When voters attend or tune in to the Johnson County Post’s forum featuring Prairie Village City Council candidates next month, they will see only half of their choices.
That’s because six of the 12 candidates running in the city’s wards this year have decided, as a group, not to participate.
The Post’s Prairie Village forum is scheduled for the evening of Tuesday, Sept. 30, at Corinth Library. The candidates who say they won’t attend are:
- Daniel Garrett in Ward 1
- Ed Boersma in Ward 2
- Amy Aldrich in Ward 3
- Kelly Sullivan Angles in Ward 4
- John Beeder in Ward 5
- Dan Prussing in Ward 6
In contrast, these candidates’ six opponents have all said they will attend. They are:
- Cole Robinson in Ward 1
- Ron Nelson in Ward 2
- Shelby Bartelt in Ward 3
- Nathan Vallette in Ward 4
- Betsy Lawrence in Ward 5
- Jim Sellers in Ward 6
For nearly 15 years, the Post has organized and hosted candidate forums as a way to allow voters a chance to hear from those who would govern their communities in a neutral setting, answering questions that come directly from readers and forum attendees.
In all the years we’ve done these events, we’ve never encountered a slate of candidates declining as a group to participate. It may well be a one-off — a symptom of the highly polarized politics in Prairie Village at the moment — but we hope it doesn’t become a trend.
Voters in a democracy, after all, deserve to be able to ask questions of those who would hold elected office in their communities to see if those candidates’ priorities and policy positions best represent them.
As editor of the Post (and moderator of our election forums), I’m taking the somewhat unusual step in this story of trying to explain what happened in this case in some detail. How the Post organizes its election forums is not typically grist for news coverage, but this turned out to be an atypical situation.
This is a lengthy account of my interactions with this group of candidates that includes extended email excerpts showing what all went into trying to make this work and why ultimately it broke down.
Residents of Prairie Village deserve to know why half the people running for seats on their city council say they won’t participate in an event aimed at helping voters become more informed of their choices before heading to the polls.
Candidates at first proposed “modest improvements” to forum format
The process of organizing these forums each year can be cumbersome, to say the least.
This year, my task was to find dates that worked for 116 candidates running for 46 different contested offices across 13 municipalities, five different school districts and the Johnson County Community College Board of Trustees. Here’s a complete list of everyone who will appear on the November general election ballot.
I began contacting candidates across Johnson County in early July to arrange forums ahead of this November’s general election.
I sent out an initial email to all 12 Prairie Village City Council candidates on July 8, listing four possible dates for a forum in that city and asking the candidates to get back to me with the dates that worked best for them.
I first heard from the six Prairie Village candidates in question on July 14, in an email sent from Ward 5 candidate John Beeder, who would serve as the group’s de facto spokesperson for the remainder of the back-and-forth.
In that initial response, Beeder expressed openness to the group participating but presented several conditions, or “modest structural improvements” as he put it, to the forum’s format.
Beeder himself ran unsuccessfully for a Prairie Village City Council seat in 2021 and participated in the Post’s forum that year. In his initial email to me, he said he “greatly valued the role these events play in informing voters and fostering civic engagement.”
You can read in more detail the group’s suggested changes to the forum’s format, some of which mirrored changes the Post was already planning to make for this year’s forums across all races.
*Note: I chose to include screenshots of whole emails in this story — both my own and the candidates’ — so that there was less danger of me misconstruing something in my own retelling. Readers who want to can read these emails and assess for themselves the points made by the candidates and me as we proceed through our exchanges. When they appear, the candidates’ email addresses have been redacted.
I responded that same morning, accepting the group’s suggestions in some form or another, and I asked them if Sept. 30 was a good date for them.
At that point, I had heard from five of the other six Prairie Village candidates — this group’s opponents — who had all communicated to me independent of each other that Sept. 30 was available to them.
It was in this email that I first communicated the idea that the Post would be splitting this event into two groupings of six candidates each.
This would be done in part in response to the candidates’ stated desire for “structural improvements” that put more attention on ward-by-ward races and gave candidates opportunities to more readily respond in the moment to their opponent.
In past forums that featured many candidates, including a Prairie Village City Council forum in 2023 that had nine candidates on stage at once, it could take 10-15 minutes or longer for all candidates to respond to a single question, leaving attendees waiting for extended stretches to hear from candidates in their ward. That was part of my motivation for tweaking the forums’ format to have fewer candidates on stage.
“Having 12 candidates on stage at a time would have been unwieldy,” I wrote to the candidates on July 14. “Focusing each forum on three races (six candidates total) will give each candidate more time to speak during their forum and will have the added benefit of allowing for rebuttals, if needed.”
Candidates then insisted all 12 candidates be on stage at once
The group, again through Beeder, sent me their collective response seven days later on July 21. (At that point, I had heard from all six of their opponents, confirming they could do a forum on Sept. 30.)
