text:
Grants Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
On December 20, 2019, President Donald J. Trump signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020 into law. The Act includes $425 million in new Help America Vote Act (HAVA) funds, made available to states to improve the administration of elections for Federal office, including to enhance technology and make election security improvements. The 2020 HAVA Election Security Fund, authorized under Title I Section 101 of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, marks the second new appropriations for HAVA grants since FY2010. This funding will provide states with additional resources to secure and improve election administration.
These FAQs will be updated as EAC receives additional questions and will be posted on the EAC website.
HAVA Funds
2020 HAVA Security Funds
How much money is available and how much will each state be awarded?
Who is eligible to receive funds?
For the 2018 HAVA funds, some states received the minimum $3,000,000 when the appropriation level was $380,000,000. Why are some states still receiving the $3,000,000 minimum when appropriation level is higher?
When will the funds be available for states to use and how long do states have to spend the funds?
What is the process for applying for funds?
Is there a state match requirement and when/how do states have to provide the match?
How can states use the funds?
Will the funds be available in time to impact the 2020 elections?
What are the reporting requirements for states receiving funds?
What if our state still has some HAVA funds remaining?
Can these funds be awarded as part of the 2018 HAVA grant?
How does EAC expect states to distinguish the activities under this grant from the 2018 grant?
Why are we required to submit a programmatic narrative overview of planned activities?
Can the program narrative and budget be updated?
When are the program narrative and budget due?
What are the restrictions on use of the funds?
What are in-kind contributions and can they be used to meet the 20% matching requirement?
Can funds be distributed if the EAC does not have a Commissioner quorum?
Can state/local election jurisdictions use the 2018 HAVA funds to purchase Enhanced Cybersecurity Services (ESC) offered by the Department of Homeland Security?
What does "Reserve" mean?
Are HAVA funds distributed to counties based on population size of the county or is it first come first serve until State funds are exhausted? Is there guidance from EAC on this?
Allowable Costs for 2018 HAVA Funds
Good morning. I'm curious if HAVA funding may ONLY be used for the purchase of election equipment in instances where the equipment does not have a paper record? Any clarification on this matter would be appreciated.
Can we use HAVA dollars to pay for Hotels for employees attending a cybersecurity training?
Can 2018 HAVA funds be used for accessibility? Our Elections Director leans toward restricting HAVA funds only for cyber security and not accessibility.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020 provides $425 million to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), as authorized under Title I Section 101 of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 (P.L. 107-252), to make grant payments to states using the voting age population formula described in Sections 101 of HAVA. A chart showing how much each state is being awarded can be found on the EAC website here.
Awards will be made to the entities eligible to receive federal assistance under Title I of HAVA, which includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (herein referred to as "the states"). The states may re-grant/distribute funds to local election districts/offices at their discretion.
Even with a $425 million appropriation, some states would receive under $3,000,000 based on the formula required under the law. As required, EAC ensures all states receive at least the minimum by a proportional re-distribution from large states to those below the minimum.
EAC will obligate the funds to the states in the Treasury system and issue grant award notification letters by mid to late January. The grant award letter will allow states to incur costs, effective December 21, 2019, the day after the Consolidated Appropriations Act was signed. Funds will be available for states to deposit in their state election accounts when they return a signed funding request letter and the required certifications and assurances. EAC will provide a template on the EAC website that states can use to meet the stipulations in the letter for accessing the funds.
States should request their funds immediately. Regardless of the disbursement date, states are authorized to incur costs against the grant as of December 21,2019. In addition, funds that states request and EAC disburses, must be spent by the end of the 5-year budget period. Any funds remaining after that date must be returned to EAC.
The funds are available as formula, non-competitive grants. Similar to the 2018 process, states will be asked to submit a 2-3 page narrative overview of activities to be supported with the funds and a line item budget within about 90 days of receiving the Notice of Grant Award. Detailed guidance on development of the plans and budgets will be forthcoming and will include the deadline for submission of the narrative and budget. Note that the awards will be issued and funds available prior to receipt of the plan overview to expedite and support any needed expenditures ahead of the 2020 Elections.
States are required to match 20 percent of the amount awarded and secure that amount within two years of receiving federal funds. They then have the full five years of the budget period to expend all of their match funds. States may either deposit matching funds in their state election accounts or track eligible funds/activities from their state and local general operating budgets to meet the match obligations. State and local funds used for match must be different from funds used to meet Maintenance of Effort or state match associated with HAVA Requirement Payments or the 2018 HAVA grants. American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands are exempt from the match requirement.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020 authorizes and appropriates the federal funds, titled "Election Security Grants" in the Act, and provides $425,000,000 to the Election Assistance Commission "to make payments to states for activities to improve the administration of elections for Federal office, including to enhance election technology and make election security improvements, as authorized under sections 101, 103, and 104 of [HAVA]."
The accompanying Congressional joint explanatory statement states, "Consistent with the requirements of HAVA, states may use this funding to: replace voting equipment
that only records a voter's intent electronically with equipment that utilizes a voter-verified paper record; implement a post-election audit system that provides a high-level of confidence in the accuracy of the final vote tally; upgrade election-related computer systems to address cyber vulnerabilities identified through [Department of Homeland Security] or similar scans or assessments of existing election systems; facilitate cybersecurity training for the state chief election official's office and local election officials; implement established cybersecurity best practices for election systems; and fund other activities that will improve the security of elections for Federal office."
Consistent with provisions in HAVA Section 101, states have discretion upon expenditures within general categories. The use categories described in the Congressional joint explanatory statement are consistent with aspects of Section 101(b)(1)(A), (B), (D), and (F), among other potential uses. The EAC can answer specific questions about how the money may be utilized, and will be capturing questions from states and sharing the answers in updated versions of this FAQ document.
The EAC is committed to making funds available as soon as feasibly possible. By releasing these funds quickly, it is hoped that the grants can have an immediate impact on the 2020 election cycle. How the funds will impact the 2020 elections will be entirely determined by how and at what pace states and localities deploy the federal resources.
It should be noted that states' expenditures of their remaining 2018 HAVA funds will also impact the 2020 elections.
States must provide an annual standard Federal Financial Report and progress narrative for the period ending September 30, which is due by December 31 of the same year.
Any HAVA funds still remaining at the state level should be tracked and reported separately from this new award. HAVA funds awarded prior to 2018 are available for use until expended and have no impact on the amount awarded for this grant program.
No, these funds are not considered continuation funds and can't be awarded in the same grant. Given the different matching requirement and longer budget period, we need to award the funds in a different grant. While the funds will be awarded in a separate grant and tracked and reported under a separate FFR, the activities could be very similar to activities supported under the 2018 grant.
EAC recognizes that the grants will have similar activities. States have the option to expand the activities planned with the 2018 grant or decide to support different activities. Activities planned with limited 2018 funds, could be moved and supported under this 2020 grant. States can describe the expansions they will do in the program narrative and how those activities are distinguished from or represent expansion to the 2018 grant-funded activities.
The funds are available under section 101 of HAVA and are considered grants. As such, states are required to follow grant requirements contained in the Code of Federal Regulations, 2 C.F.R. 200, and are subject to both programmatic and financial audits by EAC. The narrative will establish the programmatic objectives EAC will monitor over the course of the performance period. It also establishes the audit standards EAC and its Inspector General will use to ensure funds are spent according to the activities described in the program narrative and in compliance with the law.
Yes, EAC understands that plans can change over a five-year period. Consult the EAC grants office if you need to revise plans and the budget in the future.
They are due no later than April 27, 2020.
States must use the funds for the activities described in the Consolidated Appropriations Act and approved by EAC in the state's program narrative, due April 27, 2020. In addition, states must follow the Cost Principles in 2 C.F.R. 200 in determining the allowability of specific costs under the grant. Any equipment purchased under the grant must also meet HAVA requirements.
In-kind contributions are costs covered by a third-party for eligible activities under the grant, e.g. costs for training approved as part of the grant activities and paid for by another agency. They can be used to meet the match requirements. Grantees must document these kinds of contributions.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 provides $380 million to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), as authorized under Title I Section 101 of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 (P.L. 107-252), to make grant payments to states using the voting age population formula described in Sections 101 and 103 of HAVA. A chart showing how much each state is being awarded can be found at /2018funding.
Awards will be made to the entities eligible to receive federal assistance under Title I of HAVA, which includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands (herein referred to as "the states"). The states may re-grant/distribute funds to local election districts/offices at their discretion.
States will receive grant award notification letters from the EAC by early April 2018. The letter will allow states to incur costs, with prior EAC approval, against the forthcoming grant awards, effective the date of the notification letter. Funds will be available for states to deposit in their state election accounts when they return signed grant documents and the required certifications and assurances. States have until September 30, 2023 to request their funds and get the money in their accounts, after which time any funds remaining at EAC will automatically be returned to the U.S. Treasury.
The funds are available as formula, non-competitive grants. States will be asked to submit a 2-3 page narrative overview of activities to be supported with the funds and a line item budget within 90 days of receiving their Notice of Grant Awards. Detailed guidance on development of the plans and budgets will be forthcoming. Note that the awards will be issued and funds available for drawdown prior to receipt of the plan overview to expedite and support any needed expenditures ahead of the 2018 Election.
States are required to match 5 percent of these funds awarded within two years of receiving federal funds. States may either deposit matching funds in their state election accounts or track eligible funds/activities from their state and local general operating budgets to meet the match obligations. State and local funds used for match must be different from funds used to meet Maintenance of Effort or state match associated with HAVA Requirement Payments. American Samoa, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands are exempt from the match requirement.
Consistent with provisions in HAVA, states have discretion upon expenditures. The EAC can answer specific questions about how the money may be utilized, and will be capturing questions from states and sharing the answers in updated versions of this FAQ document.
As a point of reference, the EAC is including along with these FAQs the section of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 that authorizes and appropriates the federal funds as well as pages 1 and 57 of "Division E – Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2018," which is a joint explanatory statement that indicates congressional intent on how the funds may be spent. The joint explanatory language provides on page 57, that:
The bill provides $380,000,000 to the Election Assistance Commission to make payments to states for activities to improve the administration of elections for Federal office, including to enhance election technology and make election security improvements, as authorized under sections 101, 103, and 104 of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 (P.L. 107-252). Consistent with the requirements of HAVA, states may use this funding to
Replace voting equipment that only records a voter's intent electronically with equipment that utilizes a voter verified paper record;
Implement a post-election audit system that provides a high level of confidence in the accuracy of the final vote tally;
Upgrade election related computer systems to address cyber vulnerabilities identified through Department of Homeland Security, or similar scans or assessments of, existing election systems;
Facilitate cybersecurity training for the state chief election official's office and local election officials;
Implement established cybersecurity best practices for election systems; and
Fund other activities that will improve the security of elections for Federal office.
States must provide an annual standard Federal Financial Report and program narrative for the period ending September 30, which is due by December 30 of the same year.
