It doesn’t matter if you’re running for U.S. Congress or your local park board, election season is a grind. First there’s the pre-campaign work of lining up supporters and the gathering of signatures that are required to get your name on the ballot. Then there’s the fundraising work, organization, financial reporting and the neighborhood canvassing. Don’t forget the litany of endorsement interviews with media outlets and special interest groups, including the local chamber of commerce and public employee unions. Lastly, there’s the public appearances: The all-important debates and candidate forums that allow voters to see the candidates stand shoulder to shoulder, answering policy questions and occasionally sparring over issues.
These candidate debates were once a staple of American politics and the primary way that voters could hear from politicians before the advent of radio and television advertising.
Sadly though these forums appear to be an endangered political species whose place has usurped in the modern election cycle by packaged sound bytes and carefully selected buzzwords.
Forget Dudley and Kitzhaber. Look no further than the 1,000 Friends/Central Oregon Environmental Center city council candidate forum that took place on Wednesday night for evidence of how the toe-to-toe political debate is fading from relevancy. Although two-thirds of the Bend City Council Candidates showed up for the forum, one of those candidates, Jodie Barram, is running unopposed. Another Ron Boozel is a likeable fringe candidate who has been battling revelations that he has a criminal record and faced an outstanding warrant just a few weeks before the election (Boozel has since appeared in court to address the allegations that he violated his parole). Missing entirely were Scott Ramsay and Mark Moseley, candidates who have earned endorsements from both the Bend Bulletin, Bend Business PAC (the political arm of the Bend Chamber). Their absence left candidates Chuck Arnold, who is in a competitive race with Ramsay, and incumbent Mark Capell, who faces a challenge from Moseley, with a televised platform to discuss their ideas on transportation and land use during Wednesday night’s forum. What they didn’t have was an opportunity to challenge their opponents on these important issues. That’s too bad because Bend voters deserve more than just sound bytes given the significant challenge that the city faces.
“I was really disappointed because I really like Scott (Ramsay) and I have the hope that he wants to do this right and part of doing this is showing up. While there are a lot of forums and there can be conflicts, this [forum] was booked earlier than the rest and we had plenty of notification,” said Ramsay’s opponent Chuck Arnold.
Asked about the notable absence of Ramsay and Moseley, organizer Ben Gordon of 1,000 Friends of Oregon, was at a loss to explain.
Organizers had initially given the candidates two dates to choose from for the forum and all of the council hopefuls indicated that they would be available. Ramsay initially confirmed his attendance but backed out shortly before the forum, said Gordon, claiming that he had a meeting conflict. Moseley, a former Freightliner executive, waffled on his commitment and ultimately told Gordon that he had an unspecified conflict.
Not knowing the exact reasons why Moseley and Ramsay begged off, one has to at least question whether it was the fact that the forum was being produced by the statewide conservation group 1,000 Friends and the Environmental Center. If that’s the case I’m a little bit frightened at the prospect of either of these candidates serving a constituency as broad as Bend’s electorate and you ought to be, too.
This article appears in Oct 14-20, 2010.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
It is unfortunate that both Ben Gordon’s facts regarding this forum were not completely correct and that Mr. Flowers did not take the time to call this candidate to clarify the facts prior to writing this article.
I run 2 small businesses in Bend and help run The BendFilm Festival. During these trying economic times I find my schedule to be challenging. I was never given multiple dates to choose from during the process. From the very beginning I corresponded with Mr. Gordon letting him know that I was trying to rearrange my schedule and that if I was able to do so I would be in attendance. I was very clear that I could not confirm my attendance and at no time did I ever say that I would absolutely be there, which makes Mr. Gordon’s statement that I “backed out at the last minute” untrue. Unfortunately a meeting between business partners was in conflict and was not able to be rescheduled, which was communicated to Mr. Gordon and the organizers of the event well in advance. I was given the option to send a “stand-in” to answer questions on my behalf, which I refused, as I did not want someone speaking on my behalf.
To date we have had 3 debates (forums) with most or all of the candidates in attendance. I have been to all of the prior forums and have been very clear and direct in my responses. Funny, I haven’t seen the Source at any of the previous forums and have not received communication from the Source on any of my positions, nor have I read any articles regarding previous forums or our races for City Council outside of their endorsement of candidates and this article, with its only purpose to stir up resentment. I find this to be unbalanced and uninformed “reporting”.
Scott,
There is another endangered species here. Journalism. RIP. Historical fiction is alive and well at the Source. Everyone in this town knows Source = Agenda. I wouldn’t worry.
Todd
Don’t worry friends of Ramsey. . .I’m sure that the Bulletin is at this very moment working on some plan to whack your opponent. You’ll see. . .they’ll come up with “something” like a “conflict of interest” that they’ve been sitting on right up until the ballots drop. You’ll get yours. When the Bully does an endorsement they go to work for that candidate. And did I get this right, you had a business meeting that couldn’t shift about Casarama or Sun Mountain Fun Center that was more important than getting some free BendBroadband airtime during your campaign. . . doesn’t sound likely.
When I contacted candidates in mid-August (according to Barram and Arnold, mine was the first forum that they were invited to), Scott Ramsay was given two dates, October 12th and October 13th. At that point, he said that he could make either one.
He did let us know that he had a conflict of interest as time drew nearer but that he was working to find a way to make the forum. He was clear that he had a business related meeting the same evening. However, his decision to opt out of the forum came after he had verbally consented that either date would work.
The only interest that 1000 Friends had in hosting this forum was to get candidates together to talk about the future of growth and transportation. I am sorry that Mr. Ramsay was unable to attend as I am sure many people from our community would have been interested to hear about his vision for future growth and land use in Bend.
1000 Friends of Oregon wishes Mr. Ramsay luck in his upcoming election and hopes that if he is elected to City Council, he will identify growth and transportation as utmost priorities when doing what is best for our city.
Sincerely,
Ben Gordon
1000 Friends of Oregon
Well, Scott you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. But I’ve following and reporting on city politics for almost a decade for both the Bulletin and the Source and the first time I heard your name was about six months ago. So I’m not sure that you really want to get into a debate about credentials.
And please don’t pretend that you haven’t been contacted by the Source. Do I really need to email you the photo that we snapped just a few weeks ago during your candidate interview at our office to jog your memory? The blog post was simple observation and commentary on the indisputable fact that you and Mr. Moseley put a higher priority on another engagement. That’s your prerogative. And nothing that you’ve said here has changed or mitigated that simple fact. But hey, don’t like the message? Be sure to shoot the messenger.