The candidates represented by Beeder said they would commit to doing a forum on Sept. 30, but they now presented a new condition.
In addition to reiterating some of their prior suggestions, they now said they wanted all 12 candidates to be on stage at the same time.
I responded later that morning, asking why. The idea struck me as logistically more difficult to pull off and also not in line with the candidates’ previously stated desire to tweak the forum format “to allow for more focus on particular races and candidate conversations,” as I put it in my response.
Beeder responded the same day, recalling his experience at the 2021 forum he participated in, but he got a key fact wrong in his recollection.
The 2021 forum, he said, also had 12 participants and “was not unwieldy.” That forum, in fact, featured only six candidates because three ward races that year were uncontested.
He also recalled candidates at that 2021 forum attacking the positions of candidates in other wards, suggesting this was a reason that all six of the candidates in 2025 wanted to be on stage together.
He also seemed to suggest that the Post was artificially trying to “enhance [the forum’s] entertainment” value at the expense of diving more deeply into substantive issues.
I responded a short time later that, on the contrary, the move to keep participation limited to six candidates at a time was being done to better meet audience needs. I explained that it has been a consistent point of audience feedback to our forums over the years to have shorter, faster-paced forums where residents can hear from the candidates in their precinct more frequently.
A forum featuring fewer candidates, I said, would give candidates in the same ward more time to respond to the same questions and, if necessary, respond to each other. The hope was also that we’d get through more issues and leave more time for audience questions.
I also pointed out that the Post has never hosted a forum featuring 12 candidates at one time. In such a format, I worried that audience members and voters would be left twiddling their thumbs for extended stretches as they waited to hear again from candidates in their ward.
In the only other city in Johnson County that has a 12-person city council — Overland Park — the Post in past years has routinely split the forums into two groupings, often hosted on separate nights. (That won’t be the case this year because there are only four contested city council races in Overland Park, leaving a still-crowded but manageable event of eight candidates.)
In my response to Beeder, which you can read in full below, I made it clear we would stick to our plan of doing two back-to-back forums of six candidates each on Sept. 30 and not put all 12 on the stage at once.
Group accepts Post’s invitation but on conditions
Two days later on July 23, Beeder sent an email on behalf of the group formally accepting the Post’s invitation to participate in a forum on Sept. 30.
However, they accepted with the caveat that the event be conducted with all 12 candidates at once, a condition I never assented to in our previous emails.
Soon after, I sent a “save the date” notification to all 12 candidates noting that Sept. 30 was a date that seemed to work for the entire group.
In that email, I made it clear the event would be split into two separate back-to-back events, featuring six candidates at a time.
Later that same day, Beeder responded rescinding the group’s earlier acceptance of the Post’s invitation to participate in the Sept. 30 forum, again citing the group’s desire to have all 12 candidates on stage at once as the reason they would not participate.
I sent a final reply that day, reiterating that the Post never agreed to a 12-person forum, which we felt would not be the best format for readers and voters.
I left the Post’s invitation open and said I would follow up with each of the six candidates individually.
Two candidates responded individually
In the following days, I emailed each of the six candidates individually, asking if they’d reconsider.
I heard from two: Ed Boersma in Ward 2 and Amy Aldrich in Ward 3.
Boersma, like Beeder, has participated in a Post event before, in 2023 when he ran as a write-in candidate for Prairie Village City Council. I pointed that out in my email to him.
He responded, saying he was going to be out of town on Sept. 30 but was trying to reschedule. He also pointed out that the 2023 event — which featured nine candidates — had gone “smoothly” in his opinion.
I responded, pointing out that that 2023 forum had been our largest forum ever (in terms of number of candidates) and was a logistical challenge to pull off. Doing another one with three more candidates felt less useful to readers than splitting candidates up into two groups.
I also heard from Amy Aldrich in Ward 3, who responded with this message: “Thanks for the invitation. After careful consideration, I’ve decided not to participate in the September 30 forum. The format doesn’t work well for me, and I believe there are other ways I can connect with Ward Three voters.”
I never heard directly from Daniel Garrett, Kelly Sullivan Angles or Dan Prussing.
One final explanation and a sitting councilmember weighs in
On Aug. 13, I emailed the group of six candidates one final time, seeking comment as I prepared this story.
I reiterated that the invitation remained open and that I would again like further explanation as to why the condition that all 12 candidates be on stage at once was such a deal breaker so that we could inform our readers as to why they would not be in attendance.
Readers may also note my original self-imposed deadline of last Friday to publish this story also got pushed back. (It’s good to be the editor sometimes:)
A day later, John Beeder sent me the candidates’ joint response. Here it is in full:
“Rather than engage in a debate about debates, we’re going to spend more time hearing from voters face to face about what matters most to them — and offering our shared vision for maintaining our wonderful quality of life in Prairie Village.
“One of the great things about a city council election in a small community such as ours is that the candidates can have real conversations directly with the voters.
