text:
1. A noncompetition covenant ancillary to an employment contract is valid and enforceable if the restraint is reasonable under the circumstances and not adverse to the public welfare. The rationale for enforcing a noncompetition covenant is based on the freedom of contract. However, it is well settled that only a legitimate business interest may be protected by a noncompetition covenant. If the sole purpose is to avoid ordinary competition, it is unreasonable and unenforceable. Additionally, noncompetition covenants included in employment contracts are strictly construed against the employer.
2. The analysis of whether a noncompetition clause is reasonable evaluates the following factors: (1) Does the covenant protect a legitimate business interest of the employer? (2) Does the covenant create an undue burden on the employee? (3) Is the covenant injurious to the public welfare? (4) Are the time and territorial limitations contained in the covenant reasonable? The determination of reasonableness is made on the particular facts and circumstances of each case.
3. An American Medical Association ethics opinion stating that restrictive covenants are unethical if they are excessive in scope and duration or if they fail to make reasonable accommodation of patients' choice of physician does not impose different requirements than Kansas common law which requires restrictive covenants be reasonable and not adverse to public welfare.
4. A medical employer has a legitimate business interest in referral sources and referral patterns, which warrants protection by a noncompetition agreement.
5. It is the duty of courts to sustain the legality of contracts in whole or in part when fairly entered into, if reasonably possible to do so, rather than to seek loopholes and technical legal grounds for defeating their intended purpose. Although restrictive provisions in contracts of employment must be reasonable and not such as to contravene the public welfare, the paramount public policy is that freedom to contract is not to be interfered with lightly.
6. It is not necessary that all restrictive covenants in the employment contracts of physicians have liquidated damages provisions in order to be enforceable, and the lack of one does not make a restrictive covenant unenforceable.
7. Modification of a contract, like the creation of an original contract, requires a mutual assent or a meeting of the minds.
Appeal from Sedgwick district court; DOUGLAS R. ROTH, judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. Opinion filed June 3, 2005.
Christopher A. McElgunn, of Klenda, Mitchell, Austerman & Zuercher, L.L.C., of Wichita, argued the cause, and Gary M. Austerman, of the same firm, was with him on the briefs for appellants/cross-appellees.
Gary L. Ayers, of Foulston Siefkin LLP, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Martha Aaron Ross, of the same firm, was with him on the briefs for appellee/cross-appellant.
The opinion was delivered by
LUCKERT, J.: The plaintiffs, Badr Idbeis, M.D., Gary S. Benton, M.D., Robert H. Fleming, M.D., and John D. Rumisek, M.D., are thoracic, cardiothoracic, and cardiovascular surgeons who filed this action seeking a restraining order and injunction prohibiting their employer, defendant Wichita Surgical Specialists, P.A. (WSS), from enforcing restrictive covenants contained in their employment agreements with WSS and seeking a declaration that those covenants are unenforceable.
Upon the filing of the petition, the trial court granted the plaintiffs a temporary restraining order (TRO). A hearing was conducted after WSS filed a motion to vacate that restraining order and requested its own TRO enforcing the restrictive covenants. The trial court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Drs. Benton, Fleming, and Rumisek and prohibited WSS from enforcing the restrictive covenants in their employment agreements. As to Dr. Idbeis, the court granted a temporary injunction in favor of WSS, requiring Dr. Idbeis to begin making payments of liquidated damages pursuant to the formula set forth in his employment agreement or to cease practicing medicine in Sedgwick County, Kansas, as required by the geographic restriction in his employment agreement.
Approximately 1 year later, after conducting discovery, the parties tried the case to the court after which the trial court verbally ruled that the restrictive covenants in the employment agreements of Drs. Benton, Fleming, and Rumisek were enforceable. However, the trial court granted these plaintiffs their alternative request that they be allowed the option of paying liquidated damages. As to Dr. Idbeis, the trial court ruled that the restrictive covenant in his employment agreement was enforceable and that he must pay a liquidated damage award or cease practicing medicine in Sedgwick County, Kansas.
WSS filed a timely motion to amend the district court's judgment pursuant to K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-252(b) asking the court to change the liquidated damages formula. The court entered an order amending the final judgment by changing the liquidated damages formula. Plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal, and WSS filed a timely notice of cross-appeal. This court granted a motion by WSS to transfer the case to this court pursuant to K.S.A. 20-3017.
Wichita Surgical Group, P.A. (WSG) was originally founded in 1969. WSG did not initially require restrictive covenants in its employment agreements. However, as it grew, WSG began requiring restrictive covenants for the purposes of improving the quality of the group, protecting the strength and viability of the group, and protecting the group's referral base.
The structure and ownership of WSG changed in 1994, resulting in the formation of WSS, a professional corporation organized and authorized to do business in Kansas. Although WSS formed a single entity for tax purposes, it organized five divisions each of which was managed by its own division council and through shareholder votes. This structure allowed each division to maintain a distinct existence and independently manage its own affairs, including employment decisions. WSS had a board of directors comprised of representatives of each of the divisions; those directors were members of their individual division councils.
The surgeons specializing in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery were members of the division known as the WSS division. The WSS division required restrictive covenants, although some other divisions did not. With some exceptions, if a surgeon from outside the Wichita area joined WSS, the employment agreement included a restrictive covenant with time and geographic restrictions. If a surgeon from an existing Wichita practice joined WSS, the employment agreement included a restrictive covenant with time and geographic restrictions but also a liquidated damages or "buyout" clause. If a surgeon brought a new specialty to WSS, no restrictive covenant was required. For new surgeons, WSS provided a guaranteed minimum salary for the first 2 years while the surgeons developed their referral base.
When Dr. Idbeis, who is board certified in general and thoracic surgery, joined WSG in December 1988, he signed an employment agreement which contained a covenant not to compete. In October 1994, he signed a new agreement with WSS. Because Dr. Idbeis had an existing practice in Wichita for 8 years before joining WSG, his employment agreement with WSS contained a 2-year geographic restrictive covenant and a liquidated damages provision:
"9. Restrictive Covenant. During the term of this Agreement and for a period of two (2) years after the termination of this Agreement for whatever reason, Doctor will not, without the prior consent of Employer, directly or indirectly engage in the practice of medicine and/or surgery, nor own, manage, operate, control, be employed by, invest in, participate in, advise, consult with, or be connected with the ownership, management, operation or control of any business engaged in the practice of medicine and/or surgery within 75 miles of the city of Wichita, Kansas.
"In the event that Doctor does engage in the practice of medicine in violation of this covenant, then Doctor shall pay to Employer, as liquidated damages, five annual payments in an amount equal to 20% of the total taxable compensation received by Doctor from Employer for the twelve month period immediately preceding the termination of Doctor's employment. Such annual payments will commence upon termination of this agreement and continue on each anniversary thereof until five annual payments have been made."
The other plaintiffs' contracts did not contain the liquidated damages provision and had different geographic limitations.
Dr. Rumisek was new to Wichita when he joined WSG, although he had extensive experience. He completed his general and vascular surgical residency training in 1979 and his cardiothoracic surgical residency training in 1983, after which he was awarded a fellowship in pediatric surgery at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania. Before coming to Wichita, Dr. Rumisek, who is board certified in general and thoracic surgery, served as Assistant Chief of Cardiothoracic Surgery Service at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C., and worked as an Associate Professor of Surgery at the University of Florida. He joined WSG in 1989 at which time he signed an employment agreement which was later assigned to WSS. The employment agreement stated, in part:
"9. Restrictive Covenant. During the term of this Agreement and for a period of two (2) years after the termination of this Agreement, Doctor will not, within Sedgwick County, Kansas, without the prior written consent of Employer, directly or indirectly, engage in the practice of medicine and surgery or own, manage, operate, control, be employed by, invest in, participate in, advise, consult with, or be connected with the ownership, management, operation, or control of any business engaged in the practice of medicine and surgery."
Both Drs. Benton and Fleming started their private practice experience with WSG. Dr. Benton completed his residency training in 1989 and additional training through a cardiothoracic fellowship from 1989 to 1992, during which time he obtained certification in general surgery. He joined WSG in 1992 and secured his board certification in thoracic surgery in 1993. His employment agreement contained the same covenant not compete as was included in Dr. Rumisek's agreement, restricting competition for a 2-year period with the geographic restriction covering Sedgwick County, Kansas.
Dr. Fleming joined WSG 2 years after Dr. Benton. He had completed his residency training in 1992 and had additional training through a cardiothoracic fellowship from 1992 to 1994. He secured his board certification in general surgery in 1993 and his board certification in thoracic surgery in 1995. Because WSS's market broadened geographically during the 2 years between when Drs. Benton and Fleming began their respective practices, the restrictive covenant in Dr. Fleming's employment agreement contained a slightly different 2-year geographic restriction which prohibited him from practicing within 75 miles of Wichita. In all other respects the covenant was the same as those of Drs. Rumisek and Benton.
By August 2000, the WSS division council began discussing whether the restrictive covenants in its physicians' employment contracts should be amended. Dr. Benton was appointed to a subcommittee to consider possible alternatives and recommend options to the shareholders.
In November 2000, the WSS division shareholders met and voted 14-2 against eliminating restrictive covenants altogether. All four plaintiffs in this case voted against eliminating restrictive covenants. The shareholders then voted 14-9 to approve a modification of the restrictive covenant. The minutes state: "[T]he restrictive covenants will be changed to provide financial restrictions after five years of geographic restrictions." The departing physician would pay 80 percent of the previous year's net income in payments made over a 4-year period. The intent was to allow each physician to choose whether to add this modification to his or her contract. However, there was conflicting testimony from the physicians about what they believed was supposed to happen next and whether they believed the modification was immediately available.
In January 2001, the WSS division council unanimously approved the modification to the restrictive covenants. The modification was sent to lawyers for legal review, and when it was returned, it contained material additions including an attorney fees provision that had not been reviewed by the shareholders.
In May and June 2001, the proposed modification was presented to the WSS division council and the WSS division shareholders. The shareholders were told that finalization of the amendment would proceed. The minutes of an October 2001 division council meeting stated that the amendment would soon be sent out to the physicians. The minutes never mentioned any plan to seek WSS board of directors approval. By the time plaintiffs left their employment with WSS, the amendment still had not been presented to the physicians.
During the fall of 2001, WSS faced another unrelated problem: revisions in federal legislation (the Stark law, 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn, and regulations) which would force the group to alter its structure and management. Dr. Ammar, the CEO, decided not to proceed with finalization of the restrictive covenant modification because of problems regarding restrictive covenants which would need to be addressed by all divisions as part of Stark compliance. The trial court also thought it likely Dr. Ammar knew that withholding finalization of the restrictive covenant modification would be a bargaining chip in negotiating the possible termination of the plaintiffs' employment. By that time, such termination was contemplated because most of the shareholders in the WSS division found unacceptable Dr. Idbeis' involvement with a proposed spine hospital.
In January 2002, the WSS division council, which is the governing body of the division, voted to notify Dr. Idbeis of this fact. A letter was sent to Dr. Idbeis giving him three options: withdraw from the spine hospital project, resign, or the division would vote on whether he should be terminated.
The WSS board of directors terminated Dr. Idbeis' employment; his last day was March 17, 2002. As a result of Dr. Idbeis' termination, Drs. Rumisek, Benton, and Fleming gave notice of termination of employment; their last day was March 22, 2002. The four doctors made plans to form their own cardiovascular surgery group in Wichita, called Mid-America Surgical Associates (MASA). By establishing MASA, the plaintiffs violated their restrictive covenants, but, through the filing of this suit, they questioned the enforceability of the covenants.
In making findings of fact specific to the question of whether the restrictive covenants were enforceable, the trial court found that both the physicians and WSS benefitted from the provisions. Addressing the benefit to WSS, the trial court found that WSG and WSS would not have enjoyed the same degree of success without at least a reasonable restrictive covenant. Addressing the benefit to physicians, in particular new surgeons, the trial court found that they benefitted from WSS's reputation and contacts with area doctors and hospitals, particularly WSS's close relationship with St. Francis Medical Center and its successor, Via Christi. The trial court also noted that a cardiovascular surgeon's business is almost totally dependent upon referrals from others, predominantly cardiologists, family practice doctors, and in some cases, the cardiovascular surgeon's employer. Because referral patterns are well established in the Wichita area, it is difficult for a cardiovascular surgeon to enter the Wichita market without joining an established group.
Focusing more specifically upon the plaintiffs, the trial court concluded that all four benefited from their employment with WSS, especially Drs. Rumisek, Benton, and Fleming, who were able to get a foothold in the Wichita market and build a foundation for referrals which would have been more difficult, if not impossible, had they opened their own practices in Wichita. However, the trial court determined that, while WSS initially enabled Drs. Rumisek, Benton, and Fleming to establish a referral base, over time, WSS's ability to influence referrals dwindled because of the surgeons use of what were referred to as the three A's: "ability, availability, and affability."
The trial court's conclusions of law were, in large part, framed by the considerations stated in Weber v. Tillman, 259 Kan. 457, 913 P.2d 84 (1996), in which the court upheld a restrictive covenant which prevented a dermatologist from practicing within a 30-mile radius from his former employer's office for a period of 2 years. The Weber court stated the following general principles:
"A noncompetition covenant ancillary to an employment contract is valid and enforceable if the restraint is reasonable under the circumstances and not adverse to the public welfare. [Citations omitted.] The rationale for enforcing a noncompetition covenant is based on the freedom of contract. [Citation omitted.] However, it is well settled that only a legitimate business interest may be protected by a noncompetition covenant. If the sole purpose is to avoid ordinary competition, it is unreasonable and unenforceable. [Citations omitted.] Additionally, noncompetition covenants included in employment contracts are strictly construed against the employer. [Citations omitted.]" 259 Kan. at 462.
The Weber court also set forth the following factors to be considered in analyzing whether a noncompetition clause is reasonable:
"(1) Does the covenant protect a legitimate business interest of the employer? (2) Does the covenant create an undue burden on the employee? (3) Is the covenant injurious to the public welfare? (4) Are the time and territorial limitations contained in the covenant reasonable? The determination of reasonableness is made on the particular facts and circumstances of each case." 259 Kan. at 464.
In applying the Weber factors, the trial court first considered the time and territorial limitations and found those limitations to be reasonable. This finding is not disputed on appeal.
The court also found that enforcement of the restrictive covenants would impose a burden on Drs. Rumisek, Benton, and Fleming, but not an undue burden. The court noted that forcing the doctors into the national cardiovascular job market, which has a glut, would impose a financial hardship on them. The court considered the remedy of modifying the restrictive covenant so that it would prohibit only the practice of cardiovascular surgery rather than the practice of medicine. However, the court concluded this was not a realistic remedy because the doctors "would lose their CV [cardiovascular] skills, and as a practical matter they would also struggle as non-CV surgeons." Even given these difficulties, the court found the restrictive covenants would not impose an undue burden on the plaintiffs. The court did not specifically mention Dr. Idbeis in making its findings about undue burden; however, it is clear that the court believed Dr. Idbeis was under less of a burden than the other plaintiffs since his employment contract gave him the option of paying liquidated damages and remaining in the Wichita area. Again, these findings are not specifically disputed by the parties.
However, the trial court's conclusions of law regarding the other factors are disputed.
Did the Trial Court Err in Ruling That the Restrictive Covenants
Are Not Unenforceable as a Result of the Incorporation of the
AMA's Declarations Regarding Restrictive Covenants Into the
Plaintiffs' Employment Agreements?
Before we reach the remaining factors of the Weber analysis, however, we must address the plaintiffs' argument that the Weber factors are displaced by the American Medical Association's (AMA) ethics guidelines, which the plaintiffs argue are incorporated into the contract between the parties.
All four doctors' employment agreements contained the following provision regarding professional standards:
"3. Professional Standards. Doctor hereby promises to engage in the practice of medicine and surgery in Employer's behalf to the best of his or her ability and in accordance with the generally accepted community standards, and to faithfully adhere to the principles of medical ethics of the American Medical Association or other associations or boards concerned with the conduct in question." (Emphasis added.)
The AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs has published an opinion which states:
"Covenants-not-to-compete restrict competition, disrupt continuity of care, and potentially deprive the public of medical services. The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs discourages any agreement which restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine for a specified period of time or in a specified area upon termination of an employment, partnership or corporate agreement. Restrictive covenants are unethical if they are excessive in geographic scope and duration in the circumstances presented, or if they fail to make reasonable accommodation of patients' choice of physician." AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, Op. E-9.02 (1998).
The trial court ruled that, because all of the plaintiffs' employment agreements required them to faithfully adhere to the principles of medical ethics of the AMA, the AMA principles were made part of the employment agreements. Accordingly, the restrictive covenants in plaintiffs' employment agreements were required to make reasonable accommodation of the patients' choice of physician.
Both plaintiffs and defendant contend that the trial court erred in its consideration of the AMA provisions regarding restrictive covenants. Their arguments involve the interpretation of the plaintiffs' written employment agreements, which raises a question of law over which this court's review is unlimited. See Unrau v. Kidron Bethel Retirement Services, Inc., 271 Kan. 743, 763, 27 P.3d 1 (2001).
The plaintiffs ask us to reach the same conclusion as did the trial court and determine that their employment agreements with WSS incorporated the AMA's principles relating to restrictive covenants and that restrictive covenants violate those principles. However, the plaintiffs also contend that the trial court erred in failing to conclude that, as a result of the applicability of the AMA provisions, the restrictive covenants are unenforceable.
Defendant WSS contends that the trial court erred in ruling that the AMA provisions were incorporated into the plaintiffs' employment agreements, and in relying on the AMA provisions to require that the restrictive covenants make reasonable accommodation for the patients' choice of physician.
Both parties' arguments on this point fail. The AMA provisions do not state that all restrictive covenants are unethical; rather, such covenants are only unethical "if they are excessive in geographic scope and duration in the circumstances presented, or if they fail to make reasonable accommodation of patients' choice of physician." These requirements are really no different than the common-law requirement in Kansas that restrictive covenants be reasonable and not adverse to the public welfare. See Weber, 259 Kan. at 462; see also Community Hosp. Group v. More, 183 N.J. 36, 56, 869 A.2d 884 (2005) (AMA standards do not make restrictive covenants per se unethical but adopt a reasonableness standard similar to that applied by courts); Loeser, The Legal, Ethical, and Practical Implications of Noncompetition Clauses: What Physicians Should Know Before They Sign, 31 J.L. Med. & Ethics 283, 287 (2003) ("While noteworthy in its opposition to restrictive covenants, CEJA's position has limited legal impact, as the opinion merely parrots the reasonableness standard applied by most courts to noncompetition clauses generally.").
