Review Levels Sample Clauses
The 'Review Levels' clause defines the different stages or tiers at which a document, project, or deliverable will be evaluated before final approval. Typically, this clause outlines who is responsible for each level of review, such as initial review by a project manager, followed by legal or executive oversight, and may specify criteria or timelines for each stage. By establishing clear checkpoints and responsibilities, the clause ensures thorough vetting, reduces the risk of oversight, and promotes accountability throughout the review process.
Review Levels. Each faculty candidate for promotion and/or tenure, whether by the standard requirements or the exceptions to same or the special provisions, shall be reviewed by a Department Personnel Committee, a College Personnel Committee, the College ▇▇▇▇, and the University Rank and Tenure Committee. A faculty member of the College of Education shall provide notification to the ▇▇▇▇ of the College, who shall forward all materials to the Chair of the appropriate Personnel Committee of the College of Education All required materials filed by a candidate for promotion and/or tenure, all recommendations from each level of review (both positive and negative) plus written responses (if any) of the candidate to reviews made at the levels of the department, college, and ▇▇▇▇ shall be forwarded to all subsequent review levels. Recommendations which are made at any level shall not be binding at any other level. Recommendations for tenure and for each rank of promotion shall be made as hereinafter provided.
a. Each reviewing authority develops an alphabetical list of individuals who are recommended for tenure, including those individuals who are simultaneously evaluated for both promotion and tenure. (Applicants for simultaneous evaluation for promotion and tenure shall not be evaluated separately for tenure or for promotion).
b. Each reviewing authority develops an alphabetical list of individuals who are recommended for each rank of promotion. Candidates who are simultaneously evaluated for both promotion and tenure shall appear on both tenure and promotion lists and shall be listed in alphabetical order. The results of each reviewing authority’s vote count will be forwarded to the subsequent levels of review.
c. Each reviewing authority develops an alphabetical list of individuals who are not recommended for tenure and an alphabetical list of individuals who are not recommended for promotion (by level of requested promotion). Unrecommended candidates who are simultaneously evaluated for both promotion and tenure shall appear on both promotion and tenure listings of unrecommended individuals. The phrase "review" as used in this Article refers to a process which leads to a positive or negative recommendation; however, it is understood that the Department/College/Library committees, Deans/Director and the University Rank and Tenure Committee shall submit written reasons for their respective decisions whether positive or negative.
d. All decisions of Committees in this process4...
Review Levels. Level One: Informal. Prior to filing a written grievance, the grievant shall meet with the Supervisor against whom such grievance is to be asserted for the purpose of attempting to adjust such alleged grievance without further proceedings. The request for the meeting must be made within ten (10) days from the time of the event or the time the grievant reasonably should have known of the event.
Review Levels