The Observation Deck

Observers,

I am disappointed the virtual debate has been canceled.

I was impressed by the quality and depth of the questions posed by the panel to the candidates.

These in depth questions require more than flip, pandering responses. They require real thought and consideration.

I was awake until after midnight last night completing my questionnaire. I hope those of you that have questions will be in contact with me or attend any number of the house parties or other public events on my schedule.

No Ulterior motives or hidden agendas,

Mayor Tom George

Thank you Mayor George for taking the time to answer the questions. Would you be willing to voluntarily post your answers here so we can learn your positions?

I would hate to see all the hard work you both put in answering the questions go to waste.

There are many deep and unexpected ironies to note in the unfolding of the process so far.

With stricter enforcement of codes, laws and rules a near constant cry on the campaign trail, I can see the wisdom and the irony in the decision made by Jeff Endress to cancel the virtual debate.

If I were playing hardball and running Mayor George’s campaign, I would be tempted, quite simply and ironically, to declare victory, saying that a tech-savvy mayor, fully equipped for the data-driven decision-making imposed by a CITISTAT management environment, delivered his product on-time and in compliance with the virtual debate rule for the deadline.

Like anyone else, I am, of course, interested in the content of the answers. But in the contest of a virtual debate within the larger contest of an election I am unsure how much special consideration, due to missed deadlines by either media celebrities or candidates or to technical glitches, that Mayor George would want the LO to bring to structure and enforcement of rules.

Certainly the LO tried to introduce something innovative and technology dependent. In the world of politics, it’s never easy to execute; nor is it easy to excuse.

Jeff Endress had to make a very tough decision this morning. I hope he is enjoying the Browns game.

Kenneth Warren

Mr. Warren wrote: "I am unsure how much special consideration, due to missed deadlines by either media celebrities or candidates or to technical glitches, that Mayor George would want the LO to bring to structure and enforcement of rules."

My question is this: Does Mayor George have a say in how much "special consideration" the LO brings to the current development? Or is it an LO decision?

Additionally, if it is going to be a game of structure and enforcement of rules, Mr Endress or the LO made the first glitch. On the day the three top concerns by each candidate was posted, Mr. Endress pointed out that Mr. Fitzgerald's was posted late due to an "internal LO problem." We didn't cancel then...

The third media celebrity was late with questions. Did we cancel then?

Also, Mr. Demro, in another thread suggested that more than 9 responses were required of each candidate. I don't know whether that is true. If it is true, then it is outside the scope of the rules. Did we wean it down to 9 questions, or did we cancel?

I am not a supporter of any candidate at this point. I'd just like to see the responses from all of the candidates.

There have been several technical glitches along the way of this format. We were originally to submit our 3 key issues by a certain date and time, but the website did not allow me to post my responses. Later, one of the media questioners basically ignored the format, asked many more questions than was allowed on topics not covered by the rules, and submitted them hours after the deadline. This morning, my email wouldn't allow me to attach my word document, so a friend of mine and I had to sort it out. Eventually we converted it to another format and submitted it. In the meantime, I hear the "debate" had been "cancelled."

In any event, upon the suggestion of Jim O'Bryan, my answers, along with the questions, were posted under a separate heading. I hope the mayor chooses to post his as well, and that a constructive discussion will follow.

Decisions by Jeff Endress, the moderator, were and are his to make.

Any consideration made by Jeff Endress to proceed, despite a defect and/or technical glitch experienced by candidate, raises grounds, I believe, for objection by any candidate who managed to satisfy the structure’s requirements. That’s my general point.

In this case, at the point of cancellation, the particular candidate who managed to satisfy the structure’s requirements was Mayor George.

In my posting, I was simply supplying my personal interpretation, slightly exaggerated for a hardball political campaign effect, concerning how the Mayor’s team could spin his performance in the virtual debate, which was cancelled due to an opponent missing the deadline.

What I suggested is not necessarily a winning strategy.

Again, my point is any consideration of rule structure that a candidate or handlers perceive to give an advantage to another candidate could be grounds for objection and protest.

How such claims and considerations are weighted and evaluated is the moderator’s decision.

I certainly feel, like you, the answers would be worth reading, even outside the context of virtual debate.

Kenneth Warren

The real losers in the cancellation are the citizens who really need some answers to determine who they are going to vote for.

There have been glitches - the questions came in late as far as I could tell. While I do understand that two of the candidates answers were slightly late - why penalize the citizens for that? Note that they were late - but let us have the information. As someone that works with computers everyday - I certainly sympathize with people having computer problems.

I appreciate Councilman Fitzgerald and Demro posting their answers in separate threads. Perhaps Mayor George will as well, since he has obviously taken the time to answer them.

If an extension was offered to one of the candidates because of a format change in the debate and that extension was not honored then this is a sham. Did the LO tell one of the candidates that they could have an extension? Has there been a mis-understanding here between the LO and one of the candidates?

