Recommendation for Renewal. The final evaluation indicates the evaluator's recommendation for continued employment, admonishments that could lead to non-reemployment, or recommendation for non- reemployment.
Recommendation for Renewal Sample Clauses
Related to Recommendation for Renewal
Recommendation The Sheriff recommends approval of the Board Order. The County Administrator concurs with the recommendation of the Sheriff. Should the Board of Commissioners concur with their recommendations, approval of the Board Order will implement that action. Respectfully submitted, /s/ XXXXX XXXXXX Xxxxx Xxxxxx County Administrator
Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:
REQUEST FOR REVIEW Within sixty (60) days after receiving notice from the Plan Administrator that a claim has been denied (in part or all of the claim), then claimant (or their duly authorized representative) may file with the Plan Administrator, a written request for a review of the denial of the claim. The claimant (or his duly authorized representative) shall then have the opportunity to submit written comments, documents, records and other information relating to the claim. The Plan Administrator shall also provide the claimant, upon request and free of charge, reasonable access to, and copies of, all documents, records and other information relevant (as defined in applicable ERISA regulations) to the claimant’s claim for benefits.
Request for Extension Upon request, the Department may extend the time allowed for both a response to the Letter of Concern and a Corrective Action Plan depending upon the nature of the deficiency. The Provider shall request an extension of time in writing from the Department’s designated representative. The written request shall contain a justification and proposed extension period.
Sole Source as Grounds for Rejection of a Change Order If a Change Order is submitted to Contractor for the purposes of adding a Bulletin to this Contract and said Bulletin designates a Sole Source from which Contractor is required to procure goods or services necessary to perform the Work, which Sole Source has not been designated previously, Contractor shall be entitled to reject the proposed Change Order if the designated Sole Source refuses to provide to Contractor the warranties, bonds, terms or schedule required under the Contract Documents, including any warranty or terms or schedule required by Bulletins referenced in the proposed Change Order. In such event, Contractor shall give written notice to the Owner rejecting the proposed Change Order and, if possible, shall accompany said written notice with a proposal from Contractor for changes or modifications to the Bulletin so as to eliminate the Sole Source designation but to achieve goods or services equal in quality or function. The Owner may then require the Design Professional to revise the subject Bulletin so as to eliminate the designation of the Sole Source by incorporation of Contractor's proposal or otherwise. Upon revision of the Bulletin by the Design Professional and approval thereof by the Owner, the Owner shall again submit to the Contractor a proposed Change Order for the purpose of adding the revised Bulletin to this Contract. If the Owner decides to retain the Sole Source in the Change Order and Contractor cannot acquire the full contractually required warranties from the Sole Source, Contractor shall be held only to the warranty terms and schedule obtainable from the Sole Source.
JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1.
Conclusions and Recommendations The demonstration and evaluation process provided an opportunity to test community specific tools with a range of end users from the memory institution domain and to gain greater insight into both the current and future evolution of the SHAMAN prototypes for preservation, access and re-use. Xxxx et al. (2000) in their user evaluation study of the Alexandria Digital Library which incorporated the evaluation of a Web prototype by earth scientists, information specialists and educators raised four key questions in relation to their findings that SHAMAN may be well advised to consider, they are paraphrased here with our conclusions from the investigations. What have we learned about our target organizations and potential users? Memory institutions are most definitely not a homogenised group; their needs and requirements differ greatly across the domain. Representatives of the archives community are agreed on the benefits of SHAMAN‟s authenticity validation function. The representatives of government information services remained unconvinced as to the need or benefit of grid technologies or distributed ingest while librarians saw the value of grid access as an asset of the framework. What have we learned about the evaluation approach for digital preservation? Within the limits of the exercise, in terms of time-frame and resources, the approach adopted has generated useful information for the further development of demonstrators and for the development of the SHAMAN framework overall. What have we learned about the SHAMAN ISP1 demonstrator? Respondents to the evaluation questionnaires and the focus groups indicate that, overall, the presentation of the demonstrator worked effectively and that, in general, participants in the demonstration and evaluation events were able to understand the intentions of the demonstration and to apply the ideas presented to their own context. What have we learned about the applicability of the SHAMAN framework to memory institutions? Respondents to the questionnaires and participants in the focus groups readily identified the value of the SHAMAN framework to their own operations. The majority had not yet established a long-term digital preservation policy, but recognized the need. Generally, the concepts of distributed ingest and grid operations found favour. Virtually all practitioners in the focus groups, however, drew attention to need of a lower level demonstration that would be closer to their everyday preservation troubles, especially for digital preservation to be applied to non-textual materials, such as film, photographs and sound archives. In addition to the criteria suggested by Xxxx et al., we can add a further project-related question: What have we learned that has implications for the training and dissemination phase of the Project? It was not part of the remit of the demonstration and evaluation specifically to discover information of relevance to the training and dissemination function. However, a number of factors will affect the efficacy of any training programme in particular. o First, no common understanding of digital preservation can be assumed of the potential target audiences for training. Consequently, it is likely that self-paced learning materials will be most effective in presenting the SHAMAN framework. o Secondly, the aims of SHAMAN as a project must be conveyed clearly: specifically, that it is a kind of „proof-of-concept‟ project and is not intended to deliver a package of programs capable of being implemented by institutions. o Thirdly, it needs to be emphasised that the SHAMAN framework is not limited to text documents; it can be applied to materials of all kinds. However, the demonstrations relate to bodies of material that were actually available for use. o Fourthly, the existing presentation materials are capable of being adapted for use in training activities. o Finally, the target audiences will appreciate the possibility of online access to the demonstrator, which will need to have very great ease of access in order that people with diverse backgrounds are able to use it with equal facility. We believe that, overall, WP14 has met its aims and objectives in this demonstration and evaluation of ISP1. Valuable lessons have been learnt by all parties involved, which will be transferred to the evaluation of ISP2 in the coming months.
PURPOSE/JUSTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION The purpose of the Agreement is to provide the City with the services for one full-time equivalent senior criminalist from the Department to perform DNA testing, analysis, and forensic-related consulting as requested by the City, effective July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2021. The City’s current agreement with the County for this position expires on June 30, 2016. This Agreement will not result in the creation of an additional senior criminalist position, as the position was created during the previous agreement.
NOTICE BOARD (a) A notice board shall be provided for the posting of all official Union notices exclusively, and will not be used for the purpose of disseminating political information. The right is reserved to the Company to request the removal of material offensive to the Company.
RECOMMENDATION OF LEGAL AND TAX COUNSEL By signing this document, Xxxxx acknowledges that Xxxxxx has 210 advised that this document has important legal consequences and has recommended consultation with legal and tax or other counsel 211 before signing this Buyer Listing Contract.
