Challenge: Inactive WHCs Clause Samples

Challenge: Inactive WHCs. Issue: Although many WHCs are progressing well and some showing exemplary progress and innovation, one of the greatest challenges of the MHPP program remains the strengthening and institutionalization of the WHCs. The comprehensive study of WHCs conducted by the MHPP team this year showed that the majority of faltering WHCs have one or more leaders (Comissioner or Member Secretary) who have not proven to be committed in their actions (see table below). Status of WHCs of the Seven Scale-Up Municipalities: WHC Functionality 26 out of 66 40% Commissioners 23 out of 66 35% Member Secretary 23 out of 66* 35% Chairman – Neg attitude towards MHPP Has conflict with commissioners Low MHPP/WHC event participation 1 out of 7 4 out of 7 4 out of 7 14% 57% 57% * Poorly performing Member Secretaries not necessarily from same ▇▇▇▇ as poorly performing Commissioner. The comprehensive analysis revealed the following key factors impacting the function of these WHCs: - New Commissioners taking over, not familiar with the WHC and their role as its leader prior to winning the post, lacked commitment, despite initial orientation. Many are more concerned with infrastructure development or their personal businesses. - The vast majority of the WHCs doing poorly in Saidpur had the same Member Secretary (MHD representative). This individual was a health inspector assigned to 6 WHCs. The recommended number of WHCs each MHS is to serve on is 3. Overextended between his responsibilities as an inspector and to the WHCs, this individual did not perform his function well and caused problems within the WHCs. - In some WHCs, the Commissioner and Member Secretaries had misunderstandings, overstepping each other’s role. - In several municipalities, the Municipal Chairman and Commissioners are at odds due to heightened political tension. - Many of the failing WHCs do not have a secondary leader in place. Impact: With 99 WHCs in the program area, all functioning on a voluntary basis, it is expected that some will not fair as well. However, it is very important for the sustainability of this model to closely monitor the WHC’s progress as the MHPP program is doing, and fully analyze the factors impeding the poorly functioning WHCs so that, not a quick fix, but a systems based solution can be implemented to minimize their collapse. To this end, the MHPP being an extension project is an advantage as it allows us to see the reality of what occurs once direct support is removed, yet have the ability ...
View Source

Related to Challenge: Inactive WHCs

  • Active/Inactive Employee If you are covered under another plan as an active employee, your benefits and those of your dependents under that plan will be determined before benefits under this plan. The plan covering the active employee and dependents will be the primary plan. The plan covering that same employee as inactive (including those who are retired or have been laid off) will be the secondary plan for that employee and dependents.

  • Venue Limitation for TIPS Sales Vendor agrees that if any "Venue" provision is included in any TIPS Sale Agreement/contract between Vendor and a TIPS Member, that clause must provide that the "Venue" for any litigation or alternative dispute resolution shall be in the state and county where the TIPS Member operates unless the TIPS Member expressly agrees otherwise. Any TIPS Sale Supplemental Agreement containing a “Venue” clause that conflicts with these terms is rendered void and unenforceable.

  • DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, INELIGIBILITY AND VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION By executing this contract the firm affirms that it is in compliance with the requirements of 2 C.F.R. Part 180 and that neither it, its principals, nor its subcontractors are presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency.

  • Excluded Employees Employees excluded from the bargaining unit who work for an Employer signatory to this Agreement may participate in any of the foregoing benefits under rules and regulations established by the Trustees. The trustees shall determine the contributions required for such benefits.

  • MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL Not later than 16 court days before the calendared Final Approval Hearing, Plaintiff will file in Court, a motion for final approval of the Settlement that includes a request for approval of the PAGA settlement under Labor Code section 2699, subd. (l), a Proposed Final Approval Order and a proposed Judgment (collectively “Motion for Final Approval”). Plaintiff shall provide drafts of these documents to Defense Counsel not later than seven days prior to filing the Motion for Final Approval. Class Counsel and Defense Counsel will expeditiously meet and confer in person or by telephone, and in good faith, to resolve any disagreements concerning the Motion for Final Approval.