Joint Review Team Sample Clauses

Joint Review Team. For any review except one required in conjunction with an accreditation decision of Accreditation with Stipulations or Probationary Accreditation, the composition of the Evaluation Team will be as follows:
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (11)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Joint Review Team. The Joint Review Team in a standard visit which includes only an initial-level review includes four national site visitors appointed by CAEP and one (1) site visitor appointed by the State. In a standard visit which includes initial and advanced­ level reviews, the team will include five (5) CAEP-appointed visitors and one (1) state­ appointed site visitor. CAEP financial guidelines require that a joint team be composed completely of CAEP appointed site visitors, less one site visitor appointed by the state. The State shall provide CAEP with its recommended site visitor within any timelines established by CAEP in the Accreditation Policy and handbook. The team is led by a site team chair appointed by CAEP. Prior to assignment to any site team, an individual must have successfully completed CAEP site visitor training and must acknowledge understanding of, and agreement to, adhere to CAEP's code of conduct, including with regard to confidentiality and conflicts of interest. All site visit teams are supported by a state consultant.
Sample 1Sample 2
Joint Review Team. The Joint Review Team includes national Site Visitors appointed by CAEP and State Site Visitors appointed by the State. The State shall provide CAEP with its list of State Site Visitors within any timelines established by CAEP in the Accreditation Council policy and handbook. CAEP-appointed Site Visitors must make up more than 50 percent of the team. The team is led by a Lead Site Visitor (chair) appointed by CAEP. The State may appoint a designated State Lead Site Visitor to be a member of the site team under the leadership of the CAEP Lead Site Visitor. Should the State deem it necessary to have more State Site Visitors participate in an off-site or onsite visit to accommodate the work involved in reviewing a high number of programs, those State Site Visitors exceeding the 49% threshold will serve as observers and provide input regarding findings when requested by the CAEP or State Team.
Sample 1
Joint Review Team. The Joint Review Team includes national site visitors appointed by CAEP and TSPC site visitors appointed by TSPC. TSPC shall provide CAEP with its list of site visitors within any timelines established by CAEP in the Accreditation Council Policy Manual and CAEP Accreditation Handbook. CAEP-appointed members must make up more than 50 percent of the team. TSPC may appoint up to one team member less than the number of CAEP-appointed team members on the joint review team. The team is led by a site team chair appointed by CAEP. However, the CAEP appointed chair shall have no authority over the unit review activities by the state team members as they relate to state-specific standards.
Sample 1
Joint Review Team. The Joint Site Visit Team includes national site visitors appointed by CAEP and state site visitors appointed by the State. The State shall provide CAEP with its list of site visitors within any timelines established by CAEP in the Accreditation Council policy and handbook. CAEP-appointed members must make up more than 50 percent of the team. The team is led by a Site Visit Team chair appointed by CAEP. The State may appoint a vice-chair. Prior to assignment to any Site Visit Team, an individual must have successfully completed CAEP training for Site Visit Team members and must acknowledge understanding of and agreement to adhere to CAEP’s code of conduct, including with regard to confidentiality and conflicts of interest.
Sample 1
Joint Review Team. The Joint Review Team includes national site visitors appointed by CAEP and TSPC site visitors appointed by TSPC. TSPC shall provide CAEP with its list of site visitors within any timelines established by CAEP in the Accreditation Council Policy Manual and CAEP Accreditation Handbook. The team is led by a site team chair appointed by CAEP. However, the CAEP appointed chair shall have no authority over the unit review activities by the state team members as they relate to state-specific standards.
Sample 1
Joint Review Team. For any review except one required in conjunction with an accreditation decision of Accreditation with Stipulations or Probationary Accreditation, the composition of the Evaluation Team will be as follows: For a Review involving only one level of accreditation (i.e., initial or advanced), the Joint Review Team includes four national reviewers appointed by CAEP and up to three reviewers appointed by the State. For a Review involving both levels of accreditation, initial and advanced-level, the Evaluation Team will include five CAEP-appointed reviewers and up to four state-appointed reviewers. For a Stipulation or Probation review, the Evaluation Team is comprised of two CAEP-appointed reviewers. The state may choose to add one reviewer for a total of a three-person team. The lead reviewer is appointed by CAEP. The State shall provide CAEP with its recommended Evaluation Team members within any timelines established by CAEP. If the State is unable to appoint members, CAEP will appoint from its pool of volunteers trained to serve as Evaluation Team members a CAEP-only team. All such teams are led by an Evaluation Team chair (or Evaluation Team leader) appointed by CAEP. Prior to assignment to any CAEP Evaluation Team, an individual must have successfully completed CAEP training for review team members and must acknowledge understanding of, and agreement to, adhere to CAEP’s code of conduct, including with regard to confidentiality and conflicts of interest. Each Evaluation Team shall include a P-12 practitioner, when possible. The State will make recommendations for P-12 practitioners through the CAEP accreditation platform. At the discretion of the State, the State’s teachers’ association(s) may appoint one (1) representative per association to observe the Site Review. Any expenses associated with the attendance of an observer must be covered by the association(s) or State. Prior to participation, any observer must acknowledge understanding of an agreement to adhere to CAEP’s policies and procedures regarding Site Reviews and the CAEP code of conduct, including with regard to confidentiality and conflicts of interest. All Site Review activities undertaken by a CAEP Evaluation Team will be conducted in accordance with CAEP policies and procedures. CAEP is not responsible for Site Review expenses for state-assigned personnel. An EPP that is subject to the jurisdiction of the State may choose from among any of the following program review options for CAEP accre...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Joint Review Team

