Ranking the Chandler City Council candidates (Part 2 of 2)
In a post on April 17th, I began ranking the three candidates for Chandler City Council vying for two slots in the runoff election on May 16th. I was basing my rankings on the candidates' responses to questions in an interview appearing in the San Tan Sun.
With the San Tan Sun's publication this past weekend of Part Two of the interview, I'm now prepared to complete my ranking based on that interview. Of course, I have received much more information about the three candidates since I began these rankings, but for the sake of closure, I'm offering Part 2 of my provisional rankings, here.
Recall that the scores at the end of Part One of my rankings were:
Donovan: 4.5
Weninger: 2.75
Jackson: 2.5
Picking up with Part 2 of the interview, then, we move on to the issues...
5. Next question: Do we need a City Council Code of Conduct?
Weninger scores well on this for a clear answer in the affirmative, plus a suggestion for a non-partisan methodology to create such a code. The practicality of such a code is a matter of debate, but his answer earns him a full point.
Jackson scores well on this, too, for a similarly clear, affirmative answer. As she doesn't offer further suggestion about how to create one as Weninger did, I'm giving her a slightly less score on this, though. Still, a respectable .75 points.
Donovan scores the full mark for her clear, affirmative answer plus the suggestion that it should be created with multiple stakeholders. Full point.
Running tally:
Donovan: 5.5
Weninger: 3.75
Jackson: 3.25
6. Next question: How to bring in better stores and restaurants?
Weninger pretty much evades the question. He suggests we need to "communicate our vision" with developers better, but this is a non-informative answer. He concludes by telling about what kind of places he'd like to see and what he enjoys when traveling. Not answering the question means no points.
Jackson starts off strong by noting a key issue driving the attraction and development of high-end retail: demographics! She then says we need to "boost the demographic", which is true, but about as empty a true phrase as you can get. She then peters out by talking about more communication between stakeholders. I gotta give her credit for addressing the demographic issue, though: half-point.
Donovan's answer here is pretty weak. She gives good background info and says she'd champion diversification, which is great. But the question was "how?", not "whether?" She finishes by rephrasing the "communication" idea. Communication is great, but it's not a solution. I don't see anything in this reponse that concretely addresses "how", so I'm afraid she gets no points on this one.
Running tally:
Donovan: 5.5
Jackson: 3.75
Weninger: 3.75
7. Next question: If elected, what is one of the first things you would do or change?
Weninger is going to beat his Pentz horse as long as it takes to get him elected, I suppose. After engaging in significant research on this, I find it extremely irresponsible to suggest he knows that Pentz is worth rehiring, and I find it also irritating that he and others are using this as a campaign issue to push him onto the Council on a wave of citizen outrage. I have grown to believe that Donovan's and Jackson's approaches to this matter are far more responsible - consider it with an open mind but make no prejudgments.
He did answer the question clearly and definitively, so I give him a half point for at least answering. But I must, in good conscience, penalize him half of that for the answer he gave, as I tend to think it shows lack of judgment (or worse, political calculation). So, .25 points.
Jackson gives an answer, yes, but it's one of those vague, nebulous kinds of answers. Having an initial chat on unity and harmony are great, and for that I reward her a quarter point for the topic. But it's a weak answer to "what would you do first?" as it implies a long-term process of relationship building. So, .25 points.
Donovan answers substantially the same as Jackson - the question was "what would you do FIRST, folks - and so earns the same .25 points.
Donovan: 5.75
Jackson: 4.0
Weninger: 4.0
8. Next question: Anything else to add?
In my view, all three candidates repeated only campaign standards, here: "fiscal responsibiility", "community service" etc. I think they tied in these mostly fluff responses. So no extra points for any of them here.
FINAL SCORE:
Donovan: 5.75 -- *Winner*
Jackson: 4.0
Weninger: 4.0
Trinity Donovan wins this provisional ranking by a fair margin, aided significantly by her greater operational, Chandler-specific, community service and longer tenure in our city. Jackson and Weninger tied for second place, though Weninger was penalized points twice for hie responses - once for the rejection of the City Hall location recommendation and once for his insistence, prior to being elected, that we should re-hire Pentz, both of which do not instill confidence in his judgment. I will have a follow-on post related to this, shortly.
