Election time is upon us, and choosing your preferred candidate is different for everyone. Highly-informed voters are rare because candidates (politicians) often hold their opinions close and usually campaign on vague, emotionally attractive issues. Because of this, voters often cast their votes based on superficial campaign slogans and vague promises that rarely come to fruition. Sometimes they vote based primarily on name recognition, or simply assuming that a candidate they know simply couldn’t do a bad job.
I hope to present some clarifying thoughts to you early enough in the election cycle to help you make sense of the “political winds” prior to the election. Since I am your school board representative, my anecdotes will largely be based in that context, but the logic behind them translates to other public positions, as well. They are centered around an institution’s Trajectory, Alignment of Values/Expectations between the institution and the public, and those values/expectations (the Community’s Vision) becoming a plan of action and causing improvements.
“Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t” is a phrase most often used by uniformed voters. The normalization of a candidate’s performance (or lack thereof) becomes a comfort zone of sorts, even when a much better option is available. It takes courage to vote against a place of comfort, and the knowledge that better is possible can instill the courage necessary to do so. This is why informed voters are so important; confidence is based in having good information, a “complete set of facts,” if you will. When candidates provide vague platforms or use clout and name recognition to campaign, very little information, intent, or capability is provided. How do we get good information? With incumbents, it’s easy: just look at their track record. This is where Trajectory is evaluated against an incumbent, but often times a challenger has an established track record elsewhere or in other relatable endeavors, which allows trajectory to be extrapolated or assumed.
Trajectory shows the path of progress an institution is on.
Cascade had one of the best schools in the State 30 years ago, but plummeted so far down the scale that the State Department of Education had to essentially take over our school. The SDE gave the School Board specific orders to correct various serious problems with our school system and monitored the correction of those egregious issues. While this transition to the bottom took several years to achieve, it occurred under the leadership of a school board. It took several years to get us off of the State’s list of non-performing schools. Needless to say, Cascade never wants to go through that again. Rather, we want the school to be the envy of all of Idaho, and set our kids up for their best possible futures. Did an incumbent enshrine what previously made the school great into an system that sustains greatness, or did they watch as our student outcomes devolved? Did a current incumbent lead the school district to being one of the worst? If an incumbent led our school to the bottom, did their leadership approach change deeply enough that our school is immune from this happening again? And if so, what successes has their new leadership style brought forth? In a school setting, these are very important questions and the answers will impact students for years to come, whether positively or negatively. Is the school in a holding pattern? Is the school improving student outcomes and producing contributing adults? Are students ready for college or a career when they graduate?
Alignment of Values/Expectations Between the Agency and the Public
Remember the 3281 Policy controversy? This policy forced teachers to lie to parents, forced school staff to allow boys and girls to share bathrooms, hotel rooms, locker rooms, etc. When the public learned that this had been the District policy since 2009, the Board needed to form a committee of citizens to determine what the community’s values were around it, and to formulate a solution. Once the community spoke with an overwhelming clear and unified voice, the policy was removed with a split vote . Who adopted this policy back in 2009? Did the policy represent the community’s values and expectations when it was adopted, or at any time afterward? Did an incumbent vote in support of the community’s values/expectations or against it, or did they abstain from participating in that vote at all? On a deeper level, how did the values/expectations gap between the District and the Community come to exist in the first place, and where else might it impact the District? When a gap exists, how can a Board of elected representatives possibly speak for We The People? What are the values of the challengers and incumbents? Do those values put the school at risk of another gap of some kind? What are their thoughts about this gap, and do they see any other existing gaps?
Community Vision into Action
The entire concept of representative government is based in We The People determining the government’s priorities. This only works when laymen who hold the collective values and expectations of the community are governing the institution. To avoid disconnects (gaps), elected officials must seek input from the community on matters which pose a risk of such disconnects. Have you ever wondered how a local government institution ends up doing things that the community at large is not in favor of? Simply put, it happens when your elected officials believe that their opinions are superior to those of the electorate, or they don’t bother to ask the community for feedback around a sensitive topic. This is not representation—it is more akin to ruling. When an institution is serving the public and it’s purpose, it’s actions are deliberate and clear. The primary mechanism to do so is a plan of action, often referred to as a Long Term Strategic Plan, a Comprehensive Plan, or other similar written document. If that is not written down, how does anyone know if it’s being followed, or if it is even in alignment with the collective will and expectations of the community?
Questions you can ask to determine if the community’s input will guide the institution are “What is the vision you would implement?” “How will you determine the appropriate direction of the institution?” “What do you see as the most important things that the institution needs to accomplish?” And, if the direction expected by the community is known, “How will you turn the collective will of the community into a plan of action?” If an incumbent has had a few years to enact a plan and create improvement, you can simply look at their accomplishments in that role. If there are no accomplishments, or if their accomplishment is declining performance or a growing disconnect between the institution and the community, a vote for their challenger may be what is needed. If there is no plan, that could also be considered an answer in regards to their vision (or, more accurately, their lack of vision).
Summary
I hope that these tips are helpful. I will not tell you what to think. Rather, my goal is to help you make good decisions at the polls. Be sure to give each candidate the chance to answer your questions and make your personal priorities known to them—not just in an election year, but on an ongoing basis. How they respond to you directly, and what they do with the collective will of the community, is the most important aspect of representative government.
Would you like to continue this conversation? Subscribe for more, or reach out to me directly. Cascade is a small town and I am easy to find!
Brad