Tenure Review Process and Vote Sample Clauses

Tenure Review Process and Vote. 12.9.1 Upon receipt of the candidate’s tenure file, outside reviews of the candidate’s scholarship, teaching observations, and solicitation of comments, the Tenure Review Committee shall evaluate the candidate based on the tenure criteria and prepare a draft written report of its findings. 12.9.2 The Tenure Review Committee’s written report should comprehensively describe its findings as to the candidate’s strengths and weaknesses with respect to each tenure criterion, including the candidate’s potential for growth. The report shall include a description of the Committee’s procedures and of the basis for its findings. The report shall also include a statement describing any significant positive comments or concerns about the candidate expressed by students, faculty, or staff, even if the Committee concludes that it does not, ultimately, share those views. 12.9.3 The Tenure Review Committee must provide the candidate a copy of its draft report and meet with the candidate to discuss its findings. The Committee may also identify any areas of the candidate’s case statement that should be expanded or clarified in light of the Committee’s findings. After meeting with the Committee, the candidate may revise and expand the initial case statement, as appropriate, in response to the Committee’s findings. 12.9.4 The candidate’s final case statement and Tenure Review Committee’s written report will ordinarily be submitted to the faculty by the beginning of December in the calendar year before the candidate seeks to receive tenure. 12.9.5 The faculty vote on tenure shall occur no later than December of the candidate’s sixth academic year of employment (except as provided in section 12.2: Mandatory Tenure Decision). The tenured and secured faculty shall meet to discuss and vote on the tenure of the candidate under review. Though the Xxxx and Associate Xxxx are tenured faculty members, they shall not participate in the faculty vote. Tenure may be recommended only by a majority vote of the members of the faculty with tenure or clinical security who are eligible to vote.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Tenure Review Process and Vote

  • 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:

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • ADB’s Review of Procurement Decisions 11. All contracts procured under international competitive bidding procedures and contracts for consulting services shall be subject to prior review by ADB, unless otherwise agreed between the Borrower and ADB and set forth in the Procurement Plan.

  • Review Process Limitations The Asset Representations Reviewer will have no obligation (i) to determine whether a Delinquency Trigger Event has occurred or whether the required percentage of Noteholders has voted to direct an Asset Representations Review under the Indenture, (ii) to determine which Receivables are subject to an Asset Representations Review, (iii) to obtain or confirm the validity of the Review Materials, (iv) to obtain missing or insufficient Review Materials except as specifically described herein, (v) to take any action or cause any other party to take any action under any of the Transaction Documents to enforce any remedies for breaches of representations or warranties about the Eligible Representations, (vi) to determine the reason for the delinquency of any Review Receivable, the creditworthiness of any Obligor, the overall quality of any Review Receivable or the compliance by the Servicer with its covenants with respect to the servicing of such Review Receivable, or (vii) to establish cause, materiality or recourse for any failed Test as described in Section 3.03.

  • Coordination, Oversight and Monitoring of Service Providers As set forth in the Administrative Services Agreement between the Fund and CRMC, CRMC shall coordinate, monitor and oversee the activities performed by the Service Providers with which AFS contracts. AFS shall monitor Service Providers’ provision of services including the delivery of Customer account statements and all Fund-related material, including summary prospectuses and/or prospectuses, shareholder reports, and proxies.

  • SCOPE OF SERVICES/CASE HANDLING A. Upon execution by GPM, attorneys are retained to provide legal services for the purpose of seeking damages and other relief in the Litigation. Client provides authorization to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff in the class action, while the Attorneys will seek to be appointed Class Counsel. If this occurs, the Litigation will be prosecuted as a class action. B. If you obtain access to non-public information during the pendency of the Litigation, you must not engage in transactions in securities. C. Attorneys are authorized to prosecute the Litigation. The appointed Lead Plaintiffs will monitor, review and participate with counsel in the prosecution of the Litigation. The Attorneys shall consult with the appointed Lead Plaintiffs concerning all major substantive matters related to the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the complaint, dispositive motions and settlement. Because of potential differences of opinion between Clients concerning, among other things, strategy, goals and objectives of the Litigation, the Attorneys shall consult with the appointed Lead Plaintiffs as to the courses of action to pursue. The Client agrees to abide by the decisions of the appointed Lead Plaintiffs, which shall be final and binding on all Clients. D. GPM is given the authority to opt the Client out of any class action proceeding relating to the claims authorized herein and/or pursue the Client claim individually in a group action, if the Client is not appointed Lead Plaintiff and GPM is not appointed Class Counsel. E. The Attorneys shall provide sufficient resources, including attorney time and capital for payment of costs and expenses, to vigorously prosecute the Litigation. F. Any recovery from defendants that the Attorneys are responsible for will be divided among class members based on the recognized loss by each class member as calculated by a damage allocation plan which will be prepared by a financial expert or consultant, provided to the appointed Lead Plaintiffs, be subject to the Court's approval and will account for such factors as size of securities ownership, date of purchase, date of sale and continued holdings, if any. Under the rules governing class action litigation, while the Lead Plaintiffs recover according to the same formula as other class members, the Court may approve, upon application therefore, reimbursement of the Lead Plaintiffs’ reasonable costs and expenses directly related to the representation of the class. Examples are lost wages and travel expenses associated with testifying in the action.

  • Claims and Review Procedures 6.1 For all claims other than Disability benefits:

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

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