For the 2026 City Council candidates in Districts 3 and 4, CPPW evaluated each candidate based on alignment with CPPW’s values and priorities. CPPW does not have a Political Action Committee and we are not endorsing political candidates. This evaluation is intended for CPPW members.
About the scorecard
CPPW does not have a Political Action Committee and we are not endorsing political candidates. This evaluation is intended for CPPW members.
In early 2026, CPPW members reached out to the Executive Board to ask about how your union can have a voice in the 2026 election. In response, the Board agreed to the creation of a volunteer committee (CPPW Political Team) and tasked them to create a candidate scorecard to assess candidates’ alignment with CPPW values and priorities. The Executive Board invited members to join the Political Committee to build out this work from scratch.
Methodology
The Political Team created a framework for the process and a questionnaire for candidates based on CPPW values and current issues affecting members at work. These became the basis for the CPPW Priorities. These priorities are not indefinite, they are a snapshot in time when the political team created the questionnaire. The Executive Board approved the questionnaire.
CPPW Values
CPPW values are included in the CPPW Constitution Article II, Section 1
CPPW Priorities
The following priorities were the basis of the candidate survey questions created by the volunteer CPPW Political Committee.
- Workers’ rights, collective bargaining, fair wages, safe working conditions, and the voice of workers.
- Respect for and incorporation of worker knowledge into City decision-making.
- Staffing, funding, and commitment to equity, accessibility, DEI infrastructure, staff affinity spaces, and fair workplace practices at the City.
- Remote work as a standard in an inclusive workplace.
- Respect for and incorporation of worker knowledge into City decision-making.
CPPW then invited all candidates listed on the small donor election website as of 8/12/2026 to participate in the candidate survey.
The Political Team on multiple occasions invited all union members to be a part of the team to participate in the scoring.
The team used a rubric for scoring based on alignment with CPPW’s values and priorities. The committee scored all candidates who filled out the survey based on their answers and, if incumbents, their public actions while in office. Individual team members scored candidates independently, then the team gathered as a group to discuss scoring and collectively determine the final evaluation score. The team presented the evaluation scores to the Executive Board. The Executive Board voted to approve the evaluation scores.
Caveat
This evaluation is not an endorsement or a wholesale approval/disapproval of any candidate. This is a score based on specific criteria and information.
The team was only able to evaluate actions that were known before the evaluation meeting on 8/27/2026. We want to be clear that this is a broad evaluation and inherently lacks nuance. It’s also important to acknowledge that information continues to come out and that new information about candidates may emerge. This scorecard was a snapshot in time, a part of the evaluation of incumbents was based on their actions in their current term through the evaluation meeting (Jan 2025 – Aug 2026).
Future Planning
This is CPPW’s first dip into evaluating candidates or engaging in electoral politics. We are learning a lot from this process! We will have a debrief in the Fall 2026 and make a plan for how to improve for future years. All members will be invited to be a part of the evaluation and future planning.
Scores
- Very aligned with CPPW’s values and priorities
- Somewhat aligned with CPPW’s values and priorities
- Not aligned with CPPW’s values and priorities
- Did Not Respond to Survey
The committee has included a few sentences for each candidate for additional context to the score.
Scorecards
District 3 Candidate Scores
Angelita Morillo – Very aligned
During time in office has demonstrated consistent alignment with CPPW values and advocacy for CPPW priorities. Answers were complete and specific.
Esther León – Somewhat aligned
Answers were somewhat aligned in values but lacking in specifics. Unable to make a thorough assessment of alignment.
Kellie Torres – Did Not Respond to Survey
Replied, opting out of survey due to current role as manager of some CPPW members. The Political Committee did not find this reason compelling.
Steve Novick – Somewhat aligned
Generally aligned with CPPW values, often advocates for CPPW priorities. Answers were thoughtful and specific. Actions during FY2026-27 budget cycle created some disconnect and lack of alignment with CPPW’s priorities.
Tiffany Koyama Lane – Very aligned
During time in office has demonstrated consistent alignment with CPPW values and advocacy for CPPW priorities. Answers were complete and specific.
Tom Sollitt – Somewhat aligned
Few specifics on positions or values. On questions about difficult policy matters, answers conveyed a lack of experience.
District 4 Candidate Scores
Eli Arnold – Did Not Respond to Survey
Eric Zimmerman – Not aligned
Written answers at odds with actions and language while on Council. During time in office has demonstrated lack of alignment with CPPW.
Jamey Evenstar – Very aligned
Answers were specific & showed strong alignment with CPPW values. Leadership while working at City Hall with Councilors demonstrated strong alignment.
Jeremy Beausoleil Smith – Very aligned
Answers were thorough, specific, & showed strong alignment with CPPW values.
Jayne Cronlund – Did Not Respond to Survey
Mitch Green – Very aligned
During time in office has demonstrated consistent alignment with CPPW values and advocacy for CPPW priorities. Answers were complete and specific.