Thus, even if the plaintiffs' contracts did incorporate the AMA provisions, as urged by the plaintiffs and found by the trial court, the trial court was not required to automatically invalidate the restrictive covenants. Rather, the court was still required to review the restrictive covenants under the four-part Weber analysis. Consequently, the plaintiffs' argument that the trial court erred in failing to set aside the restrictive covenants altogether fails.
Defendant WSS's argument fails for the same reason, i.e., the AMA's statements about when a restrictive covenant is ethical are really no different than common-law reasonableness requirements. Kansas courts have noted that patient choice is an appropriate consideration in determining whether a restrictive covenant is injurious to the public welfare. See Weber, 259 Kan. at 470.
Additionally, in Graham v. Cirocco, 31 Kan. App. 2d 563, 69 P.3d 194, rev. denied 276 Kan. 968 (2003), the Court of Appeals held that a 150-mile noncompetition covenant restriction on solicitation was reasonable but a 25-mile limitation on office placement and the prohibition of practice in the entire Kansas City metropolitan area were unreasonable. The court concluded that the noncompetition covenant which prevented predatory behavior through the restriction on solicitation by the departing physician "while permitting patients and referring doctors to continue to exercise their own choices struck an acceptable balance among the interests of the two parties, the patients, and the referring doctors." 31 Kan. App. 2d at 569. Thus, the court recognized patient choice as one consideration.
Consequently, even if the trial court erred in ruling that the AMA provisions were incorporated into the employment agreements, the court did not err in considering patient choice. Thus, defendant WSS's argument to the contrary fails.
Did the Trial Court Err in Ruling That the Defendant Has
Legitimate Business Interests to Protect
Through the Enforcement of the Restrictive Covenants?
Returning to the Weber factors, plaintiffs next argue that the trial court erred in ruling that WSS has legitimate business interests to be protected through a restrictive covenant. WSS responds that it had a legitimate interest in its referral relationships and in maintaining its size, which allowed it to further its educational mission and introduce new specialties.
The parties agree that whether a restrictive covenant serves to protect an employer's legitimate interests is a question of law over which this court's review is unlimited. See Weber, 259 Kan. at 461-62.
First, the trial court found that the restrictive covenants in the plaintiffs' employment agreements protected a legitimate business interest of WSS by enabling it to attain and maintain a larger size or "critical mass," which allowed it to further its educational mission, introduce new specialties, and potentially negotiate favorable reimbursement rates from insurance carriers. Plaintiffs contend this interest is nothing more than a desire to prevent ordinary competition and point out that there is no authority in Kansas or anywhere else that maintaining the size of a business operation is a legitimate business interest which can be protected by a restrictive covenant.
Traditionally, courts have recognized that "a medical employer has a legitimate interest warranting protection by a noncompetition agreement if a departing physician was provided with (a) patient contacts, (b) training, or (c) confidential business information." Berg, Judicial Enforcement of Covenants Not to Compete Between Physicians: Protecting Doctors' Interests at Patients' Expense, 45 Rutgers L. Rev. 1, 15 (1992). In Weber, this court noted a variety of legitimate business interests which have been recognized by other courts: "customer contacts, . . . the special training of employees, trade secrets, confidential business information, loss of clients, good will, reputation, seeing that contracts with clients continue, and referral sources." 259 Kan. at 467. Weber also cited the Berg article for its review of noncompetition agreements between physicians.
None of these interests are related to the employer's size or the special contributions the employer might be able to make to its community because of its size, and WSS's argument that it has a legitimate interest in preserving its size is not persuasive.
The other business interest cited by the trial court as a legitimate interest for protection through a restrictive covenant was preservation of a referral base. Plaintiffs urge this court to conclude that WSS did not have a legitimate interest in referral sources.
Both sides cite cases from other jurisdictions which they claim are persuasive. For example, defendant WSS cites Medical Specialists, Inc. v. Sleweon, 652 N.E.2d 517 (Ind. App. 1995), a case upholding a restrictive covenant on the ground that the continued success of an infectious disease practice, which was dependent upon patient referrals from other doctors, was a legitimate interest worthy of protection.
We also note a recent decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court, which has decided many of the leading physician restrictive covenant cases, in which the court reaffirmed that legitimate business interests for a hospital to protect with a post-employment restrictive covenant with a doctor include: "(1) protecting confidential business information, including patient lists; (2) protecting patient and patient referral bases; and (3) protecting investment in the training of a physician." More, 183 N.J. at 58.
Plaintiffs cite several cases from other jurisdictions which refused to recognize referrals as a legitimate business interest to be protected by a restrictive covenant. See, e.g., Cardiovascular Surgical v. Mammana, 61 P.3d 210, 214 (Okla. 2002) (noting that referrals to cardiovascular surgeons are made based on reputation and not employment with a particular corporation, and "[o]ne surgeon has no legitimate business interest in another surgeon's referral base regardless of a past employer-employee relationship"); Hoddeson v. Conroe Ear, Etc. Assoc., 751 S.W.2d 289, 290 (Tex. App. 1988) ("referring physicians are governed by the skills and qualifications of the receiving physician, rather than his associations" and employer "did not impart trade secrets, specialized training or confidential information to [employee]").
These cases demonstrate only that courts are split on the issue of whether referral sources are a legitimate interest. In Kansas, however, the law is clear that referral sources are a legitimate interest which can be protected by a restrictive covenant even in the context of a medical practice. See Weber, 259 Kan. at 466-67; Graham, 31 Kan. App. 2d at 570. The trial court's ruling that WSS had a legitimate business interest in protecting its referral relationships was consistent with Weber and Graham.
The plaintiffs also ask us to uphold the trial court's finding that any interest WSS had in referral sources no longer existed by the time the plaintiffs left their employment. The trial court concluded the plaintiffs had developed relationships with referring physicians based upon their own abilities and were no longer relying on WSS's referral base by the time they left WSS. Defendant WSS claims the trial court's conclusion that it lost its interest in referral sources over time is contrary to Kansas cases holding that the relationships developed by an employee during the course of his or her employment belong to the employer, not the employee. See, e.g., Eastern Distributing Co., Inc. v. Flynn, 222 Kan. 666, 567 P.2d 1371 (1977) (interest in "customer contacts" is a legitimate interest subject to protection). Flynn also established that the ultimate determination as to whether a legitimate interest subject to protection is shown is an issue of law, although there will be underlying facts determined by the court. 222 Kan. at 673. Here, the dispute is not with the trial court's factual finding but with the conclusion of law drawn from those facts. As such, our review of that question is unlimited. See Weber, 259 Kan. at 461.
The Court of Appeals considered and rejected a similar argument in Graham. Cirocco, the employee, argued he might have come into contact with those same patients and referral sources if he had started a practice by himself; the court stated: "[T]he fact is he did not. Instead, he came to an entirely new area of the country, became board-certified while working for Graham, and, for 6 years, took advantage of Graham's established contacts in the community to make a name for himself." 31 Kan. App. 2d at 570.
In Weber, the court noted that Dr. Weber had invested "years, education, and effort in establishing his practice and the value of goodwill developed over 17 years," which benefitted Dr. Tillman who brought no patients with him but who took patients when he left. 259 Kan. at 468.
Similarly, even though the plaintiffs' reputations may have become over time the paramount factor influencing referrals, they each benefitted from their association and from the investment of WSS and its contribution of goodwill. Furthermore, it is a situation such as present in this case where the association "'posits a substantial risk of loss of clientele to an employee because of the nature of his work'" which warrants a covenant. Flynn, 222 Kan. at 672 (quoting Blake, Employee Agreement Not to Compete, 73 Harv. L. Rev. 625, 657-59 [1960]).
Finally, Weber instructs us:
"It is the duty of courts to sustain the legality of contracts in whole or in part when fairly entered into, if reasonably possible to do so, rather than to seek loopholes and technical legal grounds for defeating their intended purpose. Although restrictive provisions in contracts of employment must be reasonable and not such as to contravene the public welfare, the paramount public policy is that freedom to contract is not to be interfered with lightly." 259 Kan. at 474; see Foltz v. Struxness, 168 Kan. 714, 721-22, 215 P.2d 133 (1950).
Over time, there were discussions within WSS about whether restrictive covenants should be removed from contracts. A majority of shareholders, including the plaintiffs, voted to retain the covenants, implicitly recognizing that the agreements continued to protect a valuable interest of the group. Dr. Idbeis, who was the one plaintiff who brought a Wichita referral base with him when he joined the group in 1988, renewed the restrictive covenant in 1994 with the restructuring. No argument is made that there was not valid consideration for the new contract because the business interest which WSS sought to protect had evaporated with time. The parties again imposed the restriction.
Furthermore, there is no showing made and the trial court did not find that WSS merely sought to prevent ordinary competition by including restrictive covenants in the contracts. Thus, no showing has been made that the parties' freedom to contract should be overriden.
We, therefore, conclude that WSS had a legitimate business interest in the referral sources which it could seek to protect through restrictive covenants.
Did the Trial Court Err in Ruling That Enforcement of the Restrictive
Covenants Would be Injurious to the Public Welfare?
As its first issue on cross-appeal, WSS argues that the trial court erred in ruling that enforcement of the restrictive covenants would be injurious to the public welfare.
The trial court considered whether enforcement of the covenants would result in a shortage of cardiovascular surgeons in the Wichita market. The trial court noted that Via Christi wanted two or three more cardiovascular surgeons to work in its facility, but the WSS division of cardiovascular surgeons opposed hiring more surgeons because some of them wanted more work. Dr. Idbeis opined that the Wichita market needs as many as 17.9 cardiovascular surgeons. A defense witness commissioned by Wesley Medical Center said there is demand for only 7.29 cardiovascular surgeons. Another defense witness believed Wichita requires 11 cardiovascular surgeons. Evidence was presented that advancing technology will decrease the future need for cardiovascular surgeons; however, evidence was also presented that, as baby boomers age, the future need for cardiovascular surgeons will increase. Conflicting testimony was presented about whether some of the cardiovascular surgeons in Wichita planned to retire in the near future and on whether patient care would suffer if three or four of the plaintiffs were removed from the Wichita market.
Ultimately, the trial court found it could not make a determination as to the need for cardiovascular surgeons based solely on numbers; rather, the quality of the surgeons being lost was also a factor. The trial court noted that, while there were 16 cardiovascular surgeons in Wichita, the four plaintiffs were some of the busiest. The court also noted that if Drs. Rumisek, Benton, and Fleming were required to end their cardiovascular practice, Wichita would lose one of the few surgeons who does pediatric neonatal cardiovascular surgery, one of the few surgeons who does beating heart surgery, and one of the few surgeons who does the Ross procedure. The court found all of these procedures were wanted and needed in the critical area of heart surgery.
First, WSS contends that the trial court improperly admitted Dr. Idbeis' report and testimony regarding his assessment of the local need for physicians because Dr. Idbeis was not qualified to give an expert opinion. However, we need not address whether the trial court erred in admitting Dr. Idbeis' report because, even if the admission was erroneous, the error was harmless because the trial court did not rely upon the report. The report addressed a purely numeric analysis of the demand for cardiovascular surgeons in the Wichita market. As WSS recognizes in its brief, the trial court's findings were based upon what WSS labels a "subjective" analysis by the trial court, i.e., factors such as the specialized procedures performed by the plaintiffs and their good reputations for high quality care.
Second, WSS argues this subjective analysis was inappropriate. The problem with WSS's argument is that it is not at all clear from the record that the trial court made any finding that enforcement of the restrictive covenants would be injurious to the public welfare because of the special qualities of the plaintiffs. Clearly, the court did refuse to make a finding that enforcement of the restrictive covenants would result in a shortage of cardiovascular surgeons, stating, "[T]his case is not just about numbers." However, when the court reviewed the Weber factors it based its ruling that enforcement of the restrictive covenants would be injurious to the public welfare on the fact that, as to Drs. Rumisek, Benton, and Fleming, the restrictive covenants failed to make accommodation of patient choice, stating, "Having found the enforcement of the restrictive covenant in Drs. Rumisek, Benton, and Fleming's contract -- contracts injurious to the public welfare by virtue of the lack of a liquidated damage buyout . . . ." No mention was made of a shortage of cardiovascular surgeons, whether measured on a subjective or objective basis. Thus, the only clear finding of injury to public welfare did not deal with shortage of doctors.
Any restrictive covenant agreed to by a physician is going to make some limitation on patient choice. Perhaps because of this, the AMA guideline condemns only those covenants which fail to make "reasonable accommodation" for patient choice. In each case, the varying circumstances must be considered in the effort to evaluate that impact. One valid consideration in this case is the nature of the typical relationship between a patient and a cardiovascular surgeon: it is usually short-term, lasting long enough to accommodate the surgical care and follow-up.
However, the trial court did not discuss such considerations, instead basing its ruling solely upon the lack of a liquidated damages provision in the contracts of Drs. Rumisek, Fleming, and Benton. In reaching this conclusion, the trial court appears to rely upon the court's analysis in Weber in which, after noting that Dr. Tillman could continue to practice dermatology upon paying liquidated damages as provided by his employment contract, the court stated: "Thus, as a practical matter, the people of Hays and the surrounding area may not lose Dr. Tillman's services as a dermatologist. Further, their welfare is not injured if they have to travel further to obtain dermatology services should Dr. Tillman elect not to pay liquidated damages . . . ." 259 Kan. at 475.
However, the Weber court did not hold that the liquidated damages provision in Dr. Tillman's contract prevented the enforcement of the restrictive covenant from being injurious to the public welfare. Rather, the court held that the public welfare was not injured regardless of whether Dr. Tillman paid liquidated damages and stayed in Hays or complied with the restrictive covenant and left the area. It is an overly broad reading of Weber to conclude that it is necessary that all restrictive covenants in the employment contracts of physicians have liquidated damages provisions in order to be enforceable, and the lack of one does not make the contract unenforceable.
Furthermore, the provision for liquidated damages is not a provision dictating the scope of the covenant not to compete. Rather, it represents the parties' agreement on an available remedy if the covenant is breached. This is an important distinction, especially in the context of the trial court's findings. It is the scope of the restriction, not the presence of a remedy, which makes the covenant enforceable. The remedy for breach of the parties' contract is either an injunction to enforce the contract or a computation of monetary damages. The trial court made no finding that the liquidated damages provision which it grafted into the contract had any relationship to actual damages.
Thus, the trial court erred in finding that the restrictive covenants of Drs. Rumisek, Benton, and Fleming were injurious to the public welfare because of the lack of a liquidated damages provision.
Did the Trial Court Err in Allowing Three of the Plaintiffs to Pay Liquidated
Damages Where Their Employment Agreements Did Not Contain Such a Provision?
The trial court further bolstered its ruling to add the liquidated damages provision by stating it was "merely finalizing that which was not finalized." The trial court stated that this was the "controlling ruling." The trial court then added, "Now, which is probably a little bit unusual for a Court to do, in case I was wrong in my previous decision, I am going to set forth and address the issue regarding the amendment, a possible amendment to the contracts."
The trial court found that, given the manner in which the divisions operated independently of WSS and the history of making modifications to employment contracts without the WSS board of directors' approval, the November 2000 vote of the division shareholders to approve the modification to the restrictive covenants did not have to be approved by the WSS board and did not have to be in writing, even though the contract required modifications to be written to be binding on WSS.
Modification of a contract, like the creation of an original contract, requires a mutual assent or a meeting of the minds. Fast v. Kahan, 206 Kan. 682, 481 P.2d 958 (1971). Despite 53 pages of transcript, there is no finding which specifies what constituted the subsequent contract under the facts of this case. Was it the November 2000 version which was approved by the shareholders and ambiguously recorded in the minutes as "[T]he restrictive covenants will be changed to provide financial restrictions after five years of geographic restrictions"? Was it the June 2001 version which included the language added by attorneys? Or, was it some other agreement? Second, the trial court also found:
"Since it was not presented for signature, this Court cannot determine the identity of physicians who would have made the prepared written restrictive covenant amendment a part of their employment terms, who would have declined any change to the restrictive covenant, and who would have required a restrictive covenant that did not add material provisions to the shareholders' approved modification."
In light of this finding of fact, there cannot be a determination that there was a meeting of minds as to an agreement. The trial court did not make a finding specific to Drs. Benton, Fleming, and Rumisek regarding their acceptance. Rather, the trial court's reasoning seems to be that the possibility of acceptance still existed at the time these plaintiffs resigned.
The trial court found the modification did not apply to Dr. Idbeis' contract because, upon his termination, Dr. Idbeis
"did not accept the modification to the restrictive covenant as part of his contract and instead chose to negotiate the buyout that was part of his 1995 contract. The Court's of the opinion that he is bound by his election not to have his contract modified with the new liquidated damages provision."
As WSS argues, this must mean that the trial court determined that the doctors' acceptance or rejection of the amendment occurred during settlement negotiations which did not take place until well over a year after the shareholder vote. Again, this finding of fact is inconsistent with the conclusion of law that the doctors had agreed to a modification. Furthermore, WSS notes that in the same letter the other doctors proposed paying an amount different than that proposed in the draft amendment and, therefore, the conclusion must be that all of the plaintiffs rejected the modification.
As the trial court stated in its "controlling ruling," any modification would be "finalizing that which was not final." The trial court's alternative findings do not support the conclusion that there was a modification which the plaintiffs accepted.
Plaintiffs also make arguments based on ratification, promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel, unclean hands, and breach of fiduciary duty. None of the plaintiffs' arguments were mentioned by the trial court as a basis for its ruling, and the trial court did not make the findings of fact necessary to support these claims or allow our review of the issues. There cannot be ratification of that which is not final, and the trial court did not make findings to support reliance, fraudulent conduct, unclean hands, or breach of a fiduciary duty.
In conclusion, the restrictive covenant in each of the plaintiff's employment contracts is enforceable. Because only Dr. Idbeis' contract included a liquidated damages provision, only he is entitled to pay liquidated damages in lieu of ceasing the practice of medicine as provided in his restrictive covenant.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion.
GERNON, J., not participating.
LARSON, S.J., assigned.1
1REPORTER'S NOTE: Senior Judge Edward Larson was appointed to hear case No. 91,442 vice Justice Gernon pursuant to the authority vested in the Supreme Court by K.S.A. 20-2616.


