How are candidates evaluated?

In his column of February 13, 2005, Sarasota Herald Tribune writer Tom Lyons concluded by saying that the Civic League's candidate ratings were "just uniformative" as they provide "no basis at all for assessing the league's judgment." Here is a description of the candidate evaluation process.

All candidates are invited to be interviewed by a panel of five persons. All the candidates were asked the same questions. Additionally, the remarks made by the candidates at the Civic League's luncheon on February 9, 2005 were also taken into account. Each of the five panel members rated each of the candidates in ten different areas. In each area, the candidate received a score of either very low, low, average, high or very high.

The ten different areas considered are:
1. Leadership skills (To what extent has the candidate shown strength, humility and a sound track record in previous leadership positions, i.e. getting people or organizations to do what they otherwise might not have done; to what extent does the candidate know when to lead and when to follow; and to what extent is the candidate likely to be open to adjusting his/her vision based on thorough input from all constituent groups.)

2. Community involvement (Consider both former and present involvement. Community involvement includes participation in both civic and political activities. It includes the holding of appointive or elective public offices, positions in public interest, political party or advocacy organizations, especially ones that develop knowledge or skills needed for the position sought.)

3. Communication skills (Include speaking, writing and listening. speaking - does candidate digress, evade and spin or does he/she speak clearly, straightforwardly and openly; is candidate easy or hard to understand? Listening - does the candidate miss the point of questions and remarks of others or does s/he understand the questions and accurately restate the remarks and opinions of others? Responses – review candidate’s written answers on the Candidate Information Form especially regarding the question on Four Most Important Issues and how s/he will approach the solution.)

4. Collaborative Skills (Base evaluation on whether or not the candidate shows strong tendencies to always take a hard line or shows a willingness to listen to ideas of others and work collaboratively to achieve the best possible solution for the largest number of people. Is the candidate likely to be unduly influenced by special interests.)

5. Issues and Duties (To what extent does the candidate understand the issues, problems, programs and duties related to the office sought?)

6. Vision (To what extent does the candidate articulate a clear idea of the future s/he will be trying to create; a vision devoid of political clichés?)

7. Personal Attributes (To what extent does the candidate possess honesty, candor, and education/experience relating to the position sought?)

8. Government aptitude (To what extent does the candidate show an understanding of the functions of the various bureaus and departments of government and how to work with them and through them to accomplish objectives?)

9. Accountability (Are the promises made within the realm of possibility for the office sought and are they specific enough to hold candidate accountable? To what extent does the candidate have a well-founded plan of how s/he will report to and communicate with her/his constituency between elections including an accounting of the outcome of his/her campaign promises.)

10. Overall rating (Overall how would you rate this candidate?)

Following the interviews of all the candidates, the results were submitted for tabulation. If a candidates's score failed to reflect a specific level of support, the candidate was "not recommended."If the level of support was achieved, the candidate was rated "qualified." If a specific higher level of support was reached, the candidate was rated "well qualified." And if a candidate received across the board high marks from all panel members, the candidate could be rated "exceptionally well qualified."

Pledge Against Negative Campaign Advertising

Here is the exact text of the pledge against negative campaign advertising that was signed by all of the candidates for Sarasota City Commission.

As a candidate for public office, I pledge to refrain from negative political advertising in connection with my campaign.

Advertisements will be considered "negative" if they violate the core values of compassion, honesty, responsibility, fairness and respect. Advertisements will be considered:

--compassionless if they foster hatred or rancor

--dishonest if they base their messages on lies or subtle deceptions and half truths

--irresponsible if they degrade the tenor of public discourse and heighten cynicsm about the electoral process

--unfair if they use emotive spins to attack an opposing candidate's personal characteristics

--disrespectful if they refuse to treat the opposing candidate as a worthy citizen and individual

The term 'advertisement' shall include any communication intended to reach potential voters through the public media including, but not limited to: print medias, such as a newspaper or other periodical; outdoor advertising, such as billboards and other signs; television, telephone, facsimile or computer; and, written communication such as flyers delivered by hand or through the mail.

