Indy Endorsements

Interesting that incumbent Brian Lowen was not endorsed for Hillsborough Town Board.

Nor incumbent Mike Kelley for the school board

They explained their thinking on this, as well as why they didn't endorse Will this year. Also of interest is the ''disclaimer'' on the Chapel Hill page.

That confused me too, Will but I seem to that way a lot these days. Like everything was A-OK with our percent for art management, yet we changed the structure the other night.

Will,

Don't take it personally. At a Democratic Party fundraiser in late 2005, I met a writer for the Indy, and specifically asked him about their endorsement process. His comment to me was that they just sit around a table and decide who they think is best, THEN look at the answers to the questions they've sent out for editorial content.

Thus the reason I opted out of the Indy endorsement this season. It was time consuming and in the end would me no good.

Well, I can't speak on a macro level, but after almost 5 weeks we finally got a building permit. ( for reference sake the residential project McCorkle Place took 5 days)

I will say that once we made Roger Stancil and Dwight Bassett aware of the problem with the advocacy of the Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Partnership, and UNC, we had the situation solved in 2 weeks.

We are now looking at an early December opening.

Thanks for the concern.

The Indy ditches Mike Kelley, a candidate they endorsed last time, saying: "While his advocacy for gifted children is admirable, as their needs shouldn't be overlooked, when voting, he hasn't always kept all children in mind."

Wow. I'm not sure I've ever seen a more skewed depiction of somebody's record.

Eric, I thought the last line was even more questionable!

His rigorous job as a physician scientist at Durham's veterans' hospital also has prevented him from attending many forums and activities beyond his basic board duties.

Well, we now have another data point on who is and who isn't qualified to serve in elective office. This is right up there with the Cam Hill 2003 prouncement that Dianne Bachman shouldn't be elected to the Town Council because she works for UNC!

Fred, you're right.

In fact, one could say even more.

The man's wife and daughter were run over by a car while he was serving on the Board! Both were quite seriously injured. Many people would have resigned in such an unthinkably horrible situation, but Mike honored his commitment to the Board and the people of Chapel Hill and Carrboro.

To turn around and criticize him for not having attended unspecified additional forums and activities is just cold. Really cold.

I haven't seen these endorsements yet, but I noticed that the Raleigh ones a few weeks ago were written in such a way that you really didn't know why the Indy was endorsing that particular candidate-- it was all in generalities. What was said above about the Indy choosing the candidates first and then coming up with reasons for the endorsement after the fact makes sense.

I'll be ignoring the Indy's advice to dump Mike Kelley, but I appreciate the service their endorsements provide. I don't have room in my life to stay thoroughly abreast of town issues, especially things like the school board, which has little bearing on my day-to-day existence. Nevertheless, I intend to exercise my right to vote for the school board, and the Indy has provided a valuable service by scrutinizing the candidates.

If the Indy's editorial judgment were called into question, as some here have done, I would feel somewhat adrift - I'm not aware of any other non-advocacy-group organizations that make endorsements in local races.

I wish someone would publish a guide to local races that didn't so much make vaguely-worded endorsements as give an expert assessment of the candidates' history and performance - "so-and-so voted 70% of the time to delay or reject new development," or "so-and-so's background would fill this particular gap in the board's expertise," or "so-and-so missed 45% of the meetings and did not appear to have a thorough understanding of the board's agenda." That way I could apply my own priorities in my voting choices without being dependent on a candidate's own publicity for my information.

This morning I'm calling on the Independent either to apologize publicly to Mike Kelley or to retract its school board endorsements.

It seems to me the Indy has to do one or the other.

In addition to Eric's comments that critiquing Mike's attendance at forum's etc by the Indy is incredibly insenstive, I would challenge them to document it. I am nearly certain that the statement is incorrect. I served on the high school redistricting committee on which Mike was one of two board reps and he was every meeting and forum.
I would also echo comments above that Mike is the only board member who consistently responds to e-mails sent to "All Board Members" on the district website.

This is not the first time the Indy has published incorrect ancedotal comments in their endorsement without bothering to do their homework. Given their influence in the community this is particulary disappointing.

To turn around and criticize him for not having attended unspecified additional forums and activities is just cold. Really cold.

I agree. It would be nice if the whole topic could be kept personal/private and not even be part of the public discussion. But that is kinda hard to do with that not-well-thought-out criticism.

However, while It's one thing to disagree with the selection of endorsees - we've all done that before - I don't feel that is a legitimate basis for criticizing the entire organization or publication, as many have done regarding the Sierra Club/NAACP/Indy/etc. endorsements this year.

