Evaluation Process A. The immediate supervisor will meet with an employee at the start of the employee’s probationary, trial services, transition, and annual review period to discuss performance expectations. The employee will receive copies of their performance expectations as well as notification of any modifications made during the review period. Employee work performance will be evaluated during probationary, trial service and transition review periods and at least annually thereafter. Notification will be given to a probationary or trial service employee whose work performance is determined to be unsatisfactory.
Mediation Process A. Mediation is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) that may be requested by the City or the PBA. It is an alternative, not a substitute for the formal arbitration process contained in Section 19.7 above. Mediation is an informal process in which a neutral third party assists the opposing parties in reaching a voluntary, negotiated resolution of a charge of discipline. The decision to mediate is completely voluntary for the PBA and the City. Mediation gives the parties the opportunity to discuss the issues raised in the charging document, clear up misunderstandings, determine the underlying interests or concerns, find areas of agreement and, ultimately, incorporate those areas of agreement into solutions. A mediator does not resolve the charge or impose a decision on the parties. Instead, the mediator helps the parties to agree on a mutually acceptable resolution. The mediation process is strictly confidential. Information disclosed during mediation will not be revealed to anyone.
Selection Process The Mortgage Loans were selected from among the outstanding one- to four-family mortgage loans in the Seller's portfolio at the related Closing Date as to which the representations and warranties set forth in Subsection 9.02 could be made and such selection was not made in a manner so as to affect adversely the interests of the Purchaser;
Negotiation Process (a) If either the Chief Executive Officer of ICANN (“CEO”) or the Chairperson of the Registry Stakeholder Group (“Chair”) desires to discuss any revision(s) to this Agreement, the CEO or Chair, as applicable, shall provide written notice to the other person, which shall set forth in reasonable detail the proposed revisions to this Agreement (a “Negotiation Notice”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, neither the CEO nor the Chair may
Escalation Process 9.1. There will be times when the pharmacist will need additional advice or will need to escalate the patient to a higher acuity care location (e.g. back to their GP or an Urgent Treatment Centre or A&E).
TRANSACTION PROCESS The RFQ for this Lot will contain a deliverable-based Statement of Work (SOW). The RFQ will include, but is not limited to: Authorized User timeframes; system integration requirements; and other risks that may affect the cost to the Authorized User. All responses to RFQs must include detailed price information, including but not limited to: hours required per title, cost per hour etc. Travel, lodging and per diem costs must be itemized in the total quote and may not exceed the rates in the NYS OSC Travel Policy. More information can be found at xxxx://xxx.xxx.xxxxx.xx.xx/agencies/travel/travel.htm. All costs must be itemized and included in the Contractor’s quote.
Consultation Process (a) At the time of providing written notice of reduction to affected Employee(s), the Employer shall:
Using Student feedback in Educator Evaluation ESE will provide model contract language, direction and guidance on using student feedback in Educator Evaluation by June 30, 2013. Upon receiving this model contract language, direction and guidance, the parties agree to bargain with respect to this matter.
Evaluation Procedure The procedural requirements set forth in this agreement to provide specificity to the statutory obligations established under sections 3319.111 and 3319.112 of the Ohio Revised Code and to conform to the framework for the evaluation of teachers developed under section 3319.112 of the Ohio Revised Code.
Review and Selection Process The Project Narratives of SAMHSA applications are peer-reviewed according to the evaluation criteria listed above. Decisions to fund a grant are based on the strengths and weaknesses of the application as identified by peer reviewers. The results of the peer review are advisory in nature. The program office and approving official make the final determination for funding based on the following: • Individual awards over $250,000 are approved by the Center for Mental Health Services National Advisory Council; • Availability of funds; • Equitable distribution of awards in terms of geography (including urban, rural, and remote settings) and balance among populations of focus and program size; • Submission of any required documentation that must be submitted prior to making an award; and • SAMHSA is required to review and consider any information about your organization that is in the Federal Award Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). In accordance with 45 CFR 75.212, SAMHSA reserves the right not to make an award to an entity if that entity does not meet the minimum qualification standards as described in section 75.205(a)(2). If SAMHSA chooses not to award a fundable application in accordance with 45 CFR 75.205(a)(2), SAMHSA must report that determination to the designated integrity and performance system accessible through the System for Award Management (XXX) [currently, FAPIIS]. You may review and comment on any information about your organization that a federal awarding agency previously entered. XXXXXX will consider your comments, in addition to other information in FAPIIS in making a judgment about your organization’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under federal awards when completing the review of risk posed as described in 45 CFR 75.205 HHS Awarding Agency Review of Risk by Applicants.
