Tenure Review Process Sample Clauses

Tenure Review Process. In general, the tenure review process consists of a number of different activities. They include observations, evaluation of professional duties and responsibilities, candidate’s self- assessment, and appropriate meetings with the ITRC and the candidate. The following explains the specific activities required to be completed in each of the eight semesters of the tenure review process.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (8)
Tenure Review Process. The purpose of the tenure review process is to ensure that College of the Redwoods provides students with the most knowledgeable, talented, creative, professional, and student-oriented faculty available. The four-year probationary period provides sufficient time for probationary tenure-track faculty to understand the expectations for tenure, to develop the skills and acquire the experience necessary to participate successfully in the educational process, to use the District’s and other resources for professional growth, and to become a fully- participating and effective member of the college’s professional community. The process should promote professionalism and enhance academic growth by providing a useful, comprehensive assessment of all areas of performance. 11.1.5.1 A probationary tenure-track faculty member’s first evaluation will occur in the first fall of employment, with subsequent evaluations in the spring semester following that first fall, and the next three fall semesters. 11.1.5.2 As stated in Education Code 87776, “No leave of absence when granted to a contract employee shall be construed as a break in the continuity of service required for the classification of the employee as tenure. However, time spent on any unpaid leave of absence shall not be included in computing the service required as a prerequisite to attainment of, or eligibility for, tenure.” A probationary tenure-track faculty member must provide at least 75% of full service in an academic year for the academic year to count toward tenure. 11.1.5.3 The criteria upon which probationary tenure-track faculty members will be evaluated are as follows: 11.1.5.3.1 Student Engagement • Willingness, availability, and ability to assist students in achieving their educational goals • Responsiveness to the educational needs of students by exhibiting awareness of and sensitivity to the following: o Diversity of cultural backgrounds, gender, age, and lifestyles o Variety of learning styles o Student goals and aspirations o The special needs of students with physical or other disabilities o The importance of effective methods for resolving problems between the faculty member and students o The role and value of student support services o Concern for student welfare 11.1.5.3.2 Classroom Assignment • Knowledge of subject matter • Awareness of current developments and research in the discipline • Demonstration of effective oral and written communication with students, including the ability to res...
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (4)
Tenure Review Process. 12.3.1 A candidate for tenure must make the request for tenure no earlier than the winter/spring semester of the fourth academic year and no later than the beginning of the winter/spring semester of the fifth year.9 The candidate initiates the process by submitting a Case Statement (see 12.3.7) to the Xxxx and the Chair of the Standing Committee, describing what the faculty member has done to meet the tenure standards and attaching the member’s scholarship. The statement should be submitted by February 1st in the year that the faculty member requests review for tenure. 12.3.2 The Standing Committee shall appoint a Review Committee (Committee) composed of three members of the faculty who are tenured, or who are clinical faculty/program directors with alternative security, and comprising a range of faculty interests and expertise. The Standing Committee will discuss the composition of the Committee with the candidate. The faculty member being reviewed may recommend one member of the Committee, and may note any concerns about others who might be appointed. The final decision about Committee membership shall be made by the Standing Committee. 12.3.3 The Committee must obtain three outside reviews of the faculty member’s scholarship. The process is as follows: 12.3.3.1 In the statement to the Committee, the candidate may suggest names of possible reviewers in appropriate fields of expertise with whom the candidate has no conflict of interest. The Committee is not compelled to engage the suggested reviewers. The Committee may engage outside reviewers who reviewed and commented on the faculty member’s work prior to acceptance for 9 If the candidate stands for promotion before the final year and is denied, the candidate may be considered again in the final year. publication, provided the relationship with the candidate is specified in the reviewer’s letter. 12.3.3.2 After receiving the names of potential reviewers, a member of the Committee will contact the selected reviewers and ask if they are willing to assist. 12.3.3.3 The Committee will instruct reviewers to give their impressions about the article in regard to whether it is legally sound, whether appropriate sources were taken into account and properly identified, and whether the article meets acceptable standards of rigor and quality within the legal academy. The reviewers’ impressions shall be shared with the candidate. While further review shall not be part of the ordinary process, the Committee may ask f...
Sample 1
Tenure Review Process. 9.1 The timelines in the evaluation process are essential to a fair, professional and objectively administered process and should be adhered to. However, in unusual cases, dates may need to be extended and doing so will not 9.2 The tenure review process for probationary faculty hired for less than 75% of the days in the academic year will begin in the subsequent academic year (California Education Code § 87605).
Sample 1
Tenure Review Process. A review of the candidate’s past contributions and an evaluation of the candidate’s promise of satisfactory future contributions to the University shall be based on the de- partmental statement of normally expected activities and expectations for progress toward promo- tion and tenure (as in Article 9.4) and precede a departmental recommendation on whether to grant tenure to a faculty member. This review shall take place during fall semester. It is the responsibility of each individual to inspect his/her files periodically and at the time of application for tenure to assure that it includes all pertinent information that he/she wishes to be used as evidence of perfor- xxxxx in the three (3) areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. All persons who review xxxxx- dates for tenure shall review the applicant’s Official Personnel File, support materials, and the ap- plicant’s application before making a decision or recommendation. The sole repository for tenure materials is the Office of Human Resources. Nothing herein shall prohibit the Office of Human Resources from maintaining tenure applications, supporting documentation, and individual faculty member’s official personnel file for review purposes in electronic formats. In general, the Univer- sity will provide the tenure appointment only to those who are judged to have given consistent evidence of quality performance and promise during the probationary period.
Sample 1
Tenure Review Process. A review of the candidate’s past contributions and an evaluation of the candidate’s promise of satisfactory future contributions to the University shall be based on the departmental statement of normally expected activities and expectations for progress toward promo- tion and tenure (as in Article 9.4) and precede a departmental recommendation on whether to grant tenure to a faculty member. This review shall take place during fall semester. It is the responsibility of each individual to inspect his/her files periodically and at the time of application for tenure to as- sure that it includes all pertinent information that he/she wishes used as evidence of performance in the three (3) areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. All persons who review candidates for ten- ure shall review the applicant’s Official Personnel File, support materials, and the applicant’s appli- cation before making a decision or recommendation. The sole repository for tenure materials is the Office of Human Resources. In general, the University will provide the tenure appointment only to those who are judged to have given consistent evidence of quality performance and promise during the probationary period.
Sample 1
Tenure Review Process. A review of the candidate’s past contributions and an evaluation of the candidate’s promise of satisfactory future contributions to the University shall be based on the departmental statement of normally expected activities and expectations for progress toward promotion and tenure (as in Article 9.3a(9) and precede a departmental recommendation on whether to grant tenure to a faculty member. This review shall take place during Fall term. It is the responsibility of each individual to inspect his/her files periodically and at the time of application for tenure to assure that it includes all pertinent information that he/she wishes used as evidence of performance in the three (3)
Sample 1
Tenure Review Process 
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (5)

