University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel Sample Clauses

University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel. A University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel (ARP) shall be established to review decisions which do not result in advancing the candidate to the rank of Sessional Lecturer III. The Panel shall be composed of eight (8) full-time faculty members of the University of Toronto, each from a different Department, and one (1) Sessional Lecturer III. The Union and the University shall each propose the names of prospective members until nine (9) mutually-agreeable names have been identified. A member of the Panel may not participate in a review originating in a Department with which the member is affiliated. The Director of the Centre for Teaching Support and Innovation may be requested to serve in an ex-officio advisory capacity. The parties shall by mutual agreement designate a Panel Chair. The Panel Chair shall have the responsibility of selecting three (3) members from the agreed list of members to comprise the ARP Committee for a given appeal. It is understood and agreed that the University and the Union shall have the right to raise with the Panel Chair any concerns of a potential conflict of interest in respect of certain members in a given appeal. The Panel Chair shall give due consideration to such concerns in comprising the ARP Committee. The final composition of the ARP Committee in a given appeal shall be determined by the Panel Chair. It is understood and agreed that the Panel Chair may select a designate to act as the Panel Chair should the Panel Chair be in a conflict of interest in respect of certain members in a given appeal. When a review is requested, the ARP Committee shall be provided with: • The candidate’s original application (including curriculum vitae, teaching dossier, and statement; any student evaluations and other documentation relied upon during the initial proceedings) • The Chair’s letter to the candidate • A written submission from the candidate • The Division Head’s (or designate’s) written response to the candidate’s submission • All evidence the Advancement Committee had before it in making its original decision In addition, the candidate may include a response to the Division Head’s response. The ARP Committee shall consider the material and submissions, and shall either confirm the Advancement Committee’s decision or determine that the candidate is to be advanced to the rank of Sessional Lecturer III. The ARP Committee’s considerations will be arranged without undue delay, and its written decision, with reasons, shall be m...
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (16)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel. It is agreed that the University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel as set out in Appendix A shall encompass the review of decisions which do not result in advancing the candidate to the status of Writing Instructor II. A member of the Panel may not participate in a review originating in a Writing Centre with which he/she is affiliated. The Director of the Centre for Teaching Support and Innovation may be requested to serve in an ex-officio advisory capacity. When a review is requested, the Panel shall be provided with: • The candidate’s original application (including curriculum vitae, writing instruction dossier, and statement; any student evaluations and other documentation relied upon during the initial proceedings) • The Committee Co-chairs’ letter to the candidate • A written submission from the candidate • The Division Head’s (or designate’s) written response to the candidate’s submission • All evidence the Advancement Committee had before it in making its original decision. In addition, the candidate may include a response to the Division Head’s response. The ARP Committee shall consider the material and submissions, and shall either confirm the Advancement Committee’s decision or determine that the candidate is to be advanced to the status of Writing Instructor II. The ARP Committee’s considerations will be arranged without undue delay, and its written decision, with reasons, shall be made in as expeditious a manner as possible. Discussions or representations occurring during this process are without precedent or prejudice, and may not be relied upon in any subsequent proceeding. Its decisions shall be final and binding. Normally, decisions shall be issued within ten (10) working days of finalizing the decision.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (7)
University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel. A University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel (ARP) shall be established to review decisions which do not result in advancing the candidate to the rank of Sessional Lecturer III.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (5)
University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel. A University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel (ARP) shall be established to review decisions which do not result in advancing the candidate applicant to the rank of Sessional Lecturer III. The Panel shall be composed of eight (8) full-time faculty members of the University of Toronto, each from a different Department, and one (1) three (3) Sessional Lecturer IIIs. The Union and the University Employer shall each propose the names of prospective members until nine (9) eleven (11) mutually-agreeable names have been identified. A member of the Panel may not participate in a review originating in a Department with which the member is affiliated. The Director of the Centre for Teaching Support and Innovation may be requested to serve in an ex-officio advisory capacity. The parties shall by mutual agreement designate a Panel Chair. The Panel Chair shall have the responsibility of selecting three (3) members from the agreed list of members to comprise the ARP Committee for a given appeal, at least one
Sample 1

Related to University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel

  • Office of Inspector General Investigative Findings Expert Review In accordance with Senate Bill 799, Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., if Texas Government Code, Section 531.102(m-1)(2) is applicable to this Contract, Contractor affirms that it possesses the necessary occupational licenses and experience.

  • Joint Review JADRC may, at the request of either party, review issues arising from the application of this Article.

  • DEVELOPMENT OR ASSISTANCE IN DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIFICATIONS REQUIREMENTS/ STATEMENTS OF WORK Firms and/or individuals that assisted in the development or drafting of the specifications, requirements, statements of work, or solicitation documents contained herein are excluded from competing for this solicitation. This shall not be applicable to firms and/or individuals providing responses to a publicly posted Request for Information (RFI) associated with a solicitation.

  • Other Directory Services 73.10.1 Both parties acknowledge that CenturyLink’s directory publisher is not a party to this Agreement and that the provisions contained in this Agreement are not binding upon CenturyLink’s directory publisher.

  • Red Hat Directory Server Use Cases Subscription Services are provided for Red Hat Directory Server only when used for its supported Use Case in accordance with the terms of this Exhibit and Table 3.1 below.

  • Professional Development Reimbursement Management will provide reimbursement for approved professional development expenses for Lieutenants and Sergeants. Funds may be used for the purpose of improving job performance, maintaining and increasing proficiency, preparing Lieutenants and Sergeants for greater responsibility, or increasing promotional opportunities. Management must approve of the specific professional development request in advance. Denial will require written notification to the requesting Lieutenant or Sergeant.

  • COMPENSATION FOR CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES 5.1 For the Construction Manager’s performance of the Work as described in Section 2.3, the Owner shall pay the Construction Manager the Contract Sum in current funds. The Contract Sum is the Cost of the Work as defined in Section 6.1.1 plus the Construction Manager’s Fee.

  • Teaching Staff Assigned to More Than One Building Each Educator who is assigned to more than one building will be evaluated by the appropriate administrator where the individual is assigned most of the time. The principal of each building in which the Educator serves must review and sign the evaluation, and may add written comments. In cases where there is no predominate assignment, the superintendent will determine who the primary evaluator will be.

  • POST-REVIEW DISCOVERIES If, during the implementation of an undertaking, a previously unidentified property that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register is encountered, or a known historic property may be affected in an unanticipated manner, the Agency Official shall follow 36 C.F.R. § 800.13(b).

  • Data Protection Impact Assessment and Prior Consultation Processor shall provide reasonable assistance to the Company with any data protection impact assessments, and prior consultations with Supervising Authorities or other competent data privacy authorities, which Company reasonably considers to be required by article 35 or 36 of the GDPR or equivalent provisions of any other Data Protection Law, in each case solely in relation to Processing of Company Personal Data by, and taking into account the nature of the Processing and information available to, the Contracted Processors.

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