Job Evaluation The work of the provincial job evaluation steering committee (the JE Committee) will continue during the term of this Framework Agreement. The objectives of the JE Committee are as follows: • Review the results of the phase one and phase two pilots and outcomes of the committee work. Address any anomalies identified with the JE tool, process, or benchmarks. • Rate the provincial benchmarks and create a job hierarchy for the provincial benchmarks. • Gather data from all school districts and match existing job descriptions to the provincial benchmarks. • Identify the job hierarchy for local job descriptions for all school districts. • Compare the local job hierarchy to the benchmark-matched hierarchy. • Develop a methodology to convert points to pay bands - The confirmed method must be supported by current compensation best practices. • Identify training requirements to support implementation of the JE plan and develop training resources as required. Once the objectives outlined above are completed, the JE Committee will mutually determine whether a local, regional or provincial approach to the steps outlined above is appropriate. It is recognized that the work of the committee is technical, complicated, lengthy and onerous. To accomplish the objectives, the parties agree that existing JE funds can be accessed by the JE committee to engage consultant(s) to complete this work. It is further recognized that this process does not impact the established management right of employers to determine local job requirements and job descriptions nor does this process alter any existing collective agreement rights or established practices. When the JE plan is ready to be implemented, and if an amendment to an existing collective agreement is required, the JE Committee will work with the local School District and Local Union to make recommendations for implementation. Any recommendations will also be provided to the Provincial Labour Management Committee (PLMC). As mutually agreed by the provincial parties and the JE Committee, the disbursement of available JE funds shall be retroactive to January 2, 2020. The committee will utilize available funds to provide 50% of the wage differential for the position falling the furthest below the wage rate established by the provincial JE process and will continue this process until all JE fund monies at the time have been disbursed. The committee will follow compensation best practices to avoid problems such as inversion. The committee will report out to the provincial parties regularly during the term of the Framework Agreement. Should any concerns arise during the work of the committee they will be referred to the PLMC. Create a maintenance program to support ongoing implementation of the JE plan at a local, regional or provincial level. The maintenance program will include a process for addressing the wage rates of incumbents in positions which are impacted by implementation of the JE plan. The provincial parties confirm that $4,419,859 of ongoing annual funds will be used to implement the Job Evaluation Plan. Effective July 1, 2022, there will be a one-time pause of the annual $4,419,859 JE funding. This amount has been allocated to the local table bargaining money. The annual funding will recommence July 1, 2023.
EMPLOYEE EVALUATION A. Formal evaluation of employees shall be in writing and shall be for the purpose of establishing a record of the employee’s work performance. The evaluation may include but is not limited to: establishing performance standards and outcome measures, recognition of an employee’s efforts, as well as planning for improvement. Issues of attendance and punctuality may be addressed if they have previously been discussed with the employee. The employee’s job description shall be a basis for the evaluation.
B. The evaluator shall review the written evaluation with the employee and provide the employee with a copy. The employee shall sign the evaluation acknowledging receipt. If the employee has objections to the evaluation, s/he, may within twenty (20) working days following receipt of the evaluation put such objections in writing and have them attached to the evaluation report and placed in his/her personnel file.
C. The frequency of evaluations shall be determined by the District and generally occur every other year by April 1st for bargaining unit employees. If the District chooses to do so, it may conduct formal evaluations on an annual basis. An employee may request to receive one (1) annual evaluation. Such request shall be in writing to the employee’s supervisor with a copy to the Human Resources Department.
D. The Human Resources Department will consult with the Federation in developing an outline of best practices to be used in conducting employee evaluations.
E. When the District determines that an employee’s work performance is unsatisfactory, it shall inform the employee in writing of any deficiency and the improvement expected and provide the employee with the opportunity to correct the unsatisfactory performance within a reasonable time period established by the District.
