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.
Classification Review Grand Valley State University and APSS shall jointly determine the review assessment survey instrument to be used at Grand Valley State University. The parties shall maintain a Joint Review Committee, composed of three members appointed by the Human Resources Office and three members appointed by the Alliance. Bargaining unit members questioning the assigned classification of their position may do so by using the following procedure:
A. Meet with the Employment Manager in the Human Resources Office to discuss the review process, changes in their job responsibilities, duties and any other process questions they may have.
B. PSS member will fill out the assessment survey and email to the Employment Manager along with any other documentation that supports the request. The survey instrument will be jointly administered/reviewed by the Assessment Team (consisting of the Employment Manager and an Alliance member of the Joint Review Committee). A meeting with the PSS is scheduled for a verbal review of the documentation and to answer any questions the Assessment Team may have. The supervisor or appointing officer is encouraged to attend. If the Assessment Team believes a job site visit is warranted as a result of the survey information, they will schedule a time for a joint visit.
C. The completed survey instrument shall be coded. The survey results, as determined by the Assessment Team, shall be shared with the survey participant.
D. After receiving the survey results, the survey participant, if they so choose shall have the opportunity to meet with the Joint Review Committee for additional input and appeal. Any additional information shall be reviewed by the Committee, and where the Committee feels it is necessary, the survey will be recoded, in a manner mutually agreeable.
E. The Joint Review Committee shall then deliberate as to the merit of the upgrade requested by the participant. If the Committee is not able to reach a consensus, the University will decide on the classification. The Alliance may appeal that decision through the arbitration procedure of the collective bargaining agreement. Professional Support Staff members may engage in the review process no more than once per year. Supervisors questioning the assigned classification of a staff member’s position shall provide supporting rationale, complete an assessment survey instrument and discuss with Manager of Employment. The Manager of Employment shall notify an Alliance Representative that a Supervisor is reviewing a staff member’s classification. The review and outcome shall be completed within 45 working days unless the Alliance Representative and Manager of Employment mutually agreed to an extension. The Alliance will be provided with the scored instrument and any supporting rationale.
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.
Claims Review Methodology
a. C laims Review Population. A description of the Population subject to the Quarterly Claims Review.
Evaluation Criteria 5.2.1. The responses will be evaluated based on the following: (edit evaluation criteria below as appropriate for your project)
Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.
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.
Product Testing No later than [**] prior to a scheduled Delivery ARIAD US shall send to ARIAD SWISSCO the Delivery Documents for review. Following such review, unless within [**] of receipt of the Delivery Documents ARIAD SWISSCO gives written notice of rejection of the Product to be delivered, stating the reasons for such rejection, the Delivery shall proceed, and both Parties shall organize the same. Upon arrival at ARIAD SWISSCO nominated site it shall visually inspect the shipment of the Product to identify any damage to the external packaging. ARIAD SWISSCO may reject any shipment (or portion thereof) of the Product that is damaged by providing to ARIAD US reasonable evidence of damage within [**] after Delivery of such Product. If ARIAD SWISSCO does not so reject any shipment (or portion thereof) of the Product within [**] of Delivery of such Product, ARIAD SWISSCO shall be deemed to have accepted such shipment of the Product; provided, however, that in the case of the Product having any Latent Defect, ARIAD SWISSCO shall notify ARIAD US promptly once it becomes aware that a Product contains a Latent Defect and subsequently may reject such Product by giving written notice to ARIAD US of ARIAD SWISSCO’s rejection of such Product and shipping a representative sample of such Product or other evidence of Non-Conformance to ARIAD US within [**] after becoming aware of such Latent Defect, which notice shall include a description of the Latent Defect.
Loop Testing/Trouble Reporting 2.1.6.1 Telepak Networks will be responsible for testing and isolating troubles on the Loops. Telepak Networks must test and isolate trouble to the BellSouth portion of a designed/non-designed unbundled Loop (e.g., UVL-SL2, UCL-D, UVL-SL1, UCL-ND, etc.) before reporting repair to the UNE Customer Wholesale Interconnection Network Services (CWINS) Center. Upon request from BellSouth at the time of the trouble report, Telepak Networks will be required to provide the results of the Telepak Networks test which indicate a problem on the BellSouth provided Loop.
2.1.6.2 Once Telepak Networks has isolated a trouble to the BellSouth provided Loop, and had issued a trouble report to BellSouth on the Loop, BellSouth will take the actions necessary to repair the Loop if a trouble actually exists. BellSouth will repair these Loops in the same time frames that BellSouth repairs similarly situated Loops to its End Users.
2.1.6.3 If Telepak Networks reports a trouble on a non-designed or designed Loop and no trouble actually exists, BellSouth will charge Telepak Networks for any dispatching and testing (both inside and outside the CO) required by BellSouth in order to confirm the Loop’s working status.
2.1.6.4 In the event BellSouth must dispatch to the end-user’s location more than once due to incorrect or incomplete information provided by Telepak Networks (e.g., incomplete address, incorrect contact name/number, etc.), BellSouth will xxxx Xxxxxxx Networks for each additional dispatch required to repair the circuit due to the incorrect/incomplete information provided. BellSouth will assess the applicable Trouble Determination rates from BellSouth’s FCC or state tariffs.
Random Testing Notwithstanding any provisions of the Collective Agreement or any special agreements appended thereto, section 4.6 of the Canadian Model will not be applied by agreement. If applied to a worker dispatched by the Union, it will be applied or deemed to be applied unilaterally by the Employer. The Union retains the right to grieve the legality of any imposition of random testing in accordance with the Grievance Procedure set out in this Collective Agreement.
