Citizens naming committee reviews rubric, research supports and sets July 13 deadline for Lindberg renaming scores

The Madison Metropolitan School District citizens naming committee for Lindberg Elementary spent the meeting learning the scoring rubric and logistics staff will use to turn community nominations into four finalists.

Chair Betsy Abramson opened the session by confirming the meeting was being recorded and that Chelsea, a district staffer, will post the audio and materials to the district’s renaming page within 48 hours. Chelsea walked members through the digital evaluation form that mirrors a two‑section rubric: section one evaluates basic requirements and popular recognition; section two assesses the proposed name’s connection to Madison schools and its educational value. Each section uses a four‑point scale (1–4) and reviewers must enter a short rationale for each score.

Gail, the committee’s researcher, described the background materials she compiled: a mix of primary‑source items, newspaper archives and selected trustworthy online references. She stressed that some nominations have robust documentation while others do not, and invited members to flag proposals that need additional research. Chelsea said flagged items would be scheduled for follow‑up and that the spreadsheet includes links to both nominators’ submissions and Gail’s research when available.

Committee members raised three recurring concerns. First, several members said documentation varies widely between nominations and worried that nominations with longer supporting packets could gain an unfair advantage; Chelsea and Gail said reviewers should rely on the rubric and use the form’s “flag for more research” option where needed. Second, members asked how to treat proposals submitted in Ho‑Chunk language or other Indigenous terms: the committee agreed that cultural names should be judged on the rubric’s criteria (recognition and educational value) and that reviewers should be mindful of implicit bias when evaluating unfamiliar terms. Third, the committee noted duplicate nominations and the possibility that the same proposed name could surface for more than one school; Chelsea said she would consult legal and district leadership about rules for duplicate top‑ranked names.

Chelsea demonstrated the Google form’s workflow, including how scores will be coded to protect reviewer privacy under open‑records procedures (respondents will be replaced with numeric codes). She walked the group through two practice entries to model how to enter scores, write a rationale and select the optional flag boxes for further research or discussion.

Logistics and deadlines were set before adjournment: committee members may request printed packets (pickup at Doyle or mailed) or use the online materials; staff will accept scores in batches but the committee agreed to a firm latest deadline of July 13 at 9:00 a.m. so staff can prepare the public‑hearing materials and the district can proceed toward the board’s scheduled vote. The meeting closed with a motion to adjourn at 11:03 a.m.

What’s next: members are to score the assigned batch of proposals using the Google form, flag any entries needing more research or discussion, and expect a public hearing to collect community comment on finalists before the committee finalizes its recommendations.