text:
Blaze Advisor Deployment Training in Beaverton
Enroll in or hire us to teach our Blaze Advisor Deployment class in Beaverton, Oregon by calling us @303.377.6176. Like all HSG classes, Blaze Advisor Deployment may be offered either onsite or via instructor led virtual training. Consider looking at our public training schedule to see if it is scheduled: Public Training Classes
Provided there are enough attendees, Blaze Advisor Deployment may be taught at one of our local training facilities.
Answers to Popular Questions:
Yes, this class can be tailored to meet your specific training needs.
Yes, we provide consulting services.
Yes, group discounts are provided.
Course Description
| This course teaches students to deploy business rules in a variety of settings that may include a single user or multi-tier configuration. Additional topics include the Blaze API, stateful and stateless servers, Enterprise Java Beans, COM and more.
Course Length: 2 Days
Course Tuition: $1190 (US)
|Students must have taken Blaze Advisor Training.
Course Outline
• This course teaches students how to deploy business rules via:
Course Directory [training on all levels]
Technical Training Courses
Software engineer/architect, System Admin ... Welcome!
- .NET Classes
- Agile/Scrum Classes
- Ajax Classes
- Blaze Advisor Classes
- C Classes
- C# Classes
- C++ Classes
- Cisco Classes
- Cloud Classes
- CompTIA Classes
- Crystal Reports Classes
- Design Patterns Classes
- DevOps Classes
- Foundations of Web Design & Web Authoring Classes
- Git, Jira, Wicket, Gradle, Tableau Classes
- IBM Classes
- Java Programming Classes
- JBoss Classes
- Linux Unix Classes
- Machine Learning Classes
- Microsoft Development Classes
- Microsoft SQL Server Classes
- Microsoft Team Foundation Server Classes
- Microsoft Windows Server Classes
- Mobile Classes
- Oracle, MySQL, Cassandra, Hadoop Database Classes
- Perl Classes
- Python Classes
- Ruby Classes
- Security Classes
- SharePoint Classes
- SOA Classes
- Tcl, Awk, Bash, Shell Classes
- Testing Classes
- UML Classes
- VMWare Classes
- Web Services Classes
- Weblogic Classes
- XML Classes
Business Training Courses
Project Managers, Business Analysts, Paralegals ... Welcome!
Upcoming Classes
Gain insight and ideas from students with different perspectives and experiences.
- AWS Certified Machine Learning - Specialty Crash
4 November, 2019 - 5 November, 2019
- Python II: Advanced Python 3
14 November, 2019 - 15 November, 2019
- CISSP Crash Course *exam included
12 November, 2019 - 13 November, 2019
2 December, 2019 - 6 December, 2019
- 55232: Writing Analytical Queries for Business Intelligence
28 October, 2019 - 30 October, 2019
- See our complete public course listing

