[Vision2020] Re: MCA Debates

[Bruce and Jean Livingston]

Tom,

I appreciate your point-of-view, but feel there are some points in your
note, below, that I must address.

1.  As I noted in a posting to vision2020 earlier today, in response to John
Danahy's posting, the MCA is not and never has been taking a position on any
of the races for sheriff, county commissioner or state representative.

2.  The MCA was unwilling to turn over the hosting of our proposed debates
to the Daily News because Barrett Schroeder, Republican Party County Chair,
proposed to gut them in numerous ways that were unacceptable to the MCA,
such as eliminating the debate aspect and turning the debates into a panel
format, prohibiting questions from the audience, and insisting on the
participation of unopposed candidates.  While I expressed the  MCA's
willingness to have the Daily News participate, by having Nathan Alford act
as moderator, Alford declined to participate in an MCA sponsored debate and
instead suggested other neutral moderators to maintain the Daily News'
objectivity.

The MCA acquiesced in selecting a moderator from the list of neutral people
suggested by Alford.  We also acquiesced to Schroeder's wish that candidates
not submit questions through the audience.

3. The only way in which one could characterize the Daily News as "too
independent" would be in the sense that anyone who ran a debate in our stead
would be entitled to present it in whatever format they desired.  To the
extent that Barrett Schroeder's proposed format might be the result of MCA
dropping our debates, I found that unacceptable and declined to call-off the
MCA debates.  The MCA's whole purpose in proposing a debate was to have a
more extensive, race-by-race debate format, without the unopposed
candidates, and with questions from the audience.

4.  I find your criticism of Lois Blackburn unconvincing and misplaced.
Lois suggested that having Jeff Harkins organize a forum had at least as
much potential bias as MCA organizing one, since Harkins was a Republican
candidate for office in these very elections.  Your response that Harkins
cured any such deficiency by having a neutral moderator to run the program
is equally applicable to the MCA situation, in which we agreed to a neutral
moderator.

5.  As for being unable to agree on protocols for the debate, I would
suggest that there has been little discussion or attempt to do so, other
than Mr. Schroeder's end run around MCA.  Only the MCA has made any
concessions to the various demands formulated by Barrett Schroeder.  The MCA
agreed to select a neutral moderator and has done so.  The MCA agreed to
preclude candidates from submitting questions through the audience.

6.  As I said above, Barrett Schroeder also suggested that the Daily News
host the forum under entirely different circumstances -- that would preclude
audience participation, preclude a debate, and return to the panel format
that we had sought to avoid.

Schroeder's proposed format also allowed candidates who were unopposed -- 
and thereby would be able to devote their time to partisan attacks on
candidates in other races, as has happened at other forums, notably the
League of Women Voters Forum at which Sen. Gary Schroeder attacked your
opponent.  I find your insistence that unopposed, partisan candidates be
allowed at the debates to be particularly unreasonable given that
occurrence.

7.  Finally, you assert that the rules for the debate format were changed
after the candidates agreed to participate.  The only change was one made at
the behest of the Republicans -- to have candidates not submit questions
through the audience.  We always contemplated having a neutral moderator, so
having one is not a change.  And we always contemplated having a debate
format, race-by race.  I previously addressed that issue to vision2020,
based on a quote of yours in the Daily News on Ocotber 7, but to the extent
that claim is being repeated by you in your concluding paragraph, I repeat
my response of October 8 here:

"Finally, at least one candidate, Representative Trail, is suggesting that I
changed the format to a race-by-race debate after the candidates committed.
That is emphatically NOT the case.  A survey of all the candidates will
establish that I told them in my initial conversations that the debates
would be done with questions from the audience, directed to the candidates
race-by-race, and that the Sheriffs and County Commissioner debates would be
on Monday and that the State Rep races would be on Wednesday.  (I did change
the date of the State Rep debates from Tuesday to Wednesday because Rep.
Trail informed me that he had a conflict on that Tuesday with a prior
scheduled Latah County Republicans Central Committee meeting.)

"It is possible that Representative Trail misunderstood me and made an
assumption based on past forums.  I suppose it is also possible that I
omitted the race-by race aspect of the debate in my conversation with
Representative Trail, though I do not think that is the case.  The former
possibility is more likely, in my opinion, as the race-by-race format and
the extended time frame were MCA's main objectives in formulating the
debates.  But I did not change the format after obtaining commitments from
the candidates.

