STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PROCESS. The Stakeholder Involvement Plan (SIP), Appendix A, for this Project, is intended to supplement previous activities and describe the basic method by which additional input can continue to be solicited and received throughout the duration of the Project. Stakeholder input and community goals have been and will continue to be considered throughout implementation of the Project. NS Mayport will maintain and update the SIP to provide for continued Stakeholder involvement over the duration of this XL Project.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PROCESS. Stakeholder involvement is considered essential by both MSD and EPA and has been an important part of the concept and development of this project since 1998. MSD began reaching out to stakeholders shortly after EPA’s June 1998 announcement of pretreatment pilot opportunities under Project XL. This outreach continued as MSD developed its pre-proposal and proposal. MSD conducted a series of meetings over several months with key stakeholders and professionals at other WWTPs, culminating in a formal Stakeholder Orientation Meeting. MSD has since identified additional stakeholders and has begun holding stakeholder meetings. MSD will structure the stakeholder process to match the three project phases. The phases themselves entail different activities, with different needs and opportunity for stakeholder involvement and input. MSD’s Stakeholder Participation Plan, Appendix A, is intended to supplement previous activities and describe the basic method by which additional input can continue to be solicited and received throughout the duration of the project. Stakeholder input and community goals will be considered as MSD redevelops its pretreatment program for the Jeffersontown WWTP. MSD will maintain and update the Plan to provide for continued stakeholder involvement over the duration of this XL Project. Stakeholders who have been identified and asked to participate in the development of this Project are listed in Appendix B.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PROCESS. Stakeholder involvement is considered essential by both MSD and EPA and has been an important part of the concept and development of this project since 1998. MSD began reaching out to stakeholders shortly after EPA=s June 1998 announcement of pretreatment pilot opportunities under Project XL. This outreach continued as MSD developed its pre-proposal and proposal. MSD conducted a series of meetings over several months with key stakeholders and professionals, culminating in a formal Stakeholder Orientation Meeting (in October 1999). MSD has since identified additional stakeholders and has begun holding regular quarterly stakeholder meetings. In addition, monthly Stakeholder Work Group meetings were held from March, 2000 to July, 2000 for the development of this Agreement. Stakeholders who have been identified and asked to participate in the development of this Project are listed in Appendix B. (The Work Group volunteers are noted in Appendix B with an asterisk.) The dates and subjects of Stakeholder meetings and Stakeholder Work Group meetings are listed in Appendix C. MSD=s Stakeholder Participation Plan, Appendix D, is intended to describe the basic method by which additional input can continue to be solicited and received throughout the duration of the project. Stakeholder input and community goals will be considered as MSD redevelops its pretreatment program for the Jeffersontown WWTP. MSD will maintain and update the Stakeholder Participation Plan, as appropriate, to provide for continued stakeholder involvement over the duration of this XL Project.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PROCESS. As part of this plan, Xxxxxxxx will continue to develop a Stakeholder involvement program. Adequate long-range water resources planning and management require the identification and involvement of many different individuals, special interest groups and agencies. Watershed Stakeholders must be included in all aspects of the process, from initial planning, to development and implementation of the management plan. It is crucial to set up the Stakeholder Involvement Program early in the process to ensure strong future support for the water resources management plan. Ultimately, through the Stakeholder process, the County hopes to achieve collaborative goal setting for water resources management. This will place the responsibility for making decisions on water resources at the local level. The Stakeholder involvement program will provide the forum for these decisions to be made. The Stakeholder involvement program will also serve as the outreach component to the water resources management plan. Many watershed issues in the County will best be addressed by a combination of regulatory and voluntary controls. These issues include sedimentation, failing on-site systems, increased pesticide applications, and excess nutrients. In many cases the Stakeholders will be the best conduit to reach out to their constituents on voluntary practices for pollutant reductions. For example, the landscaping interests can best formulate a strategy to encourage lawn care companies to optimize their management of fertilizer applications on lawns and golf courses for the benefit of the environment. The SIP, Appendix A, for this Project, is intended to describe the basic method by which input has been and will continue to be solicited and received throughout the duration of the Project. Stakeholder input and community goals have been and will continue to be considered throughout implementation of the Project. Clermont will maintain and update the SIP to provide for continued Stakeholder involvement over the duration of this XLC Project.

