Fairness and Transparency Clause Samples

Fairness and Transparency. 1.3.1 The Parties to this agreement explain the general nature of their data sharing arrangements in a number of ways – leaflets, posters, forms, and through their respective websites – and will continue to do so (and indeed, will continually develop and improve their approach to publicising these arrangements). The minimum content of such explanations is described later in this Protocol. The websites of the respective Parties also include more detailed information for those who wish to find out more. The Parties also have systems in place for dealing with inquiries, including inquiries about these arrangements, and are committed to being as open and transparent as possible about what information is exchanged and why. More detail on this can be found in section 3 below.

Fairness and Transparency. 3.1 It is a basic requirement of data protection law that individuals should be told (or easily be able to find out) who is holding information relating to them, what that organisation will do with that information, and who they will pass it on to. In terms of this Protocol, both Parties are “data controllers” of the personal information which they hold, including information which they have received from each other. For joint/integrated team settings, such as those within the Community Health and Care Partnerships, both Parties are jointly data controllers of information held in the joint team or integrated CHCP. This position should be made clear to any service user who approaches either Party and whose information may be shared under this Protocol. 3.2 The position regarding the identity of the data controller and the arrangements for sharing information between the Parties will be publicised by both Parties in a range of ways: through leaflets, poster, wording added to forms, and on the websites of the Parties. The minimum content of such a fair processing notice is described in Appendix 2. The Parties will, through ongoing contact with service users and engagement with them, continue to raise awareness of the content of the fair processing notice. 3.3 The content described in Appendix 2 is regarded as the minimum required to comply with the general legal obligation to provide a fair processing notice. It is recognised that some service users and others will be interested in receiving much more information than this basic minimum. The Parties agree to respect such wishes by developing more detailed supplemental fair processing information to be provided to interested persons on request and published on their respective websites. 3.4 The Parties further recognise that even such a layered approach to the fair processing notice requirements may not satisfy everyone and that there will still be some people with unanswered questions. Both Parties have in place existing (separate) mechanisms for such inquiries from members of the public and any such request will be dealt with through these existing procedures (and see also section 8 below) 3.5 As described in section 2 above, most information will be exchanged on the basis of the express consent of the individual concerned. Such consent requires to be informed consent, and so will only be valid if the individual has been given an appropriate fair processing notice prior to consenting to what is described. Ho...

Fairness and Transparency. The Code of Practice is a sign of commitment and a demonstration to the public about how information is used. When at all possible the patient will be informed at first contact of the purpose of collecting information and how it will be stored, used and shared. Consent to share should also be gained at the first suitable opportunity. The partnership organisations will: • Ensure service users permission is sought or that they are aware that information is being shared between LCC and ELHT. • Explain why they are using the patient’s/service user information, and will only use it for those purposes. • Explain who will see it and limit access to the patient’s/service user information only to persons who need it. • Collect minimum personal and sensitive information to meet the identified needs of the patient and not ask for information which is not relevant. • Record and share patient’s/service user needs with partner organisations as appropriate. • Keep information about the patients as accurate and up-to-date as possible – with the patient’s help. • Respect patient’s/service user rights under the Data Protection ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ – including the patient’s/service user right to see the information which has been recorded about them. • Protect patient’s/service user information with the highest standards of security and confidentiality. • Tell patients how they can get more information, including: • How they safeguard their personal information; • How patients can check and correct any information they hold; • How to raise a query or a complaint. • Only keep the information for as long as needed or as required by statute. • There may be occasions when information is shared without consent. In these cases the Data Protection ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ will apply.

Fairness and Transparency. A basic requirement of Data Protection Law is that individuals should be told who is holding their information, what the Controller intends to do with the information and who else they may share it with. For the purposes of this agreement both Participants are Controllers of the Personal Data they hold, including Data that they receive from each other. Each Participant must ensure that they have appropriate policies and procedures in place to facilitate both the protection and the exercising of rights of individuals under UK data protection legislation. Each Participant will comply with the rights of the individuals in a fair and consistent manner and in accordance with any specific legislative requirements, regulations or guidance.

