2018 ABA GAVEL AWARDS
SCREENING REVIEW GROUP ASSIGNMENTS
Small Group #1 –
1 Books #1 (13)
Sharon Stern Gerstman* (E)
Steve Landsman (E)
Ben Sissman (E)
Small Group #2 –
1 Books #2 (12)
Joseph Baca (M)
Marla Greenstein* (A)
Herman Palarz (P)
Small Group #3 –
1 Books #3 (12)
Sandra Rothenberg (M)
Stuart Shiffman* (C)
Carolyn Ahrens Wieland (C)
Small Group #4 –
1 Books #4 (12)
Scott Gant (E)
Linda Monk* (E)
John Ratnaswamy (C)
Small Group #5 –
1 Books #5 (12)
Morey Myers (E)
Kathy Swedlow (E)
Leah Wiederspahn* (E)
Small Group #6 –
1 Books #6 (12)
Kathy Carrick* (E)
Aubrey Ford (C)
Bob Ostertag (E)
Small Group #7 –
3 Newspapers #1 (15)
Eric Fish (E)
Patti Garcia* (C)
Ann Kisting (C)
Small Group #8 –
3 Newspapers #2 (15)
Mary Phelan D’Isa* (E)
Philip Jones (C)
Gary Slaiman (E)
Small Group #9 –
4 Commentary (3); 5 Drama & Literature (5)
Pamila Brown (E)
Melanie Bragg* (C)
Suzanne Spaulding (E)
Mary Pat Treuthart (P)
Small Group #10 –
8 Radio (15)
Christine Corcos (C)
Gail Leftwich Kitch* (E)
Jason Kohlmeyer (C)
Jim Manning (E)
Steve Schwinn (C)
Small Group #11 –
6 Documentaries (14)
Cory Amron (E)
Geralyn Fallon (C)
Brooks Holland (P)
David Hundley* (C)
Lisa Tucker (E)
Small Group #12 –
7 Television (15)
Lynn Allingham (A)
Louise Byer (E, P)
Cat DiPaolo (E)
David Meany (C)
Pauline Weaver* (P)
Small Group #13 –
2 Magazines (3); 9 Multimedia (6)
Kay Bridger-Riley (C)
Nancy Hauserman (C)
Dan Naranjo* (C)
Adrienne Nelson (P)
Jill Miller Rockwell (E)
*Assigned Facilitators
NB: E,C,M,P,A = Time Zones
2018 screening process.doc
012218
INFORMATION FOR SCREENING
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GAVEL AWARDS
SELECTED POLICIES AND GUIDELINES
Eligibility Requirements, Prohibitions and Conflict of Interest
Entries should be on a single subject or issue or otherwise address a cohesive theme. They cannot be treated as representative of work not submitted. Accordingly, a series of related parts (e.g., programs, columns, articles) is eligible, but “body of work” entries are not. Within these parameters, entries should also not be so lengthy as to be a burden for reviewers or otherwise lessen their impact.
Recognizing that certain entries might be eligible under more than one category, the American Bar Association reserves the right to consider entries under another category than that submitted.
The ABA may disqualify any submission not meeting these entry requirements.
Programs or products funded or developed by or in association with the American Bar Association are ineligible for Gavel Awards.
In matters of possible conflict of interest in evaluating entries, Standing Committee and screening committee members should follow a “full disclosure” policy regarding entries in which they have a personal or professional involvement, may abstain from evaluating particular entries, and should recuse themselves from a particular awards category in cases that might present an “appearance of impropriety.”
Investigating Prospective Award Winners
The Standing Committee asks the screening committee to “flag” any finalists for which it has concerns—concerns that might embarrass or reflect poorly on the Standing Committee and the Association. The screening committee should also specifically note what these concerns are. Staff would then investigate these concerns and report to the Standing Committee prior to its final judging of entries.
Award Worthiness and Targets
The ABA Standing Committee on Gavel Awards has established the following policy: Review guidelines should strongly emphasize that the number of finalists (at the screening stage) and Silver Gavel Awards (final judging) be strictly limited. Selection criteria for Silver Gavel Awards should include both of the following:
a. Silver Gavel Awards should be presented only to the best entries in categories being judged; and
b. Selected entries should meet the highest standard set for the Silver Gavel Award, judged in accordance with the overall purpose and objectives of the awards competition (accordingly, in a given year, should no entries merit an award in a particular category, none should be presented).
To facilitate the screening process and help us accomplish our overall goal, we have established targets for the maximum (i.e., no more than) number of entries that review groups should select as finalists to forward to the Standing Committee for consideration for 2018 Silver Gavel Awards. Specific targets for each group are noted below.
The selection process for the Silver Gavel Awards depends on the individual and collective judgment of reviewers in evaluating entries, and, ultimately, determining award winners. Accordingly, your “internal quality standard” as to whether a particular entry does or does not merit being a “finalist” (a prospective award winner) is an important part of your evaluation. You can use this standard for “quality control”--if, in your judgment, you do not believe that the target number of entries in your review group merit being selected, you should select fewer.
In any particular group (or a particular year), the “award worthiness” of entries may be greater or lesser. As screeners, your (difficult) task is to select a limited number of the best entries for the Standing Committee to review for awards consideration.
How to Review Book and Other Lengthy Entries
If you have been assigned books or other “lengthy” entries to review, you are not expected to review every entry completely. First, you should consider how well each entry meets the Silver Gavel Award objectives and selection criteria. It’s perfectly appropriate to concentrate your time and effort on those entries you think are the best and, by the same token, spend less effort on those that you believe should clearly not be considered for an award (you need not even fully complete evaluation forms for low-rated entries).
For instance, you can “size up” a book without reading it in its entirety--e.g., you might carefully review the entry form and any supporting materials; examine the table of contents, bibliography and notes; read the opening, concluding and selected other chapters; and then peruse the remainder. Remember: your screening task is simply to identify the best entry or entries among those received.
SILVER GAVEL AWARD FINALISTS
BY SMALL GROUP/CATEGORY
Based on the number of entries in particular categories and the review capacity of the Standing Committee on Gavel Awards, your target (maximum) numbers have been set as follows:
Group Category Target
#1 1 Books 1
#2 1 Books 1
#3 1 Books 1
#4 1 Books 1
#5 1 Books 1
#6 1 Books 1
#7 3 Newspapers 1
#8 3 Newspapers 1
#9 4 Commentary+5 Drama & Lit 1+1
#10 8 Radio 3
#11 6 Documentaries 3
#12 7 Television 3
#13 2 Magazines+ 9 Multimedia 1+1
TOTAL 21
KEY DEADLINES FOR SCREENING OF ENTRIES
January 26 Date for Entries Delivered to Screening Committee
(hard copies (including all books) by mail;
others available online at URL provided to members)
Monday, March 5 Deadline to Complete Online Evaluation Forms
(for each assigned entry)
March 7 - 9 Conference Calls to Identify Finalists Among Reviewed Entries
March 12 Email Indicating Finalists to (Facilitators Only)