Tom Lyons Column

On February 13, 2005, Sarasota Herald Tribune columnist Tom Lyons wrote the following:


Civic league's candidate pledge could give negativity a bad rap

They've all signed The Pledge.

According to the Sarasota County Civic League, all seven of the candidates for two Sarasota City Commission seats have promised, in writing, to "avoid negative campaign advertising."

We'll see. I suspect that for one or more of these candidates, this pledge will be as binding as abstinence-until-marriage pledges seem to be for many teenagers. That is, it will work until a seductive campaign adviser or inner voice coos: "Come on; everybody is doing it."

But actually, I don't want candidates to avoid being "negative."

The league defines political ads as negative if they "violate the core values of compassion, honesty, responsibility, fairness and respect. Specifically, candidates have pledged to avoid emotional attack ads that degrade the tenor of public discourse, or are based (on) deception or rancor."

If that were the correct definition, I wouldn't quibble. But I wish the league wouldn't include deceptive, unfair, and dishonest ads under the label "negative."

Lying about opponents is dirty politics, and bad. But being critical of an opponent -- being negative -- isn't always a bad thing. It can be essential.

Local government has had some office holders who overdo negativity, or just do it badly. But overall, local government suffers more from too much smiling along when malarkey is being sold. I prefer those who speak up when peddlers are pushing snake oil.

Dirty politics bothers me as much as it bothers anyone in the league, I suspect. And I'm bothered that, no matter how many people say they feel the same, the dirtiest attack ads still seem to work.

But that doesn't mean the only honorable alternative is being cheery and never "being negative." Candidates can be reasonably respectful and honest, while telling voters exactly why they shouldn't vote for someone.

When they do, the opponent may say it is a dirty attack campaign. That doesn't make it so.

The civic league's own announcement about the pledge provides a clue about the value of honest negativity.

That announcement says the league interviews candidates for local office as a service to members and the public. It says it does not endorse candidates, but does evaluations that "rate the qualifications of the candidates."

Well, the league rates three of the seven candidates as "well qualified," including the two incumbents in the race. Three more, all challengers, got a damned-with-faint-praise "qualified."

One challenger, John Fulton, got a rating of "not recommended."

Not recommended. Sounds negative to me.

If the league doesn't quite advise you on who it thinks you should vote for, it does advise voters on who they should not vote for, obviously.

I'm not saying that's bad. Not at all. People are free to accept, doubt or even scoff at the ratings, and the very idea of any group being totally nonpartisan and objective. As with newspaper endorsements, voters can take the ratings or leave them, but there's sure nothing wrong with evaluating the qualifications of candidates.

Still, I'd fault the league's announcement for revealing so little -- nothing, actually -- about what judgment calls and specific factors led to each candidate's rating.

The members might figure not listing a candidate's perceived shortcomings is the way to avoid being, um, negative. They might think it seems more polite and nonrancorous to leave it at just one or two words. Like "not recommended."

It isn't. It is just uninformative. It provides no basis at all for assessing the league's judgment.

Candidate Evaluations

As a service to its members and to the voting public, the Sarasota County Civic League interviews and evaluates candidates for public office in local elections. Evaluations rate the qualifications of the candidates, without regard to their party affiliation or their positions on the issues. Each candidate is rated applying the same standards including leadership ability, community involvement, communication skills and understanding of the responsibilities and scope of authority of the office sought. The Civic League, as a non-partisan organization, does not endorse candidates. The evaluations reported below reflect only our findings and judgment as to the level of qualification of the candidates.


Sarasota City Commission Election--Two "at large" positions
Election Day is Tuesday, March 8, 2005
Run-off Election (if needed) Tuesday, April 12
All registered voters in the city of Sarasota are eligible to vote.
(I) = incumbent

Suzanne Atwell-Qualified
John Fulton-not recommended
Diana Hamilton-Well Qualified
Richard Martin(I)-Well Qualified
Lou Ann Palmer(I)-Well Qualified
Ken Shelin-Well Qualified
Jon Susce-Qualified