This shouldn't be that tough. If all the answers are in then post them. Its not as if the debate was a real-time exchange of ideas

Yeah, to be honest, something just seems a little odd about this entire process. I just can't put my finger on it.

It's rather sad, I had hoped it would have worked since it was such a novel idea.

Stephen

My intent, during this entire process, as the involuntary moderator of it, was to assure that all candidates were treated fairly. All of us wanted a transparent process whose singular aim was to provide information to the citizens of Lakewood.
I received an email, to my private account unaffiliated with the LO, from Mr. Demro at 9:05. It contained his responses to the questions. I felt that, in the interests of the debate proceeding (and since I had to reformat all the responses so that they flowed properly on the Deck) that this was inconsequential. It afforded Mr. Demro no undue advantage.
I made ongoing attempts to obtain the responses from Mr. FitzGerald, both by email, as well as PM on the deck. He was provided with my home phone and email addresses. It is my understanding that he may have had some technical difficulties, but, in fairness to all the candidates, when I had not received his responses, at 10:50, I canceled the debate as I felt that while 5 minutes was inconsequential, an hour and 50 mins. was not. My call. I subsequently did receive his responses at 11:10.
Because I did not receive ALL of the responses by the deadline (or within a few minutes after) I did not feel that this could go forward without charges of special treatment, thereby rendering what was to be a fair exchange of ideas tarnished and with an appearance of favoritism. That's all there is to it. The LO, and me, as the moderator, were placed in a lose/lose position. But, I felt that by avoiding the appearance of unfairness which surely would've followed by accepting Mr. FitzGerald's post, I had only one proper course.

Jeff

Bryan Schwegler wrote:Yeah, to be honest, something just seems a little odd about this entire process. I just can't put my finger on it.

It's rather sad, I had hoped it would have worked since it was such a novel idea.

In my opinion, it is a virtual debate not a life or death situation. It appears that the rules were more important than the content of the candidates responses and the people of Lakewood. The credibility of the LO has taken a hit in my book. I question the logic behind having such an absolute rule in a situation like this. If the goal was to have a virtual debate then why would you have a rule that could negate everything and cancel the debate. These are just my observations.

Stephen Eisel wrote:The credibility of the LO has taken a hit in my book

I don't fault the Observer as a whole for this, or think they've lost any credibility. I think they did the best with what they had considering this was a completely untested event. I just question the planning and execution this time, hopefully they can figure out the issues and maybe bring it back in the future.

IMHO, the entire thing started to unravel when the "media experts" didn't even follow the rules with their questions, then they were submitted late...it just spiraled. Maybe it would have been better just to have the questions laid out before it started?

The good though is that both Demro and FitzGerald have shared their written responses here on the Deck, hopefully Mayor George will share his as well since he has written it already.

So in the end we're still getting close to what we want.

Jeff Endress wrote:Stephen

My intent, during this entire process, as the involuntary moderator of it, was to assure that all candidates were treated fairly. All of us wanted a transparent process whose singular aim was to provide information to the citizens of Lakewood.
I received an email, to my private account unaffiliated with the LO, from Mr. Demro at 9:05. It contained his responses to the questions. I felt that, in the interests of the debate proceeding (and since I had to reformat all the responses so that they flowed properly on the Deck) that this was inconsequential. It afforded Mr. Demro no undue advantage.
I made ongoing attempts to obtain the responses from Mr. FitzGerald, both by email, as well as PM on the deck. He was provided with my home phone and email addresses. It is my understanding that he may have had some technical difficulties, but, in fairness to all the candidates, when I had not received his responses, at 10:50, I canceled the debate as I felt that while 5 minutes was inconsequential, an hour and 50 mins. was not. My call. I subsequently did receive his responses at 11:10.
Because I did not receive ALL of the responses by the deadline (or within a few minutes after) I did not feel that this could go forward without charges of special treatment, thereby rendering what was to be a fair exchange of ideas tarnished and with an appearance of favoritism. That's all there is to it. The LO, and me, as the moderator, were placed in a lose/lose position. But, I felt that by avoiding the appearance of unfairness which surely would've followed by accepting Mr. FitzGerald's post, I had only one proper course.

Jeff

Jeff, I appreciate the response. Thank you for filling in the blanks that I was missing.

Jeff-

You seem to have left out my earlier notice to you that I was having difficulty attaching my answers to an email, and was working on the technical problem. There is no advantage to any candidate in this, as none of us had access to anyone else's responses. Throughout this process, several of the guidlines were ignored, but the debate went on. Because of what by your calculation was a 20 minute differential, you've cancelled the entire process.

Despite the "cancellation" the Mayor is still free to participate. If he wants to change his answers now that Mr. Demro and I have posted ours, he can do that too. It is patently obvious that the Mayor is leaping at any chance to avoid participating.