid ei ole nimetatud.


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 22001A0802(01)
 Fourth Protocol laying down the conditions relating to fishing provided for in the Agreement on fisheries between the European Economic Community, on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland, on the other
 Official Journal L 209 , 02/08/2001 P. 0002 - 0009
 Fourth Protocollaying down the conditions relating to fishing provided for in the Agreement on fisheries between the European Economic Community, on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland, on the otherTHE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY,on the one hand, andTHE GOVERNMENT OF DENMARK AND THE HOME RULE GOVERNMENT OF GREENLAND,on the other,Having regard to the Agreement on fisheries between the European Economic Community, on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland, on the other,HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:Article 11. This Protocol shall apply to fishing activities from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2006.2. The quotas referred to in Article 2 of the Agreement shall be fixed at the following quantities for each year:>TABLE>3. Notwithstanding the quotas under paragraph 2 the Community may fish up to the reference quantities laid down in Annex I. This shall be without further financial compensation than laid down in Article 11. The quotas will be adapted annually or at other intervals in the light of available scientific information.4. The quota for shrimp in east Greenland may be fished in areas west of Greenland provided that arrangements for quota transfers between shipowners from Greenland and the Community have been established on a company-to-company basis. The Greenland Home Rule Government shall undertake to facilitate such arrangements. The transfers of quotas can only take place within a maximum of 2000 tonnes annually in areas of west Greenland. The fishery carried out by the Community vessels shall take place on the same conditions as laid down in the licence issued to the Greenlandic shipowner.5. Greenland undertakes to grant each year a quantity of 2000 tonnes of snow crab to temporary joint ventures or joint enterprises within the meaning of Articles 4 and 5.Article 2The quantities referred to in the first paragraph of Article 7 of the Agreement are hereby set at the following levels each year:>TABLE>Article 3Greenland shall give a special preference to companies from Member States of the Community in connection with the negotiation of contracts concerning such quantities of cod, or other species, which it offers for over-the-side sales or cod-end-transfers in situations where the capacity of the Greenland fish processing plants is insufficient to process the quantities fished by the Greenland fishing fleet. Such contracts will be negotiated directly on a commercial basis.Article 4For the purpose of Article 8a of the Agreement the following definition shall apply:"temporary joint venture" means any association based on a contractual agreement of limited duration between Community shipowners and physical or legal persons in Greenland, with the aim of jointly fishing for and exploiting Greenland fishing quotas by vessels flying the flag of a Member State of the European Community and sharing the cost profits or losses of the economic activity jointly undertaken, with a view to the priority supply of the Community market;"joint enterprises" means any company regulated by Greenland law comprising one or more Community shipowners and one or more partners in Greenland, with the aim of fishing for and possibly exploiting Greenland fishing quotas in the waters under the sovereignty and/or jurisdiction of Greenland by vessels flying the flag of Greenland with a view to the priority supply of the Community market.Article 5The Parties shall assess the projects for the temporary joint ventures and joint enterprises. The projects shall be assessed in accordance with the methods and criteria set out in Annex II.Article 6In order to encourage the establishment of joint enterprises, financial assistance may be granted in accordance with conditions laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999(1).Article 7A Joint Committee shall be set up to oversee the application of Articles 5 and 6 of this Protocol. The duty of this Committee shall be, in particular, to:- assess the projects presented by the Parties for the establishment of temporary joint ventures and joint enterprises, in accordance with the criteria set out in Annex II,- review the activities of vessels belonging to temporary joint ventures and joint enterprises in Greenland waters before the end of their contract.The Joint Committee shall meet at the request of either Party.Article 8The conditions concerning access to resources of temporary joint ventures are laid down in Annex III.Article 9The Parties shall promote the conduct of experimental fisheries on, inter alia, deep sea species, snow crab and squid in Greenland