Evaluation Assessment Sample Clauses

Evaluation Assessment. A Evaluation of the Candidate. Evaluation of the candidate should be based solely upon the procedures in this Agreement.
View SourceView Similar (3)
Evaluation Assessment a. As partners in a security and safety system that includes private security, community-based safety providers and student monitors, District and Contractor recognize that mutually beneficial feedback is useful for both parties. District shall meet with Contractor quarterly to review and evaluate services provided and will seek input from Contractor about the relationship between District and Contractor and safety conditions at the District and Laney. b. District will be conducting a Districtwide needs assessment and survey about the quality and needs related to security and safety services throughout the District. Contractor will be invited to provide input in the needs assessment process. Other Terms: 1. Safety Services are not needed on fourteen (14) District holidays (as listed at the bottom of this exhibit), but should include services during the summer session; 2. Contractor shall provide equipment and all necessary labor during the time indicated; 3. District will provide an office for Contractor’s use, location to be determined by each college;
View SourceView Similar (2)
Evaluation Assessment a. As partners in a security and safety system that includes private security, community-based safety providers and student monitors, District and Contractor recognize that mutually beneficial feedback is useful for both parties. District shall meet with Contractor quarterly to review and evaluate services provided and will seek input from Contractor about the relationship between District and Contractor and safety conditions at the District and the campuses. b. District will be conducting a Districtwide needs assessment and survey about the quality and needs related to security and safety services throughout the District. Contractor will be invited to provide input in the needs assessment process.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Evaluation Assessment a. As partners in a security and safety system that includes private security, community-based safety providers and student monitors, District and Contractor recognize that mutually beneficial feedback is useful for both parties. District shall meet with Contractor quarterly to review and evaluate services provided and will seek input from Contractor about the relationship between District and Contractor and safety conditions at the District, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ College and College of Alameda. b. District will be conducting a Districtwide needs assessment and survey about the quality and needs related to security and safety services throughout the District. Contractor will be invited to provide input in the needs assessment process. Other Terms: 1. Safety Services are not needed on fourteen (14) District holidays (as listed at the bottom of this exhibit), but should include services during the summer session; 2. Contractor shall provide equipment and all necessary labor during the time indicated; 3. District will provide an office for Contractor’s use, location to be determined by each college;
View Source
Evaluation Assessment. At each phase of the project, the EUDEM2 performance will be evaluated against the concept and technical specifications (see WP120 Evaluation & Assessment). This will be done in particular at regular intervals and/or for specific events, i.e. after each Milestone, EUDEM2 Workshop, during and after the half-year meetings with DG-INFSO and the regular meetings scheduled with the Advisory Panel. End-user (“customer”) feedback – for example during Interviews, Support Tasks activities (e.g. the Help Desk) and Workshops – will be an integral part of the evaluation process as well as DG-INFSO and Advisory Panel input (e.g. for the validation of deliverables). The output of this continuous evaluation will be fed back directly to the project management and corrective actions taken where necessary. We will monitor in particular all the defined measures of success (see Section Measurable Objectives – Minimum Level of Success) as well as the risks mentioned under “Risk Analysis” (See Section Management).
View Source
Evaluation Assessment. The Committee will make recommendations to the Board with respect to the results of the Review (as defined below) as promptly as practicable following the completion of the Review. Following the Board’s review of the Committee’s determinations and recommendations and following the Board’s determinations, the Company shall promptly announce the Board’s determinations publicly.
View Source
Evaluation Assessment. “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.” – ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 29:11 Christian houses of worship are places that elicit intense emotional connection through experiencing the presence of God through worship and praise, as well as through communal support and fellowship with those sharing in that emotional experience. The results of the Nostalgia Inventory and Tenets of Christian Faith and Church Satisfaction Survey indicate both strong nostalgic longing for past experiences and committed devotion to a person’s personal religious faith. Additionally, respondents who are spiritual but not religiously affiliated shared in a heightened nostalgia level with those respondents from the two United Methodist churches who are actively participating in organized Christian ministry. There appears to be a share endorsement for participants who are longing for either past experiences they have experienced, or their perception of past generation’s experience. Across all groups and generations of participants who desire greater spiritual experiences, there was a heightened longing for “the way society was” with that item being rated on average at 8.3 out of 9 for the BUMC/MUMC group and 8.0 for the SBNR group. Additionally, there appears to be a heightened longing for “the way people were” item which averaged 7.7 for the BUMC/MUMC group and 7.0 for the SBNR group. These results indicate a shared longing for a time that was perceived to be better than the current social environment the participants experience currently. There appears to be a shared “seeking” experience between those who are participants in the Christian faith and those who are spiritual but not religious. This shared desire is open to the impact of nostalgic longing on the groups, yet also presents an opportunity for the destructive use of nostalgia that discourages connectiveness between the groups. Destructive Nostalgia ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ observes that the "it was better in the good old days" phenomenon results from our memories being distorted and not faithful. 64 They are not accurate to what things really were like and are based on our impressions of what we believe experiences were like in the past. This is indicated with the results if the Inventory when compared to the Survey. The parishioners who scored the lowest in church satisfaction related to modern church practices were also the ones who scored the highest on the Nostalgia Inve...
View Source
Evaluation Assessment 
View SourceView Similar (4)