Any HAVA funds still remaining at the state level should be tracked and reported separately from this new award. HAVA funds disbursed in earlier years are available for use until expended and have no impact on the amount awarded for this grant program.
Yes. A quorum is not needed to distribute funds to states.
Yes, this is an allowable expenditure and EAC encourages states and localities to explore this type of expenditure as an immediate way to augment cyber capabilities already in place.
The states have a great deal of flexibility in how they deploy the federal grant funds. The Reserve category on the budget worksheets are for funds that have not yet been budgeted by the States. As needs or threats become apparent, the funds designated in Reserve will move to other categories on the budget worksheet.
The EAC grant funds are disbursed by a voting-age population formula to the States. States have discretion as to if and how they make available funds to local election jurisdictions. Some states have chosen to issue funds by formula, others publish a list of reimbursable items while others allow counties to submit proposals and budgets to cover their needs.
HAVA funds may be used to replace any voting equipment designated by the grantee or its sub-receipts to be at the end of its useful life. Equipment title holders should follow local and state rules for the disposition of sensitive equipment.
Travel and lodging are allowable costs under the grant. If the conference directly supports the mission/activities of the election jurisdiction sending the employee, then this would be an allowable expense.
The 2018 HAVA Election Security grant funds can be used for accessibility. Each state, and in some cases local jurisdictions if funds have been subgranted, have discretion on how the funds should be spent. EAC encourages states to spend funds on accessibility.
Ask a question about HAVA Funds
HAVA Section 251, 101, 102 Funds
Completing the Federal Financial Report
Where do we record interest earned on State matching funds?
Where do we report interest earned on the Federal Share?
How do we record the transfer of interest earned on 102 Funds to our 251 account? When can we make this transfer?
Do we report our EAC funds on one FFR form or on separate forms?
Do you have a fillable version of the forms available?
What is net program income?
We only have five years to spend the 2018 HAVA 101 Election Security grant funds. What happens to the interest earned during that period if we have not spent it within the five-year limit?
We were told early in 2008 that we would have to submit a separate report for 2008 Section 251 Funds, is this still required?
May a State lease equipment?
May HAVA funds be used to support de minimis uses of equipment by the State for non-HAVA related purposes?
General Purpose Equipment/Furniture
May HAVA funds be used to purchase cellular phones in administering elections and maintaining contact with polling places on Election Day?
May HAVA funds be used to purchase storage cabinets, security cages and shelving for storage of ballots to secure and store ballots as required by State and Federal law?
May HAVA funds be used to purchase high speed letter openers to process absentee ballots?
May HAVA funds be used for a mail processing system that will assemble, sort, label and affix proper postage amounts for all outgoing mail, including absentee ballots from the Elections Office?
Vehicle Purchases
May a State use HAVA funds to purchase motorized vehicles for use in voter outreach efforts?
May a State use HAVA funds to purchase forklifts used to move and store voting equipment within a warehouse?
Voting Systems (Special Purpose Equipment)
May HAVA funds be used to purchase office furniture (tables, cabinets and desks) for the new voting systems equipment and statewide voter registration database equipment?
Does HAVA Section 301(a)(3)(C) mean that if HAVA funds are used after January 1, 2007 to purchase a voting system (or any additional voting units), the funds can only be used to purchase voting units that meet the accessibility requirements of Section 30
Can a State or local government use HAVA funds to upgrade wiring so that the election office can connect its locality LAN to access the Internet?
May HAVA funds be used to pay to maintain and support a HAVA compliant statewide voter registration system?
May HAVA Section 251 funds be used to reimburse a State for statewide voter registration database costs incurred prior to award of the funds?
What voting machine purchases made prior to the passage of HAVA are reimbursable under HAVA?
May States use Section 251 funds to reimburse a county or local government for its purchase of voting equipment?
May a State reimburse a county that has fully satisfied the payment obligation to the voting system vendor for the purchase of voting equipment made prior to the State receiving HAVA funds?
May HAVA funds be used to reimburse counties for vendor voting system maintenance fees?
May a State or county rent or lease out its voting systems?
Does a State law that permits some small towns to use paper ballots for non-federal elections instead of HAVA compliant voting equipment violate the 'private and independent' requirement of HAVA?
Voting Systems/Equipment Purchases
May a State use HAVA funds to purchase absentee voting equipment?
May a State or local government use HAVA funds to purchase additional accessible voting equipment?
May HAVA funds be used to purchase voting systems with Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) capabilities?
Accessibility/ADA Compliance
May HAVA funds be used to make polling places used in Federal elections accessible to people with disabilities if those polling places will be used in future elections?
Can a locality be reimbursed with HAVA funds for ADA modifications to polling places made before HAVA became law on October 29, 2002?
Can a locality use HAVA funds to make modifications to a storage space in order to provide appropriate storage for voting equipment?
May HAVA Section 101 or 251 funds be used to purchase a building to be used for warehouse voting system equipment?
Can HAVA Section 102 funds be used to buy, rent or improve a warehouse to store voting systems?
May HAVA funds be used to rent space to store voting equipment purchased to meet HAVA requirements?
Conference Attendance
May HAVA funds be used to send elections office employees to an election industry association conference to see available voting equipment?
Voter Education & Voting Officials Training
May HAVA Section 101 funds be used to buy children's coloring books (educational)?
May HAVA funds be used to create video training aids or instruction lead training, or employ a full time training manager for Officers of Election on new voting equipment, provisional ballots and/or ID requirements for first time mail registrants?
May HAVA Section 101 funds be used to buy "voting is cool" bracelets?
Food Purchases
May HAVA funds be used to provide food during a training of election officers (poll workers) on new voting equipment before the initial use?
May HAVA section 101 funds be used to buy "Top Ramen" as a humorous means to attract the attention of college students to the importance of voting?
May HAVA funds be used to employ legal counsel to advise and or represent the Secretary of State and/or State Election Commissioners in litigation pertaining to the implementation of the State HAVA plan?
May HAVA funds (101 and 251) be spent to determine whether the proposed uses of HAVA funds for litigation are allowable, allocable, and reasonable?
Affirmative Action Compliance
Does Executive Order 11246, dealing with affirmative action plan requirements, apply to a State because it received more than $65 million from the Federal government under HAVA?
Accounting (Recordkeeping & Reporting)
What is the proper year to account for retroactive reimbursement payments made under HAVA for the Single Audit Act?
What is the grant period for HAVA funds?
When do the grant period end and the record keeping requirement start for HAVA funds?
What CFDA number do I use when reporting my expenditure of HAVA funds?
Does the State need to notify the EAC of the States compliance and intent to use 251 funds for "other election improvements"?
If a sub-grantee (State grant of HAVA funds to a county or local government) misspends HAVA funds will the EAC recover the funds directly from the sub-grantee?
What types of penalties might be imposed against a State if a county's voting system is found non-compliant with HAVA?
How will the EAC treat noncompliant precincts after the deadline for replacement of punch card and lever voting systems under Section 102 of HAVA?
Must a county, the sub-grantee of HAVA funds, enter into an agreement with each municipality for the use of Federal Funds or is the agreement between the State and county sufficient?
Does the HAVA, specifically Section 301, definition of "election for Federal office", include a presidential primary which is an election of delegates to a national political convention?
What is a Federal election?
Will restrictions of Section 251 be lifted on a by-county basis when a county meets the requirements of Title III of HAVA?
Can a State request an extension for complying with the voting system standard requirements in Section 301?
How do I calculate the amount needed for our state's 5 percent match?
Can a State use its State matching funds to satisfy the maintenance of effort requirement?
Interest earned on State matching funds should be included in Line 10(i) in the Recipient Share section. Line 10(i) will include the initial required 5% match, interest earned on the recipient share and net program income earned. Program income will not be reported on lines 10(l – o) because EAC uses that Program Income section to track interest earned on the federal funds.
Interest earned on the Federal share is reported in the Program Income section, on Line 10(l). We must track interest generated on federal funds separately, so we have dedicated lines 10 (l, n and o) exclusively to this purpose. Program income is tracked under Recipient Share using the additive method.
On the Section 251 FFR you will record this transfer by adding the funds to Line 10(l) under Program Income. Use the comments box to record the amount and date of the transfer. On the Section 102 FFR, show the amount transferred on Line 10(n), which will leave the Final FFR for Section 102 with a balance of zero on line 10(o). Use the comments box to note the date and amount of the transfer. EAC has authorized some individual States to make this transfer, but we will also issue a general memorandum authorizing this transfer in the coming days.
You should have one form for each type of funds being reported: 101; 102; and 251. If you have already submitted a final FFR for Section 102 funds, you do not need to submit additional 102 reports.
Yes, we have added fillable versions of the form to our website.
Program income is income you earn as a direct result of activities supported under the grant. For example, if you developed cyber security training materials with grant funds and charge your voting districts for them, the funds you receive in payment are program income. Net program income is the amount of income remaining after deducting the costs of providing the materials to voting districts, such as shipping costs. If you include expenses incurred related to program income in the expenditures on the report, you should report total program income on Line 10(l), not net income.
You should make every attempt to spend all interest earned using the additive method during the grant period. After that, any remaining unexpended interest earned on the federal funds belongs to the federal government. At the end of the five-year period, EAC will close the grant and all remaining unexpended funds, including interest, must be returned to the federal treasury. This also applies to any program income earned, but not expended, during the grant period.
No, you do not need to track FY 2008 Section 251 funds on a separate FFR.
Leasing equipment is considered an allowable expense under OMB Circular A-87, according to the limitations and conditions of Attachment B, Section 37,
Rental Costs of Buildings and Materials. The limitations include that "sale and lease back" arrangements cannot cost the state or local government more than when it owned the property. The costs include expenses such as depreciation or use allowance, maintenance, taxes, and insurance. A "less-than-arms-length" agreement (i.e., a state government established a corporation to own the property then leases it back to the state) cannot cost the state or local government more than if title had vested in the state or local government. Rental costs under leases which are required to be treated as capital leases under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) are allowable only up to the amount that would be allowed had the state or local government purchased the property on the date the lease agreement was executed. The provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement 13, Accounting for Leases, determine whether a lease is a capital lease. The determination is based on factors such as if the lease transfers ownership of the property to the lessee by the end of the lease term; contains a bargain purchase option; the lease term is equal to 75 percent or more of the estimated economic life of the leased property unless the lease term falls within the last 25 percent of the total estimated economic life of the leased property; or the present value at the beginning of the lease term of the minimum lease payments excluding executory costs such as insurance, maintenance, and taxes to be paid by the lessor, including any profit, equals or exceeds 90 percent of the excess of the fair value of the leased property to the lessor at the inception of the lease.
Yes. Consistent with standard Federal guidelines, the State may authorize use in the office or official duty station on an occasional basis, provided that the use involves minimal or negligible additional expense and does not interfere with official business. Employees are expected to exercise common sense and good judgment in the personal use of equipment. The conduct of official business always takes precedence over any limited personal use. Such personal use would be so small that accounting for it would be unreasonable or impractical.
Cellular phones would generally be considered an allowable cost. However, because this expense is not directly related to meeting any of the Title III requirements, the expense could be allocated only to improving the administration of federal elections under Section 101 funds or Section 251 funds pursuant to Section 251(b).
Storage cabinets and shelving are allowable costs as long as they are not covered by the required maintenance of effort. See Section 254(a)(7). Because this expense would not be directly related to meeting any of the Title III requirements, it could be allocated only to funding programs under Sections 101 and 251(b). Cost principles such as allocability and cost reasonableness must still be considered. For example, if the security cages and shelving will not be used exclusively for the purpose of improving the administration of federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant.
