Awards Committee

Chair: Paul Freeman

Vice-Chair:

Members:

T Baker, N Pielemeier, S McDonnell, A Edwards. P. Bolton, M. Bentley, B. Burkhalter, P.Millard, T. Lippeveld, L.Snider, M.Carnell, D.Sack, R.Davis, G.Berggren, R.Schneider, E.Coates, M. Labbok,  J.McAuliffe, S.Morrison, D.Oot, L. Smith

K. Tulenko, B.Verma, B. Jere

Objectives
 

This year our objective is to make the work of our committee more systematic, representative and transparent.

To do this we plan to develop systematic processes for:

1.      soliciting nominations for awards

2.      voting on nominations for awards

3.      finalizing and announcing of award recipients.

The awards solicitation will be sent out once a month from February to April via the section list server and website, and details of those nominated be sent out by the end of April and votes be sought a second time by mid May only. Barring special circumstances, recipients of all awards –except student awards- should then be able to be announced by the mid-year meeting of the Section.

To improve transparency, while preserving confidentiality, all members of the award committee will be asked to email in a vote. Members of the committee have several choices re voting:

1. to decide that none of the candidates are suitable and so the award should not awarded;
2. to decide that the award should be awarded to a particular nominee;
3. to decide that the award should be awarded but they do not have a particular preference amongst those being nominated.

It happens that members of the committee – presumably deciding to vote (3) - do not communicate this preference at all and so we cannot distinguish them from those who do not vote. No (3) if of course a valid decision to make but we need to know this. In this way we can determine more accurately the number of committee members who actually voted in relation to a particular award. With this information we can then decide if it is necessary to increase the number of people on the committee so that at least a reasonable majority of members (15) vote at all on any award given. At all times votes of individual members will be kept confidential.

Special awards and proposals for new awards will be considered by all members of the award committee-as in the past- but through a more systematized process such that written proposals need to be submitted and these in turn will be considered by all members of the committee over a limited time period consistent with that outlined above.

to decide that the award should be awarded but they do not have a particular preference amongst those being nominated.

It happens that members of the committee – presumably deciding to vote (3) - do not communicate this preference at all and so we cannot distinguish them from those who do not vote. No (3) if of course a valid decision to make but we need to know this. In this way we can determine more accurately the number of committee members who actually voted in relation to a particular award. With this information we can then decide if it is necessary to increase the number of people on the committee so that at least a reasonable majority of members (15) vote at all on any award given. At all times votes of individual members will be kept confidential.