Candidate Evaluations

October 1, 2008

The Sarasota County Civic League is a non-partisan civic organization dedicated to an engaged and informed community. The Candidate Evaluation Program (CEP) is a public service program of the Civic League. Candidates are evaluated through written information submitted by the candidate and a panel interview. Each candidate receives a rating designed to indicate the degree to which the candidate possesses the qualifications needed to serve in the position sought.

The rating scale was revised in 2007 and ratings are as follows:
Exceeds Qualifications (EQ)
Meets Qualifications (MQ)
Limited Qualifications (LQ)
Did Not Participate (DNP)


As of October 1, the Sarasota County Civic League has issued these additional results from the Candidate Evaluation Program:

Each participant is asked to sign the Civic League’s Pledge Against Negative Campaign Advertising.


Public Defender
Both candidates signed the Pledge Against Negative Campaign Advertising.
Larry Eger EQ
Adam Tebrugge EQ


US House of Representatives District 13
Three candidates signed the Pledge Against Negative Campaign Advertising.
Christine Jennings declined our request to sign the pledge.
Don Baldauf MQ
Vern Buchanan EQ
Christine Jennings EQ
Jan Schneider EQ

Candidate Evaluations 2008

Sarasota County Civic League
Candidate Evaluation Programs

The Sarasota County Civic League is a non-partisan civic organization dedicated to an engaged and informed community. The Candidate Evaluation Program (CEP) is a public service program of the Civic League. Candidates are evaluated through written information submitted by the candidate and a panel interview. Each candidate receives a rating designed to indicate the degree to which the candidate possesses the qualifications needed to serve in the position sought.

The rating scale was revised in 2007 and ratings are as follows:
Exceeds Qualifications (EQ)
Meets Qualifications (MQ)
Limited Qualifications (LQ)
Did Not Participate (DNP)


As of August 18, the Sarasota County Civic League has issued the following results from the Candidate Evaluation Program:

All participating candidates signed the Civic League’s Pledge Against Negative Campaign Advertising.

Florida Senate District 23
Morgan Bentley- Exceeds Qualifications
Nancy Detert- Exceeds Qualifications
Michael Grant- Did Not Participate

Florida House of Representatives District 69
Laura Benson- Exceeds Qualifications
Keith Fitzgerald - Exceeds Qualifications
Horacio Lemus IV- Did Not Participate

Sarasota County Sheriff
Larry Dunklee- Exceeds Qualifications
DaveGustafson- Meets Qualifications
Thomas Knight- Exceeds Qualifications
Curtis Lavarello- Meets Qualifications

School Board
Millicent Puleo- Exceeds Qualifications
Caroline G. Zucker- Exceeds Qualifications

Tax Collector
Donna Clarke- Meets Qualifications
Barbara Ford-Coates- Exceeds Qualifications

Hospital Board At Large Seat 1
William N. Jensen- Did Not Participate
Thomas Towler- Did Not Participate

Hospital Board At Large Seat 2
To Be scheduled

Hospital Board Central District Seat 1
Dave Couch- Meets Qualifications
Bruce DiGiovanni- Did Not Participate
Teresa Carafelli- Meets Qualifications

Hospital Board Northern District Seat 1
Richard C. Merritt- Meets Qualifications
Jean-Noel Prade- Did Not Participate

City Commission Evaluations March 2007

The Sarasota County Civic League has issued its Candidate Evaluations for the Sarasota City Commission Races, as follows:

District 1

Fredd Atkins -- Did Not Participate

April Sheffield -- Did Not Participate


District 2

Richard Clapp -- Well Qualified

Andrea Daniels -- Well Qualified

Denise Kowal -- Exceptionally Well Qualified

Mary Anne Servian -- Exceptionally Well Qualified


District 3

Danny Bilyeu -- Well Qualified

Kelly Kirschner -- Exceptionally Well Qualified


All participating candidates signed the Civic League's Pledge Against Negative Campaigning.

Please join me in thanking Panel Members Suzanne Gregory, Fred Wernicke, Erin Kepler, and Lynn Brock for their help in getting these done. Alan.

Candidate conduct pledge is misguided

A Times Editorial
Published December 23, 2006
Pinellas County Commissioner Karen Seel reflects the frustration of many voters who were disgusted by the distorted, negative attacks that set a new low for local sleaze in the 2006 political campaigns. But the answer is not a government-written pledge that would encourage candidates to play nice.