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The academic year (which varies for each institution) normally runs from late August or mid-September to late August or early/late May. Optional summer courses are usually available outside the academic year. The academic year is either divided into two terms called "semesters" or into three terms called "quarters" In the latter case, the fourth quarter is an optional summer term which covers a whole quarter's worth of material in six to eight weeks. It is, therefore, extremely intensive and very fast paced. A more than average knowledge of English is necessary to follow these courses. They are NOT designed to teach students English. Their objective is to enable students to catch up on lost material or advance in their program of study to reduce the time of study.
A. Mid-Year Admissions
Most state universities and some private institutions will accept applications for any of their academic terms. If the university operates a semester plan, mid-year admission falls either at the beginning or end of January. Universities operating a quarterly calendar will usually admit students at their Fall (September), Winter (January) or Spring (March) quarter. Nevertheless since universities usually provide special orientation programs and do a good deal to welcome foreign students at the beginning of the academic year, there are considerable advantages in applying for the Fall term. Highly competitive institutions do not accept mid-year admissions.
B. The Application Process
The application process takes several months. Request must be made to receive application forms via air mail. Unless this is done, the necessary forms may be sent via surface (sea) and you may miss the deadline date for submitting a completed application. Furthermore, most universities will take no action on an application until it is complete in all respects, including supporting letters of reference, certified copies of academic records, scores for the tests referred to below, payment of the application fee.
To simplify the application procedure, the Advising Center can provide forms called "Request for Application Materials" which you may send to the Director of Undergraduate Admissions of all American schools of interest to you. No accompanying letter and no supporting documents are to be sent with the "Request" form. However, if you will need financial assistance, this should be stated on the form. The form may be purchased from the Commission's Advising Center for 5 Belgian francs per copy.
Students who do not use the "Request" form are apt to receive a "Preliminary Application" from the universities, asking similar questions. The "Preliminary Application" saves postage, and the bother of completing the very detailed "Final Application" in cases where admission is not possible or appropriate.
A letter of welcome from an individual professor does not constitute an official confirmation of admission to the university, nor does a letter saying the university is willing to consider your application. When in doubt, ask the Advising Center to interpret correspondence from American institutions.
Admissions Officers review "Request" or "Preliminary Application" forms and reply, usually within 4 to 6 weeks, either that you cannot be considered as a candidate for admission or that you may submit application forms. In the second case, appropriate forms are usually supplied, with detailed instructions for completing them.
Details concerning the rules and requirements of an American institution are published in a program or catalog. The programs of most institutions may be consulted in the library of the Advising Center of the Commission for Educational Exchange. Information about several thousand other institutions is contained in reference books which may be consulted there as well.
The following video covers tips about the application process (transcripts, letters of recommendation, and essays):
C. Application Forms
Although U.S. educational institutions vary in their procedures and requirements for admission of students from other countries, formal applications usually include most of the following items:
- Institutional application form;
- Certified copies of educational documents;
- Certified translations of these documents if not originally in English;
- Evidence of English language proficiency;
- Scores for any required academic entrance examinations;
- Financial information, with applications for financial aid if requested;
- Letters of recommendation from teachers;
- Non-refundable application fee of $10-$75.
As in the initial inquiry, be sure that you print and spell your name in exactly the same way in each part of the application. Use the same name order, and indicate the family name, either by underlining it or writing it in all capital letters, for example: Richard John SMITH. If different parts of the application arrive separately — for example, test scores or recommendation letters — they will be placed in separate files if the names are even slightly different. Admissions files do not become active until they are complete; so unless all items arrive and are placed together, no action will be taken. To help admissions officers keep all of your documents organized, attach a note to each document which bears the same names you used on your application form, in case any of your documents bear a different spelling of your name.
Instructions for each application will be different. Follow them carefully, paying particular attention to closing dates or deadlines for receipt of completed applications. Allow enough time for mail delivery. Often the closing date for students from other countries is earlier than for U.S. students. Usually applications for scholarships or fellowships must be submitted earlier than applications for admission.
Try to begin work on applications well before the deadline and submit completed applications two or three months before the closing date. This will allow the institutions time to evaluate the application before the peak of the selection period. If you are applying to a competitive field or to a selective institution, submit your application as early as possible. Many U.S. admissions officers believe that early applications are apt to be considered more favorably than later ones.
Keep copies for your records of all documents and application forms submitted. Keep a record of when materials were mailed and where.
The official application form will request information about you, the studies you have completed, and the plans you have for your future. Type or handprint all information requested on your application. Work carefully to insure that your application form is easily read. Do remember that Americans record the date in reverse order (month-day-year) and that many Americans find the way Europeans write numbers difficult to read.
Do enclose the correct application fee (if required) with your application form. Do not send cash, and do not send a Eurocheque. Do use either an international money order (available from any American Express office) or a check drawn upon an American bank.
Be sure to print your name and address exactly as these items must appear for mail delivery. Do so on both the application form, and on the exterior of each envelope you use when corresponding. Also, when noting your telephone number on the form, be sure to include (and note) your city and country codes.
Some students find it helpful to photocopy the official application form before it is completed, and "practice" on this copy before completing the final version. Be certain to respond to all questions on the application form. If you believe that a specific question does not apply to your situation, make a note to that effect and explain why this is so.
Respond promptly to any requests for additional information from any and all colleges/universities to which you have applied. These requests may be for specific course descriptions; additional information about your financial situation; or for an additional writing sample in English.
1. Official Results
You must submit officially reported results (scores) for any required examinations. For example, most colleges and universities will require that you submit your score on the TOEFL to demonstrate English language proficiency. Some institutions may also require that undergraduates submit their scores on the SAT or the ACT.
2. Educational Documents
Each institution will specify the type of official records it requires to document past education. Usually they will want your entire scholastic record for secondary school and/or any university courses. U.S. admissions officers usually prefer that transcripts of previous educational work be sent directly from your former schools. The institution may also furnish special forms on which school authorities are asked to write your grades and your academic performance relative to other students in your institution. If such forms are not provided, you or the school will be expected to submit official documents that provide this kind of information. If the admissions officer requests explanation of the grading and class ranking system or descriptions of courses that you have taken, this information should be furnished by an official of the applicant's school if possible.
As requested, send certified copies of grade sheets, diplomas, degrees or professional titles, or copies of full records of your performance in the comprehensive examinations administered in your home country. Do not send original documents unless there is no alternative; usually they cannot be returned. Copies should be certified with an official seal from the school or university or certified by this Commission. If English translations are necessary you may translate the document yourself. Such translations must also be certified at the Commission. To have copies or translations certified at the Commission, bring the original and one copy of your translation. After the translation has been reviewed, additional certified copies can be made at the Commission.
If you have taken courses in the United States, or at an institution in your home country, and you feel that these courses might apply toward the degree you are seeking, include certified transcripts for these courses. In most cases, admissions officers cannot give, in advance of admission, an estimate of credit that will be accepted. This is because, in most cases, awarding credit toward a degree at a particular institution involves making sure that each course is roughly equivalent to a course at that institution. An estimate of transfer credit usually will not be available until a student has been enrolled for several months. No credit will be awarded for courses which have been applied to a previous degree, nor will academic credit be awarded for courses designed to fulfill requirements for a technical/vocational program.
3. Statement of Educational Purpose
Most applications include a space for an essay detailing your purpose in seeking an education in your chosen field, your strengths in that field and your plans for the future. Be sure to take this task seriously. It is one of the most important parts of your application. Think through your essay before you present it and make sure you organize your answer clearly, neatly and in a well-written manner.
4. Biographical Essay
Perhaps the best guide to keep in mind as you fill out the forms is the purpose of these questions — what admissions officers want: to get to know you, as well as possible, as an individual with distinctive strengths, interests, and goals. Approach the application as if it were written only for you, that the questions asked — about honors, awards, work, travel, hobbies, and so on — are there to help you provide the type of information an admissions officer would like to have. If any particular portion of the application is not relevant or applicable to your situation, note that on the form, along with some explanation. For example, many schools in other countries have fewer school-sponsored activities available than do their American counterparts. Some schools do not present academic honors. These situations should be explained. Bear in mind that admissions officers want to know what you excel at, what you are interested in, what types of activities occupy your time outside of school. Overall, they want to know what you are like and how you are different from other applicants.
Many students tend to be too modest when asked to present their interests and accomplishments. Most candidates, in completing the application, will be describing themselves for the first time in their lives. All applicants should realize that their ability to present articulately and persuasively their background, their present goals and interests, and the fact that a future connection between them and that particular institution might be mutually beneficial will have a significant bearing on their success as candidates for admission. There is no dispute on the question that each candidate is unique. What is an issue is that the most successful candidates tend to be the ones who do the best job of presenting their backgrounds, their goals, and their sense of the match between themselves and the academic and social offerings of a given university.
5. Letters of Recommendation or Reference
If institutions request letters of recommendation, ask two or three people to write letters on your behalf. The college or university will specify the number of letters to be submitted. Those you ask to serve as references should be people who hold respected positions and who know you and your academic work well. Present or former teachers, professors or employers are possible choices. For recommendation letters to be effective, they should contain insights into your seriousness of purpose, academic promise, motivation, adaptability, personality and character. Recommendations which give an honest appraisal of your capabilities — weak points as well as strong points — are much more convincing to U.S. admissions officers (and therefore more valuable) than general letters of extreme praise. These letters should be in English, or accompanied by a translation. If a form is provided by the college or the university, it must be used. To guarantee candor and confidentiality, it is essential that evaluations be mailed directly to the admissions officer of the admitting institution, without having been read by the applicant. As a courtesy, give each person a stamped airmail envelope addressed to the institution. Write in the lower left hand corner of the envelope "Re: Application of (your name)".
6. Evidence of Financial Resources
Admissions officers cannot issue the certificates needed to request a visa for study in the United States until they are satisfied that you have enough money, from whatever sources, to cover all expenses during the period of your stay in the United States. Most institutions require that you submit statements or detailed information on the amounts and sources of funds available to pay your educational and living expenses while in the U.S.
Many undergraduate institutions request that applicants complete the College Board Scholarship Service "Foreign Student's Certification of Finances" as part of the application. Other applications simply ask for a list of sources of funds and amounts. Usually this information must be confirmed or witnessed by a responsible individual, such as an officer of the bank where the applicant's funds are on deposit. If a sponsor or parent is contributing financial support, they will be asked to attest to the availability of funds. In some cases, notarization may be required.
D. Applying for Financial Assistance
To apply for grants, fellowships or scholarships from institutions, be sure to request the appropriate kind of financial aid application in your first letter inquiry. On special forms provided in the application materials, give complete and accurate information about amounts and sources of funds available for study in the United States. Also give an estimate of the amount of aid needed to meet all expenses. Applicants for financial assistance may have to take additional tests, provide additional proof of eligibility for aid, obtain additional recommendations and meet an earlier deadline.
Finally, in making an application for financial assistance, do not understate the amount of funds needed in the expectation of later obtaining additional aid. Opportunities for financial aid (including employment) are severely limited once you have arrived in the United States.
E. Summary: Strategies for effective application to U.S. institutions
- Observing deadlines, apply to at least five institutions.
- Of the five, no more than two should be highly selective institutions.
- At least two should be institutions whose admissions standards fit closely with your background, test scores and academic achievements.
- The remaining institutions should include at least one that will certainly grant admission.
- If you have selected a highly competitive field such as undergraduate engineering or business, or if financial assistance is requested, apply to a larger number of institutions.
Follow instructions carefully. Your application will be judged on its completeness and its appearance.
F. Notification of Acceptance
From March through June, American universities will send out letters saying whether you have been accepted or rejected. Notify the university you have selected of your intention to come and decline other offers of admission. You will normally have to pay a deposit at this time, amounting to $100 – $200. You should also contact the Housing Office in order to try to reserve university housing before you leave. Housing is in short supply on many American campuses and if you can get university-owned housing before you leave your home country, you will save yourself a lot of time and trouble upon arrival.
Find out more information about understanding the admissions decision: http://www.fulbright.co.uk/study-in-the-us/undergraduate-study/admissions-decision
G. Transfer students
8 Things you need to know: http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/the-college-solution/2010/11/16/transfer-students-8-things-you-need-to-know
H. Interviews – Preparing for an Admissions Interview
Many students applying for undergraduate admissions will find that having an interview is not a requirement. However, some of the more competitive US universities will recommend students complete an interview after submitting their application. More information can be found here: http://www.fulbright.co.uk/study-in-the-usa/undergraduate-study/applying/interviews


text:
Medical professionals take a look at individuals, listen to their health troubles, and perform exams to find out what is wrong along with them. They advocate prescription drugs and other kinds of heal for their patients. Also, they give their patients recommendation relating to workout, diet plan, and health issues. Take into account that there're a number of diverse forms of well being-attention experts. Paediatricians look after babies, youngsters and adolescents. Household MDs and standard experts are usually the first doctors that men and women seek out when they grow to be unwell. These types of medical doctors deal with typical problems and recommend the clientele to experts when needed. Doctors do operations, by way of example transplanting organs or mending a damaged bone tissue. Appointment setting service
When an individual is sick, discovering a equipped healthcare professional is an obligation, and there's usually really negligible time for you to waste. The web had manufactured it simpler to get physicians without departing your home ease and comfort. Online one could also take a look at if a medical doctor is board accredited or not. By merely exploring the United states Board of Medical Areas of expertise website, you are going to able to find an authorized medical doctor inside the Usa do not forget that following completing residency coaching, MDs are eligible for table qualification. This suggests the doctor has completed a speciality exercise program and skilled the test that evaluate the physician's experience, knowledge and experience. Also, understand that table accreditation isn't every thing and it doesn't symbolize that the medical professional is thoughtful, form-hearted, and respectful. Doctors and physicians list
By merely exploring the United states Board
- Doctors and physicians list.
- Physicians examine patients, listen to their own.
- After you gather a few names, write a summary of fundamental things.
- Make use of the web to locate an MD inside your vicinity and read individuals evaluations. Check out.
- When a person is sick, discovering a equipped medical professional.
Make use of the web to find a mD with your locality and browse individuals testimonials. Look at what patients need to express regarding the medical professional they have got hired. Use the information to choose which physician satisfies your needs. If you discover a lot of objections for just about any medical doctor on the web, then you must avoid this kind of healthcare professional. Doctors and physicians list
Look at
As soon as you acquire a few labels, create a summary of basic questions to ask your personal doctor. By way of example, you should ask the doctor if they can care for all of the employees of your respective home, once they allow your insurance plan defense, if they're allied having a hospice, and when they are doing research laboratory exams. Also ask them about their office efforts and consider if you like. Additionally, check out what the medical doctor demand for sessions. The respond to those fundamental questions can assist you to definitely select the best medical doctor not just for yourself however for your loved ones at the same time. IT decision makers list
You like
- Medical professionals look at sufferers, listen to their health issues, and carry.
- When a person is sickly, identifying a equipped healthcare professional is surely an obligation, and there's.
- Appointment setting service.
- Appointment setting service.
- Use the world wide web to find an MD within your locality and study patients reviews. Take a look.
- Lead generation companies.
- Once you acquire several names, write a long list of.


