Analyzing Scores in Arvada’s Councilmember Selection Process

The City of Arvada’s scoring process for filling the vacant at-large councilmember seat revealed significant differences in how councilmembers evaluated applicants. A review of the scores submitted by each councilmember highlights discrepancies that raise questions about the consistency of the scoring criteria and the alignment of councilmembers’ priorities. These inconsistencies risk undermining public trust, especially as the top candidates proceed to interviews. 

Evaluation Criteria for Applicants

Each candidate was assessed based on the following nine criteria, designed to capture their qualifications, availability, and connection to the community:

1. Education Experience: Background in fields relevant to local government, leadership, teamwork, or Arvada-specific knowledge.

2. Professional Experience: Work history demonstrating skills applicable to City Council responsibilities.

3. Board or Committee Service: Prior service on boards, commissions, or committees, showcasing experience in governance.

4. Meeting Availability: Indication of ability to attend council meetings and workshops.

5. Willingness to Serve: Commitment to engage on council-appointed boards and commissions.

6. Participation in Trainings and Events: Willingness to attend retreats, training sessions, and ceremonial activities.

7. Interest in City Council: Enthusiasm and motivation to contribute to the council.

8. Connection to Arvada: Demonstrated ties to and understanding of the local community.

9. Community Engagement: Active interest in supporting and improving Arvada.

Scores for Applicants 

Score Overview and Key Trends

Among the 17 candidates for City Council, Michael Griffith emerged as the top scorer with a total of 507 points, followed closely by Brad Rupert (494), Harriet Hall (487), and Brandon Figliolino (468). However, a deeper analysis of the individual scores reveals significant disparities among councilmembers’ evaluations.

Consistent High Scores

• Michael Griffith (507 total): Griffith secured the top spot with scores ranging from 81 (Marriott) to 90, demonstrating strong consensus across evaluators about his qualifications. His consistent performance highlights broad agreement in viewing him as a frontrunner.

• Harriet Hall (487 total): Hall similarly received high scores, with a range of 67 (Marriott) to 90. While slightly less consistent than Griffith, her evaluations reflect general alignment among councilmembers.

Inconsistent Scores

• Brandon Figliolino (468 total): Figliolino garnered scores of 80 or higher from four councilmembers (Simpson, Moorman, Ambrose, Davis) but received a much lower score of 55 from Marriott. This stark drop raises questions about differing interpretations of his qualifications or experience.

• Adler (398 total): Adler’s scores varied widely, from 52 (Davis) to 84 (Ambrose), suggesting disparate views on how his background aligns with the role.

• Kennedy (378 total): With scores ranging from 47 (Moorman and Davis) to 80 (Simpson), Kennedy’s evaluations reflect mixed perceptions of her suitability.

Low and Polarized Scores

• Phillips (331 total): Phillips experienced a wide range of evaluations, from 80 (Simpson) to a low of 24 (Davis). This 56-point disparity underscores significant differences in how his strengths were assessed.

• Lopez (366 total): Lopez’s scores ranged from 36 (Fifer) to 85 (Ambrose), indicating a lack of consensus regarding her qualifications.

• Rossi (303 total): While Marriott rated Rossi highly with a score of 74, others evaluated her much lower, with Moorman awarding a mere 27. This sharp divide highlights potential gaps in how evaluators interpreted her application.

• Betts received scores ranging from 22 to 65, while Hall had scores ranging from 67 to 90.

Though councilmembers did not include comments on their scoring rubrics, Simpson underlined “teamwork” when scoring Fenske a 2 for criterion 1, “leadership” when scoring Phillips a 7 for criterion 1, and “teamwork” when scoring Rossi an 8 for criterion 2. No other councilmember included marks indicating reasoning for their scores on specific criteria. Such wide gaps not only highlight a lack of alignment among evaluators but also prompt an important question: Would the list of finalists look different if scoring were more consistent?

The Scoring Disparities

The evaluation process revealed sharp divides in how certain candidates were perceived. For example:

1. Differing Priorities: Some councilmembers may have prioritized experience, such as service on boards or commissions, while others may have focused on community connections or specific qualifications like professional expertise.

2. Subjective Interpretation of Criteria: While the scoring sheet provided objective categories (education, experience, availability, etc.), the interpretation of these criteria likely varied among councilmembers. For instance, Kennedy scored highly in leadership but received notably low marks from Moorman and Davis, perhaps reflecting differences in how leadership was weighed.

3. Councilmember Bias: As noted in earlier discussions about the rubric, Councilmember John Marriott criticized the evaluation tool, calling it ineffective. This may have influenced his scoring approach, as seen in his lower-than-average scores for several candidates.

Was This Disparity Addressed?

The scoring differences have sparked debate about the fairness and transparency of the process. During the selection discussions, Councilmember Marriott raised concerns about the rubric, labeling it “nonsense” and arguing that it failed to provide meaningful insights into candidates’ qualifications. While Marriott’s concerns were noted, it is unclear whether a deeper discussion about the scoring gaps occurred before moving forward with the final four candidates.

Implications for the Final Decision

The discrepancies in scoring highlight potential challenges for the council’s decision-making process:

• Risk of Bias: With such significant score gaps, especially for candidates like Figliolino, the process may inadvertently favor certain evaluators’ priorities over others.

• Public Perception: If the final appointment doesn’t align with the broader public’s expectations, the scoring disparities could become a focal point for criticism.

Next Steps and Transparency

As the council prepares to interview the final four candidates on Dec. 13, these issues underscore the importance of a transparent and deliberative process. Residents are encouraged to weigh in before Dec. 10, providing their input to help guide the council’s decision by either by letter to City Clerk Kristen Rush at 8101 Ralston Road, Arvada, CO 80002 or emailing kristen@arvada.org.

The final appointment will not only fill a critical leadership role but also set a precedent for future vacancies. Was the process fair? Did the scoring disparities reflect genuine differences in qualifications, or were they the result of misaligned priorities? The council owes it to Arvada residents to address these questions openly and thoughtfully.

What do you think about the council’s scoring process? Share your thoughts and stay engaged in this important decision for Arvada’s future!