Template
Award Conflict of Interest Policy Template
Use this award conflict of interest policy template to define reviewer disclosures, recusals, replacement reviews, staff notes, and committee handling.
A conflict policy protects trust before scores exist
Award conflicts are easier to handle when the rule is written before reviewers see submissions. If staff wait until a familiar nominee appears near the top of the rankings, every decision feels more personal and harder to explain.
A practical conflict of interest policy tells reviewers what to disclose, when to recuse themselves, how replacement reviews are assigned, and how staff will document exceptions. It should sit next to the reviewer workflow and judging rubric, not in a separate policy file nobody reads.
This template is designed for chambers, nonprofits, and community award programs with volunteer judges. It is not legal advice. Treat it as an operational starting point and have counsel review it if your awards carry legal, financial, employment, grant, or procurement consequences.
Sample conflict categories
The policy should name the relationships reviewers must disclose so staff are not deciding from vague impressions later.
| Conflict type | Examples | Typical handling |
|---|---|---|
| Employment or ownership | Reviewer works for, owns, advises, or recently worked for the nominee. | Reviewer should not score the entry and staff should assign a replacement review. |
| Family or close personal relationship | Reviewer has an immediate family, household, or close personal relationship with the nominee. | Reviewer should recuse from scoring and finalist discussion for that entry. |
| Board, committee, or volunteer role | Reviewer serves on the nominee's board, advisory group, campaign, or active committee. | Staff should decide whether disclosure is enough or recusal is required, based on influence and award stakes. |
| Vendor, client, or financial relationship | Reviewer sells to, buys from, sponsors, or has a meaningful financial relationship with the nominee. | Reviewer should disclose the relationship before scoring; staff may recuse or note it depending on materiality. |
| Public advocacy or opposition | Reviewer has publicly campaigned for or against the nominee or award outcome. | Reviewer should be removed from scoring that entry to protect confidence in the process. |
Policy language you can adapt
Reviewers must disclose any relationship, interest, or circumstance that could reasonably affect their independence when reviewing an award submission. A disclosure does not automatically disqualify a reviewer, but it gives staff the information needed to decide whether the reviewer may score the entry, should be reassigned, or should be excluded from finalist discussion.
Reviewers should not score a submission when they have a direct employment, ownership, family, close personal, or substantial financial relationship with the nominee. Reviewers should also disclose board service, vendor relationships, sponsorship ties, recent employment, active partnerships, or strong public advocacy involving the nominee.
When a conflict is disclosed, staff will record the disclosure, decide whether recusal or disclosure-only handling applies, and assign a replacement review when needed to preserve the program's minimum review count. Finalist and winner decisions should not rely on scores from reviewers who were recused from that entry.
Build the conflict workflow in order
- 1
Write the disclosure rule before reviewer invitations
Include the conflict policy in the reviewer brief so judges understand the standard before they open the first submission.
- 2
Ask for entry-level disclosures
Let reviewers disclose a conflict on a specific nominee instead of forcing one broad yes or no answer for the entire program.
- 3
Separate recusal from notes
Use one status for entries the reviewer should not score and a separate staff note for relationships that are disclosed but not disqualifying.
- 4
Replace reviews consistently
If the program requires three completed reviews per entry, assign a replacement reviewer whenever recusal drops an entry below that minimum.
- 5
Check conflicts before finalist approval
Review conflict notes, recused assignments, and replacement reviews before the committee confirms finalists or winners.
- 6
Keep a short decision record
Document who was recused, whether a replacement review was assigned, and why any disclosed relationship was allowed to remain in the record.
Reviewer disclosure form fields
Use lightweight fields so reviewers can report a concern quickly without turning disclosure into a separate paperwork project.
- Reviewer name and assigned submission.
- Relationship type, such as employment, family, board service, vendor, client, sponsor, or other.
- Short description of the relationship.
- Reviewer recommendation: can score, should not score, or unsure.
- Staff decision: disclosure noted, recused, replacement assigned, or additional review needed.
- Date of decision and staff owner.
- Optional note for finalist committee packet when the relationship affects interpretation of scores.
Common policy decisions to make before launch
Minimum review count
Decide how many completed, non-recused reviews each submission needs before it can be used in finalist selection.
Disclosure-only threshold
Define when a relationship can stay in the record as a note rather than requiring recusal, especially for broad chamber networks.
Committee participation
State whether a conflicted reviewer or board member must leave finalist discussion for that entry, abstain from voting, or both.
Late conflict handling
Plan what staff will do if a conflict is discovered after scoring, after finalist selection, or close to the event date.
Award conflict of interest questions
Does every disclosed relationship require recusal?
No. In chamber and community awards, reviewers may know many nominees. The policy should distinguish unavoidable professional familiarity from direct employment, family, close personal, or substantial financial relationships that would undermine confidence in the score.
Should conflicted reviewers see the submission?
Usually not once a recusal is identified. If the reviewer has already opened or scored the entry, staff should document that timing and decide whether to exclude the score and assign a replacement review.
What if a committee member has a conflict with a finalist?
Have the member disclose the conflict before discussion, then follow the written rule for abstention or leaving the room. Record the handling in the finalist decision notes so the process can be reconstructed later.
How should conflicts appear in finalist materials?
Include enough context for the committee to understand score counts and recusals, but avoid sharing unnecessary personal details. A short note such as one reviewer recused and replacement assigned is often enough.
Next step
Put this process into a working awards workspace.
ChamberPages Awards Manager connects public forms, categories, reviewer assignments, scoring, reminders, finalist review, and committee packets so the process stays organized from intake to decision.