We lament that there apparently will be no televised discussion of issues surrounding the race for Clinton County Family Court judge. We take some liberty with the term "issues," as, in a judicial election such as this one, matters of public interest are different from, say, a legislative race.

Candidates running for president, or mayor, or town councilor, for instance, can speak about projects and expenditures they favor or don't favor. They can discuss policy changes they'd like to see enacted.

In a judicial race, such issues don't exist. Family Court decisions are personal, often unique and dealing with one particular set of parties. If broad, overarching issues even exist, it's very hard to identify them.

So a "debate," as we're used to seeing on Mountain Lake Television this time of year, may not have the same character as one proposed for the two candidates for Family Court judge. Instead of debating issues, the format would likely include discussions about the two individuals and how in general they believe court should be conducted and the applicable basic philosophies they espouse.

One candidate -- incumbent Timothy Lawliss -- wanted to proceed with a debate. The other -- challenger William Meconi -- did not. He has cited judicial ethics that forbid such discussions.

However, according to the 2008 edition of the Judicial Campaign Ethics Handbook, compiled by the New York State Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, debates are not disallowed. The pertinent section of the handbook says:

"A judicial candidate may participate in a debate with other judicial candidates, as long as he/she adheres to the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct. ... For instance, judicial candidates should be careful to maintain the dignity of judicial office, avoid making pledges or promises of conduct in office other than the faithful and impartial performance of the duties of the office, and avoid making statements that commit or appear to commit him/her with respect to cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court. ... A judicial candidate may need to make clear to organizers of a debate that, as a candidate for judicial office, he or she must comply with the Rules, and that such compliance may constrain his or her participation in any debate."

A debate thus constrained would impose some limits on the exchange of information, but at least the public would see and get to know the candidates and get an idea of their demeanor and their ability to think and express themselves clearly. Any or all of these factors might give voters greater clarity when they enter the booth Nov. 4.

As debates go, it would probably not have the expository potential that some have. But it surely would have been better than nothing.