On September 21, 2026, the Richardson City Council interviewed the three finalists for appointment to the vacant Place 3 position. Then, after about a half hour in executive session the Council returned to open session to name Daniel Burdette the lone finalist for appointment, which will be made at the September 28 meeting. What reasons did the Council give its choice? They didn't say in public. That leaves the citizens to guess at their reasoning. As my impression of the interviews would not have led to me choosing Burdette, I started digging to see what I might have missed. My first exercise was to examine the seven questions asked of each applicant and score their answers. I didn't consider whether I agreed with their answers (yet), only how the answers measured up to a consistent set of criteria like Knowledge, Responsiveness, Clarity, Specificity, etc. To keep my own biases to a minimum, I asked ChatGPT to do the scoring. The scoring is systematic to the extent that I strove to keep from giving ChatGPT subjective scoring instructions.
I asked ChatGPT not to score whether I or you/he/she/whatever agrees with the answer. An answer could advocate a policy you dislike and still score highly for being knowledgeable, specific, reasoned, practical, and achievable. Conversely, an answer that expresses a position you like can score poorly if it is vague, uninformed, or unrealistic. Most importantly, I didn't try to define for ChatGPT how it should define knowledgeable, specific, reasoned, etc. Whatever it used for those definitions, they didn't come from me.
ChatGPT also recommended doing a separate "quality of question" assessment. That would let me examine which questions were more revealing and produce something more interesting than simply adding up scores and declaring one applicant the winner. I did not do that in this initial analysis. For now, I treated all questions as equally revealing.
Here is the raw data of the scores for all questions, all criteria, all applicants. My deeper analysis will follow.
| QUESTION 1: Imagine you are sworn in next week, and within a few days you must vote on a significant issue that you have not previously followed closely. Walk us through exactly what you would do before casting your vote. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Criterion | Daniel Burdette | Jordan Noret | Jeff Davis |
| Knowledge | Moderate | Strong | Strong |
| Responsiveness | Moderate | Strong | Strong |
| Clarity | Moderate | Strong | Moderate |
| Specificity | Moderate | Strong | Strong |
| Reasoning | Moderate | Strong | Strong |
| Practicality | Strong | Strong | Strong |
| Feasibility | Strong | Strong | Strong |
| Evidence-based | Moderate | Strong | Moderate |
| Tradeoffs | Not applicable | Moderate | Moderate |
| Prioritization/accountability | Not applicable | Moderate | Moderate |
| Strong ratings | 2 | 8 | 6 |
| QUESTION 2: Please describe the 2026 bond program. | |||
| Criterion | Daniel Burdette | Jordan Noret | Jeff Davis |
| Knowledge | Weak | Strong | Weak |
| Responsiveness | Weak | Strong | Moderate |
| Clarity | Strong | Strong | Moderate |
| Specificity | Weak | Strong | Weak |
| Reasoning | Strong | Strong | Moderate |
| Practicality | Strong | Strong | Strong |
| Feasibility | Strong | Strong | Not applicable |
| Evidence-based | Moderate | Strong | Weak |
| Tradeoffs | Moderate | Moderate | Not applicable |
| Prioritization/accountability | Not applicable | Moderate | Not applicable |
| Strong ratings | 4 | 8 | 1 |
| QUESTION 3: What do you care so much about to stand for when no one is looking, when not everyone may understand something you're willing to perhaps stand alone on, or maybe even upset some people over? | |||
| Criterion | Daniel Burdette | Jordan Noret | Jeff Davis |
| Knowledge | Moderate | Moderate | Strong |
| Responsiveness | Strong | Strong | Strong |
| Clarity | Strong | Strong | Strong |
| Specificity | Strong | Moderate | Strong |
| Reasoning | Strong | Strong | Strong |
| Practicality | Strong | Strong | Strong |
| Feasibility | Strong | Strong | Moderate |
| Evidence-based | Strong | Moderate | Moderate |
| Tradeoffs | Not applicable | Not applicable | Strong |
| Prioritization/accountability | Moderate | Moderate | Strong |
| Strong ratings | 7 | 5 | 8 |
| QUESTION 4: Although the budget and tax rate were resolved tonight, I want to understand your perspective on both. If you were sitting on the dais for the vote that just happened, is there anything you would change about the proposed budget, and why? | |||
| Criterion | Daniel Burdette | Jordan Noret | Jeff Davis |
| Knowledge | Moderate | Moderate | Strong |
| Responsiveness | Moderate | Weak | Strong |
| Clarity | Strong | Strong | Strong |
| Specificity | Moderate | Weak | Strong |
| Reasoning | Strong | Moderate | Strong |
| Practicality | Strong | Strong | Strong |
| Feasibility | Strong | Moderate | Strong |
| Evidence-based | Moderate | Weak | Moderate |
| Tradeoffs | Strong | Strong | Strong |
| Prioritization/accountability | Moderate | Weak | Moderate |
| Strong ratings | 5 | 3 | 8 |