  • Project Team County’s Designated Representative for purposes of this Contract is as follows: County’s Road Bond Program Manager Attn: Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx HNTB Corporation 000 X. Xxx Xxxxxxxx Xxxx., Xxxxx 000 Xxxxx Xxxx, Xxxxx 78664_ County shall have the right, from time to time, to change the County’s Designated Representative by giving Engineer written notice thereof. With respect to any action, decision or determination which is to be taken or made by County under this Contract, the County’s Designated Representative may take such action or make such decision or determination or shall notify Engineer in writing of an individual responsible for and capable of taking such action, decision or determination and shall forward any communications and documentation to such individual for response or action. Actions, decisions or determinations by the County’s Designated Representative on behalf of County shall be done in his or her reasonable business judgment unless express standards or parameters therefor are included in this Contract, in which case, actions taken by the County’s Designated Representative shall be in accordance with such express standards or parameters. Any consent, approval, decision or determination hereunder by the County’s Designated Representative shall be binding on County; provided, however, the County’s Designated Representative shall not have any right to modify, amend or terminate this Contract, an Executed Work Authorization, an executed Supplemental Work Authorization or executed Contract Amendment. County’s Designated Representative shall not have any authority to execute a Contract Amendment, Work Authorization or any Supplemental Work Authorization unless otherwise granted such authority by the Xxxxxxxxxx County Commissioners Court. Engineer’s Designated Representative for purposes of this Contract is as follows: LJA Engineering, Inc. Attn: Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, PE 0000 Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxx XX, Xxxxx 000 Xxxxxx , XX 00000 Engineer shall have the right, from time to time, to change the Engineer’s Designated Representative by giving County written notice thereof. With respect to any action, decision or determination which is to be taken or made by Engineer under this Contract, the Engineer’s Designated Representative may take such action or make such decision or determination or shall notify County in writing of an individual responsible for and capable of taking such action, decision or determination and shall forward any communications and documentation to such individual for response or action. Actions, decisions or determinations by the Engineer’s Designated Representative on behalf of Engineer shall be done in his or her reasonable business judgment unless express standards or parameters therefor are included in this Contract, in which case, actions taken by the Engineer’s Designated Representative shall be in accordance with such express standards or parameters. Any consent, approval, decision or determination hereunder by the Engineer’s Designated Representative shall be binding on Engineer. Engineer’s Designated Representative shall have the right to modify, amend and execute Work Authorizations, Supplemental Work Authorizations and Contract Amendments on behalf of Engineer.

  • Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances

  • Claims Review Findings a. Narrative Results.‌‌

  • Program Review The Contracting Officer or other authorized government representative may hold semi- annual program review meetings. Such meetings will be held via telecom or video teleconferencing. However, the Government reserves the right to request a meeting in person. The meetings will include all BPA holders, representatives from prospective customer agencies, a combination of current and prospective customer agencies, or individual BPA holders. Some Federal Government Agencies and any approved State, Local and Tribal agencies may establish a central program management function. Such users may require their primary suppliers to participate in agency program review meetings on a periodic basis, at no additional cost to the Government.

  • Claims Review Population A description of the Population subject to the Claims Review.

  • Agreement Review If, pursuant to section 25.10 (Review of Agreement) of the Bilateral Agreement, the Bilateral Agreement is reviewed after three or five years, or both, of the effective date of the Bilateral Agreement, and any changes to the Bilateral Agreement are required as a result, the Parties agree to amend the Agreement as necessary and in a manner that is consistent with such changes.

  • ADB’s Review of Procurement Decisions 11. All contracts procured under international competitive bidding procedures and contracts for consulting services shall be subject to prior review by ADB, unless otherwise agreed between the Borrower and ADB and set forth in the Procurement Plan. SCHEDULE 5 Execution of Project and Operation of Project Facilities; Financial Matters

  • Review Protocol A narrative description of how the Claims Review was conducted and what was evaluated.

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