This the week for those of us considering a run for city council to file the paperwork. As of today it seems as there are at least two people interested for each of the three spots. That means people will need to evaluate the candidates before making a decision.
I was recently alerted to the idea of small debates based on your district. By example, District 1 (west side) would have a public event open to District 1 candidates only. In this year's election voters in Dunwoody have one item to vote on, just one. It will be a ballot with one question - for whom do you want to vote for from your district to be on city council? Nothing else on the ballot - one question. So why do we need citywide debates? Maybe the DHA need not host an event. If I can't vote for someone in District 2 and 3 why should I bother attending a debate where they are present?
The setting would be more intimate. The questions would require more detailed answers. You could really get a good feel for each candidate. Of course there is no way to keep out attendees from other districts, perhaps showing up to support or sabotage a candidate.
There are no rules or guidelines for these micro candidate sessions. Nowhere to hide. District 1 can have Ernie's Barbershop sponsor the first event. Ernie pays for the venue, and people show up. A moderator can ask questions and the candidates can answer. With what seems to be enhanced interest in city politics is it time for small town hall type candidate forums? Do we need one large event?