Sudbury's Non-Partisan and Impartial Debate hosted by Sudbury LWV

Thank you to the Sudbury League of Women’s Voters for holding the Candidate’s debate last week  on Wednesday night.   Curious about the format and standards for a debate, I checked the LWV FAQs where the League sets forth Best Practices for hosting a debate.  Sudbury's LWV  hit the mark.

Last Wednesday’s night successful debate followed Federal Election Commission definitions, it included at least two candidates; was staged in a way that did not promote or advance one candidate over another; and allowed the candidates to appear concurrently, in face to face confrontations, with opportunities to respond to each other.  Also different for this event, was that the moderator for the debate was from Acton and, as she put it, ‘had no skin in the game” and did not know any of the candidates.

Interestingly, the LWV FAQs also answered my question about the differences between a forum (or speech)  and a debate.  The LWV does not provide for an 'empty chair debate' if a candidate is not available because speeches or forum are considered contributions subject to campaign finance limitations, presumably because impartiality and non-partisanship can't be claimed.

I encourage everyone to take the time to watch the LWV debate available on SudburyTV.org and listen to the candidates answer questions about 40B projects, the rail trail, how to go forward with LS consolidation with the benefits to both towns, civil discourse and whether Sudbury should  appoint or elect FinCom members.

Again, thanks to the Sudbury LWV for holding the debate and upholding the high standards of a non-partisan and an impartial debate.

Michele MacDonald
Old Lancaster Road