A proposed county ordinance backed by Seel is well-intended but misguided. It would create a Code of Ethical Campaign Practices, and candidates in Pinellas would be asked to sign it voluntarily. The proposed oath would ask candidates to pledge to reject campaign material that distorts or misrepresents facts. They would agree to avoid making an opponent's race, gender or sexual orientation a campaign issue and speak out against anyone who raises such personal issues.

Of course, these are ideals all candidates should embrace without signing a government form. And under the proposed ordinance, there would be no one determining who broke the voluntary pledge and no penalties for those candidates who signed on and then waded into the mud. The idea would be that the media would shame candidates into behaving better by publicizing who didn't sign the pledge - or who did and then violated it.

But policing the tenor of political campaigns, even in a voluntary way, is not government's role. That is best left to independent groups unaffiliated with candidates or the county courthouse. Citizens for Fair Campaign Practices, a local group that effectively served this role for a time but has now disbanded, is one such model. There might be other variations that would work as well.

Seel acknowledges that she would prefer another method of cleaning up political campaigns than approving a county ordinance, which the County Commission is expected to air at a public hearing in January. But she sees no other viable alternative. That doesn't mean government-sponsored standards are the way to go, no matter how generic and well-meaning they sound.

In tone and volume, the 2006 campaigns were often depressingly negative. Yet voters did an admirable job slogging through the muck and rejecting many of those candidates who engaged in the worst name-calling. That should send a stronger signal to future candidates about how to conduct themselves than any voluntary pledge that county government hands out.

A clean campaign pledge? Can't hurt

By HOWARD TROXLER, Times Columnist
Published December 19, 2006

Did you think the 2006 election was the worst ever when it came to sleazy campaign attacks?

It's the normal way to run a campaign these days. File your papers. Set up a bank account. And launch into accusing your opponent of being a bad person.

Why? Two reasons.

First, the insiders say that it works.

No matter how stupid or ridiculous the accusation (for example, that a candidate supports child molesters), somebody believes it.

Even if only one person out of 100 buys it, that can make the difference in a close race.

It's not even necessary for voters to believe every accusation literally. Just a general cloud of suspicion is enough.

Attack ads also work by getting people not to vote. This explains why political advertising, as opposed to almost any other kind, can be so sneering and cynical.

When Ford and Chevrolet advertise, they want a bigger share of a big market. It's in everybody's interest to sell as many cars as possible.

But when campaigns advertise, they don't care how few people vote - as long as their side gets the most.

In a couple of races in 2006, the attack ads were so clumsy or offensive that they seem to have backfired. But unfortunately that's the exception.

Here's the second reason that sleazy attack ads are the general rule: because candidates never believe their own ads are sleazy.

Never once, not in nearly three decades of following elections, have I heard a politician or a campaign manager admit to using unethical ads. Their defenses always boil down to (1) He Hit Me First and (2) Well, It's Technically True.

Something happens to a lot of people who run for office. They naturally think of themselves as The Good Guy. Inevitably, that means the other candidate is The Bad Guy. And it's okay to attack bad guys.

So any attempt to change the culture of attack politics has to consider these two factors: Attack ads tend to work, and nobody admits that his own ads are bad.

This brings us to Pinellas County, which is considering a "code of ethical campaign practices." The idea is that the county would offer candidates a chance to sign a pledge to run clean campaigns.

Candidates wouldn't have to sign the pledge. Neither would there be any punishment for signing it and then breaking it.

But the hope behind the proposal is that candidates who made the promise and then broke it would suffer in the court of public opinion.

The pledge includes a promise not to distort or misrepresent facts, make personal innuendoes, attack opponents on the basis of religion, race and so forth, and to repudiate any outside attack made on those grounds.

That last point is important, because many attacks these days come from the Democratic and Republican parties, or their surrogates, instead of individual campaigns. It would be worth it just to see an outbreak of candidates publicly disavowing the sleazy tactics of their own parties.

We should be a little queasy about the government being involved in the standards for campaigns at all. If Pinellas were proposing to judge which candidates were being "unethical," this would certainly be a bad idea. And yet our system has become so brutally cynical, so awful, that maybe the pledge would do some good. It is hard to see how it could hurt, anyway.

