About SEAMEC Ratings
In the interview, a volunteer interviewer panel asks the candidate a series of standard questions. All questions for candidates in similar races are the same, and all questions are strictly confidential. At the end of the standard question period, the panelists and the candidate have an opportunity to ask follow-up questions or questions on any topic. The candidate is then rated on a scale of A to F in the five categories: Equality, Marriage, Families, Healthcare, and Awareness. (A – Excellent; B – Good; C – Fair; D – Poor; F – Fail/None)
The interview scores are based only on the panel’s perception of the candidate’s response to the verbal interview and are used to determine the candidate’s depth of knowledge of LGBT issues, to test the candidate’s ability to articulate or advocate for the issues, as well as to gauge the candidate’s commitment to supporting our issues going forward. In 2006 the Steering Committee voted to change our process to select the median interview score instead of the average interview score for each category.
The overall rating is determined by the Steering Committee based on all information available to SEAMEC, including the interviews, a written candidate questionnaire, SEAMEC history database and files, public records, and community input. The Steering Committee assigns a rating of 0 to 5 which takes into account not only the candidate’s verbal support of LGBT issues but his or her actions and public history of support for or hostility to the LGBT community. A candidate who is assigned a Fairness Rating of 3 is said to “Meet Expectations.” From there the ratings increase or decrease based on the candidate’s demonstrated support or resistance to the LGBT community.
The following is an overview of each Fairness Rating level. It is not intended to define each level but to provide general guidance.
5 – Demonstrates Leadership: A candidate who is rated a 5 has taken a leadership role in advancing the rights of the LGBT community and promoting equality. The candidate has championed and taken an active leadership role in advancing one or more LGBT causes. A level 5 candidate can be expected to continue to reliably champion LGBT causes.
4 – Exceeds Expectations: A candidate who is rated a 4 has actively and consistently supported the LGBT community in myriad ways. The candidate has supported the advancement of LGBT issues, causes, or legislation and has a documented history of support which may also include participation in a number of LGBT events, issue endorsement, and/or financial support of more than one LGBT organization. A level 4 candidate can be expected to continue to actively and reliably support LGBT causes.
3 – Meets Expectations: A candidate who is rated a 3 has expressed or demonstrated a commitment to LGBT causes and the LGBT community but is lacking a consistent or documented history of support. A level 3 candidate can be expected to actively and reliably support LGBT causes.
2 – Needs Improvement: A candidate who is rated a 2 has expressed support for one or more LGBT causes but cannot provide a commitment to the LGBT community, usually due to a lack of knowledge or understanding of LGBT issues. A level 2 candidate may be expected to support some LGBT causes but cannot be considered a reliable or consistent supporter.
1 – Resistant: A candidate who is rated a 1, in general, has passively supported anti-LGBT issues, causes, or legislation or has expressed general opposition to LGBT equality. A level 1 candidate cannot be expected to support any LGBT causes.
0 – Hostile: A candidate who is rated a 0 has demonstrated a commitment to actively support anti-LGBT causes or to inhibit progress toward LGBT equality. A level 0 candidate can be expected to actively fight most or all LGBT causes.
It is important to note that the two ratings are separate although related. A candidate could do very well in the interview phase (expressing a commitment to the LGBT community) receiving As or Bs and yet receive Fairness Rating of a 3 due to a lack of a consistent or documented history. SEAMEC believes that the candidate would be a reliable supporter of the LGBT community if elected, and we would look forward to the candidate supporting the LGBT community as an elected official while continuing to build on their support history.
Conversely, a candidate’s history could exceed expectations or demonstrate leadership in one or more LGBT causes, while his or her interview scores could reflect a lower grade than someone with a lower Fairness Rating. SEAMEC’s rating scale is designed to reward the candidate who not only expresses a commitment to the LGBT community but actively and consistently supports or champions our causes