High speed letter openers are an allowable cost for this stated purpose. As this expense is not directly related to meeting any of the Title III requirements, the cost can be allocated only to the Section 101 funding program or to Section 251 funds pursuant to Section 251(b). Allocability and cost reasonableness must be considered in assessing the propriety of this type of expense. If the letter opener will not be used exclusively for the purpose of opening absentee ballots and other mail unrelated to improving the administration of Federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of Federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant. Similarly, depending on the volume of mail it may be more reasonable to manually open the letters.
This type of mail processing system is an allowable cost for the stated purpose. Because this expense is not directly related to meeting any of the Title III requirements, it may be allocated only to the funding programs established in Section 101 or Section 251 funds pursuant to Section 251(b). However, allocability and cost reasonableness must be considered to fully assess the appropriateness of such an expense. For example, if the mail processing system will not be used exclusively for the purpose of processing mail related to improving the administration of Federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of Federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant. Similarly, depending on the volume of mail it may be more reasonable to manually process the mail.
While motorized vehicles are an allowable cost when they are used for voter education pursuant to Section 101(b)(1)(C) of HAVA, there are significant issues related to allocability and cost reasonableness that must still be considered in assessing the appropriateness of such an expense. For example, if the vehicle will not be used exclusively for the purpose of voter outreach or other activities associated with improving the administration of Federal elections and are used for purposes unrelated to improving the administration of Federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of Federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant. Even in this instance, the appropriate percentage of cost could only be allocated to the funding programs under Section 101 or Section 251(b). As for the reasonableness analysis, it may be more reasonable to rent a vehicle rather than to purchase, insure and maintain vehicles that will only be used infrequently or periodically.
Yes. Section 101 funds may be used to train election officials, poll workers, and election volunteers. Section 251 can only be used for the educational costs that benefit Federal elections, as those funds are restricted to improving the administration of Federal elections funds subject to the requirements of Section 251(b). The State should carefully consider the prudence of funding an ongoing expense such as printing and distribution charges with a one-time funding source like these HAVA funds. These costs will inevitably be assumed by the State or local government upon the exhaustion of Federal funds.
Office furniture would generally be considered an allowable cost as long as such cost is not covered by the maintenance of effort requirements imposed by Section 254(a)(7). The purchase of office furniture is only allowable if it can be demonstrated that the furniture would improve the administration of Federal elections. As such, those costs could only be allocated to the funding programs under Sections 101 and 251(b). Factors such as allocability and cost reasonableness must still be considered. For example if the office furniture will not be used exclusively for the purpose of improving the administration of Federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of Federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant. Furthermore, the cost for the furniture must be reasonable as compared to what the election jurisdiction is getting.
The January 1, 2007 date referenced in Section 301(a)(3)(C) applies to when the funds are provided, not when the equipment is purchased. If a jurisdiction already meets the accessibility requirements under Section 301(a)(3) and they wish to purchase additional voting systems, the State would not be required to procure additional voting equipment that is accessible to persons with disabilities. Nevertheless, the equipment procured with those funds must meet all other HAVA Section 301 requirements. If States receive additional HAVA funding from the EAC after January 1, 2007 and wish to use that funding to purchase new voting systems, then all equipment purchased with the new funding must meet the requirements of Section 301(a)(3). If mixed funding sources are used in future voting system procurements, States will have to separately account for restricted and unrestricted money separately if the State wishes to purchase non-accessible equipment.
Generally, upgrading wiring is an allowable cost for this purpose. Upgrading wiring is justified if it improves the administration of Federal elections. It can be paid for using Section 101 funds or Section 251 funds up to the minimum payment identified in Section 252. However allocability and cost reasonableness must still be considered. For example, if the internet wiring will not be used exclusively for the purpose of improving the administration of Federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of Federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant.
Yes. Maintenance of a statewide voter registration system can be paid for from Section 251 funds or Section 101 funds. However, cost reasonableness must still be considered. The State should carefully consider the prudence of funding an ongoing expense such as printing and distribution charges with a one-time funding source like these HAVA funds. These costs will inevitably be assumed by the State or local government upon the exhaustion of Federal funds.
The EAC has concluded that (for the purposes of requirements payments) any pre-award cost "incurred pursuant to negotiation and in anticipation of grant award", as required by 17 OMB Circular A-87, Pre Award Costs, is reimbursable if the cost was included in a (later) approved HAVA State plan and it was incurred after Congress appropriated HAVA requirements payment funding on February 20, 2003. In order to be properly attributed as a pre-award grant cost, a cost must have been necessary to incur in order to meet the scheduled requirements of the grant. HAVA Title III requirements include a mandate for the creation of a Statewide Voter Registration Database (42 U.S.C. §15483(a)) on or before January 1, 2004 (42 U.S.C. §15483(d)) or apply for a waiver (for good cause shown) to extend the deadline to January 1, 2006. The EAC has concluded that it is reasonable for a State to conclude that pre-award expenditures on Statewide Voter Registration Databases were necessary in order to meet HAVA timelines. Pre-award costs expended to procure a voter registration database that will meet HAVA requirements fits the use limitation. The cost must not have been allocated to meet the States maintenance of effort requirement or 5 percent matching fund requirement. In order to properly allocate a pre-award cost to a grant, the recipient must get written approval from the awarding agency, the EAC.
Voting machine purchases made prior to the passage of HAVA and after January 1, 2001 are reimbursable under Sections 102 and 251. In addition, Section 251(c)(1) of HAVA permits reimbursement of voting machine purchases made after the Federal general election in November 2000. If Section 102 funds are used to reimburse expenses incurred to purchase voting systems those purchases (1) must have been made after January 1, 2001; (2) must have been made to replace punch card or lever voting systems used on or before the deadline for submitting certifications established in Section 102; and (3) must have been used to purchase voting systems that comply with Section 301(a) of HAVA. In addition, the amount of reimbursement per precinct cannot exceed the pro rata amount distributed by GSA. If Section 251 funds are used as reimbursement for HAVA compliant voting machine purchases made on a multi-year contract, then pursuant to Section 253(a)(5) the amount of the State's matching funds must be increased in an amount equal to the amount of the reimbursement. If Section 251 funds are used as reimbursement for voting machine purchases made on other than a multi-year contract, the provision requiring an increased matching funds does not apply.
Yes. The funds can only be used to reimburse the purchase of voting systems that meet the requirements of Section 301(a) of HAVA; purchase must have occurred after the November 2000 election; and if the money is used to reimburse a purchase of voting equipment on a multi-year contract, then the State must increase its maintenance of effort expenditure by the amount of the payment and additional matching funds are required under Section 253(b)(5).
Section 251(c) of HAVA contemplates using Title II funds for the purpose of reimbursing States for expenses associated with voting equipment that meets the requirements of HAVA purchased prior to the availability of funds under HAVA. This concept of reimbursement applies to the county or other local government unit that purchases voting equipment in lieu of such purchases on a State level. HAVA funds may reimburse and replace county funds that were obligated after October 29, 2002, (or obligated prior to January 1, 2001 under a multi-year contract) in advance of the receipt of Federal funds. Thus, if the county has already earned those reimbursement payments, it can reappropriate the funds to uses it deems proper, subject to any conditions established by the State in granting funds to counties.
Either Section 101 or Section 251(b) funds can be used for expenses related to maintenance of voting systems. Under Section 251(b), a State is limited to the amount that it would have been entitled to as a minimum payment until the State meets the requirements of Title III.
Generally, a State or county can rent or lease out its voting systems. Common Rule, 41 C.F.R. § 105-71.32 Equipment, prohibits a grantee from using a piece of equipment purchased using grant funds to compete unfairly with the private sector. If a State rents or leases its voting machines out it must do so in a way that does not thwart competition with the private sector. The price paid by the lessee must be a competitive price. Equipment is defined by the common rule as "tangible, non-expendable, personal property having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per unit. A grantee may use its own definition of equipment provided that such definition would at least include all equipment defined above." If the voting systems meet the definition of "equipment" either under the Common Rule or State laws, rules or regulations, the restriction must apply. Income from leasing voting equipment to other jurisdictions would be considered program income, see OMB Circular A-102, Common Rule, 41 C.F.R. § 105-71.125 Program Income. The only appropriate treatment of income classified as program income during the grant period is for the county to dedicate the income to uses permitted under HAVA Section 251. Section 251 allows the use of HAVA funds to implement the requirements of Title III; once those requirements are met, to improve the administration of elections for Federal office. After the expiration of the grant period, the income generated by the lease of voting systems may be used by the county as it chooses.
No. The voting equipment provisions of HAVA apply only to elections for Federal office. However, there may be State laws, rules or regulations that require the use of accessible voting systems in State and/or local elections.
States and its counties may use funds distributed under Section 101 or Section 251 to purchase voting equipment used to conduct absentee voting as long as that equipment meets the requirements of Section 301(a) of HAVA. The definition of voting system in Section 301(b) of HAVA includes equipment used to administer absentee voting. As such, no pre-approval from the EAC is required prior to purchase. However, cost reasonableness must still be considered in selecting the equipment. The cost must be reasonably related to the value of the equipment purchased.
Yes. States and its counties may use funds distributed under Section 101 or Section 251 to purchase additional accessible voting equipment as long as that equipment meets the requirements of Section 301(a) of HAVA.
The answer depends on whether the purchase of VVPAT is part of the purchase of a compliant voting system (under Section 301(a)) or if it is purchased as a retrofit for a compliant voting system. If it is a component of a voting system that is being purchased, then Section 251 funds can be used to the same extent that they are available to meet the requirements of Title III. However, if the VVPAT is purchased as a retrofit, then 251 funds can be used ONLY to the extent that they can be used to improve the administration of Federal elections (see 251(b)(2)), as VVPAT is not a required component of voting systems under section 301(a) and would serve only to improve the administration of elections. Also, Section 101 funds can be used. Section 102 funds would not be appropriate for a retrofit VVPAT because VVPAT is not a requirement of Section 301.
Generally, making polling places accessible is an allowable cost. However, this expense is not directly related to meeting any of the Title III requirements. As such, this cost can be allocated only to funding programs under Section 101 or Section 251(b).
No. HAVA provides only for reimbursement of expenses related to voting system purchases. There is no provision for the reimbursement of expenses incurred to improve access to polling places.
Generally, making modifications to a warehouse to store voting equipment is an allowable cost. However, this expense is not directly related to meeting any of the Title III requirements. Only Section 101 funds or Section 251(b) funds may be used for this expense. However allocability and cost reasonableness must still be considered. For example, if the warehouse modification will not be used exclusively for the purpose of improving the administration of Federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of Federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant. Similarly, it may be more reasonable to select a different warehouse rather then retrofit the current structure.
Generally, purchasing a warehouse to store voting equipment is an allowable cost. This expense is not directly related to meeting any of the Title III requirements. Thus, only Section 101 or Section 251(b) funds may be used. Factors such as allocability and cost reasonableness must still be considered in determining the appropriateness of the expense. For example, if the warehouse will not be used exclusively for the purpose of improving the administration of Federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of Federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant. Similarly, it may be more reasonable to rent a warehouse rather then purchase one.
No. Section 102 of HAVA grants payments to States for the purpose of replacing punch card and lever voting systems not for the storage or warehousing of such equipment.
Generally, renting a warehouse to store voting equipment is considered to be an allowable cost. This expense is not directly related to meeting any of the Title III requirements. Thus, only Section 101 or Section 251(b) funds may be used. Factors such as allocability and cost reasonableness must still be considered in order to determine the appropriateness of this type of expense. If the warehouse will not be used exclusively for the purpose of improving the administration of Federal elections (e.g., rental space would be used to house equipment other than voting systems that would be used in Federal elections), only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of Federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant. Rental costs of buildings and equipment are covered by OMB Circular A-87.
