Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Muni League Ratings

1

Can you quantify 'significant'?

Posted by Gomez | July 31, 2007 8:20 PM
2

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.

Posted by trotupanddown | July 31, 2007 10:17 PM
3

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...

Posted by wait | July 31, 2007 11:59 PM
4

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.

Posted by R on Beacon Hill | August 1, 2007 6:22 AM
5

@4 - surprisingly I agree with you.

And Muni League is way 20th Century. So last century.

Posted by Will in Seattle | August 1, 2007 10:50 AM
6

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).

Posted by Geni | August 1, 2007 11:58 AM
7

tegpcb xwytk eysjcrbg dmobtn zqon iquesb jtkyv

Posted by xdfrivgk tibh | August 9, 2007 1:18 PM
8

tegpcb xwytk eysjcrbg dmobtn zqon iquesb jtkyv

Posted by xdfrivgk tibh | August 9, 2007 1:19 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).