{"id":1147,"date":"2016-04-13T15:58:48","date_gmt":"2016-04-13T20:58:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/truthinaddison.com\/?page_id=1147"},"modified":"2016-04-13T21:30:20","modified_gmt":"2016-04-14T02:30:20","slug":"the-truth-about-the-forum","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/truthinaddison.com\/?page_id=1147","title":{"rendered":"The Truth About the Forum: It Is Indeed Theater"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Truth About the Forum:
\n<\/strong>It Is Indeed Theater
\n<\/strong>By Susan M. Halpern
\n<\/strong>Former Addison Councilmember (1992-1999)<\/strong><\/h3>\n

I previously wrote about the candidates \u201cforum\u201d that is apparently being orchestrated by Meier and his cadre.\u00a0 Again, I\u2019ve touched a nerve, and my analysis is being challenged.\u00a0 So let\u2019s talk about it.<\/p>\n

First and foremost, I am delighted<\/em> that I have forced these folks into finally<\/em> admitting that they are providing the questions in advance.\u00a0 This was always concealed from the public, which caused the public to believe they were watching extemporaneous answers.\u00a0 That is obviously deceptive.\u00a0 Congress condemned the practice of providing answers in advance in connection with the infamous quiz shows.\u00a0 It is equally inappropriate here because it causes people to give undue weight to answers given by candidates, not realizing that they are simply reciting what they prepared and rehearsed in advance.\u00a0 It misleads the public regarding the knowledge of the speakers, and that clearly matters<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Now these folks argue: Aw heck, these are just ordinary folks! Volunteers!\u00a0 Golly, how could they know all this stuff<\/em>??!!\u00a0 Which, of course, totally misses the point: the public is entitled to candor, not deceit.\u00a0 If a candidate lacks knowledge, the public is entitled to see that for themselves.\u00a0 The fact is that presenting rehearsed answers as if they were extemporaneous is entirely deceptive.\u00a0 <\/strong>And by the way, the fact that these candidates supposedly don\u2019t know which<\/em> questions they\u2019ll be asked of the 4-5 they submitted doesn\u2019t change any of it.\u00a0 The format is a sham.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve also pointed out that the public won\u2019t get to ask questions.\u00a0 I stand by it.\u00a0 You won\u2019t.\u00a0 Oh sure, you can \u201csubmit\u201d a question on an index card.\u00a0 But then \u201csomeone\u201d will choose which of those questions will be asked.\u00a0 \u00a0So, who will the \u201csomeone\u201d be, and what criteria will they use to \u201cscreen\u201d the questions?\u00a0 No one knows, but this much is certain: the three non-incumbent candidates won\u2019t have any say at all regarding any of it.\u00a0 Sound fair or appropriate to you?\u00a0 It\u2019s not.\u00a0 The opportunity for manipulation is clear: just make sure the index cards include pre-arranged questions and then lob them up to the candidates whose handlers appear to be behind this event.<\/p>\n

You have to wonder: if these folks are truly qualified, why all the theatrics?\u00a0 Why not just show up and answer the questions the public asks?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Regarding the date: Paul Walden, Jim Duffy and Al Angell weren\u2019t consulted. Their first notice was a March 13, 2016 email announcing the date and format, which began: \u201cAs you are aware.\u201d\u00a0 Well, since they hadn\u2019t been contacted, they were obviously not \u201caware.\u201d \u00a0That\u2019s factual, no \u201cinference\u201d required at all.\u00a0 But then, the email makes clear that someone<\/em> was \u201caware.\u201d\u00a0 So who was \u201caware?\u201d\u00a0 Well, the only folks left are the incumbent candidates, and that makes it pretty darn clear that they were<\/em> consulted.<\/p>\n

Indeed, the exclusion of Walden, Duffy and Angell from every aspect of the planning for this event tells you all you need to know about its true nature, which is an event for the incumbent candidates, not a forum.\u00a0 But even more telling is the effort to excuse that exclusion.\u00a0 I mean seriously, the unilaterally-chosen date was all that was available?\u00a0 In Addison?\u00a0 Home to a plethora of fine hotels that host meetings and conventions all the time?\u00a0 Addison is short of meeting space?\u00a0 Spare me.\u00a0 What complete nonsense.<\/p>\n

If this was a real forum, a legitimate<\/em> forum<\/u>, then the availability of all<\/em> candidates would have been the first and most important consideration<\/strong>.\u00a0 It wasn\u2019t.\u00a0 In fact, the availability of the non-incumbent candidates wasn\u2019t a consideration at all.\u00a0 That speaks volumes about the event and those behind it.<\/p>\n

The Ethics Commission makes clear that if all candidates are not provided the same opportunity to appear, it isn\u2019t a \u201cforum,\u201d it is a communication supporting those included. \u00a0Not checking the schedules of all the candidates is not, in my view, providing all candidates with the \u201csame opportunity.\u201d\u00a0 This is particularly true when at least one candidate has a longstanding out-of-town business engagement on the date that was chosen without his input.\u00a0 And that\u2019s before you ever get to the issue of whether the excluded-from-the-planning non-incumbents agree with the pre-scripted format, and whether forcing that format on them with unknown question \u201cscreeners\u201d is truly providing them with the \u201csame opportunity.\u201d<\/p>\n

To be clear, I have protested this misleading format for years.\u00a0 In 2014 I co-authored a letter to the then-sponsors, the Metrocrest Chamber and the Addison Business Association, pointing out the deceptive nature of pre-arranged questions and pre-scripted answers.\u00a0 I expressed concern that these fine organizations were being used to lend an air of neutrality and legitimacy to what was, in reality, a staged campaign event then being orchestrated by Todd Meier.\u00a0 In 2015, I wrote again to the Chamber, expressing the same concerns and calling for a true forum that allowed the public to ask questions and that ensured that no candidate received questions in advance.<\/p>\n

You will notice that neither the Metrocrest Chamber nor the Addison Business Association is involved in this year\u2019s event<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

But the \u201clegitimacy\u201d spin remains.\u00a0 The claim is that the existence of sponsorship confirms that this is a real event.\u00a0 But in making this claim, they don\u2019t discuss what these sponsors were \u2013 and were not<\/em> \u2013 told about the event.\u00a0 We have already confirmed that at least one sponsor wasn\u2019t told of the of the exclusion of the non-incumbent candidates from all aspects of the event\u2019s planning, or of the fact that Mr. Walden is out of town, or that Walden, Duffy and Angell didn\u2019t agree to the phony format.\u00a0 That sponsor was surprised, to say the least.\u00a0 We suspect that the other sponsors were likewise not given the full story.<\/p>\n

The facts do matter \u2013 all the facts<\/em>, that is.\u00a0 They mattered a lot to the former sponsors who chose to disassociate with this event.<\/p>\n

If you choose to attend, see this event for what it is: an orchestrated political event for certain candidates, deceptively packaged as a \u201cforum,\u201d at which they will recite memorized answers to pre-arranged questions.\u00a0 As for me, I will continue to hope for a true forum, at which all candidates will answer questions posed by the public.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n