Xxxx’x Review Sample Clauses

Xxxx’x Review. The xxxx shall have the right and responsibility to make recommendations to the xxxxxxx concerning the award or denial of promotion to college faculty who hold tenure-track appointments. Such recommendations shall be in accordance with established criteria and the timetable as stipulated in the Western/WMU- AAUP Agreement.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (14)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Xxxx’x Review. 20.6 The candidate's Xxxx shall review the candidate’s file and the recommendation of the DRC before considering the candidate's application for reappointment, tenure or promotion in accordance with the criteria and procedures in this Agreement, and shall make a full, reasoned, written recommendation to the URC concerning her reappointment, tenure or promotion accordingly. The Xxxx’x recommendation shall indicate how the candidate meets or does not meet the criteria required for each category of assessment. The Xxxx may solicit further information from the candidate where there are reasonable grounds for doing so. In cases where the Xxxx considers the DRC’s letter of recommendation insufficiently explicit, she may refer the letter back to the DRC for revision. The Xxxx'x written recommendation shall be made to the Chair of the URC, with copies to the candidate and the Chair of the DRC, who shall make the recommendation available to the DRC members.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (8)
Xxxx’x Review. The xxxx shall have the right and responsibility to make recommendations to the xxxxxxx concerning the award or denial of tenure to department faculty who hold tenure-track appointments. At the time of any review other than the final tenure review, all reviews of probationary faculty that are positive at all levels (DTC, chair, xxxx) will conclude at the xxxx’x level; only faculty members who receive a conditional review (positive with conditions, negative with conditions, and negative) at any previous level will have their recommendations and supporting materials forwarded to the xxxxxxx for review. Such recommendations shall be in accordance with established criteria and the timetable as stipulated in the Western/WMU-AAUP Agreement.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (8)
Xxxx’x Review. Within thirty (30) days of receiving the proposed bylaws, the xxxx shall review them to ensure that they comply with this Agreement and with the mission and goals of the University and either approve the proposed bylaws or return them to the unit for revision.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (5)
Xxxx’x Review. 8.6.1 The xxxx will review each application and all materials submitted by the applicant, the written narrative of the PRC and any responses to the recommendation of the PRC from the candidate, and the written narratives of the department chairperson, ADF, and school director (As applicable), and any responses to the recommendations from the candidate, in order to determine whether the application meets the criteria to be recommended for a sabbatical leave. The xxxx shall then write a brief narrative evaluating each application on the basis of the established criteria and either recommend or not recommend. The xxxx’x recommendation and written narrative will be sent to the applicant via Interfolio.
Sample 1Sample 2
Xxxx’x Review. Within ten (10) working days of receiving and reading the applicant's packet, the Xxxx will inform the applicant of her/his decision. The Xxxx may approve, disapprove, or request modifications in writing to the applicant. If the Xxxx has disapproved or requested modifications and the applicant believes she/he may benefit from discussion with the Xxxx as to how to generate a successful proposal, she/he may within three (3) working days, request a meeting to review the proposal with the Xxxx. The applicant will have five (5) days from the date on which the meeting is held within which to submit a revised proposal to the Xxxx. The Xxxx will inform the applicant in writing of her/his approval or disapproval of the proposal. If the Xxxx disapproves the proposal, she/he will provide written reasons for such disapproval.
Sample 1Sample 2
Xxxx’x Review. The recommendations of the departmental committee or designee of the department shall be reviewed by the academic xxxx for that department. The xxxx may concur or disagree with the recommendations, may change the amount of any recommended increase, and/ or may recommend an increase for any member of the department that was not recommended by the committee or departmental designee. The xxxx may recommend that an individual faculty member receive a Faculty Merit Increase of any amount up to the maximum amount provided in provision 31.8 of this Article. Recommended increases may result in the placement of faculty unit employees between the rates for a step of his/ her rank/ classification in Appendix C.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Xxxx’x Review a. If the student appeals the Department Chair's decision from the Department Review, the appeal goes to the Xxxx of the Graduate School. The Xxxx of the Graduate School may take any of the following actions:
Sample 1

Related to Xxxx’x Review

  • Program Review The Contracting Officer or other authorized government representative may hold semi- annual program review meetings. Such meetings will be held via telecom or video teleconferencing. However, the Government reserves the right to request a meeting in person. The meetings will include all BPA holders, representatives from prospective customer agencies, a combination of current and prospective customer agencies, or individual BPA holders. Some Federal Government Agencies and any approved State, Local and Tribal agencies may establish a central program management function. Such users may require their primary suppliers to participate in agency program review meetings on a periodic basis, at no additional cost to the Government.

  • Log Reviews All systems processing and/or storing PHI COUNTY discloses to 11 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR creates, receives, maintains, or transmits on behalf of COUNTY 12 must have a routine procedure in place to review system logs for unauthorized access.

  • Periodic Review The General Counsel shall periodically review the Procurement Integrity Procedures with OSC personnel in order to ascertain potential areas of exposure to improper influence and to adopt desirable revisions for more effective avoidance of improper influences.

