The Scholarship Vote
A five-member youth development committee in Koforidua has GHS 12,000 to fund one full scholarship for a two-year nursing course. Three applicants are shortlisted. Ama, 18, is a market vendor's daughter with the best entrance score; her form arrived on time but the school clerk misplaced it, and the published deadline has passed. Kwame, 17, has good grades and a father who teaches at a private school; the family income is just above the official cutoff, but they face large medical bills after his sister's surgery. Efua, 18, has average grades and is the niece of the committee treasurer, who has not declared the relationship; her file contains a receipt for a GHS 300 'workshop fee' that the principal says the school never charged. The committee's written rules say awards must go to the 'most needy qualified applicant', late applications are rejected unless the lateness was the school's fault, and all documents must be verified. The treasurer insists Efua's receipt is a clerical error and asks for a vote before outside checks are made.
1. Set out the facts that are relevant to a fair decision, distinguishing needs, merit and procedural fairness. Explain how the treasurer's conflict of interest should be handled.
Read the worked answer
Relevant facts, sorted
- Need: Ama's family has low income; Kwame's family is above the income cutoff but has exceptional medical costs; Efua's need is not established.
- Merit: Ama has the strongest entrance score; Kwame is qualified; Efua is average.
- Procedure: Ama's lateness was caused by the school clerk, so the written exception applies if verified. Efua's receipt is disputed and must be verified before any vote. The treasurer's undeclared relationship is a conflict of interest.
Conflict handling. The treasurer should declare the relationship in writing and step out of all discussion and voting on Efua. If he refuses, the chair should record the refusal and exclude him. An independent person, such as the principal or a committee member with no link to any applicant, should verify documents. Each applicant should be told the specific concern and allowed to respond; a vote taken before verification would be procedurally unfair.
Decision rule. The rule says 'most needy qualified applicant', not 'poorest applicant regardless of merit'. On the verified facts, Ama is the strongest candidate because she is qualified, has high need, and her lateness was not her fault. Kwame is a credible second if Ama were ineligible. Efua should not be ranked until the receipt is resolved. The committee should minute the reasons.
2. Recommend a decision and explain how you would communicate it to the unsuccessful applicants without violating confidentiality or fairness.
Read the worked answer
Recommendation and communication
Award to Ama only after the clerk confirms in writing that the form was received on time and misplaced. Record that the deadline exception was applied under the school-error rule, not as favouritism. Tell Kwame in person and in writing that he was qualified but ranked second on the published criteria, and explain that exceptional medical costs were considered but did not outweigh Ama's combination of need and merit. Do not disclose Ama's family details. Offer Kwame information about the next round and other bursaries.
For Efua, avoid public accusation. Send a confidential letter saying her application is on hold because a document must be verified, invite her to provide an explanation, and keep her uncle out of the process. If the receipt is fraudulent, follow the disciplinary policy proportionately; if it is a clerical error, correct the record. Publish only the outcome and criteria, not applicants' personal data.
Why this is fair. It respects the written rules, avoids nepotism, protects privacy, and gives every candidate a hearing. The committee should also amend the rules so that conflicts of interest must be declared at the start of every round.