text:
RSBS Presents: Reintegration
Just in case you've been so wrapped up in the World Series that you missed what's going on around the US, RSBS is here to give you a quick rundown as you slowly start to reintegrate.
Occupy Wall Street:
What exactly is going on down there?
Cool, I get it now.
Herman Cain:
Who is this guy?
I think Herman is the black guy at the end…but he could be the guy with the cigarette, too. Or maybe Herman is in all of us. Whoa.
My Generation:
Why don't I identify with Generation X or the Millennials?
Sweet, it's because I'm Jared Leto!
So, there you go. Only a game or two left. Welcome back to America, baseball fans.


text:
Sheet music downloads have become the preferred method of acquiring classical music repertoire. Created by professional musicians, EveryNote.com presents classical sheet music download of over 20.000 popular and hard-to-find music scores over 1000 composers. A major Internet provider of classical sheet music files download online, EveryNote.com offers the largest and most complete digital sheet music download library on the Web in the world. Instantly download, view and print your favorite classical music score. Everynote.com currently offers thousands of classical music compositions for Piano, Violin, Cello, Flute, Clarinet, Classical Guitar, Voice, Chamber and Choral music.Many more instruments, composers, genres added every day! EveryNote.com has been featured in The New York Times, Globe and Mail, Musical America and many other publications.
Paul Hindemith
Paul Hindemith short biography
The most outstanding violist of his time, Paul Hindemith started his career as a performing viola virtuoso, while gradually building his reputation as one of the most outstanding modern composers. Hindemith is closely related to the principles of Gebrauchsmusik (composer as craftsman). In 1940, threatened by the Nazis, Hindemith left Germany for the States. Hindemith was appointed professor of the Yale University as well as professor of the University of Zurich.
More Hindemith sheet music download on EveryNote.com
Hindemith Piano sheet music download on EveryNote.com
Hindemith Cello sheet music download on EveryNote.com
Web design by Web design SEO & Hosting Company - iGenii inc


text:
Sprint Nextel is offering to buy the 49 percent of Clearwire that it doesn't already own for $2.1 billion.
Sprint Nextel Corp. said Thursday in a regulatory filing that its board reviewed a deal the day before that spells out specifics of the proposed transaction. The deal works out to $2.90 per share. Clearwire Corp. stock is up 27 cents, or 10 percent, to $3.02 in premarket trading.
Sprint uses Clearwire's network to provide "Sprint 4G," but it's building its own 4G network at the same time, and would like to see Clearwire upgrade its network to use a compatible technology. Clearwire is strapped financially, and lacks the funds for a comprehensive upgrade.
The deal was reported earlier this week by CNBC and The Wall Street Journal, citing unnamed sources.


