CANDIDATE CHARACTERISTICS-AVAILABILITY
(The second in a series)
While I was on vacation in Massachusetts, I wrote a piece titled, “What To Look For in a City Council Candidate,” in which I outlined 7 desirable characteristics. The categories are: Availability, Character, Motivation, Capacity, Communication, Flexibility and Creativity.
Between then and now, readers have made some of their own suggestions as I hoped they would. Ben pitched for a separate category, Community that he said could come under Motivation, but he preferred a separate category. 2iview put forth Vision or a sense of direction. Mtober called for Ethics to be included. All of these characteristics are certainly to be desired in a candidate and will be discussed down the line. But, I think the reader suggestions are part and parcel of one or more of the list of 7. A sense of Community can easily come under Motivation. Vision could come under either Motivation or Creativity or both. Ethics definitely comes under Character. I’m going to stick to 7 broad categories because I like 7 from a literary standpoint, but I’m not opposed to re-labeling one or more of them.
Availability might be considered by some to be the “duh” category. Of course no one is going to vote for anyone who is unavailable to serve, are they? Unfortunately there are several instances where an apparently available candidate might not be.
The first not so available candidate is one who has been “talked into “ running by someone or some entity which has some power over the candidate such as an employer, a client, a political party or a spouse. This type is reluctant from the outset and once elected is soon just going through the motions. In other words, he/she is, at best only partially there.
The next is the poor soul who wants the glory, but just cant afford to serve. Almost everyone can raise campaign funds, but that isn’t the point. The point is that a person who is in poor financial or personal condition can, at best only partially serve. At some point they will be consumed with making a buck or staving off a divorce that they will only be going through the motions on the poorer paying elected position. Personal relations will change over time, but a person who is in the midst of a crisis at the outset is a bad bet for “showing up” public office.
Another possible “no show” is the extremely successful professional or business person, who although motivated, is unrealistic in judging how much time he/she can or will dedicate to the elected position. Often, they have no idea what the position they seek requires and although well meaning find after they take office that they just don’t have the time to do the job for which they were elected.
A most obvious availability component is the candidates’ health. We live in a PC environment where personal health issues are considered very private and where handicaps are not to be considered when discussing qualifications to serve. In this instance I am talking only about hidden and recurring conditions that might affect the candidates’ ability to serve, not permanent and obvious disabilities. The hidden health issue is most common among incumbents running for re-election.
All of the above Availability factors are highly personal and difficult to discover. Even the candidates may be unaware of the issue as it pertains to them. However, asking pointed questions of candidates or their handlers about any or all of them if you have any suspicions as to availability are completely in order. Some questions can be answered by simple investigation, conversations with friends of the candidates, internet research, etc. This line of inquiry is not off base. If the candidate appears to be less than forthcoming, it is a voter’s duty to find the facts where possible.
In the next segment of this series, we will explore the Character/Ethical issue as it pertains to candidates for office.
What we’re really trying to do here is to establish a way to build a frame of reference upon which a voter can ask proper questions or do appropriate research before rating a candidate. We will even discuss a possible rating system. I trust reader input will assist us in achieving our goal.
A voter, intent on defeating a candidate would vote for someone who is unavailable, of bad character, unmotivated, brain-dead, illiterate, rigid, and insipid. I think you will find in our world of politics that people vote against someone more than they vote for someone. Anyone but THEM.
Sometimes there’s a good reason, sometimes its for as trivial a reason, like the candidate associates with Lefties or WingNuts. Of course you have the shallow voter who likes the way he or she l00ks. People can be scared into voting for a curtain candidate, say in the middle of a crisis or a war.
Your “Desirable Characteristics” are not considered in many cases and only self-interest matters. Painting a portrait of Thomas Aquinas or Teddy Roosevelt to use in a selection process when voters care less about character as long as their special needs are fulfilled seems like an exercise in futility.
If Attila the Hun ran in Ward 2 my guess is that he would get at least a handful of votes from the anti-King crowd.
Attila was never as manly as your King.
When is Availability reached?
Example: I call my representative and receive a return call 5 days later. Is that being available? You call the same representative and he calls back the same day…is he being selectively available?
What is reasonable? In a City of 12,000 a day or two would be reasonable. So, a call in two hours is great, a call in 5 days in not, baring exigent circumstances one would need more data.
Observing the trends of a candidate or incumbent would be required. Do we post the question with the League of Women Voters to consider the question of availability?
If you write the question it doesn’t mean the League will consider it viable. They could reject it offhand as they have with other questions.
Should we setup a checklist of activities and give them a value?
Question from the League of Women Voters.
Is there anything in your life’s schedule that would interfere with you fulfilling the duties of a candidate?
Candidate A says: No. I own my own Business and work when I want.
Fact: He has 25 employees and 7 children.
.
The data demonstrates that:
50% of his waking hours are dedicated to his business, that’s 8 hours per day. He eats dinner at home and gives his wife and kids 2 hours per day, from 5-7 PM. He has season tickets to football, baseball, basketball, hockey, stock car races and a table with his name on it at the local strip club/golf course/yacht club. On Sundays and Holidays he attended a religious service, and in the evenings before he sleeps he spends 20 minutes banging his head on the walls or the floor or scraping his knees on his polyester carpet. The medication he takes requires him to visit the head every 40 minutes for 6-minute exercises. He spends an hour and a half per day in his car.
Neither the League, Gabber nor Watchdogs were able to uncover this data. It was observed on Google Maps Street-view.
With facts in hand, do we disqualify this candidate on our assumption that he has no time? Will he have less time than…
the Homeless Candidate B. that sleeps under the dais, and has no ability to manage time but likes his free cell phone, so he answers it immediately. Just call him up or pick him up and he’ll be accessible 24 hours per day.
Candidate B is always available, and he’s at every event. So instead of telling us that he’s available he answers the Leagues and reporters question by saying he’s busy with events but has time for City Business.
Fear of commitment can stifle availability. The willingness to speak on the phone or in person but not in email is very telling. Plausible deniability is lost in writing, evidence can be produced where verbal communication can be a matter of interpretation, he said, she said, it was never said, says I…
Councilperson I.B. Credible.
What has more value, a unavailable council person who is affective, or an available councilperson that is not?