David Perlman Award for Excellence in Science Journalism – News Award
1. Union wide criteria: Related to science and society, and talent pool goals.
2. Defining characteristics: Focused on excellence and impact and aligns with the Vision/Mission of the organization (not intended to be prescriptive)
- Lifetime achievement (not applicable to the Perlman Award)
- Significant body of work
- Contribution across the Union
Evaluation Process/Balloting Procedure:
1. All committee chairs should discuss with their members (either through email or conference call) prior to the review process the following:
- Criteria for the medal
- Recusal policy due to conflict of interest
- Deliberation process
2. Voting Procedure:
- Committee members will review all nomination packages, rank the candidates, and send list to committee chair. The committee chair will sum up the points for each candidate and share with the committee via e-mail.
- The committee chair will divide the top few nominees among the committee members by area of expertise. During the conference call, each of the committee members who were designated the discussion leader, present information as to why the candidate(s) should be chosen for the Medal.
- At the end of the discussion, a new ranking vote is taken either on conference call or via separate e-mail. The candidate with the most votes is selected. If a clear candidate is not decided, or if the points are close for first place, the committee will discuss either by e-mail or conference call the top candidates and make a decision.
3. Council Leadership Team approval:
- The role of the Council Leadership Team is to accept or reject the recommendation of the committee on the basis of its evaluation of the process and its knowledge of the candidates. Whereas the Council Leadership Team may not substitute for the choice, it can ask for further clarification or additional deliberation.
- The committee’s report to the Council Leadership Team must state the number of candidates considered, how many of these were holdovers and how many were new, and whether the new candidates were nominations from the general call or were actively encouraged by the committee. The report should also describe the process used for reaching the decision and the degree of unanimity on the decision.
- 15 March to 26 April:
Nomination packages are reviewed for completion and accuracy by the AGU Executive office. Within this timeframe, nominators are informed of additional requirements needed to complete the packages.
- 30 April to 28 June:
Once the reviews are completed, the nomination packages are uploaded to the Leadership Resource Center (LRC). Committees are sent reminders about LRC site access and instructions to begin the nomination review process. Committees may utilize the List-serve or E-mail for discussion, ranking, and selection of awardees. Teleconferences and Webex support are also provided to facilitate their committee work.
- 28 June:
Committees forward their final recommendations to the Council Leadership Team for approval.