Recommendations by Evaluator Sample Clauses

Recommendations by Evaluator. This is for the recommendations of continuing activities agreed upon by the evaluator and the evaluatee to improve, if needed, instructional performance and techniques. It outlines action to be taken by the evaluatee and administrative support to be given by the evaluator.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Recommendations by Evaluator. Grant Permanent Status at 6 mos Continue Probationary Period to 10 mos Continuation Without Reservation Continuation With Reservation(s): Develop a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) to identify concerns and provide recommendations for improvement if a rating of three (3) is received in any area Termination of Employment COMMENTS BY EVALUATOR: Employee's Signature Date Evaluator's Signature Date It is understood that in signing the Performance Report Form, the employee acknowledges having seen and discussed the report. The employee's signature does not necessarily imply agreement with the conclusions of the supervisor. Employee has ten (10) days to attach comments. Prepare in Triplicate: Evaluatee Evaluator Human Resources EXHIBIT I PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PLAN (PIP) CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES Name Location Position Assessment Dates / Evaluation Date / I. Goal area(s) in which improvement is recommended:

Related to Recommendations by Evaluator

  • Recommendations It is recommended that:

  • Evaluators i. Each evaluator shall be required to successfully complete state- mandated evaluator credentialing training and to pass a credentialing assessment.

  • Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:

  • Manufacturer's Recommendations All work or materials shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and requirements. The Contractor shall obtain the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements, for its use at the Site in executing the Work, copies of bulletins, circulars, catalogues, or other publications bearing the manufacturer’s titles, numbers, editions, dates, etc. If the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements are not available, the Contractor shall request installation instructions from the Design Professional.

  • Evaluation and Comparison of Tenders 2.24.1 The Procuring entity will evaluate and compare the tenders which have been determined to be substantially responsive, pursuant to paragraph 2.22

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF BIDS 30.1 The Employer will carry out evaluation of details and information provided in post- Qualification Questionnaire and any bidder who does not qualify shall not have his/her bid evaluated further.

  • 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.

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