More Candidate Evaluations

House District 69:
Laura A. Benson (R): EWQ

Keith Fitzgerald (D) EWQ

David Mills (R) WQ

All candidates signed the pledge against negative campaigning.


Sarasota County Commission:

Joseph A. Barbetta (R): EWQ

John P. Lewis (R): EWQ

Casey Pilon (R) Q

All candidates signed the pledge against negative campaigning.

===============================================
Sarasota County Hospital Board:


Seat 1:

Lynda Cassan (R) WQ

Sam George (D) Q

Gerald Phillips (R) Q

Seat 2:

Thomas F. Kelly (R) EWQ

Alexandra C. Miller (R) NR


Candidates Kelly, Miller, Cassan, and George signed the pledge against negative campaigning.

Candidate Evaluations

The Sarasota County Civic League announces the results of the candidate evaluation process for: Sarasota County School Board (all contested seats), State House of Representatives District 70, Circuit Court Judge (all contested seats) and North Port City Commission. Additional candidate evaluations will be posted in the near future.
The Sarasota County Civic League does not endorse candidates. The League is non-partisan and has no position on political issues. All candidates that qualify are invited to participate in the evaluation process. The candidates provide background information to the panel of five Civic League members in advance of the interview. A separate panel is convened to evaluate each race. Structured interviews of the candidates are conducted so that each candidate is asked the same questions. The candidates are then rated on ten criteria, including: Leadership skills, Community involvement, communication skills, collaborative skills, personal attributes and government aptitude. Candidates are also asked to sign a pledge against negative campaigning.
The following ratings are then given to the candidates:

EWQ--Exceptionally Well Qualified
WQ--Well Qualified
Q--Qualified
NR--Not Recommended
DNP--Did Not Participate


School Board District 1 (Nonpartisan):
Lisa A. Glenn EWQ
Carol Todd WQ
Tammy St. Mary DNP

School Board District 2 (Nonpartisan):
Larry Helmuth EWQ
Robert W. Long WQ
Caroline G. Zucker EWQ

School Board District 4 (Nonpartisan):
Shirley Brown EWQ
Carol D. Williams WQ

School Board District 5 (Nonpartisan):
Kathy Kleinlein WQ
James Lawless NR

All participating candidates signed the pledge against negative campaigning.

======================================

District 70:

Elizabeth R. Cuevas-Neunder (R) Q
Rory A. Dubin(R) WQ
Doug Holder (R) DNP
Jon Kleiber (R) WQ

David M. Shapiro (D) WQ
Ernest S. Zavodnik (D) Q

Candidates Rory A. Dubin, Jon Kleiber, David M. Shapiro, and Ernest Zavodnik signed the pledge against negative campaigning.



======================================

Circuit Judge Group 13 (Nonpartisan):

Lee Haworth EWQ
Susan Hartmann Swartz Q


Circuit Judge Group 16 (Nonpartisan):

Donna Berlin EWQ
Franklin Roberts Q


Circuit Judge Group 21 (Nonpartisan):

Preston DeVilbiss, Jr. EWQ
Connie Mederos Jacobs WQ
Geoffrey Proffitt WQ
Rochelle Taylor Curley Q

All judicial candidates signed the pledge against negative campaigning.

=======================================

North Port City Commission Seat 4 (Nonpartisan):

Theodore A. Allen WQ
Alberto S. Belinfante WQ
Jim Blucher WQ
David J. Garofalo WQ

North Port City Commission Seat 5 (Nonpartisan):

Vanessa J. Carusone EWQ
Levko Kloss WQ

All North Port City Commission candidates signed the pledge against negative campaigning.

The Sarasota County Civic League would like to extend its thanks to all candidates who participated in the evaluation process. We also thank all of our members who served as panel chairs or panel members.

13th Congressional District Candidate Evaluations

The Sarasota County Civic League Candidate Evaluations for the Congressional Race have been completed. The results are as follows:

Donna Clarke-Q (Qualified)
Tramm Hudson-WQ (Well Qualified)
Christine Jennings-WQ
Nancy Detert-WQ
Mark Flanagan-WQ
Jan Schneider-WQ
Vern Buchanan-DNP (Did Not Participate).

Candidates Clarke, Detert, Flanagan and Schneider signed the Civc League pledge against negative campaigning. Hudson signed a different pledge. Jennings declined to sign. Buchanan did not participate.

