I've noticed that, in general, the School Board candidates haven't got campaign websites. They've got facebook pages, and government pages (if they are already serving), and blogs; but only a third have campaign websites.
Which means that my campaign websites page seems woefully incomplete.
However, I'm not really willing to widen my definition for that page, since it would be a holy mess to keep up-to-date if I count every fb page and blog that anyone had (if I were running, for example, I'd be able to list 5 or 6, that's ridiculous.).
I could create a new tab for School Board Candidates only and ask each for the ONE and ONLY ONE link that they would like included.
But treating School Board candidates differently from the other candidates really bothers me. One particular candidate complained to me recently that School Board races are treated as less important than all the other races; that they are after-thoughts; that people think of it as a "starter" race. Well, my friend, it doesn't make your case when you're not putting up a campaign website. Domains are cheap, and a website doesn't have to be expensive to create.
So, dear readers, what do you think? Do I create a separate and DEFINITELY unequal space for SB candidates? Or do I treat them as at least one has asked to be treated, as equal members of the candidate pool?
Given that a SB member could arguably have the most demanding job of all the elected officials with the least renumeration for his/her time, it does not seem to be too much to ask them to develop a website for themselves as a demonstration of their interest in following through on the job they are being elected to do - imo, hold them to the same standard but also publicize any secondary sites they wish to have included AFTER they have a website (not instead of).
ReplyDeleteMUST HAVE WEBSITE!If they can't get that together, then how can they keep up with our kids?
ReplyDeleteApropos this post, Nova Commonsense has a post about the Loudoun School Board candidates.
ReplyDeleteyou know, there aren't rules about how candidates have to communicate with the public -- and as you noted, they might do so with public office websites, blogs, facebook, twitter, etc.
ReplyDeletei think it makes sense to say that you will use a campaign website where available, and if there is not a campaign website, ask the candidates for ONE link to a place voters can go to get more information.
as a practical matter, it may be easier and more familiar for candidates for school board to create a blog or FB page. these kinds of campaigns often do not have much in the way of budget or staff, and the candidates have enough going on without becoming IT savvy enough to master a personal domain. also, a blog is a kind of website. my 2 cents.
But Kathy, there ARE rules in VA about how candidates need to mark their communications with the public. All campaign literature (including websites) is supposed to be marked with a "paid for" or "authorized by" statement. FB pages generally are not so marked, nor are any of the blogs that various candidates have in the county.
ReplyDeleteAnd the gov't sites certainly don't have them.
ah, i see.
ReplyDeletethink you have two separate issues here: [1] what to do on your blog when a candidate doesn't have a "campaign website"; and [2] your ongoing, righteous, and successful push to get the disclosure statements on public communications.
it honestly might not occur to a candidate using a free blog or FB page in their own name that they need to do the "this is authorized by" disclosure. seems to me that you have recently done a public service by pointing out that kind of lapse in other campaign sites. i don't think it is a disqualifier for school board if someone with intimate knowledge about education issues -- but no professional campaign staff, no previous campaign experience -- to miss that detail.
government websites for incumbants are a different kettle of fish. they presumably can't campaign there -- can't ask for money or support. but incumbancy alone is a huge advantage, i expect.