Rental costs under leases which are required to be treated as capital leases under Generally Accepted 13 Accounting Principles (GAAP) are allowable only up to the amount that would be allowed had the State or local government purchased the property on the date the lease agreement was executed. The provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement 13, Accounting for Leases, determine whether a lease is a capital lease. The determination is based on factors such as if the lease transfers ownership of the property to the lessee by the end of the lease term; contains a bargain purchase option; the lease term is equal to 75 percent or more of the estimated economic life of the leased property unless the lease term falls within the last 25 percent of the total estimated economic life of the leased property; or the present value at the beginning of the lease term of the minimum lease payments excluding executory costs such as insurance, maintenance, and taxes to be paid by the lessor, including any profit, equals or exceeds 90 percent of the excess of the fair value of the leased property to the lessor at the inception of the lease.
Generally, HAVA funds may be used to attend an election industry association conference to see available voting equipment if such funds were not a part of the State's maintenance of effort requirement. HAVA funds may not be used to pay dues to the association. Because this expense is not directly related to meeting any of the Title III requirements, only Section 101 or Section 251(b) funds may be used.
No. Pursuant to the language of HAVA, the funds must be expended to educate "voters" or groups of people who meet State voting requirements. As coloring books are traditionally geared towards the young (who are not eligible to vote), this use of Section 101 funds appears not to meet the fund's educational use requirements
No. In order to fit within the allowable expense of voter education, the item procured must provide information on voting procedures, rights or technology. Items intended to "get out the vote" or merely encourage voting do not meet this requirement. Items that are not fundamentally educational may be considered advertising or public relations costs prohibited by OMB Circular A-87 Advertising and public relations costs.
Generally, HAVA funds may be used to purchase food consumed during training. The provision of food is covered by OMB Circular A-87 Meetings and conferences. Meals associated with meetings and conferences are allowable. However, meals that are used for entertainment purposes and alcohol are not allowable.
No. In order to fit within the allowable expense of voter education, the item procured must provide information on voting procedures, rights or technology. Items intended to "get out the vote" or merely encourage voting do not meet this requirement. Items that are not fundamentally educational may be considered advertising or public relations costs prohibited by OMB Circular A-87, Advertising and public relations costs.
According to the plain language of HAVA in Sections 101(b)(2) and 251(f), funds distributed under Sections 101 and 251 cannot be used to pay for costs associated with litigation unless the exceptions in Sections 101(b)(2)(A) and 251(f)(1) apply, which permit legal expenses covering the implementation of HAVA (not a State provision that is more strict than the provisions of HAVA).
Yes. However, grantees generally seek advice from the agency that administers the grant on what constitutes an allowable cost. A State may be able to obtain the information that it needs without the necessity of a legal opinion by consulting with other State departments that are administering Federal grant programs at the State level. Grantees are encouraged to request the assistance of the EAC in determining the permissibility of certain costs rather than expending HAVA funds to make this determination. OMB Circular A-87, Defense and prosecution of criminal and civil proceedings, and claims, allows for legal expenses required in the administration of a Federal program.
No. The provisions of Executive Order 11246 apply to contractors and subcontractors with the Federal government. The funds provided by EAC under HAVA do not meet the definition of a contract as stated in the Federal Acquisition Regulations, Part 2.101, and as defined by the Government Accountability Office in Principles of Federal Appropriations Law.
The funds should be included in the audit of the fiscal year in which the funds were expended, which is the fiscal year in which the funds were received from the Federal government and then appropriated to use by the State or county. So, if the funds were received in FY05 (October 1, 2004 – September 30, 2005) and appropriated in FY05 by the 19 State or county as reimbursement for expenses made in a previous fiscal year by the State or county, then the funds should be covered by the FY05 audit.
EAC has established the grant period for HAVA Title II funds as the period beginning on the date of disbursement of funds to the State and ending when the State and/or a political subdivision of the State expends all of the funds distributed by EAC to the State, all matching funds, and all interest earned on either the Federal funds or State matching funds.
Each grant or 251 requirements payment appropriated by the US Congress and distributed by EAC to a state (whether whole or in increments) begins a grant period when distributed (awarded) to the state. Any incremental distribution of a 251 appropriated requirements payment will be considered part of the related whole 251 requirements grant. Each grant or 251 requirements payment grant ends when all the funds distributed to the state for that payment have been expended and such final expenses reported within the annual Federal Financial Report (SF 425 - formerly the Financial Status Report SF 269).
The record keeping requirement begins with expenditures under each grant or each appropriated 251 requirements payment. The grant record retention period for each grant or 251 requirements payment starts on the day the grantee submits its FFR expenditure report as defined in FAQ 39 above which includes the final expenditures under that grant or 251 requirements payment.
The length of the retention period:
(1) Except as otherwise provided, records must be retained for three years from the record retention starting date specified in the paragraph above.
(2) If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit or other action involving the records has been started before the expiration of the 3-year period, the records must be retained until completion of the action and resolution of all issues which arise from it, or until the end of the regular 3-year period, whichever is later.
The following CFDA numbers have already been assigned to HAVA funding programs: (The Secretary of State's office should be able to tell you which HAVA funds were provided to a county.)
39.011 - Title I, Sections 101 and 102 - "early money" election reform payments made to States (distributed by the General Services Administration in 2003);
93.617 - Title II, section 261 - grants to States for voting access for individuals with disabilities (aka EAID, distributed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 2003, 2004, and 2005);
93.618 - Title II, section 291 - grants to State protection and advocacy systems to promote voting access for individuals with disabilities (distributed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 2003, 2004, and 2005);
90.400 - Help America Vote College Program - grants to promote the participation of college students as nonpartisan poll workers (distributed by EAC before 9/30/04); and
90.401 – Sections 251- 258 - Requirements Payments to States – (distributed by the EAC in 2004 and 2005)
Yes. Consistent with Section 251(b) in order to use remaining Title II funds for the improvement of the administration of elections for Federal office, the State must submit a verification that all of the Title III requirements have been met (not just the voting system requirements) or certify prior to the time that all Title III requirements are met that the State will not use more than the minimum payment amount. This does not alleviate the responsibility that the State has to assure that its spending is in keeping with its State plan. Thus, if the proposed spending on improving election administration is not reflected in the State plan and represents a material change, the State plan must be changed prior to the change in spending.
No. The EAC will not be engaged in recouping funds from a local government that were misspent by a local government or which were overpaid to a local government under a sub-grant, the obligation is on the State. The EAC will recoup any funds misspent by a local government from the State government.
The Department of Justice is given enforcement authority over Title III of HAVA. Any claim, law suit, or request for remedies including penalties would be sought against the State for its failure or one of its county's failure to comply with HAVA, would be brought by the Department of Justice.
The EAC expects the State to repay a pro rata portion of the funds received by the State in compliance with the requirement of Section 102(d). That pro rata portion would be determined by multiplying the percentage of noncompliant precincts with the amount of funding originally received under Section 102.
The State must follow its own laws and procedures regarding the distribution of grant funds when issuing a sub-grant, but must also assure that the sub-grantee is aware of the limitations imposed by the Federal grant. A State must follow its own law as to whether a cost sharing agreement is required or some other form of grant agreement is needed. EAC suggests that there be some documentation that supports the transfer of these funds to the local governments, whether it be a certification by the governments that they will comply with the limitations or that the governments receive funds on a cost reimbursement basis after providing a request for the funds and proof that they were spent in accordance with the State and Federal restrictions. OMB Circular A-102, Common Rule, 41 C.F.R. § 105-71.137, Sub-grants, covers the requirements for States that issue sub-grants of Federal funds.
Federal campaign finance laws and regulations define these types of elections as Federal elections (see 11 C.F.R. § 100.2) and case law interpreting 42 U.S.C. Section 1973i relating to prohibited election offenses consider a presidential preference primary to be an election for federal office. While HAVA does not define an election for federal office, the statements of law regarding other election processes are instructive as to the meaning of the term for purposes of HAVA. State law may interplay. Some States have a definition of Federal election that excludes a presidential preference primary. While these statutes may be enacted for reasons related to the cost of an election, etc., they must be considered.
The Voting Section, U.S. Department of Justice (charged with enforcing the requirements of HAVA Title III), addressed this issue: HAVA does not contain a definition of the term "election for federal office." However, Section 3 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-1(1)&(2), defines "election" and "federal office" as those terms appear in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(1) & (3)). It is the Department's view that the requirements of Title III of HAVA were intended to apply in any general, special, primary, or runoff election for the office of President or Vice President, including presidential preference primaries, and any general, special, primary, or runoff election for the office of Senator or Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the Congress from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the four territories. The EAC has taken the same approach with regard to the Federal funding programs that the agency oversees (HAVA Title I "early money" and Title II requirements payments).
No. The plain language of Section 251(b)(2) of HAVA requires that the State have implemented the requirements of Title III prior to using more than what the State could have obtained as a minimum payment for activities to improve the administration of elections for Federal office. Thus, the Section 251 restrictions will not be lifted on a county-by-county basis.
No. Section 301(d) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) requires all States to comply on and after January 1, 2006 with the requirement that each voting system used in elections for Federal office must meet the HAVA Title III, Section 301, voting system standards. The EAC has no authority to extend or waive this statutory deadline. The U.S. Department of Justice, the agency authorized by HAVA to enforce Title III provisions, has made it clear that the agency plans to enforce this deadline. Only the enactment of Federal legislation providing for the extension or waiver of this deadline can change this requirement.
HAVA Section 102(a)(3)(B) permitted States, which had received Title I, Section 102 funds to replace punch card and lever machine voting systems, to file for a waiver of the original November 2, 2004 replacement deadline. Twenty-three of the thirty States that received such funds requested the waiver. The waiver gives these States until the first election for 24 Federal office held on or after January 1, 2006 to replace such systems without risk of losing these Federal funds. The first Federal election would normally be the 2006 primary election for Federal office, unless the State holds an earlier special election for Federal office to fill a vacancy.
According to HAVA Section 253(b)(5), the State match is 5 percent of the total amount to be spent (taking into account the Federal amount the State amount). The formula for determining the amount of State matching funds based on the Federal funds requested is:
(Federal Dollars/.95) = State Match
Deriving from that formula an equation that would allow us to figure the Federal dollars from the available State match:
Federal Dollars = 19 x State Match
No, a State may not use State matching funds to satisfy the requirement that it maintain its effort. Both maintenance of effort and matching funds requirements are considered cost sharing methods, ways by which Congress and thereby the Federal Government get States to share in the expense of funding a particular endeavor. Maintenance of effort requirements are considered different from matching fund requirements in that the intent, generally, is to assure that the Federal funding actually increases the amount of funding to a particular program or task.
While there is no legislative history on this particular issue, a plain reading of HAVA must result in an understanding that Congress included two separate and distinct cost sharing requirements, matching funds and maintenance of effort. Congress did not intend for one of these cost sharing methods to cancel the other. Rather, it is apparent that Congress intended that the state both contribute to the improvement of election systems through the 5 percent match requirement as well as the fact that the Federal and State funding would increase the funding to election administration efforts.
Ask a question about HAVA Section 251, 101, 102 Funds

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Due to unfavourable weather, the Pirongia Syndicate trip to Pirongia Mountain has been cancelled. There is no postponement date for the trip. Thank you to the parents who were willing to assist us on the trip.


text:
The Northerner
Twins embrace connection, competition
Kody Kahle
Christine Roush guards the ball during the women's game vs Kennesaw State on Saturday, Jan. 26, 2013. Christine plays on the NKU Women's Basketball team with her twin sister Courtney Roush.
Kyle Biggs, Contributing writer
Christine and Courtney Roush could rarely play one-on-one basketball against each other when they were growing up. The twins (Christine is older by nine minutes) would get too competitive, get mad and then fight.
The limited competition at home while growing up in Louisville didn't affect their development as basketball players though. Both Christine and Courtney are now Division I basketball players at Northern Kentucky University.
It is rare to see twins reach such high levels of competition together, though some recent examples on the national stage seem to show otherwise. Basketball fans may be familiar with Marcus and Markieff Morris, who played for University of Kansas two years ago, or Andrew and Aaron Harrison who have both committed to play for University of Kentucky next year.
Christine and Courtney may not receive the same type of national attention, but they are striving to make an impact regardless of fanfare.
Courtney Roush drives to the basket for a layup during the women's game vs Lipscomb on Saturday, Jan. 12, 2013. Courtney plays on the NKU Women's Basketball team with her twin sister Christine Roush.
Christine, a guard, has become a mainstay in the Norse lineup, averaging nearly 30 minutes and 7.5 points per game.
Courtney, a forward, hasn't seen as much playing time. She struggled with frustration resulting from the lack of minutes, and also from seeing Christine get involved early and often.
However, she was able to see past the initial frustration and commit to helping the team any way possible.
"I realized that I could still help the team out during practice," Courtney said. "I realized that if I put in my effort in practice, I could help the team and make everybody better."
While Courtney looks past her frustration and focuses on helping her teammates improve, Christine is not quick to discuss her own success. She would rather discuss what she needs to improve upon individually, focusing on some of the finer details of her game.
"My main goal from the preseason was to be able to start for the team. I reached that goal," she said. "My main focus is having better defense, being able to get stops for the team and converting those stops into points for the team."
Christine Roush drives down the lane for a layup during the women's game vs Kennesaw State on Saturday, Jan. 26, 2013. Christine plays on the NKU Women's Basketball team with her twin sister Courtney Roush.
While both focus on the things that make the team better as a whole, they do enjoy the times when they are on the court together. Whether it means they are up big or losing big, Christine and Courtney are happy to share the court.
Being twins does not necessarily change the way things play out on the court.
Head coach Dawn Plitzuweit believes that even when the twins are on the court together, they see each other no differently than their other teammates.
"I don't think it's something they think about," she said. "Though, they have a little extra awareness for where the other is going to be."
Though they "keep it professional" when on the court together, as Christine said, the twins still enjoy some advantages that result from being so close. Having played basketball together since they were 4-years-old, they appreciate the awareness that Plitzuweit mentioned.
"We both can read each other really well," Christine said. "I'm more of a guard and she is more of a post (player), so I know where she would want the ball."
The advantages don't stop on the court. Both enjoy that they always have someone to talk to, and even mentioned an academic advantage, though it ties back to a sense of sibling rivalry.
"We're so competitive in academics and sports that we try to beat each other in school work, like on tests," Courtney said.
The challenges of being student athletes can be stressful at times, they said, but they try to unwind like anybody else when they aren't on the court or in the classroom. They both map out their study schedules and homework so that they can be sure that they will have time to relax and watch their favorite TV shows each week.
Christine and Courtney embrace being twins for many other reasons as well. They enjoy what they call "twin moments."
Plitzuweit described these moments as a world that the twins inhabit on their own, being "fun and really giddy" in a way that others can't appreciate.
The twins take comfort in being able to understand each other just as well off the court.
Kody Kahle, Web Editor
Kody Kahle is a senior at NKU studying computer information technology. As the web editor for The Northerner and Norse Code Radio, he maintains, updates...
Subscribe to the Norseletter!
Check out our Magazine!
northernermedia
The independent student-run newspaper of Northern Kentucky University.
Former Vice President Joe Biden is named the Presi
Make sure to vote today if you haven't already.
It finally feels like fall 🍂 Bundle up and enjo
If you're on campus, make sure to pick up a copy
Meet Our Northerner Staff!  @Billy_kee
It's almost time to vote! Do you know who you're
Amy McGrath recently spoke at NKU and encouraged s
NKU begins their first Virtual Study Abroad Progra
SGA recently gathered to swear in new members and
NKU students go on to do great things! Former NKU
Mask up! This is how to properly wear and care for
IUPUI beats NKU MBB in first game of the weekend behind Burk's 27 points
Retired NKU professor's new sci-fi book hits shelves in February
NKU sociology professor Joan Ferrante creates book about the pandemic
SGA president Lauren Goodwin reflects on her time in the organization
Iconic Dough: NKU alum started cookie business during quarantine
What you missed at SGA: NKU TikTok, more
NKU plans to offer free COVID-19 vaccine on campus
NKU MBB and WBB will play remainder of the 2020-21 season without fans at games
Warrick knocks down winning shot in final seconds to lead NKU MBB to 70-68 win over Purdue Fort Wayne
NKU MBB improves to 2-1 in Horizon League; NKU WBB loses tough one to second-ranked Louisville
The Independent Student Newspaper of Northern Kentucky University.


