There’s an Internet email making the rounds that makes a lot of sense to me, particularly with the upcoming elections.
Electors frequently have little choice, as sometimes it is difficult to find someone to run for a position when there is little incentive to do so. The remuneration is not worth the effort; the constant hassle of attending meetings, the public humiliation if you do or say something wrong while on television, etc.
However, the voter is sometimes faced with candidates who have an axe to grind or one that sees the opportunity to make a lot of cash out of becoming mayor or councillor.
The aforementioned emailer has a suggestion that would have the answer to this.
Doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers, and other professionals all must pass a series of exams to qualify for their vocation. Why shouldn’t a politician be required to do the same?
Local lawmakers need to know the history of their communities. They should be very familiar with all the bylaws that have been passed by previous councils. They should be able to speak in a manner that suggests some training in elocution. But most of all they should be able to listen to the residents of their communities.
How many of those candidates running for mayor and council have these minimal qualifications?
To report a typo, email: