Ranking the three Chandler City Council candidates.
The latest edition of the San Tan Sun has an article on the three remaining Chandler City Council candidates, here (direct link to .pdf; the article is on pages 1, 15 and 16).
More than just a recap of the candidates, the San Tan Sun did us the favor of sending questions to each candidate. This article is the first in a series of two articles posting their responses. You can read the Q&A for yourself, but I have a few thoughts to share (of course) by way of "ranking" the candidates based on the admittedly limited glimpse provided by this article.
I'll rank them on a few key criteria: their time in Chandler and then their responses to the three questions (there's some overlap here, as you'll see).
1. Time in Chandler.
Granted, this isn't a major issue, as some folks can live in a town for a long time and not get involved in their community, whereas someone else could live in town for a relatively short time and have significant community experience. But, all other things being equal, it's perhaps instructive, if there are large differences in the candidates' tenure of residency.
In this regard, Trinity Donovan clearly has lived in Chandler far longer than the other candidates. At 20 years as a Chandler resident, she has more than twice the time in town that Jeff Weninger has. As I say, this isn't necessarily indicative. But when I consider Becky Jackson's paltry 2 1/2 years in Chandler, I have to wonder what in the world makes her think she has credibility to represent our town. Less than three years seems to me to be a rather feeble amount of time to get to know the town, much less understand intuitively the social, cultural and economic dynamics as they've developed over time.
However, I don't think the number of years in a place would scale linearly with the life experience. Donovan scores better than Weninger, but not twice as much. Hence, on this criterion, Donovan gets a point and a half, Weninger gets one point and Jackson gets a goose-egg for having the absolute minimum time living in our city that a candidate could possibly have and be considered anything but a joke.
2. First question: Revenue enhancement and budget cuts.
A weak answer here by Donovan. A half point for suggesting broadening the tax base via diversification and enticement of more shoppers. Took a pass on the budget cuts question.
Even weaker answer here by Jackson. Sure, proposing specific budget cuts would be premature, but you have no ideas? And a complete pass on how to increase revenue. No points.
Weninger earns a half point for suggesting the zoning overlay diversification and another half point for suggesting enrichment of the mix by shifting to bigger-ticket industries. However, I have to ding him a quarter point for his inability to give an answer that met the actual 75-word rule. Net: half-point.
Running tally: Donovan 2, Weninger 1.75, Jackson 0.
3. Second question: Community Service.
Recognizing that community participation and membership on Boards can sometimes amount to little more than resume padding, it's still important to take a look at how the candidates have connected with the community and what kind of involvement they've had. It not only speaks to their competence to represent issues on the Council, but to their sincerity as a public servant. Are they polishing their cred, or are they legitimately engaging in improving their world? A demonstrated, deeper involvement in community service is surely indicative.
In this sense, it's somewhat harder to evaluate Jackson's participation on various Boards she lists. One seriously has to wonder why she's a member of five Chandler boards. Is she really called to contribute to each of those Boards? Is she real about her commitment to those causes? If so, why is she on the Boards, and not engaged in the practicality of actually volunteering operationally? It's impossible to tell.
Jackson's website speaks nothing of any actual engagement in activities aiding the causes for which she serves as a Board member. I may be wrong, but it just doesn't pass the smell test, here. It has all the earmarks of someone who moved to Chandler and jumped into a handful of high profile Board roles to burnish her cred. I'd frankly prefer to see a couple years of volunteer service in the Chandler Regional Hospital than service on its Board, for example. But I'll give her some benefit of the doubt for her Board involvement: she gets a half-point for these positions.
However, Jackson has been CEO of the Chandler Chamber of Commerce as well as being in key leadership in a number of other organizations in the past. She gets a well-earned full point for these, bringing her subtotal to 1.5 points for the community service.
Moving on to Jeff Weninger, I notice that he's a soccer coach, "active" in the Boys' and Girls' Clubs and has given food to various causes from his restaurant. Now, I appreciate his charity in handing out food. But I also know that, as appreciated as this is, it is a self-serving kind of generosity, as it offers him low-cost marketing for his restaurants. I'm sorry if this sounds cynical, but I've been in business long enough to know that one of the ways you build name recognition and goodwill for your business in a community is to provide your good or service free to school groups and community events. It's the cheapest kind of advertising you can get.
