HISTORY OF COMMITTEE

The Key Person of the Year award is named after Steve Molnar. Steve was a firearms examiner from the state of Ohio and who passed away in the early 1980’s. Steve was instrumental in bringing to life and supporting the life’s blood of our association. What was then the AFTE newsletter that has now evolved into the AFTE Journal. Steve was an editor of the newsletter during AFTE’s fledgling years. Steve saw the newsletter as an opportunity to be more than just a newsletter, but as a conduit for exchange of technical information among all of our members.

He also recognized the importance of publishing high quality papers that could be referred to by all firearm and toolmark examiners. To that end, Steve not only acted as a publisher, but submitted many articles of his own to inspire others to make technical contributions that would further our discipline and benefit future firearm examiners.

It was his efforts that greatly assisted the newsletter in getting off to a strong start during those tenuous first few years. AFTE has honored Steve Molnar by using his name to recognize and thank other individuals who have made significant contributions to the AFTE Journal. The Molnar committee was formed to research and select worthy candidates for this honor.

The committee is comprised of a chair and two committee members.

PURPOSE OF THE COMMITTEE

The award is intended to be an honor bestowed on individuals who make significant contributions to the association through the submission of publications in the AFTE Journal.

Historically the committee has always been unanimous in their choice of Molnar Award recipients and has been confident that all recipients have clearly deserved the award. Nonetheless concern about the effectiveness of the selection process has occasionally been voiced, as were some fears of possible manipulation of the process by potential awardees.

Three serious shortcomings have characterized the selection process as it was implemented until 2001. First, the Molnar Award selection was based on only the past year’s Journal articles. The AFTE member who published one or two well researched and written articles every year might never receive deserved recognition, but clearly would have contributed significantly to our profession over his or her career. Second, some published articles reflect extraordinary research efforts whose significance shapes our profession for years to come. For example, imagine Al Biasotti publishing his Master’s thesis on identification criteria, and the Molnar committee assigning a significance equal to that of any other well written AFTE article! No mechanism has been in place within the evaluation system to effectively incorporate degrees of significance. The final criticism of the selection process is the fear that an individual could intentionally publish several articles in one year and "guarantee" receiving the award. This possibility introduces a competitive aspect that is in conflict with the philosophy underlying the Molnar Award. Change in the selection process was deemed necessary.

Changes that were made in the evaluation process were intended to respond to the above problems and were grounded in our understanding of the principles embodied in the Molnar Award’s purpose. With this in mind the Molnar Award is intended to additionally recognize any member whose contributions reflect a personal commitment to improving our profession and AFTE throughout their career. The Molnar selection process is now being directed at an individual’s efforts throughout a career rather than one year’s effort within that career, as was the case until 2000. The evaluation process is currently being directed at the last ten years of AFTE Journal articles. Just as the recipient’s commitment can be expected to continue throughout his or her career, the honor bestowed by the Molnar Award highlights that individual’s efforts throughout the remainder of their career. A member will be bestowed the Molnar Award only once throughout his or her career, and past Molnar Award recipients will not be considered for future Molnar Awards. In other words "once honored always honored". The further philosophy behind this approach is to even the playing field among those who make significant contributions over a very short period of time and those who make less frequent but steady contributions over a long period of time. This mechanism allows for recognition of more senior members as well as newer members.

To implement this modified selection process the year 2001 was especially busy. The committee had the task of reviewing publications in not only one year but also the previous ten years (Volumes 23 - 32) of the AFTE Journal to comply with the modifications in the selection process. The job was extremely tedious and time consuming but was successfully completed. A storable Microsoft word table was created with a running compilation of 1) authors name, 2) publication reference [Year, Vol., No., and page number] and 3) the averaged point score for each publication by the committee members. The purpose of the storable table was to ease in the management of the running ten-year tabulations of total point scores by contributing authors in the Journal. The table was completed and is now being used as a very convenient means of updating the total point scores relative to the ten years reflecting the current years award. The additional burden of reviewing the previous ten years of the journal has provided the committee with a permanent ten year basis for which to drop the scores of the last year and add the scores of the new year to tabulate total point scores to aide in the selection of future award recipients.