Most of the discussion that I have seen involves legitimate concerns about how the endorsement processes are run. It is in the public interest to discuss the quality and possible shortcomings of these endorsements that far too many non-pundits blindly follow. There is no transparency in many of these processes, so it is hard for many to have confidence as to whether endorsements are for "who you know" vs. "whether you are likely to estrange us since you are likely to win" vs. "what you stand for", etc.

Ruby, when an organization or publication decides to endorse electoral candidates, one of their points of consideration must be how doing so will reflect on their brand. They understand that what gives their judgments credibility is their very brand. Therefore, there is a legitimate basis for criticizing the entire organization or publication when they use that brand to legitimize decisions they have made without telling anyone how they reached their decisions, who made the decisions, and who did the research that got them there.

Endorsements are what they are, and people only pay positive attention because of the trust they have for the brand that made the endorsement. Of course the negative is a factor too.

What I do want to know about school board candidates is who amongst them is more concerned about the poor kids, the children of color, etc, more so than about programs for gifted children. Is there anyone who seems at least equally concerned?

Because I am not nearly as polite as Jeff Danner, I will point out that the Indy seriously misrepresented Jeff when he ran in 2005. Had they understood where he was coming from, they still might not have endorsed him, but their misinformation was a disservice to voters.

Also, although I was not a Gloria Faley supporter four years ago, I thought the Indy's reasons for choosing not to endorse her were completely off base.

I completely agree that the process is flawed. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. The Indy really failed to do its homework or provide any useful education to voters.

My educated guess is that Mike Kelly and Will Raymond both knocked themselves out on the Indy questionnaire. It's a tough exam, considered worth taking by candidates who appreciate the value of an Indy endorsement. Most (all?) other influential papers and organizations take the time to interview the candidates in person. I think the Indy should also. They can't assess leadership qualities purely on the basis of written submissions.

Accordingly, the Indy endorsements should not serve as a cheat sheet for voters who haven't done their own homework.

It sounds like it is a tough exam that isn't read before the teacher assigns a grade.

For what it is worth-six years ago the only endorsements I got for re-election to the BOA were the Hank Anderson Club and the DTH.The Indy,Sierra Club and CH News all endorsed John Herra instead of me.I came in first that election!
Jacquie Gist

That is what it sounds like, Chris. The Indy questionnaire is an empty exercise.

"It sounds like it is a tough exam that isn't read before the teacher assigns a grade."

I'd say its a tough exam used to justify the teachers already assigned grade--regardless of performance on the exam.

The best solution to this is for candidates to stop participating in the questionnaires or the interviews so that the voters have to do their own homework. Of course, I don't expect that will ever happen any more than I expect Jim Ward's excellent example of not taking campaign contributions will become the norm.

Cat, I think I did a fairly good job on the Indy questionnaire (I've had to do two now) and will be publishing a bit to give folks a clear understanding of what I said.

I was concerned about the Indy's process, for obvious reasons, and asked for a clarification early on - the Indy decided not to reveal to me their process or what protections they would take.

I agree, with Richard and Kirk out we lost some institutional memory and, as I said, there's plenty to critique me on.

If the Indy wants to ding me for trying to wrangle some reality into the Lot #5 debate or doesn't like my style of advocacy on behalf of hands-on arts, bridging the digital divide, economic development, simple Downtown revitalization strategies, a new budget process, open governance or any of a number of issues I've brought before Council - then have at it.

I don't particularly like their use of "strident" over that of "passionate" but their job here was to shape opinion - to endorse the folks close to home over those that are challenging them - and the use of emotionally charge rhetoric does that.

But claiming I'm wanted to damage Booker Creek further is an inversion of my historical stance - and cannot be extrapolated from what I wrote in the questionnaire. Worse, it flies in the face of the incumbents own culpability in that matter!

A little homework would've easily shown my concern for all our Town's watercourses. My call for additional protections would be more than evident - and was part of my previous platform and questionnaire. Heck, the Sierra Club even mentioned it in their endorsement 2 years ago as one of my strengths!

Will Raymond has been one of the most outspoken and effective citizen activists in Chapel Hill in recent years. We look forward to him using his talents to advocate for the environment as a member of Town Council. In particular we are excited about his initiatives to promote energy efficiency in town buildings. He will also work to protect lesser known creeks in the Chapel Hill area and to minimize the number of single occupancy vehicles causing air pollution and traffic congestion at Carolina North.

Funny thing, I've done everything the Sierra Club said I'd do - the problem was it didn't always line up with what Council wanted.

