Related Pages
Flinn Award Committee
2008–2010 term
Chair
Uri Shamir, Israel Institute of Technology and Environment, Technion City, Haifa, ISRAEL 32000
Members
Walter Gonzalez, National Institute of Space Research, Sao Jose Dos Campos, SP, BRAZIL
Dr. Sharon Kanfoush, Department of Geology, Utica College, Utica, NY
Carle Pieters, Department of Geological Science, Brown University, Providence, RI
Staff Liaisons
Laura Skoff
Danica Williams
Committee Charge
This Committee is charged with selecting the recipient of the Edward A. Flinn III Award; the final decision is subject to the approval of the Executive Committee. The Flinn Award recognizes an individual who personifies the Unions motto, “unselfish cooperation in research,” through his or her facilitating, coordinating, and implementing activities. It is for the unsung heroes who provide the ideas, motivation, and labors of love that build and maintain the structure without which our science could not flourish. The Flinn Award is given not more often than annually.
In evaluating individuals, the Committee should remember that not only does the award bring honor to the recipient but the choice of the recipients also defines the nature and the stature of the award and of AGU itself. All candidates whose scientific contributions have achieved this level of distinction should be given equal consideration. The Committee is asked to be especially mindful of the diversity of the community of individuals encompassed by AGU.
Any AGU member may propose a candidate for the Flinn Award. Members of the Committee should not, however, depend solely on unsolicited nominations but should be proactive by encouraging nominations through their own contacts. Of course, members of the Committee are ineligible for consideration for the award during their terms and must not participate in discussions or deliberations where they have a conflict of interest. Similarly, members of the Executive Committee are ineligible during their terms. If at least three nominations of viable candidates are not available, the Committee is not expected to recommend a recipient.
As part of their recommendation to the Executive Committee, the Committee must state the number of candidates they 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 Committee is also expected to define the process used for reaching the decision. The role of the Executive Committee 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 Executive Committee may not substitute for the choice, it can ask for further clarification or additional deliberation.
All deliberations and recommendations of all award committees must remain strictly confidential. Within this framework of confidentiality, the chair may provide feedback to nominators on possible future eligibility and on how nomination packages could be improved.
–July 2008