text:
Jean-Marie Lemerle – francuski kierowca wyścigowy.

Kariera
Lemerle rozpoczął karierę w międzynarodowych wyścigach samochodowych w 1981 roku od startów w World Championship for Drivers and Makes, gdzie jednak nie zdobywał punktów. W późniejszych latach Francuz pojawiał się także w stawce 24-godzinnego wyścigu Le Mans oraz FIA World Endurance Championship.

Bibliografia
 Jean-Marie Lemerle

Francuscy kierowcy World Sportscar Championship
Francuscy kierowcy 24h Le Mans

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
The Federal Executive Council has approved a new National Language Policy making the various mother tongues compulsory medium of instruction from primary one to six.
Speaking to newsmen after the Federal Executive Council Meeting on Wednesday, the Minister of Education, Adamu Adamu, noted that the policy takes immediate effect.
According to him, the government is aware that its implementation will be difficult but it is necessary to promote the cultivation and use of all Nigerian languages.
Adamu said even though the policy has officially taken effect, it can only be fully implemented when government develops instructional materials and qualified teachers are available, adding that the mother tongue to be used in each school will be the dominant language spoken by the community where it is located.
Tagsfg
Traditional Rulers Intervene In Ekiti Assembly Tussle
VeChain (VET) $ 0.02339


text:
Colonization of Australia
Leave a Comment	/ Australia / By Sierra
Australia was first settled by Europeans 1,600 years ago. In fewer than 400 years, Australia has achieved great triumphs and become a world leader in economic, political, cultural, and more.
Australia's History since arrival in 1788
The arrival of the Europeans marked the beginning of Australian history. Almost 78 years ago, Captain James Cook and his crew landed on Australian shores in 1788. Today, Australia is one of the seven main territories of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The territory of Australia was claimed for its ore deposits. The British, who were traders, came to claim their part of Australia. They came in search of passes on the oceans to India and China. But it was a British Captain, Robert Pir Mullet, who united the parts of Australia into a colony called Queensland.
In 1901, there were 45,000 British residents in Australia. Many of them were employed in the colonies. One of the major colonies was New South Wales. This state of Australia was taken by the British through the Charter of a New South Wales. The British left something of themselves in the place of Australian history. They invented the helicopter, bridge over the sea and took the Kandarte people with them. There were also settlements in the Fernando Po River Valley.
The first British colony was established in New South Wales on January 26, a day that is now remembered as " patriot's day". From then onwards, the British colonies in Australia were marked by the double-digit counting day of each year.
Australia was always inhabited from the beginning of humanity. The first people living in Australia were the indigenous people called tribes. These people used to cultivate the land by digging ditches and cultivating. When European Spaniards came to Australia, they used to conquer the Indians and introduce them to Christianity.
Australia was a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations from the time of the inception of the British Empire up to the left of the British Empire in the year 1940. It was during this time that Australia fought several going conflicts with the United Kingdom.
Australia was one of the British colonies under the United Kingdom. When a woman independent woman pressed for women's rights, this country became one of the first and then the only country in the world to have a women's vote.
When Australia became a republic in 1901, this country was named the island republic of Australia.
Australia was one of the only two European countries (the other being Britain) to have a parliament. Prior to 1902, the House of Representatives had been dissolved, because it was considered that it was too difficult to assemble.
Australia's boundaries were drawn up by the Referendum of 1806, the vote which shaped the modern-day political map of Australia. The outcome of the Referendum was that the Northern Territory boundary lines were retained, while the rest of Australia was divided into six states. The two states that formed the mainland, Victoria, and Queensland, were joined to form the new Western Australia. The result was later ruled by Queen Elizabeth I of England as the first Queen of Australia.
In 1901, by the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, the New South Wales Highway Act came into force, although the High Court of Australia had already declared the Highway Act unconstitutional a year earlier. The famous mining engineer, James Annan, lived in Melbourne and drove on Melbourne roads. The first Australian Bank opened its doors in the city of Melbourne.
The city of Melbourne's planning history began in 1835 when a commission of three persons, namely Dr. Thomas Scott, Mr. Mohanivable Raja, and Mr. John Batman, rejected the original plan for the city's development, preferring instead the development of an urban city.
The Yammer dam was commissioned in 1885. After a 33-year maintenance and construction period, the dam was finally opened to the public in February 1886. The Yammer dam was Australia's first Hoover Dam.
Australia's first self-acting self-winding clock was commissioned by George Alexander Graham Bell, after he witnessed a watch self-acting by French watchmaker, Thresher.
In 1854, pastoralist John Adam produced a timepiece, the first of its kind in Australia. The timepiece was constructed using stepladders and undertaking article sweep measure, completed at Stockton on July 25, 1854, it was 70 inches long, 15 inches wide, and 8 inches high. The timekeeping device was the second mechanical clock in the world.
John Adams received the telegraph from London in 1851. It had success – after a hundred and ten years – and reports of the time were eagerly awaited at London. But the enthusiasm greatly died down a year later when it was reported that the telegraph line was already being sold.
The first self-acting clock was designed and patented by James A. Crowell, an American clockmaker.
Getting an auto insurance quote online.
The History of Ranching in Arizona
4 Advantages of Physical Therapy Schools
Becoming a great conversationalist
therapy school
2018 Bastin Drive, Philadelphia Philadelphia USA
Copyright © 2022 International Social Psychology | Credits
Powered by International Social Psychology


