Should Vancouverites cast votes for candidates who remain in hiding or mute in the audience?

The NPA appears to have decided all they needed to do to quash the "skipping out" complaints was to show up in force last night and... sit in the audience. A fairly full suite of incumbent and would be NPA trustee candidates, plus at least a handler and supporter or two, turned out last night.

Unfortunately, and I mean that with sincerity, we heard nothing from those new to this process. Le Gallais and Singh were in the audience as was Clarence Hansen; I don't recall seeing Woo, Holden or Nance but they may have been there, mute in the audience (not for the first time).

Hansen, Denike, and Gibson we already well know. It's the rest that need to earn our votes and in my opinion they have failed to do this. That's not a partisan swipe but fair comment on the process. How are we to understand how these newcomers would act as stewards of the district without having meaningful interaction from them?

I don't elect slates, I want to elect capabilities.

How can a responsible voter become aware of a candidate's capabilities if the candidate hides from the public? Should a two paragraph party-supplied bio be enough? No.

(Tangential rant: We don't even know what the writing skills of the MIA candidates are, as the biography for most NPA candidates appears to have been written by a single person - note the style similarity and consistent use of the third person.)

A scant bio on the the city and party web sites isn't enough to provide voters with sufficient information to elect someone to be responsible for the management of a board of education that touches 55,000 children and 100,000 (one in six) Vancouverites. Should we be voting for candidates we know very little about, thus giving them the management responsibility for a budget of almost half a billion dollars?

No, I don't believe we should.

I have routinely voted for a mix of candidates from all parties, including the NPA, picking and choosing who best should take on responsibility. I certainly will not be casting a ballot for candidates that refuse to speak out in public, or, having done so once and failed, aren't brave enough to use another public opportunity to perhaps better express themselves.

There is no point in electing weak representatives to School Board. Their hands are already bound by the nature of the co-governance relationship all school boards share with the Ministry of Education. I would hope Vancouver voters don't further hamstring the School Board by electing members who are not strong enough to speak with courage of their convictions and past experiences and how they will apply those abilities to the task of continually improving our local school system.

If trustee candidates aren't strong enough to brave an evening with some parents, how in the world are they going to be strong enough to take on the (often thankless) job?