Tenure Evaluations and Recommendations Sample Clauses

Related to Tenure Evaluations and Recommendations

Conclusions and Recommendations The demonstration and evaluation process provided an opportunity to test community specific tools with a range of end users from the memory institution domain and to gain greater insight into both the current and future evolution of the SHAMAN prototypes for preservation, access and re-use. Xxxx et al. (2000) in their user evaluation study of the Alexandria Digital Library which incorporated the evaluation of a Web prototype by earth scientists, information specialists and educators raised four key questions in relation to their findings that SHAMAN may be well advised to consider, they are paraphrased here with our conclusions from the investigations. What have we learned about our target organizations and potential users?  Memory institutions are most definitely not a homogenised group; their needs and requirements differ greatly across the domain.  Representatives of the archives community are agreed on the benefits of SHAMAN‟s authenticity validation function.  The representatives of government information services remained unconvinced as to the need or benefit of grid technologies or distributed ingest while librarians saw the value of grid access as an asset of the framework. What have we learned about the evaluation approach for digital preservation?  Within the limits of the exercise, in terms of time-frame and resources, the approach adopted has generated useful information for the further development of demonstrators and for the development of the SHAMAN framework overall. What have we learned about the SHAMAN ISP1 demonstrator?  Respondents to the evaluation questionnaires and the focus groups indicate that, overall, the presentation of the demonstrator worked effectively and that, in general, participants in the demonstration and evaluation events were able to understand the intentions of the demonstration and to apply the ideas presented to their own context. What have we learned about the applicability of the SHAMAN framework to memory institutions?  Respondents to the questionnaires and participants in the focus groups readily identified the value of the SHAMAN framework to their own operations. The majority had not yet established a long-term digital preservation policy, but recognized the need. Generally, the concepts of distributed ingest and grid operations found favour.  Virtually all practitioners in the focus groups, however, drew attention to need of a lower level demonstration that would be closer to their everyday preservation troubles, especially for digital preservation to be applied to non-textual materials, such as film, photographs and sound archives. In addition to the criteria suggested by Xxxx et al., we can add a further project-related question: What have we learned that has implications for the training and dissemination phase of the Project?  It was not part of the remit of the demonstration and evaluation specifically to discover information of relevance to the training and dissemination function. However, a number of factors will affect the efficacy of any training programme in particular. o First, no common understanding of digital preservation can be assumed of the potential target audiences for training. Consequently, it is likely that self-paced learning materials will be most effective in presenting the SHAMAN framework. o Secondly, the aims of SHAMAN as a project must be conveyed clearly: specifically, that it is a kind of „proof-of-concept‟ project and is not intended to deliver a package of programs capable of being implemented by institutions. o Thirdly, it needs to be emphasised that the SHAMAN framework is not limited to text documents; it can be applied to materials of all kinds. However, the demonstrations relate to bodies of material that were actually available for use. o Fourthly, the existing presentation materials are capable of being adapted for use in training activities. o Finally, the target audiences will appreciate the possibility of online access to the demonstrator, which will need to have very great ease of access in order that people with diverse backgrounds are able to use it with equal facility. We believe that, overall, WP14 has met its aims and objectives in this demonstration and evaluation of ISP1. Valuable lessons have been learnt by all parties involved, which will be transferred to the evaluation of ISP2 in the coming months.
Representations and Recommendations Unless otherwise stated in writing, neither Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc, nor its brokers or licensees have made, on their own behalf, any representations or warranties, express or implied, with respect to any element of the Property including but not limited to, the legal sufficiency, legal effect, or tax consequences of this transaction. Any information furnished by either party should be independently verified before that party relies on such information. Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc. recommends that Buyer consult its attorneys and accountants before signing this Agreement regarding the terms and conditions herein and that Seller satisfy itself as to the financial ability of Buyer to perform.
Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:
Manufacturer's Recommendations All work or materials shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and requirements. The Contractor shall obtain the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements, for its use at the Site in executing the Work, copies of bulletins, circulars, catalogues, or other publications bearing the manufacturer’s titles, numbers, editions, dates, etc. If the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements are not available, the Contractor shall request installation instructions from the Design Professional.
PROMOTIONS AND VACANCIES 3.1 The Employer will determine when a position will be filled, the type of appointment to be used when filling the position, and the skills and abilities necessary to perform the duties of the specific position within a job classification that is being filled. Only those candidates who have the position-specific skills and abilities required to perform the duties of the vacant position will be referred for further consideration by the employing agency.
EMPLOYEE EVALUATIONS 3. Any matter for which there is recourse under State or Federal statutes.
Annual Evaluations The purpose of the annual evaluation is to assess and communicate the nature and extent of an employee's performance of assigned duties consistent with the criteria specified below in this Policy. Except for those employees who have received notice of non-reappointment pursuant to the BOT- UFF Policy on Non- reappointment, every employee shall be evaluated at least once annually. Personnel decisions shall take such annual evaluations into account, provided that such decisions need not be based solely on written faculty performance evaluations.
TEACHER EVALUATIONS A. Each teacher shall have the right, upon request, to review the contents of his/her personal file folder.
PROMOTIONS AND STAFF CHANGES 22.1 Job Postings
Timing of Evaluations Annual performance evaluations shall normally take place near the anniversary date of completion of original probation. However, as to employees who have been rehired as a restoration or after a reduction in force, the date of rehire shall be the anniversary date for the annual evaluation. The Human Resources Department will attempt to secure agency cooperation in conducting the evaluation process in reasonable relationship to the above schedule. Failure to conduct a timely annual rating shall not be grievable. Deadline for Evaluation Meetings: A meeting to discuss an evaluation shall be held within forty- five (45) days after the applicable anniversary date, or after the end of any prescriptive period for remediation (“PPR”) or warning period. This deadline may be extended to accommodate the employee’s illness or injury. Where the deadline is not satisfied, the employee shall be granted an annual overall presumptive rating equal to their last annual overall rating, but not less than a Satisfactory (“S”) rating. However, if the time for annual evaluation falls during a PPR or warning period (See Disciplinary Action 14, Section 1(e), 2 & 3, the annual evaluation shall be waived, and the last evaluation in such process shall be deemed to be the annual evaluation. In the event the time for annual evaluation falls subsequent to the issuance of a notice of performance deficiency (Step 1) but prior to the commencement of a PPR, the employer may issue an evaluation which does not supersede the previously issued notice. A special evaluation may be used at any time except it shall not be used as a late annual evaluation. Written feedback furnished to an employee which would have constituted the annual evaluation had it been timely conducted, shall not be considered as an evaluation, shall not be placed in the employee’s file at the time of issuance, shall not be grievable and does not require the presence of a union representative when issued. An oral or written notice of performance deficiency (Step 1 in the order of progressive corrective action) shall not be grievable when issued, and, when issued, shall not require the presence of a union representative. However, once Step 2 of progressive corrective action has been implemented (a special or annual evaluation coupled with a PPR) such notice or a written record of such notice shall be placed in the employee’s personnel file and shall be fully grievable.