CEC Final Report
REPORT TO THE BANDERA COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
August 8, 2026
Section I: Executive Summary
This report presents the objective evaluation findings of the Advisory Committee established to assess candidates seeking nomination for the office of Bandera County Commissioner, Precinct #2.
Texas Election Code 171.022(c) stipulates that the CEC cannot vote to select a replacement nominee until the newly elected County Executive Committee members take office, which in our case was June 15, 2026. The County Chair appointed the Advisory Committee as one of his first actions and tasked the Advisory Committee with developing and executing a standardized, merit-based evaluation process to inform the CEC’s statutory candidate selection under Texas Election Code § 145.036.
On August 4, 2026, the full Advisory Committee conducted the standardized assessment, which comprised both a written questionnaire and structured oral interviews. Four candidates formally applied for the position. The Advisory Committee verified that all four candidates satisfied the statutory eligibility requirements set forth in Texas Election Code § 141.001. Five of nine members from the County Executive Committee (CEC) that were also invited were present during the August 4 proceedings in an official observer capacity. The County Chair and one precinct chair were also present as participants in the Advisory Committee. On August 5, 2026, the full Advisory Committee convened to execute the independent scoring of all written questionnaire responses and tabulate the final assessment metrics.
The evaluation process was governed by strict administrative protocols to ensure complete fairness, impartiality, and procedural integrity:
· Blind Written Assessment: Candidate identities were masked on all written answer sheets prior to evaluation, ensuring that written responses were scored blindly and unmasked only after all written scoring was completed and submitted.
· Independent Evaluation: Each Advisory Committee member independently completed individual scoring sheets for every question—written and oral—for all four candidates, utilizing a uniform 1-to-3 rating scale supported by standardized, objective criteria.
· Non-Recorded Oral Interviews: Oral proceedings were conducted under uniform conditions and time allocations without video or audio recording or transcription, maintaining evaluation focus strictly on standardized scoring metrics.
The Advisory Committee functions strictly as an administrative fact-finding panel. In keeping with this role, the committee presents all candidate evaluation data to the CEC without filtering, threshold exclusions, or candidate elimination. The body of this report details the methodology, governance, and operational safeguards employed throughout the assessment. Complete tabulated results—including aggregate score summaries, itemized question-by-question scoring matrices, and standardized question sets—are presented neutrally and without prejudice in separate supporting appendices for the independent review and consideration of the CEC.
Section II: Statutory Context & Role Clarification
The procedures surrounding the filling of a vacancy in nomination are strictly governed by the Texas Election Code (TEC). Following the death of a candidate who had previously secured the party nomination for Bandera County Commissioner, Precinct #2, a vacancy in nomination was created.
Pursuant to Texas Election Code § 145.036, § 171.071 and § 171.073, the County Executive Committee (CEC) is vested with the statutory authority to nominate a replacement candidate to fill the vacancy. All legal requirements governing the CEC’s authority, composition, and quorum for executing this statutory function are explicitly mandated by the provisions of the Texas Election Code.
The role of the Advisory Committee is strictly defined and limited within this statutory framework:
· Exclusive CEC Authority: The power to select, vote upon, and formally nominate a replacement candidate resides solely and exclusively with the voting members of the CEC.
· Administrative & Fact-Finding Function: The Advisory Committee was established solely as an administrative, fact-finding body tasked with designing and executing an objective, standardized assessment process for all eligible candidates.
· Non-Delegation of Selection Power: The Advisory Committee does not select, filter, rank, or eliminate candidates. It presents complete, unedited scoring data for all candidates directly to the CEC to assist committee members in exercising their statutory duty under TEC § 145.036.
Section III: Advisory Committee Framework & Operational Integrity
The Advisory Committee was established by party leadership to conduct an objective, standardized evaluation of all candidates seeking nomination for Bandera County Commissioner, Precinct #2.
Committee Composition and Qualifications
The Advisory Committee was composed of six members. Committee members were selected based on a balance of education, professional experience, and community service, including backgrounds in government and party support. Individual biographical sketches establishing the qualifications of each committee member were provided in a separate appendix.
Integrity and Operational Protocols
To maintain confidentiality, impartiality, and operational integrity throughout the evaluation process, all six committee members signed a non-disclosure agreement prior to proceeding with any committee activities.
Section IV: Candidate Assessment Methodology & Evaluation Protocols
The candidate evaluation process was structured to assess candidate knowledge, operational readiness, and alignment across statutory governance, fiscal management, infrastructure, emergency preparedness, and party principles using standardized written and oral evaluation instruments.
Written Questionnaire Administration
· Setting & Proctoring: The written assessment was administered on August 4, 2026, as a proctored exam in the conference room of the Lakehills Area Library. All four candidates were present simultaneously in the room.
· Observation & Environment: The proctored session was directly observed by all six Advisory Committee members, including seven of nine observers from the County Executive Committee (CEC) that were also invited.
· Time Allocation & Format: Every candidate received an identical 17-question written questionnaire and was allotted exactly sixty minutes for completion.
Oral Interview Format & Timing
· Interview Mechanics: Each candidate was interviewed individually by the full Advisory Committee. The panel posed 12 standardized questions in total, with each of the six committee members asking two designated questions. All candidates were asked the exact same questions in the exact same sequence.
