Review Process Sample Clauses

Review Process. The Charter School review process will be guided by the following core

Review Process. The financing of the Scheme shall be reviewed in accordance with Schedule 16 (Review Process) and the Operator shall comply with its obligations thereunder throughout the Term.

Review Process. 7.5.1 All material received and considered in making recommendations regarding reappointment, promotion, or tenure, at any level becomes part of the candidate's dossier. All material added to a candidate's dossier after it has been submitted for review by the Academic Unit RPT Committee shall be copied to the candidate at the time said material is added. 7.5.2 The candidate, Academic Unit Head, ▇▇▇▇, or Appropriate Administrator may add to the dossier material bearing on the substance of a prospective decision until the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ renders his or her recommendation. 7.5.3 The candidate shall be permitted to review the dossier throughout the process. The candidate shall be provided with a copy of any material added to the dossier at the time the material is added to the dossier. He/she shall have fourteen (14) days following receipt of the copy to review and respond in writing to the material. Reviewer responses to the candidate’s response are not permitted. 7.5.4 All responses shall become part of the dossier. Any new material and any responses from the candidate shall be provided to all RPT committees and administrators who have participated in the review and made a recommendation. 7.5.5 Reviewers shall read and consider the recommendations of the preceding committees or appropriate administrators, but each review level shall make an independent determination based on the same RPT Criteria. Reviewers shall not otherwise consult on pending RPT cases with other levels of review, nor are levels of review permitted to file responses to other levels of review. 7.5.6 Reviewers are not permitted to serve on more than one level of review during the same review cycle, nor are they permitted to serve as a reviewer while also a candidate. Reviewers must recuse themselves from the consideration of a particular dossier or dossiers where a conflict of interest exists. Reviewers shall not meet, converse or otherwise communicate with a candidate during the pendency of his/her review process for purposes of discussing anything relevant to the review. 7.5.7 The recommendation from the Academic Unit RPT Committee shall be given serious consideration, and no committee or administrator shall make a different recommendation except for substantial reasons stated in writing. When a review committee, ▇▇▇▇, or administrator recommends contrary to the Academic Unit, the Academic Unit shall be notified of the reasons for the contrary recommendation within fourteen (14) days. 7.5.8 A cop...

Review Process. The Charter School review process will be guided by the following core 4.3questions, and by the purposes, and School Accountability Measures found in Exhibit “A”: • Is the School’s academic quality successful as represented publicly and as described herein? • Is the School’s organizational structure; governance and financial position viable and sustainable? • Have there been any material misrepresentations made to the Authorizer or the public?

Review Process. A. Within thirty (30) days of a disclosure of an invention, TTO shall notify the inventor whether his/her disclosure is incomplete, with notations of the additional information required, or shall refer the disclosure to the Patent Review Committee. B. Within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the complete disclosure from the inventor, TTO shall either (a) file a Provisional Patent application to protect the intellectual property for further evaluation; or (b) convene the Patent Review Committee, which shall make a recommendation about the invention to the Vice President for Research. C. If the Intellectual Property is protected via a Provisional Patent, before the one-year protection is over, TTO shall convene the Patent Review Committee, which shall make a recommendation about the invention to the Vice President for Research. Committee, the Vice President for Research shall notify the inventor of the disposition of the invention. D. Within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the recommendation from the Patent Review E. For inventions or discoveries that result from sponsored research agreements whereby the University has already secured a licensee, the inventor will not be required to fill out an invention disclosure form and the Patent Review Committee will not need to review the invention.

Review Process. A. Submit documents for review as required by the agreement. The A/E shall provide up to ten (10) sets of review documents for CDB and using agency for each review. CDB shall reimburse A/E for additional review sets. B. Following the reviews, the A/E shall respond to the PM in writing to all review comments and questions within 14 calendar days.

Review Process. The DDA will establish and implement a review process and use the evaluation standards and criteria in section D above for considering proposals and awarding DIP funds to proposed projects.

Review Process. The Operating Committee will meet and review all such Proposals within [*] after the end of Phase I or Phase II, but not to exceed [*] after the completion of Phase I development under this CDP. Proposals which by mutual agreement meet the criteria defined in Section 18.1.1 will be identified as “Valid Proposals.” (a) Valid Proposals shall be reviewed, discussed and decided upon as a whole by the Operating Committee within [*] after the end of Phase I, or of Phase II, but not to exceed [*] after the completion of Phase I development under this CDP. Determination by the Operating Committee and by the parties of whether a proposal constitutes a Valid Proposal will be made in good faith based on the technical and commercial feasibility of the proposal. An affirmative decision of the Operating Committee regarding specific Valid Proposals may result in an extension of the existing CDP, the creation of additional CDPs, or the agreement that a party may proceed independently of the alliance to develop the application; with new CDP Field definitions, development resource and timeline commitments, subscriptions for use of IM HPC Systems (if applicable), CDP fees, revenue sharing terms or royalties, and other terms to be agreed upon in writing by the parties. Disagreements of the Operating Committee regarding Valid Proposals may be submitted for escalation to the chief executive officers of the parties pursuant to the Agreement. If after escalation from the Operating Committee to senior management of the parties pursuant to the Agreement, the parties cannot in good faith agree on whether a specific proposal constitutes a Valid Proposal, either party may submit the determination of whether a proposal constitutes a Valid Proposal to arbitration as set forth in the Agreement. If the parties agree that a Valid Proposal has been presented, but do not agree on cooperating for that Valid Proposal and do not agree on royalty or revenue share terms for one party to proceed independently, then a determination of the revenue share or royalty amounts may be decided by an arbitrator as expressly set forth in the arbitration provision set forth in Section 21 below. (b) proposal that is not a Valid Proposal, once so identified, shall not be further considered in the Review Process for this CDP, and no default licenses will be granted and no default revenue sharing or royalty terms will apply for such Proposals.

Review Process. A. Before a member may be charged with insubordination or like offense for refusing to answer questions or participate in an investigation, the member shall be advised that such conduct, if continued, may be the basis for such a charge. B. If a member (who is the subject of an investigation) desires, the member shall be given a reasonable opportunity to consult with a Labor Council representative before being required to answer questions. During all questioning the member may, upon request, be accompanied by an available Labor Council representative. C. Before being required to answer questions or make written statements in an investigation, members shall be advised of their rights under this article. D. Prior to questioning, the University shall notify members if they are being questioned as a witness or if they are a subject of the investigation. E. If, during the interview of the member witness, the investigator has reason to believe the member witness has become the focus of the investigation or another investigation, the investigator shall notify the member witness of such belief. The Investigator shall inform the member of the member’s rights under this article. F. If, during the interview, the member witness has reason to believe that the member witness has become the focus of an investigation for which discipline or criminal charges may result, the member witness may invoke the member’s rights under this article. G. Any interrogation, questions, or interviewing of a member will be conducted at hours reasonably related to the member’s shift, preferably during, or immediately prior to or after the member’s working hours, unless the situation dictates otherwise. Interrogation sessions shall be for reasonable periods of time, and members shall be allowed during such questioning for rest periods and attendance to other physical necessities. H. When an anonymous complaint is made against a member, the Director of Central Campus Security Services or designee may investigate, and if there is no corroborative evidence, the complaint shall be classified as unfounded and no disciplinary action will be taken. No unfounded complaints shall be placed in a member’s personnel file. I. A member who has been under investigation shall be informed, in writing, of the outcome of the case at the conclusion of the investigation. J. The University shall attempt to complete investigations that do not involve the possibility of criminal charges within forty-five (45) days o...