Decision Making Framework Sample Clauses

A Decision-Making Framework clause establishes the procedures and criteria by which parties will make important choices under the agreement. Typically, it outlines who has authority to make decisions, the process for reaching consensus or resolving disagreements, and any required timelines or documentation. This clause ensures that all parties understand how decisions will be made, reducing the risk of disputes and promoting efficient, transparent collaboration.
Decision Making Framework. Factors are the factors to be considered during the decision making process set forth in Section 3.1.2.
View SourceView Similar (3)
Decision Making Framework. 5.1 The Board and the Association have developed a decision making framework in an effort to further a good working relationship between the parties. This structure shall include a Leadership Council, which is a building level committee, and a Labor Management Committee, which is a district-wide committee. Training for these committees shall be scheduled annually or as deemed necessary by the LMC.
View SourceView Similar (3)
Decision Making Framework. Parties acknowledge and agree that this MoU establishes the following key principles to facilitate decision making on matters related to Development Support Services:  Decision making by the CEC shall be based on a simple majority vote, with each member having one (1) and no more than one (1) vote through its representative.  CEC approvals are considered those instances where a majority votes to approve a decision, and a decision is considered final once all representatives required, based on this MoU or the SOPs, to participate in the decision have voted. Subsequently, where decisions were not approved, information supporting the decision must be revised and a new vote is required. If a decision cannot be revised, the decision may be dropped or abandoned. Parties agree that members and provider(s) impacted by a decision being voted upon by a Governing Forum will be given the opportunity to submit their vote in accordance with this MoU or the SOPs, with all members regardless of impact are able to review and comment on those decisions.  Decision making by each of the subsidiary governing boards shall be based on a unanimous vote for impacted participants, unless such a vote is intended to be non-binding.  Each Governing Forum shall only conduct business if a majority of the voting membership is in attendance at the meeting, either in person or remotely.  Decisions by the Governing Forums require substantiating documentation in order to be considered valid and binding; with responsibility residing with each Party for ensuring that such documentation is maintained for decisions impacting themselves.  Decisions by members and providers related to the approval of project artifacts or acceptance of delivered requirements and contracted deliverables, outside the purview of the Governing Forums, require substantiating documentation to be considered valid and binding, with responsibility for that documentation residing with the Party who initiatives the request for approval or acceptance.  Conflicts arising from the Governing Forum’s decision-making process will be addressed according to Section 5.4.  The Consortium will make available, and require the use of, those voting mechanisms it provides in accordance with the SOPs, and each Party will provide to the PMO substantiating documentation supporting their decisions where voting mechanisms are not available from the Consortium.  CRs must be documented utilizing the tools provided by the Consortium and ap...
View SourceView Similar (2)
Decision Making Framework. Decision-making authority and processes will be established by March 31, 2022. These processes will be part of a formal Decision-Making Agreement, developed by the CND OHT Steering Committee, with oversight by the Joint Board Committee.
View Source
Decision Making Framework. Subject to the achievement of the timetable set out in this document including provision of all necessary information by the applicant and consultees, the application will be referred to the appropriate committee of the Comhairle no later than: INSERT DATE 1 Pre-application phase‌ First meeting of Steering Group - Agree arrangements for me Produce draft project plan and work programme Receipt of Proposal of Application Notice Finalise project plan and programme Liaison with consultees 12 week statutory consulation expiry Officer Attendance at Public Consultation Pre-application report to committee 0 Draft S75 Agreements EIA Processes ES screening ES scoping Prepare ES (Applicants) Application Phase Application submitted Neighbour notification, advertising and registration Statutory consulation period Review key issues and work programme (agree a realistic co Resolve key issues including issues where required Re-notification, advertisement and consulation if required Circulation of draft conditions and S75 for review Officer to prepare Committee report Committee site visit Report signed by Head of Planning Presentation to Development Management Sub Committee Pre-determination hearing Decision by full council (if required) Notification to Ministers Conclude Section 75 / Decision Issued Start Start date Finish End date ############# 23 Jan 00 20 Feb 00 19 Mar 00 16 Apr 00 14 May 00 11 Jun 00 09 Jul 00 06 Aug 00 03 Sep 00 01 Oct 00 29 Oct 00 26 Nov 00 24 Dec 00 21 Jan 01 18 Feb 01 18 Mar 01 15 Apr 01 13 May 01 10 Jun 01
View Source
Decision Making Framework 
View SourceView Similar (7)

Related to Decision Making Framework

  • Decision Making The Joint Development Committee and Joint Commercialization Committee shall each act by unanimous agreement of its members, with each Party having one vote. If the Joint Development Committee or Joint Commercialization Committee, after [* * *] (or such other period as the Parties may otherwise agree) of good faith efforts to reach a unanimous decision on an issue, fails to reach such a unanimous decision, then either Party may refer such issue to the Executive Officers. Such Executive Officers shall meet promptly thereafter and shall negotiate in good faith to resolve the issues. If Executive Officers cannot resolve such issue within [* * *] of referral of such issue to the Executive Officers, the resolution of such issue shall be as follows: (a) if such issue properly originated at the Joint Development Committee, determined by the Developing Party of the relevant Licensed Compound or Licensed Product at issue; provided that, notwithstanding the foregoing: (i) if Acceleron is the Developing Party and such issue relates to (x) the approval of an Additional Development Disease, or (y) matters under Section 5.6.3(d), then such issue shall be determined by [* * *]; (ii) regardless of which Party is the Developing Party, such issue shall be determined by [* * *] following the earliest of: (x) [* * *], and (y) the Joint Development Committee’s decision to go forward with a Phase 3 Clinical Trial of the relevant Licensed Compound or Licensed Product; provided that [* * *] shall continue to determine any issues that relate to the budget for and the conduct of the [* * *]; and (iii) regardless of which Party is the Developing Party, such issue shall be determined by [* * *] following the earliest of: (x) [* * *], and (y) the occurrence of any [* * *]; and (b) if such issue properly originated at the Joint Commercialization Committee, determined by Celgene. Notwithstanding the foregoing, none of Acceleron, Celgene, the Joint Development Committee or the Joint Commercialization Committee may make any decision inconsistent with the express terms of this Agreement without the prior written consent of each Party.