“That kind of grassroots democracy-in-action is already happening as we are out meeting with people and walking door to door in our wards. These invaluable, unfiltered interactions with our neighbors all around town will only increase this summer and fall as we approach election day. It’s time for city leaders to start listening to the people again.”
You can also see it in the email he sent me, on behalf of the group:
A few minutes after John Beeder sent his reply on Aug. 14, current Ward 3 Councilmember Lori Sharp — who is not up for reelection this year — responded to the group. I had not seen her included on any of the group’s previous communications with me.
It’s not clear if she meant to include me on the chain, but it’s unlikely.
In her reply, she suggested the Post was colluding with other Prairie Village councilmembers somehow, pointing out that Ward 6 Councilmember Ian Graves — who is also not up for reelection this year — had been posting on Facebook about the Post’s upcoming forum.
To be clear, I did not consult with anyone outside the Post organization during the weeks when I was going back and forth over the forum’s terms with these candidates. As a courtesy, I did communicate with the other six candidates — these candidates’ opponents — to keep them apprised of tentative forum details and also let them know the other six would not be participating.
As it stands, the other six candidates have said they will participate on Sept. 30. Those candidates again are: Cole Robinson in Ward 1; Ron Nelson in Ward 2; Shelby Bartelt in Ward 3; Nathan Vallette in Ward 4; Betsy Lawrence in Ward 5 and Jim Sellers in Ward 6.
Readers can let us know they’re coming by RSVPing on Facebook or by emailing us at stories@johnsoncountypost.com. It’s not required but helps us anticipate how many people may show up.
It’s not the forum the Post wanted, but it is still one we think can help voters become educated on their choices.
The candidates will participate in a forum hosted by PV United
It would be naive of me not to acknowledge the particularly polarized politics of Prairie Village at the moment and how that may have played a role in organizing this forum.
For nearly three years now, the city has been consumed by a contentious and oftentimes personal debate over housing and zoning. Residents, represented most prominently by a group calling itself PV United, have sued the city, attempted on multiple occasions to recall the mayor and led petition initiatives aimed at remaking the structure of city government. (One of the group’s petitions seeking to “abandon” the city’s form of government will appear on this November’s ballot.)
The latest focus of PV United and its allies is to campaign to put a proposed new city hall project up for a public vote. The six candidates not participating in the Sept. 30 forum all align themselves with the policy positions and priorities of PV United (and a newer group calling itself Preserve PV).
It’s a shame, then, given the clear dividing lines and obvious policy differences among residents and candidates in Prairie Village that attendees of the Post forum next month will essentially only get to see and hear one side represented.
The group of candidates not participating in the Post forum do say they plan to participate in a forum in October put on by PV United. An event invitation describes it as an “exciting opportunity for City Council candidates to present their platforms and discuss the critical issues facing our city.”
More power to them. I hope whoever moderates that event does so in good faith, allowing for audience questions and posing topics in a way meant to allow candidates to distinguish themselves from each other and not merely serve as one side’s red meat.
The Post’s invitation remains open
It’s not unusual for candidates to miss a Post forum.
Candidates are busy and commitments during campaign season quickly build up. In some circumstances, candidates in the past have begged off attending a Post forum, citing scheduling issues or other conflicts.
But that doesn’t appear to be what happened here. With the possible exception of Ed Boersma, all of these Prairie Village candidates initially indicated Sept. 30 would work for them. So it wasn’t a scheduling problem.
Likewise, in the past, some candidates running in other cities or for other offices have expressed skepticism about the Post’s commitment to neutrality and wondered if we would be fair to them or ask them “gotcha” questions.
In an environment where overall trust in the media in the U.S. continues to decline, this is something I’ve become used to when organizing these events.
The Post has encountered this wariness in recent years from candidates in a variety of races, from hotly contested city council and mayoral contests to politically partisan statehouse races to high-profile competitions for county commission, sheriff and DA.
In the end, though, nearly all the candidates the Post has worked with become convinced of the value of participating in our forums and praise the process after they are done (including two of the candidates in this Prairie Village group who won’t participate this year).
I would hope that’s because these candidates, by and large, see the rigor and commitment to fairness with which the Post conducts these events and the standard of independence to which we hold ourselves when we ask candidates to trust us to give them an opportunity to speak to voters.
I maintain that the Post forums are a rare opportunity in Johnson County — in the case of many municipal races, the only one — where candidates are obliged to speak directly to voters with their opponent right next to them.
The Post strives to operate in good faith and openness with candidates of all political and partisan persuasions in trying to organize these forums. Part of the reason I included such lengthy email excerpts in this story was to help pull back the curtain a bit to show readers what goes into putting these forums together and how the Post approaches our obligations as neutral arbiters.
The Post is transparent and upfront about what our forums will involve, and we make it clear that the questions that will be asked are not ours — but those of the readers and voters.
The invitation remains open to the six Prairie Village candidates who have said they won’t participate on Sept. 30. I still hope to see them there.
