feat: new application scoring rubric

src/content/docs/staff/apply.md

@@ -35,7 +35,6 @@ We offer volunteer opportunities across multiple leadership levels:
 ### 3.1 Universal Selection Criteria
 
 All volunteer positions require:
-- Minimum six months of positive community participation (adjustable for specialised roles)
 - Clean disciplinary record with no serious policy violations
 - Demonstrated commitment to community values and inclusive principles
 - Reliable availability and strong collaborative communication skills
@@ -46,7 +45,6 @@ All volunteer positions require:
 
 **Application Requirements:**
 - Personal statement explaining your interest and relevant experience
-- Community references from existing members who can speak to your qualifications
 - Specification of preferred volunteer roles and availability commitments
 - Acknowledgement of policy framework compliance requirements
 
@@ -54,9 +52,8 @@ All volunteer positions require:
 
 **Selection Timeline:**
 1. **Application Review**: Diverse selection committee evaluation including community representation
-2. **Interview Process**: Values alignment and role-specific competency assessment
-3. **Community Input**: Public feedback period for community member input on candidates
-4. **Final Selection**: Decision based on established criteria and community needs
+2. **Team Input**: Private feedback period for team member input on candidates
+3. **Final Selection**: Decision based on established criteria and community needs
 
 **New Volunteer Integration:**
 - Comprehensive orientation including community values and policy framework training

src/content/docs/staff/rubric.md

@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+# Staff Application Evaluation Rubric
+
+## 1. Purpose and Scope
+
+This document establishes the standardized evaluation criteria for volunteer staff applications submitted to NHCarrigan. All application reviewers shall utilize this rubric to ensure consistent and objective assessment of candidates.
+
+## 2. Evaluation Methodology
+
+### 2.1 Scoring System
+Each evaluation criterion shall be assessed using a five-point scale:
+- **Score of 5**: Exceptional performance meeting or exceeding all requirements
+- **Score of 3**: Adequate performance meeting minimum acceptable standards  
+- **Score of 1**: Inadequate performance failing to meet basic requirements
+
+### 2.2 Assessment Principles
+Reviewers shall:
+1. Evaluate applications holistically while maintaining scoring consistency
+2. Prioritize quality and depth of responses over length
+3. Document specific rationale for scores assigned
+
+## 3. Evaluation Criteria
+
+### 3.1 Personal Information and Character Assessment
+**Objective**: Assess completeness of personal details, professional presentation, cultural alignment, and personal integrity.
+
+**Performance Standards**:
+- **Exceptional (5)**: Complete responses demonstrating authentic personality, clear self-awareness, relevant professional links, and comprehensive disclosure of potential conflicts
+- **Adequate (3)**: Sufficient responses with limited personal insight, optional information may be omitted, basic professional presentation maintained
+- **Inadequate (1)**: Incomplete responses, evasive answers, unprofessional presentation, or undisclosed conflicts of interest
+
+### 3.2 Availability and Legal Compliance
+**Objective**: Verify time commitments, legal eligibility, and agreement to organizational requirements.
+
+**Performance Standards**:
+- **Exceptional (5)**: Specific weekly time commitments provided, confirms legal volunteer status, agrees to all required documentation, demonstrates thorough understanding of organizational policies
+- **Adequate (3)**: General availability indicated, acknowledges volunteer requirements, basic policy comprehension demonstrated
+- **Inadequate (1)**: Vague or unrealistic time commitments, refuses required agreements, fails to meet age/legal requirements, or demonstrates insufficient policy understanding
+
+### 3.3 Mission and Values Alignment
+**Objective**: Evaluate alignment with organizational mission, commitment to inclusivity, and accessibility awareness.
+
+**Performance Standards**:
+- **Exceptional (5)**: Demonstrates deep understanding of organizational mission, articulates strong commitment to inclusivity and accessibility, identifies potential challenges with proposed solutions
+- **Adequate (3)**: Shows general mission understanding, acknowledges inclusivity and accessibility importance without detailed insight
+- **Inadequate (1)**: Limited mission comprehension, dismissive of inclusivity/accessibility requirements, or values conflicts identified
+
+### 3.4 Collaboration and Accountability Standards
+**Objective**: Assess teamwork capabilities, personal accountability, and feedback management skills.
+
+**Performance Standards**:
+- **Exceptional (5)**: Provides specific examples of successful collaboration and accountability, demonstrates balanced approach to feedback exchange, outlines clear organizational strategies
+- **Adequate (3)**: Describes teamwork experience in general terms, shows basic feedback understanding, minimal concrete examples provided
+- **Inadequate (1)**: Indicates collaboration difficulties, resistance to feedback, or absence of accountability mechanisms
+
+### 3.5 Technical Competency Evaluation
+**Objective**: Verify technical skills, project experience, and professional workflow capabilities.
+
+**Performance Standards**:
+- **Exceptional (5)**: Demonstrates advanced technical proficiency with specific examples, shows collaborative project experience, provides detailed problem-solving examples, outlines clear escalation procedures
+- **Adequate (3)**: Lists relevant technical skills with limited context, shows basic project experience, minimal detail provided
+- **Inadequate (1)**: Insufficient technical background, lacks concrete examples, or provides unverifiable claims
+
+### 3.6 Leadership and Community Management
+**Objective**: Assess leadership experience, conflict resolution abilities, and community development skills.
+
+**Performance Standards**:
+- **Exceptional (5)**: Provides specific leadership examples, demonstrates effective conflict resolution experience, shows empathetic approach to community violations beyond punitive measures
+- **Adequate (3)**: Shows some leadership or moderation experience with abstract examples, basic conflict resolution awareness
+- **Inadequate (1)**: No demonstrable leadership experience, unwillingness to develop skills, or exclusively punitive approach to violations
+
+### 3.7 Risk Assessment and Boundary Management
+**Objective**: Evaluate professional boundaries, crisis management capabilities, and self-awareness.
+
+**Performance Standards**:
+- **Exceptional (5)**: Articulates clear professional boundaries, provides thoughtful de-escalation examples, demonstrates ability to separate personal bias from enforcement decisions, shows strong self-awareness of growth areas
+- **Adequate (3)**: Shows basic boundary awareness, minimal de-escalation insight, general growth acknowledgment
+- **Inadequate (1)**: Fails to establish boundaries, cannot articulate risk management strategies, or shows potential bias interference
+
+### 3.8 Professional Development and Resilience
+**Objective**: Assess growth mindset, stress management capabilities, and professional development goals.
+
+**Performance Standards**:
+- **Exceptional (5)**: Articulates clear professional development vision, demonstrates thoughtful stress and burnout management strategies, provides meaningful additional qualifications
+- **Adequate (3)**: Shows basic development interest and stress awareness with limited depth
+- **Inadequate (1)**: No meaningful development goals, inability to handle criticism or stress, or inadequate closing responses
+
+## 4. Final Assessment Standards
+
+### 4.1 Scoring Ranges
+- **36-40 points**: Highly recommended candidate with exceptional organizational alignment
+- **28-35 points**: Recommended candidate with strong potential and identified growth areas
+- **20-27 points**: Not recommended due to insufficient qualifications
+- **Below 20 points**: Rejected application
+
+### 4.2 Documentation Requirements
+All reviewers shall maintain detailed scoring justification and provide specific feedback for scores below adequate performance standards.
+
+---
+
+**Effective Date**: 30 September 2025 
+**Review Schedule**: Annual or as needed based on organizational requirements