Unfortunately, I wanted measurable energy efficiency requirements on Lot #5, Bill, Cam, Sally didn't. I wanted AIA2030 to be a guiding principle - the Council didn't. I wanted the HWCC sub-committee on environment to carry on with their work to build a framework for discussion of measurable environmental standards - covering air, noise, light and other environmental impacts, both on and off-site of Carolina North - the Council didn't. I wanted targeted fuel reductions, emphasis on energy saving strategies, Chapel Hill to commit to being the first customer for landfill gas and bio-fuels production by the County. The Council didn't. Heck, even my suggestion to replant some of the trees were removing from Lot #5 - trees that help scrub Downtown's air - somewhere nearby was rejected.

Again, you can tar my critique of the Council's environmental missteps, as we've seen the far Right do, as strident dissent - it makes good political strategy to marginalize those that hold a mirror up to your actions. And with a big booming voice, huge body and gregarious style I can almost imagine that mis-reading (especially if you're not looking to understand what I said or care to interpret beyond the most surface of reads how I said it).

But to claim I haven't been calling for specific improvements on the environment is wrong - and that's why I'm disappointed in the Indy.

Mike's Indy questionnaire is posted here
http://kelley4schoolboard.blogspot.com/2007/10/questionnaire-independent...

I spoke to Jennifer Strom at the Indy today who seemed unable to believe me when I told her, several times, that I wasn't unhappy with the paper's politics; I was unhappy with their poor research.

I find it particularly egregious that the Indy dinged Mike for working too hard--if they really didn't know about his family situation, they were poorly informed. If they did know, they were factually incorrect and callous.

Jacquie - Did they only endorse John Herrera for three seats in 2001? My recollection is that the odd man out 6 years ago was Alan Spalt and that John Herrera got endorsed ahead of Alan and Alan lost.

Regardless, perhaps the Indy should try to sponsor some sort of public candidates forums that at least ensure Indy staff meet the candidates. It's tough as there are so many local races they are trying to cover. But given the influence of their endorsements perhaps they should do better to get their facts right or not endorse in some races.

David,

Your recollecion is correct. Allen Spalt lost to John Herrera largely on account of the Indy's enthusiastic endorsement of John that year. Allen received also-ran favorable mention in the same paragraph with Jacquie. Go figure.

PS: The Indy was very kind to Dan Coleman.

David
That year they did not endorse either me or Alan.They said "there was no reason not to vote for"me!
Interesting aside-that year Edith Wiggins did not get any of the Big Three endorsements either and came in first in CH.After the election we decided that the next time we would run on the F U ticket!
Jacquie Gist

Yo Mark, you're the one who got his picture on the cover last time ..! I'd call that influential AND predictive.

I concur regarding the Indy not doing their homework on candidates, particularly insofar as Jeff Danner was concerned in his run for school board back in '05. As a current resident of Chapel Hill, and a former resident of Durham, I have been disappointed to see the Indy do this in both jurisdictions.

"how many people are really choosing whether to support Mike Kelley based on two sentences on page 12 "

To answer your question just as written, I would have to say "none", because anyone who reads that far into the recent issue is: a) involved enough to know that the Indy assessment of him is garbage; b) follows politics enough that they will continue to become informed and eventually learn that the Indy assessment is garbage; or c) don't intend to vote for Kelley anyway.

However, the real issue is not the reasoning behind the endorsement on page 21, but the simple fact of the endorsement itself. The Indy offers a handy "clip-out voting guide" on page 21. The guide is just a list of names of the endorsees with no additional info. That is the real "finished product" of the endorsement process.

Another issue is that the School Board race is considered by many to be "down ticket" from your race and the town council races. To some degree, as a mayoral candidate, you are sort of running for "President", while the School Board could be regarded (depending upon the interest level of a voter) as a US House race or even a state House race.

Many people with solid ideas about mayoral or town council races have not followed the CHCCS race so they need guidance. In an even year election, people can use partisanship for guidance in "down ticket" races and simply vote "D" or "R" (or maybe "L" or "G") depending on their favorite brand. In non-partisan races, they can't. An endorsement is the next best shortcut.

I would love to see a tabulation of endorsements in the letters-to-the-editors of all local papers to check any correlations with eventual election. I don't really think any particular spate of "we know him/her and he/she is just great" letters can get a non-incumbent elected without other factors coming into play. But I do think -- without any solid research other than instinct -- that people are more likely to be aware of the letters than they are of interest-group endorsements. Next question: do more or fewer people read the letters than read the editorial endorsements?

For what it's worth...I don't read those endorsement letters to the editor. I know what they will say. (Has anyone ever read one of those letters-to-the-editor where the candidate DIDN'T walk on water?) I DO read policy statements/answers to questions/forums. Talk to people who know/have worked with the candidates personally. Watch how the candidates comport themselves in public/on forums. And then I make up my mind.

Tom, letters may be a good barometer of support, but how many are independent of the campaign teams versus generated by the teams?

Also, some have appeared in multiple papers - does that increase their impact?