Joint Site Review Team Sample Clauses

Joint Site Review Team. For any site review except one required in conjunction with an accreditation decision ofAccreditation with Stipulations or Probationmy Accreditation, the composition ofthe Review Team will be as follows: 5.4.1.1. For a Site Review involving only one level ofaccreditation (i.e., initial or advanced), the Joint Site Review Team includes four national site reviewers appointed by CAEP and up to three Site Review Team members appointed by the State. 5.4.1.2. For a Site Review involving both levels ofaccreditation, initial and advanced- level, the Review Team will include five CAEP-appointed reviewers and up to four state-appointed site reviewers. 5.4.1.3. For a Stipulation or Probation review, the Review Team is comprised oftwo persons. The state may choose to add one reviewer for a total ofa three-person team. The lead reviewer is appointed by CAEP. 5.4.1.4. The State shall provide CAEP with its recommended Review Team members within any timelines established by CAEP in the Accreditation Policy and handbook. Ifthe state is unable to appoint members at least six months prior to the visit, CAEP will appoint from the national pool ofsite reviewers a CAEP only team. All such teams are led by a Review Team chair appointed by CAEP. Prior to assignment to any Review Team, an individual must have successfully completed CAEP Review Team training and must acknowledge understanding of, and agreement to, adhere to CAEP's code ofconduct, including with regard to confidentiality and conflicts ofinterest.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Joint Site Review Team. For any site review except one required in conjunction with an accreditation decision of Accreditation with Stipulations or Probationary Accreditation, the composition of the Review Team will be as follows: 5.4.1.1. For a Site Review involving only one level of accreditation (i.e., initial or advanced), the Joint Site Review Team includes four national site reviewers appointed by CAEP and up to three site reviewers appointed by the TDOE. 5.4.1.2. For a Site Review involving both levels of accreditation, initial and advanced- level, the team will include five CAEP-appointed reviewers and up to four TDOE- appointed site reviewers. 5.4.1.3. For a Stipulation or Probation visit site teams are comprised of two persons. The TDOE may choose to add one reviewer for a total of a three-person team. The lead reviewer is appointed by CAEP. 5.4.1.4. The TDOE shall provide CAEP with its recommended review team members within any timelines established by CAEP in the Accreditation Policy and handbook. All such teams are led by a review team chair appointed by CAEP. Prior to assignment to any site team, an individual must have successfully completed CAEP Review Team 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. 5.4.1.5. Once assigned, the Joint Review Team will participate in formative and pre-site visit meetings. The TDOE facilitator and team lead will be a part of the pre-site visit meetings and will be allowed to provide additional background information on the TDOE accountability processes and review specific metrics put in place by the SBE and TDOE for individual XXXx.
Joint Site Review Team. For any site review except one required in conjunction with an accreditation decision of Accreditation with Stipulations or Probationary Accreditation, the composition of the Review Team will be as follows:

Related to Joint Site Review Team

  • Project Team To accomplish Owner’s objectives, Owner intends to employ a team concept in connection with the construction of the Project. The basic roles and general responsibilities of team members are set forth in general terms below but are more fully set forth in the Design Professional Contract with respect to the Design Professional, in the Program Management Agreement with any Program Manager, and in this Contract with respect to the Contractor.

  • Business Review Meetings In order to maintain the relationship between the Department and the Contractor, each quarter the Department may request a business review meeting. The business review meeting may include, but is not limited to, the following: • Successful completion of deliverables • Review of the Contractor’s performance • Review of minimum required reports • Addressing of any elevated Customer issues • Review of continuous improvement ideas that may help lower total costs and improve business efficiencies.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Contractor Project Manager The Contractor Project Manager shall serve, from the Effective Date, as the Contractor project manager and primary Contractor representative under this Agreement. The Contractor Project Manager shall (i) have overall responsibility for managing and coordinating the performance of Contractor’s obligations under this Agreement, including the performance of all Subcontractors; and (ii) be authorized to act for and bind Contractor and Subcontractors in connection with all aspects of this Agreement. The Contractor Project Manager shall respond promptly and fully to all inquiries from the JBE Project Manager.

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

  • 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.

  • Contractor’s Project Manager 7.2.1 The Contractor’s Project Manager is designated in Exhibit F (Contractor’s Administration). The Contractor shall notify the County in writing of any change in the name or address of the Contractor’s Project Manager. 7.2.2 The Contractor’s Project Manager shall be responsible for the Contractor’s day-to-day activities as related to this Contract and shall meet and coordinate with County’s Project Manager and County’s Contract Project Monitor on a regular basis.

  • HUB Subcontracting Plan The Owner has adopted Exhibit H, Policy on Utilization of Historically Underutilized Business ("Policy"), which is incorporated herein by reference. Contractor, as a provision of the Agreement must comply with the requirements of the Policy and adhere to the HUB Subcontracting Plan submitted with Contractor's Proposal and attached as Exhibit I. No changes to the HUB Subcontracting Plan can be made by the Contractor without the prior written approval of the Owner in accordance with the Policy.

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