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."
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."
posted by Adam Tebrugge | 12:18 PM
<< Home