Laserfiche WebLink
47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />51 <br />52 <br />53 <br />54 <br />55 <br />56 <br />57 <br />58 <br />59 <br />60 <br />61 <br />62 <br />63 <br />64 <br />65 <br />66 <br />67 <br />68 <br />69 <br />Human Rights Commission Minutes <br />February 20, 2013 — Draft Minutes <br />Page 2 of 8 <br />Youth Commissioner Dao was in favor of selecting winning essays based on several different <br />topics and not just going by those that had the highest amount of points. <br />Commissioner Thao questioned how many winners were chosen in 2012. Ms. Curti explained <br />the HRC selected three winners and three honorable mentions. She reported first place was <br />awarded $100, second place received $50 and third place was given $30. The honorable mention <br />award winners each received $15. <br />Vice-Chair Brisbois suggested the members discuss which essay should be awarded first place. <br />Commissioner Singleton was in favor of accepting the essay scores as submitted. <br />Commissioner poneen commented the drawback with going by the numbers was that the essay <br />topics would be the same and the winners would not cover the broad spectrum submitted. <br />Commissioner Thao thought it was important to review the schools each essay was submitted <br />from as well to assure there was a fair representation. Ms. Curti explained the top six essays did <br />represent both schools; one essay from one school and the remaining five from the other. <br />Commissioner Singleton moved and Commissioner Groff seconded a motion to approve the <br />essay winners based on the scoring submitted. <br />7o Commissioner Thao was in favor of having the winners be spread out based on topic and <br />71 schools. If the HRC were to proceed based on the current scores, the top three winners would <br />72 represent only one school. She commented this would provide balance and fairness. <br />73 <br />74 <br />75 <br />76 <br />77 <br />78 <br />79 <br />80 <br />81 <br />82 <br />83 <br />84 <br />85 <br />86 <br />g7 <br />88 <br />89 <br />90 <br />Commissioner Groff reiterated that this was an essay contest and his scores were based on use of <br />language. <br />Commissioner Singleton stated the scoring system could be amended for next year if the HRC <br />was in favor of creating additional factors for the scoring system. <br />Commissioner Groff agreed with this suggestion stating next year the essays could be divided by <br />school to assure there was a fair representation of both schools, and the essay topics could also <br />be further considered when the winners were selected. <br />Commissioner poneen recommended that the diversity of topics and fair representation of each <br />school be considered with this year's winners. <br />Commissioner Singleton commented this was not discussed prior to the scoring of the essays. <br />While he agreed these were legitimate concerns, he did not want to reevaluate the essays at this <br />time and suggested again, that the new ranking system be used next year. <br />2 <br />