Dear Editor,

School board member and other elected offices will be up for election in a little more than a year from now, and The Clarkston News will play an integral role in educating voters about the candidates.
Of course, most candidates aim to portray the most positive image possible during their campaigns, but too often this means vague representations about need for “greater transparency,” “change,” and “new direction.”
Where is the beef?
I realize that there is a perceived political risk to a candidate who may alienate some voters by laying out a straightforward, detailed platform during the campaign, but the amorphous and general expressions of a muddled “philosophy” – usually labeled as either “conservative,” “liberal,” or “progressive” – that we are regularly fed by too many candidates are generally useless and actually insulting to voters who want to make informed decisions about who will represent them, and how.
Recent elections have left many Americans frustrated, or even angry, convinced they were sold a misleading bill of goods by slick politicians or wannabes who fail to fully and accurately disclose their specific experience, intentions, plans and projects, and their strategy for accomplishing prescribed goals.
They critique but promise only “openness” and “change.” Every politician says they are advocates for transparency and inclusion, but details and specifics are few, and we too often don’t get the product after the election.
How about more details about a candidate’s credentials and career and volunteer experience and accomplishments? What are the specific policies and practices of current administrations they believe are flawed – and why – and what specific new approaches, programs and funding is the candidate proposing?
Can we please have more substance and disclosure in campaigns, with more deviation from the engineered script?

Sincerely,
Mike Fetzer
Clarkston