I don’t live in Fairfax but I am a member of the League of Women Voters. As the result, it concerned me greatly to read about the recent Charlie Hall – Linda Smyth debate, as reported by RK (for example here, video here) and NLS. I expressed my concern about this debate to other League members and today received a copy of the official response from LVWFA president Sherry Zachry.
The letter, which was dated May 24, the day after the debates, is addressed to the editor of the Connection Newspapers. Included is information on how debates are structured:
The League of Women Voters, at all levels—local, state and national—has a very structured process for handling debates or a forum. That process is decided before the event and made available to the candidates – although the precise process such as timing, etc. is not always outlined in Agreements that candidates may sign. In this case, the “Agreement of Understanding” that the candidates had signed prior to the event covered the general format and timing of each segment (opening & closing statements, audience questions, questions committee, etc.), but it did not outline the process for answering questions. That explanation was included in the “Program & Format” supplied to the audience (and candidates) at the event—the candidates having seen a draft one day prior.
[…]
… I must apologize for the ambiguousness of one of the explanations contained in the “Program” for the Providence District event (the so-called “rule # 3”). I authored the “Program & Format” and intended for the order of answering the questions to remain the same throughout the questions segment, with each candidate answering in the order of their choice for opening statements. In other words, the candidate who chose to give the first opening statement, in this case Charlie Hall, would be the one who answered the question first throughout that segment. Obviously, my written explanation did not clearly state my intentions; I am truly sorry for the confusion.
I ask that the candidates Charlie Hall, Linda Smyth, and the public accept my apology.
I have no idea why Ms. Zachry would have chosen a debate format whereby the candidate who went first always went first. I can honestly say that I have never seen a debate handled that way. And I have no doubt that had the candidates understood this to be the case when they saw the draft the day before, they would not have agreed to it.
I believe Ms. Zachry has learned a valuable lesson here. Perhaps the situation could have been avoided had there been more input on this from other Fairfax Area League members.
I urge people not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The League, a bipartisan organization, has, for many years, successfully sponsored candidate debates. But like every other organization out there, the League is made up of individuals, and individuals sometimes make mistakes.
Now would be a good time to join the LWV and help to ensure that such mistakes are not made again.
Technorati Tags: League of Women Voters
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Very well said Vivian. I am not a League member but I grew up with neighbors and relatives who were, and I remember thinking it was one of the finest, non-partisan organizations, devoted to civic responsibility and good government. I wasn’t at the actual debate, and when I first read the reports on it from RK and NLS, I was shocked. This wasn’t the LWV that I knew.
Thank you for raising concerns about that debate. As a League member, your voice probably got their attention and your suggestions to others to not throw out the baby with the bath water are very well taken.
Given time constraints, I don’t know if I will join the League right now, but certainly in the not to distant future, when I retire and can do more of what I really want to do, I probably will do so.
Thank you, Vivian. However, it seems clear that this ordering was unfair. I watch a lot of political debates and it seems a lot of people in the know agree it is unfair, because they never debate this way. So, does the League say this was an error because the rule was the candidates should have alternated, or it was error because it was a bad rule?
Vivian,
I worked the debate with Sherry Zachry and she was the ultimate professional. Sherry was consistent with the complicated agreements, paperwork and I thought her spirit of facilitation. I do think she may have missed the alternating question format that most of us have come to expect, but after having watched the video several times as I processed it into the web-capable form it was necessary to convert it into, I in fact saw some of the prompting that Lowell and others point out, but her spirit in each of those cases was just to be helpful. By personality and effort, her intent was just to be helpful in my opinion and I was there both physically and virtually several times as I watched the data…. There will be a much better copy of the debate using the content from both cameras more effectively and with the sound cleaned up that will be run on cable as much as possible between now and the primary as well as available on the web probably by Wednesday, but I didn’t want to delay those like yourselves the opportunity to watch a very usable tape as soon as it was possible. The accoustics of the room and some technically problems didn’t help.
AIAW – even with time constraints (and Lord knows I’ve got lots of those), join the League. It is a great source of information.
AndreaC – the letter took no position on whether the choice to have the candidates always go first was an error. The letter only reflected that the choice was not well communicated to the participants or the audience. That’s why I said I don’t know why Ms. Zachry chose that format. I’ve never seen it used in a debate, either.
Jim – thanks for your comments. Do let us know when and where we can view the better copy of the debate.