Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Renaming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MMSD renaming committee launches accelerated review; 52 names cleared for batch scoring
Summary
The Madison Metropolitan School District renaming committee held an onboarding session and set an accelerated timeline to review 52 eligible name proposals (from 60 submissions). Committee leaders emphasized adherence to Policy 6700, conflicts disclosures, coded scoring, and a virtual public hearing before final Board action.
The Madison Metropolitan School District (MMSD) renaming committee met virtually on June 19 for orientation and to set an accelerated schedule to review proposals for school renamings. Chair Betsy Abramson said the panel will send up to four recommended names to the Board of Education, with the committee’s top choice marked for board consideration.
Chelsea Tubb, MMSD associate superintendent for educational programming, outlined the committee’s workflow and public-process safeguards, saying the group will follow the district’s Policy 6700 and complete review in batches. "All scores and debates must align strictly with our official board criteria," Tubb said, adding that the committee will work in batches (20, 20 and 12) so members can score consistently and discuss top contenders.
Tubb and the chair reported that 98 people submitted 60 name proposals, and staff screening reduced that list to 52 eligible entries: 17 geographic names, 21 deceased prominent figures, and 14 concepts or places. "We are bound by only those 52 names. No new names can be accepted," Abramson said, noting the public submission window has closed for the three tracks under review.
The committee discussed public-comment procedures for virtual hearings. Tubb said the district will accept written statements and preregistered live speakers for the public hearing; the panel will post recordings and materials on the renaming website within 48 hours of each session. She also said the committee would provide office hours and technical help for members unfamiliar with Google Docs and scoring tools.
To protect member privacy and comply with open-records rules, scoring will use numerical codes rather than member names, Tubb said. The group also reviewed required conflict disclosures and the process for recusal if a member has a personal, professional, or financial connection to a candidate name proposal.
Committee researcher Gail Martinson will assemble source materials—documents, news accounts and other primary sources—to support scoring and provide researcher notes where appropriate, Abramson said. Members asked for pronunciation support for proposed Indigenous names; Tiffany Thiede said Ho-Chunk elders provided a pronunciation guide and staff will coordinate next steps, pending legal review.
Next steps: the committee will finalize the rubric (still under legal review), practice scoring on two sample names at the next meeting, submit coded scores 48 hours before floor discussion, and hold a virtual public hearing at least 14 days prior to any final committee recommendation. No final renaming votes were taken at the session.
A procedural motion to adjourn was moved by Fred Gantz and seconded by Nan Youngerman; the chair declared the motion carried and the meeting recording stopped at 10:36 a.m.
