№ files_lp_4_process_3_139391
File format: docx
Character count: 2781
File size: 18 KB
A guide offering tips for maintaining bell ropes and extending their lifespan in tower bell ringing.
Year:
2018
Region / City:
Not specified
Theme:
Bell Rope Maintenance
Document Type:
Guide
Organization / Institution:
Not specified
Author:
Chris Bassett, Frank Beech, Tony Crabtree, Alison Hodge
Target Audience:
Tower bell ringers
Period of Validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Price: 8 / 10 USD
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
Don’t have cryptocurrency yet?
You can still complete your purchase in a few minutes:- Buy Crypto in a trusted app (Coinbase, Kraken, Cash App or any similar service).
- In the app, tap Send.
- Select network, paste our wallet address.
- Send the exact amount shown above.
The final amount may vary slightly depending on the payment method.
The file will be sent to the email address provided at checkout within 24 hours.
The product description is provided for reference. Actual content and formatting may differ slightly.
Year:
2021
Region / City:
Hong Kong, Asia Pacific
Theme:
Outsourcing, Business Process Management
Document Type:
Case Study
Organization / Institution:
Green Cherry Enterprises
Author:
John Leung
Target Audience:
Business professionals, CTOs, outsourcing managers
Period of validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Modification Date:
N/A
Note:
Contextual description
Year:
2013
Region / City:
Norton, Massachusetts, USA
Subject:
Environmental regulation and wetlands protection
Document Type:
Administrative appeal decision
Issuing Authority:
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution
Author:
Administrative Law Judge / Hearing Officer
Parties Involved:
Kenneth Leavitt (Applicant), Ten Residents Group (Petitioner), Norton Conservation Commission, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Legal Framework:
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, § 40; 310 CMR 10.00 Wetlands Regulations
Docket / File Number:
WET-2012-024, SE 250-882
Date of Decision:
March 28, 2013
Key Issues:
Compliance with wetlands protection standards, adequacy of project conditions, seasonal storage of floats, impact on wildlife habitat
Procedural History:
Pre-Hearing Conference, submission of testimony and affidavit, motion to dismiss, settlement agreement
Outcome:
Recommendation to sustain the Proposed Order submitted by the Department, Applicant, and Commission
Type of Source:
Official administrative decision document
Scope:
Evaluation of legal and factual claims regarding a proposed recreational structure within protected wetlands
Year:
2026
Region / City:
USA
Subject:
School calendar submission, bell schedules, instructional hours
Document Type:
Instructional guidance
Organization / Institution:
CSI (Colorado Charter Schools Institute)
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
School administrators, district personnel
Period of Validity:
2026-2027 school year
Approval Date:
Not specified
Revision Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Deadline for Submission:
April 24, 2026 (for general calendar and bell schedule), April 17, 2026 (for Reduced Academic Calendar)
Year:
1984
Region / City:
United States
Topic:
Title IX, Civil Rights, Gender Equality
Document Type:
Court Case Summary
Organization / Institution:
United States Supreme Court
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Legal professionals, students of law, educators
Period of Action:
1972–1988
Date of Approval:
June 23, 1972
Date of Amendments:
March 22, 1988
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Lebanon, Tennessee
Theme:
Infrastructure, Safety Improvements, Economic Development
Document Type:
Official Statement
Organization / Institution:
Lebanon City Council
Author:
Mayor Rick Bell
Target Audience:
Citizens of Lebanon
Effective Period:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
April 1, 2023
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Manchester
Subject:
Golf Tournament Regulations
Document Type:
Tournament Rules
Organization:
Manchester & District Ladies’ Golf Association
Author:
Sue Moult
Target Audience:
Golf Clubs, Players, Team Managers
Period of Validity:
2026
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified
Year:
2024
Note:
Region / City
Topic:
Christmas Service
Document Type:
Religious Service Program
Organization:
Immanuel UCC
Author:
Pastor Elisabeth
Target Audience:
Congregation
Period of Validity:
December 24, 2024
Date of Approval:
December 24, 2024
Year:
1952
Region / City:
Hopkinsville, Kentucky
Topic:
Feminism, Black Feminism, Intersectionality, Social Activism
Document Type:
Biography, Academic Article
Organization / Institution:
N/A
Author:
Josephine Liptrott, Min Jin Lee
