One Teacher's Take on the Candidate's Forum....

Random thoughts on last night's [Oct 23, 2008] forum for the candidates for San Joaquin Delta Board of Trustees...first, PIPELINE, its members, and the faculty (Jeanne-Marie Velickovic and Peggy Scully) who organized the club are to be congratulated on their stellar efforts. It is important to personalize the Nov. 4 election, and the many students in the audience last night received a lesson that could not have been taught in the classroom.

I was impressed that 10 of the 13 candidates were present and acquitted themselves in a professional manner. I would have been doubly impressed if all of our current Board of Trustees were present. The forum was well-moderated by Record editor Kevin Parrish, and the questions developed by the panel covered the bond, student services, fiduciary responsibility and administrative oversight. There were also questions taken from audience members, who were given index cards with their program and even a second or third card if needed. (There were no questions about improving "education" or "teaching." On numerous occasions the faculty was cited as exemplary.)

I felt like I'd won the lottery when my question was the first from the audience put to the candidates. I wrote (and I am paraphrasing): For years, there has been fearful discussion on campus that the administration was "after" the money raised at the flea market by the Associated Student Body Government. What would you do, if elected, to prevent that from happening?

Now, for anyone who feels this fear is unjustified, look no further than the conservative George Will, who on today's Record opinion page begins his column with: "Washington is having a Willie Sutton moment. Such moments occur when government, finding its revenue insufficient for its agenda, glimpses some money it does not control and would like to."

Trustee McCreary answered the question by referring to the current, contested expenditure approval process. Delta clubs and the administration have started down the slippery slope of who gets to determine how clubs spend their monies. "Approval" implies control simply because it can be withheld. And more questions have arisen than have been answered.

For the most part, candidates addressed the questions put to them. There were, however, several instances, where candidates only addressed a portion of the question or deflected the question with an answer of their own. In addition, I wish all the candidates had taken a cue from the presidential debates and written the questions down as they were being put. This would have saved time repeating the questions, and we could have asked more questions and leaned more about the candidates.

While some may equate outspokenness to viability, there is room for error in this approach. Jennet Stebbins was frequently flustered by the buzzer that indicated the 60 second time limit, and audience members may have discounted some of her answers due to performance rather than content. This morning, in English 1D: Critical Thinking, PIPELINE treasurer Antoni Tomas, who was also on the panel last night, recapped the event for his classmates, citing this question (and I paraphrase): Should there be a health care center on campus?

Trustee Bugarin wandered into health care insurance. Businessman James Grunsky said do the numbers, check the feasibility. Stebbens said partner with local health care agencies. Tomas liked her response. He said (and I quote): "She nailed it."

Two candidates stood out in their area of expertise. It was obvious from Mary Ann Cox's response on Middle College High School that her insider knowledge and institutional "memory" would be an asset on the board. From their facial expressions, most of the other candidates did not know about the program. In addition, Steve Castellanos made it apparent that his expertise in architecture from blueprints to ribbon cutting would really help the college through its growing pains.

This crude review of the evening is in no way an endorsement of any candidate, nor is it complete by any measure. I did not take notes and agreed to write up these remarks with the understanding that others could also contribute thoughts on the evening's content in order to be fair to all the candidates. I am making no attempt here to be "fair."

That said, Motecuzoma Sanchez's brazen alacrity is refreshing. In his final statement, he turned to his rivals for the Area 2 seat and pegged David Rishwain as the developer's choice and inferred that Mary Ann Cox represented the status quo. The man has guts. I personally like someone who will say what people are thinking, refusing to be silent out of phony politeness or, even worse, fear of reprisal.

All good things,
Paula Sheil