Sunday, October 17, 2010

Function of a moderator

The McHenry County League of Women Voters hosted a forum at MCC this afternoon at which residents were to have the opportunity to meet with and question candidates for election to County Board seats. Certain notable candidates didn't bother to show up; they can remain nameless here, although their names may show up elsewhere.

When I saw Sandra Salgado sitting alone at her table, I went over to talk with her. Within moments one of the organizers showed up to ask her if she (Sandra) would join others at a table for candidates out of her district. Our conversation was interrupted, and the organizer seemed unaware that Sandra and I were trying to hold a conversation.

When Sandra moved, I returned to the table for District 5, which is the district in which I live. After the ground rules were laid by the moderator, one man tried to ask a question. The room was noisy, and he was seated across from the three candidates for whom three round tables had been pushed together.

The moderator felt the need to "explain" his question and set guidelines for answering it, which were totally unnecessary. His question was where the candidates stood on the possibility of reducing the size of the County Board from the present 24 members. Finally, one resident asked if the candidates could just be allowed to answer the question. The moderator continued to inject her own position before allowing the candidates to answer. Then another resident protested.

That happened again with a subsequent question. I could sense my frustration rising, and I knew that it was the time for me to leave.

The role of the moderator should have been to direct questions in rotation among the candidates, see that they didn't hog the time for answering, keep some semblance of control over the discussion; beyond that, the moderator should have stayed out of the way. It wasn't necessary to take extended time to try to explain what the Board could and could not do, legally, to reduce its size. The moderator was asked by another resident not to "filter" the questions, but she continued to do so. Any moderation should have been brief, with the maximum speaking time being allowed to the candidates.

Maybe next time ...

3 comments:

M.U.G. said...

Almost sounds like the moderator was manipulating things.

Dave Labuz said...

The League of Women Voters have become just another tool of the nanny-state. They are no longer any less politically-motivated than AARP has become.

Granted, there are some longstanding legal-proscribed manners in which public business need be conducted.

This "moderator" would have done a better job for the electorate had she let those candidates speak their mind. Let the CANDIDATES demonstrate their command or lack of same, of the pertinent laws. THAT would have been most informative!

Instead, it would appear she solely wished to impress those in attendance with her knowledge.

It's not about you or your knowledge lady - it's about the knowledge of the CANDIDATES. If you want to be a candidate, then the door's wide open for you.

Otherwise, MODERATE, don't PONTIFICATE.

Gus said...

Well said!