The Griffin Policy Forum, a popular political event arranged by Griffin Endowed Chair Gary Peters, was scheduled to offer a plethora of perspectives and insight.

Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer and his counterpart, Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis, were scheduled to represent their respective candidates.

Then Anuzis opted to not attend.

Anuzis’ absence hurt both his party and the forum: the Republican Party lost a valuable voice at a major political forum.

It’s unclear what caused Anuzis to miss the forum, as Peters said at the forum that he was unaware why Anuzis canceled. Efforts to contact him failed, Peters said.

Anuzis’ office did not return multiple calls Thursday from Central Michigan Life.

Barring a personal tragedy, there’s no good reason for Anuzis to have missed the forum.

A scheduling conflict is moot because the Griffin forum has been planned for months. It is a major event; hundreds of people attended. Agreeing to be a panelist is a commitment. It should not be simply shrugged aside.

The forum is scheduled far in advance so that panelists can work it into their schedules.

If Anuzis skipped the forum as a form of protest against Peters, as current rumor has it, this was an especially bullheaded publicity stunt. It’s not as though Anuzis wasn’t aware from the start that the Griffin forum would involve the Griffin Endowed Chair.

A sensible protest would have begun when Anuzis was first offered the spot on the panel. This would have been the time to voice disgust toward Peters – not one day before the event. It would have made just as effective a statement, yet allowed the panel time to find another Republican voice.

For Anuzis’ sake, we hope this is not true. It shot his party in the foot and made the panel politically imbalanced.

But he has yet to own up to his decision. His cancellation e-mail should have at least included an explanation as justification for missing the event. And as soon as he knew he was canceling, he should have contacted the panel. This would have allowed organizers to try to find a replacement.

At best, the situation was grossly mishandled.

Anuzis stood up a crowd of hundreds. He hurt students by limiting the panelists’ perspectives; he hurt his party by not providing its voice.

And now he owes the public an apology – or at least an explanation.

E-mail the author: defaultuser