Banquet

Our annual dinner banquet will be held May 4, 2006 at Michael's on East. Cocktails at 6 p.m. and Dinner at 7 p.m.
Our guest is Susan MacManus who is a well known commentator on the Florida political scene.

This banquet promises to be the best nonpartisan political event of the season, and you are invited. $55 for members and $65 for guests. E-mail meetingsrsvp@comcast.net or call 925-2970 to make a reservation.

Sarasota County Civic League Endorses one mill Extension for Schools

On March 14, 2006, the voters of Sarasota County will be asked to decide the following issue:

Shall the Sarasota County School District ad valorem millage increase of 1.00 mill per year adopted by the voters in March 2002 for fiscal years beginning July 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2006 be continued for the fiscal years beginning July 1, 206 and ending June 30, 2010 for operating expenses necessary to maintain the quality of Sarasota County’s public school system?

Last month at our luncheon, we heard from Carl Weinrich in his capacity as a representative of Citizens for Better Schools. His primary argument was that the moneys raised over the past four years have addressed previous shortfalls allowed certain enhancements such as increased salary for teachers. The 1.00 mil extension is needed so that Sarasota can continue to compete for quality teachers, and support Superintendent Gary Norris in his ambitious "Next Generation" learning that the League heard about this summer.

In deciding whether to endorse passage of the referendum, the Civic League attempted to determine whether there was any serious and thoughtful opposition that should be considered. If there is, we could not detect any. All of the members in attendance at lunch, as well as the unanimous consensus of the Board of Directors, was that the Sarasota County Civic League should endorse passage of the referendum on March 14, 2006.

Several questions have been raised. The questions include: How will the new funds be managed and spent? Could passage of the extension affect our funding by the State of Florida? I would direct interested persons to this web site:
http://www.sarasotacountyschools.net/Referendum/
A lot of information may be found there, especially under the 2006 referendum Q and A.

Candidate School

The Sarasota County Civic League will be sponsoring a candidate school on Saturday, January 21, 2006. The school will be held at the Sarasota Community Foundation at 2635 Fruitville Road. The school is nonpartisan and intended for anyone who is interested in running for office, working on a campaign, or becoming a better citizen.
Topics to be covered during the school include: Campaign Nuts and Bolts (legal and financial issues), endorsement and evaluation procedures, planning and organizing a campaign, and improving communication skills. Guest lecturers will include former Congressman Dan Miller, Tim Dutton, Beth Rawlins and other noteworthy local, state and national consultants.
The school will run from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm and includes lunch. The total cost for the school, materials and lunch is $25. To obtain an application or for further questions, please e-mail adamt2@aol.com or call Mollie Cardamone at 953-2624.

Civic League Endorses Environmentally Sensitive Lands

On November 8, 2005, the voters of Sarasota County will be asked to decide two questions. The questions are:

Question 1: Shall the existing environmentally sensitive lands program ad valorem tax not-to-exceed 0.25 mill, authorized through December 31, 2019, be continued for ten years through December 31, 2029, and the program expanded to include not only the acquisition, protection and management of environmentally sensitive lands, but also the acquisition and management of neighborhood green space for conservation and public recreation?

Question 2: If Question 1 is approved, shall Sarasota County be authorized to issue additional bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $250,000,000, excluding refunding bonds and previously-authorized indebtedness, maturing by December 31, 2029, bearing interest not exceeding the maximum lawful rate, to finance the acquisition and management of environmentally sensitive lands and neighborhood green space, payable from the not-to-exceed 0.25 mill ad valorem tax?

After study, discussion and input from our membership, the Sarasota County Civic League hereby declares its support for both questions.

A criticism of a "stand-alone" referendum is low voter turnout. Therefore, we encourage all members to vote in this election. Furthermore, we would request that you discuss the referendum with your friends, family and fellow citizens and urge them to vote yes on these questions as well.

September Meeting

The next meeting of the Sarasota County Civic League will occur on Wednesday, September 14 at 11:30. Our speaker will be Gwen MacKenzie, president and CEO of Sarasota Memorial Hospital.

