Faculty Review Sample Clauses

Faculty Review. The eligible faculty in the candidate’s department or unit, or a 7 personnel committee comprised of a subset of the eligible faculty (if the department’s or unit’s 8 internal policy specifies the creation of such committee), will review the file and the external 9 reviews, prepare a report, and vote. In cases where there are too few eligible faculty members 10 to form a review committee within the candidate’s department or unit, the department or unit 11 head will work with the appropriate xxxx to establish a committee including appropriate faculty 12 members from outside the department. A final vote will be conducted by signed ballot, and the 13 ballots will remain confidential to the extent permitted by law.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (4)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Faculty Review. The eligible faculty in the candidate’s department or unit, 2 or a personnel committee comprised of a subset of the eligible faculty (if the department’s 3 or unit’s internal policy specifies the creation of such committee), will review the file and 4 the external reviews, prepare a report, and vote. In cases where there are too few eligible 5 faculty members to form a review committee within the candidate’s department or unit, 6 the department or unit head will work with the appropriate xxxx to establish a committee 7 including appropriate faculty members from outside the department. A final vote will be 8 conducted by signed ballot, and the ballots will remain confidential to the extent 9 permitted by law. 10 11 Section 16. Review by Department or Unit Head, College or School Personnel 12 Committee and Xxxx. The department or unit head will prepare an independent report 13 and recommendation, and then forward the entire file to the appropriate xxxx. The file 14 then will be reviewed by a school- or college-level personnel committee appointed by a 15 process determined by the xxxx. The committee will prepare an independent report and 16 vote, and will forward the entire file to the xxxx. This step may be bypassed in schools or 17 colleges whose deans choose not to convene a personnel committee. The xxxx will then 18 prepare an independent report and recommendation, and then meet with the candidate to 19 discuss the case, review the recommendations made by the department committee, 20 department or unit head, and the school or college-level personnel committee (if 21 applicable), and the xxxx’x own recommendation. Upon request, the candidate will be 22 provided with a copy of the xxxx’x report that has been redacted in accordance with the 23 waiver status to protect personally identifiable information. The candidate may provide 24 responsive material for the file within 10 days of the meeting with the xxxx or the receipt 25 of the redacted report, whichever is later. The xxxx will then forward the entire file to the 26 Office of Academic Affairs. 27 28 Section 17. Xxxxxxx’x Review of File. The Xxxxxxx or designee will review the 29 promotion and tenure file for completeness and general presentation, and may request 30 additional information from the xxxx. The file forwarded to the Xxxxxxx or designee 31 should include the following: 32 33  Promotion and tenure checklist 00 00  Voting summary 36 37  Criteria for tenure and promotion 38 39  Xxxx’x evalua...
Sample 1
Faculty Review. The eligible faculty in the candidate’s department or unit, or a personnel committee comprised of a subset of the eligible faculty (if the department’s or unit’s internal policy specifies the creation of such committee), will review the file and the external reviews, prepare a report, and vote. In cases where there are too few eligible faculty members to form a review committee within the candidate’s department or unit, the department or unit head will work with the appropriate xxxx to establish a committee including appropriate faculty members from outside the department. A final vote will be conducted by signed ballot, and the ballots will remain confidential to the extent permitted by law.
Sample 1

Related to Faculty 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.

  • 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.

  • Office of Inspector General Investigative Findings Expert Review In accordance with Senate Bill 799, Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., if Texas Government Code, Section 531.102(m-1)(2) is applicable to this Contract, Contractor affirms that it possesses the necessary occupational licenses and experience.

  • Compensation Review The compensation of the Executive will be reviewed not less frequently than annually by the board of directors of the Company.

  • 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.

  • Investigator Where a difference arises between the parties relating to the dismissal, discipline or suspension of an employee, or to the interpretation, application, operation or alleged violation of this agreement, including any questions as to whether a matter is arbitrable, during the term of the collective agreement, an arbitrator agreed to by the parties shall, at the request of either party:

  • Exclusion Review Notwithstanding any provision of Title 42 of the United States Code or Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the only issues in a proceeding for exclusion based on a material breach of this CIA shall be:

  • Position Review ‌ The Employer may initiate a position review for a position it believes is improperly classified, and will inform the Union in writing when it has initiated a reallocation process for a bargaining unit position. An individual employee who believes that their position is improperly classified may request a review according to the following procedure:

  • 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.