Print This Post
Jul
27
The Cleveland Jewish News offers the following information as to how State Rep. Josh Mandel’s (R, 17the district) physical absence from the Ohio statehouse will affect, or not affect, constituent representation in Ohio’s general assembly:
District director Jonathan E. Petrea and legislative aide Michael Lord will handle Mandel’s duties and answer to the community while he’s gone. Petrea, of Mayfield Heights, and Lord, of Pepper Pike, “know the district well and are capable of advocating for my constituents,” contends the Marine reservist.
…
Ohio law won’t allow Mandel to vote on behalf of his district while he’s overseas, Stivers told the CJN Monday. Nor will Mandel’s temporary replacements be able to vote in his stead. Stivers is sponsoring a bill that would allow for proxy voting, he says, but the bill has yet to move through Ohio senate.
The voting issue is important, but it’s not as critical as dealing with constituent issues, notes Joyce Garver Keller, Columbus-based lobbyist for Ohio Jewish Communities. Mandel’s staff should be able to take care of the constituency in his absence.
As for Mandel’s district being without a voting representative, “most (bills before the House) don’t hinge on one vote,” says Garver Keller.
As a constituent, I’ll have to wait and see what impact, if any, the lack of a vote for the district makes. But on a personal level, it feels similar to how I feel about the commissioners being able to pass a tax without my say: the Ohio general assembly will now proceed as it wishes without a vote on the record to weigh in. One question I’d be interested to have Josh answer is, how did he feel after the hard work he put into HB 151 ended up precluding a vote, for now?
I don’t actually know how it made him feel, but I know it would be upsetting to me.
Having a vote, a say, on issues has nothing to do with what Garver says about whether a bill hinges on that vote or not. It has to do with our representative government.
Mandel has been very empathetic to the conflict the constituents have about the war, yet still support his efforts. I’m in that camp. But likewise, I’m in the camp of constituents who feel conflicted about my state rep being unavailable to vote as my representative to Ohio’s general assembly because he’s volunteering for duty and will be gone for eight months. I know I’m not alone.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 11:44 am July 27th, 2007 in Politics
Comments
11 Responses to “CJN on Mandel’s tour of duty: advocating for constituents and having a vote are not the same”
Leave a Reply
See Jill Run…for Pepper Pike City Council
News Now
Upcoming
Twitter Updates
Why Not?
Ohio law won’t allow Mandel to vote on behalf of his district while he’s overseas,
Maybe when letters came on ships – but now?
So who will we have to campaign against him next year? Roger Goudy is on the Solon School Board now, and didn’t fare well last year. Maybe David Pomerantz or Rob Pelunis?
-Joel Gertner
Looks to me like young Josh wants to have his cake and eat it too. That’s a sign of immaturity.
Good for him for again serving his country overseas, BUT he’s not doing right by his district by leaving it in the lurch. His district deserves FULL representation, including a vote. Even if that one vote isn’t going to change anything, his district still deserves to be COUNTED and accounted for.
He’s just trying to save his space in line, for when he returns.
Anon,
Do you think South Dakota senator Tim Johnson, who suffered a stroke in December and has been to sick to vote once in D.C. this year should step down. If not, why not?
Good question, Mark, couple of distinctions:
1. Josh has volunteered to depart for Iraq. I don’t know a lot about Tim Johnson’s health prior to his brain hemorrhage, but I’ve not read about anyone suggesting that he brought it on himself.
2. Another distinction is that Josh is occupying two jobs, literally. So he needs to attend to two jobs, literally.
Tim Johnson is recovering and apparently doing very well. I’m not aware of him taking on a second job of any type other than getting healthy enough to resume his presence in D.C.
3. Another distinction: Josh is now in his second set of choices that form a pattern: run for office, go serve in the military (I don’t recall if the first call-up was voluntary or not – I actually don’t think it was but I don’t know for sure), run for office again, go to serve in the military again.
