Process of Review of Tenured Faculty Sample Clauses

Process of Review of Tenured Faculty. 1. The Director may request a review of a Tenured Teacher at any time prior to November 1 during a school year, provided that said Tenured Teacher had not been granted tenure or reviewed during the prior period of three years. The process to be followed to initiate the review is as follows:
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Process of Review of Tenured Faculty

  • Office of Inspector General Investigative Findings Expert Review In accordance with Senate Bill 799, Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., if Texas Government Code, Section 531.102(m-1)(2) is applicable to this Contract, Contractor affirms that it possesses the necessary occupational licenses and experience.

  • Contractor Selection In this section, please describe the selection process, including other sources considered and the rationale for selecting the contractor. Please answer all questions:

  • TIMELINESS OF BILLING SUBMISSION The parties agree that timeliness of billing is of the essence to this Contract and recognize that the City is on a fiscal year. All xxxxxxxx for dates of service prior to July 1 must be submitted to the City no later that the first Friday in August of the same year.

  • Training Program It is agreed that there shall be an Apprenticeship Training Program, the provisions of which are set forth in Exhibit "C", which is attached hereto and forms part of this Agreement.

  • Classification Review (a) An Employee who has reason to believe that they are improperly classified due to a substantial change in job duties, may apply to the Department Director, or designate, to have the Employee’s classification reviewed. The Director, or designate, will review the Employee’s application and advise the Employee of the Employer’s decision.

  • Validation Review In the event OIG has reason to believe that: (a) Good Shepherd’s Claims Review fails to conform to the requirements of this CIA; or (b) the IRO’s findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate, OIG may, at its sole discretion, conduct its own review to determine whether the Claims Review complied with the requirements of the CIA and/or the findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate (Validation Review). Good Shepherd shall pay for the reasonable cost of any such review performed by OIG or any of its designated agents. Any Validation Review of Reports submitted as part of Good Shepherd’s final Annual Report shall be initiated no later than one year after Good Shepherd’s final submission (as described in Section II) is received by OIG. Prior to initiating a Validation Review, OIG shall notify Good Shepherd of its intent to do so and provide a written explanation of why OIG believes such a review is necessary. To resolve any concerns raised by OIG, Good Shepherd may request a meeting with OIG to: (a) discuss the results of any Claims Review submissions or findings; (b) present any additional information to clarify the results of the Claims Review or to correct the inaccuracy of the Claims Review; and/or (c) propose alternatives to the proposed Validation Review. Good Shepherd agrees to provide any additional information as may be requested by OIG under this Section III.D.3 in an expedited manner. OIG will attempt in good faith to resolve any Claims Review issues with Good Shepherd prior to conducting a Validation Review. However, the final determination as to whether or not to proceed with a Validation Review shall be made at the sole discretion of OIG.

  • Evaluation of Teaching 1. All reports on a teacher shall be in writing.

  • Supervisor's Post-Probation Report Unless the probationary employee has previously been removed from probation, the principal or other supervisor shall submit a written report to the Superintendent at the end of the probationary period, which report shall identify whether the performance of the probationary employee has improved and which shall set forth one of the following recommendations for further action:

  • 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.

  • Drug and Alcohol Testing – Safety-Sensitive Functions A. Employees required to have a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) are subject to pre-employment, post-accident, random and reasonable suspicion testing in accordance with the U.S. Department of Transportation rules, Coast Guard Regulations (46 CFR Part 16) or the Federal Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991. The testing will be conducted in accordance with current Employer policy.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.