Departmental Recommendation Sample Clauses

Departmental Recommendation. Members of an applicant’s Department, excluding the Xxxx/Director and those members elected or appointed to the Faculty/Unit and/or the University Tenure Committee or the Tenure Appeals Committee, shall review the applicant’s dossier and meet with the applicant before 15 October, to formulate recommendations based upon the relevant sections of the Collective Agreement. Members who are seeking tenure may not participate in the deliberation leading to the Department’s recommendation nor in voting on their own application for tenure. The Department’s recommendations will be sent to the relevant Xxxx/Director, the Chair of the Faculty/Unit Tenure Committee, and to the Chair of the University Tenure Committee by 1 November, with copies to the applicant. Departmental recommendations shall include written reasons and signature lines for all Department members. Recommendations shall be signed by each member of the Department who supports the recommendation and rationale, with the exception of the applicant, members elected or appointed to the Faculty/Unit and/or the University Tenure Committee, and/or the Tenure Appeals Committee. Abstentions or dissenting viewpoints, including those who agree with the recommendation but do not agree with the supporting rationale, will be supported by written reasons. The reasons must be substantive and clearly related to qualifications by rank and criteria for tenure, and sufficiently specific to enable the applicant to know the basis of the recommendation. In the case of applicants who are not members of a Department composed of at least three (3) Members, the Xxxx/Director, after consultation with the applicant, shall designate a “non- Departmental Committee”, excluding members elected or appointed to the University Tenure Committee or the Tenure Appeals Committee, consisting of at least three (3) Members whose discipline areas are as closely related to the applicant’s as possible. Applicants will be permitted two (2) vetoes in this selection process.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Departmental Recommendation. Members of an applicant’s Department, excluding the Xxxx/Director and those members elected or appointed to the University’s Promotions Committee and/or the Promotions Appeals Committee, shall review the applicant’s dossier and meet with the applicant before 15 October, to formulate recommendations based upon the relevant sections of this Collective Agreement. Members who are seeking promotion may not participate in the deliberation leading to the Department’s recommendation nor in voting on their own application for promotion. The Department’s recommendations will be sent to the Xxxx/Director and to the Chair of the University Promotions Committee by 1 November, with copies to the applicant. Departmental recommendations shall include written reasons and signature lines for all Department members. Recommendations shall be signed by each member of the Department who supports the recommendation and rationale, with the exception of the applicant, members elected or appointed to the University Promotions Committee, and/or the Promotions Appeals Committee. Abstentions or dissenting viewpoints, including those who agree with the recommendation but do not agree with the supporting rationale, will be supported by written reasons. The reasons must be substantive and clearly related to the qualifications by rank and criteria for promotion and sufficiently specific to enable the applicant to know the basis for the recommendation. In the case of applicants who are not Members of a Department/Unit composed of at least three

Related to Departmental Recommendation

  • Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:

  • Conclusions and Recommendations The demonstration and evaluation process provided an opportunity to test community specific tools with a range of end users from the memory institution domain and to gain greater insight into both the current and future evolution of the SHAMAN prototypes for preservation, access and re-use. Xxxx et al. (2000) in their user evaluation study of the Alexandria Digital Library which incorporated the evaluation of a Web prototype by earth scientists, information specialists and educators raised four key questions in relation to their findings that SHAMAN may be well advised to consider, they are paraphrased here with our conclusions from the investigations. What have we learned about our target organizations and potential users?  Memory institutions are most definitely not a homogenised group; their needs and requirements differ greatly across the domain.  Representatives of the archives community are agreed on the benefits of SHAMAN‟s authenticity validation function.  The representatives of government information services remained unconvinced as to the need or benefit of grid technologies or distributed ingest while librarians saw the value of grid access as an asset of the framework. What have we learned about the evaluation approach for digital preservation?  Within the limits of the exercise, in terms of time-frame and resources, the approach adopted has generated useful information for the further development of demonstrators and for the development of the SHAMAN framework overall. What have we learned about the SHAMAN ISP1 demonstrator?  Respondents to the evaluation questionnaires and the focus groups indicate that, overall, the presentation of the demonstrator worked effectively and that, in general, participants in the demonstration and evaluation events were able to understand the intentions of the demonstration and to apply the ideas presented to their own context. What have we learned about the applicability of the SHAMAN framework to memory institutions?  Respondents to the questionnaires and participants in the focus groups readily identified the value of the SHAMAN framework to their own operations. The majority had not yet established a long-term digital preservation policy, but recognized the need. Generally, the concepts of distributed ingest and grid operations found favour.  Virtually all practitioners in the focus groups, however, drew attention to need of a lower level demonstration that would be closer to their everyday preservation troubles, especially for digital preservation to be applied to non-textual materials, such as film, photographs and sound archives. In addition to the criteria suggested by Xxxx et al., we can add a further project-related question: What have we learned that has implications for the training and dissemination phase of the Project?  It was not part of the remit of the demonstration and evaluation specifically to discover information of relevance to the training and dissemination function. However, a number of factors will affect the efficacy of any training programme in particular. o First, no common understanding of digital preservation can be assumed of the potential target audiences for training. Consequently, it is likely that self-paced learning materials will be most effective in presenting the SHAMAN framework. o Secondly, the aims of SHAMAN as a project must be conveyed clearly: specifically, that it is a kind of „proof-of-concept‟ project and is not intended to deliver a package of programs capable of being implemented by institutions. o Thirdly, it needs to be emphasised that the SHAMAN framework is not limited to text documents; it can be applied to materials of all kinds. However, the demonstrations relate to bodies of material that were actually available for use. o Fourthly, the existing presentation materials are capable of being adapted for use in training activities. o Finally, the target audiences will appreciate the possibility of online access to the demonstrator, which will need to have very great ease of access in order that people with diverse backgrounds are able to use it with equal facility. We believe that, overall, WP14 has met its aims and objectives in this demonstration and evaluation of ISP1. Valuable lessons have been learnt by all parties involved, which will be transferred to the evaluation of ISP2 in the coming months.

