2014 Candidate Ratings Now Available!

Over the past four weeks, the Municipal League conducted its annual review of the candidates running for local elected office. Fifty volunteers devoted more than 1,000 hours to the non-partisan process. To determine candidate ratings, the volunteers reviewed candidate questionnaires, studied the public record, spoke with references, and conducted interviews with candidates. Committee members then rated each candidate on four criteria: involvement, character, effectiveness and knowledge.

A full listing of our candidate ratings can be found here.

If you would like to receive a printed copy, please contact the office at 206.622.8333.

A HUGE thank you to our 2014 CEC Volunteers, and the following venues for hosting our committees:

Antioch University Seattle – www.antiochseattle.edu
John Stanford Center for Excellencewww.seattleschools.org
Perkins Coiewww.perkinscoie.com/Seattle
Washington Society of CPAs – www.wscpa.org

What Makes Our Ratings Unique?

 The Municipal League of King County has spent over a century committed to promoting non-partisan, citizen driven, and governmental oversight. To support this, the league conducts an annual Candidate Evaluation Committee (CEC) process in which trained volunteers research, interview, and ultimately rate candidates for local office on the following non-partisan criteria: Knowledge, Effectiveness, Involvement, and Character. These evaluations are entirely driven by citizen volunteers and seek to:

  • Provide voters with unbiased, citizen driven information to inform electoral decision making.
  • Promote the continued practice of good and open government.
  • Improve the caliber of public officials.
  • Improve the quality of public policy.

The Municipal League’s Candidate Evaluation Ratings attempt to answer a fundamental question facing voters: How well might a candidate do the job? The ratings are unique because they do not consider a candidate’s political affiliations or standing on specific issues. Instead, they assess the candidate’s potential to be effective in office. The process is similar to a job interview – with a diverse group of citizens serving as hiring managers. The result has been called a “Better Business Bureau” for voters.

 

Category: In the News · Tags:

Candidate Ratings

 

About the Municipal League Ratings The ratings are not endorsements. They assess each candidate’s potential to be effective in office and ability to serve the community.

  • Outstanding – Has made numerous outstanding contributions requiring skills related to the office, is a path-finding and respected leader, brings knowledge and creativity to issues facing the office.
  • Very Good – Makes significant contributions, is a skilled builder of consensus, inspires confidence in the way he/she would serve, is thorough and attentive to issues.
  • Good – Has been active and effective in many roles, is capable of moving people to productive action, has strong record of participation in problem solving, shows satisfactory commitment to tackling issues.
  • Adequate – Has a record of participation and interest, is effective on specific issues, has provoked questions about suitability as an office holder, will need significant time/energy to fill gaps in knowledge.
  • Not Qualified – Doesn’t appear engaged, has a record that casts doubt on ability to be productive, hasn’t demonstrated ability to deal with responsibilities of office, has narrow focus, inflexible attitude or is otherwise troubling.

 

Category: Ratings Criteria, Uncategorized · Tags:

Thank You to All of Our 2014 Volunteers!

We are no longer accepting 2014 volunteer applications. Thank you for your interest, and please consider joining us next year! 

Our program provides the region’s only independent, non-partisan, non-agenda driven evaluation of candidates for public office.

Volunteers are asked to dedicate either a few Saturdays or several weeknights in the month of June to research, interview, and rate candidates. If you are a King County resident interested in politics, local government, and networking in a unique environment, this is a great opportunity for you! Let us know if you would like to be considered for a volunteer position in 2015.

Click here for more information on volunteering with the League 

Please note: Volunteers in the candidate rating process are required to refrain from active involvement in campaigns or political parties during the election season, and must step aside from the ratings process if he or she has connections to any candidate in any particular race or is currently a PCO or will become one in the next year..

**CANDIDATES – Please click here for more information

 

Category: Announcements · Tags:

Municipal League Partners with CandidateVerification

Raising the Bar on Ratings

At the beginning of July, the Municipal League of King County released our ratings for candidates running for local elected office in an attempt to answer the central question facing voters: How well might a candidate do the job? Our process is similar to a job interview – with a diverse group of citizens serving as the hiring managers. The result has been called a “Better Business Bureau” for voters.

