The Sun’s final word on the Candidate
Forum that never happened
By Scott White
Community Liaison and Report for America corps member
Last week, I wrote about the Sun’s decision to pull out of the final Candidate Forum, which would have allowed the community to hear from candidates for House District 56, a contested seat on the Woodford County School Board, and three contested seats on the Woodford County Conservation District’s Board of Supervisors.
I explained that a decision was thrust on us by the withdrawal of the Woodford County Farm Bureau, a co-sponsor with the Sun and the two county political parties, and the inability of the Woodford County Republican Party to confirm its involvement in sufficient time to proceed. Due to that indecision and the fact that the Woodford County Democratic Party was the only co-sponsor still willing to proceed, the Sun had no alternative but to pull out or risk its new status as a nonprofit under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
In comments posted to my column and the story about the prior Candidate Forum on the Sun’s Facebook account, many of you have asked why the Woodford County Republican Party was unable to decide in time, why the county’s Democratic Party wanted to proceed, and why incumbent House District 56 Rep. Dan Fister chose not to participate.
Well, in this week’s Sun, the county Democratic and Republican parties explain their positions in two letters to the editor.
I decided that our readers deserve to know why Fister chose not to participate. But first, some context and a clear disclaimer – we are not criticizing his decision not to participate. We do believe candidates should engage in forums, particularly forums like ours where there is no back-and-forth between candidates as there would be in a debate. Forums like these help educate voters and allow them to assess and judge the demeanor and positions of the candidates. BUT! At the same time, we understand that running a campaign confronts each candidate with many tactical decisions, and the decision not to participate is one that Fister made.
Back to why Fister said he chose not to be a part of the final Candidate Forum.
Prior to the first Candidate Forum, the Sun advised the other sponsors that another forum should be added to the schedule to include the candidates for the three races that were not yet included.
There was a robust discussion, but all agreed.
When dates were sent to the candidates, Fister said he could not do any of the proposed dates. We asked him to provide dates that did work. There was no response. Finally, at the suggestion of a member of the Forum Committee, I sent a text on Sept. 3 to Fister asking him to call me.
Instead, he texted me back.
After some pleasantries, Fister wrote: “I don’t have the time or the interest in discussing a candidate forum.” The Republican designee to the group had told him that declining to attend could result in criticism from the Sun. This would have been consistent with our treatment of other candidates who did not participate in other forums. (See the Sun’s Page 1, Oct. 1 story titled “Versailles City Council Candidate Forum provided opportunity to address issues on voters’ minds,” where we criticized candidates Mary Bradley and Brad Fister for not attending.)
I replied to his text saying, “I understand. We will criticize this in a story.” And we would have done so, had the final Candidate Forum gone forward and Fister still did not attend, just as we did in the Versailles City Council race.
Fister responded: “Scott, thanks for confirming I made the right decision. Threats are always seen as a very professional (sic) response and go hand in hand with my decision. The Sun has a very poor track record with fabricated pictures, etc., and I can’t take it seriously hosting or reporting a candidate forum.” The fabricated photo Fister mentioned is a reference to a photo featured in a paid political advertisement placed by the Woodford County Democratic Party in a previous election involving Fister, and well before I came to work for the Sun.
I told him it was no threat, and reporting his decision would be a matter of factual reporting. I reminded him that in the last three years, we have written stories on his work in the Legislature, both before and after the session, and he posted those stories on his own Facebook account.
And I also reminded him that the Sun, in the last three years, has published non-substantively edited Op Eds from State Sen. Amanda Mays Bledsoe (R-Lexington), the Kentucky Senate majority whip, a Republican, and Congressman Andy Barr. I reminded him that every other Republican and Democratic candidate was participating in the Forums.
He remained unmoved.
I texted Fister once again this Monday to ask if he wanted to make any further comment beyond the texts quoted above. He thanked me for the offer, but declined to comment.
Until now, we have not reported his statements and have only mentioned his decision not to participate in passing, including in our story last week about the Woodford County Farm Bureau’s withdrawal from the final Forum. But, given that the issue of the final Forum seems to have taken on a life of its own, something we bemoan, we felt the need to report these facts.
Again, we are not criticizing Fister for his decision. We may not agree, and we wish he had participated – with Fister’s participation, it is very likely that the final Forum would have taken place last Wednesday as planned.
Ultimately, running a campaign requires many tactical decisions. For that reason, Fister’s choice to avoid the final Forum was his to make to further the goal of any candidate . . . to win.
But, as someone once told me, decisions have consequences. And, in this instance, the voters of Woodford County are entitled to be fully informed of the reason for Fister’s decision not to participate in the final Forum.