Forest Grove board debates using candidate questionnaire, considers posting responses
Loading...
Summary
Board members discussed a draft legislative candidate questionnaire, possible regional collaboration with Hillsborough School District, whether to send questions to candidates, and whether to post responses online; superintendent Suzanne noted no current policy governs posting candidate responses.
The Forest Grove School Board spent a large portion of its March 19 meeting refining a draft legislative candidate questionnaire and weighing how the board should use and share candidate responses.
Chair Christie summarized edits made since the prior meeting and said she had discussed the draft with Hillsborough School District Chair Pandosha about possibly coordinating the questions regionally after the primary. “She was pretty excited about the idea of collaborating and moving that forward,” Christie said, adding that Hillsborough would consider the draft at its board meeting.
Director Kate Grandusky and Director Alma Lozano both said community members at recent engagement events had asked for the questions and suggested posting a link on the district’s website so voters and stakeholders could see what the board is asking candidates. “I think…some people are running for the very first time, but other people have been in legislation,” Grandusky said; she suggested phrasing some questions so candidates must give concrete examples to reduce generic or AI‑generated answers.
Superintendent Suzanne, speaking from the superintendent perspective, noted there is currently no district policy on posting candidates’ responses and recommended the board discuss and decide how it wants to proceed. “There’s no policy around posting responses to questions sent to a politician,” Suzanne said; she added that letting candidates know in advance that their responses might be posted would be prudent to preserve relationships.
Board members debated options including using the questions as personal guides, collectively sending the questions to candidates and inviting responses, or posting responses publicly if candidates consent. Several directors said they favored sending the questions and initially using them for board members’ own reference, then revisiting the question of public posting once responses were received and legal/policy issues considered.
Next steps: the chair will check in with absent members (Brisa and Pete) and with district staff (Bethany) about logistics; the board plans to revisit the topic after candidate responses and at the April meeting.
