No Joint Assessment Borrower shall not suffer, permit or initiate the joint assessment of the Property (a) with any other real property constituting a tax lot separate from the Property, and (b) which constitutes real property with any portion of the Property which may be deemed to constitute personal property, or any other procedure whereby the lien of any taxes which may be levied against such personal property shall be assessed or levied or charged to such real property portion of the Property.
EMPLOYEE EVALUATION A. Formal evaluation of employees shall be in writing and shall be for the purpose of establishing a record of the employee’s work performance. The evaluation may include but is not limited to: establishing performance standards and outcome measures, recognition of an employee’s efforts, as well as planning for improvement. Issues of attendance and punctuality may be addressed if they have previously been discussed with the employee. The employee’s job description shall be a basis for the evaluation.
B. The evaluator shall review the written evaluation with the employee and provide the employee with a copy. The employee shall sign the evaluation acknowledging receipt. If the employee has objections to the evaluation, s/he, may within twenty (20) working days following receipt of the evaluation put such objections in writing and have them attached to the evaluation report and placed in his/her personnel file.
C. The frequency of evaluations shall be determined by the District and generally occur every other year by April 1st for bargaining unit employees. If the District chooses to do so, it may conduct formal evaluations on an annual basis. An employee may request to receive one (1) annual evaluation. Such request shall be in writing to the employee’s supervisor with a copy to the Human Resources Department.
D. The Human Resources Department will consult with the Federation in developing an outline of best practices to be used in conducting employee evaluations.
E. When the District determines that an employee’s work performance is unsatisfactory, it shall inform the employee in writing of any deficiency and the improvement expected and provide the employee with the opportunity to correct the unsatisfactory performance within a reasonable time period established by the District.
F. The judgment of an employee’s work performance by an evaluating supervisor shall not be the subject of a grievance. A grievance concerning an evaluation shall be limited to an allegation that the evaluation was done in bad faith or clearly untrue. The burden of proof shall rest with the grievant. Such grievance shall be filed at the next administrative level above that of the evaluator and that administrator shall provide a written decision within ten (10) working days of any hearing. If the grievance is not resolved, it may be appealed by submitting a written statement to the Human Resources Department within ten (10) working days following receipt of the administrative written decision. The written statement must clearly set forth why the previous decision is in error regarding the allegation of bad faith or being clearly untrue. The Director of Labor Relations, or designee, may review the record of the grievance and/or conduct a hearing and shall issue a written decision within ten (10) working days following such review or hearing. Such decision shall be final.
G. Effective July 1, 2013, Sign Language Interpreters will be evaluated using the Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment (EIPA) pursuant to OAR 581-015-2035 and/or the District’s evaluation form.
Joint Assessment If the Premises are not separately assessed, Lessee's liability shall be an equitable proportion of the Real Property Taxes for all of the land and improvements included within the tax parcel assessed, such proportion to be conclusively determined by Lessor from the respective valuations assigned in the assessor's work sheets or such other information as may be reasonably available.
Diagnostic Assessment 6.3.1 Boards shall provide a list of pre-approved assessment tools consistent with their Board improvement plan for student achievement and which is compliant with Ministry of Education PPM (PPM 155: Diagnostic Assessment in Support of Student Learning, date of issue January 7, 2013).
6.3.2 Teachers shall use their professional judgment to determine which assessment and/or evaluation tool(s) from the Board list of preapproved assessment tools is applicable, for which student(s), as well as the frequency and timing of the tool. In order to inform their instruction, teachers must utilize diagnostic assessment during the school year.
