Informal Discussion If an employee has a problem relating to a work situation, the employee is encouraged to request a meeting with his or her immediate supervisor to discuss the problem in an effort to clarify the issue and to work cooperatively towards settlement.
Informal Discussions The employee's concerns will be presented orally by the employee to the appropriate supervisor. Every effort shall be made by all concerned in an informal manner to develop an understanding of the facts and the issues in order to create a climate which will lead to resolution of the problem. If the employee is not satisfied with the informal discussion(s) relative to the matter in question, he/she may proceed to the formal grievance procedure.
Formal Discussion In the event that a difference of a general nature arises regarding interpretation, application, operation or alleged contravention of this Collective Agreement, the Union shall first attempt to resolve the difference through discussion with the Employer, as appropriate. If the difference is not resolved in this manner, it may become a policy grievance.
Formal Discussions Section 3.1.1. Pursuant to 5 USC 7114(a)(2)(A), the Union shall be given the opportunity to be represented at any formal discussion between one or more employees it represents and one or more representatives of the Employer concerning any grievance (to include settlement discussions) or any personnel policy or practice or other general condition of employment. This right to be represented does not extend to informal discussions between an employee and a supervisor concerning a personal problem, or work methods and assignments.
Mutual Discussions The Employer and the Union acknowledge the mutual benefits to be derived from dialogue between the parties and are prepared to discuss matters of common interest.
Discussion Staff has reviewed the proposal relative to all relevant policies and advise that it is reasonably consistent with the intent of the MPS. Attachment B provides an evaluation of the proposed development agreement in relation to the relevant MPS policies.
Written Evaluation The Superintendent in consultation with the Board shall review and assess the Administrator’s performance on or before February 1 of each year. The Administrator shall be formally evaluated in writing annually by the Superintendent on or before February 1 of each year. The evaluation shall include a description of the Administrator’s duties and responsibilities and the standards to which the Administrator is to perform. It shall consider the Administrator’s specific duties, responsibilities, management and competence as an Administrator; specify the Administrator’s strengths and weaknesses with supporting reasons; align with research based standards established by the Illinois State Board of Education and use data and indicators on student growth as a significant factor in rating performance. The evaluation shall also consist of a review of the Administrator’s progress toward meeting established professional, student performance and academic goals set forth in Appendix A and a review of the Administrator’s leadership and management performance relative to his current assignment. The written evaluation shall be signed by both the Superintendent and the Administrator. The Administrator may respond to the evaluation in writing and such response shall be attached to and included in the Administrator’s personnel file.
- ISSUE IDENTIFICATION AND INFORMAL DISCUSSION The employee shall discuss the issue with the immediate supervisor on an informal basis to identify and attempt resolution of the employee’s issue within ten (10) business days following the day the issue arose. The employee shall have the affirmative responsibility to inform the supervisor that the issue is being raised pursuant to this grievance procedure. The immediate supervisor shall meet with the employee, secure clarification of the issue, consider the employee’s proposed solution, and discuss possible alternative solutions and/or other administrative remedies. The immediate supervisor shall inform the department’s personnel office, and the personnel director shall inform the union of the grievance. The immediate supervisor shall respond verbally within ten (10) business days following the meeting with the employee. Failure of the supervisor to respond within the time limit shall entitle the employee to process the issue to the next step.
Results and Discussion Table 1 (top) shows the root mean square error (RMSE) between the three tests for different numbers of topics. These results show that all three tests largely agree with each other but as the sample size (number of topics) decreases, the agreement decreases. In line with the results found for 50 topics, the randomization and bootstrap tests agree more with the t-test than with each other. We looked at pairwise scatterplots of the three tests at the different topic sizes. While there is some disagreement among the tests at large p-values, i.e. those greater than 0.5, none of the tests would predict such a run pair to have a significant difference. More interesting to us is the behavior of the tests for run pairs with lower p-values. ≥ Table 1 (bottom) shows the RMSE among the three tests for run pairs that all three tests agreed had a p-value greater than 0.0001 and less than 0.5. In contrast to all pairs with p-values 0.0001 (Table 1 top), these run pairs are of more importance to the IR researcher since they are the runs that require a statistical test to judge the significance of the per- formance difference. For these run pairs, the randomization and t tests are much more in agreement with each other than the bootstrap is with either of the other two tests. Looking at scatterplots, we found that the bootstrap tracks the t-test very well but shows a systematic bias to produce p-values smaller than the t-test. As the number of topics de- creases, this bias becomes more pronounced. Figure 1 shows a pairwise scatterplot of the three tests when the number of topics is 10. The randomization test also tends to produce smaller p-values than the t-test for run pairs where the t- test estimated a p-value smaller than 0.1, but at the same time, produces some p-values greater than the t-test’s. As Figure 1 shows, the bootstrap consistently gives smaller p- values than the t-test for these smaller p-values. While the bootstrap and the randomization test disagree with each other more than with the t-test, Figure 1 shows that for a low number of topics, the randomization test shows less noise in its agreement with the bootstrap com- Figure 1: A pairwise comparison of the p-values less than 0.25 produced by the randomization, t-test, and the bootstrap tests for pairs of TREC runs with only 10 topics. The small number of topics high- lights the differences between the three tests. pared to the t-test for small p-values.
Evaluation of Proposals 29.1 UNDP shall examine the Proposal to confirm that all terms and conditions under the UNDP General Terms and Conditions and Special Conditions have been accepted by the Proposer without any deviation or reservation.
