This council votes together: 86% of recorded votes were unanimous, and the two least-aligned members still agree 91% of the time. Comparing votes alone will not tell them apart. What follows is how this member got there.
Bartlett's record contains some of the council's strongest signs of fiscal skepticism. He ranks first of nine on taxpayer alignment, has broken from the bloc on major spending votes, and uses more reform-oriented language on homeless services than most colleagues. Those instincts distinguish him from members who rarely question the prevailing direction.
They have not produced a reliable record of fiscal leadership. He was on time for 46% of the sessions examined, missed five outright, and was absent for five of the seven binding fiscal votes in the curated record, covering $321 million in authorizations. Despite serving longer than any current colleague, he has not advanced a structural response to the deficit, the capital backlog, or chronic street underfunding, and 29% of his speaking time goes to matters outside the city's authority — including a five-pillar federal economic platform published through his council office.
The BYA cannabis-education contract weakened the record further. His wife filed the incorporation paperwork for the subcontractor and her law office served as its registered address; he says he was unaware of the filing. No public disclosure of the connection has been identified. When the program's failures surfaced, he suggested the contractors might yet complete work from a grant period that had already closed, and proposed no review, no recovery effort, and no other remedy. Whatever the legal requirements, the combination created an appearance problem his response did not resolve.
The grade is absolute rather than curved. Bartlett often appears to understand the fiscal problem better than his colleagues do. It measures the distance between that understanding and a record of dependable attendance, sustained structural work, and clear public accountability.
This is built from the public record and it is not complete. Absence of a finding here means we have not documented one, not that none exists. Corrections and additions are welcome.
These are decisions with consequences the city will carry for years. How a member showed up on these matters more than any number of routine votes.
| Date | Type | Item | Amount | Position |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-01-21 | TEFRA Bond | CMFA Bond – 2001 Ashby Ave | $45.0M | ABSENT |
| 2025-05-20 | Revenue Bond | Lease Revenue Notes – Fire HQ | $11.0M | ABSENT |
| 2025-05-20 | GO Bond | $35M GO Bonds – Measure O Housing | $35.0M | ABSENT |
| 2025-05-20 | Budget Amendment | FY2025 Budget Amendment 1st Reading | $85.7M | ABSENT |
| 2025-06-03 | Budget Amendment | FY2025 Budget Amendment 2nd Reading | $144.0M | ABSENT |
| 2025-06-24 | Budget Adoption | FY2026 Budget Adoption 1st Reading | $1.45B | YES |
| 2025-07-08 | Budget Adoption | FY2026 Budget Adoption 2nd Reading | $1.52B | YES |
| Base — from voting record and agenda behavior | ||
| HSA alignment | HSA score 0.0/100 → inverse 100% → quadratic → 100.0% (75% weight) | — |
| Scope discipline | Off-mission penalty 0.0% → discipline 100.0% (25% weight) | +0.250 |
| Raw score | +1.000 | |
| Adjustments — documented behaviors and penalties | ||
| Incident record | 7 incidents, tier-weighted, capped ±0.30 | -0.167 |
| Audit silence | streets rocky road 2025 | -0.040 |
| New revenue preference penalty | Revenue advocacy without companion reprioritization analysis | — |
| Fiscal referral penalty | Bond/tax campaign direction (capped −0.09) | -0.050 |
| Rhetoric penalty | Fiscal concern rhetoric with no dissent votes (high HSA or serial fiscal-vote absence) | — |
| Final score (kept within 0–100% range) | +0.532 | |
Whether this member behaved as the decision-maker on consequential matters where they had standing to act. Losing an argument counts as ownership; declining to have it does not.
Too few documented instances (1) to characterize. Not scored.