S3 proposed the board adopt a consistent rubric to evaluate incoming artist and logo submissions to reduce ambiguity during judging. “May I suggest… that we make a scale that we would like to use for evaluating this project,” S3 said, urging a standard approach.

Board members recommended core criteria: artistic vision, suitability/reproducibility and connection or portrayal of Oviedo. Several members cautioned that the rubric should not change the advertised application requirements or create legal exposure; S7 said she would draft a concise rubric and circulate it for collaborative editing.

Members also discussed scoring methods — whether to use a three-level (high/mid/low) scale or a numeric 1–10 system — and how to describe what each score means to ensure consistent scoring across panelists. S6 noted the board already uses project criteria and application requirements and suggested consolidating language so evaluators have a clear checklist while still allowing room for artistic judgment.

The board did not vote on a final rubric but agreed to put a draft on the next meeting agenda; members emphasized sharing materials in advance so judging panels can evaluate submissions consistently and avoid mixing visual assessment with narrative interpretation during reviews.