City Muni League Ratings
posted by on July 31 at 15:48 PM
The Seattle Municipal League (a longtime Seattle good-government group) has released its candidate ratings for this year’s Seattle City Council candidates. Of the 15 candidates running in the four contested council races (Tom Rasmussen is running unopposed), only one—David Della opponent Tim Burgess—got a rating of “outstanding.” Four others—incumbents Della and Sally Clark and open seat contenders Bruce Harrell and Venus Velazquez—were rated “very good,” while incumbent Jean Godden ranked just “good.” (Perennial candidate Stan Lippman, who opposes childhood vaccinations and told the Stranger editorial board we’d “lose all [our] credibility” if we didn’t endorse him, was the only candidate rated “not qualified.”) The Muni League may not be as influential as it once was, but a significant number of Seattle voters still take them very seriously. Full evaluation results below the jump.
Name Position Rating
Lauren Briel Pos. 1 ADEQUATE +
Jean Godden (incumbent) Pos. 1 GOOD
Robert Sondheim Pos. 1 ADEQUATE
Joe Szwaja Pos. 1 GOOD
Scott Feldman Pos. 3 INSUFFICIENT INFO *
Bruce Harrell Pos. 3 VERY GOOD
John Manning Pos. 3 ADEQUATE +
Alfred Runte Pos. 3 GOOD
Venus Velazquez Pos. 3 VERY GOOD
Tim Burgess Pos. 7 OUTSTANDING
David Della (incumbent) Pos. 7 VERY GOOD
Robert Brown III Pos. 9 NO ACTIVE CAMPAIGN
Sally Clark (incumbent) Pos. 9 VERY GOOD
Judy Fenton Pos. 9 ADEQUATE
Stan Lippmann Pos. 9 NOT QUALIFIED
Can you quantify 'significant'?
How can one take seriously the biased recommendations of a bunch of uninformed pimply-faced kids??
Nothing against kids or pimples in general, but it's unfortunately true. The Municipal League long ago lost any semblance of credibility.
Pimply-faced kids? They wish. There aren't many people under 50 involved in the Muni League candidate endorsements. Maybe a couple of people in their mid-30s, but no "kids". Perhaps you are thinking of another organization?
There's some things you can accuse the Muni League of, but "uninformed" isn't one of them. They are almost too informed. Zzzzz...
Municipal League still rates candidates based on their perceived (emphasis on perceived) abilities and overall competence, not on their policies.
Personally, I'd rather vote for an "adequate" candidate working FOR the policies I support than an "outstanding" candidate working AGAINST them.
@4 - surprisingly I agree with you.
And Muni League is way 20th Century. So last century.
The Muni League interview annoyed me. Other endorsement interviews asked concrete questions about actual policy issues - the Growth Management Act, the Brightwater sewage-treatment facility, ideas for improving traffic congestion, etc. - but the Muni League asked me all total bullshit questions. "What kind of management style do you have?" "Are you a collaborative sort of person?" That kind of touchy-feely crap. I was prepared reasonably well to discuss policy issues, not my favorite color or what kind of tree I'd be.
Unsurprisingly, between my annoyance at the questions and the fact that my brother-in-law had died in the wee hours that same morning, I only got an "adequate" rating from them.
I kind of take them with a grain of salt, anyway, because the same person will go from an Outstanding to an Adequate in the course of two years, depending on who is on the interview panel, and what kinds of questions they ask people in their background check (which is really a weird thing - they call people who knew you in high school or worked with you ten years ago and ask them personal questions about you).
tegpcb xwytk eysjcrbg dmobtn zqon iquesb jtkyv
tegpcb xwytk eysjcrbg dmobtn zqon iquesb jtkyv
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).