Target Audience:
Scholars, Activists, General Public
Period of Validity:
N/A
Date of Approval:
N/A
Date of Changes:
N/A
Note:
Year
Subject:
School bus schedules and routes
Document Type:
School transportation schedule
Institution:
Bell Central School, Bell County High School, Frakes School, Lone Jack School, Page School, Right Fork School, Yellow Creek School
Target Audience:
Parents, students, and school transportation staff
Year:
2025
Location:
Bell County, Texas, USA
Event type:
Horse show
Organizations:
SWMHC, ASPC, AMHR, ASPR
Date:
March 7-8, 2025
Categories:
Roman Chariot, Country Pleasure Driving, Western Stock Halter, Classic Halter, Foundation and Modern Roadster, Modern Harness and Formal Driving, Draft Hitch Driving
Target participants:
Amateur, Youth, Open
Eligible breeds:
AMHR, ASPR, Classic, Foundation, Modern
Competition type:
Halter, Driving, Roadster, Chariot, Pleasure Driving
Awards:
Champion, Reserve Champion, Stakes
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Lebanon
Theme:
Winter Storm Response, City Development, Community Events
Document Type:
Official Update
Organization / Institution:
City of Lebanon
Author:
Mayor Rick Bell
Target Audience:
Local Residents, City Officials, Community Stakeholders
Effective Period:
January 2026
Approval Date:
January 20, 2026
Modification Date:
January 23, 2026
Note:
Context
Year:
2025
Region / City:
Newtonville, NY
Theme:
Church Activities, Community Service
Document Type:
Church Newsletter
Organization:
Newtonville United Methodist Church
Author:
Pastor Nick
Target Audience:
Church Members
Period of Validity:
Summer 2025
Approval Date:
July 2025
Date of Changes:
None
Year:
2004
Region / City:
Detroit, Michigan
Topic:
Education, Bilingual Education, Science
Document Type:
Curriculum Vitae
Organization / Institution:
Wayne State University, Detroit Public Schools
Author:
JAMILA Bell
Target Audience:
Educational Institutions, Hiring Organizations
Effective Period:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Modification Date:
N/A
Note:
Year
Year:
2018
Region / City:
Philadelphia
Theme:
Debate Tournament
Document Type:
Invitation
Organizing Body:
University of Pennsylvania
Author:
Pranav Reddy and the Penn for Youth Debate Executive Board
Target Audience:
Coaches and Competitors
Event Period:
February 9 – 11, 2018
Approval Date:
Not specified
Revision Date:
Not specified
Year:
2025
Region / City:
Arkansas
Topic:
Student Cell Phone Policy
Document Type:
Policy
Institution:
School
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Students, Parents, Faculty
Effective Period:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not specified
Revision Date:
Not specified
Year:
2017-18
Region / City:
Not specified
Theme:
School schedule
Document type:
School timetable
Organization / Institution:
ACLC (Applied and Collaborative Learning Center)
Target Audience:
Students, Faculty
Period of validity:
2017-18 school year
Approval date:
Not specified
Modification date:
Not specified
Version:
1.1
Review date:
12/04/2024
Edited by:
CW
Approved by:
CW
Year:
2024
Region / city:
Mandalay
Topic:
Healthcare, Patient Management
Document type:
Policy
Organ / institution:
Mandalay Medical Centre
Author:
Not specified
Target audience:
Employees of the organisation, including agency workers, locums, and contractors
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval date:
Not specified
Date of amendments:
Not specified
) and join the S1NET. For guides with in depth examinations of performance measure definitions, go to:
https://www.milsuite.mil/book/docs/DOC-129783
Table of Contents (Hyperlinks to Sections):
Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ OER Narratives: Notes, Rules, and Instructions OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: Negative Comment Rules Referred OERs Narrative Comment Examples Block a. APFT and HT/WT Block b. Overall Performance Block c. Character (to include SHARP comments) Block d. Presence Block e. Intellect Block f. Leads Block g. Develops Block h. Achieves Senior Rater Potential Senior Rater Narrative Examples Senior Rater Narrative Comment Examples (for potential, promotion, school, etc.) Successive Assignments Other SR Comments (explanations of anything unusual about OER) Effective Words for Evaluations JUNIOR OFFICER PLATE (DA FORM 67-10-1) NOTE: 2LTs who have NOT completed BOLC, will not receive an OER until they complete BOLC (AC and ARNG; USAR officers can receive an OER before completing BOLC). The FROM date will be their commissioning date. All time until their BOLC graduation will be NONRATED on their first OER. OER PROFILING: OERs: Rater and Senior Rater Profiles are CONSTRAINED, meaning Officers are only allowed to grant 49% of each rank they rate with either an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). HOWEVER, if you have an immature profile, and have only just begun rating/senior rating Officers of a certain rank, you are allowed a ONE TIME option of giving one of the first two evaluations you make at a particular grade, an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). OER (OER SUPPORT FORM) PART III: Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ (blocks a., b., and c.): Refer to DA PAM 611-21 (https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/smartbookdapam611-21
) and DA PAM 600-3 (Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management), to assist in the development of PART III, block d. As a minimum, the duty description will include pr:
- Number of personnel supervised, - Amount of resources under the rated officer’s control, - Scope of responsibilities. 3) Descriptions must be clear and concise with emphasis on specific functions required. 4) Note conditions unique to the assignment; e.g. RA officers assigned to FT support duties with RC units or USAR officers assigned to RA units OER NARRATIVES: Notes, Rules, and Instructions Rater and Senior Rater Narratives: - Requires candor and courage; frank and accurate assessment. - Quantify officer’s value relative to peers and do so in concert with rater/senior rater box check. - Are short; tell a simple story about the quality of officer being evaluated. - Are interesting and compelling. - Are looked at by selection board members when they are looking for in-depth information about a rated officer’s performance and potential. - Numbers; 1-10, write them out (e.g. one, two, ten). 11 or higher, write the number; e.g. 11, 15, 105. Exception, when a 1-10 is WITH an 11 or higher; e.g. “5 tool kits with 20 tools each.” - Fashion the narrative to the officer; double check use of “he/his” vs. “she/hers.” - Awards: Awards and/or special recognition received during the rating period may be cited in evaluation comments (for example, “received the Humanitarian Service Medal” or “named the Instructor of the Year”). - Raters and SR CAN use the officer’s name in the narrative; e.g. “1LT Joe was ….” Rater and Rater Narratives: - Focus on PERFORMANCE; explaining what the rated officer did and how well he/she did it. - Focus on specifics to quantify and qualify performance. - Raters should advocate the rated officer to the SR. - When there is no SR (due to lack of qualifications), rater’s narrative provides the input on both performance and potential. Senior Rater (SR) and SR Narrative (see SR Rater Narrative section for examples): - Focus on POTENTIAL, 3-5 years out (promotions, command, school, & assignments). - Can amplify box checks by using the narrative to clearly send the appropriate message to selection boards. - CANNOT mention Box Check. - Additional information for when SR is also Rater can be found in DA PAM 623-3, pg. 26, “DA Form 67–10–1, part VI: block c—Senior Rater Narrative.” OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: - School/Course Comments: Bullets about how a Soldier did in a school or course are ONLY allowed if that school did not produce an AER/DA Form 1059. - Narratives are not a laundry list of superlatives – more is not necessarily better. - Brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases, particularly if they may be considered trite. - Excessive use of technical acronyms, or phrases not commonly recognized. - Techniques aimed at making specific words, phrases, or sentences stand out from the rest of the narrative; e.g. excessive use of capital letters; unnecessary quotation marks; repeated use of exclamation points; wide spacing between selected words, phrases, or sentences to include double spacing within a paragraph or between paragraphs. - Inappropriate references to box checks; e.g “Would be TOP BLOCK if profile allowed” or “absolutely far exceeded the standard”. - Trying to quantify (e.g. “top 2% of my captains”) with a small population. - Stay in your lane/level; avoid comments like “Best 1LT in the Army” unless you’re the Army CoS. - Stating “the best ever”; having 10 in the population, 50 in the profile. - Using overused phrases and clichés that are counterproductive or overused; e.g. stellar, historic, “delivered a dazzling performance,” “hit the ground running,” consummate professional, and unlimited potential. - Using specific selection board-type language. Examples of this include, “definitely a 6+ Soldier”. - Don’t exaggerate; “If I could prove it, CPT X is an LTC disguised as a CPT.” - Be mindful of what IS NOT said; it can have the same impact as what is said; e.g. NOT having numbers, or quantifiable points. - Don’t say the sa
Note:
en
Topic:
Officer Evaluation, Narrative Guidelines
Document Type:
Guide
Target Audience:
Raters, Senior Raters