Subject: assessing campaign staff
From: "Chris Lu" <[email-masked]>
To: "Jim Messina" <[email-masked]>, "Pete Rouse" <[email-masked]>, "Michael Froman" <[email-masked]>, "John Podesta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:26:20 -0500

I wanted to start an email chain about assessing campaign staff for
placement either in the transition or the administration.  In going
through the Kerry transition documents, I found an interesting memo and
accompanying spreadsheet that analyzed the entire Kerry campaign staff.
I'll scan the cover memo and a sample page, but the criteria that the
Kerry folks used might be a helpful template for us.  For each campaign
staffer, there was the following analysis:

*         Overall assessment as a staffer (ranked 1-5, with 1 being the
best)

*         Priority placement in the administration (ranked 1-5, with 1
being must place, 5 being don't place)

                                They deliberately made sure than not
more than 20% of a department's total staff could be ranked as 1, 20% as
a 2, etc.

*         Professional experience (ranked 1-5, with 1 being 15+ years of
professional experience)

*         Kerry service (ranked 1-5, based on the beginning of their
service date with Kerry)

*         Prior administration experience (yes or no)

*         Transition/inaugural (yes or no, based on people who they
wanted to tap immediately for participation in either activity)

And then they totaled it up:

Overall assessments

                1's - 162

                2's - 155

                3's - 123

                4's - 27 

                5's - 7

Priority placements

                1's - 125

                2's - 125

                3's - 96

                4's - 122

                5's  - 6

This will all be a little more clear when I redact a sample page and
scan it for your review.  But just wanted to get people thinking about
this.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Chris Lu

[email-masked]

(312) 505-4864 (cell)