text:
Not your ordinary wedding film.
Between us we can remember some of the day, and the photos help, but honestly, between the stress of getting ready and the photos, and making sure that everything ran smoothly, we both have a very faded memory of the our own wedding really. Added to the fact that it was nearly 20 years ago, and there was a fair amount of alcohol consumed at the reception, I guess it's inevitable! Don't make the same mistake that we did!
We create contemporary films. We take time with music choice and colouring and making sure that both of your edits are superb.
We don't take short-cuts and we don't do cheese!
If you love our style then you can check if we're available for your date here.


text:
Comox Valley Dodge has one of the largest inventories of tires in Courtenay. No matter which tires you want, we can find them, even if we don't currently have them in stock! Please complete the form below with your information and we'll be pleased to provide you with a quote on tires.
Comox Valley Dodge wants to thank you for your request. Someone will contact you shortly.


text:
Liberty News
Students begin school year with spiritual focus, All Night of Prayer
Liberty University set the spiritual tone for the new school year, beginning with Spiritual Emphasis Week, which is designed to help students start their semester with a godly focus, and includes an All Night of Prayer, which began Friday at 11 p.m. and continued until 6 a.m. Saturday morning.
Since the 1990s, Liberty has started every semester with Spiritual Emphasis Week, hosting an evangelistic speaker who encourages and refocuses students on their purpose of being Champions for Christ.
Campus Pastor Clayton King delivered the first Convocation message of the semester, part of a four-part Spiritual Emphasis Week series on the life of Nicodemus as it is relayed in the book of John.
During the night of prayer, students gathered in front of the Prayer Chapel where they prayed with their halls and listened to live worship music. Spiritual Life Coaches (SLC's) from the residence halls organized the event. The halls were assigned varying time slots to ensure continuous prayer for the entire event. Students were able to visit 26 prayer stations, each focused on a different need including those for individuals, the university, the United States, and the world. The SLC's managed the stations and were in charge of their construction and design.
Randy Willis, senior associate director in the Office of Student Leadership (OSL), believes this event sets Liberty apart from other campuses.
"This is a laser-focused prayer time for specific issues on our campus that strengthens spiritual awareness for needs around campus and strengthens students as they see these prayers being answered thus, strengthening their spiritual lives," he said.
According to Willis, the night of prayer should remind students that as Christians they are to be the hands and feet of Christ.
"The late Dr. Jerry Falwell, Sr. always said 'nothing of eternal significance happens apart from prayer.' This event serves as a reminder of his legacy and enhances the spiritual atmosphere on campus," Willis said.
Alumna Kelsey Baker ('09), associate director of the SLC's, said she was proud of the work that was put into the event.
"I hope each station helped usher each student into the presence of God and taught them to know Him more and want to spur on their relationship with the Lord for the rest of the year," Baker said.
Emily Becker, an SLC at the Residential Annex, encouraged each of the girls on her hall to attend the event.
"I hope that the girls on my hall will learn the meaning of prayer and how to come together and pray as a community," she said.
The Office of Student Leadership seeks to train student leaders to minister, mentor, and mobilize students in the residence halls. Every student at Liberty has five leaders on their hall that they can go to for guidance, including two Resident Assistants, two SLC's, and a Prayer and Life Group Leader.


text:
(one's) twopence (worth)
(one's) twopence (worth)
One's ideas, opinions, or point of view. Primarily heard in UK, Australia. If anyone wants to hear Dr Sanders' twopence worth about the anti-vaccination debate, you can tune in to his podcast this Friday. I'd just like to put in my twopence worth before we finish up the meeting, if I may.
See also: twopence


text:
Explore Our Hotel
Hanover, PA Hotel's Location is Near Gettysburg Battlefield
Honored with the Three Diamond AAA rating, a three-time Quality Excellence award winner and a 2009 Torchbearer Award for excellence, Holiday Inn Express® Hanover is the ideal choice among hotels in Hanover, PA.
Business travelers prefer us because we're near major companies, such as UTZ Potato Chips and Snyder's of Hanover. They appreciate our corporate amenities, including fax and print service. Complimentary high-speed, wired and wireless Internet access keeps you connected to clients and the office from Hanover, Pennsylvania.
Our hotel's leisure guests know we're near Gettysburg National Military Park and Harley-Davidson Manufacturing Plant. It's easy to attend activities at the York Fairgrounds, a performance at Eichelberger Performing Arts Center or events at York Expo. Restaurants, shopping and Bay City Seafood, a family-run business for 47 years, are within walking distance. Our hotel's guests in Hanover, PA can take a day trip to Washington, DC, Baltimore, Lancaster and Amish Country.
No matter what brings you to Hanover, Pennsylvania, our hotel's award-winning service and upscale perks will bring you back. We have a well-equipped Fitness Center, so you can stay in shape. The complimentary, hot Express Start Breakfast Bar gets you ready for a day of meetings or sightseeing. We look forward to serving you!
- Black-out Shades
- Rollaway Bed/Cot Available
- Crib Available
- Iron/Ironing Board
- Separate Hanging Closet
- In-Room Heating and A/C Controls
Bathroom/Personal Care
- Private Bathroom
- Bathroom Amenities Available
- Hair Dryer
- Bathtub
In-Room Features
- Mini Refrigerator
- Microwave
- Coffee Maker
- Tea Maker
- Flat-screen TV
- Work Desk with Lamp
- Desk-level Electrical Outlet
- Cable/Satellite
- Premium Channels
- Two-line Phone
- Phone with Voicemail
Added Value
- Connecting Rooms Available
- Complimentary Coffee/Tea Supplies
- Full Breakfast Included
- Breakfast Buffet Included
- Continental Breakfast Included
- Complimentary Coffee in Lobby
Business Services
- Copier
Internet Access
- Free High-Speed Internet in all Rooms
- Wireless Internet service is free for all IHG® Rewards Club members
Health & Fitness
Complimentary Fitness Center
Our hotel features an oversized fitness center with 2 treadmills, elliptical
Hours of Operation: 6:00 AM to 11:00 PM
Fitness Center Type: LIMITED
Fitness Center Equipment:
- Treadmill
- Elliptical Machines
- Free Weights
- Stationary Bicycle
Housekeeping & Laundry
- Daily Housekeeping
- On-site Guest Self-Laundry Facilities
- Hours of Operation: 6:00 AM - 11:00 PM
Added Value
- Wake Up Calls
- Ice Machine
Hotel Details
305 Wilson Avenue
Hanover, Pennsylvania 17331
United States
Check In: 3:00 PM
Check Out: 11:00 AM
Check-in Age: 21
Parking + -
- Complimentary Self Parking Available
Accessibility + -
- Public Entrance
- Guest Rooms
- Elevators
- Public Restrooms
- Registration Desk
- Exercise Facility
- Number of Accessible Meeting Rooms: 0
Accessible Hotel Areas
- Registration Area
- Accessible Guest Rooms
- Exercise Facility
Hotel Areas with Accessible Routes from Accessible Public Entrance
- Accessible Self Parking
- Van Accessible Self Parking
- Portable Bathtub Seats
- Closed Caption TVs
- Telephone with TDD
- Visual Alarm/Alert in Guest Rooms
- Visual Alarm/Alert in Public Spaces
- Communication Kits with Visual Alarms
Provided by Hotel
Pet Policy + -
- Service Animals Allowed
- No Pets Allowed. A 250 Dollar cleaning fee will be charged if you bring a pet into the hotel.
Facility + -
- Smoke-Free Facility
- Number of Floors: 3
- Total Number of Rooms: 63
- Number of Suites: 5
- Number of Non-Smoking Rooms: 51
- Number of Accessible Rooms: 4
- Connecting Rooms Available
- Public Spaces Renovated in: 2012
- Guest Rooms Renovated in: 2015
Credit Cards + -
- American Express
- Visa
- MasterCard
- Diners Club
- Carte Blanche
- Discover


text:
MeritBadge.Org about
From MeritBadgeDotOrg
In 1995, Michael Kauffmann (Optimist) began listing Boy Scout advancement resources on his first Bulletin Board System (BBS), "The Opticon", which grew quickly; and, with the advent of the World-Wide Web, the Scouting portion was spun off to become MeritBadge.Com; which, in 2007, evolved into MeritBadge.Org.
Our mission... is to provide advancement resources for all levels in the Boy Scouts of America.
Our vision... is to be the best source —specifically, in the format of a wiki-based website— of information dedicated to providing requirements, links, resources, and worksheets for youth, leaders, and parents.
Our goal... is to list every requirement and provide resources for every badge, rank, and award offered by the Boy Scouts of America. Our materials and links are general resources for use by everyone, not just those in a certain area or unit.
| MeritBadge.Org does not provide (or allow) answer keys, cheat sheets, or links to sites that provide such inappropriate material.
→ Please see our Criteria for acceptable external links policy for more information.
On each page you will find a link to the left Printable version. Just click it for the nicely printable version.
What You'll Find
WIth the hundreds of Cub Scout, Scout, Venturing, and Sea Scout ranks, awards, and badges. you will find:
- Requirements - with a growing list of resource links for each requirement.
- External resources - offering thousands of links
- See Also - shows other similar awards and requirements
- Worksheets - for Merit Badges, Webelos Activity Badges, and Cub Scout Belt Loops and Pins
Just click on any of the 2,525 images, photo, logos, documents and graphics to see the full size version and to download it.
How You Can Help Yourself And Others?
Come join the 15,003 volunteer users at MeritBadge.Org! This is a Wikipedia. Please register and help us!


