Section Evaluation Appeal Process. A. If a “Does Not Meet Standards” rating is received, the employee will receive a ninety (90) day re-evaluation period.
Section Evaluation Appeal Process Sample Clauses
Related to Section Evaluation Appeal Process
Classification Appeal Procedure An employee shall have the right to appeal, through the Union, the classification of the position the employee occupies, or where a point rating plan has been used, the right to appeal the position's level. Classification matters are not grievable under Article 8 of this Agreement. Instead, the following procedures shall be followed.
Appeal Process PROVIDER may appeal any adverse finding by the Contract Compliance Officer as set forth in sec. 25.08(20)(c), D.C. Ords.
Appeal Procedure The Appeal will be deemed an appeal of the entire Arbitration Award. In conducting the Appeal, the Appeal Panel shall conduct a de novo review of all Claims described or otherwise set forth in the Arbitration Notice. Subject to the foregoing and all other provisions of this Paragraph 5, the Appeal Panel shall conduct the Appeal in a manner the Appeal Panel considers appropriate for a fair and expeditious disposition of the Appeal, may hold one or more hearings and permit oral argument, and may review all previous evidence and discovery, together with all briefs, pleadings and other documents filed with the Original Arbitrator (as well as any documents filed with the Appeal Panel pursuant to Paragraph 5.4(a) below). Notwithstanding the foregoing, in connection with the Appeal, the Appeal Panel shall not permit the parties to conduct any additional discovery or raise any new Claims to be arbitrated, shall not permit new witnesses or affidavits, and shall not base any of its findings or determinations on the Original Arbitrator’s findings or the Arbitration Award.
Review and Selection Process The Project Narratives of SAMHSA applications are peer-reviewed according to the evaluation criteria listed above. Decisions to fund a grant are based on the strengths and weaknesses of the application as identified by peer reviewers. The results of the peer review are advisory in nature. The program office and approving official make the final determination for funding based on the following: • Individual awards over $250,000 are approved by the Center for Mental Health Services National Advisory Council; • Availability of funds; • Equitable distribution of awards in terms of geography (including urban, rural, and remote settings) and balance among populations of focus and program size; • Submission of any required documentation that must be submitted prior to making an award; and • SAMHSA is required to review and consider any information about your organization that is in the Federal Award Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). In accordance with 45 CFR 75.212, SAMHSA reserves the right not to make an award to an entity if that entity does not meet the minimum qualification standards as described in section 75.205(a)(2). If SAMHSA chooses not to award a fundable application in accordance with 45 CFR 75.205(a)(2), SAMHSA must report that determination to the designated integrity and performance system accessible through the System for Award Management (XXX) [currently, FAPIIS]. You may review and comment on any information about your organization that a federal awarding agency previously entered. XXXXXX will consider your comments, in addition to other information in FAPIIS in making a judgment about your organization’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under federal awards when completing the review of risk posed as described in 45 CFR 75.205 HHS Awarding Agency Review of Risk by Applicants.
Additional RO Review Criteria (1) In addition to the requirements in Subparagraph 34A, the RO must:
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.
Completion of Evaluation Cycle 1. The summative evaluation rating shall be based upon a preponderance of the evidence, assessed in a holistic manner, that is aligned to the Ohio Educator Standards. Only evidence gathered during the walkthroughs and formal observations that are conducted for the current school year may be used.
Appeal Procedures A. Employees may appeal discipline imposed under this LOA through the Dispute Resolution Procedure contained in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (i.e. grievance procedure) or to the Minneapolis Civil Service Commission.
Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.
Finalization of Evaluation A Written Report 1 Before the evaluation cycle is final, and not later than May 10, a copy of the formal written evaluation report shall be given to the teacher and a conference shall be held between the teacher and the evaluator.
