Spokane board questions 'black box' risk in multi‑criteria prioritization scoring

Consultants from Burke presented the multi‑criteria prioritization analysis (MCPA) the CRSB will use to narrow 50+ candidate policies to an achievable list of roughly 20–40 priorities.

Bethany, who led the session on the tool, told the board that “the guidance from the Department of Commerce is that city should develop 20 to 40 climate goals and policies,” and described a three‑phase approach: a relevance filter (city role), a scoring/weighting phase across themes (resilience, GHG reduction, equity, logistics and degree of certainty), and a holistic evaluation where the group considers balance and possible consolidation.

Board members uniformly pressed for methodological clarity. Several asked who will assign the numeric scores and how the 0–3 rubrics would be calibrated. Consultants said Burke will produce objective scores using data, normalized and validated by city staff, and that the CRSB’s principal input is the weighting (how much influence each theme has). Consultants also presented example scenarios (balanced, equity‑emphasis, logistics/certainty) and showed how changing weights shifted rankings of sample policies.

Members raised concerns about transparency and potential bias. One member described the danger of a closed model driving policy choices and asked for explicit scoring examples for each criterion, not just high‑level descriptions. Another member asked whether public engagement, staff, commissions, and the CRSB would be treated as equivalent inputs or whether their opinions would be weighted differently; consultants said they plan to incorporate multiple inputs (community survey, staff, other commissions) but stressed Burke would run the scoring process to keep individual opinion from dominating raw scores.

What the board asked for: multiple members requested a complete rubric that: lists every scoring criterion; defines what constitutes 0, 1, 2 and 3 for each subcriterion; shows normalization steps; and includes worked examples that trace how a policy receives a final score. Consultants committed to sharing detailed scoring materials and example outputs prior to the December meeting so members can review and propose weighting scenarios.

Next steps: consultants will circulate scoring rubrics and example scored policies; the board will discuss weighting scenarios at upcoming meetings in December and January ahead of a prioritized package intended to inform a February joint meeting with the Planning Commission.