Accreditation Standards for Candidates for Public Office

 

Accreditation Standards for Candidates for Public Office

Nine hundred nine-nine billion, nine hundred nine-nine million, nine hundred ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-seven. In my last essay I said “my guess is that it would be easier to count back from one trillion to zero by threes than to get duly elected politicians voluntarily to create a statement of expectations, qualifications and professional standards required of those seeing to become candidates for public office.” Then I received about 20 responses to my essay, all of which one way or another agreed with the idea that accreditation/professional standards would be a good idea, which got me to stop the countdown after the first number. Maybe the idea does have traction after all. Or am I blowing smoke?

I have only heard from readers who agree, however, so I have no way of knowing the strength or depth of the resistance likely to exist in opposition to standards.  With a hearty invitation for all readers to send comments, pro or con, I included another copy of the original essay at the bottom of this one.

One response I had not anticipated but welcomed identified a career diplomat from Norway, now retired and living part-time in Cuba. The head of a local non-profit organization wrote about her long discussion with this diplomat, during which the diplomat explained that Norway has professional politicians, who have completed well-planned university degree programs and study paths. I will be looking into those programs this summer. In contrast, however, another reader articulated an observation common to several responses: “It would be great to have more relevant criteria applied to potential candidates prior to election day. (But) my cynical side doesn’t think that many voters (on both sides of the aisle) are smart or interested enough to take a critical look at criteria…” Put more succinctly by another respondent, “I have (the) least respect for congressmen because many districts can be made up with people who are dumb as dirt.” Others added, “…often we get the leadership we deserve. I think we all should pay more attention;” and “…government passes legislation on everything except that for which we most need protection, incompetent elected leaders.”  Last, in order to get “insider” perspectives, I’ve asked four current or former candidates for public office to provide written or oral observations.

The son of a life-long friend had researched professions that require continuing education or an occupational certification (with periodic recertifications). “I could find nothing that said elected office requires any license or continuing education.  In contrast, I found this: Over the last 60 years, the number of jobs requiring an occupational license, or government approval to practice a profession, has grown from about 1 in 20 to almost 1 in 4.” Examples he cited include barbers, auctioneers, mobile home installers, pipe fitters and even milk samplers having accreditation requirements. One other example came from a former student of mine, who now is a successful financial planner. His professional designation attests to satisfaction of specific education pre-requisites, experience in the business, adherence to a defined code of ethics and specified business practices.

This former student was the first to respond to my essay. In addition to his comments on the essay itself, he suggested we should start a non-profit and create a bi-partisan program. I must say, his suggestion is intriguing—do I have another career push in me? With proper funding and a carefully selected/ apolitical group of people smarter than me, I might enjoy the challenges of shepherding the exploration of a set of accreditation criteria and implementation strategies for candidates for public office.  At first blush there seem to be two major issues to be addressed. First, design an accreditation program, which might include career path requirements. Second, develop an implementation strategy mindful it will be a long-term process, one needing specific measures of progress along the way.