| Author |
Message |
    
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 51
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 7, 2003 - 9:40 am: | 
|
For what it's worth and in all fairness, this is a private board and candidates for public office have no obligation to participate in this forum. I don't think it is fair to insinuate that someone's failure to accept the invitation to participate here somehow means that they are not responsive to the community. They may or may not actually be responsive, but participation here is not the great yardstick by which to measure that.
I have to say, if I was one of those candidates I would certainly think twice about participating here, especially since the moderator has been pretty clear about his own political leanings (to his credit, this is much better than feigning 'objectivity,' but that's another topic).
This is not an endorsement of Line A (consider me one of those damned 'undecided' voters who is virtually guaranteed to split their ticket), but all the whining is really a turn-off and a bit self-serving.
Now, to what extent has the moderator attempted to attract all of the candidates? Was any attempt made to understand whatever concerns a candidate may have to participating here, and address those concerns in some meaningful way? Did the moderator actually try to 'sell' the candidates on the idea? Is he doing anything now to convince them that they're missing out on a good opportunity and that he will ensure they have a fair playing field in spite of the moderator's politics?
If this were an actual debate as opposed to a virtual one, would it have gone on if critical incumbent candidates did not agree to participate? While I like the idea of the virtual debate, should it have started before all the candidates agreed on the ground rules, playing field, etc? This is what happens in actual debates and I don't recall many debates taking place which did not include major incumbent candidates. In actuality, have the moderator's actions actually contributed to excluding some candidates from his "open" debate?
These are not meant as rhetorical questions which underhandedly accuse Dave of doing or not doing these things -- they are actual genuine questions that could help us all understand the context surrounding what we're reading from the candidates.
This is intended to be constructive criticism. Maybe there is more to creating a meaningful debate forum than hanging up a sign that says "Debate Tonight" and hoping the candidates actually show up to speak. (Dave, I know this is an oversimplification and I'm sure the work you've put into this is more than that, I'm just exaggerating to make a point).
I, for one, believe elected officials can be responsive to their consitituents without hanging out on chat boards. I just have a problem with people making accusatory statements about someone not 'in the room' when the accusation is based on the fact that they are not in the room. It kind of smells like a setup.
That said, I'd finally like to commend the candidates themselves who do participate here for doing so in a very professional way, even if some of their supporters do not. The forum itself is extremely helpful, and as always thanks to Dave for doing the whole shebang.
|
Brian O'Leary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 1352
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 7, 2003 - 9:57 am: |
|
I post on MOL because it helps me communicate, amend and strengthen my positions. It also presents a written record of where I am (or where I was) on an issue.
As a public official, I agree that there are many more ways beyond MOL to be responsive. The value here is the "many to many" aspect of bulletin board exchanges. As an example, last fall's education area discussions on scheduling at CHS changed my understanding of the issues involved, leading me to work within the BOE to add the topic to a recent Board agenda.
I've not made an issue of who participates in the debate forum. Like you, I feel it is a choice. I've focused on getting our message out, whether on MOL, through our web site, mailings, coffees or the one real-life debate we have been able to schedule.
We are trying to set up a second debate with CCN, but the incumbents have not yet committed to it yet. I don't favor MOL over "live" debate, but I do favor informed debate. If you're not on MOL, and you don't debate, people who need to decide next week are worse off.
www.opensouthorange.com
Vote Line B on May 13th
|
Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 4642
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 7, 2003 - 11:38 am: |
|
Brian's nailed it. The "many to many" aspect is the critical difference. Typical politicians don't like the format because they can't say different things to different audiences or think it's beneath them to discourse with the common folk or they simply aren't "comfortable with computers" which is something I've heard.
And it was downright odd and somewhat discomforting to see the village attorney acting as Line A's spokesperson.
Again, this goes back to the main message of the Open South Orange ticket: OPEN communications, access for residents to their public servants and common courtesy. This is not "hanging out on chat boards". A student at the University of Central England wrote his dissertation on "The Democratic Potential of Maplewood Online".
