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?

Held at Bayview Community School in the picturesque west side neighbourhood of West Point Grey, last night's forum for school board trustee candidates was well attended by the public and by many trustee candidates. Regrettably for all involved not a single NPA candidate or incumbent trustee showed up.

Last night was not the first time the NPA muzzled candidates.

According to organizers of the meeting, despite having long planned to participate, the NPA pulled their participation citing concerns over the format which allowed for a five minute opening statement by a representative from each party. The NPA is said to oppose having a productive town-hall style forum merely because COPE and Vision together are seen as a slate, and effectively are given an extra opportunity to speak.

This complaint is of course utter nonsense. Parents and public attending these meetings don't care at all about the delivery of scripted party lines in an opening statement. What we really came to hear is how candidates answer questions and thus be forced to think on their feet. Hearing their answers is hugely instructive as to the nature of their experience and quality of their character.

Put in context, the opening statements covered only fifteen minutes of what has turned out at both DPAC hosted events this week to be more than two and a half hours of productive discussion.

The evening prior four NPA candidates--incumbent trustee Ken Denike along with hopefuls Sophia Woo, Margit Nance, and Eileen Le Gallais--turned out for a similar meeting at Van Tech on Vancouver's east side.

I attended both meetings. Having carefully watched both forums, my objective assessment is that the NPA does not wish to put its rookie candidates under the light of further scrutiny. One can naturally draw a conclusion, quite correctly in my estimation, as to why.

At the Van Tech debate on Wednesday incumbent trustee Ken Denike took most of the questions and was seen to be urging his co-candidates to take questions from time to time, often without success. Some, not all, responses provided by the NPA rookies could be at best described as... disappointing. At worst? Ill-informed.

Margit Nance, judging by how little we heard from her, is capable of speaking for herself but repeatedly chose not to. We'll never know, before election day at least, if she can acquit herself well or not.

Eileen Le Gallais should have said less. Notably her suggested solution for the interlinked problems of class composition and chronic underfunding of special education positions was to draft volunteers, in some cases from within the ranks of senior school grades. Le Gallais left the distinct impression that her years of experience in education are rooted in yesteryears, and that her thinking has not advanced with the times. Sophia Woo had nothing remarkable to say during her infrequent times at the microphone. The public has an interest in hearing more, not less, from these and other candidates.

The point of this post is not to rail on about individuals or one party but to illustrate why the NPA pulled out which had nothing to do with "format" but everything to do with the performance of their own candidates. If NPA rookie trustee candidates are unwilling to stand up to public scrutiny, they certainly should not be entrusted with the job of standing up for our children!

After over two and a half hours of questions and answers, we mostly heard from Ken Denike and barely heard anything from the three rookie NPA candidates sitting on stage. At least one other NPA rookie trustee candidate, Lakhbir Singh, was in the building but did not participate.

There was a subtle difference in how each meeting was moderated. At Van Tech a representative from each party was given opportunity and time to respond to questions. Some parties took advantage of their time to pass the microphone to another representative to complete an answer. The NPA did not take advantage of this possibility to include more voices than Denike's.

At Bayview the process started out similarly but the moderator quite adeptly recognized that time limits were not so necessary and all those who had something to add in response to a question were provided the opportunity to do so.

Yesterday many parents gave three hours of their evening and came out to Bayview on a cold and blustery night. Had the NPA bothered to repay this courtesy and join the discussion, I have no doubt whatsoever that the all trustee candidates would have found the atmosphere collegial and conducive to a substantial discussion on what turned out to be a broad array of topics.

Pulling candidates from debate is a tactic which the Conservative Party has made its signature move. By adopting this sleazy tactic, it would appear the NPA believe their best route to electoral success it to hide its candidates from public view and scrutiny.

I have never voted a "slate" in civic elections, preferring to pick and choose on my own the candidates for council, parks, and schools. Thus in the past I've cast a vote for some of the same NPA trustee candidates who now refuse to talk openly with parents. I travelled across town expecting to be able to chat with Trustee Gibson (NPA) and some of the new faces now vying to lead our board of education. I want to know where my vote is going—no party and no individual gets an automatic ✗ from me.

Anyone who knows me well understands I am a passionate believer in real democracy. Too many of our world's problems are caused, aided, and abetted by secrecy and deception. Our political process and outcomes deserve better than underhanded tactics.

The NPA school trustee candidates have one last chance to redeem themselves: Hosted by Think City, there will be a final all candidates forum held next week, Thursday November 13th from 7:00pm to 9:00pm at Laura Secord Elementary, 2500 Lakewood Avenue (in between Broadway and 12th avenue). Details and registration.

On Wednesday night the University Neighbourhoods Association held a School Trustee All Candidates Meeting. The well-attended debate took place at 7:30 at the Old Barn Community Centre.

It is to be expected that all candidates would both attend and participate in an all candidates meeting. Yet three of the candidates, all NPA hopefuls, attended but took the unusual step of sitting with the audience, effectively refusing to be part of the debate.

Sources familiar with the matter indicate the truant candidates were ordered to sit out the debate by their campaign team. Vancouver voters will want to know the muzzled candidates are:

• Eileen LeGallais (NPA)
• Margit Nance (NPA)
• Sophia Woo (NPA)

The NPA was unable to nominate a full slate of school board candidates. Of the eight fielded candidates, four have run for school or parks board in the past and therefore have had prior public exposure. Why would the NPA choose to deny the public an opportunity to hear from three of the remaining four political newcomers? Surely Vancouver's public school stakeholders deserve to learn more about school trustee candidates than a couple of paragraphs presented on-line.

If candidates can't stand up for themselves in debate, they certainly shouldn't be pretending to stand up for our children!

Vancouver District Parents Advisory Council (DPAC) will host two all-candidates debates early in November. Lets hope that all trustee candidates have been unmuzzled by then.