Tim Johnson is in his second senatorial term, but there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that his getting ill is a pattern of disruption in how he fulfills his responsibilities on Capitol Hill.
4. What do his constituents think? Their opinion if far more important than mine.
5. What does the law provide regardings US Senators? I don’t actually know.
So those are just some thoughts I have that I believe are meaningful distinctions and/or questions that need answering before I would feel comfortable answering whether or not I believe Johnson should step down.
Your question is very fair and takes the kind of angle I like – let’s see what else looks like this and what do we think, as we’re trying to figure out what is best.
I have to believe that people in South Dakota feel some conflict about him not being in D.C. but I could never say where their breaking point is, if you know what I mean.
What do you think Johnson should do?
Mandel should decide if he’s going to fulfill the responsibilities of the job he so vigorously campaigned for, LESS THAN A YEAR AGO – OR if he’s going back to Iraq. He should just make a decision either way, and I do not care which one he chooses. To do both is double dipping. Either pay attention to one job or the other.
This isn’t exactly as if he were working for some small town employer. He ran for this office, just last fall; and people voted for him thinking that he’d be there for the long haul, didn’t they? It’s as though he can’t decide what he wants to do, fight in Iraq or fulfill the duties of the position to which he was elected nine months ago. Did he tell the voters last fall that he would be a sometimes-representative, when he wasn’t in Iraq? Or is his decision to return to Iraq a recent impulse? Are the voters getting what they signed up for? Did Mandel not COMMIT to the job of being a representative, less than a year ago? This isn’t exactly as if he’s nearing the end of his term, either. If this were his final year in his term, then fine. But Mandel was JUST ELECTED, for Pete’s sake! Didn’t it occur to him, LESS THAN A YEAR AGO, that he may want to return to Iraq in the beginning of his first term as state rep??? Is this a display of some sort of short attention span episode or something???
Now, if Mandel had been ORDERED by Uncle Sam to return to Iraq, then I’d say leave the seat open for 8 months because, then it wouldn’t be his decision and his constituents would’ve known this could happen when they had voted for him last fall. But that’s not how it happened. Mandel is CREATING the empty seat.
Sen. Johnson didn’t ask for his health problems. In fact, I’m quite sure he would’ve preferred not to have his stroke. Therefore, reasonable, compassionate people would understand that Johnson didn’t CREATE the empty seat in the Senate. However, if Johnson’s prognosis is grim, then yes, he SHOULD resign. But if he has a good prognosis, people can be understanding because, after all, Johnson didn’t exactly create the empty seat.
Oops, my bad. Sen. Johnson didn’t have a stroke; it was a brain hemorrhage. But still, it had the same effect regarding his attendance in Congress.
Pick a job, Josh, and stick with it. Barring being called up, you’ve unnecessarily left the people you said you would serve less than one year ago without a Rep.
There is a very illuminating article in the July 28 issue of the Columbus Dispatch, entitled “Many had hand in divesting measure.” Hurray for public records laws!
Things that make you go: ‘hmmmm….’
He’s choosing to go to Iraq? He’d rather be in Iraq than Ohio?
How very odd. I’ve been to Ohio. It’s not that bad. Compared to Iraq (at the present time) it’s positively paradise.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Laura, funny you should ask this question! I should do a full-blown post of this: I was recently informed by someone in the military that what may have happened – though I have NO confirmation of this – is that Mandel was given a heads-up that his number was coming around. That gave him the chance to decide whether to out himself as going back, and thus “volunteering” and seeming selfless, or whatever you would call it, rather than it coming out in the media that he was about to be ordered to go anyway.
However, what I was also told is that he could have gotten an exemption. Now – I haven’t checked on that – I believe the source referenced a federal, elected position exemption but I don’t know about state legislature.
Anyway – not knowing anything about the military, I didn’t really understand this situation that well. If what this source tells me is true, well – then you are of course 100% correct to ask, what’s wrong with this picture.