text:
Minerd.com Blog
National Reunion
Interconnectedness
Cousin Voices
In Lasting Memory
Johann Joerg 'George' Boßhaar
(1694-1730s) and
Mary Elizabeth Wennerich ( ? - ? )
Johan Joerg "George" Boßhaar -- also commonly spelled "Boeshaar" and "Böshaar" -- was born in 1694 in Zweibrücken in the Pfalz region of Germany, the son of Johannes "Jacob" and Anna Christina (Mauer) Boßhaar Sr. George was baptized in infancy on June 7, 1694, with three sponsors present including merchant Hanß Jörg Koch, Hornbach weaver Ulrich Maurer and Anna Weber, wife of Zweibrücken's town flour miller Hans Balth. Weber.
George was about age 16 when he migrated to the American colonies with his parents and siblings. After being detained for a number of months in New York City, they eventually settled in Kingston, Ulster County, NY.
He immediately sought citizenship and was naturalized on Sept. 8-9, 1715, with his name placed on the "Kingston Nats." lists. In 1718-1721, he paid a ₤2 tax in the town of Hurley.
Two books naming the Boeshaars. Left: Jones' Palatine Families of New York. Right: Marino's Pasour, paysour, Payseur, Paseur
On Aug. 7, 1716, at about the age of 22, he was united in wedlock with Mary Elizabeth Wennerich ( ? - ? ). She was the daughter of Balthazar and Elisabetha Wennerich, also spelled "Winnerich." The nuptials were held in the Old Dutch Reformed Church in Kingston.
The Boshaars initially lived in Kingston and produced eight children, among them Maria "Magdalena" (Boeshaar) Ulm, also spelled "Ullom" and "Woolham." The other seven offspring – all of them baptized in the Old Dutch Reformed Church – were Anna Margaretha Lang, Jacob Boshaar, Balthazar "Balthus" Boshaar, Matheus Boshaar, Georg Boshaar, Johannes Boshaar and Bernhardt Boeshaar. Another source lists an additional daughter, Elizabeth Boshaar.
At an undetermined time, the family pulled up stakes in Kingston and relocated southward into Pennsylvania. They identified their destination as Lancaster County and settled in the small farming village of New Holland, about 13 miles east of the county seat of Lancaster. They are believed to have been members of the New Holland Lutheran Church.
Lancaster, Pennsylvania to the south and southwest.
From History of Lancaster County, by I. Daniel Rupp, 1844
George passed away in Lancaster County sometime after March 8, 1734. While precise details seem to be lost, family scholar Thomas J. Marino has written that the death "probably" occurred in Leacock Township, with burial "probably" in the Bashore Cemetery on land owned by his son Balthazar.
Mary Elizabeth's fate is not known, other than she is known to have been alive in 1779.
An important book naming this family is The Palatine Families of New York, Vol. 1, by Henry Z. Jones Jr. (Camden, ME: Picton Press, third printing, 1995). In the volume, Jones gives credit to Frances C. Francis of Washington, DC for being "most kind in sharing her documented data on the Pa. and W. Va. Descendants of Jacob Böshaar."
Trinity Lutheran Church today in New Holland, PA
Copyright © 2018 Mark A. Miner


text:
ROBERT G. MARX, MD
DrMarxTeam@robertmarxmd.com
KNEE AND SHOULDER SURGERY
Get Back In The Game
Emma and Daniel Johnston
Pelham Manor, NY
2015 proved challenging for the Johnston kids. Emma, a distance-running high school sophomore was in full college recruiting while she raced with her spring track team and played midfielder on her town's high school travel soccer team. Until she tore her ACL. This was June. This would mean she would have surgery in July and miss virtually her entire junior year cross country, indoor and outdoor track seasons. We were devastated.
At the same time, her brother Daniel, an active 5th grade lacrosse and soccer player, began complaining of ankle pain. We assumed it was just a sprain. We were wrong. Daniel's MRI showed that one of his ankle joints was nearly completely fused. This would mean that he, too, would have surgery. We were heartbroken.
But how fortunate we were that HSS is just miles from our home. And how fortunate we were to find Drs. Marx and Blanco, who were experts in their respective fields of ACL reconstruction and Pediatric congenital orthopedics. But more than that, each showed a level of interest and concern with how our kids were coping with their impending surgeries, which were just a few weeks apart. Each surgeon took an interest in what our kids wanted to return to, and were encouraging, supportive and positive, while also being realistic. We are so thankful for Dr. Marx's quick return of emails with whatever questions I had, and his sense of humor in answering our daughter's questions about why she wouldn't bleed to death during the surgery. We are so thankful for Dr. Blanco's ability to make our son laugh, and for his visit with us in the recovery room where I witnessed the most amazing expression of caring that I had never seen before from any health care provider.
Now, nearly 9 months later, both Emma and Daniel have returned to the sports they love. Thank you, HSS, for getting them back in the game.
Back to All Stories
HIPAA Policy │
@drrmarx
© 2020, Robert G. Marx, MD


Mayor Carlo DeMaria Jr. and the Everett Health Department want you to get your flu shot. National Influenza Week will be observed Dec. 2-8. It is important to be vaccinated against the flu, especially throughout the holiday season and it is not too late to get protected. The Everett Health Department will hold flu clinics on Monday, Dec. 3, from noon to 7 p.m. and Thursday, Dec. 6, from noon to 7 p.m. These clinics will be held in the Health Department at City Hall, 484 Broadway Room 20. These clinics are open to all Everett residents ages 3 and up and are free of charge. No appointment is necessary. We require that you bring your Health Insurance and or/Medicare cards, as we are able to be reimbursed for administration of the vaccine. Please Remember to Wear a Short-Sleeve Shirt. Children under age 18 must be accompanied by a parent or guardian.
The seasonal vaccine this year includes protection against the seasonal and H1N1 vaccine strains. At this clinic we are offering a traditional flu shot as well as the high dose flu vaccine. The high dose flu vaccine is available for people age 65 or older.
For more information call the Flu Hotline at 617-394-2257 or if you are unable to make these times please call the Public Health Nurse at 617-394-2314 to schedule an appointment.


text:
Giuseppe Garibaldi (551) je italská lehká letadlová loď, která byla v letech 1985-2009 zároveň vlajkovou lodí Italského námořnictva (poté ji nahradila nová letadlová loď Cavour). Je pojmenována tradičním jménem italského vlastence Giuseppe Garibaldiho a je v pořadí již čtvrtou lodí tohoto jména. Uvažovalo se ještě o stavbě druhé lodi této třídy, pojmenované Giuseppe Mazzini, ta ale nakonec nebyla nikdy objednána.

Stavba

Diskuse o potřebě nové letadlové lodě se v Itálii vedla už od 70. let 20. století. Nakonec bylo rozhodnuto postavit lehkou letadlovou loď, která by byla kompromisem mezi požadavky námořnictva, odporem letectva a ekonomickou silou země. Loď byla objednána v roce 1978 a postavena v loděnici Italcantieri (nyní Fincantieri) v Monfalcone. Kýl byl založen v 26. března 1981, trup byl spuštěna na vodu v 4. června 1983 a do služby vstoupila 30. září 1985.

Jelikož mírová smlouva, uzavřená Itálií po prohrané druhé světové válce, zakazovala operace letounů s pevnými křídly z palub lodí, operovaly z paluby Giuseppe Garibaldi až do roku 1988 pouze vrtulníky. Zákaz byl zrušen až v roce 1989 a poté z lodi operovaly kolmostartující námořní bitevní letouny McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II, čímž výrazně zvýšily její bojovou hodnotu.

Konstrukce

Giuseppe Garibaldi byla projektována především pro protiponorkové operace. Koncepce lodi je klasická s velitelským ostrovem na pravoboku. Přímá, průběžná letová paluba, která má rozměry 174 m × 30 m, je v ose lodi. Na přídi lodi se navíc nachází skokanský můstek s úhlem 6°, který usnadňuje start letounů V/STOL. Podpalubní hangár má rozměry 110 m × 15,6 m, výšku 6,3 m a přístup z paluby je do něj pomocí dvou šestiúhelníkových výtahů. Do hangáru se vejde jedenáct těžkých vrtulníků či jeden vrtulník a deset letounů Harrier. Giuseppe Garibaldi může nést maximálně šestnáct letounů AV-8B Harrier II, nebo osmnáct helikoptér Agusta, což jsou licenční vrtulníky firmy Bell, přičemž jsou možné i různé kombinace. Letecký provoz na moři usnadňují dva páry křídlových stabilizátorů náklonu.

Loď je vyzbrojena dvěma trojhlavňovými 324mm protiponorkovými torpédomety ILAS. Protiletadlovou obranu zajišťují dvě osminásobná odpalovací zařízení Mk 29 pro protiletadlové řízené střely Selenia Aspide s doletem 19 km. Zásoba střel činí 48 kusů. Další protiletadlovou výzbroj tvoří tří italské 40mm hlavňové systémy blízké obrany DARDO. Loď je rovněž vybavena protitorpédovým systémem AN/SLQ-25 Nixie.

Pohonný systém je koncepce COGAG. Tvoří ho čtyři plynové turbíny General Electric LM2500, které roztáčejí dvojici pětilopatkových lodních šroubů. Nejvyšší rychlost je 29,5 uzlu. Dosah činí 7 000 námořních mil při 20 uzlech.

Odkazy

Reference

Literatura

Související články

 Seznam italských letadlových lodí

Externí odkazy

Giuseppe Garibaldi (551)
Plavidla nazvaná po osobách
Lodě objednané 1978
Lodě zahájené 1981
Lodě spuštěné 1983
Lodě přijaté 1985


My experience finding my dream wedding gown! Was it easy?
Today it´s a bit chilly but I still want to wear shorts! So I decided to wear this hi-low top with long sleeves. Hi-low styles are gaining a lot of popularity and I couldn´t resist to get one. I actually got this same one in beig too.
Such a feminine look… love everything about this!