To ensure the Municipal League’s non-partisan ratings provide the most accurate information for local voters, we partnered this year with the non-profit CandidateVerification to add background checks to our candidate evaluation process.

Candidates from across the county were invited to undergo a background check, at no cost to them, and share the results with the Municipal League. Half of the candidates who were invited to participate agreed and were willing to share their information with us. We look forward to having even more candidates participate in this process in years to come.

Every election cycle, a few candidates try to hide or embellish part of their background. Rather than simply waiting for the next ‘October Surprise’, the Municipal League believes it is up to the citizen hiring managers and other endorsement groups to improve the process.  Unless we adopt the best practices of the private sector and use them in elections, we are part of the problem.

Like the general population, politicians are prone to resume inflation and omission: According to recent study conducted by Accu-Screen, Inc., ADP, and The Society of Human Resource Managers, 78% of resumes are misleading, 53% of resumes and job applications contain falsifications, and 21% of resumes state fraudulent degrees on their resume. That is why some 80% of employers require a background check as part of their hiring process.

The CandidateVerification process uses the same platform adopted by governments and corporations hiring new employees. They check 10 years’ worth of federal and county criminal and civil records on each candidate, plus the national sex-offender registry, as well as verify employment, degrees, and professional credentials.

On the heels of a successful pilot project in 2013, next year the Municipal League plans to make CandidateVerification’s background checks a formal part of our program, and to make these background checks available for all candidates we evaluate. Washington State has a rich history of raising the bar on public disclosure in local government. The Municipal League believes that we should expect the same level of transparency from the people who are seeking public office and we are pleased to provide this important information to King County voters.

For more information, visit CandidateVerification’s website at www.candidateverification.org.

Category: Announcements, In the News · Tags:

2008 Candidate Ratings

In 2008, five regional Candidate Evaluation Committees rated 85 candidates running in contested races throughout King County.

About the Municipal League Ratings

The ratings are not endorsements. They assess each candidate’s potential to be effective in office and ability to serve the community.