DUTIES OF THE CHAIRPERSON

The chairperson’s duties are outlined as follows:

·         Assist the board in the selection of committee members to serve on the committee.

·         Provide direction and guidance to participating committee members during the selection process.

·         Provide written report(s) to the board containing recommendations of an award candidate for each year (Volume) the journal is published.

·         Maintain up to date records of the selection process in order to defend the selection process if it were challenged and to provide sufficient records to allow a smooth transition from one committee chairperson to the next.

DUTIES OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS

The committee member’s duties are outlined as follows:

·         Assist the committee chairperson in the selection of an award recipient (described in the guidelines section of this report)

FUTURE GOALS / DEVELOPMENTS FOR THE COMMITTEE

To continue selecting Molnar Recipients in an objective manner as possible for recommendation to the board.

FINANCIAL STATUS

At present, the committee is able to operate at no cost, as communication between members is generally by e-mail and there are no significant costs associated with the selection process.

GUIDELINES USED BY THE COMMITTEE TO ACCOMPLISH ITS MISSION

The evaluation process used requires that committee members:

1.    Read all articles and assign points to an author or authors. Selectors are offered general guidelines for evaluation and point assignment. These guidelines are noted below. A third point category (25-30 pts) has been added in response to the desire to be able to acknowledge the special significance of some published research. The other two point categories have been expanded from previous ranges to offer evaluators a broader range of discrimination.

Assessment Criteria for the Molnar Award

0 - 5 points

Should include general information articles, e.g. new guns, ammo, bullet recovery tank designs, etc., basic case presentations that involve no research, reprinted articles. Typically the "potpourri" type of material is in this category. Some case presentations will cross over into the next point range.

6 – 15 points

Articles in this range will be thoroughly researched and presented clearly. Most of the journal articles of substance will fall in this category. Length is not a factor, but will often reflect the better-researched articles that present material in depth. Information that is well researched, but is primarily a reiteration of material from other sources, will fall into the lower end of this point range.

25 – 30 points

Articles in this grouping must be extraordinary. The selector must believe that a significant impact or contribution has been made to our profession by the research and/or information presented. Such a designation should be unusual.

A suggested approach for committee members to keep in mind for conducting critical and unbiased evaluation of published research contributions to the AFTE Journal is as follows:

ANALYZING THE RESEARCH OF OTHERS¹

When analyzing published research, there are several things the reviewer should consider:

A.    Gather as much information as possible. It is unlikely a single report will contain complete information, but if you investigate other sources, you will be better able to analyze the research.

B.    Understand and define all terms

C.    Question the method by which the data and information were derived.

1.    Were the facts derived from experiments?

2.    Were the experiments well executed?

3.    Did the experiments include a control group?

4.    Were there lots of subjects or only a few?

5.    Was the experiment appropriate to what they wanted to know?

6.    Have others repeated the experiment with similar results?

D.   Question the conclusions.

1.    Are the conclusions appropriate based on the data?

2.    Was there enough information on which to base the conclusion?

E.    Uncover assumptions and biases.

1.    Was the experimental design biased?

2.    Are there underlying assumptions that affect the conclusions?

F.    Question the source of the information.

1.    Is the source reliable?

2.    Is the source an expert or supposed expert?

3.    Does the source have anything to gain from the results reported?

G.   Examine the big picture. Are the results consistent with other information known?

H.    Don’t expect all the answers or complete information.

I.     Understand your own biases and values and try not to let these interfere with an objective evaluation.

2.    Report to the committee chairperson the individual point scores for each publication article using the table format described in the purpose of the committee section of this report.

