John Gonsalves was the fortunate one. Too ill to make Monday night's candidates forum, the District 1 front runner missed out on a farce that should embarrass anyone directly involved.

Featuring leading questions with false premises and trapdoor ultimatums, the candidates and attendees who filled the board of supervisors chambers found themselves victims of a crude excuse for political discourse.

And I thought ABC moderators were bad.

But don't take my word for it. See if you can spot the fake query:

A) Without using the popular, contemporary and meaningless phrase "smart growth," please describe your philosophy toward future growth in Amador County.

B) Recently, there has been a push to add another layer of government bureaucracy in the form of a regional planning committee, which could infringe upon and dilute the authority of the powers of the existing city and county governments. Do you support these efforts. Why or why not?

C) It is well understood that over 80 percent of Amador citizens oppose more casinos in Amador County. This question is not going to ask what your position on more casinos in Amador County is. Rather, do you believe it is good business practice to negotiate in bad faith as was done by the current board of supervisors and ignoring the recommendation of county staff and hired experts at the expense of over $1 million to the county's taxpayers? What would be your approach to negotiating with the tribes?

D) Do you regret being here?

If you picked the last one as the wringer, it's probably because it was the least histrionic and grammatically tortured in this sad bunch.

Look, I've been pretty critical of the board of supervisors on certain issues, but a candidates forum is no place to grind one's own, tired ax. It is the place to hear from prospective voters, to ask their questions as neutrally as possible and get out of the way.

At least that's the way it's been done at almost every forum Louis Boitano has participated in since joining the board of supervisors more than a decade ago.

"It was weird the way they did it," Boitano admitted Wednesday. "They should have asked questions from the audience."

But what about the political neophytes, what did they think?

"Not being a politically experienced individual, I didn't know what to expect," a diplomatic John Plasse said a day after the forum. "I did feel they were a little on the leading side. ... Within each question was embedded another assumption or premise."

Candidates basically had to decide which ones they'd accept and which to confront during their two-minute responses. That led to some interesting tapdancing by the candidates, with Boitano appearing visibly uncomfortable and others put off by the ugly tenor.

When the first question about the county's new health and human services building hinged on the phrase, "oversized and extravagant," Jackson mayor and District 1 candidate Rosalie Pryor Escamilla responded that she wasn't there to "Monday morning quarterback" past decisions.

When the smart growth question was asked, Plasse didn't shy away from using a term right-wing nuts have hijacked as being somehow incendiary.

And when the last question on budget shortfalls included as its premise a claim that building department staff have been "snooping" for code violations to cite, Boitano didn't let it slide.

"That was totally out of the blue," he told me Wednesday. "We never told anyone to go out and beat the bushes (looking for violations)."

If there was a theme Monday, it was that the candidates valiantly tried to make the best of a ludicrous situation. Rather than take the bait and use it to their political advantage, they attempted to stick to the issues and present attendees with something that could actually help them make up their minds.

So a question about the drugs in the county had Pryor Escamilla talking about the needed focus on prevention and rehabilitation, while Plasse and District 4 candidate David Pincus defended a regional planning strategy that could steer growth more holistically.

Even the provocative casino question elicited nuanced answers instead of superficial posturing.

It should come as no surprise that it was the rabid, anti-government group, Amador Citizens for Responsible Government, behind Monday's charade. ACRG co-hosted with the Amador County Association of Realtors, and Ledger Dispatch Publisher Jack Mitchell acted as moderator. In an e-mail to Ledger Dispatch Reporter Bethany Monk, ACRG "staff" claimed to craft the questions based on the 250 responses they received from an online survey. I saw that survey. The questions were as slanted and misleading as the ones posed to candidates.

Still, Jackson mayor Pryor Escamilla found some value in the forum, even if she agreed questions from the audience would have been more beneficial.

"These are the guys that stepped up, so I'm not sure I can complain about the way (they ran it)," she said. "It's better than nothing."

I'm not so sure. What went on Monday was a parody without the punchline, a bogus referendum on the current board of supervisors and a cynical attempt to demonize issues like smart growth and regional planning. It would have been nice to hear the candidates asked serious questions.

For instance, what do they propose in the way of economic development? What's their vision for local education, including vocational and college? How would they ensure future development is handled responsibility, bringing along infrastructure improvements and necessary mitigations while also protecting the county's character? Who's funding their campaigns? And what's so bad about regional planning?

Having elected officials actually, you know, talk to each other rather than piece-mealing their patchwork communities separately. It's interesting that all candidates ballyhooed the virtues of a county narcotics task force that works with various local and regional law enforcement agencies. Why is that kind of philosophy taboo when it comes to land use decisions?

These are questions we'll hope to answer in candidate Q&As on this page the week before the election. Send your suggestions to editor@ledger-dispatch.com.

Other election-related coverage will include stories on campaign finances, eminent domain, political signage and anything else that comes along. That's not mentioning the series of candidate profiles wrapping up next week. FYI, we originally planned to run one on District 2's unopposed Richard Forster, but he declined.

And while I won't be penning any endorsements, Jack has elected to write one on behalf of Pincus. I'll tell you what I tell everyone ruffled by our commentaries: Relax. It's one person's opinion.

In the interest of full disclosure, you should know that Main Street Media Group, the company that owns this paper, is underwriting Pincus' campaign and has helped pay for ads.

Personally, I find that a breach of the public trust. Apparently the company disagrees.

Isn't democracy grand?