We use cookies on our site to analyze traffic, enhance your experience, and provide you with tailored content.

For more information visit our privacy policy.

Governors' Review Sample Clauses

Governors' ReviewThe Parents may request a review by Governors (Governors' Review) of a decision to expel or require the Removal of the Pupil from the School or from boarding (but not a decision to suspend the Pupil unless the suspension is for 11 School days or more, or would prevent the Pupil taking a public examination). The Headmaster will advise the Parents of the Governors' Review procedure current at that time when he informs the Parents of his decision. A Governors' Review will be conducted under fair procedures in accordance with the requirements of natural justice.
Governors' ReviewThe Parents may request a review by Governors (Governors' Review) of a decision to expel or require the Removal of the Pupil from the School or from boarding (but not a decision to suspend the Pupil unless the suspension is for 11 School days or more, or would prevent the Pupil taking a public examination). The request shall be made as soon as possible and in any event within seven days of the Headmaster's decision being notified to the Parents. The Parents will be entitled to know the names of the Governors who make up the review panel and may ask for the appointment of an independent panel member nominated by the Chair of Governors and approved by the Parents, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld.
Governors' Review. Parents may ask for a Governors’ Review of a decision to expel or require the removal of a Pupil from the School (but not a decision to suspend a Pupil unless the suspension is for 11 School days or more, or would prevent the Pupil from taking a public examination). The request must be made as soon as possible and in any event within ten days of the decision being notified to the Parents. Parents will be entitled to know the names of the Governors who make up the Review Panel and may ask for the appointment of an independent panel member nominated by the School and approved by the Parents (approval not to be unreasonably withheld).
Governors' ReviewThe Parents may request a review by Governors (Governors' Review) of a decision to expel or require the Removal of the Pupil from the School by following the procedure set out in the School's Expulsion and Removal Policy.
Governors' Review. The SLT’s decision to expel or require the Removal of the Pupil shall be subject to a Governors’ review, if requested by the Parents. The Parents will be given a copy of the review procedure current at the time. The Pupil shall be suspended from the School pending the outcome of the review.
Governors' ReviewThe Parents may request a review by Governors (Governors' Review) of a decision to expel or require the removal of the Pupil from the College (but not a decision to suspend the Pupil unless the suspension is for 11 College days or more, or would prevent the Pupil taking a public examination). The request shall be made as soon as possible and in any event within seven days of the Principal's decision being notified to the Parents. The Parents will be entitled to know the names of the Governors who make up the review panel and may ask for the appointment of an independent panel member nominated by the College and approved by the Parents, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld.

Related to Governors' Review

  • 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.

  • Examination and Review (i) After receipt of the Closing Working Capital Statement, Carlyle and X. Xxxxx shall have 30 days (the “Review Period”) to review the Closing Working Capital Statement. During the Review Period, Carlyle and X. Xxxxx and their accountants shall have full access to the books and records of the Company, the personnel of, and work papers prepared by, Parent and Parent’s accountants to the extent that they relate to the Closing Working Capital Statement and to such historical financial information (to the extent in Parent’s possession) relating to the Closing Working Capital Statement as Carlyle and X. Xxxxx may reasonably request for the purpose of reviewing the Closing Working Capital Statement and to prepare a Statement of Objections (defined below), provided, that such access shall be in a manner that does not interfere with the normal business operations of Parent or the Company. (ii) On or prior to the last day of the Review Period, Carlyle and X. Xxxxx may object to the Closing Working Capital Statement by delivering to Parent a written statement setting forth Carlyle and X. Xxxxx’x objections in reasonable detail, indicating each disputed item or amount and the basis for Carlyle and X. Xxxxx’x disagreement therewith (the “Statement of Objections”). If Carlyle and X. Xxxxx fail to deliver the Statement of Objections before the expiration of the Review Period, the Closing Working Capital Statement and the Post‑Closing Adjustment, as the case may be, reflected in the Closing Working Capital Statement shall be deemed to have been accepted by Carlyle and X. Xxxxx. If Xxxxxxx and X. Xxxxx deliver the Statement of Objections before the expiration of the Review Period, Carlyle, X. Xxxxx and Parent shall negotiate in good faith to resolve such objections within 30 days after the delivery of the Statement of Objections (the “Resolution Period”), and, if the same are so resolved within the Resolution Period, the Post‑Closing Adjustment and the Closing Working Capital Statement with such changes as may have been previously agreed in writing by Carlyle, X. Xxxxx and Parent, shall be final and binding. (iii) If Carlyle, X. Xxxxx and Parent fail to reach an agreement with respect to all of the matters set forth in the Statement of Objections before expiration of the Resolution Period, then any amounts remaining in dispute (“Disputed Amounts” and any amounts not so disputed, the “Undisputed Amounts”) shall be submitted for resolution to the office of an impartial nationally recognized firm of independent certified public accountants other than Carlyle’s audit firm or Parent’s audit firm (the “Independent Accountants”) who, acting as experts and not arbitrators, shall resolve the Disputed Amounts only and make any adjustments to the Post‑Closing Adjustment, as the case may be, and the Closing Working Capital Statement. The parties hereto agree that all adjustments shall be made without regard to materiality. The Independent Accountants shall only decide the specific items under dispute by the parties and their decision for each Disputed Amount must be within the range of values assigned to each such item in the Closing Working Capital Statement and the Statement of Objections, respectively. (iv) Fees of the Independent Accountants. The fees and expenses of the Independent Accountant shall be paid by Carlyle and X. Xxxxx, on the one hand, and by Parent, on the other hand, based upon the percentage that the amount actually contested but not awarded to Carlyle and X. Xxxxx or Parent, respectively, bears to the aggregate amount actually contested by Carlyle and X. Xxxxx and Parent. (v) The Independent Accountants shall make a determination as soon as practicable within 30 days (or such other time as the parties hereto shall agree in writing) after their engagement, and their resolution of the Disputed Amounts and their adjustments to the Closing Working Capital Statement and/or the Post‑Closing Adjustment shall be conclusive and binding upon the parties hereto. (vi) Except as otherwise provided herein, any payment of the Post‑Closing Adjustment, together with interest calculated as set forth below, shall (A) be due (x) within five Business Days of acceptance of the applicable Closing Working Capital Statement or (y) if there are Disputed Amounts, then within five Business Days of the resolution described in clause (v) above; and (B) be paid by wire transfer of immediately available funds to such account (or issued to X. Xxxxx and the Management Members in the case of the issuance of Class A‑1 Units) as is directed by Carlyle and X. Xxxxx or Parent, as the case may be. The amount of any Post‑Closing Adjustment shall bear interest from and including the Closing Date to but excluding the date of payment at a rate per annum equal to 6%. Such interest shall be calculated daily on the basis of a 365 day year and the actual number of days elapsed.