waters. To this end, they shall hold consultations whenever one of the Parties so requests and determine, on a case-by-case basis, relevant species, conditions and other parameters. Furthermore, they shall explore whether projects for experimental fisheries can benefit from financial assistance.Article 10In order to give effect to the cooperation obligations laid down in Article 9 of the Agreement, the Parties undertake to establish closer contact with a view to determining relevant areas of cooperation, in particular in the framework of regional fisheries organisations and in the field of research.In this context, the Parties acknowledge the importance of an efficient control and enforcement scheme in the regional fisheries organisations to which both Parties adhere. They agree to cooperate with a view to facilitating an effective implementation of such schemes on the practical level within the capacity of each Party.Article 111. The financial compensation referred to in Article 6 of the Agreement shall, during the period of validity of this Protocol, be fixed at EUR 42820000 payable annually at the beginning of each fishing year.2. The compensation shall be adjusted during the course of each fishing year in proportion to the supplementary quota allocated to the Community, calculated on the basis of cod equivalents under Article 8 of the Agreement.3. Greenland shall make available to the Community a quantity of 20000 tonnes of cod equivalents, which the Community may use for the purposes of acquiring supplementary catch possibilities. The adjusted compensation referred to in paragraph 2 may consist of up to 50 % of these cod equivalents.4. The procedure to be followed as regards the allocation of supplementary catch possibilities under Article 8 of the Agreement is set out in Annex IV.Article 12Failure to implement the commitments laid down in this Protocol may, without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 7 and 10 of the Agreement, entail a corresponding reduction in the commitments referred to in Articles 1 and 11 of this Protocol.Article 13This Protocol shall enter into force on the date of its signature. It shall apply from 1 January 2001. The Parties shall notify each other on the completion of the procedures necessary for this purpose.Article 141. No later than 30 June 2003 the Parties shall meet with a view to assessing the effectiveness of the Protocol.2. They shall review and assess the adequacy of this Protocol and if necessary propose amendments. In this context they shall assess the overall relationship between the Parties and assess whether additional instruments should be developed and implemented to better address the development needs of Greenland.3. Following the entry into force of this Protocol, the Parties undertake to prepare the review meeting referred to in paragraph 1. To this end, they will establish appropriate contacts and exchange material which they deem appropriate.No later than four months before the meeting referred to in paragraph 1, the Parties shall notify each other of the subject matters which they intend to raise and, as appropriate, their possible proposals for amendments.4. Two months following the notification, the Parties shall enter into consultations with a view to preparing the review meeting and examining any possible proposals for amendments.5. Following the completion of the review meeting the Parties shall notify each other of the acceptance by their respective authorities of any proposed amendments.Article 15This Protocol shall be drawn up in duplicate in the Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish languages, each text being equally authentic.The Greenland authorities will provide a translation into Greenlandic of the Protocol.Hecho en Bruselas, el veinticinco de julio de dos mil uno.Udfærdiget i Bruxelles den femogtyvende juli to tusind og en.Geschehen zu Brüssel am fünfundzwanzigsten Juli zweitausendundeins.Έγινε στις Βρυξέλλες, στις είκοσι πέντε Ιουλίου δύο χιλιάδες ένα.Done at Brussels on the twenty-fifth day of July in the year two thousand and one.Fait à Bruxelles, le vingt-cinq juillet deux mille un.Fatto a Bruxelles, addì venticinque luglio duemilauno.Gedaan te Brussel, de vijfentwintigste juli tweeduizendeneen.Feito em Bruxelas, em vinte e cinco de Julho de dois mil e um.Tehty Brysselissä kahdentenakymmenentenäviidentenä päivänä heinäkuuta vuonna kaksituhattayksi.Som skedde i Bryssel den tjugofemte juli tjugohundraett.Por la Comunidad EuropeaFor Det Europæiske FællesskabFür die Europäische GemeinschaftΓια την Ευρωπαϊκή ΚοινότηταFor the European CommunityPour la Communauté européennePer la Comunità europeaVoor de Europese GemeenschapPela Comunidade EuropeiaEuroopan yhteisön puolestaPå Europeiska gemenskapens vägnar>PIC FILE= "L_2001209EN.000501.TIF">Por el Gobierno de DinamarcaFor den danske regeringFür die Regierung DänemarksΓια την Κυβέρνηση της ΔανίαςFor the Government of DenmarkPour le gouvernement du DanemarkPer il governo della DanimarcaVoor de regering van