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

  • Utilization Review We review health services to determine whether the services are or were Medically Necessary or experimental or investigational ("Medically Necessary"). This process is called Utilization Review. Utilization Review includes all review activities, whether they take place prior to the service being performed (Preauthorization); when the service is being performed (concurrent); or after the service is performed (retrospective). If You have any questions about the Utilization Review process, please call the number on Your ID card. The toll-free telephone number is available at least 40 hours a week with an after-hours answering machine. All determinations that services are not Medically Necessary will be made by: 1) licensed Physicians; or 2) licensed, certified, registered or credentialed health care professionals who are in the same profession and same or similar specialty as the Provider who typically manages Your medical condition or disease or provides the health care service under review. We do not compensate or provide financial incentives to Our employees or reviewers for determining that services are not Medically Necessary. We have developed guidelines and protocols to assist Us in this process. Specific guidelines and protocols are available for Your review upon request. For more information, call the number on Your ID card or visit Our website at xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx.

  • Post Review With respect to each contract not governed by paragraph 2 of this Part, the procedures set forth in paragraph 4 of Appendix 1 to the Guidelines shall apply.

  • Systems Review The Construction Administrator will conduct reviews of proposed roof, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, conveyance, sprinkler, telecommunications, and life safety systems, and will consider initial cost, availability, impact on the overall program, comfort and convenience, long-term maintenance and operating costs, and impacts on schedule.

  • Independent Review Contractor shall provide the Secretary of ADS/CIO an independent expert review of any Agency recommendation for any information technology activity when its total cost is $1,000,000.00 or greater or when CIO requires one. The State has identified two sub-categories for Independent Reviews, Standard and Complex. The State will identify in the SOW RFP the sub-category they are seeking. State shall not consider bids greater than the maximum value indicated below for this category. Standard Independent Review $25,000 Maximum Complex Independent Review $50,000 Maximum Per Vermont statute 3 V.S.A. 2222, The Secretary of Administration shall obtain independent expert review of any recommendation for any information technology initiated after July 1, 1996, as information technology activity is defined by subdivision (a) (10), when its total cost is $1,000,000 or greater or when required by the State Chief Information Officer. Documentation of this independent review shall be included when plans are submitted for review pursuant to subdivisions (a)(9) and (10) of this section. The independent review shall include: • An acquisition cost assessment • A technology architecture review • An implementation plan assessment • A cost analysis and model for benefit analysis • A procurement negotiation advisory services contract • An impact analysis on net operating costs for the agency carrying out the activity In addition, from time to time special reviews of the advisability and feasibility of certain types of IT strategies may be required. Following are Requirements and Capabilities for this Service: • Identify acquisition and lifecycle costs; • Assess wide area network (WAN) and/or local area network (LAN) impact; • Assess risks and/or review technical risk assessments of an IT project including security, data classification(s), subsystem designs, architectures, and computer systems in terms of their impact on costs, benefits, schedule and technical performance; • Assess, evaluate and critically review implementation plans, e.g.: • Adequacy of support for conversion and implementation activities • Adequacy of department and partner staff to provide Project Management • Adequacy of planned testing procedures • Acceptance/readiness of staff • Schedule soundness • Adequacy of training pre and post project • Assess proposed technical architecture to validate conformance to the State’s “strategic direction.” • Insure system use toolsets and strategies are consistent with State Chief Information Officer (CIO) policies, including security and digital records management; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to security and systems integration with other applications within the Department, and within the Agency, and existing or planned Enterprise Applications; • Perform cost and schedule risk assessments to support various alternatives to meet mission need, recommend alternative courses of action when one or more interdependent segment(s) or phase(s) experience a delay, and recommend opportunities for new technology insertions; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to the state of the art in this technology. • Assess a project’s backup/recovery strategy and the project’s disaster recovery plans for adequacy and conformance to State policy. • Evaluate the ability of a proposed solution to meet the needs for which the solution has been proposed, define the ability of the operational and user staff to integrate this solution into their work.

  • Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances

  • Validation Review In the event OIG has reason to believe that: (a) Good Shepherd’s Claims Review fails to conform to the requirements of this CIA; or (b) the IRO’s findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate, OIG may, at its sole discretion, conduct its own review to determine whether the Claims Review complied with the requirements of the CIA and/or the findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate (Validation Review). Good Shepherd shall pay for the reasonable cost of any such review performed by OIG or any of its designated agents. Any Validation Review of Reports submitted as part of Good Shepherd’s final Annual Report shall be initiated no later than one year after Good Shepherd’s final submission (as described in Section II) is received by OIG. Prior to initiating a Validation Review, OIG shall notify Good Shepherd of its intent to do so and provide a written explanation of why OIG believes such a review is necessary. To resolve any concerns raised by OIG, Good Shepherd may request a meeting with OIG to: (a) discuss the results of any Claims Review submissions or findings; (b) present any additional information to clarify the results of the Claims Review or to correct the inaccuracy of the Claims Review; and/or (c) propose alternatives to the proposed Validation Review. Good Shepherd agrees to provide any additional information as may be requested by OIG under this Section III.D.3 in an expedited manner. OIG will attempt in good faith to resolve any Claims Review issues with Good Shepherd prior to conducting a Validation Review. However, the final determination as to whether or not to proceed with a Validation Review shall be made at the sole discretion of OIG.

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