Candidate forum

Last night was the westside candidate forum for state representative, mayor, and county council. It was nice to see all the candidates and actually talking about issues and accomplishments is much more substantive than sign waving. I was very disappointed in the questions - too many about PMRF or the Poipu dairy or the Superferry, none of which county council has much control over in the first place. Furthermore, the format which requires limiting responses to one or two minutes for these complex issues virtually ensures nothing substantial can be said. On top of that they repeated the same question to three or four candidates so the last person could either repeat the major points already stated or refer to them and then had little else to say.

The candidates did their best I'm sure but often strayed completely off topic. Given two minutes, many candidates gave a short answer and then spoke about something either a question to other candidates that they wanted to talk about, or in some cases to critique something another candidate had said earlier they felt compelled to comment on. One candidate said they were unfamiliar with the project the question was about and proceeded to speak about something altogether different.

Ordinance 960 (the pesticide/GMO bill that took center stage last year and is now going through the courts) continues to be the most divisive topic of all. The panel split sharply on supporting it, and the discussion led to the most rancor on display all night.

A couple candidates referenced banding together in unity with other incumbents which I think is a terrible idea. I don't want voting blocks and cliques in the county council where a diverse set of perspectives is so important - a point other candidates made explicitly which I support as a principle. This I would say is a reaction to discord on the council (of which stories are legend but I have no solid information about) but I think listening to opposing viewpoint is the only solution - not forming coalitions and trying to shut out others you don't like.

Billy deCosta had the best line of the night saying that if kids could vote he would be governor.
This is the latest forum and they all seem to repeat this same tired and ineffective format. I think we can do better and should. These are just about the only issue-oriented opportunity we get to evaluate candidates and our choices are vitally important.

For the two person races I would have an onstage armchair discussion between the candidates with an emcee host moderating. Each candidate should get a chance to raise an issue and begin by laying out the topic and then listening to the opponent's view followed by several minutes of back and forth discussion. With fourteen candidates (only eleven appeared) it's tougher but I think they could be split into two groups - incumbents and challengers - and hold panel discussions as well. On the council they will be working in a group of seven and collaboration is essential so seeing them put into this kind of group interaction is very relevant to the job. I urge the people who kindly host these things to consider new approaches to maximize the value of the contribution.