In order to preserve the integrity, fairness, and transparency of the Canadian Mathematical Society’s awards and prizes process, these instructions set out expectations for members of all CMS Awards and Prizes Committees. These instructions are to be interpreted in the spirit of promoting public confidence in the impartiality of CMS adjudication processes.
These instructions are to be read in conjunction with the CMS Conflict of Interest Policy (2011), which provides overarching guidance on managing real, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest across all CMS operations.
Instructions
A. Recusal Due to Nomination
- A committee member who nominates or provides a supporting letter for one or more individuals for any prize under their committee’s purview must recuse themselves from all deliberations, evaluations, and decisions related to that prize during the current award cycle.
B. Committee Members Cannot be Nominees
- A committee member may not simultaneously serve on the committee and be a nominee for a prize. If nominated, they must formally resign from the committee before the CMS office can deem the nomination to be accepted.
C. Redirected or Renewed Nominations
- If a nomination is redirected to a different prize, or carried forward for future consideration, the conflict-of-interest provisions remain in effect as long as the nomination remains active within any prize process overseen by the committee.
D. Use of Privileged Information
- Committee members are prohibited from sharing or acting upon privileged information obtained through their committee role in any context outside of official committee duties, including but not limited to the number of nominations received, the identity of nominees, or the strength of any nomination package.
- Once a committee member becomes aware of privileged information regarding nominations in a given award cycle through their committee role, they are ineligible to submit, facilitate, or support nominations, and they may not themselves be nominated in that same cycle.
- Prior knowledge of nominations carried forward from previous years does not in itself create a conflict of interest or bar eligibility for nomination, provided that the committee member does not have access to confidential information regarding new nominations or the composition of the current year’s nomination pool.
E. Reasonable Apprehension of Bias
- A conflict of interest exists not only in actual conflicts but also where there is a reasonable apprehension of bias. Members should recuse themselves in situations where their objectivity may reasonably be called into question, even if they do not personally perceive a conflict.
F. Relationships Requiring Caution
- Committee members should recuse themselves from evaluating or discussing nominations where they have or have recently had a close personal, professional, or institutional relationship with a nominee that could give rise to an actual or perceived conflict of interest. Such relationships may include, but are not limited to:
- Collaborators or co-authors on scholarly work (especially recent or ongoing),
- Supervisory or mentoring relationships (e.g., thesis advisor/student),
- Employment at the same institution,
- Familial, romantic, or adversarial relationships.
Time considerations may help assess the relevance of a relationship. For example, collaborations that ended more than five years ago may not necessarily give rise to a conflict, depending on circumstances.
G. Disclosure and Consultation
- In cases of uncertainty, members should err on the side of caution by disclosing the relationship or concern to the committee Chair. The Chair, in consultation with the Executive Director (or, if the Chair is in conflict, the Executive Director acting in their place), will determine whether recusal or other action is appropriate.
- If a member believes a potential conflict has not been adequately addressed, they may raise the matter directly with the Executive Director for further consideration