Fairness and Transparency. 6.1. Both parties will provide appropriate privacy notices to data subjects, in accordance with the requirements of the GDPR and all relevant good practice guidance issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office. Specifically, The Licensing Authority will inform data subjects that Licensing Authorities are required by Law to share the Data with Defra so that Defra can create a database to support the operation of charging clean air zones by local authorities or other air quality plans.

Fairness and Transparency. A basic requirement of Data Protection Law is that individuals should be told who is holding their information, what the Controller intends to do with the information and who else they may share it with. For the purposes of this agreement both Parties are Controllers of the Personal Data they hold, including Personal Data that they receive from each other. Each Party must ensure that they have appropriate policies and procedures in place to facilitate both the protection and the exercising of rights of individuals under Data Protection Law. Each Party will comply with the rights of the individuals in a fair and consistent manner and in accordance with any specific legislative requirements, regulations or guidance. Privacy Notices The terms of this Agreement will be reflected in PBS and SPS Privacy Notices and further information will be made available on the PBS website.

Fairness and Transparency. For the purposes of this agreement both Parties are controllers of the data they hold, including personal data they receive from each other. Each Party must ensure that they have appropriate policies and procedures in place to facilitate both the protection and exercising of the rights of individuals under data protection legislation.

Fairness and Transparency. 3.1 It is a basic requirement of data protection law that individuals should be told who is holding information relating to them, what that organisation will do with that information, and who they will pass it on to. In terms of this Protocol, all Parties are “data controllers” of the personal information which they hold (see paragraph 1.1.1 regarding this), including information which they have received from each other. For joint/integrated team settings, such as those within the Health and Social Care Partnerships, the Board and the Relevant Local Authority are jointly data controllers of information held in the joint team or integrated CHCP. This position should be made clear to any service user who approaches either Party and whose information may be shared under this Protocol. 3.2 The position regarding the identity of the data controller and the arrangements for sharing information between the Parties will be publicised by both Parties in a range of ways: through leaflets, poster, wording added to forms, and on the websites of the Parties. The minimum content of such a privacy notice is described in Appendix

Fairness and Transparency. The specified percentages provide a clear and equitable structure for compensating the Contractor and Subcontractors for additional work. This transparency can help reduce disputes and negotiations over the appropriate compensation for changes. Risk Allocation: The caps effectively transfer some of the risk of cost overruns from the Owner to the Contractor and Subcontractors. This encourages efficient project management and careful estimation of change-related costs. FEMA Compliance: Given that FEMA funding may be involved in this project, the capped mark-ups align with federal requirements for reasonable costs. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and FEMA guidelines generally require that costs be reasonable and not exceed what a prudent person would incur under similar circumstances. The specific percentages chosen in this Agreement are consistent with industry standards and legal precedents. For example, in the case of Cajun Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 2007 WL 5177223 (Fed. Cl. 2007), the court found that a 10% mark-up for overhead and profit was reasonable and customary in the construction industry. The differentiation between general conditions, insurance, and overhead (10%) versus profit (5%) for both the Contractor and Subcontractors reflects a recognition of the actual costs associated with managing changes, as opposed to pure profit. This breakdown can help justify the reasonableness of the mark-ups if challenged. The 5% cap on the Contractor's mark-up for Subcontractor work is particularly noteworthy. This provision limits the potential for "pass-through" mark-ups that could otherwise compound costs for the Owner. It also incentivizes the Contractor to manage Subcontractors efficiently and negotiate favorable terms for change-related work. From a legal perspective, these capped percentages are enforceable under New York contract law, which governs this Agreement. New York courts generally uphold clear and unambiguous contract terms, including those related to pricing and compensation, as long as they are not unconscionable or against public policy (see 159 MP Corp. v. Redbridge Bedford, LLC, 33 N.Y.3d 353 (2019)). The inclusion of these caps aligns with the principle of freedom of contract while also reflecting the Owner's superior bargaining position in setting terms favorable to cost control. This is particularly relevant in the context of a large institutional project like the NYU Langone Medical Center restoration. It's importan...