Each year SEAMUS organizes a panel of judges for the national conference in coordination with the institution hosting the conference. The adjudicators’ task is to select creative works and papers to be presented at the national conference. Below are the guidelines for that process.
(1) One third of the adjudicators are appointed by the host institution and the remaining two-thirds of the adjudicators are appointed by the Member-at-Large, in coordination with the SEAMUS board of directors. The total number of adjudicators will vary but be around 36.
(2) SEAMUS-selected adjudicators are expected to serve a two-year term. Thus, each year, one half of the SEAMUS-selected judges carry over from the previous year, and the other half are selected anew.
(3) Host-selected adjudicators serve a one-year term.
(4) Current professional members and student members at the graduate level may serve as adjudicators.
(5) The ideal number of adjudicators necessary to cover the review assignments varies from year to year, but usually totals approximately 36. Thus, the number of new SEAMUS-selected adjudicators will be approximately 10 to 15 individuals each year. Adjudicators each receive approximately 35 to 40 submissions, although this number may vary as well. The adjudication period usually begins near the 1st of November. Adjudicators have approximately 3 to 4 weeks to complete their assignments.
(6) SEAMUS-selected adjudicators are chosen from a group of SEAMUS members that have been nominated or who have nominated themselves. Current professional members and student members at the graduate level may serve as adjudicators.
(7) The process of appointing new SEAMUS-selected adjudicators begins with a call for nominations distributed to SEAMUS membership via email by the board member serving as Member-at-Large. Eligible members may nominate themselves or other eligible members. This will typically occur in the spring, shortly after the previous conference.
(8) The Member-at-Large contacts nominees who were not self-nominated and confirms that these nominated individuals accept their nominations.
(9) Nominees are asked to self-identify genres and media they are comfortable or feel qualified to evaluate. This information will assist in the construction and assignment of a balanced pool of adjudicators.
(10) The number of nominations typically exceeds the number of adjudicators required. Thus, a nomination does not guarantee a seat as an official adjudicator. The Member-at-Large, in coordination with the SEAMUS board of directors, selects the adjudicators from the pool of nominations. The number of individuals selected each year will typically be approximately 12.
(11) Individuals selected to be adjudicators will be notified via email by the Member-at-Large of their selection and will be given further instructions about the adjudication process.
(12) The Member-at-Large will contact nominees who were not selected as adjudicators and ask them to remain available on standby.
(13) The Member-at-Large will also notify individuals not selected via email and ask if it is permissible to retain their names in nomination for future conferences.
(14) In addition to professional stature and excellence, multi-faceted diversity is given a top priority in this selection process. To obtain a diverse group of adjudicators the Member-at-Large and the SEAMUS board of directors will consider geographical location, age, academic status, race/ethnicity, gender expression, and musical aesthetic in determining the SEAMUS-selected adjudicators each year.
(15) Once the SEAMUS-nominated pool has been narrowed down to a list of final nominees, the Member-at-Large and the SEAMUS board of directors choose the SEAMUS-selected adjudicators for that year.
(16) The Member-at-Large then emails these selected judges (as well as existing judges who have served one year previously) and extends a formal invitation to adjudicate.
(17) The process of appointing host-selected judges is left to the discretion of the host institution, but SEAMUS encourages the host institution to apply standards similar to those described above in helping create a diverse adjudicator panel.
Rev. 15 Nov 2016