Request for Proposal

If you are in business - or government - you have heard this term – ‘request for proposal’. When a firm wants to buy a service or product, it sets out a list of specifics about the intended purchase: what do they need exactly? What specifications fit their situation? How many of the items, or duration of the service, are needed? When is delivery desired? If a service is involved, what are the qualifications of the people who will deliver the service? What experience or expertise need they be able to demonstrate to be more certain the service will be as expected? If products are involved, what determines the quality desired? And so on. RFPs are a standard operating procedure.

Why aren’t they standard operating procedure for you and I as voters when we consider a candidate for public office? Do we think of a ‘request for proposal’ before considering the office to be filled? Is the campaign process, party nomination and all the rest, a substitute for an RFP? Or might that process be tainted by special interests through and through?

I think we know the answer to that question. And I also suspect that we Americans do not think logically or analytically about potential candidates. They come our way, we think about them and we consider alternate candidates. Over a period of months, we decide who will get our vote on election day.

What we ought to be doing is filling out an RFP months or years before an election and identify the traits, experience and talents needed for the position to be filled. Just like finding the right candidate to fill a job in a company, or finding the right vendor to serve our needs at home, we think seriously about the qualifications and talents the ‘ideal’ candidate should have. These ideals define what we are looking for. Do we even know what this might be when applied to a political candidate?

I think not.

Emotional attractions become a norm. I liked Hillary for president in 2016. I trust her, like her understanding of issues, appreciate her academic grasp of the issues as well, and am amazed at her talents and energy. Same for Bernie Sanders; I like him and appreciate his talking about many issues in fresh ways. So too, Oprah; she is larger than life, happy, insightful, intelligent, seeks understanding of complex matters, and is logical and commonsensical in her conclusions.

We could expand this analysis to other candidates and personalities, but let’s keep this simple. Sanders was not my candidate in 2016 because of three traits: too old for the demanding office and not likely to survive one term of 4 years, let alone 8 years. He is also far too liberal; and he hasn't built collaborative partnerships with others to advance his and the nation's agenda. Oprah has no experience in governance matters and the protocols and arcane processes involved. [Kindly remember this evidently is not high on the needs list for those who voted for trump!] I like Oprah but that is no reason to vote for her.

Hillary I voted for. She has the credentials to do the job and to do it well. I did not then, or now, believe she is guilty of anything. She is one of the most investigated persons in politics and never was found guilty of anything. The hullabaloo was pure political noise to distract voters. And it worked! Sad, but true.

Rather than fall prey again to such nonsense, why don’t we just set out the qualifications we think a successful candidate ought to have. Then let’s find the talent to fill the position. You like business people for government jobs? Then follow this process in finding the right person. Do what they do to improve their chances of finding the right person. Just remember trump was never subjected to this sort of analysis. He was the man with the money and wrote the definitions of qualifications and performance standards. Those were never applied to him, of course; he was in the driver’s seat.

So, lets construct the list of qualifications a person in our government ought to have:

1.     Educational preparation for office; specifics that should be included

2.     Experience indicative of suitability for office; scope of operations managed, level of authority exercised; successes documented in performing such duties

3.     Personality, ability to get along with diverse peoples and opinions; demonstrates ability to creatively solve problems with and among such diverse peoples

4.     Adaptability to circumstances; can learn ways and means to manage challenging issues and processes; learns pre-existing protocols and rules of the governmental unit applied for; can successfully use same for success in governance assignments and tasks

5.     Vision for future; demonstrates ability to sort through the chaff of political noise and focus on what is important for the good of the American people and the global community; not a purist in self-interest or narrow nationalism

Well, that’s good for starters. I’m sure we can find more elements to include later. For now, what do you think? Might this be a template for calling forth good candidates for the governance jobs we place through elective process? Might this be a better method than our current one?

Please share your thoughts.

January 11, 2018