The Decision If mediation fails or is not appropriate and if the decision can be rendered after a short deliberation, the arbitrator will do so. By meeting first with counsel to explain the framework of the arbitrator's decision, the parties are provided with an opportunity to influence the exact terms of resolution. Within the framework of settlement as outlined by the arbitrator, the parties can work out exact terms which best suit the specifics of the case. Such an opportunity should not be wasted by continuing to argue the merits of the case. With respect to grievances involving customer complaints, the following will apply:
Hearing Decision The decision of the Board shall be in writing and shall contain findings of fact and the personnel action approved, if any. The findings may reiterate the language of the pleadings or simply refer to them. The decision of the Board shall be certified to the Superintendent or designee who recommended the personnel action, and he/she shall enforce and follow this decision. A copy of the decision shall be delivered to the appellant or his/her designated representative personally or by registered mail. The decision of the Board shall be final.
Final Decision Concessionaire covenants that the decision of the Commissioner of Department, relative to the performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, shall be final and conclusive.
Shared Decision Making 33-1 Purpose The purpose of a shared decision making program is to create an atmosphere in which decision making is a collegial, shared, process that fosters an exchange of ideas and information necessary for effective professional practice and for improved student performance. The Association and District agree to continue pursuing jointly the implementation of legitimately recognized school councils as a foundation of a shared decision-making program. All provisions of this Agreement shall continue to be in full force and effect throughout the process.
Arbitration Decision The arbitrator’s decision will be final and binding. The arbitrator shall issue a written arbitration decision revealing the essential findings and conclusions upon which the decision and/or award is based. A party’s right to appeal the decision is limited to grounds provided under applicable federal or state law.
Decision Making All decisions of the JCC require unanimous agreement of the Parties, with each Party having one (1) vote on all matters presented to the JCC for resolution or decision. The members of the JCC will attempt in good faith to reach consensus on all matters before the JCC. In the event that the JCC cannot, after such good-faith efforts, reach agreement on a matter within the jurisdiction of the JCC, including any adoption, amendment or update to a Co-Promotion Plan within […***…], the issue shall be elevated to a Executive Officer of each of Ambit and Astellas, to seek in good faith to reach agreement on the issue. Solely in the case of a dispute regarding the Direct Marketing/Promotion Expenses or the Indirect Marketing Expenses proposed to be included in the Co-Promotion Plan budget (or any proposed amendment or update thereto) (in each case, a “Proposed Expense Dispute”), the Parties shall exchange written proposals regarding the portion of the budget in dispute in advance of elevating such dispute to the Executive Officers. In the event such executives cannot resolve the issue after good-faith efforts within […***…], then (a) if the dispute is a Proposed Expense Dispute, either Party shall have the right to cause the Dispute to be resolved by expedited arbitration pursuant to Exhibit E, and (b) if the dispute concerns any other issue the issue shall be decided by Astellas, in its reasonable discretion but subject to Astellas’s obligation to use Commercially Reasonable Efforts as set forth in Section 3.6.1 and taking into account the legitimate business issues of Ambit with respect to the issue. Astellas shall provide Ambit with a Decision Notice with respect to such decision, which decision shall be final and binding on the Parties. For clarity, in the event of a dispute concerning the Co-Promotion Plan budget which is resolved by expedited arbitration, Astellas may, but shall not be required to, perform the activities contemplated in its proposed Co-Promotion Plan budget, but the Direct Marketing/Promotion Expenses and Indirect Marketing Expenses incurred by Astellas during the Calendar Year covered by the disputed budget shall only be included in the calculation of the Annual U.S. Profit/Loss up to the amount of the Arbitrator-Determined Marketing Budget (as defined in Exhibit E), and such additional amounts shall be borne solely by Astellas. ***Confidential Treatment Requested CONFIDENTIAL 4. FEES, MILESTONES, ROYALTIES AND PROFIT SHARE
Arbitration Decisions Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the arbitrator(s) shall render a decision within ninety (90) Calendar Days of appointment and shall notify the Parties in writing of such decision and the reasons therefor. The arbitrator(s) shall be authorized only to interpret and apply the provisions of this LGIA and shall have no power to modify or change any provision of this Agreement in any manner. The decision of the arbitrator(s) shall be final and binding upon the Parties, and judgment on the award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. The decision of the arbitrator(s) may be appealed solely on the grounds that the conduct of the arbitrator(s), or the decision itself, violated the standards set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act or the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act. The final decision of the arbitrator(s) must also be filed with FERC if it affects jurisdictional rates, terms and conditions of service, Interconnection Facilities, or Network Upgrades.
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.