Related to Evaluation Assessment

  • Performance Assessment 6.1 The Performance Plan (Annexure A) to this Agreement sets out key performance indicators and competencies that needs to be evaluated in terms of – 6.1.1 The standards and procedures for evaluating the Employee’s performance; and 6.1.2 During the intervals for the evaluation of the Employee’s performance. 6.2 Despite the establishment of agreed intervals for evaluation, the Employer may in addition review the Employee’s performance at any stage while the contract of employment remains in force; 6.3 Personal growth and development needs identified during any performance review discussion must be documented in a Personal Development Plan as well as the actions agreed to and implementation must take place within set time frames; 6.4 The Employee’s performance will also be measured in terms of contributions to the goals and strategies set out in the Employer’s Integrated Development Plan (IDP) as described in 6.6 – 6.13 below; 6.5 The Employee will submit quarterly performance reports (SDBIP) and a comprehensive annual performance report at least one week prior to the performance assessment meetings to the Evaluation Panel Chairperson for distribution to the panel members for preparation purposes; 6.6 Assessment of the achievement of results as outlined in the performance plan: 6.6.1 Each KPI or group of KPIs shall be assessed according to the extent to which the specified standards or performance targets have been met (qualitative and quantitative) and with due regard to ad-hoc tasks that had to be performed under the KPI; 6.6.2 A rating on the five-point scale described in 6.9 below shall be provided for each KPI or group of KPIs which will then be multiplied by the weighting to calculate the final score; 6.6.3 The Employee will submit his self-evaluation to the Employer prior to the formal assessment; 6.6.4 In the instance where the employee could not perform due to reasons outside the control of the employer and employee, the KPI will not be considered during the evaluation. The employee should provide sufficient evidence in such instances; and 6.6.5 An overall score will be calculated based on the total of the individual scores calculated above.

  • Joint Assessment If the Premises are not separately assessed, Lessee's liability shall be an equitable proportion of the Real Property Taxes for all of the land and improvements included within the tax parcel assessed, such proportion to be conclusively determined by Lessor from the respective valuations assigned in the assessor's work sheets or such other information as may be reasonably available.

  • Risk Assessment An assessment of any risks inherent in the work requirements and actions to mitigate these risks.

  • Evaluation Procedure 6.1.1 The established evaluation form is to be prepared by the immediate supervisor under whom the bargaining unit member has served for sixty (60) working days or more. (See evaluation form attached as Appendix B.) The immediate supervisor is to present a draft of an evaluation report to the bargaining unit member in private and discuss the report with the bargaining unit member being evaluated. The evaluation shall be based upon direct observation by the immediate supervisor or verified facts. Evaluation reports reflecting “Needs Improvement” or “Does not meet standards” ratings shall include statements of deficiencies and recommendations for improvements, in writing, by the evaluator. The signature by the bargaining unit member does not indicate the employee’s agreement with the ratings; it indicates that the employee has received a copy. 6.1.1.1 Permanent employees shall be evaluated annually. 6.1.1.2 Probationary employees shall be evaluated at least once during the probationary period, prior to the end of the fourth month. 6.1.2 Evaluation reports reflecting “Needs Improvement” or “Does Not Meet Standards” ratings shall be placed in the bargaining unit member’s personnel file only after written notification by the supervisor that the bargaining unit member has been given an opportunity to prepare a written response to such evaluation. Prior to evaluation reports reflecting any “Needs Improvement” or “Does Not Meet Standards” ratings the evaluator is encouraged to implement a Performance Improvement Plan. (See Performance Improvement Plan form attached as Appendix C.) 6.1.3 A bargaining unit member has the right to attach a response to the employee’s evaluation provided that such written response is submitted to the employee's supervisor within fifteen (15) days of the employee's receipt of the evaluation. Any timely received response shall be attached to, and become a permanent part of, the employee's evaluation. 6.1.4 Evaluatees may, within ten (10) working days, present the employee’s objections to the evaluation decision to the Director Personnel Services. Grounds for the objections shall be based on one or more of the following: (1) the evaluation was not based on fact; (2) the evaluation was based on discriminatory standards; (3) the evaluation was not conducted in conformance with this Article. Within ten (10) working days of receipt of such objection the Director Personnel Services shall hear the objections and render a decision whether to uphold the evaluation or rescind the evaluation. 6.1.5 The bargaining unit member's supervisor may, at any time, prepare a notice of commendation. The completed form is to be signed by the bargaining unit member to indicate receipt and the bargaining unit member shall be given a signed copy. The original notice is to be forwarded to the Personnel Services Office for filing. 6.1.6 Contents of evaluations are not subject to the grievance procedure of this Agreement, Article VII, but procedural violations are subject to the grievance procedure. 6.1.7 The probation period shall be defined as the initial six (6) month employment period. 6.1.8 In the event a permanent bargaining unit member is hired for a new position, and is subsequently released from probation under section 6.1.7, the employee will be returned to the employee’s previous classification. 6.1.9 The District, CSEA and the bargaining unit member may mutually agree to extend the probationary period of a bargaining unit member on an individual basis provided the extension is no longer than four (4) months.

  • Evaluation 1. The purposes of evaluation provisions include providing employees with feedback, and employers and employees with the opportunity and responsibility to address concerns. Where a grievance proceeds to arbitration, the arbitrator must consider these purposes, and may relieve on just and reasonable terms against breaches of time limits or other procedural requirements.