"I will not call Representative Trail a liar, for it is obvious to me that
one or the other of us is mistaken.  He is my former neighbor, and he
supported the MCA endorsed candidates for City Council last year.  I pounded
the Chaney and Dickinson signs on his property, moving them at his direction
to a more visible location across from where the Mountainview Park parking
lot exits to the street.

"The Moscow Civic Association is not a radical fringe group, as
Representative Trail's support for the same City Council candidates that we
endorsed should show.  We are an activist group of citizens interested in
promoting open government and public involvement in the political process.
The Moscow Civic Association is not endorsing any candidate in this
election.

"Extended discussion of issues, substantively, is in the interest of
everyone.  I am confident that a fair question selector will be found, and I
would be happy to receive suggestions of people to consider for the job.
The MCA debates will go forward with or without the Republican candidates.
It would be best for the citizens of Latah County if the Republicans
participated."

8.  I am not sure how much further the MCA could have gone to try to
accommodate the demands issued by Barrett Schroeder on behalf of the
Republicans.  Certainly, we attempted to meet them more than half-way.  I
suspect that there are many more votes to be won than could be lost by
appearing at the MCA debates, so I think it is particularly unfortunate that
any candidates decline to take advantage of that opportunity.

Fortunately, not all Republicans are staying home, and we will have real
live debates.  Please come and enjoy them tonight.


Bruce Livingston
Moscow Civic Association
Committee on Elections and Debates

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Trail" <ttrail at moscow.com>
To: "Bruce Livingston" <livi at turbonet.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 7:23 AM
Subject: MCA Debates


> Bruce--It has been an trying time I believe for everyone involved in
trying
> to work out arrangements for the MCA debates.  We have the greatest
respect
> for MCA and it's goals.  However, it is the only organizing group
> with a specific political agenda.  MCA's charter clearly states that
> one of the
> organizations goals is to sponsor and endorse candidates.  All of the
other
> organizers of the other 15 other debates are non-political.
>
> Even the Presidential Debates are organized by non-political organizations
with
> no political aims unlike MCA.  The Moscow League of Women Voters is a good
> example.  Even with a non-political sponsor, the last Presidential debates
> took considerable time and at least 30 pages of agreed upon protocol.  So
one
> of our concerns was the "political" nature of MCA.  We recommended that
> Nathan Alford and the Daily News serve as the organizing sponsor of the
debate.
> It is my understanding that Mr. Alford and the Daily News accepted.
> This would have met our criterion of a truly "independent" sponsoring
> organization.  However, the criticism from MCA was that Mr. Alfred
> and the
> Daily News was "too independent."  This was a curious comment since Bill
London
> in an e mail of October 21, 2002 indicated the necessity of getting a more
> independent organizer for an event.  I talked with Nancy Chaney, a MCA
member
> over a week ago, and she said having Mr. Alford and the Daily News handle
> the debate sounded like a good idea to her.
>
> The situation became complicated with MCA President Lois Blackburn
questioned
> the integrity of Jeff Harkins and the Moscow Lions Club for
> sponsoring two debates.  Jeff specifically asked Mark Bohen of the
> Moscow Lions Club to serve
> as the moderator to avoid any possible conflict that might have been
perceived
> as partisan.  I've been a member of the Moscow Rotary Club for 30 years
and all
> of our service clubs are non-partisan.   Ms. Blackburn's response further
> mudded the waters.  Mr. Harkins integrity was questioned, and he has been
> threatened that he would lose votes if he didn't participate. I've also
> received several similar phone calls.  The last caller simply said, "If
you
> don't participate, we'll get you."  I will not be participating in the
debate
> because of the reasons outlined above, and with threats of punishment for
not
> attending.
>
> The entire affair has not been well managed and we have been unable to
agree
> upon the protocols which would allow us to participate in the debate.
Rules
> for debate format orginally conveyed to GOP candidates were changed.
Exclusion
> of unopposed candidates was also not acceptable since they as elected
officials
> address the same issues as candidates with opposition.  I hope we have
learned
> a lesson from this experience.
>
> Rep. Tom Trail
> -- 
> Dr. Tom Trail
> International Trails
> 1375 Mt. View Rd.
> Moscow, Id. 83843
> Tel:  (208) 882-6077
> Fax:  (208) 882-0896
> e mail ttrail at moscow.com