text:
Zone file
Top results for "zone file"Manage DNS zone files Our hub for how to add, change, or delete your zone file records.
Access the DNS Manager Use your DNS Manager to change your zone file records.
Manage DNS records for your domain registered at another company Manage zone file records even if your domain is registered elsewhere.


text:
There are tons of movies released every year and the fact is all of them can't be the most stupendous movie ever made. But there are many that fall into the category of fun movies that offer no redeeming value whatsoever and yet are filled with fun and energy. THIS IS WAR is one of those movies, a film that's fun to watch and may be worth watching again and yet it offers no social redeeming value. So what? It's a movie kids!
FDR Foster (Chris Pine) and Tuck (Tom Hardy) are two CIA agents for whom action comes easily. Both are experts in their field and the best agents around. They're also best friends. When an operation goes from covert to public awareness, the duo finds themselves behind desks at the home office in LA.
FDR is a ladies man, always on the prowl. Tuck is more subtle with a failed marriage and young son he adores. When they find themselves stuck at home, Tuck decides its time to find someone special and pops his info, or the info he creates, on to a dating web site. There he meets Lauren (Reese Witherspoon).
Lauren is an up and coming single in LA as well. Her job has her testing products for a consumer group. Her long time girlfriend Trish (Chelsea Handler) feels that she needs to get out. To give her a nudge, she posts her name and info on the same couple's web site Tuck visits but with info that Lauren isn't quite happy with.
Lauren and Tuck set up a meet but Tuck has FDR as back up, hanging out in a nearby video store. The meeting goes well and ends soon after they meet with the promise of a full fledged date to follow. On the way home, Lauren stops to rent a video at the same store FDR is at. With no clue who she is, he hits on her and through a series of circumstances gets her to go out with him. The result is two best friends dating the same girl with no clue until each shows the other of their latest love interest. What follows is a game of trying to one up each other to see who gets the girl.
Using the resources of the CIA the duo spy on each other's dates as well as gain information on Lauren. Using that information they both treat her to some stupendous dates doing the things she likes. Things go so well that she has a hard time deciding just who she wants to be with.
While all of this unsanctioned surveillance is going on, bad guy Heinrich (Til Schweiger) is trying to find Tuck and FDR. When that opening sequence to the film went bad, the pair had killed Heinrich's brother and he's now set on revenge. Tracking down the pair to LA you know it's just a matter of time before a face off results and the chances of Lauren being in the middle of things is pretty good.
The movie follows the usual Hollywood pattern of mixing comedy and action with comedy being the main focus. The situations that the heroes put themselves in trying to impress this new woman in their lives make for some funny scenes. Each time she mentions something she likes or dislikes about them, they attempt to prove her wrong by either doing what she wants to overcoming the things she might dislike about them. All in all it makes for some funny moments.
Best of all with this film is the ease that the characters and actors bring to the story. It never feels forced of fake even though being fake is what most of their actions involved. I've said before the proof of a good actor is to not feel like they're acting and all three here display that in spades.
More than anything the movie is fun. It delivers the right combination of action, comedy and romance that create an enjoyable watching experience. I wasn't sure what to expect from the trailer for this film and actually thought it would be something light but more mediocre than it was. When I was finished I knew that this was a movie I could watch and enjoy just as much a second or third time around. If you're looking for something fun to watch then make sure you rent this or even pick it up. It's worth watching.


text:
Product 86/132
Evoking the image of a turn-of-the-century peddler, Rag & Bone was founded in 2001 with a focus on fundamentals in design and fabrication. Their denim-centric collection abounds with utilitarian-yet-elegant silhouettes in neutral shades that echo those in classic work wear. A deep commitment to history and the skills of generations of artisans has kept their operation entirely based in the US, ensuring their vision of the American marketplace.
rag & bone Women's Utility Paz Denim Dress Blue - B06XH4LYFS


text:
"Did Anna friend you?"
Anna was someone from our past, a woman with an insanely cheerful and ambitious sexual history. She told crazy stories, sometimes backed up with the craziest of photos.
"On FaceBook?" I asked. "Yeah, but we don't talk."
"You remember the sex swing?"
Well who could forget something like that?
The sex swing figured prominently in Anna's stories, and Mary and I found ourselves wondering aloud as to why we didn't own one, why we hadn't been telling stories about the sex swing.
I could post a picture, of course, but a wink, as they say, is as good as a nod.
It took several off-color jokes and a colored-pencil-and-glued-macaroni diagram (we couldn't find the glitter), but we've come up with several ideas as to why we have never owned a screwed-into-the-ceiling sexual-enhancement device.
In no particular order:
- After finding a stud in the general populous, we'd have to find a stud in the ceiling. Have you seen me hang a picture? A nail pounded into a wall with the heel-end of a dress boot is my specialty.
- Speaking of which, I'm going to need a full-color, instructional brochure on how to use such a swing. Perhaps something frame-worthy.
- What about the amount of exercise that would have to take place prior to getting into the swing? I mean, who knows where those straps will cut? Control of the jiggle factor, to my mind, is crucial.
- The drawing up and signing of the legal documents, holding me blameless and giving me rights to the story should anything untoward/amusing happen whilst strapped into the swing, would be prudent.
- I would need to give ol' Ron at Nationwide a call. Will my homeowner's insurance cover enthusiastically-incurred injuries?
- And speaking of insurance, do I have the money set aside to cover my medical deductible – and what are the odds of ending up in a Horrors of the Emergency Room video?
What can I say? That was some really good chili.


text:
Lucy_at necesitaba un nuevo diseño de página web y lanzó un concurso de diseño en 99designs.
Un ganador ha sido elegido entre 29 diseños de 8 diseñadores freelance.
IT goes Enterprise 2.0 @ financial institution
We are an IT division with 450 employees of a financial institution.
Our head office has 2,000 employees.
Our banking group has 60,000 employees in 16 countries in Central and Eastern Europe.
We focus in retail and corporate banking customers.
We are a traditional banking organization. We want to be more modern. IT division is our pilot for the corporate intranet solution.
Primary audience is 450 employees of our IT division.
In 2011 or 2012 potentially all employees of head office.
Later all employees of our group.
Our primary audience is computer affine. We have a mix of digital natives (with Web 2.0 skills) and digital immigrants (with most knowledge). Managers are mostly digital immigrants.
Most are male in IT division. At head office most are female.
Intranet goals:
Provide common information for employees at one central location.
Reduce search efforts & time spent.
Connect people.
Make collaboration with employees and partners an easy job.
--> Modern IT intranet with Web 2.0/Enterprise 2.0 approach (two way communication)
Style guide (e.g. colors of background, yellow color, of buttons, of text styles, navigation) is all FIXED. See our attached examples.
Arrangement of content e.g. news, weather, photos is not.
Skip one news part, also the memo part, reduce the part in the center (they are MyLinks) to gain space for new ideas.
Use the new space for:
How to connect people properly with social networking features as facebook like concepts, new employees parts?
Support Content sharing, Collaboration and Communication between our people. Connect people is very important. Leverage user profiles with social networking support.
Show modern concepts as tag clouds for our most recent search terms, newest pages, best rated pages...
My documents, my tasks, my responsibilities...
Feel free to think about useful Google gadgets (e.g. for finance, IT news), content for daily work of an IT staff like links to daily used tools...
Language: Englisch only
Technology used: SharePoint 2010, Lotus Notes as E-mail and calendaring system.
Optimize for 1280 x 1024 resolution. Layout should size automatically. Min. 1024 x 768, max. 1680 x 1050
1. Page: home page for MyIntranet (based upon MySite of SharePoint 2010) with internal news, content and external Google gadgets added to keep it attractive, personalization of content parts and gadgets; later reusable for 2,000 head office employees or even more.
Skip one news part, also the memo part, reduce the part in the center (they are MyLinks) to gain space for new ideas.
2. Page: Software development intranet start page for approx. 100 employees (managers, lead developers, developers)
Add google gadgets for external IT news e.g. see screenshot from Computerwoche.de, Daily IT newswire, Jokes
Add "IT projects short info" to it.
Add "Policies last updates" to it.
See my uploaded screen shots.
3. Page: IT division intranet start page for 450 employees (managers, analysts, developers, IT operation employees, cross section personal as IT architecture, IT controlling, security management, projects & portfolio management, provider management...)
add portlets for new projects, appl. updates and knowledge domain updates (see screen shots)
see uploaded screenshots


text:
No more weird instruction manuals, no more bleeding thumbs, no more broken Transformers. This custom figure from Japan transforms itself. Just like a good robot should.
It was designed by Kenji Ishida and JS Robotics, and while it won't win any awards for its looks, it wins two awards from me, one for the transforming, the other for including that adorable little pose at the end.
変形ロボット作ってみた 8号機 [Nico Nico Douga]


text:
Popular results
Suggested results
enter more search keys
*After clicking the purchase link, you will be redirected to a third-party website and purchase platform. Please make sure you check the corresponding terms of purchase and privacy policy. Huawei is not responsible and has no control over this third party websites.
Enter more search keys