So, as it says in the Bible, Jeff, you've already received your reward for this charity - no extra points for donating the food (though, as I say, I'm sure it's appreciated by the folks to whom you give it).
But I'm not completely harsh on Jeff. As for his coaching and the (rather vague) being "active" with the kids' clubs, it's hard to gauge just what deeper "service" he's provided to the community, here. But giving him the benefit of the doubt, let's assume he isn't just coaching to support his own kids (if he has kids). And that his "activity" with the kids' clubs is likewise selfless and substantial and not geared toward supporting his children. So, one full point for this community service.
Trinity Donovan comes out on top in the Chandler community service area. Her past involvement with ICAN, the United Way and continued involvement with Community Impact put to rest any concerns one might have about her sincerity, here. She has a couple of other Boards and Committees, and the fact that her significant community service has been conducted predominately with Chandler focus, earns her 2 full points on the Community Service criterion.
So far, that puts Dovonan in the lead so far with 4 points, with Weninger at 2.75 and Jackson at 1.5.
4. Third question: Where should the new city hall complex be built?
As I've mentioned at greater length in some of my comments elsewhere regarding Weninger's take on this, an answer that only offers criticism of the currenly proposed location is worse than inadequate. Weninger not only doesn't answer the question of where the complex should be built, he criticizes the current plan without offering an alternative. I was going to actually give him a negative quarter point for this. But he at least explained a semi-plausible reason why he didn't think it was a good idea. So that cancels out the unconstructive criticism and results in simply a non-answer. No points.
Donovan gives a half answer - "downtown" with consideration of the consultant's work - without actually committing. So she gets a half-point.
Jackson here earns a full point for a clear, specific answer backed up by sound argument.
Running tally: Donovan 4.5, Weninger 2.75, Jackson 2.5.
When the San Tan Sun comes out with it's next article, with three more in the Q&A for these candidates, I'll continue in my evaluation. For now, though, based solely on this article, Donovan has a commanding lead, followed by Weninger then Jackson close behind.
Stay tuned for more...
More than just a recap of the candidates, the San Tan Sun did us the favor of sending questions to each candidate. This article is the first in a series of two articles posting their responses. You can read the Q&A for yourself, but I have a few thoughts to share (of course) by way of "ranking" the candidates based on the admittedly limited glimpse provided by this article.
I'll rank them on a few key criteria: their time in Chandler and then their responses to the three questions (there's some overlap here, as you'll see).
1. Time in Chandler.
Granted, this isn't a major issue, as some folks can live in a town for a long time and not get involved in their community, whereas someone else could live in town for a relatively short time and have significant community experience. But, all other things being equal, it's perhaps instructive, if there are large differences in the candidates' tenure of residency.
In this regard, Trinity Donovan clearly has lived in Chandler far longer than the other candidates. At 20 years as a Chandler resident, she has more than twice the time in town that Jeff Weninger has. As I say, this isn't necessarily indicative. But when I consider Becky Jackson's paltry 2 1/2 years in Chandler, I have to wonder what in the world makes her think she has credibility to represent our town. Less than three years seems to me to be a rather feeble amount of time to get to know the town, much less understand intuitively the social, cultural and economic dynamics as they've developed over time.
However, I don't think the number of years in a place would scale linearly with the life experience. Donovan scores better than Weninger, but not twice as much. Hence, on this criterion, Donovan gets a point and a half, Weninger gets one point and Jackson gets a goose-egg for having the absolute minimum time living in our city that a candidate could possibly have and be considered anything but a joke.
2. First question: Revenue enhancement and budget cuts.
A weak answer here by Donovan. A half point for suggesting broadening the tax base via diversification and enticement of more shoppers. Took a pass on the budget cuts question.
Even weaker answer here by Jackson. Sure, proposing specific budget cuts would be premature, but you have no ideas? And a complete pass on how to increase revenue. No points.
Weninger earns a half point for suggesting the zoning overlay diversification and another half point for suggesting enrichment of the mix by shifting to bigger-ticket industries. However, I have to ding him a quarter point for his inability to give an answer that met the actual 75-word rule. Net: half-point.
Running tally: Donovan 2, Weninger 1.75, Jackson 0.
3. Second question: Community Service.
Recognizing that community participation and membership on Boards can sometimes amount to little more than resume padding, it's still important to take a look at how the candidates have connected with the community and what kind of involvement they've had. It not only speaks to their competence to represent issues on the Council, but to their sincerity as a public servant. Are they polishing their cred, or are they legitimately engaging in improving their world? A demonstrated, deeper involvement in community service is surely indicative.
In this sense, it's somewhat harder to evaluate Jackson's participation on various Boards she lists. One seriously has to wonder why she's a member of five Chandler boards. Is she really called to contribute to each of those Boards? Is she real about her commitment to those causes? If so, why is she on the Boards, and not engaged in the practicality of actually volunteering operationally? It's impossible to tell.
Jackson's website speaks nothing of any actual engagement in activities aiding the causes for which she serves as a Board member. I may be wrong, but it just doesn't pass the smell test, here. It has all the earmarks of someone who moved to Chandler and jumped into a handful of high profile Board roles to burnish her cred. I'd frankly prefer to see a couple years of volunteer service in the Chandler Regional Hospital than service on its Board, for example. But I'll give her some benefit of the doubt for her Board involvement: she gets a half-point for these positions.
However, Jackson has been CEO of the Chandler Chamber of Commerce as well as being in key leadership in a number of other organizations in the past. She gets a well-earned full point for these, bringing her subtotal to 1.5 points for the community service.
Moving on to Jeff Weninger, I notice that he's a soccer coach, "active" in the Boys' and Girls' Clubs and has given food to various causes from his restaurant. Now, I appreciate his charity in handing out food. But I also know that, as appreciated as this is, it is a self-serving kind of generosity, as it offers him low-cost marketing for his restaurants. I'm sorry if this sounds cynical, but I've been in business long enough to know that one of the ways you build name recognition and goodwill for your business in a community is to provide your good or service free to school groups and community events. It's the cheapest kind of advertising you can get.
So, as it says in the Bible, Jeff, you've already received your reward for this charity - no extra points for donating the food (though, as I say, I'm sure it's appreciated by the folks to whom you give it).
But I'm not completely harsh on Jeff. As for his coaching and the (rather vague) being "active" with the kids' clubs, it's hard to gauge just what deeper "service" he's provided to the community, here. But giving him the benefit of the doubt, let's assume he isn't just coaching to support his own kids (if he has kids). And that his "activity" with the kids' clubs is likewise selfless and substantial and not geared toward supporting his children. So, one full point for this community service.
Trinity Donovan comes out on top in the Chandler community service area. Her past involvement with ICAN, the United Way and continued involvement with Community Impact put to rest any concerns one might have about her sincerity, here. She has a couple of other Boards and Committees, and the fact that her significant community service has been conducted predominately with Chandler focus, earns her 2 full points on the Community Service criterion.
So far, that puts Dovonan in the lead so far with 4 points, with Weninger at 2.75 and Jackson at 1.5.
4. Third question: Where should the new city hall complex be built?
As I've mentioned at greater length in some of my comments elsewhere regarding Weninger's take on this, an answer that only offers criticism of the currenly proposed location is worse than inadequate. Weninger not only doesn't answer the question of where the complex should be built, he criticizes the current plan without offering an alternative. I was going to actually give him a negative quarter point for this. But he at least explained a semi-plausible reason why he didn't think it was a good idea. So that cancels out the unconstructive criticism and results in simply a non-answer. No points.
Donovan gives a half answer - "downtown" with consideration of the consultant's work - without actually committing. So she gets a half-point.
Jackson here earns a full point for a clear, specific answer backed up by sound argument.
Running tally: Donovan 4.5, Weninger 2.75, Jackson 2.5.
When the San Tan Sun comes out with it's next article, with three more in the Q&A for these candidates, I'll continue in my evaluation. For now, though, based solely on this article, Donovan has a commanding lead, followed by Weninger then Jackson close behind.
Stay tuned for more...
posted by Geo at 7:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home