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.
States the standard, then abandons it at the decision point. Tregub attends nearly everything, asks substantive questions, and on difficult items often identifies the precise concern that deserves attention. The weakness is what happens after he identifies it.
On Hopkins he argued that Council should not constrain staff's options before the technical work was done, and voted for the analysis-first substitute consistent with that. Ninety seconds after it failed he voted for the motion that fixed the alignment before that analysis, without saying why the principle no longer applied. The same shape appears on license plate readers, where he acknowledged the investigative value on the record and voted no, and on priority-based budgeting, where he told a constituent he would look at a proposal and no inquiry, referral or public assessment followed.
District 4 siting is the clearest instance. Twice, residents were invited to a community meeting only after Council had committed the money. The second time he knew the location before the funding vote, did not tell the district for eight weeks, and did not pull either consent item — after he had already acknowledged that the first process was 'less than ideal.' He controlled neither the grant application nor the outcome. He did control whether his district heard about it before the vote.
He voted no twice across 305 tracked items, supported every major fiscal authorization examined, and scores last of nine on taxpayer alignment. The grade is absolute rather than curved. It does not rest on a claim that he misunderstands the objections — he frequently states them himself — but on a repeated failure to carry them through the point of decision or explain why he did not.
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 38.0/100 → inverse 62% → quadratic → 38.4% (75% weight) | +0.462 |
| Scope discipline | Off-mission penalty 20.0% → discipline 80.0% (25% weight) | +0.200 |
| Raw score | +0.488 | |
| Adjustments — documented behaviors and penalties | ||
| Incident record | 15 incidents, tier-weighted, capped ±0.30 | -0.300 |
| Audit silence | none — behavior already characterized via incidents | — |
| 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) | +0.083 | |
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.