| QUESTION 5: If appointed to City Council, in your opinion, based on local input and priorities, what is your specific stance on issues such as housing affordability and public safety? | |||
| Criterion | Daniel Burdette | Jordan Noret | Jeff Davis |
| Knowledge | Moderate | Strong | Strong |
| Responsiveness | Moderate | Strong | Strong |
| Clarity | Strong | Strong | Moderate |
| Specificity | Moderate | Moderate | Strong |
| Reasoning | Strong | Strong | Strong |
| Practicality | Strong | Strong | Moderate |
| Feasibility | Strong | Moderate | Moderate |
| Evidence-based | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate |
| Tradeoffs | Moderate | Strong | Moderate |
| Prioritization/accountability | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate |
| Strong ratings | 4 | 6 | 4 |
| QUESTION 6: What is the biggest problem facing our city that you believe isn't getting enough attention? | |||
| Criterion | Daniel Burdette | Jordan Noret | Jeff Davis |
| Knowledge | Moderate | Strong | Strong |
| Responsiveness | Moderate | Strong | Strong |
| Clarity | Strong | Strong | Strong |
| Specificity | Strong | Strong | Moderate |
| Reasoning | Moderate | Strong | Strong |
| Practicality | Strong | Strong | Strong |
| Feasibility | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate |
| Evidence-based | Moderate | Strong | Moderate |
| Tradeoffs | Not applicable | Moderate | Strong |
| Prioritization/accountability | Moderate | Strong | Moderate |
| Strong ratings | 3 | 8 | 6 |
| QUESTION 7: Places 1 through 4 have a residency requirement, in part so that at least one Council member knows and understands a particular quadrant of the city. If selected, you'd be the only current Council member living in Southwest Richardson. Can you share one challenge specific to Place 3 that you would like to see the Council put energy toward? | |||
| Criterion | Daniel Burdette | Jordan Noret | Jeff Davis |
| Knowledge | Moderate | Strong | Strong |
| Responsiveness | Strong | Strong | Strong |
| Clarity | Strong | Strong | Strong |
| Specificity | Moderate | Strong | Moderate |
| Reasoning | Moderate | Moderate | Strong |
| Practicality | Strong | Strong | Strong |
| Feasibility | Strong | Moderate | Moderate |
| Evidence-based | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate |
| Tradeoffs | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Prioritization/accountability | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate |
| Strong ratings | 4 | 5 | 5 |
| Total Strong ratings across all 7 questions | 29 | 43 | 38 |
Of course, this exercise doesn't reproduce the Council's decision-making process. The Council had information beyond the interviews, including the applicants' written applications, their previous interactions with the applicants, and whatever other considerations they brought to the deliberations. I did not include those things in this analysis. This table therefore does not prove the Council made the wrong choice. It shows only that, based solely on the interviews and these criteria, I can't see an explanation for the choice—and the Council hasn't provided one.
In total, Daniel Burdette had only 29 "Strong" scores. Jordan Noret had 43 and Jeff Davis had 38. On none of the individual questions did Burdette score the most "Strong" ratings of the three applicants. On three of the seven questions, Burdette had the fewest "Strong" ratings and on a fourth, he was tied for fewest. That's four of the seven questions, a majority. This is in line with my own (biased) impression of the interviews watching in real time. Note that ChatGPT did not have access to video or audio. In my (biased) opinion, Burdette finished third in terms of projecting confidence, dynamism, and poise, the kinds of traits I for one want a Council member to show on the dais.
So what did the Council members see that I didn't? Darned if I know. They didn't say. Which is a big reason why I hate the non-transparent, secretive deliberations used to make these decisions. By the rules of the game they set for themselves, they didn't have to say. I can't read their minds, so all I can say is what it *looked like*. And, it looked like the interview process did not determine the outcome. At least the Council gave the public no way to know whether it did. That's a harsh judgment, but they gave the public nothing else to go on here for the public to understand the thinking behind this potentially consequential decision. That's inexcusable, in my opinion.
Afterwards, in private conversations, I heard people ask, "If people will interview poorly and still get in then what's the point?" I couldn't think of an answer. And I heard, "This whole affair proves to me that the charter should be changed and not allow this appointment business." I couldn't think of a counterargument.
Next, I'll try to dive down into the substance of the answers to see if there's something there that I might have missed.
Quotes have been lightly edited for clarity and brevity.
"From behind closed doors
the public hears just one name.
Mystery remains."
—h/t ChatGPT
No comments:
Post a Comment