  • Department Review The parties shall resolve disputes through written submission of their dispute to the Department’s Contract Manager. The Department shall respond to the dispute in writing within ten (10) Business Days from the date that the Department’s Contract Manager receives the dispute. The Department’s decision shall be final unless a party provides the other party with written notice of the party’s disagreement with the decision within ten (10) Business Days from the date of the Department’s decision. If a party disagrees with the Department’s decision, the party may proceed to subsection (b) below.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • School Board Review The School Board reserves the right to review any decision issued under Level I or Level II of this procedure provided the School Board or its representative notifies the parties of its intention to review within ten (10) days after the decision has been rendered. In the event the School Board reviews a grievance under this section, the School Board reserves the right to reverse or modify such decision.

  • Faculty Selection, Supervision, and Evaluation A. Faculty for a dual credit course will be approved and employed by Hill College. The instructor must meet credential requirements of Hill College and minimum requirements as specified by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC). Each faculty member assigned to teach an academic course will have a master’s degree plus 18 hours in the specific discipline. Technical course instructors will have at least an associate degree and three years of work experience in the related business or industry. B. Instructors teaching dual credit courses must meet the same standards, review, and approval procedures as full- time, regular Hill College faculty. C. Faculty for a dual credit course who are not a full-time faculty member of Hill College report directly to the appropriate Xxxx of Instruction for the pathway in which the course(s) is being taught. The college shall supervise and evaluate part-time faculty teaching dual credit courses using the same or comparable procedures used for full-time faculty employed by college. D. The performance appraisal process for dual credit instructors will be conducted by the immediate supervisor and reviewed by the second line supervisor prior to the appraisal interview with the employee. The dual credit faculty evaluation process will mirror the evaluation process used at the college for all full-time faculty members and will be done according to the college policy manual. All dual credit faculty will be periodically evaluated using the following means: 1) random classroom observation by the immediate supervisor of that discipline, 2) student evaluations and 3) self-evaluation. E. All Dual Credit faculty instructors will be supervised by the following means: i. When dual credit classes are visited during a classroom observation, supervisors will ask to see items such as the textbook, observe instruction and interaction with students, and request a class syllabus and a sample of class tests, quizzes, labs, and/or projects. ii. Dual Credit instructors are given a self-evaluation form and are asked to fill it out and return the form to their Hill College supervisor. iii. All dual credit instructors are given a master syllabus for the course. The master syllabus provides grading policy and student learning outcomes. iv. All dual credit instructors are required to participate in the assessment process. v. All dual credit instructors are required to certify rosters. vi. All dual credit instructors are required to submit final grades. F. Faculty teaching courses, which result in the award of college credit, will be regularly employed faculty members of Hill College. All faculty selected by Hill College to teach dual credit classes will be considered employees of Hill College and will be compensated by the college in accordance with Hill College policy, procedures, and guidelines. G. Applications for employment and official transcripts from each college or university attended MUST be submitted and approved prior to the start of classes. All paperwork will be kept on file at Hill College.

  • 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.

  • Utilization Review NOTE: The Utilization Review process does not apply to Services that are not covered by Blue Shield because of a coverage determination made by Medicare. State law requires that health plans disclose to Subscribers and health plan providers the process used to authorize or deny health care services un- der the plan. Blue Shield has completed documen- tation of this process ("Utilization Review"), as required under Section 1363.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. To request a copy of the document describing this Utilization Review pro- cess, call the Customer Service Department at the telephone number indicated on your Identification Card.

  • Peer Review Dental Group, after consultation with the Joint ----------- Operations Committee, shall implement, regularly review, modify as necessary or appropriate and obtain the commitment of Providers to actively participate in peer review procedures for Providers. Dental Group shall assist Manager in the production of periodic reports describing the results of such procedures. Dental Group shall provide Manager with prompt notice of any information that raises a reasonable risk to the health and safety of Group Patients or Beneficiaries. In any event, after consultation with the Joint Operations Committee, Dental Group shall take such action as may be reasonably warranted under the facts and circumstances.