Classification Review Grand Valley State University and APSS shall jointly determine the review assessment survey instrument to be used at Grand Valley State University. The parties shall maintain a Joint Review Committee, composed of three members appointed by the Human Resources Office and three members appointed by the Alliance. Bargaining unit members questioning the assigned classification of their position may do so by using the following procedure: A. Meet with the Employment Manager in the Human Resources Office to discuss the review process, changes in their job responsibilities, duties and any other process questions they may have. B. PSS member will fill out the assessment survey and email to the Employment Manager along with any other documentation that supports the request. The survey instrument will be jointly administered/reviewed by the Assessment Team (consisting of the Employment Manager and an Alliance member of the Joint Review Committee). A meeting with the PSS is scheduled for a verbal review of the documentation and to answer any questions the Assessment Team may have. The supervisor or appointing officer is encouraged to attend. If the Assessment Team believes a job site visit is warranted as a result of the survey information, they will schedule a time for a joint visit. C. The completed survey instrument shall be coded. The survey results, as determined by the Assessment Team, shall be shared with the survey participant. D. After receiving the survey results, the survey participant, if they so choose shall have the opportunity to meet with the Joint Review Committee for additional input and appeal. Any additional information shall be reviewed by the Committee, and where the Committee feels it is necessary, the survey will be recoded, in a manner mutually agreeable. E. The Joint Review Committee shall then deliberate as to the merit of the upgrade requested by the participant. If the Committee is not able to reach a consensus, the University will decide on the classification. The Alliance may appeal that decision through the arbitration procedure of the collective bargaining agreement. Professional Support Staff members may engage in the review process no more than once per year. Supervisors questioning the assigned classification of a staff member’s position shall provide supporting rationale, complete an assessment survey instrument and discuss with Manager of Employment. The Manager of Employment shall notify an Alliance Representative that a Supervisor is reviewing a staff member’s classification. The review and outcome shall be completed within 45 working days unless the Alliance Representative and Manager of Employment mutually agreed to an extension. The Alliance will be provided with the scored instrument and any supporting rationale.
Client Classification 7.1. We shall not have an obligation to treat our clients in different classes depending on their knowledge and expertise.
Exclusion Review Notwithstanding any provision of Title 42 of the United States Code or Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the only issues in a proceeding for exclusion based on a material breach of this CIA shall be whether Good Shepherd was in material breach of this CIA and, if so, whether: a. Good Shepherd cured such breach within 30 days of its receipt of the Notice of Material Breach; or b. the alleged material breach could not have been cured within the 30-day period, but that, during the 30-day period following Good Shepherd’s receipt of the Notice of Material Breach: (i) Good Shepherd had begun to take action to cure the material breach; (ii) Good Shepherd pursued such action with due diligence; and (iii) Good Shepherd provided to OIG a reasonable timetable for curing the material breach. For purposes of the exclusion herein, exclusion shall take effect only after an ALJ decision favorable to OIG, or, if the ALJ rules for Good Shepherd, only after a DAB decision in favor of OIG. Good Shepherd’s election of its contractual right to appeal to the DAB shall not abrogate OIG’s authority to exclude Good Shepherd upon the issuance of an ALJ’s decision in favor of OIG. If the ALJ sustains the determination of OIG and determines that exclusion is authorized, such exclusion shall take effect 20 days after the ALJ issues such a decision, notwithstanding that Good Shepherd may request review of the ALJ decision by the DAB. If the DAB finds in favor of OIG after an ALJ decision adverse to OIG, the exclusion shall take effect 20 days after the DAB decision. Good Shepherd shall waive its right to any notice of such an exclusion if a decision upholding the exclusion is rendered by the ALJ or DAB. If the DAB finds in favor of Good Shepherd, Good Shepherd shall be reinstated effective on the date of the original exclusion.
Office of Inspector General Investigative Findings Expert Review In accordance with Senate Bill 799, Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., if Texas Government Code, Section 531.102(m-1)(2) is applicable to this Contract, Contractor affirms that it possesses the necessary occupational licenses and experience.
Review and Procedure Limitations The Asset Representations Reviewer will have no obligation (i) to determine whether a Delinquency Trigger has occurred, (ii) to determine whether the required percentage of Noteholders has voted to direct a Review, (iii) to determine which Receivables are subject to a Review, (iv) to obtain or confirm the validity of the Review Materials, (v) to obtain missing or insufficient Review Materials (except to the extent set forth in Section 3.04), or (vi) to take any action or cause any other party to take any action under any of the Basic Documents to enforce any remedies for breaches of any Eligible Representations. The Asset Representations Reviewer will only be required to perform the Tests provided in Exhibit A and will have no obligation to perform additional testing procedures on any ARR Receivables or to consider any additional information provided by any party. The Asset Representations Reviewer will have no obligation to provide reporting or information in addition to that described in Section 3.07. However, the Asset Representations Reviewer may review and report on additional information that it determines in good faith to be material to its performance under this ARR Agreement and may re-perform a Review with respect to an ARR Receivable as contemplated by Section 3.09. The Issuing Entity expressly agrees that the Asset Representations Reviewer is not advising the Issuing Entity or any Noteholder or any investor or future investor concerning the suitability of the Notes or any investment strategy. The Issuing Entity expressly acknowledges and agrees that the Asset Representations Reviewer is not an expert in accounting, tax, regulatory, or legal matters, and that the Asset Representations Reviewer is not providing legal advice as to any matter.
Review of Personnel File Upon written authority from an employee, OC shall permit the President of the Union or their designate to review that employee's personnel file in the office in which the file is normally kept in order to facilitate the proper investigation of a grievance.
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.
Contractor Changes The Contractor shall notify DAS in writing no later than ten (10) Days from the effective date of any change in: a. its certificate of incorporation or other organizational document; b. more than a controlling interest in the ownership of the Contractor; or c. the individual(s) in charge of the Performance. This change shall not relieve the Contractor of any responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the Performance. DAS, after receiving written notice by the Contractor of any such change, may require such agreements, releases and other instruments evidencing, to DAS’s satisfaction, that any individuals retiring or otherwise separating from the Contractor have been compensated in full or that provision has been made for compensation in full, for all work performed under terms of the Contract. The Contractor shall deliver such documents to DAS in accordance with the terms of DAS’s written request. DAS may also require, and the Contractor shall deliver, a financial statement showing that solvency of the Contractor is maintained. The death of any Contractor Party, as applicable, shall not release the Contractor from the obligation to Perform under the Contract; the surviving Contractor Parties, as appropriate, must continue to Perform under the Contract until Performance is fully completed.
Claims Review Methodology a. C laims Review Population. A description of the Population subject to the Quarterly Claims Review.
Constructability Review Prepare detailed interdisciplinary constructability review within Fourteen (14) days of receipt of the plans from the District that: 10.1.2.1.6.1 Ensures construction documents are well coordinated and reviewed for errors; 10.1.2.1.6.2 Identifies to the extent known, construction deficiencies and areas of concern; 10.1.2.1.6.3 Back-checks design drawings for inclusion of modifications; and 10.1.2.1.6.4 Provides the District with written confirmation that: 10.1.2.1.6.4.1 Requirements noted in the design documents prepared for the Project are consistent with and conform to the District's Project requirements and design standards. 10.1.2.1.6.4.2 Various components have been coordinated and are consistent with each other so as to minimize conflicts within or between components of the design documents.
