Xxxx'x Review and Recommendation Sample Clauses

Xxxx'x Review and Recommendation. (1) After reviewing the candidate’s tenure dossier and considering the assessments of the department chair and the College Tenure and Promotion Committee, and the candidate’s written responses, if any, the xxxx shall submit a written assessment of the candidate’s qualifications for tenure in terms of the University’s tenure criteria, the College’s clarification of those criteria, and the appropriate department’s applicable written discipline- specific clarifications of those criteria and make a positive or a negative recommendation. The xxxx’x letter shall convey the xxxx’x endorsement or lack of endorsement of the nomination and explain or clarify such issues as exceptional assignments, unique contributions, or unusual votes, especially those where the unit faculty votes are more than twenty percent (20%) negative. (2) Within five (5) days of writing the letter, the xxxx shall forward a copy of it to the candidate and the department chair, prior to including it in the tenure dossier. (3) The candidate shall have ten (10) days from receipt of the xxxx’x letter to request a meeting with the xxxx or submit a written response. The candidate’s response, if any, shall be included in the tenure dossier. (4) The xxxx shall not forward the tenure dossier to the University Academic Personnel Board until either the candidate submits a response, indicates in writing that he/she will not be making a response, or the ten (10) day period for responding expires, whichever occurs first. The xxxx must sign the nomination indicating endorsement or lack of endorsement for the nomination before it can be forwarded to the University Academic Personnel Board. (5) The candidate’s nomination and tenure dossier must be forwarded to the University Academic Personnel Board for consideration, unless the candidate chooses to withdraw the nomination pursuant to Section 19.10(b).
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Xxxx'x Review and Recommendation. (1) After reviewing the candidate's dossier the xxxx shall submit an evaluative letter assessing the candidate's qualifications for tenure or promotion in terms of the University's criteria, the College's clarification of those criteria, and the department's written discipline-specific clarifications of those criteria and make a positive or a negative recommendation. The xxxx'x letter shall explain or clarify such issues as exceptional assignments, unique contributions, or unusual assessments. 2505 2506 2507 2508 2509 2510 2511 2512 2513 2514 2515 2516 2517 2518 2519 2520 2521 2522 2523 2524 2525 2526 2527 2528 2529 2530 2531 2532 2533 2534 2535 2536 2537 2538 2539 2540 2541 2542 2543 2544 2545 2546 2547 2548 (2) The xxxx shall enter the letter into the online promotion and tenure system, which will make it immediately available to the candidate and the chair. (3) The candidate shall have ten (10) days from receipt of the xxxx'x letter to request a meeting with the xxxx or submit a written response. (4) The xxxx shall not forward the dossier until either the candidate submits a response, indicates in writing that he/she will not be making a response, or the ten (10) day period for responding expires, whichever occurs first. The xxxx must sign the nomination indicating endorsement or lack of endorsement for the nomination before it can be forwarded to the University Academic Personnel Board. (i) Review by the University Academic Personnel Board. (1) The Academic Personnel Board shall serve in a fact-finding and consultative role. It shall assess the candidate’s dossier according to the criteria and report its assessment to the President or designee. (2) If there are questions about a dossier, the Academic Personnel Board shall notify electronically those affected. (3) The candidate's dossier shall be forwarded to the President or designee for consideration.
Xxxx'x Review and Recommendation. (1) After reviewing the candidate's dossier the xxxx shall submit an evaluative letter assessing the candidate's qualifications for tenure or promotion in terms of the University's criteria, the College's clarification of those criteria, and the department's written discipline- specific clarifications of those criteria and make a positive or a negative recommendation. The xxxx'x letter shall explain or clarify such issues as exceptional assignments, unique contributions, or unusual assessments. (2) The xxxx shall enter the letter into the online promotion and tenure system, which will make it immediately available to the candidate and the chair. (3) The candidate shall have ten (10) days from receipt of the xxxx'x letter to request a meeting with the xxxx or submit a written response. (4) The xxxx shall not forward the dossier until either the candidate submits a response, indicates in writing that he/she will not be making a response, or the ten (10) day period for responding expires, whichever occurs first. The xxxx must sign the nomination indicating endorsement or lack of endorsement for the nomination before it can be forwarded to the University Academic Personnel Board.
Xxxx'x Review and Recommendation. The Xxxx will inform the faculty member and Chair of his recommendation and forward the proposal to the Faculty Affairs Committee and the VPAA.
Xxxx'x Review and Recommendation. (1) After reviewing the candidate's dossier the xxxx shall submit an evaluative letter assessing the candidate's qualifications for tenure or promotion in terms of the University's criteria, the College's clarification of those criteria, and the department's written discipline-specific clarifications of those criteria and make a positive or a negative recommendation. The xxxx'x letter shall explain or clarify such issues as exceptional assignments, unique contributions, or unusual assessments. (2) The xxxx shall enter the letter into the online promotion and tenure system, which will make it immediately available to the candidate and the chair. (3) The candidate shall have ten (10) days from receipt of the xxxx'x letter to request a meeting with the xxxx or submit a written response. (4) The xxxx shall not forward the dossier until either the candidate submits a response, indicates in writing that he/she will not be making a response, or the ten
Xxxx'x Review and Recommendation. (1) After reviewing the candidate's dossier the xxxx shall submit an evaluative letter assessing the candidate's qualifications for tenure or promotion in terms of the University's criteria, the College's clarification of those criteria, and the department's written discipline-specific clarifications of those criteria and make a positive or a negative recommendation. The xxxx'x letter shall explain or clarify such issues as exceptional assignments, unique contributions, or unusual assessments. (2) The xxxx shall enter the letter into the online promotion and tenure system, which will make it immediately available to the candidate and the chair. (3) The candidate shall have ten (10) days from receipt of the xxxx'x letter to request a meeting with the xxxx or submit a written response. (4) The xxxx shall not forward the dossier until either the candidate submits a response, indicates in writing that he/she will not be making a response, or the ten (10) day period for responding expires, whichever occurs first. The xxxx must sign the nomination indicating endorsement or lack of endorsement for the nomination before it can be forwarded to the University Academic Personnel Board. (i) Review by the University Academic Personnel Board. (1) The Academic Personnel Board shall serve in a fact-finding and consultative role. It shall assess the candidate’s dossier according to the criteria and report its assessment to the President or designee. (2) If there are questions about a dossier, the Academic Personnel Board shall notify electronically those affected. (3) The candidate's dossier shall be forwarded to the President or designee for consideration.