Apart from Mark Rosner, Leadership with Vision seems a bit myopic. SO/MOL is here to stay and will only grow larger. Thousands of people read it weekly. Most of them vote. |
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 53
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 7, 2003 - 12:24 pm: |
|
I agree that there is a huge democratic potential here and am interested in understanding more about how you set this up and how you approached the candidates. Not to tear the process down -- this is extremely helpful but it's the first year of trying it this way, there's bound to be some learning experiences involved. You've (voluntarily I might add) taken on a responsibility which is essentially journalistic in nature -- understanding the process by which this forum was created and how you approached and worked with all the candidates would be interesting and also bolster your own integrity. Journalists don't need to be unbiased but they need to follow certain rules of objectivity. Or at least they used to at one time. I hope my post does not come across as an attack -- but seriously, as the creator of this forum I think you should consider taking some responsibility for not being able to convince every candidate to join in. If you don't, then you will never achieve a truly democratic forum on this board with the goal of 100% candidate representation (which I would think would be a worthy goal). How do you take it to the next level? Can you truly say you pursued all of the candidates and attempted to understand and address their concerns in participating here, and made it an inviting forum with a guaranteed level playing field for everyone?
Again this is meant as constructive criticism tempered with respect for essentially building something out of nothing. I think the fact that you have a majority of candidates participating here is a big win. But how do you, or we as a virtual community, take it to the next level and get them all to participate? You (or we again) are trying to build something here, how does it get taken to the next level?
|
Brian O'Leary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 1357
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 7, 2003 - 12:36 pm: |
|
That's an interesting and important set of questions. I will also take some responsibility for not finding ways to engage the opposing line in this forum. I don't have a ready answer; let me think and talk some outside of MOL 
www.opensouthorange.com
Vote Line B on May 13th
|
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 86
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 7, 2003 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Dave -- my fundamental concern is that online discussion takes advantage of the illusion of anonymity. an individual could post under multiple names, and with their identities secret -- can make insinuations or take a tone that is not conducive to open conversation about the issues. i do think it says a lot that the candidates post under their own names -- and they are attacked (except when they address each other!) by essentially anonymous posters. maybe its worth requiring "real name" posting in these forums. it could take the discourse up a few notches and encourage greater participation.
my thanks to the candidates who are taking time to post here. and thanks, Dave, for your efforts making this available. Pete |
Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 4643
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 7, 2003 - 1:52 pm: |
|
Even if someone posts an idea under three assumed names, it's the idea that's important, not the fact that it's expressed multiple times. The value is the back and forth debate. Either the idea stands up in a reader's mind or it doesn't.
As for participation, people know it exists. They have computers. At home. And I provided simple instructions and contact information, if they have difficulties. I respond fairly quickly to questions and will help anyone. Mark Rosner is on the same ticket and probably would be available to assist them, as well.
|
davec
Citizen
Username: Davec
Post Number: 82
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 7, 2003 - 4:09 pm: |
|
In my opinion, it is the candidates' responsibility to take advantage of all and any forums to get their message to the people they hope to represent. To the best of my knowledge, this forum has not barred any candidate from expressing their views. The failure of some of the candidates to express their views here, and be subject to discussion on those views is disconcerting to say the least. For right or wrong, my personal views are influenced by the information here. Excluding Mr Rosner, I am now distrustful of the rest of the incumbents. In my mind there are three practical reasons for not participating here:
1. Candidates are uncomfortable with this mode of communication. In my mind this hurts them because I automatically wonder what else they will not try because it is out of their comfort zone? Are we where we are today because of other old-fashioned thought processes?
2. They do not want to go on record with their views?
3. Their past actions are indefensible.
I will vote for someone I trust. I will trust someone who is willing to communicate to me, in the medium I am most comfortable with. I will trust a candidate who is willing to accept thesame standards I have at work. I have to be accountable for my results. I have to meet deadlines or manage expectations. I have to be courteous and professional to my customers (both internal and external). I have to deliver something that my customers want. |
David Lackey
Citizen
Username: Davidlackey
Post Number: 11
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 7, 2003 - 4:39 pm: |
|
It is possible that some of the incumbents are not regular computer users. This is not meant as a criticism. If any of them simply do not use computers often, participating on this message board would be quite difficult. At this point, I'm sure all are at least aware of the site. Prior to getting involved in this election, I had not heard about it. (Of course, Brian quickly remedied that.)
Another possibility is that most of the incumbants really do not want to engage in a dialogue about the issues. The opportunity to have a second live debate was offered to us by CCN. While Open South Orange gladly accepted, I have heard that the incumbants declined. This is unfortunate, since any chance voters have to gain more insight into the way each party feels about the issues is valuable. |
Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 4647
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 7, 2003 - 4:59 pm: |
|
Some have accounts, but haven't posted. Let's try to encourage participation and not pre-judge anyone. Maybe their pr consultant needs to be nudged to let them speak for themselves.
No, I won't say who |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page