Final Conference. 11.6.2.1 The final Evaluation Conference and Form are obligatory for all unit members being evaluated and must be completed at least thirty (30) days prior to the end of the academic year.
Final Conference. At least sixty (60) calendar days prior to the end of each provisional year, the provisional teacher and the principal shall meet to discuss the progress of the provisional teacher. The provisional teacher shall be notified at this time of their performance assessment results and the principal’s recommendations.
Final Conference. 14.2.2.7.1 The final conference will occur after the Administrator has completed the observations and reviewed the summary of evidence. The final conference should take place by May 15th, and a hardcopy of the evaluation results submitted to the unit member by the end of the spring semester.
14.2.2.7.2 The Administrator will present a draft of the forms and report to the unit member at the conference. The unit member and administrator will discuss the forms and report.
14.2.2.7.3 The unit member may accept the report and forms or suggest revisions.
14.2.2.7.4 Whether the Administrator accepts or does not accept the revisions, the unit member may write a response to the report.
14.2.2.7.5 Both parties must sign and date all forms. The signing of the form does not necessarily mean agreement, but simply that the unit member has received and read the form.
Final Conference. 1. No later than 30 days before the last school day, a written copy of the evaluation shall be presented to the unit member.
2. By the end of the school year, a conference will be held between the unit member and the unit member’s evaluator to discuss the written evaluation.
3. A unit member shall be entitled to submit a written response to an evaluation, which will become a permanent attachment to the evaluation.
Final Conference. After the evaluator has completed the administrative evaluation instrument, the most important part of the evaluation process occurs. This should be an ongoing, open and candid dialogue between the evaluator and the evaluatee about his/her job performance criteria in relation to the District’s standards. Attention should be given for continued professional growth. Both the evaluatee and the evaluator will sign the document. The evaluatee’s signature indicates that he/she has seen the document, but doesn’t necessarily mean agreement. If desired, the evaluatee may attach a written response to the evaluation.
Final Conference. The final evaluation form shall be created electronically and provided to the ancillary staff. The ancillary staff shall, after and upon completion of joint review, electronically sign all copies of the evaluation, shall check one (1) of two (2) appropriate boxes signifying agreement or disagreement with the evaluation and shall return all copies to their principal or supervisor. The principal or supervisor shall keep at least one (1) copy on file in the building for future reference by the ancillary staff and/or administration while the ancillary staff is assigned to that building/unit. In the event the ancillary staff does not agree with the evaluation, all objections must be placed in writing and provided to the administrator within five
Final Conference a. The results of the formal evaluation, its summary, and all related documents will be discussed in a final conference between the evaluating manager and the bargaining unit member.
b. A copy of the final summary and all official evaluation documents to be placed in the employee file will be provided to the unit member at the meeting. In addition, the evaluating manager will notify the bargaining unit member of their right to respond to the evaluation in writing within 30 calendar days and that the response will be attached to the evaluation and become part of the permanent record.
c. This conference will occur no later than the last day of the respective semester, per the approved academic calendar, for any formal evaluation. The evaluating manager and the bargaining unit member will cooperate in the scheduling of the final conference, which both parties shall attend.
d. The formal evaluation summary shall be dated and signed by the evaluating manager. The bargaining unit member shall sign and date the formal evaluation summary when it is received. Such signature, by itself, shall not be interpreted as agreement with the contents or findings of the formal evaluation summary.
e. If the formal evaluation summary cites specific deficiencies for non-probationary faculty (part-time, full-time temporary, tenured faculty), the evaluating manager shall schedule a meeting with the bargaining unit member to discuss appropriate steps for improvement. The evaluating manager shall give specific written recommendations for improvement. If the subsequent formal evaluation summary indicates that the deficiencies have been corrected, a written statement of such improvement shall be prepared and signed by the evaluating manager and placed in the bargaining unit member’s personnel file. A copy shall also be provided to the bargaining unit member. For probationary faculty (tenure-track full-time faculty), see Tenure Review section.
f. The bargaining unit member may provide a written response to the formal evaluation summary within thirty
Final Conference. Disseminate the major scientific results by organising an international conference in Month 34. The conference aims at providing a platform to present applicability of the developed tools and approaches. The focus will be on a science-policy interface with specific sessions for in-depth scientific presentations and hands-on sessions for the end users. Module 1 deals with the overall project coordination, but in particular aims at providing support in the transition zone of project management and science. The main objectives of Module 1 are: • to coordinate the overall scientific workflow in the project and to ensure the achievement of objectives, milestones and deliverables, • to manage administrative issues and budget and to ensure an adequate and appropriate use of resource, • to communicate with the European Commission, including timely reporting and • to represent and present the project to the outside world to ensure the link to water managers and officers responsible for WFD implementation in conjunction with Module 7 The pure management tasks of Module 1 are described in section 3.2.3. Here, we focus on scientific coordination. The day-to-day scientific coordination of the project was mainly handled through the monthly Steering Group meetings and email meetings. These covered topics of general relevance, such as data transfer between workpackages, sampling schemes, the development of common metrics, meeting preparation as well as administrative issues such as budget shifts. Topics relevant for more than one workpackage within a module were discussed and decided on a module level, mainly on physical and video meetings. The workpackage leaders were responsible for workpackage-specific issues, such as sampling methodologies, workpackage databases and data evaluation within a workpackage. The general outlines of the project were steered by the coordinators. Although the workplan has been described in much detail in the Description of Work and further specified in the minutes of the kick-off meetings, some major changes and additions were performed: • ECOSTAT and the GIGs strongly recommended an early development of common metrics by the WISER Module 3 and 4 workpackages to support the intercalibration. Originally the finalization of WISER assessment schemes was planned for the end of the project; however, due to the late start of WISER, there was a mismatch with the schedule of the second phase of the intercalibration exercise, which ends in summer 2011...
Final Conference. The HERoS project invited to a final conference and seminar on May 25, 2023 in Gdansk, Poland. This was held as a full day face to face seminar with 45 registered participants, and brought together the presentations from all deliverables and outputs of the project. Invitations were extended to sister projects, and three of them also presented their current status and results as relevant to pandemic response: - sCience and human factOr for Resilient society (CORE, No. 101021746) - RESpondIng to outbreaks through co-creaTIve sustainable inclusive equality stRatEgies (RESISTIRÉ, No. 101015990) - Improving the Preparedness of Health Systems to Reduce Mental Health and Psychosocial Concerns resulting from the COVID-19 Pandemic (RESPOND, No 101016127) Furthermore, apart from HERoS’ results, the ICM epidemiological model of Poland was presented to complement the WP1 panel. In the exhibition space, HERoS partners and also sister projects could show their COVID-19 pandemic response-related activities. HERoS also had stands to demonstrate the Fact-Checking Observatory (from WP4), the drone simulation (WP3), and participatory research using visual methods (WP1). The following lessons learned cases from WP1 were presented more in detail at the final conference: - Decision-making at Dutch nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic - Joint procurement of vaccines - International deployment of Emergency Medical Teams (EMTs) - Local solidarity networks: Municipio Solidade Roma The conference was filmed, and the film will be available on the HERoS website shortly.
Final Conference. A full-day project conference (around 100 participants) will be organized upon completion of the project, presenting the main results. This conference will be open and will address all target groups and key actors that have supported the project and that are interested in the field of biomethane.
