Faculty Review Sample Clauses

Faculty Review. The eligible faculty in the candidate’s department or unit, or a 7 personnel committee comprised of a subset of the eligible faculty (if the department’s or unit’s 8 internal policy specifies the creation of such committee), will review the file and the external 9 reviews, prepare a report, and vote. In cases where there are too few eligible faculty members 10 to form a review committee within the candidate’s department or unit, the department or unit 11 head will work with the appropriate xxxx to establish a committee including appropriate faculty 12 members from outside the department. A final vote will be conducted by signed ballot, and the 13 ballots will remain confidential to the extent permitted by law.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (5)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Faculty Review. The eligible faculty in the candidate’s department or unit, 2 or a personnel committee comprised of a subset of the eligible faculty (if the department’s 3 or unit’s internal policy specifies the creation of such committee), will review the file and 4 the external reviews, prepare a report, and vote. In cases where there are too few eligible 5 faculty members to form a review committee within the candidate’s department or unit, 6 the department or unit head will work with the appropriate xxxx to establish a committee 7 including appropriate faculty members from outside the department. A final vote will be 8 conducted by signed ballot, and the ballots will remain confidential to the extent 9 permitted by law. 10 11 Section 16. Review by Department or Unit Head, College or School Personnel 12 Committee and Xxxx. The department or unit head will prepare an independent report 13 and recommendation, and then forward the entire file to the appropriate xxxx. The file 14 then will be reviewed by a school- or college-level personnel committee appointed by a 15 process determined by the xxxx. The committee will prepare an independent report and 16 vote, and will forward the entire file to the xxxx. This step may be bypassed in schools or 17 colleges whose deans choose not to convene a personnel committee. The xxxx will then 18 prepare an independent report and recommendation, and then meet with the candidate to 19 discuss the case, review the recommendations made by the department committee, 20 department or unit head, and the school or college-level personnel committee (if 21 applicable), and the xxxx’x own recommendation. Upon request, the candidate will be 22 provided with a copy of the xxxx’x report that has been redacted in accordance with the 23 waiver status to protect personally identifiable information. The candidate may provide 24 responsive material for the file within 10 days of the meeting with the xxxx or the receipt 25 of the redacted report, whichever is later. The xxxx will then forward the entire file to the 26 Office of Academic Affairs. 27 28 Section 17. Xxxxxxx’x Review of File. The Xxxxxxx or designee will review the 29 promotion and tenure file for completeness and general presentation, and may request 30 additional information from the xxxx. The file forwarded to the Xxxxxxx or designee 31 should include the following: 32 33  Promotion and tenure checklist 00 00  Voting summary 36 37  Criteria for tenure and promotion 38 39  Xxxx’x evalua...
Sample 1
Faculty Review. The eligible faculty in the candidate’s department or unit, or a personnel committee comprised of a subset of the eligible faculty (if the department’s or unit’s internal policy specifies the creation of such committee), will review the file and the external reviews, prepare a report, and vote. In cases where there are too few eligible faculty members to form a review committee within the candidate’s department or unit, the department or unit head will work with the appropriate xxxx to establish a committee including appropriate faculty members from outside the department. A final vote will be conducted by signed ballot, and the ballots will remain confidential to the extent permitted by law.
Sample 1

Related to Faculty Review

  • 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.

  • Log Reviews All systems processing and/or storing PHI COUNTY discloses to 11 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR creates, receives, maintains, or transmits on behalf of COUNTY 12 must have a routine procedure in place to review system logs for unauthorized access.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Compensation Review The compensation of the Executive will be reviewed not less frequently than annually by the board of directors of the Company.

  • Search, Enquiry, Investigation, Examination And Verification a. The Property is sold on an “as is where is basis” subject to all the necessary inspection, search (including but not limited to the status of title), enquiry (including but not limited to the terms of consent to transfer and/or assignment and outstanding charges), investigation, examination and verification of which the Purchaser is already advised to conduct prior to the auction and which the Purchaser warrants to the Assignee has been conducted by the Purchaser’s independent legal advisors at the time of execution of the Memorandum. b. The intending bidder or the Purchaser is responsible at own costs and expenses to make and shall be deemed to have carried out own search, enquiry, investigation, examination and verification on all liabilities and encumbrances affecting the Property, the title particulars as well as the accuracy and correctness of the particulars and information provided. c. The Purchaser shall be deemed to purchase the Property in all respects subject thereto and shall also be deemed to have full knowledge of the state and condition of the Property regardless of whether or not the said search, enquiry, investigation, examination and verification have been conducted. d. The Purchaser shall be deemed to have read, understood and accepted these Conditions of Sale prior to the auction and to have knowledge of all matters which would have been disclosed thereby and the Purchaser expressly warrants to the Assignee that the Purchaser has sought independent legal advice on all matters pertaining to this sale and has been advised by his/her/its independent legal advisor of the effect of all the Conditions of Sale. e. Neither the Assignee nor the Auctioneer shall be required or bound to inform the Purchaser of any such matters whether known to them or not and the Purchaser shall raise no enquiry, requisition or objection thereon or thereto.

  • Periodic Review The General Counsel shall periodically review the Procurement Integrity Procedures with OSC personnel in order to ascertain potential areas of exposure to improper influence and to adopt desirable revisions for more effective avoidance of improper influences.

  • Investigator Where a difference arises between the parties relating to the dismissal, discipline or suspension of an employee, or to the interpretation, application, operation or alleged violation of this agreement, including any questions as to whether a matter is arbitrable, during the term of the collective agreement, an arbitrator agreed to by the parties shall, at the request of either party: (a) investigate the difference; (b) define the issue in the difference; and (c) make written recommendations to resolve the difference within five days of the date of receipt of the request and for those five days from that date time does not run in respect of the grievance procedure. The parties agree that this procedure will not be invoked until the grievance procedure has been completed.

  • 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.

  • Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances 1. If FEMA determines that the entire scope of an Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances in Appendix B of this Agreement, with determinations for Tier II Allowances being made by SOI-qualified staff, FEMA shall complete the Section 106 review process by documenting this determination in the project file, without SHPO review or notification. 2. If the Undertaking involves a National Historic Landmark (NHL), FEMA shall notify the SHPO, participating Tribe(s), and the NPS NHL Program Manager of the NPS Midwest Regional Office that the Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances. FEMA shall provide information about the proposed scope of work for the Undertaking and the allowance(s) enabling FEMA’s determination. 3. If FEMA determines any portion of an Undertaking’s scope of work does not conform to one or more allowances listed in Appendix B, FEMA shall conduct expedited or standard Section 106 review, as appropriate, for the entire Undertaking in accordance with Stipulation II.B, Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings, or Stipulation II.C, Standard Project Review. 4. Allowances may be revised and new allowances may be added to this Agreement in accordance with Stipulation IV.A.3, Amendments. B. Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!