Composition of the Committee The Committee will comprise: - one (1) retiree appointed by OPSEU CAAT Academic - one (1) retiree appointed by OPSEU CAAT Support - one (1) retiree appointed by the Ontario Colleges Administrative Staff Association (OCASA) - three (3) management representatives appointed by the Council - one (1) resource person appointed by OPSEU - one (1) resource person appointed by OCASA - one (1) resource person appointed by the Council Additionally, when necessary, representatives of insurance carriers shall attend meetings to provide information but shall not act as resource persons for any of the parties.
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.
Composition of the Board At and following the Closing, each of the Partners and the Sponsor, severally and not jointly, agrees to take, for so long as such Party holds of record or beneficially owns any Registrable Securities, all Necessary Action to cause the Board to be comprised of eleven (11) directors nominated in accordance with this Article II, initially consisting of (i) seven (7) of whom have been nominated by the Partners, and thereafter designated pursuant to Section 2.1(b) or Section 2.1(d) of this Investor Rights Agreement (each, a “Partner Director”), at least four (4) of whom shall satisfy all applicable independence requirements (including at least two (2) of whom shall be sufficiently independent to serve on the audit and compensation committees of the Board), (ii) three (3) of whom have been nominated by the Sponsor, and thereafter designated pursuant to Section 2.1(c) or Section 2.1(d) of this Investor Rights Agreement (each, a “Sponsor Director”), at least one (1) of whom shall satisfy all applicable independence requirements (including being sufficiently independent to serve on the audit committee of the Board as a chair and the compensation committee as a member), and (iii) one (1) of whom has been jointly nominated by the mutual agreement of Sponsor and the Partners (the “Joint Director”), which Joint Director shall satisfy all applicable independence requirements. At and following the Closing, each of the Sponsor and the Partners, severally and not jointly, agrees to take, for so long as such Party holds of record or beneficially owns any Registrable Securities, all Necessary Action to cause the foregoing directors to be divided into three (3) classes of directors, with each class serving for staggered three (3) year terms. The initial term of the Class I directors shall expire immediately following PubCo’s 2022 annual meeting of stockholders at which directors are elected. The initial term of the Class II directors shall expire immediately following PubCo’s 2023 annual meeting of stockholders at which directors are elected. The initial term of the Class III directors shall expire immediately following PubCo’s 2024 annual meeting at which directors are elected.
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.
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.
Joint Remediation Committee If the Sellers (acting reasonably) determine that the Purchasers have committed a Major Default, then, at the election of the Sellers, within three (3) Business Days of the Sellers providing the Purchasers written notice of such determination, the Sellers and the Purchasers shall establish a joint remediation committee of designated executives from the Sellers and the Purchasers (“Joint Remediation Committee”) consisting of three (3) members of each of the Sellers and the Purchasers. The Joint Remediation Committee shall be responsible for overseeing the development of a mutually agreeable plan in accordance with subsection 3 below to either (i) remediate any breaches giving rise to the Major Default to the extent such breaches can be remediated and/or (ii) prevent similar breaches from recurring in the future (clauses (i) and (ii), a “Corrective Action Plan”). Each member of the Joint Remediation Committee shall have sufficient authority on the part of his or her respective party to make decisions relating to matters reviewed by the Joint Remediation Committee, and shall be approved by the other party (such approval not to be unreasonably delayed, conditioned or withheld). The Joint Remediation Committee shall have access to Purchaser Personnel that are primarily responsible for the area of the business relationship (such as information technology, data security or regulatory) where the breaches giving rise to the Major Default arise (such Purchaser Personnel, collectively, the “Subject Matter Experts”). The Sellers and the Purchasers shall cause their respective members on the Joint Remediation Committee to, and the Purchasers shall cause the Subject Matter Experts to, act in good faith in connection with the development of the Corrective Action Plan.
Composition of Board of Arbitration When either party requests that a grievance be submitted to arbitration, the request shall be made by registered mail addressed to the other party of the Agreement, indicating the name of its nominee on an Arbitration Board. Within five (5) days thereafter, the other party shall answer by registered mail indicating the name and address of its appointee to the Arbitration Board. The two appointees shall select an impartial chairperson.
Procurement Related Complaints and Administrative Review 49.1 The procedures for making a Procurement-related Complaint are as specified in the TDS.
49.2 A request for administrative review shall be made in the form provided under contract forms.
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.
Grievance Commissioner System This is to confirm the discussion of the parties during collective bargaining that they are committed to encouraging early discussion and resolution of labour relations issues at the local level and seek to resolve grievances in a timely and cost efficient manner. To that end, this is to confirm that pursuant to Article 8, the parties agree that the Employer and Union at individual nursing homes may agree to utilize the following process in order to resolve a particular grievance through the utilization of a joint mediation-arbitration procedure:
