Unique value of distance in endorsements

What makes an effective governing board for a town or school district? Is it a collection of like-minded individuals, all sharing the same goals and similar ideas about how to achieve them? Not always.

This occurs to me as I am discussing a particular village race with editorial board colleagues, wrestling with a decision about which candidates to endorse. We are talking about one candidate's history with his village and his caustic personality.

“Candidate A has been active a long time,” one of us says.

“But he seems like the kind of person who can dominate a meeting and just take over the discussion,” comes a reply. “And look at how articulate and knowledgeable Candidate B is, and he's been active a long time, too.”

“Yes, but when it comes to asking the hard questions of village staff, A is someone who presses for the answers that a critical citizen or taxpayer wants to know.”

“Would he get along with the rest of the board?”

“Sometimes, you need someone who's different, someone who will challenge everybody else ...”

And so it goes, back and forth. Does the candidate have direct experience? Has he done his homework on the issues? Will he be a rubber stamp for the administrative staff or micromanage them? What are the other candidates on the board like? How successful has the town been on its problems and goals?

And in the midst of this discussion, in which nary a voice is raised and individual speaker's positions seem to change from question to question and answer to answer, I am suddenly struck by how different this assessment process is from the way most people — myself included — determine whom they will vote for.

The routine, in my experience, is to seek out candidates who think most “like me.” Who agree with me on most, if not all issues. People I personally like or at least find likable. And then to become emotionally invested in whether they win or lose. Yes, we all seek out dedicated hard workers, but often even that characteristic is trumped by whether candidates share our specific views on, oh, how many cops are needed, whether the superintendent is paid too much or even whether we see them in church or at Rotary meetings.

But on the editorial board, such considerations, while important, are not always paramount. Sometimes, the glad-handing but shallow leader who's helped his or her school district successfully navigate hard times gets more consideration than the bright upstart who is clearly more intelligent. Sometimes, the village nag whom nobody likes gets a nod precisely because of his or her disagreeableness. Sometimes, depending on the context of a given board, that same person is rejected for the very same reason.

Sure, we know some candidates better than others, but we study all their questionnaires and their websites. And we talk about them and we consider them carefully. I suspect that we give them at least as much critical thought as most voters and more than many. Does our analytical approach sometimes overlook the “best” candidate in search of the best board? Maybe. But as you evaluate our recommendations against your own feelings and research, it's worth knowing that we maintain a certain emotional distance, and there is a unique value in the contents of that space.