All American City Presentation

See Sarasota’s All-America City presentation: Sarasota County is among 30 finalists competing to become one of the National Civic League’s 10 All-America Cities, which will be announced June 25. The All-America City Award recognizes communities in which citizens, government, businesses, and nonprofits work together to resolve community issues. Sarasota County’s 20-minute community presentation for the competition will be performed by 30 members of the community. Members of the public can catch a free preview of the presentation next Tuesday night, June 21, at 7:00 pm, at the Booker High School Theatre, 3201 North Orange Avenue, Sarasota.

Report on June 8 meeting

Over the years, I have learned quite a bit during the monthly meetings of the Sarasota County Civic League. We are now going to attempt to write summaries of these meetings. New secretary Lyn Brock gives us this report of the June 8 meeting:

Guest Speaker Tim Dutton, SCOPE (Sarasota Openly Plans for Excellence)

Opening the meeting, Tim greeted the group by asking the tables of 10 to break into smaller groups of 3-4 and discuss “What matters to you about the community?” Holding a spoon to signify the floor, members of the smaller groups interacted. Afterwards, each group shared a work group summary; affordable housing, property taxes, community diversity, work force, rapid change etc.

Tim updated the results of some recent SCOPE study groups; intelligent traffic patterns, community mental health, race relations, aging and the workforce coalition. He noted that studies indicate the average median income in Sarasota for a family of four is $54,000 and that the average job pays approximately $30,000. He indicated sky rocketing property values complicated these concerns. He discussed in some detail the concept of "land trusts" to give working class families an opportunity to own starter homes.

Tim acknowledged the similar missions of SCOPE and the Civic League. He challenged Civic League members to do more to involve other members of the community in our ongoing conversation.

NEXT MONTH: LUNCH MEETING Wednesday, July 13 at 11:30 am University Club
GUEST SPEAKER Dr. Gary Norris Superintendent of Schools

Sarasota County is an "All America City" Finalist

The National Civic League sponsors the "All America City" Program. Here is a description of the program, taken from the web site at: http://www.ncl.org/aac/

"The All America City Award is America's original and most prestigious community recognition award. Since 1949, the All-America City Award has encouraged and recognized civic excellence, honoring communities of all sizes (cities, towns, counties, neighborhoods and regions) in which community members, government, businesses and non-profit organizations work together to address critical local issues."


Sarasota County is one of 30 finalists. Representatives from the county will be attending the National Civic League conference in Atlanta on June 25th and 26th where the winners will be announced. Good Luck Sarasota County!
For a link to a list of all of the finalists:
http://www.ncl.org/aac/2005%20AAC%20Finalist.htm

Annual Banquet and Upcoming Meeting

The annual banquet was a success. Roesller's Flight Deck provided a lovely setting, great appetizers, a well prepared meal, and excellent service. Diane McFarlin, publisher of the Sarasota Herald Tribune, was the speaker. She pointed out that in the modern era, there is a trend towards more personalized news consumption. That is, people can now choose to hear only the opinions they agree with. There are now many different methods by which people can receive their news. Journalists must respond and ensure that citizens still are exposed to coverage that is both broad and deep. Diane also discussed the constant challenges of providing balanced coverage, the dificulty of putting out the daily paper, and the new Herald Tribune building in downtown. She asked our membership to continue to work to involved more citizens in the day to day life and governance of our community. I would like to sincerely thank Diane for her timely and gracious appearance at our banquet.
On Wednesday, June 8, Tim Dutton, Executive Director of SCOPE (Sarasota County Openly Plans for Excellence) will discuss the ongoing studies of aging and race relations in Sarasota. Breakfast will begin at 7:30. On Wednesday, July 13, we hope to have as our speaker Dr. Gary Norris, Superintendent of Schools, as the speaker at our luncheon meeting.

Nominees for Board of Directors 2005-06

2005 -2006

President Adam Tebrugge
First Vice President Dick Ulrich
Second Vice President Alan Roddy
Treasurer Susan Grundy
Secretary Lynn Brock
Membership Secretary Gail Levin

Past President George MacFarlane

Directors:
Suzanne Atwell
Betty Lou Burton
Mollie Cardamone
Susan Chapman
Suzanne Gregory
Cindy Malkin
Dr. Jerry Osterweil
Rebecca Proctor
Bob Waechter

Web Page Update

I have updated the Sarasota County Civic League Web Page. Please go to:

http://www.sarasotacivicleague.org/

I plan to use this page for meeting updates and reviews. If you have any suggestions or questions about the Sarasota County CIvic League, please contact me at:

AdamT2@aol.com.

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