Related to Tenure Review Process

  • Review Process A/E's Work Product will be reviewed by County under its applicable technical requirements and procedures, as follows:

  • Review Procedure If the Plan Administrator denies part or all of the claim, the claimant shall have the opportunity for a full and fair review by the Plan Administrator of the denial, as follows:

  • Review Protocol A narrative description of how the Claims Review was conducted and what was evaluated.

  • Claims Review Population A description of the Population subject to the Claims Review.

  • Asset Representations Review Process Section 3.01 Asset Representations Review Notices and Identification of Review Receivables. On receipt of an Asset Representations Review Notice from the Seller according to Section 5.7 of the Receivables Purchase Agreement, the Asset Representations Reviewer will start an Asset Representations Review. The Servicer will provide the list of Review Receivables to the Asset Representations Reviewer promptly upon receipt of the Asset Representations Review Notice. The Asset Representations Reviewer will not be obligated to start, and will not start, an Asset Representations Review until an Asset Representations Review Notice and the related list of Review Receivables is received. The Asset Representations Reviewer is not obligated to verify (i) whether the conditions to the initiation of the Asset Representations Review and the issuance of an Asset Representations Review Notice described in Section 7.6 of the Indenture were satisfied or (ii) the accuracy or completeness of the list of Review Receivables provided by the Servicer.

  • Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances 1. If FEMA determines that the entire scope of an Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances in Appendix B of this Agreement, with determinations for Tier II Allowances being made by SOI-qualified staff, FEMA shall complete the Section 106 review process by documenting this determination in the project file, without SHPO review or notification. 2. If the Undertaking involves a National Historic Landmark (NHL), FEMA shall notify the SHPO, participating Tribe(s), and the NPS NHL Program Manager of the NPS Midwest Regional Office that the Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances. FEMA shall provide information about the proposed scope of work for the Undertaking and the allowance(s) enabling FEMA’s determination. 3. If FEMA determines any portion of an Undertaking’s scope of work does not conform to one or more allowances listed in Appendix B, FEMA shall conduct expedited or standard Section 106 review, as appropriate, for the entire Undertaking in accordance with Stipulation II.B, Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings, or Stipulation II.C, Standard Project Review. 4. Allowances may be revised and new allowances may be added to this Agreement in accordance with Stipulation IV.A.3, Amendments. B. Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings

  • Performance Reviews The Employee will be provided with a written performance appraisal at least once per year and said appraisal will be reviewed at which time all aspects of the assessment can be fully discussed.

  • Performance Review Where a performance review of an employee’s performance is carried out, the employee shall be given sufficient opportunity after the interview to read and review the performance review. Provision shall be made on the performance review form for an employee to sign it. The form shall provide for the employee’s signature in two (2) places, one (1) indicating that the employee has read and accepts the performance review, and the other indicating that the employee disagrees with the performance review. The employee shall sign in only one (1) of the places provided. No employee may initiate a grievance regarding the contents of a performance review unless the signature indicates disagreement. An employee shall, upon request, receive a copy of this performance review at the time of signing. An employee’s performance review shall not be changed after an employee has signed it, without the knowledge of the employee, and any such changes shall be subject to the grievance procedure of this Agreement. The employee may respond, in writing, to the performance review. Such response will be attached to the performance review.

