On the Beat: What matters in local elections

A looming election in Dering Harbor to be followed soon after by the silly season attending most November campaigns typically takes us away from focusing on governing and turns to handicapping the horse race.

And who doesn’t love a good race? We get to engage in how realistic the claims of incumbents are as they take credit for every popular advancement the government has made, blame someone else for the failures and speak in glowing terms about plans for the future.

The outsiders seeking to topple incumbents arrive on stage with their own promises of how they would work miracles if only voters are wise enough to elect them.

It falls to the press to try to untangle the claims, offering readers a look at which claims are true, which are false, and shed light on whether the promises for a brighter future are realistic or beyond politicians’ ability to deliver.

Incumbents have a record. We know what they have said and done. But they still have wiggle room to blame failures on others.

First time candidates find it easy to blame those in power, while promising Nirvana if only voters will give them the opportunity to deliver.

But here are some observations I’ve made over the course of reporting for close to 25 years.

When it comes to local elections, party affiliations don’t matter. The nuts and bolts issues that confront Village and Town Board members aren’t generally ideological in nature.

Character does matter. Are your favored candidates people who do their homework? Do they attend meetings of boards on which they would like to serve or simply shoot from outside with accusations that often have little basis in fact? If they’re incumbents, have they kept past promises? And if not, why not?

A penchant for transparency matters. I’ve never heard a candidate say he or she values secrecy, but once elected, too many forget that it’s your money they’re spending and you have a right to know not only where it’s going, but why.

In fairness, it’s easy for a hardworking, well-meaning board member to forget the public’s concerns. Most of the time they look out at an empty room, except for a lone reporter. Their instincts tell them to do what they think best. That, unfortunately, sometimes leads to a less than transparent government than should exist.

There are legitimate reasons for discussing matters in executive, or closed-door sessions:
•    Employment relating to a specific person and medical, financial, credit or employment history relating to hiring, firing, suspension or demotion
•    Negotiations of contracts and other agreements that could affect prices
•    Pending litigation and law enforcement issues
•    Public safety that would be compromised by disclosure
•    Matters that would disclose the identity of a law enforcement agency or informer
•    Preparation, grading or administration of examinations

But the error many board members in communities here and elsewhere make is not understanding that the above list relates to specifics. When a board is discussing a policy that would relate to how it considers candidates for a job, that discussion should occur in open session. The review of specific candidates correctly belongs behind closed doors.

When a board goes into executive session, it needs to be specific in explaining the reason. It’s not enough to say it’s for discussion of personnel. Rather, the statement could be that it’s reviewing specific candidates for a particular job without disclosing the names of those candidates.

But if the watchdogs — you, the voters and taxpayers — don’t care, what’s to stop most boards from conducting too much of their business in private?

So before the election season gets into full swing, pledge to ask the important questions of candidates. Pay attention to what they say and do once elected that will guide your next decision to re-elect them or, as the saying goes, throw the bums out.