Talk about election fatigue! Everyone is cross and irritable. Understandably. We look forward to Election Day as the time when, regardless of the outcome, we finally know the will of the people, and we can all get back to our routine.

Sometimes, particularly when elections are as contentious as this one, most of us recognize that we need some time for healing. Whether we're licking battle wounds or trying to enjoy victories with some modicum of humility, the end of the campaign season signals the time when we have to start working together again.

But not this year. Not in Santa Clara County.

And as the election drags on, we are hearing criticism about our endorsements.

When election season rolls around, we always talk about whether we should do endorsements. And we've always decided that we have a responsibility to do so, even though it would be much easier not to endorse. We seldom make recommendations in races outside local government, the area we cover week in and week out. That's because we believe we can make informed recommendations in these contests.

This year, there have even been suggestions that our endorsements were influenced by the amount of advertising candidates bought--or didn't buy.

I understand to someone on the outside looking in, the line between the editorial and the advertising sides of a newspaper might appear blurred. And in some publications--none of which we consider serious journalistic products--the line is so blurry, it might just as well not exist.

This is not the case with the Saratoga News or any of the eight weekly papers published by the Community Newspapers. In the short term, caving in to advertisers may be expedient, but we are in the business of publishing community newspapers for the long haul.

We don't promise editorial coverage in exchange for advertising. Our publisher and our top managers believe that what sells advertising in our community newspapers is journalistic excellence. The line between advertising and editorial is a tall impenetrable barrier in our company.

That said, we did endorse a candidate who bought a staggering amount of political advertising. Our advertising representatives did not discuss these ads with us, and even while proofing their pages during production, our editors have no idea what ads are running. It isn't until late in the day or early evening that both the publisher and I see the final proofs with the ads in place.

Once we had made our endorsements, did I begin to feel uncomfortable when I realized how much advertising a candidate we endorsed was buying? Frankly, yes. But I would no sooner tell the business side of the company who they should accept advertising from than I would expect someone from advertising to tell me who we should endorse.

I believe Saratoga News editor Dick Sparrer made the case for our endorsements very clearly. After exhaustive research, we concluded that the utility tax was a flawed solution to a problem that was not as dire as it had been painted. Because Ann Waltonsmith, the incumbent, was strongly supporting Measure V--but more significantly, because she was part of a "slate"--we chose not to endorse her.

A week earlier, the paper presented its opposition to "slates," a campaign tactic that has been employed for a number of Saratoga elections. We believe the slate does not encourage healthy elections, especially in small communities like Saratoga. We believe candidates should run on their own steam and not be manipulated from behind the scenes.

If past history is any indication, our endorsements amount to little more than one more piece of information for voters to consider. The goal of our endorsements is the same as our goal in presenting editorials, letters to the editor and opinion pieces. We believe community newspapers should serve as a forum for community dialogue.

We hope our endorsements this year achieved that goal.

Dale Bryant is the executive editor of Silicon Valley Community Newspapers and editor of the Rose Garden Resident. She can be reached at 408.200.1021 or dbryant@svcn.com.