» Welcome » Background » Definitions » Questionnaires Thank you for visiting CAE-PAC's official candidate evaluations and endorsements page. We hope the information herein is helpful to you in your voting decisions. We welcome your feedback and participation to further enhance the process for the 2008 elections. To view the details for each candidate we evaluated, follow the instructions below. However, before proceeding to the candidate ratings, we strongly encourage you to familiarize yourself with CAE-PAC's evaluation process described on this page, along with a concise definition of each rating given. Thank you again and always feel free to contact us for assistance. NOTE: Browser pop-up blocker must be turned off. For assistance, please contact our webmaster via e-mail for a response within 24 hours. Please also view the candidate questionnaires, below. » Welcome » Background » Definitions » Questionnaires Background on Evaluation Process CAE-PAC continues to improve and refine the candidate endorsement process to make our evaluations more relevant and comprehensive. During the primary race, we used a three-level rating system, but a more comprehensive system was implemented for the general election evaluations wherein candidates were assigned one of six possible ratings: Demonstrates Leadership; Needs Improvement; Exceeds Expectations; Resistant; or Meets Expectations; Hostile. (A thorough explanation of each rating can be found under Definitions.) It should be noted that the candidates evaluated by CAE-PAC for the primary race were not re-evaluated for the general election. As such, the ratings given to candidates for the primary race (Endorse, Insufficient Data, or Not Endorsed) carry through to the general election ratings and endorsements. Candidate Questionnaires The questionnaire used for the evaluation during the primary race was also revised for the general election. The questionnaire was mailed to 56 candidates running for 20 municipal and 22 school board positions. Each questionnaire sent was followed up by telephone and/or email to encourage the candidates to participate. Evaluation Committees CAE-PAC appointed two independent committees to evaluate each participating candidate. The first committee reviewed each completed questionnaire and provided an initial rating to the board of directors. Each candidate who completed a questionnaire was subsequently offered an interview by the second committee which also provided its rating to the CAE-PAC board. To ensure maximum integrity and objectivity of the ratings, neither committee was privy to the ratings assigned by the other. Finally, the candidate ratings determined by the two committees were used by the board of directors in establishing the final CAE-PAC ratings for each candidate. Public Record of Candidates The board also considered any publicly known information about the candidates. For example, the Spokane City Council, over the past two years, has voted on two issues that directly impact the GLBT community. Those votes were for authorizing Domestic Partner benefits for city employees and a proposal to place a referendum on the ballot that would repeal such benefits without the signatures required by municipal code. The two votes were utilized in the evaluation of candidates who are currently running for re-election to their current position or election to a different position.   » Welcome » Background » Definitions » Questionnaires Rating Definitions Following, are the complete definitions of the ratings CAE-PAC used in evaluating candidates. As stated, a three-level system was used during the primary race evaluation process but was replaced by a more comprehensive, graduated rating scale for the general election evaluations wherein candidates were assigned one of six possible ratings. GENERAL ELECTION RATINGS: Demonstrates Leadership A candidate who has taken an active leadership role in advancing the rights of the GLBT community and promoting equality. A candidate with this rating can likely be expected to continue to reliably champion GLBT causes. Exceeds Expectations A candidate who has actively and consistently supported the GLBT community in a myriad of ways. The candidate has supported the advancement of GLBT issues, causes, or legislation, and has a documented history of support which may also include participation in a number of GLBT events, issue endorsement, and/or financial support of more than one GLBT organization. A candidate with this rating can likely be expected to continue to actively and reliably support GLBT causes. Meets Expectations A candidate who has expressed or demonstrated a commitment to GLBT causes and the GLBT community but is lacking a consistent or documented history of support. A candidate with this rating can likely be expected to actively and reliably support GLBT causes. Needs Improvement A candidate who has expressed support for one or more GLBT causes but cannot provide a commitment to the GLBT community, usually due to a lack of knowledge or understanding of GLBT issues. A candidate with this rating may be expected to support some GLBT causes but cannot be considered a reliable or consistent supporter. Resistant A candidate who, in general, has passively supported anti-GLBT issues, causes, or legislation, or has expressed general opposition to GLBT equality. A candidate with this rating cannot be expected to support any GLBT causes. Hostile A candidate who has demonstrated a commitment to actively support anti-GLBT causes or to inhibit progress toward GLBT equality. A candidate with this rating can be expected to actively fight most or all GLBT causes. Insufficient Data CAE-PAC does not have sufficient information to make a determination due to the fact that the candidate did not return the questionnaire, or the questionnaire was inadequate to make an assessment and the candidate did not respond to a request for an interview. PRIMARY RACE RATINGS: Endorse The candidate returned their questionnaire, that any interview by CAE-PAC was acceptable, and if they are an elected official, their voting record supports an endorsement. Not Endorsed The candidate may or may not have returned the questionnaire and, if they are an elected official, their voting record merited a vote of no endorsement from CAE-PAC. Insufficient Data CAE-PAC does not have sufficient information to make a determination due to the fact that the candidate did not return the questionnaire, or the questionnaire was inadequate to make an endorsement and the candidate did not respond to a request for an interview. » Welcome » Background » Definitions » Questionnaires Candidate Questionnaires Below, are links to the questionnaires sent to municipal & school board candidates in the Spokane County general election. The deadline for candidates to return their questionnaire was Monday, September 10th, 2007. CAE- PAC is no longer accepting questionnaires from candidates for the current election but invites the public to view the questionnaires in their original form, along with the accompanying letter. The completed questionnaires submitted by candidates can be viewed at the CAE-PAC Candidate Endorsement Site. MUNICIPAL CANDIDATES » Questionnaire:   » Accompanying Letter:   SCHOOL BOARD CANDIDATES » Questionnaire:   » Accompanying Letter: