Are there any considerations and criteria to apply to those local sections? Last year when I reviewed them I was surprised that I had to propose the winner--I wasn't ready for that. I admit to not having started yet, but last year it seemed that a few fell out of the running, but there were more than 3 that were super and I didn't have a method to distinguish them. Can we agree on some criteria or guidelines to be fair all around, to pick out the very, very best from among the very best?
Also, I note in my assignments that all are in the same medium large size category but one. I assume that all the medium large ones are in the running for outstanding local section of that size, but what about medium sized about St.Joseph Valley? Is it up for Outstanding Local Section, too? How will that work for the ChemLuminary?
Carol and others,
Yes, Carol, all of your sections are up for Outstanding in their category. As for St. Jo, it is a Medium. Mitchell has all Mediums, so perhaps you two should work together. The great thing about that is you both have all the files for comparing.
We have tried (the office mainly) to distribute them so that when reviewing we had the same size as much as possible. Since each of us has about 9-10 sections to review, sometimes we had to spread out with there being 6 categories and 5 of us. Tom has 5 VL and 3 S, so quite a variation in what they will have accomplished. There were more self-nominations for these awards than previously which adds to the work load. The rest of LSAC have 6 each, but likely more questions about what they are actually doing.
For Res and Tom, relating to Carol's comment about what to be ready for, in our conference call, we present the size groups we have with a recommendation for 1,2 and 3. I can't say that I know of anyone who has come up with a pneumonic, or that they told others about. There will be different strengths and programs. The good news is that we discuss the why of the recommendations before all voting. I have always felt I was weighing apples and oranges, but it does work out. I always paid attention to election participation, number of meetings and turnout (and how they counted), variation in meeting types and locations, how many are involved in running the section as well as how many other volunteers there were, grants, etc. It is hard to escape quality of writing as well.
Ties are more acceptable for Honorable Mention (i.e. 2 and 3, which are not distinguished in presentation), though there have been ties for first.
For the record,
Tom has 5 VL and 3 S plus two problems from LSAD
Mitchell has 10 M
Carol has 9 ML and 1 M
Res has 10 MS
Lee has 7 L and two problems/other
I have to say it worries me that there are only 3 Small sections self-nominating. This is an area for us to try to understand, possibly by more sharing of what an outstanding section program looks like at that scale.
I hope this helps. Please continue the discussion with what you see.
Thanks Lee. You clarified the assignments. I will be in touch with Mitchell nearer to our conference call time. We haven't decided on that day and time yet, have we?