  • Decision-Making Authority BMS shall have the sole decision-making authority for the operations and Commercialization strategies and decisions, including funding and resourcing, related to the Commercialization of Products; provided that such decisions are not inconsistent with the express terms and conditions of this Agreement, including BMS’ diligence obligations set forth in Section 5.1.

  • Selection and Payment of Appeal Panel In the event an Appellant delivers an Appeal Notice to the Appellee (together with proof of payment of the applicable bond) in compliance with the provisions of Paragraph 5.1 above, the Appeal will be heard by a three (3) person arbitration panel (the “Appeal Panel”). (a) Within ten (10) calendar days after the Appeal Date, the Appellee shall select and submit to the Appellant the names of five (5) arbitrators that are designated as “neutrals” or qualified arbitrators by Utah ADR Services (▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇) (such five (5) designated persons hereunder are referred to herein as the “Proposed Appeal Arbitrators”). For the avoidance of doubt, each Proposed Appeal Arbitrator must be qualified as a “neutral” with Utah ADR Services, and shall not be the arbitrator who rendered the Arbitration Award being appealed (the “Original Arbitrator”). Within five (5) calendar days after the Appellee has submitted to the Appellant the names of the Proposed Appeal Arbitrators, the Appellant must select, by written notice to the Appellee, three (3) of the Proposed Appeal Arbitrators to act as the members of the Appeal Panel. If the Appellant fails to select three (3) of the Proposed Appeal Arbitrators in writing within such 5-day period, then the Appellee may select such three (3) arbitrators from the Proposed Appeal Arbitrators by providing written notice of such selection to the Appellant. (b) If the Appellee fails to submit to the Appellant the names of the Proposed Appeal Arbitrators within ten (10) calendar days after the Appeal Date pursuant to subparagraph (a) above, then the Appellant may at any time prior to the Appellee so designating the Proposed Appeal Arbitrators, identify the names of five (5) arbitrators that are designated as “neutrals” or qualified arbitrators by Utah ADR Service (none of whom may be the Original Arbitrator) by written notice to the Appellee. The Appellee may then, within five (5) calendar days after the Appellant has submitted notice of its selected arbitrators to the Appellee, select, by written notice to the Appellant, three (3) of such selected arbitrators to serve on the Appeal Panel. If the Appellee fails to select in writing within such 5-day period three (3) of the arbitrators selected by the Appellant to serve as the members of the Appeal Panel, then the Appellant may select the three (3) members of the Appeal Panel from the Appellant’s list of five (5) arbitrators by providing written notice of such selection to the Appellee. (c) If a selected Proposed Appeal Arbitrator declines or is otherwise unable to serve, then the party that selected such Proposed Appeal Arbitrator may select one (1) of the other five (5) designated Proposed Appeal Arbitrators within three (3) calendar days of the date a chosen Proposed Appeal Arbitrator declines or notifies the parties he or she is unable to serve as an arbitrator. If at least three (3) of the five (5) designated Proposed Appeal Arbitrators decline or are otherwise unable to serve, then the Proposed Appeal Arbitrator selection process shall begin again in accordance with this Paragraph 5.2; provided, however, that any Proposed Appeal Arbitrators who have already agreed to serve shall remain on the Appeal Panel. (d) The date that all three (3) Proposed Appeal Arbitrators selected pursuant to this Paragraph 5.2 agree in writing (including via email) delivered to both the Appellant and the Appellee to serve as members of the Appeal Panel hereunder is referred to herein as the “Appeal Commencement Date”. No later than five (5) calendar days after the Appeal Commencement Date, the Appellee shall designate in writing (including via email) to the Appellant and the Appeal Panel the name of one (1) of the three (3) members of the Appeal Panel to serve as the lead arbitrator in the Appeal proceedings. Each member of the Appeal Panel shall be deemed an arbitrator for purposes of these Arbitration Provisions and the Arbitration Act, provided that, in conducting the Appeal, the Appeal Panel may only act or make determinations upon the approval or vote of no less than the majority vote of its members, as announced or communicated by the lead arbitrator on the Appeal Panel. If an arbitrator on the Appeal Panel ceases or is unable to act during the Appeal proceedings, a replacement arbitrator shall be chosen in accordance with Paragraph 5.2 above to continue the Appeal as a member of the Appeal Panel. If Utah ADR Services ceases to exist or to provide a list of neutrals, then the arbitrators for the Appeal Panel shall be selected under the then prevailing rules of the American Arbitration Association.

  • Initial Decision Maker The Architect will serve as the Initial Decision Maker pursuant to Article 15 of AIA Document A201–2017, unless the parties appoint below another individual, not a party to this Agreement, to serve as the Initial Decision Maker.

  • Considerations on Review In considering the review, the Plan Administrator shall take into account all materials and information the claimant submits relating to the claim, without regard to whether such information was submitted or considered in the initial benefit determination.