I was severely disappointed by Billerica's recent Candidates Night, sponsored by the League of Women Voters and BATV, although the League and BATV did a superb job.

First, the turnout was only modest, far fewer people than attend a Town Meeting. In our Representative Town Meeting, only one out a hundred Billerica voters get to cast votes. There is ample justification for the others to stay home and watch the proceedings on BATV. Yet for this Candidates Night, in a contest in which every Billerica voter gets to take part, fewer people took the trouble to attend.

The second disappointment was how few people asked questions of the candidates. A couple of people took the opportunity to make a point, or to take a shot at a particular candidate, but there were very few questions asked to elicit information about a race.

My biggest disappointment, though, was in the attitude shown by one particular set of candidates, and, I fear, by too many in public policy positions. Let me explain.

As the candidates in the School Committee race described their backgrounds, one of them mentioned the DARE program. I have heard some questionable reports about the program and I knew there was some difference of opinion as to whether it worked. In fact I believe the DARE program has recently been dropped by one of our neighboring towns. I asked whether the candidates were aware of any information or studies regarding the long-term efficacy of this program.

All three candidates supported the program. One said he knew of some controversy, but was not aware of any long-term studies. But he thought it was important to "reach the children early" with this program. Another threw out the fatuous "If it saves just one child," as though it doesn't matter how many families might be destroyed, or what Constitutional rights might be shredded, in pursuit of that goal. (Do these people ever realize that resources spent on ineffective programs might save numerous children if spent effectively elsewhere?) The third merely affirmed her support for the program.

Isn't there something missing here? Is our educational system in the hands of people who have no understanding of logic and evidence?

Any charlatan can propose an excuse for giving him money, and make it sound plausible. Those who spend taxpayers' money, though, have a responsibility to look beyond the smooth talk and the glib promises, and determine whether the expenditures are likely to obtain a desired result.

For brand new programs, sometimes all we have to go on is reasoning and expert opinion. And public policy figures should not be faulted too heavily if they are, occasionally, taken in by the opinion of those who present themselves as experts -- even experts that spend a suspicious amount of their time explaining why we should fund their programs. But they should be faulted if they don't demand goals, some measurement of results, some form of evidence that in due course shows the correctness of the expert opinion. And we should be faulted if we accept such gullibility on the part of our policy makers.

In the case of this particular program, there is no question as to the good intentions of the proponents. But there is some reason to doubt the long term benefits. If any of the candidates had promised to look into the existing studies on DARE, or offered to implement some sort of monitoring program to determine whether it works, they would have won my vote. Even better would have been an answer that the respondent had looked into the studies and was convinced of the net benefits.

It's our fault. By refusing to hold public officials responsible, by continuing to elect those with the best smiles or the heartiest handshakes, we encourage this irresponsibility. We all have the duty to ask the tough questions, and to notice the ones who answer unintelligently, or who evade answering our questions.