Facts where possible. Judgment where necessary. Transparency always.
Whether councilmembers prioritize effectively, ask good questions, challenge unsupported assumptions, steward public resources, and get results.
The record comes from meeting transcripts, agendas, public statements, audits, budgets and audited financial statements.
These aren’t ordinary policy disagreements. In each case, Council had authoritative notice of a material problem before the final decision — and an opportunity to correct it. How a governance failure is defined and tested →
Four hours before the vote, the Fire Chief said his department had never reviewed the design. Council adopted it unchanged, 7–2.
Read the explainer →A 1.26-acre public site sat empty for five years while Berkeley struggled to site homeless services. It drew no sealed bids and sold to a private developer for $3 million.
Read the explainer →A fire-station closure was tied to passage of the sales tax. Council later found $200,000 to reverse it while cutting 39 police and dispatch positions and the mobile crisis team.
Read the explainer →Two transitional-housing projects were sited in one district in eleven months. Both times, neighborhood consultation came after the funding commitment.
Read the explainer →⚠ = active incident record · Grades reflect all scored dimensions
Scores updated 6 August 2026 · 61 meetings through 28 July 2026
Grades measure each member against the same published methodology. They are not curved and do not depend on how other members perform.
| Member | Grade |
|---|---|
|
Bartlett ⚠ Incident record District 3 |
D+ |
|
Blackaby ⚠ Incident record District 6 |
C |
|
Humbert ⚠ Incident record District 8 |
D |
|
Kesarwani ⚠ Incident record District 1 |
C− |
|
LunaParra ⚠ Incident record District 7 |
D+ |
|
O'Keefe ⚠ Incident record District 5 |
C− |
|
Taplin ⚠ Incident record District 2 |
D+ |
|
Tregub ⚠ Incident record District 4 |
F |
| ★ |
Ishii ⚠ Incident record Mayor · At-Large |
D− | 21% |