3.    The chairperson will then:

a.    Average the total point scores and add the values (associated with the author and reference) into the master table

b.    Drop the entries for the oldest volume

c.    Sort the table by author in alphabetical order

d.    Total the accumulated points for each recipient (typically it is easy to peruse the table and total the top ten or fifteen candidates)

e.    Order the top scoring candidates by highest point score

f.     Elect the top-scoring candidate with the following considerations:

                                                      i.        Candidate is not a previous recipient of the award

                                                     ii.        Candidate is a member of AFTE

                                                    iii.        Candidate is in good standing

4.    The chairperson will select the highest scoring candidate meeting the above considerations and consult with the committee members for consensus and approval.

NOTE: Committee members are provided the convenience of having the preceding ten-year period of evaluations tabulated by the work of previous committee members. Committee members are not required to re-evaluate the work completed by these participants. However, committee members are not bound by these previous evaluation scores and are free to re-visit publications by authors that have been considered by previous committee members. This mechanism can provide the ability of the committee to re-assess total point scores of potential award candidates who’s scores are tied (or are extremely close) requiring a more critical evaluation of their contributions to assist in the final selection of the current year’s award recipient.

5.    The chairperson will provide a written report to the AFTE Second Vice President with a recommendation for the award.

6.    If this candidate is not approved, the committee will supply the next eligible candidate until the AFTE Board of Directors accepts a committee recommendation.

7.    The incumbent chairperson will maintain records of each selection process and maintain a file (digital and hard copy) by year to be made available to the Board of Directors or to be provided to the next appointed chairperson for a smooth transition from one chairperson to the next.

The committee individuals undeniably base their recipient choice upon subjective evaluation. However, the evaluations are conducted independently, and in ten years there has been no instance where the selection was not unanimous with the first evaluation compilation. Of course this reflects uniformity in what Molnar committee members value in the AFTE Journal contributions. I believe that uniformity additionally reflects what the AFTE membership wants to see published in the Journal.

Any suggestions or comments the general membership reviewing this document are welcome to further direct the mission of our committee.

Respectfully submitted,

Key Person of the Year (Steve Molnar) Committee

 

[1] Guideline entitled “Analyzing the Research of Others” adapted from Gelinas, R., Machalinski, C., Fundamentals of Biology - #102 – Laboratory Manual, Arlson Crest Publishing Co. , 2000, pg 4 – 5. 

Past Recipients

Year	Meeting	Steve Molnar Award Recipient
1984	New Orleans, LA	Stanton Berg
1985	Lansing, MI	Al Biasotti
1986	Baltimore, MD	John Murdock
1987	Seattle, WA	Joseph Reich
1988	Nordic Hills, IL	Jim Hamby
1989	Virginia Beach, VA	Ruprecht Nennsteil
1990	Omaha, NE	Gary Rathman
1991	Houston, TX	Tsuneo Uchiyama
1992	Miami, FL	Todd Nordhoff
1993	Raleigh, NC	Lucien Haag
1994	Indianapolis, IN	Bill Morris
1995	San Diego, CA	Frank Cassidy
1996	Milwaukee, WI	Richard Maruoka
1997	Annapolis, MD	Evan Thompson
1998	Tampa, FL	Gerard Dutton
1999	Williamsburg, VA	Mickey French
2000	St. Louis, MO	Ron Nichols
2001	Huntington Beach, CA	Jerry Miller
2002	San Antonio, TX	John Collins
2003	Philadelphia, PA	Robert Kenington
2004	Vancouver, BC	Dominic J. Denio
2005	Indianapolis, IN	Bruce Moran
2006	Springfield, MA	Christopher R. Bartocci
2007	San Francisco, CA	Michael G. Haag
2008	Honolulu, HI	Fred Tulleners
2009	Miami, FL	Richard T. Wyant
2010	Henderson, NV	Kristin A. Gerber

 

Any AFTE member who is aware of a recipient not listed above,
please contact the Chairperson of the Committee to have the records updated.