Review of Evaluation Content Sample Clauses

Review of Evaluation Content. The University retains sole responsibility for the evaluation and assessment of the performance of each NTT faculty member subject to the procedural requirements of this article. Accordingly, no grievance arising from application of this article shall challenge the substantive standards or criteria used by the evaluator or University, nor shall it contest the judgment of the evaluator, nor the content of the evaluation. Any grievance regarding evaluation shall be limited to a claim that the procedures of this article have been violated or unreasonably applied. If an NTT faculty member believes the evaluation to be in error, he/she can appeal it to the department Chair. In the event an adverse action results from the contents of an evaluation and the NTT faculty members believes the evaluation to be in error, the faculty member may appeal the contents of the evaluation. Such appeal still begins first with the person who completed the evaluation and proceeds to the department Chair unless the department Chair is the person who completed the evaluation. The next step would be to appeal to the Xxxx of the college to which the NTT faculty member is assigned. If the accuracy of the evaluation is still in dispute at the conclusion of the Xxxx’x step, the employee may appeal to the Director, Labor Relations or designee. The appeal to the Director, Labor Relations or designee will be the final appeal step for challenging the accuracy of the evaluation.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Review of Evaluation Content

  • MANAGEMENT OF EVALUATION OUTCOMES 12.1 The evaluation of the Employee’s performance will form the basis for rewarding outstanding performance or correcting unacceptable performance.

  • Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.

  • PROGRESS EVALUATION Engineer shall, from time to time during the progress of the Engineering Services, confer with County at County’s election. Engineer shall prepare and present such information as may be pertinent and necessary, or as may be reasonably requested by County, in order for County to evaluate features of the Engineering Services. At the request of County or Engineer, conferences shall be provided at Engineer's office, the offices of County, or at other locations designated by County. When requested by County, such conferences shall also include evaluation of the Engineering Services. County may, from time to time, require Engineer to appear and provide information to the Xxxxxxxxxx County Commissioners Court. Should County determine that the progress in Engineering Services does not satisfy an applicable Work Authorization or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto, then County shall review same with Engineer to determine corrective action required. Engineer shall promptly advise County in writing of events which have or may have a significant impact upon the progress of the Engineering Services, including but not limited to the following:

  • Self-Evaluation Each regular faculty member shall provide a self-evaluation. It shall address, among other items, the faculty member's fulfillment of professional responsibilities as referenced in Section 18.2.3 and an assessment of his or her own performance. The faculty member will share the self-evaluation with the Faculty Evaluation Committee and the first-level manager or designee. The self-evaluation will become part of the evaluation report.

  • TECHNICAL EVALUATION (a) Detailed technical evaluation shall be carried out by Purchase Committee pursuant to conditions in the tender document to determine the substantial responsiveness of each tender. For this clause, the substantially responsive bid is one that conforms to all the eligibility and terms and condition of the tender without any material deviation. The Institute’s determination of bid’s responsiveness is to be based on the contents of the bid itself without recourse to extrinsic evidence. The Institute shall evaluate the technical bids also to determine whether they are complete, whether required sureties have been furnished, whether the documents have been properly signed and whether the bids are in order.

  • Focused Evaluation The Focused Evaluation is used when a teacher is not evaluated using the Comprehensive Evaluation process, and will include evaluation of one of the eight state criteria (student growth impact required). If a non-provisional teacher has scored at Proficient or higher the previous year, they may be moved to Focused Evaluation. The teacher may remain on the Focused Evaluation for five (5) years before returning to the Comprehensive Evaluation. The teacher or the evaluator can initiate a move from the Focused to the Comprehensive Evaluation. A decision to move a teacher from a Focused to a Comprehensive Evaluation must occur by December 15.

  • Completion of Evaluation Cycle 1. The summative evaluation rating shall be based upon a preponderance of the evidence, assessed in a holistic manner, that is aligned to the Ohio Educator Standards. Only evidence gathered during the walkthroughs and formal observations that are conducted for the current school year may be used.

  • Re-evaluation a) When a job has moved to a higher group as a result of re-evaluation, the resulting rate shall be retroactive from the date that Management or the employee has applied to the Plant Job Review Committee for re-evaluation.

  • JOC EVALUATION If any materials being utilized for a project cannot be found in the RS Means Price Book, this question is what is the markup percentage on those materials? When answering this question please insert the number that represents your percentage of proposed markup. Example: if you are proposing a 30 percent markup, please insert the number "30". Remember that this is a ceiling markup. You may markup a lesser percentage to the TIPS Member customer when pricing the project, but not a greater percentage. EXAMPLE: You need special materials that are not in the RS Means Unit Price Book for a project. You would buy the materials and xxxx them up to the TIPS Member customer by the percentage you propose in this question. If the materials cost you, the contractor, $100 and you proposed a markup on this question for the material of 30 percent, then you would charge the TIPS Member customer $130 for the materials. No response TIPS/ESC Region 8 is required by Texas Government Code § 791 to be compensated for its work and thus, failure to agree shall render your response void and it will not be considered. Yes - No Vendor agrees to remit to TIPS the required administration fee or, if resellers are named, guarantee the fee remittance by or for the reseller named by the vendor?

  • Contractor Performance Evaluations The Contract Administrator will evaluate Contractor’s performance as often as the Contract Administrator deems necessary throughout the term of the contract. This evaluation will be based on criteria including the quality of goods or services, the timeliness of performance, and adherence to applicable laws, including prevailing wage and living wage. City will provide Contractors who receive an unsatisfactory rating with a copy of the evaluation and an opportunity to respond. City may consider final evaluations, including Contractor’s response, in evaluating future proposals and bids for contract award.

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