Editorial: Arlington Heights controversy an object lesson in role of acrimony, indiscretion in local politics

Anyone who thinks that local politics is inherently more civil than the acrimonious partisanship of state and national elections need look no further than a current story from Arlington Heights in the young campaign for municipal and school board offices.

The tale has almost all the ingredients that stain the distasteful politics of our time - an insensitive social media post, a social media outcry, personal attacks on a public candidate's private life and claims of political conspiracy.

The controversy over an open position on the Arlington Heights board began when some critics speculated that a longtime trustee waited until the last minute to announce his decision not to seek a fifth term in order to clear the way for the only previously announced candidate to ascend unchallenged to the board along with three like-minded incumbents. When the candidate, Joe Favia, passed along to his brother on Facebook a tasteless joke about participants in the Jan. 21 Women's March, the post - as such items always do - attracted immediate criticism.

Favia apologized - at least for the indiscretion of sharing his sense of humor on Facebook if not for his sense of humor itself - but the controversy did not end there. A contingent of critics called for him to leave the village board race. Two individuals who had missed the deadline to file for spots on the ballot declared they now would become write-in candidates. The Facebook site for Favia's dental practice was targeted for attacks. On Saturday, Favia announced he would withdraw from the race.

It is too early in the campaign to say whether Favia, a former Arlington Heights Chamber of Commerce president, would have been an ideal village board member or how he might stack up against other candidates. But his experience is instructive.

In the first place, it emphasizes - again - the importance of discretion when interacting in the public forums of social media, especially for a would-be public servant.

Additionally, it shows the not-always-rational levels of passion local campaigns can generate. It's not entirely clear which had more to do with the outcry against Favia, the suspicions of people who didn't like the way he became an uncontested candidate or his Facebook post that gave opponents an opportunity to single him out. It's also unfortunate that the controversy made his business a target for assault and condemnation.

In the end, was Favia bullied out of the race, as he suggested in a Facebook post and interviews with Daily Herald reporters? That's hard to know anymore. We can say, though, that the best place for such decisions is at the ballot box. Let's hope candidates and partisans in the scores of other suburban local-government races this spring can show the discretion and civility to keep them there.