Marcia’s daughter is very, very ill with cancer, and not expected to survive, hence her reluctance to spend a lot of time campaigning door-to-door. She had a devoted team of surrogates who filled in for her, and these folks did a wonderful job.

I am plased and proud to have been part of it.

As a candidate, and as a public official, I have always been willing to speak with reporters. Indeed, reporters often call me because they see me as someone who will give them candid answers about local politics.

Moreover, I write frequent comments on local blogs and AnnArbor.com. Yes, I am very busy, but not so busy that I need any surrogates to speak on my behalf.

After reading Hilton’s column, I’m now even more troubled by some of the comments posted here during the week that sought to defend Elhady’s strategic decision to avoid a live interview for the column above. Among these were attempts to deflect responsibility from the Elhady camp by deeply personalizing the matter — by seeking to have McGovern’s character and professionalism put on trial. There was insistence that she, specifically, was the source of the “problem” and should become the real focus, and that her column showed bad judgement by the editors. Now it turns out the Elhady campaign gave Silberman at the Observer the exact same non-interview treatment as McGovern.

Nevertheless, I stand behind both your column and your position on the Elhady non-interview.

Reading John Hilton of The Observer’s account further reinforces my view that the Elhady campaign has been less than forthcoming in both access and honesty. This shouldn’t be read as an endorsement of his opponent but rather as a red flag as to how Mr. Elhady might comport himself as a member of council.

Agree what what you write above in #83, and sorry I misunderstood these points in your earlier comment (#73).

No news gathering publication should ever accept the ‘terms’ Mr. Elhady laid out. Especially for something as important as an election. The Sarah Palin example is a good one. An email
‘interview’ isn’t an interview at all. Or, at least, not a probotive one. Not only does it not allow for important follow up questions, there is simply no guarantee that the responses come directly from the candidate. That is a particular concern in this race where surrogates (with well established political agendas)seem to be doing the majority of communication.

While Mr. Elhady is under no obligation to speak to any particular publication, there is an irony that he is a candidate who calls so vigorously for transparency in government. Knowing the Chronicle’s rigorous approach to its stories, I would have been keen to have read such an interview. I am sure it would have painted a more complete picture of his candidacy, more than any other local publication. But if there is one truism in politics, virtues like ethics, transparency, and honesty always apply to the OTHER guy (or gal, in this case)… never to the person demanding change.

I’m still making up my mind on these two candidates, but I would like to publicly express my appreciation to Mr. Elhady for making this a race. This is the first contested Ward 4 election that I can recall in my short (6 years) in Ann Arbor! Why, there were even lawn signs and – amazing!! – handbills! Most people in the ward are aware of this local election, and hopefully the turnout will be significantly greater. Mr. Elhady, even if you don’t win the seat on council, thanks for running. Only next time, don’t turn down an op. to do a face-to-face with a local reporter. From this voter’s perspective, regardless of the above stated reasons pro and con, to me it just looks bad.