Alternative Candidate Forum Proposal
This election cycle, with the League of Women Voter’s candidate
forum being held virtually, over Zoom, for some reason not fully explained, I
proposed an additional in-person forum with a slightly different format from
the LWV format that has the very short time and the “gotcha” planted
questions. Here is a link to my
proposal. The PTA graciously agreed to
sponsor a 2nd forum. This
would be an in-person forum with the ground rules to be determined. Five of the six candidates replied that they
would be happy (or willing) to participate in such a forum. The sixth candidate never responded or RSVP’d. Reasonably, the PTA would only proceed with
all candidates agreeing. The tactic of
hiding in the basement waiting for the party loyalists to get out the vote, is
not in the best interests of the community.
If there was a legitimate conflict or reason this candidate could not
participate, the least they could have done is reply. If it was a scheduling conflict, I would have
replied that I could not make it, but if those dates were the only dates
available, to go ahead and hold the forum without me.
Below is the letter I wrote and the proposal I made to the candidates regarding an in-person forum.
April 23, 2022
Fellow Candidates:
First, good luck to you all.
I applaud your willingness to volunteer, to put yourself out to the
community, and for the time and effort. This
can be a stressful time. It is a bit
surrealistic to have to be elected to a volunteer position.
Four of us have weighed in on the League of Women Voter’s
proposal to do the same candidate forum they have been doing for decades, but
again this time to do it via video conferencing (Zoom). All four of us preferred it to be an
in-person forum. Either two of us have
not weighed in or weighed in directly to the LWV so that we do not know their
opinion on the matter. I will note that
part of being a successful Board Member is to gather information, consider it,
AND take a position on that issue.
Regardless of our opinions and/or preferences, the LWV has
stated emphatically that they are not changing it. Take it or leave it.
I have thought a lot about the issue. As noted in Dr. Kavic’s email, the LWV are
also volunteers. They are offering to do
this as what they believe to be a service to the community. This may be my 6th or 7th
LWV forum. All but one have been in
person.
Quite frankly, it is my opinion that holding the forum via
Zoom (or the like), is easier for the candidate. You can have notes spread out in front of
you, you can look stuff up while other candidates are speaking, you can use a
teleprompter while giving your opening and closing statements, etc. Full disclosure, I have a pc with six 27”
screens that allows me to see and have access to a lot of information at one
time.
While holding the forum via Zoom is probably better for the
candidates, holding it in person with both a real time simulcast and a later
posting of the video online for all to see is, in my opinion, better for the
community. Much better. As the Board
is required to hold its meetings in public, so much of what a Board Member does
is public speaking. Talking to a camera
is NOT the same as talking to an audience of dozens or more. If nothing else, doing this in front of a
live audience is good practice.
Naturally, my goal in getting into this race is to win. Winning can be defined in many ways besides
just being awarded a seat on the Board based on number of votes. I think, I hope, we all believe that a voting
tally win for us, any one of us, is a win for the community. It is why we volunteer. We think we can add value to the
community. My point is that in setting
up a candidate forum, while the LWV’s goal and intent is laudable, they are not
maximizing the value of hearing each of us speak to the community nor are they
giving the community a chance to see us in a simulated similar environment as a
board meeting. As important, the community does not really get a chance to hear
our thoughts on various issues.
Having said that, I make the following proposal to my fellow
candidates: We all decide on our own
whether to participate in the LWV Candidate Forum via video conference on May
12th. In addition, we all
agree to hold a separate forum on May 5th, an in-person forum. I suggest we get a non-partisan organization
to sponsor it. My two suggestions would
be either the HS debate Club or the PTA (if they are allowed by the PTA charter
or want to). We could even do it as a
candidate sponsored forum and choose one or two moderators ourselves. Some communities rely on the LWV to hold
these forums, some use their PTA, and some have another local organization
sponsor the forum.
I also suggest that the format of the in-person forum be slightly
different than the LWV forum. I think
the forum should best approximate what it is like to be a board member. To that end, rather than community submitted
questions, questions that are often “gotcha” type questions with a very limited
scope, we pick 4-6 subjects in advance and give each of us 2 minutes to speak
on that topic. For example, we could mutually
agree the topics would be the budget, Special Education, curriculum, equity, athletics,
and community engagement. We could even
do a “grab bag” category where each candidate can address whatever issue they
like. Then, using the budget as an
example, we could all say what we think about the current budget proposal and
how we would change it if we think it needs changing.
This format including a 90 second opening and closing
statement by each candidate would best approximate what it is like to be a
board member while at the same time giving the candidate and the community the
opportunity to understand where each of us stand on the primary issues.
It is rare that a Board member must make a snap decision
without a chance to gather information, to gather community input, and to think
about an issue before responding. It is,
what I believe the community wants, a board member who is a critical thinker,
who can consider an issue from all sides, and who can then articulate a
position and the reasoning behind that position. Giving each of us the time to prepare a
statement on an issue better approximates what being a board member is all
about than the surprise questions from the League or from the community. It also eliminates the inherent bias in the
questions or the bias in the selection of which questions are used. Further, it may neutralize the information
edge that incumbents (or former Board Members) may hold.
Additionally, if we were to do this other forum the week
before the LWV forum, the LWV forum could, if a community member wants it, serve
to ask follow-up questions to the candidates.
Quite frankly, the LWV forum being 5 days before the election is
probably not going to shape a community member’s voting decision. Most have already made up their mind by then.
In summary, I propose we all agree to do the LWV forum (or
not) in the format that the LWV wants, and we all agree to an in-person forum a
week before the LWV forum with the following format: Each candidate gets a 1.5
minute (90 seconds) opening and closing statement. As the LWV does it, we draw lots for the
order of the opening statements and we reverse the order for the closing statements. We all agree on between 4 and 6 topics to
which we address. Each candidate gets 2
minutes to say whatever they think is appropriate for that topic. (With 6 topics we could easily have each
candidate go first, second, third, etc.)
Also, as civility and grace are critical, we all agree to avoid ad
hominem or personal attacks. We would,
of course, have the in-person forum broadcast live and recorded for later
playback.
My proposal solves the LWV issue, it gives us all equal time
to discuss the important issues, and, more importantly, it gives the community
a chance to see us all in action and to make a more informed choice when they
go into the voting booth. I am not naïve enough to not recognize that this is
somewhat of a popularity contest or a turn out your friends to vote contest,
but I am also not so cynical as to not think that we can get past the politics,
and what I call the FaceBook-ization of the campaign. This is not about Dems and Repubs, about
personal agendas, or about anything but the students, the parents, the
community members, and about the women and men who work in the schools every
day. We have one of the top school
districts in the State if not the whole Country. Let’s keep it that way.
Let’s demonstrate to the community that we can all work
together, we can all do the analysis and articulate a position on an issue, and
we want to give the community the chance to evaluate us in simulated real world
board conditions.
So, what say ye?
Jeffrey S. Mester