Performance Assessment 6.1 The Performance Plan (Annexure A) to this Agreement sets out key performance indicators and competencies that needs to be evaluated in terms of –
6.1.1 The standards and procedures for evaluating the Employee’s performance; and
6.1.2 During the intervals for the evaluation of the Employee’s performance.
6.2 Despite the establishment of agreed intervals for evaluation, the Employer may in addition review the Employee’s performance at any stage while the contract of employment remains in force;
6.3 Personal growth and development needs identified during any performance review discussion must be documented in a Personal Development Plan as well as the actions agreed to and implementation must take place within set time frames;
6.4 The Employee’s performance will also be measured in terms of contributions to the goals and strategies set out in the Employer’s Integrated Development Plan (IDP) as described in 6.6 – 6.13 below;
6.5 The Employee will submit quarterly performance reports (SDBIP) and a comprehensive annual performance report at least one week prior to the performance assessment meetings to the Evaluation Panel Chairperson for distribution to the panel members for preparation purposes;
6.6 Assessment of the achievement of results as outlined in the performance plan:
6.6.1 Each KPI or group of KPIs shall be assessed according to the extent to which the specified standards or performance targets have been met (qualitative and quantitative) and with due regard to ad-hoc tasks that had to be performed under the KPI;
6.6.2 A rating on the five-point scale described in 6.9 below shall be provided for each KPI or group of KPIs which will then be multiplied by the weighting to calculate the final score;
6.6.3 The Employee will submit his self-evaluation to the Employer prior to the formal assessment;
6.6.4 In the instance where the employee could not perform due to reasons outside the control of the employer and employee, the KPI will not be considered during the evaluation. The employee should provide sufficient evidence in such instances; and
6.6.5 An overall score will be calculated based on the total of the individual scores calculated above.
Data Protection Impact Assessment If, pursuant to Data Protection Law, Customer (or its Controllers) are required to perform a data protection impact assessment or prior consultation with a regulator, at Customer’s request, SAP will provide such documents as are generally available for the Cloud Service (for example, this DPA, the Agreement, audit reports or certifications). Any additional assistance shall be mutually agreed between the Parties.
Employee Plan Compliance (i) Q5 and Q5 Subsidiaries have performed in all material respects all obligations required to be performed by them under, are not in material default or violation of, and have no Knowledge of any default or violation by any other party to each Q5 Employee Plan, and each Q5 Employee Plan has been established and maintained in all material respects in accordance with its terms and in material compliance with all applicable laws, statutes, orders, rules and regulations, including but not limited to ERISA and the Code; (ii) each Q5 Employee Plan intended to qualify under Section 401(a) of the Code and each trust intended to qualify under Section 501(a) of the Code has either received a favorable determination, opinion, notification or advisory letter from the IRS with respect to each such Q5 Employee Plan as to its qualified status under the Code or has remaining a period of time under applicable Treasury regulations or IRS pronouncements in which to apply for such a letter and make any amendments necessary to obtain a favorable determination as to the qualified status of each such Q5 Employee Plan; (iii) no "prohibited transaction," within the meaning of Section 4975 of the Code or Sections 406 and 407 of ERISA, and not otherwise exempt under Section 4975 or Section 408 of ERISA (or any administrative class exemption issued thereunder), has occurred with respect to any Q5 Employee Plan; (iv) there are no actions, suits or claims pending, or, to the Knowledge of Q5 or any Q5 Subsidiary, threatened or reasonably anticipated (other than routine claims for benefits) against any Q5 Employee Plan or against the assets of any Q5 Employee Plan; (v) there are no audits, inquiries or proceedings pending or, to the Knowledge of Q5 or any of Q5 Subsidiaries, or any ERISA Affiliates, threatened by the IRS or DOL with respect to any Q5 Employee Plan; and (vi) neither Q5, Q5 Subsidiaries, nor any ERISA Affiliate is subject to any penalty or tax with respect to any Q5 Employee Plan under Section 502(i) of ERISA or Sections 4975 through 4980 of the Code.
Needs Assessment The determination of whether the Annual Income of a family or individual occupying or seeking to occupy a Qualifying Unit complies with the requirements for Extremely Low-Income Households or Low- to Moderate-Income Households shall be made by the applicable housing authority in the CDBG-DR Program area prior to admission of such family or individual to occupancy of a Qualifying Unit.
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.
Review of assessment The assessment of the applicable percentage should be subject to annual review or earlier on the basis of a reasonable request for such a review. The process of review shall be in accordance with the procedures for assessing capacity under the Supported Wage System.