  • Outstanding – Has made numerous outstanding contributions requiring skills related to the office, is a path-finding and respected leader, brings knowledge and creativity to issues facing the office.
  • Very Good – Makes significant contributions, is a skilled builder of consensus, inspires confidence in the way he/she would serve, is thorough and attentive to issues.
  • Good – Has been active and effective in many roles, is capable of moving people to productive action, has strong record of participation in problem solving, shows satisfactory commitment to tackling issues.
  • Adequate – Has a record of participation and interest, is effective on specific issues, has provoked questions about suitability as an office holder, will need significant time/energy to fill gaps in knowledge.
  • Not Qualified – Doesn’t appear engaged, has a record that casts doubt on ability to be productive, hasn’t demonstrated ability to deal with responsibilities of office, has narrow focus, inflexible attitude or is otherwise troubling.
YearLegislative DistrictPositionCandidateRatingIncumbentInterviewQuestionnaireWebsiteParty
2008KC Superior Court1Susan AminiGoodNO
200852Glenn AnderonGoodYesR
200841SenateBob BakerGoodR
2008Supreme Court4James BeecherVery GoodNO
2008372Ruth BennettGoodL
2008361Leslie BlossGoodR
2008Supreme Court3Michael BondVery GoodNO
2008KC Superior Court10Jean BouffardGoodNO
2008KC Superior Court1Timothy BradshawVery GoodNO
2008361John BurbankGoodD
2008KC Superior Court10Regina CahanVery GoodNO
2008361Reaven CarlyleOutstandingD
2008321Maralyn ChaseGoodYesUnable to ParticipateD
2008432Frank ChoppOutstandingYesD
2008KC Superior Court37Nic CorningVery GoodNO
2008KC Superior Court53Ann DanieliVery GoodNO
2008362Mary Lou DickersonOutstandingYesD
2008482Deborah EddyVery GoodYesD
2008Supreme Court3Mary FairhurstOutstandingYesNO
2008482Ronald FullerInsufficient InformationÿR
2008KC Superior Court22Julia GarrattOutstandingNO
2008331Todd GibsonVery GoodR
2008451Roger GoodmanGoodYesD
2008KC Superior Court22Rebeccah GrahamGoodNO
2008302Carol GregoryVery GoodD
2008452Kevin HaistingsGoodR
2008KC Superior Court26Matthew HaleNot QualifiedNO
2008471Leslie HamadaGoodD
2008312Sharon HanekGoodR
2008471Mark HargroveAdequateÿR
2008112Bob HasegawaVery GoodYesD
2008KC Superior Court22Holly HillOutstandingNO
2008111Zachary HudginsVery GoodYesD
2008312Josh HubertNo Active CampaignDeclined to ParticipateR
2008481Ross HunterVery GoodYesD
2008312Christopher HurstVery GoodYesD
20085SenatePhyllis HusterVery GoodD
200841SenateFred JarrettOutstandingD
2008Supreme Court4Charles JohnsonOutstandingYesNO
2008462Phyllis KenneyVery GoodYesDeclined to ParticipateD
2008362Leslie KleinAdequateR
2008332Tan LamNot QualifiedR
2008481Charles LappInsufficient InformationDeclined to ParticipateR
2008411Steve LiztowVery GoodR
2008461Keith LjunghammarNot QualifiedR
2008KC Superior Court37Barbara MackVery GoodNO
200811SenateJuan MartinezVery GoodD
2008411Marcie MaxwellGoodD
20081SenateRosemary McAuliffeGoodYesD
200811SenateScott McKayAdequateD
2008KC Superior Court26Laura MiddaughGoodYesNO
2008472Timothy MillerGoodR
2008301Mark MilosciaVery GoodYesD
2008111David MorrisInsufficient InformationÿUnable to ContactR
2008451Toby NixonOutstandingR
2008331Tina OrwallOutstandingD
2008KC Superior Court1Suzanne ParisienVery GoodNO
2008372Eric PettigrewOutstandingYesD
20085SenateCheryl PflugVery GoodYesR
2008461Gerald PolletGoodD
2008KC Superior Court10Les PonomarchukVery GoodNO
2008112John PotterNo Active CampaignDeclined to ParticipateR
200811SenateMargarita PrenticeVery GoodYesD
2008302Skip PriestOutstandingYesR
20081SenateDennis RichterAdequateR
2008KC Superior Court37Jean RietschelOutstandingNO
2008321Alex RionGoodR
2008311Daniel RoachVery GoodYesDeclined to ParticipateR
200851Jay RodneVery GoodYesR
2008471Geoffrey SimpsonVery GoodYesD
2008KC Superior Court53Mariane SpearmanOutstandingNO
200852David SpringVery GoodD
2008452Lawrence SpringerOutstandingYesD
200839SenateVal StevensGoodYesDeclined to ParticipateR
2008472Patrick SullivanOutstandingYesD
2008462John SweeneyNot QualifiedDeclined to InterviewR
2008301Michael ThompsonAdequateR
2008332Dave UpthegroveOutstandingYesD
2008432Kim VerdeNot QualifiedR
200851Jon ViebrockAdequateD
2008Supreme Court4Frank VullietNot QualifiedNO
200839SenateFred WalserGoodD
2008461Scott WhiteGoodD
2008311Ronald WeigeltVery GoodD
2008321Margaret WigginsNot QualifiedNone

Rating Criteria

The Municipal League Candidate Ratings are based on four criteria–Involvement, Effectiveness, Character & Knowledge.  The ratings are produced by citizen volunteers seeking to understand the potential a candidate has to be truly effective in the office they seek and to beneficially serve the community. Political affiliation or the stance a candidate has on any particular issue are not considered as part of the League rating process.

Who Rates The Candidates?

Municipal League Candidate Evaluation Committees are made up of volunteers like you–individuals interested in maintaining good government and willing to get involved.  If you would like to serve on one of our regional candidate evaluation committees next June, please contact cec@munileague.org or 206.622.8333 to learn how.

 

Category: Uncategorized · Tags: