Team Sport Tie Dye Ideas

You can do! TSJC

We can all add our two cents (there is a saying that "the brave lives until the coward wants ).

I can state that the contests for seats may be different (in terms of cleaner) and they are in other countries , the best ally of corruption is fatalism!

consider any of the following: Dale

1. diffusion in this blog.
2. Put a link to your website to this blog and others like.
3. Express your opinion in the blog (anonymously or not).

For my part:

1. I won two trials demonstrating that the Commission has acted "not in accordance with law " and "violating my rights " and therefore that the objections have been repeated twice making it clear that the Commission mean by "discretion."
2. I authorized a professor at the UOC to use this legal case as a case study in a course of law.
3. With the decision of the SCJT have begun a process of complaint to the European Commission, because this is not just a problem of inbreeding but violation of the right of free movement of workers within the European Union.

Confirmation-letter-to-daughter

Act 2006: discriminatory criteria (2) First

The decision of the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) invalidates the resolution of objections of 13 October 2004 by " undermine the rights enshrined in article 23 of the English Constitution of access to public function in terms equality under the principles of merit and ability ", in other words, by discrimination (see page 9 in the minutes):

TSJC Act of July 26, 2006

on pages 5 and 6 of the minutes can be read the criteria fixed Evaluation Commission, where the " particularly " can mean " the amount needed to ensure that the candidate with more seniority in the URV would be facilitated " because some candidates have done their whole career in the URV and I had less than a year and a half as Professor in the URV (or will be a drafting error ? ).

also the " research in the URV " appears as a separate criterion.

transcribe below the criteria (the emphasis are mine):

"is a contest to place of professor of University of the URV and not body, and that the contest has been submitted candidates only University lecturers in the URV, convener of the seats, the commission decides that, in each of the sections contained the selection criteria listed below shall be valued scientific path, teaching and overall management, and particular, the scientific career, teaching and management from obtaining your space professor in the URV .
1. Research (35%)
- creation of research groups
- production and quality
- obtaining resources, projects, equipment and infrastructure
- research in the URV
2. Teaching Activity (30%)
- participation in matters of Chemical Engineering
-
evaluation results - introduction of innovative pedagogies
3. Creation and management of teams and participation in university management (30%)
- charges
- managed resources / responsibilities
- participation in initiatives to improve university organization
4. Professional activities and other merits (5%) "

How To Make The Best Penny Boat

oppositions: first discriminatory criteria ...

response to an appeal submitted by the November 6, 2001 , the President and Secretary of the Evaluation Commission prepared a report to the Rector on November 23, 2001 that shows how the evaluation of the merits of research was based on discriminatory criteria for anyone who has spent his career overseas and give preference to the work done in the URV, I quote:

(a)
" The Commission notes the absence of scientific productivity for the past 2 ½ years that the participant carried in the URV, understanding this productivity publications signed as single or multiple authors URV "(last paragraph of Section 3, page 4. report to the Rector of ).

(b)
"... hopefully better than that presented scientific productivity, if this teacher work 12 or 15 years at a university well-established and well means (eg., Of Edinburgh) , that if the same teacher works at a university very young, growing (for example, URV) " (second paragraph of Paragraph 3, page 4. report to the Rector of ).

If the second criterion ( b) be valid, it would be possible to eliminate any competition to all who had done academic career at a university more established and well means "that the URV (most of the universities in Europe since he was 10 years URV when the opposition). This approach is a fallacy .
The first criterion (a) unreasonably penalized collaborative work of a professor at the URV with other institutions.

But the worst is that my productivity was not null (see sentence (a)), but in that period of two years (March 1999 - October 2001) published 12 articles as can be seen in the Curriculum Vitae which were accessible commission (more than any of the candidates 'winners'!):

• 4 articles in international journals
• 1 item in national magazine
• 3 chapters in books or collections of articles
• 2 articles on the web with a system Authors / Editors
• 2 articles at conferences

And even putting aside the principle that the evaluation of scientific activity should be independent of place in the development, the commission "did not realize" that 10 of these articles were signed at least one author of the URV!

Each of the points in the report to the Rector are answered in my application to the Court of Tarragona (March 2002) .

Average Price To Add A 2nd Story

2001 -
first oppositions

• The Evaluation Committee does not justify their decisions in terms of research activity in its final report (October 2001) (research activity is, according to the law governing these competitions, the merit of priority to be taken into account)
write
• an appeal to the Rector (November 2001)
• The President and Secretary of the Evaluation Commission declared my scientific productivity in the URV null and scientific productivity defined as " publications signed as single or multiple authors URV "(November 2001)

2002 - First trial

• Application to the Court of Tarragona (March 2002)
  

2003 - the first opposition Disability

• The Court of Administrative Disputes of Tarragona pleads "not consistent with the law" the resolution of the Commission and overrides objections in October 2001 (July 29, 2003)
• resignation letter to Chancellor of the URV-never contesto' "(September 2003)
  

2004 - Repetition of competitions

• The Superior Court of Justice de Catalunya confirms the decision of the Court in Tarragona (July 8, 2004)
• Replay of the opposition in October 2004: valuation criteria used in the second opposition is discriminatory while favoring candidates with the highest number of years working for the URV
  

2005 - Dismissal of my complaint and appeal to TSJC Tarragona

• The Court dismissed my complaint Tarragona discrimination on the grounds that the Court had already ruled on this in July 2003 (September 2005).
• Appeals for my part in Tarragona Court and High Court of Justice of Catalonia.
  

2006 - Invalidity of the second opposition

• The Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia declared invalid objections in October 2004 for having violated my rights, ie to have been discriminated against (July 2006)
• recusal request to all members of the Evaluation Commission on the basis that I have been discriminated against are unable to re-evaluate (October 2006)
  

Hippie Clothes Plus Size

We are all treated as equals? Chronology

Sera coincidence that the two opponents 'winners' in the first two competitions have made his career entirely in the URV (University of Barcelona before the foundation of the URV)? Professional Relationship

Candidate-A with the Secretary of the Commission of Evaluation (SCE )

• co-author with SCE in 27 of the 50 publications presented in a CV ( more than half of his publications! ) between educational books, national and international articles and conference communications
• co-investigator with SCE in 3 projects
• same thesis supervisor, working on the same project ("coal") and almost completely coincide in time (SCE 1979-1984 and Candidate-A 1980-1985)

Professional Relationship Candidate-B with the Secretary Evaluation of the Commission (SCE )

• co-author of 9 publications with SCE
• same thesis supervisor, and overlap in time (1979-1984 and SCE Candidate-B 1982-1986)
• (it was the same candidate-B who proposed the SCE as Secretary of the evaluation commission as recorded in Acts of the Department Council, this despite being an interested party and despite my protests )

To put into perspective the above data, set the ratio of the SCE two of the opponents "losers"

-D Candidate

• any publication in common with
• SCE has not been co-investigator on the project nigún SCE
• doctoral another English university
  

In my case: no publication

• in common with the SCE
• have not been co-investigator on any project with SCE
• Ph.D. at Carnegie Mellon University

Online Monica Roccaforte Films

outrageous actors

At 2 we present a full professor five opponents (in alphabetical order):

• Candidate A (the "winner"; 9 years, 2 months and 2 weeks in the URV Professor )
• Candidate B ("winner"); 10 years, 10 months and 2 weeks as Associate Professor at URV )
• Candidate C ("loser" now I have no data, approximately 8 years )
• Candidate D ("loser" 4 years, 7 months and 2 weeks as Professor in URV)
• Rene Banares-Alcantara ("loser" 1 year and 3 weeks as Professor at the URV ) [email: rba.oxford_at_googlemail.com]

Members of the Evaluation Committee were :

• Chairman: Professor A (Dept. Eng Quimica, Universitat Rovira i Virgili)
• Secretary: Professor B (Dept. Eng Quimica, Universitat Rovira i Virgili) Professor C
• (Dept. Eng Quimica, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya)
D
• Professor (Dept. Nuclear Eng i Quimica, Universidad Politecnica de Valencia)
• E Professor (Chemical Engineering Dept. , Tec Tec Food and Environment, University of Cádiz)

The rector of the URV for most of the period described in this blog:

• Z Rector (Rector, 1998 at URV 2006)

My lawyer

Orio
• Amaya (because Amaya for your professionalism and honesty!)

Pancake And Pjs Invite Wording

The purpose of this blog is to show the documents that show a case of discrimination in the competitions for two chairs of the Chemical Engineering Department d'Enginyeria Quimica (DEQ), Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV ) in Tarragona, Spain.

.

members of the Evaluation Commission have been reversed its evaluation criteria by a court twice, the last of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia in its decision of July 26, 2006 states that the criteria approved in October 2003 are discriminatory therefore unwarranted benefit candidates who have done their whole career in the URV ( inbreeding).

.

My essential arguments are given at "first discriminatory criteria", and "Acts of TSJC 2006."