F. The judgment of an employee’s work performance by an evaluating supervisor shall not be the subject of a grievance. A grievance concerning an evaluation shall be limited to an allegation that the evaluation was done in bad faith or clearly untrue. The burden of proof shall rest with the grievant. Such grievance shall be filed at the next administrative level above that of the evaluator and that administrator shall provide a written decision within ten (10) working days of any hearing. If the grievance is not resolved, it may be appealed by submitting a written statement to the Human Resources Department within ten (10) working days following receipt of the administrative written decision. The written statement must clearly set forth why the previous decision is in error regarding the allegation of bad faith or being clearly untrue. The Director of Labor Relations, or designee, may review the record of the grievance and/or conduct a hearing and shall issue a written decision within ten (10) working days following such review or hearing. Such decision shall be final.
G. Effective July 1, 2013, Sign Language Interpreters will be evaluated using the Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment (EIPA) pursuant to OAR 581-015-2035 and/or the District’s evaluation form.
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. 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. 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?
TEACHER EVALUATION A. The administration will be evaluating the teacher’s performance within the time of formal responsibility. The evaluation process and form will be shared with the Association Building Representatives at the beginning of each school year.
(a) Probationary teachers shall be evaluated at least two (2) times a year. The first evaluation will be completed prior to December 1st and the second prior to April 15th. Each evaluation will be based upon announced, unannounced, informal observations, on the performance of other duties and responsibilities and the goals developed in the Individualized Development Plan (IDP). The announced and unannounced observations should be a minimum of thirty (30) minutes in length. The observations may occur at anytime prior to the development of the written evaluation, but at least one of them must be planned in consultation with the probationary teacher. The results of formal observations will be discussed with the teacher in a timely manner. The information gathered during the observations will be used to write the evaluations.
(b) Tenured teachers will be evaluated on a rotating schedule, but no less than once every three- (3) years. The administration reserves the right to evaluate a tenured teacher more often. The evaluation will be based upon announced, unannounced, informal observations and on the performance of other duties and responsibilities. The announced and unannounced observations should be a minimum of thirty (30) minutes in length. The observations may occur at any time prior to the development of the written evaluation, but at least one of them must be planned in consultation with the tenured teacher. The results of formal observations will be discussed with the teacher in a timely manner. The information gathered during the observations will be used to write the evaluations.
2. The administrator shall prepare and submit a written evaluation and recommendations to the teacher prior to May 30th of the year they are evaluated. The administrator shall hold a conference with the teacher to discuss the written evaluation and recommendations.
3. Upon receipt of the evaluation the teacher will sign the form indicating his/her receipt of the report. The signature on the form does not constitute his/her approval unless specifically noted.
4. Teachers involved with the instruction of Advanced Placement courses will be evaluated. This evaluation in the first year will be made part of the formal evaluation only at the request of the teacher.
B. A teacher who disagrees with the content or procedure of evaluation may submit a written answer which shall be attached to the file copy of the evaluation in question and/or submit any complaints through Level 4 of the grievance procedure.
C. If an administrator believes a teacher is doing unacceptable work, the reasons shall be set forth in specific terms. Included will be examples of specific ways in which the teacher is to improve and assistance may be given by the administrator and other staff members. In subsequent conferences it shall be the responsibility of the individual teacher to inquire whether adequate improvement has taken place.
D. Monitoring and observation of the work performance of the teacher shall be conducted openly. The public address or audio system or similar types of communications will not be used for the purpose of evaluation.
E. The Board and the Association recognize that the ability of pupils to progress and mature academically is a combined result of the school, home, economic and social environment and that teachers alone cannot be held accountable for all aspects of the academic achievement of the pupil in the classroom. Test results of academic progress of students shall not be used as the sole determinant or in isolated instances to evaluate the quality of a teacher's service or fitness for retention.
F. All communications, including evaluations by Milan Administrators, commendations, and documented complaints directed toward the teacher which are to be included in the personnel file shall be made available for review of the teacher prior to placement in the file; a copy of any such communication will be provided to the teacher at this time. Pre-placement information such as confidential credentials, letters of reference from universities, individuals, or previous employers are exempt from such review. A written statement for inclusion in the personnel file may then be made by the teacher in regard to materials that were not signed by the teacher. A representative of the Association may accompany the teacher.
