ACADEMIC DECISIONS REVIEWED Sample Clauses

ACADEMIC DECISIONS REVIEWED. These procedures are available only to review allegedly unfair academic decisions and not mere differences of opinion regarding the professional judgment of the instructor in evaluating a student's work or making an academic decision. The academic decision, including the assignment of a grade, will be considered unfair if the decision is made: (A) on some basis other than performance in the course and/or compliance with course assignments and requirements; (B) by more exacting or demanding standards than were applied to other students in the same section; (C) by a substantial departure from the instructor's, department's, college's or University's announced standards as articulated in the course syllabus, catalog descriptions and/or other written materials.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to ACADEMIC DECISIONS REVIEWED

  • ADB’s Review of Procurement Decisions 11. All contracts procured under international competitive bidding procedures and contracts for consulting services shall be subject to prior review by ADB, unless otherwise agreed between the Borrower and ADB and set forth in the Procurement Plan.

  • Asset Representations Review Process Section 3.01 Asset Representations Review Notices and Identification of Review Receivables. On receipt of an Asset Representations Review Notice from the Seller according to Section 5.7 of the Receivables Purchase Agreement, the Asset Representations Reviewer will start an Asset Representations Review. The Servicer will provide the list of Review Receivables to the Asset Representations Reviewer promptly upon receipt of the Asset Representations Review Notice. The Asset Representations Reviewer will not be obligated to start, and will not start, an Asset Representations Review until an Asset Representations Review Notice and the related list of Review Receivables is received. The Asset Representations Reviewer is not obligated to verify (i) whether the conditions to the initiation of the Asset Representations Review and the issuance of an Asset Representations Review Notice described in Section 7.6 of the Indenture were satisfied or (ii) the accuracy or completeness of the list of Review Receivables provided by the Servicer.

  • Program Review The State ECEAP Office will conduct a review of each contractor’s compliance with the ECEAP Contract and ECEAP Performance Standards every four years. The review will involve ECEAP staff and parents. After the Program Review, the State ECEAP Office will provide the contractor with a Program Review report. The contractor must submit an ECEAP Corrective Action Plan for non-compliance with ECEAP Performance Standards. The Plan must be approved by the State ECEAP Office.

  • AUDIT REVIEW PROCEDURES Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an interim or post audit of this AGREEMENT that is not disposed of by agreement, shall be reviewed by ALAMEDA CTC’s Deputy Executive Director of Finance and Administration. Not later than thirty (30) calendar days after issuance of the final audit report, CONSULTANT may request a review by ALAMEDA CTC’s Deputy Executive Director of Finance and Administration of unresolved audit issues. The request for review will be submitted in writing. Neither the pendency of a dispute nor its consideration by ALAMEDA CTC will excuse CONSULTANT from full and timely performance, in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT and subconsultants’ contracts, including cost proposals and ICRs, may be subject to audits or reviews such as, but not limited to, an AGREEMENT Audit, an Incurred Cost Audit, an ICR Audit, or a certified public accountant (“CPA”) ICR Audit Workpaper Review. If selected for audit or review, the AGREEMENT, cost proposal and ICR and related workpapers, if applicable, will be reviewed to verify compliance with 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31 and other related laws and regulations. In the instances of a CPA ICR Audit Workpaper Review it is CONSULTANT’s responsibility to ensure federal, state, or local government officials are allowed full access to the CPA’s workpapers including making copies as necessary. The AGREEMENT, cost proposal, and ICR shall be adjusted by CONSULTANT and approved by ALAMEDA CTC to conform to the audit or review recommendations. CONSULTANT agrees that individual terms of costs identified in the audit report shall be incorporated into the contract by this reference if directed by ALAMEDA CTC at its sole discretion. Refusal by CONSULTANT to incorporate audit or review recommendations, or to ensure that the federal, state, or local governments have access to CPA workpapers, will be considered a breach of contract terms and cause for termination of the AGREEMENT and disallowance of prior reimbursed costs.

  • Initial Decision Maker The Architect will serve as the Initial Decision Maker pursuant to Article 15 of AIA Document A201–2017, unless the parties appoint below another individual, not a party to this Agreement, to serve as the Initial Decision Maker.

  • Asset Representations Review (a) Upon the occurrence of a Delinquency Trigger with respect to any Collection Period, the Servicer will promptly send to TMCC, the Administrator, the Indenture Trustee and each Noteholder (and to each applicable Clearing Agency for distribution to Note Owners in accordance with the rules of such Clearing Agency) a notice describing (i) the occurrence of the Delinquency Trigger, and including reasonably detailed calculations thereof, and (ii) the rights of the Noteholders and Note Owners regarding an Asset Representations Review (including a description of the method by which Noteholders and Note Owners may contact the Indenture Trustee in order to request a Noteholder vote in respect of an Asset Representations Review). (b) If the Indenture Trustee notifies the Servicer pursuant to Section 12.02 of the Indenture that sufficient Noteholders have voted within the required time to initiate an Asset Representations Review of all ARR Receivables by the Asset Representations Reviewer pursuant to the Asset Representations Review Agreement, then the Servicer shall: (i) promptly notify the Asset Representations Reviewer and the Indenture Trustee of the number of ARR Receivables; (ii) within sixty (60) days after receipt by the Servicer of such notice from the Indenture Trustee, render reasonable assistance, including granting access to copies of any underlying documents and Receivable Files and all other relevant documents, to the Asset Representations Reviewer to facilitate the performance of a review of all ARR Receivables, pursuant to Section 3.2(a) of the Asset Representations Review Agreement, in order to verify compliance with the representations and warranties made to the Issuer by the Seller and the Servicer; and (iii) provide such other reasonable assistance to the Asset Representations Reviewer as it requests in order to facilitate its Asset Representations Review of the ARR Receivables pursuant to the Asset Representations Review Agreement. The Servicer may redact any materials provided to the Asset Representations Reviewer in order to remove any personally identifiable customer information. Except for the measure described in the immediately preceding sentence, the Servicer will use commercially reasonable efforts not to change the meaning of such materials or their usefulness to the Asset Representations Reviewer in connection with its review pursuant to Section 3.2(a) of the Asset Representations Review Agreement.