Welcome to Saint John - NOW!. This site features all that is happening right now in Saint John, New Brunswick Canada. Say goodbye to dead links and out-of-date information. I am offering you up-to-the-minute information on the Loyalist City. Absolutely free.
My name is Krista Carlson and I have lived here in Saint John all my life. I love Saint John and this site is about sharing that love affair with you. Whether you want to know the best restaurants to dine in, the best places to shop, the best watering holes in the city, or where to lay your weary head after discovering Saint John, I am here to help!
Saint John has lots to offer - for the young to the young at heart, we have it all. Drop me a line at any time krista@sjnow.com - I would be more than happy to answer any questions you have about our city. Here are some questions and answers that I have answered for folks just like you!
There is lots to see and do in our city! Why not check out Things to See and Do in Saint John ... Anytime!, put together by yours truly (with the help of many brochures and booklets from our department of tourism. Thanks gang!) This is a list of things that you will want to check out while you are visiting Saint John.
The best places to stay while you are in Saint John are, without a doubt, in one of our fine bed and breakfasts. The following are second to none in the atmosphere, friendliness and comfort they offer.
Mahogany Manor - in the heart of the city; gregarious hosts in a home "fit for the Sultan of Brunei"
Moore's Specialities - a beautiful farmhouse, located on the outskirts of the city. Stay overnight and enjoy homestyle comfort!
Be sure to tell them Krista sent you!
If you are a Saint John businessperson and you don't have a webpage to attract the visitors who will want to know about you, why not contact me today? Taken by Storme can put you on the web today for a lot less than you would ever imagine.
There are many other great sites dedicated to the city of Saint John. I invite you to visit my links page on the condition that first, you do CONTROL-D and bookmark me. I hope you come back to visit me and Saint John often. In the words of former mayor, Elsie Wayne, Saint John is " the greatest little city in the East".


We were facing a challenge with my 5 year old. We knew he was ready to ride a bike, but he just couldn't get the confidence to go to two wheels. Strider Balance Bikes was kind enough to send us one of their bikes to preview and BAM! confidence followed quickly behind!
Since we were blessed with so many wonderful sunshine days in February, my son had many opportunities to test it out. Sure enough, it only took about two weeks for the balance concept to click and he was ready for two wheels!
The cheers, the smiles, the confidence when he realized he COULD ride two wheels was awesome! He was so thrilled that he could ride himself on our family bike rides.
This was our first experience with the Strider ® No-Pedal Balance Bike and I have no doubt that he would still be on training wheels if we hadn't switched to the Strider bike first. The Strider ® No-Pedal Balance Bike is the perfect tool for learning to ride, teaching balance, and instilling riding skills in children!
I'm thrilled that Pittsburgh is included in the list of cities who will be hosting a 2017 Strider Cup! What better way is there for children to show off their Strider bike skills than to participate in the 2017 Strider Cup? The Strider Cup is a national Strider Bike racing series that will give toddlers and children the opportunity to put their Strider Balance Bike skills to the test at three stops across the country this spring and summer, as well as the final worldwide event next July, the Strider Cup World Championship event.
This family-friendly event will be coming to Pittsburgh, PA on Saturday, May 27th at Southside Works. The unique Strider Cup race series caters directly to children between 2 and 5 years old who want to show off their riding skills and compete in a friendly atmosphere against other Strider riders. Children of all sizes and skill levels are welcome to participate. Strider No-Pedal Balance Bikes are developed for both learning the ropes of riding and honing advanced skills in racing.
There will be races for 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year olds at each event. The registration fee is only $25 and is currently open. Racers will receive a Strider goodie bag valued at more than $50 with their registration, including a Strider Jersey, Number Plate + more! Visit https://www.striderbikes.com/events for further information.
For the second year in a row, Strider will also host races for athletes with special needs at each of the events. These athletes will race the 12" balance bike models, as well as Strider's new, larger 16" and 20" balance bikes, which the company launched in 2014 specifically for the special needs community.
Participating in any of the Strider Cup events automatically qualifies the rider for the Strider Cup World Championship. Please visit Strider's website http://www.striderbikes.com/events for more information.
Thanks, Strider Bikes, for the awesome balance bikes you create in helping kids safely + confidently transition to two wheels. The Strider Cup looks like a fun event - can't wait to check it out!


text:
Валентин Павлович Стрельников — советский хозяйственный, государственный и политический деятель.

Биография
Родился в 1929 году в семье железнодорожника. Член КПСС.

С 1950 года — на хозяйственной, общественной и политической работе. В 1950—2000 гг. — техник-механик по паровозостроению, помощник мастера, мастер, начальник пролёта в паровозостроительном и паровозомеханическом цехах, старший мастер, замначальника уже тепловозомеханического цеха, начальник рамно-кузовного цеха, секретарь парткома, директор завода, генеральный директор производственного объединения «Коломенский тепловозостроительный завод им. В. В. Куйбышева», генеральный директор научно-производственного объединения «Коломнатепловозпуть», директор ВНИТИ.

За создание и внедрение в народное хозяйство мощностного ряда унифицированных экономичных дизелей типа Д-49 в составе коллектива был удостоен Государственной премии СССР в области науки и техники 1989 года.

Четырежды избирался депутатом Московского областного совета депутатов трудящихся. Избирался депутатом Верховного Совета РСФСР 9-го и 10-го созывов.

Умер в 2000 году.

Ссылки
 Стрельников
 Стрельников

Директора промышленных предприятий
Депутаты Верховного Совета РСФСР 9-го созыва
Депутаты Верховного Совета РСФСР 10-го созыва
Персоналии:Коломенский тепловозостроительный завод
Депутаты Московского областного совета
Делегаты XXVI съезда КПСС


No matter what your personality is, whether you like to procrastinate or you prefer to get your tasks done right away, everyone could use a little help being a little more productive. As Orange County IT Support providers, we see how many things distract employees throughout the day. Phone notifications, emails, or even someone in the office who wants to chat can all derail a productive work session.
What are some things you can do to help you stay on task and get more done in less time?
When you are ready to put your head down and knock out a ton of work, it can be helpful to wear some headphones. Some people can be distracted by music, and others use music to help them concentrate. Even if you are one who gets distracted by music, you can still use headphones to help with your productivity. Noise canceling headphones can be especially helpful to drown out the office noise and even your phone notifications even if the headphones aren't actually plugged into anything. Also, when you are wearing headphones, your co-workers won't try to bother you as much since they can see that you are busy trying to work.
Even if you don't typically have a lot of appointments during the day, setting a schedule or routine for yourself can really help you focus on each aspect of your job. When you allow yourself 30 minutes in the morning and afternoon to check on email and respond to messages, and then work on other specific tasks in a specific order, it eliminates the temptation to be distracted by your various to-do items. You could waste your entire day responding to and dealing with all of the email messages that come into your inbox throughout the day. Giving yourself set amounts of time to work on tasks that have potential to send you down a rabbit hole is a great way to make sure you are able to get the rest of your tasks done too.
That bright shiny notification light on your phone, or the small popup on your computer screen about a new email message is extremely hard to resist throughout the day. Each time you are distracted from your current task by a notification it takes at least a few minutes for you to refocus. Multiply that by the number of times you receive notifications throughout the day, and you have a really large chunk of the day spent on trying to refocus after a notification distraction. Turn over your phone so you are unable to see the notification light. Turn off notifications so they don't ping your smartwatch. Don't allow notifications to pop up on your computer screen from your email program or your browser. Not being able to see the notifications is half the battle. If something is really important, they will call.
The technology available to us these days can really help make everyone more efficient. Using automations to improve your productivity can give you a significant boost, and really help you get more done. Some tasks you have to perform can be extremely repetitive. If you find yourself doing the same things over and over again, you can try to make the process more automatic. Look for ways to make your job easier with the technology available to you.
Since everyone can use a little productivity help, try to pick one of these options and try it out for yourself. We would love to hear how much productivity YOU gain!


text:
Marist College is a private liberal arts college on the east bank of the Hudson River in Poughkeepsie, New York. The site was established in 1905 by the Marist Brothers, and the college was chartered in 1929. The college offers over 60 bachelors and masters degree programs and 20 certificates across the traditional undergraduate, graduate, adult education, and distance learning environments including online.
Approximately 4,500 undergraduate students attend the Poughkeepsie campus (41°43′22″N 73°56′0″W / 41.72278°N 73.933333°W / 41.72278; -73.933333). Marist College study sites also exist in 26 countries abroad including Egypt, China, England, Italy, and Australia. In 2006, Marist opened a branch campus in Florence, Italy, by partnering with the Lorenzo de' Medici School. In 2009, the school was bequeathed an estate with an estimated value of $65 million in Esopus, New York, which will be used as a leadership institute.
In 1969, ownership of the College was transferred from the Marist Brothers to the Marist College Educational Corporation with an independent, predominantly lay board of trustees.
Although Marist is no longer religiously affiliated, religion continues as a field of study and a part of many students' and administrators' lives; as does the continued presence of several Marist Brothers who reside and work on campus. The College maintains a chapel on campus, Our Lady Seat of Wisdom, to offer services for an array of faiths.
Read more about Marist College: Campus, MIPO and CCODC, Local Involvement, Accreditations, Student Organizations and Events, Athletics, Notable Alumni
Famous quotes containing the word college:
"I had a classmate who fitted for college by the lamps of a lighthouse, which was more light, we think, than the University afforded."
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
Terms related to marist college:
Marist College Eastwood
Fulton Townhouses
Library Moved
Marcellin College Randwick
River Valley REP
Iognaid
Marcellin