G. Ordinarily, observations of teachers shall not be for less than a full class period or for the duration of a particular teaching lesson.
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.
EMPLOYEE EVALUATIONS 6.1 Administrators will meet with new employees to discuss their job description within one (1) month of hire. The Administrator and new employee will sign off on the job description and it will be forwarded to the Human Resources Department for inclusion in the employee‘s personnel file. The Human Resources Department will compile and distribute a list showing each employee‘s evaluator prior to November 1st of each year. Bargaining unit job descriptions will be made available via the District‘s web site.
6.2 Evaluations will transpire as follows for employees that are receiving satisfactory ratings:
a. New hires—regular part-time (school year employees) will be evaluated at three (3) and six (6) working months.
b. New hires—full time (12 month employees) will be evaluated at three (3), six (6) and twelve (12) months.
c. After the initial year of employment, each employee shall be evaluated at least once annually by March 31st.
6.3 Criteria for evaluating bargaining unit members will be based on the performance categories outlined on the evaluation form as related to the job description of their specific position assignment.
6.4 Evaluation reports shall include feedback regarding strengths and weaknesses (if any) demonstrated by the employee. Prior to an employee receiving a rating less than “Meets Expectations,” the employee shall be advised of the performance concern and provided with a clear statement of any deficiency and a statement defining acceptable performance. This shall occur within a reasonable time prior to the final evaluation to allow the employee a chance to demonstrate improvement.
6.5 In the event an employee is evaluated overall as “Does Not Meet Expectations,” the district, in consultation with the employee and the Association, will provide the employee a written plan of improvement (See Employee Plan of Improvement form in Appendix). The plan shall clearly define all areas of deficiency, provide clear and attainable performance goals, and outline supports (if any) to be given, including any necessary training at the District’s expense. The employee will be given a reasonable amount of time, not to exceed sixty (60) working days, to meet job performance expectations. During the improvement period, feedback will be provided through a minimum of three scheduled meetings. Following the completion of the plan, the supervisor shall notify the employee in writing of the outcome. Failure to demonstrate satisfactory improvement may constitute grounds for termination.
6.6 The bargaining unit member shall be given a copy of their evaluation, and any data collection sheets (with the submitters name excluded) used in the evaluation.
6.7 Under the law there is no right to Association Representation at evaluation conferences.
6.8 Any information shared with the evaluating administrator for the evaluation process shall be recorded on Data Collection Sheet(s), with the exception of those unit members that have supervising teachers. Supervising teachers will work directly with the evaluating administrator to share performance information for inclusion in the unit member‘s evaluation.
6.9 Employees shall have the right to respond to evaluations in writing. Such written response shall be attached to the evaluation if received within 5 days.
6.10 No bargaining unit member shall be required to sign a blank or incomplete evaluation form.
Annual Evaluation The Partnership will be evaluated on an annual basis through the use of the Strategic Partnership Annual Evaluation Format as specified in Appendix C of OSHA Instruction CSP 00-00-000, OSHA Strategic Partnership Program for Worker Safety and Health. The Choate Team will be responsible for gathering required participant data to evaluate and track the overall results and success of the Partnership. This data will be shared with OSHA. OSHA will be responsible for writing and submitting the annual evaluation.
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.
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.
(b) The technical evaluation committee may call the responsive bidders for discussion or presentation to facilitate and assess their understanding of the scope of work and its execution. However, the committee shall have sole discretion to call for discussion / presentation.
(c) Financial bids of only those bidders who qualify the technical criteria will be opened provided all other requirements are fulfilled.
(d) AIIMS Jodhpur shall have right to accept or reject any or all tenders without assigning any reasons thereof.
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 Williamson 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:
A. Problems, delays, adverse conditions which may materially affect the ability to meet the objectives of an applicable Work Authorization or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto, or preclude the attainment of Project Engineering Services units by established time periods; and such disclosure shall be accompanied by statement of actions taken or contemplated, and County assistance needed to resolve the situation, if any; and
B. Favorable developments or events which enable meeting goals sooner than anticipated in relation to an applicable Work Authorization’s or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto.
