Totals

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G
1	Did the Forum help you feel more informed about the candidates: very much, somewhat, just a little or not at all?	Very much	Some-what	Just a little	Not at all	No answer
2	*Scores*	83%	4%	0%	0%	13%
3
4	How helpful is the Coalition's newsletter that you received at the Forum in terms of providing you and your HOA membership with information about the candidates: Extremely helpful, very helpful, somewhat helpful, not at all helpful?	Extremely helpful	Very helpful	Some-what helpful	Not at all help-ful	No answer
5	*Scores*	59%	19%	7%	4%	11%
6
7	Do you want to distribute the Coalition's newsletter to your HOA members (it does not support or oppose any candidate -- it provides the findings from individual in-depth research interviews with each candidate)?	Yes	No	No opinion/No answer
8	*Scores*	83%	4%	13%
9
10	Do you want an electronic version of the Coalition's newsletter so it can be emailed to your HOA members?	Yes	No	No opinion
11	*Scores*	91%	4%	5%
12
13	Do you think the DVD of the proceedings should be posted on YouTube or some other public site?	Yes	No	Don't Know/No opinion/Not sure
14	*Scores*	66%	0%	33%
15
16	In your own personal opinion, which candidate or candidates seemed the most likely to be an advocate for protecting and preserving neighborhoods: Ron Galperin, Robyn Ritter Simon, Paul Koretz, Robert Schwartz, David T. Vahedi?	Galperin	Koretz	Ritter Simon	Schwartz	Vahedi	No answer/No opinion
17	*Scores (Multiple answers accepted)*	33%	15%	4%	0%	83%	19%
18	Additional Comments About the Candidates From HOA Representatives Attending the Candidates Forum:
19	About Adeena Bleisch
20	Adeena accepted the invitation to participate in the Candidates Forum, but was a "no show".
21	About Ron Galperin
22	Seemed to have a cloak of charisma and charm that distracted somewhat from one being able to read him clearly.
23	Ron doesn't seem to get the nuance of local, neighborhood issues, again too interested in broad strokes.
24	I had the feeling Ron, as a councilperson, might try and cut it down the middle in “the way the wind blows” sort of fashion. I got a “hidden business agenda” feeling from him, cloaked in residential puffery.
25	About Paul Koretz
26	Paul is a carpet bagger, though nice enough guy, lacks backbone to stand up to competing interests from other districts and the mayor-perhaps a better state rep...
27	Not sure exactly about Paul.
28	Too sedate and unimpressive.
29	Paul Koretz will say whatever it takes to get him elected – he was at the Westside Neighborhood Council a few years ago advocating the Pico/Olympic one-way scheme, so the fact that he did a 180 at the council transportation hearing earlier in the year and again at this Forum did not impress me in the least.
30	About Robyn Ritter Simon
31	Robyn appears to lack muscle and commitment to the local agenda, perhaps too much of a conciliator--
32	Not sure exactly about Robyn.
33	Seems very uninformed for someone who had worked in city planning.
34	Robyn Ritter Simon is a developer’s dream, I don’t care how long she’s lived in the neighborhood.
35	About Robert Schwartz
36	Robert Schwartz seems very bright, but green on local issues. I sense a specific agenda, seems a bit remote.
37	Definitely not Robert.
38	Has promise, but not informed on city matters.
39	Robert Schwartz didn’t seem to understand any of the issues, and gave more of a “what he said” response, as long as he was not the first to respond.
40	About David T. Vahedi
41	David T. Vahedi has a better grasp of Westside community issues and I trust that he would be a quick study on Valley issues as well. I think that Ty has shown himself to be the kind of rep that will utilize the organization and support of our various coalitions to bolster his strength on the Council.
42	My only concern with him is that if elected, he may so alienate himself from the other council members that they will exclude him.
43	The best candidate to protect resident's interests.
44	The most passionate and active in homeowner community issues.
45	Clearly the strongest supporter of neighborhoods and reasoned development.
46	I thought David would be best at protecting and preserving the neighborhoods.
47	David was the most involved with district, knowledgeable on issues and open to new processes and procedures to re-make the seat work in a more balanced fashion.
