Mutual Accountability Sample Clauses

Mutual Accountability. The G8 members, the Government of Nigeria, and the private sector intend to review their collective performance under this document through an annual review process to be conducted jointly. These participants intend, in particular, to review progress toward jointly determined objectives on the basis of jointly determined benchmarks in contributing to the fulfillment of Nigeria's Agricultural Transformation Agenda. Agreed upon objectives include: (1) progress towards achieving wealth creation target through job creation; (2) G8 member commitments to align their agricultural investments to the Government of Nigeria’s ATA; (3) Government of Nigeria's progress in implementing its policy commitments and consulting with private-sector investors; and (4) the investment commitments of private-sector investors. The review will also take account of the shared responsibilities related to the Voluntary Guidelines and the rai.

Mutual Accountability. The approach to mutual accountability affects the way that EPA and MPCA interact and is a change from EPA’s traditional approach to oversight. EPA and MPCA will agree on the appropriate level of EPA oversight of State program implementation. One primary

Mutual Accountability. [PSR, appendix 6 b (c)] Leaders agree that they will demonstrate mutual accountability by doing the following: a. Demonstrate open communication per Section 1, Part 2 of this agreement. b. File Quarterly Area Reports of their contacts with mothers to the ACL or her designee. c. File quarterly Group Treasurer’s Report to the ACL or her designee and the AFC or her designee. d. Communicate with the Area Database Administration Leader of any changes to her contact information, including but not limited to address, phone numbers and e-mail address. e. Uphold the LLLI Policies and Standing Rules. f. Uphold the Ethical Standards for Relationships among Leaders for La Leche League of Southern California/Southern Nevada (LLL So CA/NV). g. To nurture accountability and connections among Leaders:  Area Leaders will seek means of associating, making use of email, face-to-face meetings, Area Council meetings, Leader Days, Enrichment Workshops, and Area Conferences as time and resources allow.  Leaders are encouraged to share their La Leche League activities and stay in touch with each other via League Spirit, New & Notes and Area email lists.

Mutual Accountability. Mutual accountability means that at each level of decision-making there are stated goals for planning, clear criteria for evaluation, mutually accepted measures of performance and easy access to appeals and reconsideration. This approach emphasizes the importance of coordinating planning, recruiting, hiring, tenure, promotion, merit, assessment and program evaluation. It is accomplished by the following: (1) that departments and colleges/University library set forth the standards and criteria on which faculty are to be evaluated and reviewed; (2) that department personnel committees and college personnel committees will serve an important advisory role such that disagreements between committees and chairs and deans must be addressed; (3) that there will be a regular career support peer review of all continuing faculty to provide a positive and systematic procedure for faculty development in the context and implementation of the department plan. This review will take place every three years. This review will consist of the member and a group of peers from the department and may include faculty members from other departments in the University at the discretion of the faculty member and department; (4) that there will be regular evaluation of department chairs by faculty, at least every two (2) years and annually by the ▇▇▇▇; (5) that there will be regular evaluation of each ▇▇▇▇; biannual evaluation by department chairs in conjunction with Chief Academic Officer’s evaluation and evaluation by faculty at least every three (3) years; (6) that the method of assessing the department’s progress on its plan will be created by each department and included within that plan; and (7) that department plans and department assessment plans will be an integral part of the program review process.

Mutual Accountability. This study will extensively approach the first three, the international rule of law, multilateralism, and collective responsibility, but it will still refer to all basic principles of international relations regulated by the UN and recently by the Rome Statute system. Sharing knowledge to develop global values in the international society is the function of public international organiza- tions and this is common either to the United Nations and the Rome Statute institutions as multilateral tools of governance. The scope is the protection of human rights, the promotion of human security, combining political con- sensus to an appropriate lawmaking process for the implementation of more democratic international regimes of complementary character. An exten- sive literature review has been performed considering both policy and legal aspects in the field of international criminal justice, and the ways new crimes would be considered for future reviews of the Rome Statute. in order to pro- pose a consolidation model between the United Nations and the Court’s regimes, the UN missions from peacekeeping to peace building, especially in the African Great Lakes Region where the Court is involved since the begin- ning of its investigative and prosecutorial activities, have been extensively examined. The intent is to promote democratic standards of interactions only achievable throughout concrete institutional reforms, which would also allow the extension of a universal jurisdiction to other serious crimes of com- mon concern and wider design of an architecture governing international threats and crimes.

Mutual Accountability. The approach from direct oversight to mutual accountability and joint assessment is a shift from the traditional approach. Ohio EPA and USEPA R5 will jointly assess each program element and determine the appropriate course change, as needed. USEPA R5 will review and act on new regulations in program areas that impact Ohio’s authorization or where Federal statute or regulation requires USEPA review and approval of State actions (e.g., water quality standards).

Mutual Accountability. The approach from direct oversight to mutual accountability and joint assessment is a shift from the traditional approach. IDEM and USEPA R5 will jointly assess each program element and determine the appropriate course change, as needed. USEPA R5 will review and act on new regulations in program areas that impact Indiana’s authorization or where Federal statute or regulation requires USEPA review and approval of State actions (e.g., water quality standards).