| The Messenger (not online, just in the Weekend Edition): From the outset, the moderator of a lackluster legislative forum held at the Franklin County Senior Center Thursday night warned the panel of candidates they would listen more than talk. She was right. About 35 people sat in folding chairs and listened for 90 minutes as 14 legislative candidates--with all but one from Franklin County--skimmed the surface of two hot-button issues: health care and early childhood education. ... The structure of the night did not leave any room for candidates to debate, and many of them could not elaborate on their views during the one-minute time limit they had to respond to a short list of prepared questions. ... Todd Pritsky, an independent House candidate from Fletcher, said the state should readopt the "Snelling model"--an allusion to the late Gov Dick Snelling--that protected the social contract while seeking new revenue streams. First of all, I'm pleased I made it into the article, and with a fair summary of my few minutes of answers. I brought up Snelling twice, as well as the need for stimulus and the Vermont Constitution. Second of all, I very much appreciate the three groups who organized this forum--and the series of 15 statewide--and the Senior Center for hosting it. I also applaud the folks who attended, especially those who stood to give their witness to pressing issues and asked questions of people who want to work in our citizens' legislature. Third of all, I think Leon's right that overall the forum was a bit lackluster. Sometimes friends need to provide honest, constructive feedback, and I have to say that the format was quite a problem. I understand and totally support the basic notion of a "people's forum" wherein citizens get to present their concerns and ideas to their (prospective) representatives. It's a very powerful and important part of engaging in effective self-government. That said, I think the introductory statements were overly long and the questions were not entirely clear. As a result, there really wasn't enough time for candidates to share their views, nor for audience members who weren't delivering the prepared comments and questions to actively participate. I think it was valuable, though wonder if it would've been more so had the opening speeches been more succinct, and candidates had perhaps an additional 30 second answer round for rebuttal, summing up, etc. Anyway, I'm happy these events are going on and that I was able to participate. We need more of this sort of thing not just during campaign season, but during the legislative session as well. That's how we get better feedback, transparency and accountability. todd (cross-posted at Todd for Vermont House) |