· Duration: Each interview was allotted fifteen minutes, which proved adequate for every candidate to complete their responses.
· Candidate Interview Order: Sequence was established by a random drawing of numbers, with one procedural exception: the first interviewee was on active call with his fire department. The remaining three candidates unanimously agreed to allow him to interview first so he could return to duty. The remaining three candidates then drew numbers to determine their interview sequence.
Scoring Criteria, Rubrics & Evaluator Calibration
· Question-Tailored Rubrics: Standardized scoring rubrics utilizing a 1-to-3 point rating scale were developed for every written and oral question, establishing specific evaluation benchmarks for 1 (Needs Work), 2 (Acceptable), and 3 (Strong) ratings.
· Evaluator Calibration: All six Advisory Committee members received the finalized scoring rubrics prior to the assessment event and were provided adequate time to thoroughly review and familiarize themselves with the evaluation criteria.
· Comprehensive Scoring: Every Advisory Committee member evaluated and scored every response—written and oral—for all four candidates.
Procedural Safeguards & Blind Assessment Protocols
· Candidate Briefing: Candidates were fully briefed prior to testing regarding the schedule of events and the specific blind evaluation protocols governing their written answer sheets.
· Blind Written Scoring: Identifying information was masked on all written questionnaires before evaluation began. Written responses were scored blindly and unmasked only after all written scorecards were finalized and submitted.
· Independent Evaluation: Committee members were strictly instructed not to discuss candidates, specific answers, or scoring observations until all evaluations were independently completed by each member without consultation, peer discussion, or comparison.
· Non-Recorded Oral Proceedings: Oral interviews were conducted without audio/video recording or written transcription, maintaining standardized focus strictly on live rubric scoring.
Section V: Assessment Execution & Data Tabulation
The compilation and verification of candidate evaluation data were conducted under strict audit controls to preserve score accuracy and procedural integrity.
Individual Scoring and Paper Recordkeeping
· Scorecard Mechanics: Individual paper scorecards were created for each committee member to score each candidate’s responses, utilizing separate scorecards for the written questionnaire and the oral interview.
· Point Allocation: Each committee member recorded a score of 1, 2, or 3 for every individual response based on the pre-established rubrics and manually totaled the overall score for each candidate on their respective scorecard.
Tabulation Mechanics and Dual-Check Verification
· Master Spreadsheet Transcription: On August 5, 2026, the Advisory Committee executed the data tabulation. One committee member entered the recorded scores from all paper scorecards into a master spreadsheet while being directly observed and assisted by a second committee member.
· Mathematical Reconciliation: Once all paper scorecards were finalized, they could not be altered or changed. The manual sub-totals written on the physical scorecards were cross-referenced and reconciled against the automated spreadsheet calculations to ensure complete mathematical accuracy.
Blind Assessment Unmasking Protocol
· Identity Masking: For the written questionnaires, candidate names remained fully masked and anonymized throughout the entire grading process.
· Unmasking Trigger: Candidate identities were unmasked only after all written scoring sheets were fully completed, calculated, and locked by all six committee members.
Data Security and Records Retention
· Archival Authority: All physical records—including raw paper scorecards, blind written answer sheets, and finalized electronic master spreadsheets—are archived and securely retained by the Bandera County Republican Party Chairman.
Section VI: Scope of Transmitted Data & Presentation to the CEC
The Advisory Committee presents the evaluation data for all four candidates in full to the County Executive Committee (CEC). In keeping with the committee's administrative and fact-finding mandate, no candidate filtering, threshold cuts, or candidate eliminations were performed at any stage of the evaluation process.
The transmitted evaluation dataset includes:
· Complete Numerical Metrics: Itemized, question-by-question numerical scores from each of the six Advisory Committee members for all 29 evaluated questions (17 written questionnaire items and 12 oral interview items) for all four candidates.
· Aggregate Totals: Complete score totals for each candidate, reflecting the full mathematical sum of all evaluator scorecards.
The Advisory Committee presents these findings without formal committee ranking recommendations, endorsements, or qualitative alterations. All four candidates are presented equitably and without prejudice, allowing the empirical assessment data to serve as an objective tool for the voting members of the CEC.
Section VII: Transmission to the County Executive Committee
This report and its accompanying appendices are formally submitted to the Bandera County Republican Party County Executive Committee for review ahead of the statutory nomination vote under Texas Election Code § 145.036.
The aggregate scores of all candidates are presented in the table below, in random order. The specific values of all 696 independent assessment data points that comprise these aggregates scores are contained in a separate appendix provided to the CEC.
Candidate
Questionnaire
Interview
Total
James MacMillan
211
142
353
Gary Vanderford
189
159
348
Charles Robbins
221
153
374
Kaleb Delanghe
182
129
311
The standardized scoring data provided herein equips the voting members of the CEC with transparent, verifiable, and standardized candidate performance metrics. By executing a process rooted in blind written evaluations, independent evaluator scoring, and standardized oral interview rubrics, the Advisory Committee fulfills its charge to deliver an objective and impartial assessment of all eligible candidates to the CEC.