With the San Tan Sun's publication this past weekend of Part Two of the interview, I'm now prepared to complete my ranking based on that interview. Of course, I have received much more information about the three candidates since I began these rankings, but for the sake of closure, I'm offering Part 2 of my provisional rankings, here.
Recall that the scores at the end of Part One of my rankings were:
Donovan: 4.5
Weninger: 2.75
Jackson: 2.5
Picking up with Part 2 of the interview, then, we move on to the issues...
5. Next question: Do we need a City Council Code of Conduct?
Weninger scores well on this for a clear answer in the affirmative, plus a suggestion for a non-partisan methodology to create such a code. The practicality of such a code is a matter of debate, but his answer earns him a full point.
Jackson scores well on this, too, for a similarly clear, affirmative answer. As she doesn't offer further suggestion about how to create one as Weninger did, I'm giving her a slightly less score on this, though. Still, a respectable .75 points.
Donovan scores the full mark for her clear, affirmative answer plus the suggestion that it should be created with multiple stakeholders. Full point.
Running tally:
Donovan: 5.5
Weninger: 3.75
Jackson: 3.25
6. Next question: How to bring in better stores and restaurants?
Weninger pretty much evades the question. He suggests we need to "communicate our vision" with developers better, but this is a non-informative answer. He concludes by telling about what kind of places he'd like to see and what he enjoys when traveling. Not answering the question means no points.
Jackson starts off strong by noting a key issue driving the attraction and development of high-end retail: demographics! She then says we need to "boost the demographic", which is true, but about as empty a true phrase as you can get. She then peters out by talking about more communication between stakeholders. I gotta give her credit for addressing the demographic issue, though: half-point.
Donovan's answer here is pretty weak. She gives good background info and says she'd champion diversification, which is great. But the question was "how?", not "whether?" She finishes by rephrasing the "communication" idea. Communication is great, but it's not a solution. I don't see anything in this reponse that concretely addresses "how", so I'm afraid she gets no points on this one.
Running tally:
Donovan: 5.5
Jackson: 3.75
Weninger: 3.75
7. Next question: If elected, what is one of the first things you would do or change?
Weninger is going to beat his Pentz horse as long as it takes to get him elected, I suppose. After engaging in significant research on this, I find it extremely irresponsible to suggest he knows that Pentz is worth rehiring, and I find it also irritating that he and others are using this as a campaign issue to push him onto the Council on a wave of citizen outrage. I have grown to believe that Donovan's and Jackson's approaches to this matter are far more responsible - consider it with an open mind but make no prejudgments.
He did answer the question clearly and definitively, so I give him a half point for at least answering. But I must, in good conscience, penalize him half of that for the answer he gave, as I tend to think it shows lack of judgment (or worse, political calculation). So, .25 points.
Jackson gives an answer, yes, but it's one of those vague, nebulous kinds of answers. Having an initial chat on unity and harmony are great, and for that I reward her a quarter point for the topic. But it's a weak answer to "what would you do first?" as it implies a long-term process of relationship building. So, .25 points.
Donovan answers substantially the same as Jackson - the question was "what would you do FIRST, folks - and so earns the same .25 points.
Donovan: 5.75
Jackson: 4.0
Weninger: 4.0
8. Next question: Anything else to add?
In my view, all three candidates repeated only campaign standards, here: "fiscal responsibiility", "community service" etc. I think they tied in these mostly fluff responses. So no extra points for any of them here.
FINAL SCORE:
Donovan: 5.75 -- *Winner*
Jackson: 4.0
Weninger: 4.0
Trinity Donovan wins this provisional ranking by a fair margin, aided significantly by her greater operational, Chandler-specific, community service and longer tenure in our city. Jackson and Weninger tied for second place, though Weninger was penalized points twice for hie responses - once for the rejection of the City Hall location recommendation and once for his insistence, prior to being elected, that we should re-hire Pentz, both of which do not instill confidence in his judgment. I will have a follow-on post related to this, shortly.
posted by Geo at 1:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home