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.
Shows up, stays on topic, asks what it costs. On Hopkins he identified the decisive defect, moved the substitute that would have removed the unreviewed alignment, lost, and then voted no on the main motion. Losing does not diminish the ownership that took. He attends nearly every session, keeps more of his speech on core city business than most, and carries no documented governance failure as an author or sponsor.
The grade is absolute rather than curved against his colleagues, and that is what makes it a C-. Responsible participation is a baseline, not an achievement. He authored one discretionary item in the period, which is the lowest legislative output on the council, and the structural problems that came before him — the deficit, the capital backlog, the streets audit — drew no proposal from his office.
He was in the room when the Oxford site was named in public comment and did not pursue it before the sale; that omission was shared by every member, and he had the same opportunity as any of them to act on it.
His is also the shortest record on this page. He is a newer member, there is less to say, and the grade should be read with that in mind.
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 | YES |
| 2025-05-20 | Revenue Bond | Lease Revenue Notes – Fire HQ | $11.0M | YES |
| 2025-05-20 | GO Bond | $35M GO Bonds – Measure O Housing | $35.0M | YES |
| 2025-05-20 | Budget Amendment | FY2025 Budget Amendment 1st Reading | $85.7M | YES |
| 2025-06-03 | Budget Amendment | FY2025 Budget Amendment 2nd Reading | $144.0M | YES |
| 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 24.8/100 → inverse 75% → quadratic → 56.5% (75% weight) | +0.326 |
| Scope discipline | Off-mission penalty 12.0% → discipline 88.0% (25% weight) | +0.220 |
| Raw score | +0.644 | |
| Adjustments — documented behaviors and penalties | ||
| Incident record | 1 incident, tier-weighted, capped ±0.30 | +0.028 |
| 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) | +0.393 | |
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.