“I can be fair” addresses your intention. It does not establish whether you should take part in the decision. A conflict-of-interest case asks you to examine your position, the interests connected to it and the safeguards the process requires.
Begin with Acuity Insights’ official preparation resources. The provider does not endorse third-party preparation. This original exercise explores decision-making; it is not an official Casper question, scoring model or response to memorise.
The community-project panel
Original fictional scenario, including all organisational rules. You, Nia, Leon and Faye form a four-person volunteer panel awarding one community-project grant. Four finalists will be ranked against one another. Before opening the applications, you recognise Mina’s name. Mina is a close friend whom you see most weeks.
The organisation’s written policy says:
- A close personal friendship, household relationship or direct employment relationship with a finalist requires withdrawal from the entire comparative round, including scoring, discussion and voting.
- Members disclose relevant relationships privately to Ravi, an unconflicted coordinator outside the panel. Ravi checks the facts and records the required action. Uncertain connections are assessed rather than automatically disqualifying the member.
- At least three unconflicted panel members must participate: that is the quorum. A withdrawn member cannot count towards it. Ravi may appoint a screened, trained replacement or postpone the round, but cannot lower the quorum.
- Applications and deliberations stay within the authorised process. Ravi communicates decisions and timetable changes to applicants.
Nia says: “Tell us you know Mina, score everybody carefully, and skip the final vote. We need your help to finish tonight.”
What should change before the panel starts?
Name the conflict without inventing wrongdoing
For terminology, CIHR’s employee policy distinguishes an existing conflict between duties and private interests, a future conflict that could develop, and a reasonable appearance of improper influence. These definitions offer a comparison, not rules governing this volunteer panel or Casper. CIHR policy, Appendix A.
Apply those distinctions carefully:
Actual or real: the competing interests are present now. You have a current duty to assess finalists impartially and a close personal connection to one of them. This does not require proof that you have already altered a score.
Potential: the conflict could arise with a future decision. For example, your sibling plans to apply next term, when you expect to sit again. That calls for advance planning. “I am unsure whether I am biased” is not, by itself, what makes a conflict future-facing.
Apparent or perceived: someone informed of the relevant circumstances could reasonably question the independence of the decision. This can matter even without demonstrated favouritism. It is not equivalent to accepting every unsupported allegation.
These categories need not be mutually exclusive. Here, debating which label is most exact should not delay action: the fictional policy expressly covers close friendship. Neither Mina’s honesty nor the quality of her project removes your role conflict. Equally, your withdrawal does not establish that she has done anything wrong.
Why disclosure and abstention are insufficient here
Nia’s suggestion makes the connection visible, but leaves you scoring and discussing every finalist. You could influence the ranking before the vote. Scoring Mina’s competitors would still affect her relative position, which explains the policy’s whole-round restriction.
Nor should you deliberately score Mina harshly to prove independence. That would make the friendship affect the assessment in the opposite direction. The appropriate remedy is an independent process, not compensatory unfairness towards the applicant.
A useful real-world analogy is CIHR’s peer-review agreement: reviewers disclose conflicts to staff, who determine the conflict and required measures; conflicted reviewers cannot participate in the affected application’s review. That agreement governs CIHR peer review. Our fictional policy separately specifies the wider comparative-round restriction; it must not be attributed to CIHR as a universal requirement.
A worked response with a clear role limit
One defensible response is:
I would tell Ravi that Mina is a close friend and pause my involvement before accessing or discussing the applications. Under our policy, I must withdraw from the whole round, not just the vote. I would ask Ravi to record the recusal and confirm that the remaining three members are unconflicted. They can proceed if that check is satisfied. I would not lobby them, supply an informal assessment of Mina or ask her to withdraw so that I can remain on the panel.
The interim pause matters while Ravi confirms the facts. “I will disclose later” would allow the very participation that needs checking. Disclosure should contain enough information to assess the relationship; it need not become a public account of your private life.
Under these facts, four members minus one withdrawal leaves three. The quorum is met only if those three are unconflicted and participate. Your physical presence in the room would not make you an eligible fourth member.
This response also avoids unnecessary resignation from all volunteering. The policy excludes you from this comparative round. Any other role would need its own check for access and influence, but the case does not require abandoning unrelated work.
Change one fact: now only two members remain
Before discussion begins, Leon discloses that another finalist directly employs him. Ravi confirms this falls within the same withdrawal rule. Leon also steps out.
There are now two eligible members: Nia and Faye. They cannot decide under a rule requiring three. Asking you to sit silently, count towards quorum or cast a tie-breaking vote would not repair that deficit. Nor may the panel announce that two is “close enough” because the deadline is inconvenient.
Ravi can seek a screened, trained replacement who has enough time to review the material properly. If one can participate tonight, the panel can regain quorum. If not, Ravi must postpone and provide applicants with a realistic update. A name added to the attendance list without genuine participation is not a replacement reviewer.
There is a bounded research-ethics analogy: TCPS 2, Article 7.3 discusses withdrawal by research ethics board members with personal or financial conflicts, and a substitute when withdrawal threatens quorum. It supplies no three-person rule for community grants. That number belongs solely to our invented policy.
Postponement has costs: applicants may have planned around the announcement. Acknowledge those costs and give the next confirmed update time. Urgency explains why replacement arrangements matter; it does not create authority to change the rules.
Disclosure is not permission to share the discussion
Mina texts: “Did you step out because of me? What did they think of my proposal?”
You can explain your own role boundary without sharing applications, scores, deliberations or a result before its authorised release. For example: “Our policy means I cannot take part when a close friend applies. I am not involved in assessing this round. Ravi handles questions about the process and outcome.” Do not imply that recusal predicts rejection or acceptance.
CIHR’s peer-review agreement likewise restricts use of review information and directs applicant enquiries to CIHR. That is a specific confidentiality arrangement, not a promise that every organisation can guarantee absolute secrecy. Follow the actual information-sharing rules and any applicable disclosure requirements. CIHR agreement: confidentiality.
Transfer exercise: a photograph is not the whole relationship
In a different round, someone produces a photograph of Faye beside an applicant at a public workshop and demands her removal. The same fictional policy applies. Faye says they attended once, have no ongoing relationship and have never worked together. If Faye withdraws, only two members will remain.
Would you dismiss the concern, remove Faye immediately, or ask Ravi to assess it? Explain what additional information would change your decision.
Reasoned feedback. The photograph warrants context, not a conclusion about character. Ravi should establish the nature of the connection without turning the review into public gossip. A single shared workshop does not satisfy the stated mandatory-withdrawal categories. If the account is confirmed and no other relevant interest emerges, a documented decision to retain Faye is defensible.
A pause while checking credible new information is also defensible. If evidence establishes a close friendship or covered employment relationship, withdrawal and the quorum consequence follow. Keeping Faye merely to preserve quorum would reverse the reasoning: membership must satisfy the policy before it can supply the numbers.
For the separate question of selecting among eligible applicants, see procedural fairness and allocation. Here, the central issue is who may make that decision and what happens when an independent panel cannot yet be formed.
Sources and further reading
- Acuity Insights: How to Prepare for Casper — official practice and the provider’s position on third-party preparation.
- CIHR: Conflict of Interest Policy — employee-policy definitions, used as conceptual background.
- CIHR: Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Agreement for Peer Reviewers and Peer Review Observers — a policy-specific analogy for disclosure, participation limits and confidentiality.
- TCPS 2 (2022), Chapter 7: Conflicts of Interest — research ethics board withdrawal and substitute arrangements under Article 7.3.