Related to Xxxx'x Review and Recommendation

  • 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.

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

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

  • Review and Approval The Supplier confirms and agrees that it shall apply to receive ISR's written consent, wherever ISR's consent, explicitly or implied, is required according to this Agreement. This requirement and the provision of ISR consent, shall not derogate in any way from Supplier's responsibilities and liabilities under this Agreement, and ISR shall bear no responsibility or liability whatsoever in connection with the review (whether or not there are objections) and/or with any approval given to, or denied from, Supplier, with respect to any matter and/or document, including but without limitation, drawings, designs (at all phases), plans, tests or otherwise.

  • 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:

  • Technical Advisory Committee (TAC The goal of this subtask is to create an advisory committee for this Agreement. The TAC should be composed of diverse professionals. The composition will vary depending on interest, availability, and need. TAC members will serve at the CAM’s discretion. The purpose of the TAC is to: • Provide guidance in project direction. The guidance may include scope and methodologies, timing, and coordination with other projects. The guidance may be based on: o Technical area expertise; o Knowledge of market applications; or o Linkages between the agreement work and other past, present, or future projects (both public and private sectors) that TAC members are aware of in a particular area. • Review products and provide recommendations for needed product adjustments, refinements, or enhancements. • Evaluate the tangible benefits of the project to the state of California, and provide recommendations as needed to enhance the benefits. • Provide recommendations regarding information dissemination, market pathways, or commercialization strategies relevant to the project products. The TAC may be composed of qualified professionals spanning the following types of disciplines: • Researchers knowledgeable about the project subject matter; • Members of trades that will apply the results of the project (e.g., designers, engineers, architects, contractors, and trade representatives); • Public interest market transformation implementers; • Product developers relevant to the project; • U.S. Department of Energy research managers, or experts from other federal or state agencies relevant to the project; • Public interest environmental groups; • Utility representatives; • Air district staff; and • Members of relevant technical society committees. • Prepare a List of Potential TAC Members that includes the names, companies, physical and electronic addresses, and phone numbers of potential members. The list will be discussed at the Kick-off meeting, and a schedule for recruiting members and holding the first TAC meeting will be developed. • Recruit TAC members. Ensure that each individual understands member obligations and the TAC meeting schedule developed in subtask 1.11. • Prepare a List of TAC Members once all TAC members have committed to serving on the TAC. • Submit Documentation of TAC Member Commitment (such as Letters of Acceptance) from each TAC member. • List of Potential TAC Members • List of TAC Members • Documentation of TAC Member Commitment

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Business Review Meetings In order to maintain the relationship between the Department and the Contractor, each quarter the Department may request a business review meeting. The business review meeting may include, but is not limited to, the following: • Successful completion of deliverables • Review of the Contractor’s performance • Review of minimum required reports • Addressing of any elevated Customer issues • Review of continuous improvement ideas that may help lower total costs and improve business efficiencies.

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