DenemarkenPelo Governo da DinamarcaTanskan hallituksen puolestaPå Danmarks regerings vägnar>PIC FILE= "L_2001209EN.000601.TIF">Por el Gobierno local de GroenlandiaFor det grønlandske landsstyreFür die örtliche Regierung GrönlandsΓια την Τοπική Κυβέρνηση της ΓροιλανδίαςFor the Home Rule Government of GreenlandPour le gouvernement local du GroenlandPer il governo locale della GroenlandiaVoor de plaatselijke regering van GroenlandPelo Governo local da GronelândiaGrönlannin maakuntahallituksen puolestaPå Grönlands lokala regerings vägnar>PIC FILE= "L_2001209EN.000602.TIF">(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999, p. 10.ANNEX IREFERENCE QUANTITIES>TABLE>ANNEX IIMETHODS AND CRITERIA FOR PROJECT ASSESSMENT1. The Parties shall exchange information on the projects presented for the formation of temporary joint ventures and joint enterprises according to Article 4 of this Protocol.2. The projects shall be presented to the Community via the competent authorities of the Member State or Member States concerned.3. The Community shall submit to the Joint Committee a list of projects concerning temporary joint ventures and joint enterprises. The Joint Committee shall assess the projects in accordance, inter alia, with the following criteria:(a) technology appropriate to the proposed fishing operations;(b) target species and fishing zones;(c) age of the vessel;(d) in case of temporary joint ventures, the total duration and that of fishing operations;(e) previous experience of the Community shipowner and any Greenlandic partner in the fisheries sector.4. The Joint Committee shall issue an opinion on the projects following the assessment under point 3.5. In the case of temporary joint ventures, once the projects have received a favourable opinion from the Joint Committee, the Greenland authority shall issue the necessary authorisations and fishing licences.ANNEX IIICONDITIONS CONCERNING ACCESS TO RESOURCES OF TEMPORARY JOINT VENTURES IN GREENLAND1. LicencesThe fishing licences to be issued by Greenland shall have a validity equal to the duration of the temporary joint ventures. Fishing shall take place on quotas allocated by the Greenland Authority.2. Replacement of vesselsA Community vessel operating under a temporary joint venture may be replaced by another Community vessel with equivalent capacity and technical specifications only on duly justified grounds and with the agreement of the parties.3. Fitting-outVessels operating under temporary joint ventures shall comply with the rules and regulations applicable in Greenland regarding fitting-out, which regulation shall be applied without discrimination between Greenland and Community vessels.4. Catch declaration(a) All Community vessels shall forward to the Greenland authority a catch declaration in accordance with Greenlandic fishery regulations.(b) A copy of the catch declaration shall be forwarded to the European Commission.(c) In the event of these provisions not being complied with, the Greenland authority may suspend the fishing licence of the vessel involved until the said formalities have been complied with.5. Scientific observersAt the request of the Greenland authority, Community vessels fishing pursuant to this Protocol shall permit a scientific observer designated by the said authority to come on board to perform his tasks. The observer shall be provided with all the facilities necessary for the exercise of his functions.The conditions of his stay on board shall be the same as those of the other officers of the vessel. Observers remunerations and social security contributions shall be paid by the Greenland authorities. The costs of their stay on board shall be borne by the owner of the vessel.ANNEX IVSUPPLEMENTARY CATCH POSSIBILITIES1. The authorities responsible for Greenland undertake to offer to the Community by 15 November each year such supplementary catch possibilities referred to in Article 8 of the Agreement, which at the time are expected to be available the following fishing year.The Community shall inform the authorities responsible for Greenland of its reaction to the offer no later than six weeks after receipt of the offer. If the Community either declines the offer or does not react within six weeks, the authorities responsible for Greenland will be free to offer the supplementary catch possibilities to other parties.2. If at any time during the fishing year additional supplementary catch possibilities under Article 8 of the Agreement are identified, which exceed the catch possibilities contained in the offer referred to in paragraph 1, the authorities responsible for Greenland shall offer the Community such additional possibilities.The Community shall inform the authorities responsible for Greenland of its reaction to the offer no later than six weeks after receipt of the offer. If the Community either declines the offer or does not react within six weeks, the authorities responsible for Greenland will be free to offer the supplementary catch possibilities to other parties.