Merit review process Sample Clauses

Merit review process. (a) Information Provided to Departments: The Administration shall provide Departmental and Library Personnel Committees with a merit spreadsheet that lists all eligible bargaining-unit members and the total funds available in Pools A and B. (b) For Pool A: The Personnel Committee of each department-level unit shall consider each eligible bargaining-unit member’s performance based on the applicable annual review conducted under Article 20 (for librarians) or Article 33 (for faculty) of this Agreement and shall determine the amount (if any) of a merit award they should receive from Pool A. Such determinations shall be final except that they may be remanded by the Administration to the department for good reason explained in writing by the Administration. The Administration shall simultaneously provide the Union with a copy of any such remanded determinations. (c) For Pool B: The Administration shall invite from department-level Personnel Committees and Chairs recommendations for merit awards for the bargaining-unit members within that unit. The Administration shall consider such recommendations and shall consider each eligible bargaining-unit member’s performance based on the applicable annual review conducted under Article 20 (for librarians) or Article 33 (for faculty) of this Agreement and shall determine the amount (if any) of a merit award they should receive from Pool B. Such determinations shall be final and shall not be subject to grievance.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (8)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Merit review process. A. For those NSF who are eligible for merit increases, such increases are based on academic attainment, experience and performance, and are not automatic. NSF shall be eligible for merit increases in accordance with this Article in those years when the University provides merit increases to non-represented academic employees. B. Consistent with this Agreement, decisions to grant or not grant a merit increase to individual NSF are at the sole discretion of the University. In the event an NSF is not awarded an increase following a merit review, the University shall include an explanation for its decision that shall accompany the merit review determination. C. NSF shall be subject to merit reviews as follows: 1. Pre-Six year NSF merits – For pre-six year NSF, consideration for merit reviews, and decisions regarding the timing and amount of individual increases if any, shall be at the sole discretion of the University.
Sample 1
Merit review process. A. For those NSF who are eligible for merit increases, such increases are based on academic attainment, experience and performance, and are not automatic. NSF will be eligible for merit increases in accordance with this Article in those years when the University provides merit increases to non-represented academic employees. B. Consistent with this MOU, decisions to grant or not grant a merit increase to individual NSF are at the sole discretion of the University. C. NSF will be subject to merit reviews as follows: 1. Pre-Six year NSF merits – For pre-six year appointees, consideration for merit reviews, and decisions regarding the timing and amount of individual increases if any, will be at the sole discretion of the University.
Sample 1
Merit review process. Eligible NSF will transition to the new salary scale by being placed at a salary rate that equates to at least a six percent (6%) salary increase.
Sample 1
Merit review process. The University is proposing to have a compensation program based on merit, which shall be determined annually based on established criteria. Merit decisions are not grievable or arbitrable.
Sample 1
Merit review process 
Sample 1Sample 2

Related to Merit review process

  • Review Process A/E's Work Product will be reviewed by County under its applicable technical requirements and procedures, as follows:

  • Review Procedure If the Plan Administrator denies part or all of the claim, the claimant shall have the opportunity for a full and fair review by the Plan Administrator of the denial, as follows:

  • Post Review With respect to each contract not governed by paragraph 2 of this Part, the procedures set forth in paragraph 4 of Appendix 1 to the Guidelines shall apply.

  • 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.

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