  • Independence of Asset Representations Reviewer The Asset Representations Reviewer will be an independent contractor and will not be subject to the supervision of the Issuer or the Owner Trustee for the manner in which it accomplishes the performance of its obligations under this Agreement. Unless authorized by the Issuer or the Owner Trustee, respectively, the Asset Representations Reviewer will have no authority to act for or represent the Issuer or the Owner Trustee and will not be considered an agent of the Issuer or the Owner Trustee. Nothing in this Agreement will make the Asset Representations Reviewer and either of the Issuer or the Owner Trustee members of any partnership, joint venture or other separate entity or impose any liability as such on any of them.

  • SITE-BASED DECISION MAKING A. The District shall provide the training and staff development to support accountability/site- based decision-making activities. Teachers shall be given release time to attend these programs. B. Participation on the SAC shall not serve as a basis for the evaluation of any teacher. C. A minimum of three (3) to a maximum of five (5) teachers from each school shall serve on their school’s budget advisory committee formed for the purpose of making recommendations on the school’s general fund budget. Teacher members shall be elected by the faculty. Minutes from such meetings may be requested by the faculty and may be posted on the CTA bulletin board at the school by the Association Representative.

  • Commercialization Reports Throughout the term of this Agreement and during the Sell-Off Period, and within thirty (30) days of December 31st of each year, Company will deliver to University written reports of Company’s and Sublicensees’ efforts and plans to develop and commercialize the innovations covered by the Licensed Rights and to make and sell Licensed Products. Company will have no obligation to prepare commercialization reports in years where (a) Company delivers to University a written Sales Report with active sales, and (b) Company has fulfilled all Performance Milestones. In relation to each of the Performance Milestones each commercialization report will include sufficient information to demonstrate achievement of those Performance Milestones and will set out timeframes and plans for achieving those Performance Milestones which have not yet been met.

  • Independent Review Contractor shall provide the Secretary of ADS/CIO an independent expert review of any Agency recommendation for any information technology activity when its total cost is $1,000,000.00 or greater or when CIO requires one. The State has identified two sub-categories for Independent Reviews, Standard and Complex. The State will identify in the SOW RFP the sub-category they are seeking. State shall not consider bids greater than the maximum value indicated below for this category. Standard Independent Review $25,000 Maximum Complex Independent Review $50,000 Maximum Per Vermont statute 3 V.S.A. 2222, The Secretary of Administration shall obtain independent expert review of any recommendation for any information technology initiated after July 1, 1996, as information technology activity is defined by subdivision (a) (10), when its total cost is $1,000,000 or greater or when required by the State Chief Information Officer. Documentation of this independent review shall be included when plans are submitted for review pursuant to subdivisions (a)(9) and (10) of this section. The independent review shall include: • An acquisition cost assessment • A technology architecture review • An implementation plan assessment • A cost analysis and model for benefit analysis • A procurement negotiation advisory services contract • An impact analysis on net operating costs for the agency carrying out the activity In addition, from time to time special reviews of the advisability and feasibility of certain types of IT strategies may be required. Following are Requirements and Capabilities for this Service: • Identify acquisition and lifecycle costs; • Assess wide area network (WAN) and/or local area network (LAN) impact; • Assess risks and/or review technical risk assessments of an IT project including security, data classification(s), subsystem designs, architectures, and computer systems in terms of their impact on costs, benefits, schedule and technical performance; • Assess, evaluate and critically review implementation plans, e.g.: • Adequacy of support for conversion and implementation activities • Adequacy of department and partner staff to provide Project Management • Adequacy of planned testing procedures • Acceptance/readiness of staff • Schedule soundness • Adequacy of training pre and post project • Assess proposed technical architecture to validate conformance to the State’s “strategic direction.” • Insure system use toolsets and strategies are consistent with State Chief Information Officer (CIO) policies, including security and digital records management; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to security and systems integration with other applications within the Department, and within the Agency, and existing or planned Enterprise Applications; • Perform cost and schedule risk assessments to support various alternatives to meet mission need, recommend alternative courses of action when one or more interdependent segment(s) or phase(s) experience a delay, and recommend opportunities for new technology insertions; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to the state of the art in this technology. • Assess a project’s backup/recovery strategy and the project’s disaster recovery plans for adequacy and conformance to State policy. • Evaluate the ability of a proposed solution to meet the needs for which the solution has been proposed, define the ability of the operational and user staff to integrate this solution into their work.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!