Archive: Opinions

Having been named in the letter from Yasamin Miller and Brian Goodell published in the June 8 edition of the Lansing Star, and as Community Party Campaign Chair, I would like to submit the following response.  The letter included the following statement:

"The April 22 Candidates Forum was initially an invitation from us to the incumbents for a debate. The Community Party Campaign Chair, Robert Schleileen (sic), took a very significant role in the arrangements of this event – changing it from a debate to a forum and then outlining the rules we needed to follow.  The hour before the forum was to begin Mr. Schleileen approached us requesting that their one candidate be exempt from the rules we had agreed to weeks before, claiming an inability to speak publicly. This is an example of how rules apply to everyone else, but the Community Party can act as it wishes. Something we encountered numerous times."

The rules agreed to by all the parties in advance were: 

• There will be opening statements from each of the candidates, followed by six questions for each candidate to answer, followed by closing statements by each candidate.
• Comments or applause from the audience will not be allowed.
• A two minute time limit will apply to each of the statements and answers to questions.
• The order of speakers will be determined by a coin toss. The side that "wins" the toss will give the first and third opening statements, and the candidates from the other side will give the second and forth opening statements.
• The candidates for each side will determine the order in which they speak.
• The first question will be one submitted by the side that "lost" the coin toss. The second question will be one submitted by the other side and the third question will be one submitted by the moderator. This sequence will be repeated with the three remaining questions. The closing statements will be given in the same order as the opening statements.

The specific request for an ‘exception’ to the agreed to rules was that the written answers prepared by John O’Neill would be read by H. Michael Newman.  There was no rule, or discussion of a rule, regarding a person other than the candidate reading answers prepared by the candidate.  As Miller and Goodell (and most Village residents) knew, Mr. O’Neill suffered a stroke about two years ago and has not fully recovered his ability to speak.  All the questions to be answered by the candidates were known to them weeks in advance and all candidates had prepared written answers.  The principal difference in the case of Mr. O’Neill would be that a voice other than his would deliver his answers.  If a reader were not allowed, Mr. O’Neill could not have given his answers in the allotted time, and would have effectively been eliminated from the forum. 

I acknowledge that the request to have a reader deliver Mr. O’Neill’s prepared answers was not presented to Miller and Goodell until an hour before the forum.  It is not true that the rules were violated.  This was a matter of accommodating a disability that would have prevented Mr. O’Neill from conveying his thoughts to the audience in comprehensible way within the time limits.

Robert Schleelein
Community Party Campaign Chair

v8i25