Let me get this straight. Two of Portsmouth’s council members want to be appointed mayor. So the four other council members will be interviewing the candidates, including those two. But when the deliberations start on who will be appointed, all six members of council will weigh in.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Am I the only one that sees something wrong with the two council members/mayor candidates participating in the selection of the appointment? It seems to me that if the two of them are not participating in the interviewing process, they should also not participate in the selection process. That is, unless the Portsmouth council intends to allow the two non-members of council to sit in. Why should two be able to advocate privately for themselves and two not?
Seriously – the two council members, Elizabeth Psimas and Charles Whitehurst, should not be in the room when the decision is being made. Such is the price you pay for offering to serve. After all, one of the candidates – Curtis Edmonds – can’t even make the interviews, although he supposedly is still going to be “considered.” What kind of transparency includes having half the candidates vote on the position themselves? Besides, who do you expect them to vote for, if not themselves?
One more thing: just in case Portsmouth hasn’t thought about it, they should consider interviewing each candidate separately, without the others present. I’m assuming the four members have decided on some questions to ask. That being the case, it seems only fair that each candidate have the opportunity to answer without the others hearing their answers and copying their responses.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 