48	David seemed informed, experienced and above all had the most conviction to help and be on the side of home owners.
49
50	What did you like best about the Forum?
51	The well-organized structure, the discipline and how well controlled it was.
52	The forum helped me to get a more specific take on the personalities, i.e.. Who is most likely to lead or be led by the rest of the Council and who is thinking about bottom up representation. These qualities come through best in a more intimate setting such as was provided.
53	Found the whole project very well designed. Assessments of candidates' responses in their individual interviews were valuable in weighing their responses at the Forum. Very much liked the use of three moderators - change of voices maintained the tension. Loved the moderators would not permit a candidate to avoid answering the question.
54	Depth of interviews prior to the Forum. Knowledge of the moderators. It was really the best prepared forum I have ever attended...you held the candidates' feet to the fire.
55	Everything. Format very professional; questions intelligent and applicable; moderator didn't let the candidates get away with not answering the question; it was crisp, fast paced, perfectly timed, challenging, serious; very revealing of the nature and potential of each candidate; very satisfying morning, came away enriched by the event.
56	The best part of the Forum is being able to see the candidates and watch them interact. Some were gracious to their fellow candidates. I think that was an indication of their ability to get past their own egos. It was interesting to watch them struggle with moral dilemmas and try to problem solve while still pleasing us with their answers.
57	Ability to hear candidates address a number of issues in "real time".
58	The fast moving pace with relevant hard-hitting questions.
59	The opportunity to hear the candidates’ responses, and to see the clearly different attitudes many of them have. I think the range of questions, and the candidates’ willingness to be candid in their answers, was very helpful.
60	The format.
61	I think it was good to give all the candidates an opportunity to answer some of the concerns.
62	The strict adherence to the ground rules.
63	The best part of the Forum was when you made the candidates give an answer, even when they didn't want to.
64	I liked the opportunity to see the candidates address the issues.
65	Well organized and professionally run. It was a great value to have heard the candidates in a focused forum. I appreciated the effort put into making it an easy and rigorously paced meeting.
66	The questions were relevant and probing, and I like that you told the candidate when their answers were not responsive. I appreciated the 90 second, 30 second and 10 second variations in response times.
67	I appreciated that you kept working on getting the candidates to answer the questions and not ramble, though they did try. Also I liked that you asked for one word answers, though that didn't seem to work in some cases with some of the candidates.
68	It gave me a chance to see, compare and evaluate all of the candidates on issues that truly concern the CD5 neighborhoods.
69	Selection of the questions, impartial and gracious tone, strict time enforcement and demand that questions be answers.
70	It was well-planned, and well-structured. I liked preserving the integrity of the data to avoid prior review by the candidates. Holding the clapping until the end very much appreciated.
71	All the candidates side-by-side.
72	Objective, full participation by the Coalition members. The way questions were asked.
73	I liked the time limits, that they mostly all showed and that we could see via facial expressions and mannerisms their commitment and strength of conviction.
74
75	Any suggestions for improvement?
76	A question that really required more time to think was, what would be the first thing they would introduce to the Council if they won. Thirty seconds separates the quickest thinkers from those who may wish to ponder for a bit longer. Quick thinking does not necessarily equate to effectiveness.
77	Inability to see candidates clearly from back of room.
78	Too long. Not enough questions about character and morals or police and fire.
79	I guess I would have liked to have the candidates give their "stump" speech first and then ask questions. I would like to have a broad view of what they thought might be important and then at a later forum perhaps ask more detailed questions.
80	The editorializing between questions.
81	I was uncomfortable with the moderators trying to pin-down candidates with hypothetical questions.
82	Insufficient time for more questions from the audience.
83	Some candidates did not address the question(s), though Marcia attempted to guide that process.
84	Perhaps if possible, next time at a similar event if a platform could be made so that the speakers/candidates can be at a higher level for all to see them better. It is good to see face expressions.
85	More time for more questions from the floor.
86	Larger space? But then you lose the sense of intimacy.
87	Too long. Not enough questions about character and morals or police and fire.
88	Add the ground rule that the candidates are to answer the questions and not snipe at their opponents.
89	Set up a raised TV screen so those further back can see the facial expressions, some of which were quite extraordinary in that telling sort of way.
90	More microphones. More follow-up questions.
91	Maybe more time to discuss things with each candidate after the forum ended. I understand that things can be set up with each candidate after the fact but it's nice when your thoughts are still fresh.
92