Related to STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PROCESS

Negotiation Process (a) If either the Chief Executive Officer of ICANN (“CEO”) or the Chairperson of the Registry Stakeholder Group (“Chair”) desires to discuss any revision(s) to this Agreement, the CEO or Chair, as applicable, shall provide written notice to the other person, which shall set forth in reasonable detail the proposed revisions to this Agreement (a “Negotiation Notice”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, neither the CEO nor the Chair may (i) propose revisions to this Agreement that modify any Consensus Policy then existing, (ii) propose revisions to this Agreement pursuant to this Section 7.7 on or before June 30, 2014, or (iii) propose revisions or submit a Negotiation Notice more than once during any twelve (12) month period beginning on July 1, 2014. (b) Following receipt of the Negotiation Notice by either the CEO or the Chair, ICANN and the Working Group (as defined in Section 7.6) shall consult in good faith negotiations regarding the form and substance of the proposed revisions to this Agreement, which shall be in the form of a proposed amendment to this Agreement (the “Proposed Revisions”), for a period of at least ninety (90) calendar days (unless a resolution is earlier reached) and attempt to reach a mutually acceptable agreement relating to the Proposed Revisions (the “Discussion Period”). (c) If, following the conclusion of the Discussion Period, an agreement is reached on the Proposed Revisions, ICANN shall post the mutually agreed Proposed Revisions on its website for public comment for no less than thirty (30) calendar days (the “Posting Period”) and provide notice of such revisions to all Applicable Registry Operators in accordance with Section 7.9. ICANN and the Working Group will consider the public comments submitted on the Proposed Revisions during the Posting Period (including comments submitted by the Applicable Registry Operators). Following the conclusion of the Posting Period, the Proposed Revisions shall be submitted for Registry Operator Approval (as defined in Section 7.6) and approval by the ICANN Board of Directors. If such approvals are obtained, the Proposed Revisions shall be deemed an Approved Amendment (as defined in Section 7.6) by the Applicable Registry Operators and ICANN, and shall be effective and deemed an amendment to this Agreement upon sixty (60) calendar days notice from ICANN to Registry Operator. (d) If, following the conclusion of the Discussion Period, an agreement is not reached between ICANN and the Working Group on the Proposed Revisions, either the CEO or the Chair may provide the other person written notice (the “Mediation Notice”) requiring each party to attempt to resolve the disagreements related to the Proposed Revisions through impartial, facilitative (non-‐evaluative) mediation in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth below. In the event that a Mediation Notice is provided, ICANN and the Working Group shall, within fifteen (15) calendar days thereof, simultaneously post the text of their desired version of the Proposed Revisions and a position paper with respect thereto on ICANN’s website. (i) The mediation shall be conducted by a single mediator selected by the parties. If the parties cannot agree on a mediator within fifteen (15) calendar days following receipt by the CEO or Chair, as applicable, of the Mediation Notice, the parties will promptly select a mutually acceptable mediation provider entity, which entity shall, as soon as practicable following such entity’s selection, designate a mediator, who is a licensed attorney with general knowledge of contract law, who has no ongoing business relationship with either party and, to the extent necessary to mediate the particular dispute, general knowledge of the domain name system. Any mediator must confirm in writing that he or she is not, and will not become during the term of the mediation, an employee, partner, executive officer, director, or security holder of ICANN or an Applicable Registry Operator. If such confirmation is not provided by the appointed mediator, then a replacement mediator shall be appointed pursuant to this Section 7.7(d)(i). (ii) The mediator shall conduct the mediation in accordance with the rules and procedures for facilitative mediation that he or she determines following consultation with the parties. The parties shall discuss the dispute in good faith and attempt, with the mediator’s assistance, to reach an amicable resolution of the dispute. (iii) Each party shall bear its own costs in the mediation. The parties shall share equally the fees and expenses of the mediator. (iv) If an agreement is reached during the mediation, ICANN shall post the mutually agreed Proposed Revisions on its website for the Posting Period and provide notice to all Applicable Registry Operators in accordance with Section 7.9. ICANN and the Working Group will consider the public comments submitted on the agreed Proposed Revisions during the Posting Period (including comments submitted by the Applicable Registry Operators). Following the conclusion of the Posting Period, the Proposed Revisions shall be submitted for Registry Operator Approval and approval by the ICANN Board of Directors. If such approvals are obtained, the Proposed Revisions shall be deemed an Approved Amendment (as defined in Section 7.6) by the Applicable Registry Operators and ICANN, and shall be effective and deemed an amendment to this Agreement upon sixty (60) calendar days notice from ICANN to Registry Operator. (v) If the parties have not resolved the dispute for any reason by the date that is ninety (90) calendar days following receipt by the CEO or Chair, as applicable, of the Mediation Notice, the mediation shall automatically terminate (unless extended by agreement of the parties). The mediator shall deliver to the parties a definition of the issues that could be considered in future arbitration, if invoked. Those issues are subject to the limitations set forth in Section 7.7(e)(ii) below. (e) If, following mediation, ICANN and the Working Group have not reached an agreement on the Proposed Revisions, either the CEO or the Chair may provide the other person written notice (an “Arbitration Notice”) requiring ICANN and the Applicable Registry Operators to resolve the dispute through binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration provisions of Section 5.2, subject to the requirements and limitations of this Section 7.7(e). (i) If an Arbitration Notice is sent, the mediator’s definition of issues, along with the Proposed Revisions (be those from ICANN, the Working Group or both) shall be posted for public comment on ICANN’s website for a period of no less than thirty (30) calendar days. ICANN and the Working Group will consider the public comments submitted on the Proposed Revisions during the Posting Period (including comments submitted by the Applicable Registry Operators), and information regarding such comments and consideration shall be provided to a three (3) person arbitrator panel. Each party may modify its Proposed Revisions before and after the Posting Period. The arbitration proceeding may not commence prior to the closing of such public comment period, and ICANN may consolidate all challenges brought by registry operators (including Registry Operator) into a single proceeding. Except as set forth in this Section 7.7, the arbitration shall be conducted pursuant to Section 5.2. (ii) No dispute regarding the Proposed Revisions may be submitted for arbitration to the extent the subject matter of the Proposed Revisions (i) relates to Consensus Policy, (ii) falls within the subject matter categories set forth in Section 1.2 of Specification 1, or (iii) seeks to amend any of the following provisions or Specifications of this Agreement: Articles 1, 3 and 6; Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.7, 2.9, 2.10, 2.16, 2.17, 2.19, 4.1, 4.2, 7.3, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.10, 7.11, 7.12, 7.13, 7.14, 7.16; Section 2.8 and Specification 7 (but only to the extent such Proposed Revisions seek to implement an RPM not contemplated by Sections 2.8 and Specification 7); Exhibit A; and Specifications 1, 4, 6, 10 and 11. (iii) The mediator will brief the arbitrator panel regarding ICANN and the Working Group’s respective proposals relating to the Proposed Revisions. (iv) No amendment to this Agreement relating to the Proposed Revisions may be submitted for arbitration by either the Working Group or ICANN, unless, in the case of the Working Group, the proposed amendment has received Registry Operator Approval and, in the case of ICANN, the proposed amendment has been approved by the ICANN Board of Directors. (v) In order for the arbitrator panel to approve either ICANN or the Working Group’s proposed amendment relating to the Proposed Revisions, the arbitrator panel must conclude that such proposed amendment is consistent with a balanced application of ICANN’s core values (as described in ICANN’s Bylaws) and reasonable in light of the balancing of the costs and benefits to the business interests of the Applicable Registry Operators and ICANN (as applicable), and the public benefit sought to be achieved by the Proposed Revisions as set forth in such amendment. If the arbitrator panel concludes that either ICANN or the Working Group’s proposed amendment relating to the Proposed Revisions meets the foregoing standard, such amendment shall be effective and deemed an amendment to this Agreement upon sixty (60) calendar days notice from ICANN to Registry Operator and deemed an Approved Amendment hereunder. (f) With respect to an Approved Amendment relating to an amendment proposed by ICANN, Registry may apply in writing to ICANN for an exemption from such amendment pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.6. (g) Notwithstanding anything in this Section 7.7 to the contrary, (a) if Registry Operator provides evidence to ICANN's reasonable satisfaction that the Approved Amendment would materially increase the cost of providing Registry Services, then ICANN will allow up to one-‐hundred eighty (180) calendar days for the Approved Amendment to become effective with respect to Registry Operator, and (b) no Approved Amendment adopted pursuant to Section 7.7 shall become effective with respect to Registry Operator if Registry Operator provides ICANN with an irrevocable notice of termination pursuant to Section 4.4(b).
Care Coordination The Parties’ subcontract shall require that the Enrollee’s CP Care Coordinator provide ongoing care coordination support to the Enrollee in coordination with the Enrollee’s PCP and other providers as set forth in Section 2.6.
Consultative Process This Agreement recognises a commitment of the parties to develop working arrangements which will bring success to the operations of the Company through the ability to implement flexible work arrangements to meet the requirements of customers and the personal, study or family commitments of employees.
Complaints Process The School shall establish and adhere to a process for resolving public complaints which shall include an opportunity for complainants to be heard. The final administrative appeal shall be heard by the School's Governing Board, except where the complaint pertains to a possible violation of any law or term under this Contract. The complaints process shall be readily accessible from the School’s website, as described in Section 11.4.1.
Payment Process Subject to the terms and conditions established by the Agreement, the pricing per deliverable established by the Grant Work Plan, and the billing procedures established by Department, Department agrees to pay Grantee for services rendered in accordance with Section 215.422, Florida Statutes (F.S.).
Consultation Process (a) Unless the expedited process in clause 3.4 applies, the Operator must follow the process set out below for consulting on a proposal to amend this agreement. (b) The notice to be published under clause 3.2(b)(ii) must invite Members and other interested persons to submit written comments on the proposal to the Operator on or before a date specified in the notice (which must be at least 20 Business Days after the date of the notice). (c) If the Operator considers it appropriate having regard to issues raised in submissions, it may undertake further consultation on specified issues or alternative proposals, and the notice and minimum time periods in paragraph (b) apply to that further consultation. (d) The Operator must publish its decision on the proposal on its website within 20 Business Days after the closing date for submissions under paragraph (b) or (d) as applicable. The decision must: (i) summarise any comments received on the proposal; (ii) set out the proposed amendment to be made (if any); (iii) if the proposed amendment is materially different from the original proposal, describe how and why the proposal has been revised; (iv) if the decision is to make a proposed amendment then specify the day on which the amendment is to take effect; and (v) if the decision is against making any proposed amendment, state that the proposal has been rejected and give reasons for the rejection. (e) At least 15 Business Days before the day on which any amendment is to take effect, or an earlier date fixed by this agreement in any particular case, the Operator must: (i) notify all Members and the AER of the amendment; and (ii) publish the amendment and the amended Exchange Agreement on its website. (f) In determining whether or not to make an amendment under this provision, the Operator must take into account all relevant and material comments that it receives by the closing date for comments and may take into account any comments it receives after that date.
Investigatory Interview When the employee under investigation is to be interviewed concerning the alleged conduct which could result in discharge or other discipline, the employee and his or her representative shall be notified in writing, at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the interview. In the event of an emergency, such reasonable notice as the circumstances permit shall be given. The notice shall state that an official investigation is being conducted and shall state the subject matter of the investigatory interview. a. Prior to being interviewed pursuant to this section, the employee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity and facilities to contact and consult privately with his or her union representative or union attorney. b. Any interview of an employee under this section shall be conducted at a reasonable time, at a suitable location and, when practicable, on the department’s premises when the employee is on duty. The union representative or union attorney may participate in the interview. c. The interview shall be limited to questions that are directly, narrowly, and specifically related to the employee’s job performance as it relates to the allegation(s) or complaints. The employee shall not be subjected to any offensive language nor be threatened with transfer, dismissal or other disciplinary action. Confidentiality of the interview shall be maintained.
Evaluation Process ‌ A. The immediate supervisor will meet with an employee at the start of their review period to discuss performance expectations. The employee will receive copies of their performance expectations as well as notification of any modifications made during the review period. Employee work performance will be evaluated during probationary, trial service and transition review periods and at least annually thereafter. Notification will be given to a probationary or trial service employee whose work performance is determined to be unsatisfactory. B. The supervisor will discuss the evaluation with the employee. The employee will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the evaluation. The discussion may include such topics as: 1. Reviewing the employee’s performance; 2. Identifying ways the employee may improve their performance; 3. Updating the employee’s position description, if necessary; 4. Identifying performance goals and expectations for the next appraisal period; and 5. Identifying employee training and development needs. C. The performance evaluation process will include, but not be limited to, a written performance evaluation on forms used by the Employer, the employee’s signature acknowledging receipt of the forms, and any comments by the employee. A copy of the performance evaluation will be provided to the employee at the time of the review. A copy of the final performance evaluation, including any employee or reviewer comments, will be provided to the employee. The original performance evaluation forms, including the employee’s comments, will be maintained in the employee’s personnel file. D. If an employee disagrees with their performance evaluation, the employee has the right to attach a rebuttal. E. The performance evaluation process is subject to the grievance procedure in Article 30. The specific content of a performance evaluation is not subject to the grievance procedure. F. Performance evaluations will not be used to initiate personnel actions such as transfer, promotion, or discipline.
Proposing Integration Activities in the Planning Submission No integration activity described in section 6.3 may be proposed in a CAPS unless the Funder has consented, in writing, to its inclusion pursuant to the process set out in section 6.3(b).
TRANSACTION PROCESS The RFQ for this Lot will contain a deliverable-based Statement of Work (SOW). The RFQ will include, but is not limited to: Authorized User timeframes; system integration requirements; and other risks that may affect the cost to the Authorized User. All responses to RFQs must include detailed price information, including but not limited to: hours required per title, cost per hour etc. Travel, lodging and per diem costs must be itemized in the total quote and may not exceed the rates in the NYS OSC Travel Policy. More information can be found at xxxx://xxx.xxx.xxxxx.xx.xx/agencies/travel/travel.htm. All costs must be itemized and included in the Contractor’s quote.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PROCESS Sample Clauses

Filter & Search

Related Clauses

Sub-Clauses

Related to STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PROCESS