Annual Merit Review for PS Faculty Sample Clauses

Annual Merit Review for PS Faculty. In addition to review for renewal, PS faculty, like all instructional staff including tenure-track faculty, must be evaluated annually according to Article VIII: Merit Evaluation. These evaluations of performance will take the form of standard faculty review procedures. The chair of the department or xxxx is responsible for annual evaluation of the PS faculty member for professional responsibilities, service and scholarship according to department criteria. Departmental/unit criteria for merit must be developed by departmental/unit faculty and be approved by them, and the departmental/unit chair, xxxx, and xxxxxxx. The official department criteria must include the date of faculty approval. Since PS faculty have responsibility primarily for professional responsibilities, review by faculty should be utilized by the department chair or xxxx. Evaluations will be kept on file as one basis for decisions regarding reappointment. The general criteria for annual review for merit (salary) raises of PS faculty are shown below, but the specific criteria will be developed by departmental/unit faculty and be approved by them, and the departmental/unit chair, respective xxxx, and xxxxxxx and may vary depending on department and college needs. Professional responsibilities, teaching or teaching-related activities, and professional development 80% Scholarship in their related field 10% Service to the program specialist’s profession, FHSU, and the community 10%
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Annual Merit Review for PS Faculty

  • Performance Review Where a performance review of an employee’s performance is carried out, the employee shall be given sufficient opportunity after the interview to read and review the performance review. Provision shall be made on the performance review form for an employee to sign it. The form shall provide for the employee’s signature in two (2) places, one (1) indicating that the employee has read and accepts the performance review, and the other indicating that the employee disagrees with the performance review. The employee shall sign in only one (1) of the places provided. No employee may initiate a grievance regarding the contents of a performance review unless the signature indicates disagreement. An employee shall, upon request, receive a copy of this performance review at the time of signing. An employee’s performance review shall not be changed after an employee has signed it, without the knowledge of the employee, and any such changes shall be subject to the grievance procedure of this Agreement. The employee may respond, in writing, to the performance review. Such response will be attached to the performance review.

  • Additional RO Review Criteria (1) In addition to the requirements in Subparagraph 34A, the RO must:

  • Performance Reviews The Employee will be provided with a written performance appraisal at least once per year and said appraisal will be reviewed at which time all aspects of the assessment can be fully discussed.

  • Form B - Contractor’s Annual Employment Report Throughout the term of the Contract by May 15th of each year the Contractor agrees to report the following information to the State Agency awarding the Contract, or if the Contractor has provided Contract Employees pursuant to an OGS centralized Contract, such report must be made to the State Agency purchasing from such Contract. For each covered consultant Contract in effect at any time between the preceding April 1st through March 31st fiscal year or for the period of time such Contract was in effect during such prior State fiscal year Contractor reports the:

  • Business Review Meetings In order to maintain the relationship between the Department and the Contractor, each quarter the Department may request a business review meeting. The business review meeting may include, but is not limited to, the following: • Successful completion of deliverables • Review of the Contractor’s performance • Review of minimum required reports • Addressing of any elevated Customer issues • Review of continuous improvement ideas that may help lower total costs and improve business efficiencies.

  • SCHEDULE FOR PERFORMANCE REVIEWS 8.1 The performance of each Employee in relation to his/her performance agreement shall be reviewed on the following dates with the understanding that reviews in the first and third quarter may be verbal if performance is satisfactory:

  • Program Review The Contracting Officer or other authorized government representative may hold semi- annual program review meetings. Such meetings will be held via telecom or video teleconferencing. However, the Government reserves the right to request a meeting in person. The meetings will include all BPA holders, representatives from prospective customer agencies, a combination of current and prospective customer agencies, or individual BPA holders. Some Federal Government Agencies and any approved State, Local and Tribal agencies may establish a central program management function. Such users may require their primary suppliers to participate in agency program review meetings on a periodic basis, at no additional cost to the Government.

  • Post Review With respect to each contract not governed by paragraph 2 of this Part, the procedures set forth in paragraph 4 of Appendix 1 to the Guidelines shall apply.

  • 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.

  • Planning for Future Years (a) Advance Notice. The Funder will give at least 60 Days’ Notice to the HSP of the date by which a Planning Submission, approved by the HSP’s governing body, must be submitted to the Funder.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.