Review Criteria. A sports official shall be subject to review when the results of a criminal back- ground check show that:
Review Criteria. A sports official shall be subject to review when the results of a criminal background check show that:
Review Criteria. In reviewing and making decisions regarding applications for comprehensive plan amendments, rezonings, and DRIs the County and the City will consider the following issues:
a. School Board staff comments on:
1. Available school capacity or planned improvements to increase school capacity;
2. The provision of school sites and facilities within planned neighborhoods;
3. The inclusion of school bus stops and turnarounds; and
4. Compatibility of land uses adjacent to existing schools and reserved school sites;
b. The collocation of parks, recreation and neighborhood facilities with school sites;
c. The linkage of schools, parks, libraries and other public facilities with bikeways, trails, and sidewalks for safe access;
d. Traffic circulation plans, which serve schools and the surrounding neighborhood; and
e. The provision of off-site signalization, signage, access improvements, and sidewalks to serve schools.
Review Criteria. 6.1 During any scheduled review period referred to in clause 5 (Scheduled Reviews), the parties shall in good faith consider the ongoing Protections having regard to the following:
6.1.1 the overall financial situation of the Company;
Review Criteria. To determine whether the proposal would be in the public interest, the plan commission and city council shall weigh and make findings regarding each of the following criteria:
1. Effects on local services, including: public road system, police and fire protection, utilities, and public schools;
2. Effects on the natural environment, including: riparian/wetland areas, soil erosion, vegetation and air pollution;
3. Effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat, including fisheries and mammals; and
4. Effects on public health and safety, including police and fire protection, traffic safety, and the presence of other known hazards (on-site and off-site) such as high-pressure natural gas lines, airports, railroads, overhead power lines, industrial activities, and nonmetallic mining activities.
Review Criteria. Procedures for assessing the technical merit of applications have been instituted to provide for an objective review of applications and to assist you in understanding the standards against which your application will be judged. Critical indicators have been developed for each review criterion to assist you in presenting pertinent information related to that criterion and to provide the reviewer with a standard for evaluation. Review criteria are outlined below with specific detail and scoring points. These criteria are the basis upon which the reviewers will evaluate and score the merit of the application. The entire proposal will be considered during objective review. Review criteria are used to review and rank applications. The HWRC Cooperative Agreement Program has five review criteria:
Criterion 1: PURPOSE AND NEED (10 points) – Corresponds to Section IV’s Purpose and Need
Criterion 2: RESPONSE TO PROGRAM PURPOSE (30 points) – Corresponds to Section IV’s Response to Program Purpose Sub-section (a) Methodology/Approach, Sub-section (b) Work Plan and Sub-section (c) Resolution of Challenges
(a) METHODOLOGY/APPROACH (20 points) – Corresponds to Section IV’s Response to Program Purpose Sub-section (a) Methodology/Approach For Behavioral Health Workforce topic area applicants only: The extent to which at least one (1) of your proposed research studies addresses each of the three (3) broad priorities listed in Section I.1 of this notice. These priorities are:
(b) WORK PLAN (5 points) – Corresponds to Section IV’s Response to Program Purpose Sub-section (b)
Review Criteria. A sports offi- cial shall be subject to review when the results of a criminal background check show that: (aa) The sports official has been convicted or placed on deferred adjudication for an offense that would require the individu- al to register as a sex offender under Chap- ter 62, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which includes but is not limited to, such offenses as continu- ous sexual abuse of a young child, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault; or an offense under the laws of another state or fed- eral law that is equiv- alent to an offense requiring registration. In such cases, the sports official shall be reviewed by the sports officials chap- ter or association of which the official is a member and shall be disqualified from offi- ciating or otherwise working UIL games or events unless a com- pelling justification to waive this standard is articulated in writing by the sports officials’ chapter or association. The written request for an exception to this standard must be approved by the UIL Sports Officials Com- mittee and in accor- dance with the rules and policies of The University of Texas at Austin, including UTS 124, Criminal Back- ground Checks. xxxx://xxxxxxxx.xxxxxx. edu/policies/criminal- background-checks
Review Criteria. A. In its discretion to approve or deny an application for a Coordinated Development Special Permit, the Planning Board shall consider the following:
1. consistency with the adopted comprehensive Master Plan of the City of Somerville, existing policy plans and standards established by the City, and to other plans deemed to be appropriate by the Planning Board;
2. the purpose of this Ordinance in general;
3. the purpose of the overlay district where the property is located; and
4. considerations indicated elsewhere in this Ordinance for Coordinated Development Special Permit approval.
Review Criteria. Applications will be reviewed and evaluated as to the impact the faculty member’s additional workload will have on the quality of students’ educational experience. Assigned time from this pool may be awarded for student mentoring, advising, and outreach, especially as these activities support underserved, first-‐generation, and/or underrepresented students; the development and implementation of high-‐impact educational practices; curricular redesign intended to improve student access and success; service to the department, college, university, or community that goes significantly beyond the normal expectations of all faculty; assignment to courses where increases to enrollment have demonstrably increased workload; and other extraordinary forms of service to students.
Review Criteria. Contracts equal to or greater than $25,000 with a board member or other person or entity who could benefit financially from the contract (as defined in paragraph I(g) above) must be reviewed by DEO to ensure that these requirements have been met:
a) The contract met one or more of the exemptions to the prohibition under Paragraph II;
b) The board approved the contract with a two-thirds vote of the board after a quorum had been established;
c) Board members who could benefit financially from the contract or board members who have any relationship with the contracting vendor disclosed any such conflicts prior to the board vote on the contract; and
d) Board members who could benefit financially from the contract or board members who have any relationship with the contracting vendor abstained from voting.