  • Review Procedures a. In consultation with the Illinois SHPO, NRCS shall identify those undertakings with little to no potential to affect historic properties and list those undertakings in Appendix A. Upon the determination by the CRS that a proposed undertaking is included in Appendix A, the NRCS is not required to consult further with the SHPO for that undertaking. A list of undertakings with the potential to affect historic properties comprises Appendix B. b. The lists of undertakings provided in Appendices A and B may be modified through consultation and written agreement between the NRCS State Conservationist and the SHPO without requiring an amendment to this Illinois Prototype Agreement. The NRCS State Office will maintain the master list and will provide an updated list to all consulting parties with an explanation of the rationale for classifying the practices accordingly. c. Undertakings identified in Appendix B shall require further review as outlined in Stipulation V. a. The NRCS shall consult with the SHPO to define the undertaking’s APE, identify and evaluate historic properties that may be affected by the undertaking, assess potential effects, and identify strategies for resolving adverse effects prior to implementing the undertaking. 1) NRCS may provide its proposed APE, identification of historic properties and/or scope of identification efforts, and assessment of effects in a single transmittal to the SHPO, provided this documentation meets the substantive standards in 36 CFR Part 800.4-5 and 800.11. 2) The NRCS shall attempt to avoid adverse effects to historic properties whenever possible; where historic properties are located in the APE, NRCS shall describe how it proposes to modify, buffer, or move the undertaking to avoid adverse effects to historic properties. 3) Where the NRCS proposes a finding of "no historic properties affected" or "no adverse effect" to historic properties, the SHPO shall have 30 calendar days from receipt of this documented description and information to review it and provide comments. The NRCS shall take into account all timely comments. i. If the SHPO, or another consulting party, disagrees with NRCS' findings and/or determination, it shall notify the NRCS within the thirty (30) calendar daytime period. The NRCS shall consult with the SHPO or other consulting party to attempt to resolve the disagreement. If the disagreement cannot be resolved through this consultation, NRCS shall follow the dispute resolution process in Stipulation VIII below. ii. If the SHPO does not respond to the NRCS within the thirty (30) calendar day period and/or the NRCS receives no objections from other consulting parties, or if the SHPO concurs with the NRCS' determination and proposed actions to avoid adverse effects, the NRCS shall document the concurrence/lack of response within the review time noted above and may move forward with the undertaking. 4) Where a proposed undertaking may adversely affect historic properties, NRCS shall describe proposed measures to minimize or mitigate the adverse effects, and follow the process in 36 CFR Part 800.6, including consultation with other consulting patties and notification to the ACHP, to develop a Memorandum of Agreement to resolve the adverse effects. Should the proposed undertaking have the potential to adversely affect a known NHL, the NRCS shall, to the maximum extent possible, undertake such planning and actions that may be necessary to minimize harm to the NHL in accordance with 54 U.S.C. § 306107 of the NHPA and 36 CFR Part 800.6 and 800.10, including consultation with the ACHP and respective National Park Service, Regional National Historic Landmark Program Coordinator, to develop a Memorandum of Agreement. d. NRCS will conduct archaeological surveys and will submit reports and other documentation to SHPO for review and comment. When no archaeological sites have been located by the archaeological survey, NRCS may proceed with the proposed undertaking. Reports for negative surveys must be submitted to SHPO on a quarterly basis. All positive and negative reports submitted to SHPO will be sent digitally for submission to the Inventory of Illinois Archaeological Sites (IAS) data file maintained by staff at the Illinois State Museum (ISM) housed under the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). The NRCS further agrees that access to specific site location data will be restricted to the CRS, the NRCS field personnel installing conservation practices adjacent to the cultural resource, and the landowner. Specific site location information for individual projects will be maintained in a secure cultural resources file kept in the field offices and will not be available to the public. e. Curation: NRCS personnel will not collect artifactual material during routine field inspections. However, if a professional survey, evaluation testing, or mitigation is required, NRCS shall ensure that all materials and records resulting from cultural resources surveys or data recovery activities on federal or state property are curated by the Illinois State Museum. The NRCS shall ensure that all records resulting from cultural resource surveys or data recovery activities on private property are curated by the Illinois State Museum or an equivalent curation facility in accordance with 36 CFR Part 79. Subject to the landowner's permission, all objects resulting from cultural resources surveys or data recovery activities are maintained by the Illinois State Museum or equivalent research institution until their analysis is complete and they are returned to their owner(s). Although landowners will be encouraged to donate artifactual material, it is understood that objects collected on private land remain the property of the landowner(s) unless the landowner(s) donates the material to the Illinois State Museum or equivalent research institution. This excludes burial goods, as stipulated by XXXXXX.

  • AUDIT REVIEW PROCEDURES Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an interim or post audit of this AGREEMENT that is not disposed of by agreement, shall be reviewed by ALAMEDA CTC’s Deputy Executive Director of Finance and Administration. Not later than thirty (30) calendar days after issuance of the final audit report, CONSULTANT may request a review by ALAMEDA CTC’s Deputy Executive Director of Finance and Administration of unresolved audit issues. The request for review will be submitted in writing. Neither the pendency of a dispute nor its consideration by ALAMEDA CTC will excuse CONSULTANT from full and timely performance, in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT and subconsultants’ contracts, including cost proposals and ICRs, may be subject to audits or reviews such as, but not limited to, an AGREEMENT Audit, an Incurred Cost Audit, an ICR Audit, or a certified public accountant (“CPA”) ICR Audit Workpaper Review. If selected for audit or review, the AGREEMENT, cost proposal and ICR and related workpapers, if applicable, will be reviewed to verify compliance with 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31 and other related laws and regulations. In the instances of a CPA ICR Audit Workpaper Review it is CONSULTANT’s responsibility to ensure federal, state, or local government officials are allowed full access to the CPA’s workpapers including making copies as necessary. The AGREEMENT, cost proposal, and ICR shall be adjusted by CONSULTANT and approved by ALAMEDA CTC to conform to the audit or review recommendations. CONSULTANT agrees that individual terms of costs identified in the audit report shall be incorporated into the contract by this reference if directed by ALAMEDA CTC at its sole discretion. Refusal by CONSULTANT to incorporate audit or review recommendations, or to ensure that the federal, state, or local governments have access to CPA workpapers, will be considered a breach of contract terms and cause for termination of the AGREEMENT and disallowance of prior reimbursed costs.