Why do some people hold candidates who seek public offices, which to varying degrees: have control over public money; decide the “what” and “how” our kids learn; make land use decisions which will determine what kind of environment and community we have for decades; and in so many other ways have a direct impact on the quality of life in Olympia, to a lower standard than the grocery check-out clerk, teachers, government scientists or doctors.

When one applies for (most) jobs a rigorous examination is made of one’s actual record BEFORE an offer of employment is made. Yet there are many, especially other incumbent office holders, the local newspaper editorial board and certain established political constituency groups who appear to have as the two main criteria for endorsement: first and foremost whether the person can win and, secondarily, to what degree the candidates have been loyal members of the “club”. How do I know this? Let’s look at the record. In the 2007 school board races Messrs. Kingsbury and Hyer both endorsed Ms. Barclift while neither had ever appeared at a school board meeting, and, as we know because Ms. Barclift successfully prevented the board meetings from being televised, therefore never even saw any board action. In fact Ms Barclift, for her 8 years already on the board, had absolutely nothing to show for it, no record of accomplishment at all, not even influencing any board action. If cheerleading counts as an accomplishment (what one colleague on the board claimed was his responsibility as a board member), then she could claim fulfilling that responsibility.

In current city council races the local rag says “As a leader on the council, Kingsbury was instrumental in drafting the pedestrian interference ordinance…” and “also played a pivotal role in drafting the Camp Quixote ordinance…”. They go on to say “His solid leadership skills have been a terrific benefit to Olympia and its residents”. The terms “instrumental”, “played a pivotal role” and “solid leadership” are cliche campaign slogans one uses on their own behalf when the actual record shows little actual accomplishment.

It is true that it is unreasonable to hold a member of a legislative body, comprised of 5, 7, 100 or 435 members to a standard of accomplishment they can’t effectuate by themselves. At the same time it is entirely reasonable to look at their record (for incumbents), in detail, to see what impact they truly have had. What actual impact have they had? What bills (or policies, or ordinances, etc) have the candidate authored? Are they prepared for actual debates? Do they truly play the role of a check and balance or are they merely occupying a seat to rubber stamp whatever the administration…or majority of the legislative panel puts forth? Sure it takes some effort, some engagement, some research but isn’t that the least we can do to assist in the proper functioning of our Democracy. If we are not willing to do even that, can we then bitch about the results?