  • Manufacturer's Recommendations All work or materials shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and requirements. The Contractor shall obtain the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements, for its use at the Site in executing the Work, copies of bulletins, circulars, catalogues, or other publications bearing the manufacturer’s titles, numbers, editions, dates, etc. If the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements are not available, the Contractor shall request installation instructions from the Design Professional.

  • Representations and Recommendations Unless otherwise stated in writing, neither Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc, nor its brokers or licensees have made, on their own behalf, any representations or warranties, express or implied, with respect to any element of the Property including but not limited to, the legal sufficiency, legal effect, or tax consequences of this transaction. Any information furnished by either party should be independently verified before that party relies on such information. Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc. recommends that Buyer consult its attorneys and accountants before signing this Agreement regarding the terms and conditions herein and that Seller satisfy itself as to the financial ability of Buyer to perform.

  • Departmental Review If informal resolution of the problem through conciliation and negotiation cannot be effected, an aggrieved person may file a formal complaint with the departmental affirmative action coordinator or other designated official. Such a complaint must be filed on a form provided for this purpose and within five working days after the attempted resolution of the problem by the equal employment opportunity counselor or within twenty-five (25) working days after the date of the alleged discriminatory action, whichever shall first occur. The affirmative action coordinator will decide whether the complaint falls within the jurisdiction of the procedure and accept or reject it. Upon acceptance of the complaint, the affirmative action coordinator shall obtain the notes on the case from the equal employment opportunity counselor; may conduct a prompt, impartial investigation if he deems it necessary; shall explore the possibility of resolving the problem through negotiation or conciliation; shall present findings and recommendations on resolving the complaint to the agency/department head; and within forty-five (45) working days from the date the formal complaint was filed, shall present his written decision, as approved by the agency/department head, to the complainant, with a copy of the complaint and decision to be forwarded to the director of personnel.

  • Recommendation The Sheriff recommends approval of the Board Order. The County Administrator concurs with the recommendation of the Sheriff. Should the Board of Commissioners concur with their recommendations, approval of the Board Order will implement that action. Respectfully submitted, /s/ XXXXX XXXXXX Xxxxx Xxxxxx County Administrator

  • Recommendations It is recommended that:

  • National Board Certification A teacher who receives or holds a valid National Board Certification will receive a five hundred dollar ($500.00) stipend in each year the certification is valid and the teacher is actively teaching in the area of certification.

  • RECOMMENDATION OF LEGAL AND TAX COUNSEL By signing this document, Xxxxx acknowledges that Xxxxxx has 210 advised that this document has important legal consequences and has recommended consultation with legal and tax or other counsel 211 before signing this Buyer Listing Contract.

  • Proposal of Corrective Action Plan In addition to the processes set forth in the Contract (e.g., service level agreements), if the Department or Customer determines that there is a performance deficiency that requires correction by the Contractor, then the Department or Customer will notify the Contractor. The correction must be made within a time-frame specified by the Department or Customer. The Contractor must provide the Department or Customer with a corrective action plan describing how the Contractor will address all performance deficiencies identified by the Department or Customer.

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