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.
Review Procedure If the Plan Administrator denies part or all of the claim, the claimant shall have the opportunity for a full and fair review by the Plan Administrator of the denial, as follows:
Claims Review Methodology
a. C laims Review Population. A description of the Population subject to the Quarterly Claims Review.
Claims Review Population A description of the Population subject to the Claims Review.
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.
Conformity Assessment Procedures 1. Each Party shall give positive consideration to accepting the results of conformity assessment procedures of other Parties, even where those procedures differ from its own, provided it is satisfied that those procedures offer an assurance of conformity with applicable technical regulations or standards equivalent to its own procedures.
2. Each Party shall seek to enhance the acceptance of the results of conformity assessment procedures conducted in the territories of other Parties with a view to increasing efficiency, avoiding duplication and ensuring cost effectiveness of the conformity assessments. In this regard, each Party may choose, depending on the situation of the Party and the specific sectors involved, a broad range of approaches. These may include but are not limited to:
(a) recognition by a Party of the results of conformity assessments performed in the territory of another Party;
(b) recognition of co-operative arrangements between accreditation bodies in the territories of the Parties;
(c) mutual recognition of conformity assessment procedures conducted by bodies located in the territory of each Party;
(d) accreditation of conformity assessment bodies in the territory of another Party;
(e) use of existing regional and international multilateral recognition agreements and arrangements;
(f) designating conformity assessment bodies located in the territory of another Party to perform conformity assessment; and
(g) suppliers’ declaration of conformity.
3. Each Party shall exchange information with other Parties on its experience in the development and application of the approaches in Paragraph 2(a) to (g) and other appropriate approaches with a view to facilitating the acceptance of the results of conformity assessment procedures.
4. A Party shall, upon request of another Party, explain its reasons for not accepting the results of any conformity assessment procedure performed in the territory of that other Party.
Claims and Review Procedure In the event that any claim for benefits that must initially be submitted in writing to the Board of Directors, is denied (in whole or in part) hereunder, the claimant shall receive from First Charter a notice of denial in writing within 60 days, written in a manner calculated to be understood by the claimant, setting forth the specific reasons for denial, with specific reference to pertinent provisions of this Supplemental Agreement. Any disagreements about such interpretations and construction shall be submitted to an arbitrator subject to the rules and procedures established by the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrator shall be acceptable to both First Charter and the Executive (or Beneficiary); if the parties cannot agree on a single arbitrator, the disagreement shall be heard by a panel of three arbitrators, with each party to appoint one arbitrator and the third to be chosen by the other two. No member of the Board of Directors shall be liable to any person for any action taken under Article VIII except those actions undertaken with lack of good faith.
Evaluation Procedure The procedural requirements set forth in this agreement which conform with and provide specificity to the statutory obligations established by Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.111 and § 3319.112.
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.
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.
