HOW DID BARD SLIP THROUGH OUR FINGERS?

On the face of it, discovering that a candidate in a municipal
election has a criminal past should have been a newspaper editor's dream.

So why didn't you read about Bill Bard's 2006 conviction for growing
pot in the Nanaimo Daily News?

It's a good question and one that has been asked a few times since
former and maybe future school board trustee Donna Allen entered into
a faceoff with, well, everyone, over whether or not people with
criminal records should be able to run for public office.

While Allen has been rebuked for knowing about Bard's criminal past
and not raising a stink until after the election (a valid point),
this newspaper and others have also been challenged to explain why we
didn't publicize the fact.

As it turns out, only the tiny Gabriola Sounder brought any attention
to Bard's criminal past. This paper, that other one in town, and the
TV and radio folks either didn't know about it or didn't seem to care
enough to let voters know.

It's safe to say that the journalists in our newsroom did know. And
if we didn't, we had a few people whisper it in our ear during the campaign.

So when the issue blew up this week, I asked my assembled editorial
board if they thought we had made a mistake not revealing Bard's
transgressions. And why didn't we write about it, anyway?

The consensus was swift and simple: It was no big deal.

And this is true. Bard's was a summary conviction (less serious than
an indictable offence) for growing marijuana (not selling it or
trafficking it, as many have suggested) and he was given a light
sentence of a $300 fine and a conditional sentence that included a
curfew for a year.

His criminal past will be expunged soon, according to Bard.

Still, minor or not, why not get the information out there?

Well, two reasons: 1. It was more than five years ago; 2.
Resurrecting such a minor offence this long after the fact can only
be construed as politicking.

Yes, the conviction is public record (we looked up the court file)
and that makes it fair game. But we profiled dozens of candidates in
the mid-island leading up to the election and had not the time,
resources nor inclination to comb through everyone's past. To do it
to Bard simply because it was whispered to us through back channels
is not our idea of balanced reporting.

We offered an introduction to all the candidates and more than once
called on voters to get to know who was running, find out more about
them and make an informed decision.

But don't forget that Bard played by the rules. He was not required
to undergo a criminal record check, nor was he required to lay bare
his entire life's past.

Few politicians are willing to do such a thing.

It's interesting to note at this juncture that if Bard had employed
any publicist worth his or her salt, they almost certainly would have
advised him to reveal the conviction himself. Get out in front of it
and control how the information is perceived by the public.

Instead, there is the appearance of avoidance or subterfuge and he's
left to explain his past from a defensive position.

The way this issue would have been publicized in this newspaper is a
candidate had made an issue of it in a public forum. If Allen, or any
candidate, had challenged the veracity of Bard's candidacy, we and
other media would have felt an obligation to examine that stance.