Print This Post Print This Post

Nov

16

How did record request reveal Dann’s internal e-mail, but Mandel gets to refuse to comply?


Has anyone else wondered about that?

Here’s my post, which was prompted by this Columbus Dispatch story, about how my state rep, Josh Mandel (R-Lyndhurst) has refused to provide e-mails from his personal account that had to do with official business.

Here’s the Dispatch article that recites policy made by his colleagues that all such e-mails are subject to public record requests, specifically, the Dispatch reported:

State and local government officials should no longer be allowed to skirt Ohio public-records laws by using private e-mail accounts to conduct official government business.

That is the view of a 22-member committee created by the legislature to examine public-records issues. The panel approved its final recommendations yesterday, including one that says electronic communication “in the course of public business should be treated consistently under existing public records laws and court decisions.”

My emphasis.

So – how is it that a communication between Attorney General Marc Dann and his communications director got turned over (and warranted a Jeer on the Plain Dealer’s editorial page), but Josh Mandel refuses to comply with his colleagues’ dictates and no one has said boo? What am I missing?

[And btw, PD - are you sure that it was Dann who was smarting? Here's what the Dayton Daily News, who made the original records request, wrote about the e-mail:

• Dann, who is Jewish, e-mailed Jennings on April 6 about an editorial that ran in his hometown paper, The (Youngstown) Vindicator: "Bentley said there are six nasty posts after the Vindy editorial. All about you," he wrote. "Jesus had it better on good friday."

Dann wrote to Jennings. Dann wrote that the nasty posts were, "All about you." Doesn't that mean that the nasty posts were all about Jennings, not Dann?? And that Dann is saying to Jennings that Jesus had it better than Jennings?

That's not consistent with the PD saying that Dann was smarting from the editorial. Rather, it sounds like Jennings might have been smarting from it. I've gone to the Vindy.com site, I've tracked down some items from April 2007, I've reviewed comments on those items and I don't really see what was being said about Jennings that would give rise to him needing empathy, but based on what the DDN is reporting, Dann was not whining for himself but rather offering Jennings (a bad example of) empathy.]

As for why Dann’s e-mails were discoverable and not really even about official business, but Mandel is a hold-out when the e-mails in question are allegedly unquestionably about official business, there’s a comment section, there’s my e-mail. Whatever.

Explain it to me.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:34 pm November 16th, 2007 in Politics 

Comments

9 Responses to “How did record request reveal Dann’s internal e-mail, but Mandel gets to refuse to comply?”

  1. 1 King on November 16th, 2007 2:22 pm

    So you take Dann’s offensive remarks and turn them back to your obsession with Josh.

    I bet Josh would find Dann’s remarks tasteless! I would bet that Josh would be man enough and smart enough to say that… Being of the Jewsh faith, knowing what our religion has gone through, Marc Dann should know better than to make offensive remarks like this.

    Go ahead keep hounding a local soldier and ignore Dann’s remarks.

  2. 2 Jill Miller Zimon on November 16th, 2007 2:27 pm

    King – are you not reading?

    Your comment makes me think that you just literally want me to waste time, because you don’t bother to read or think about what I write. Is that true? Or no?

    So – should Josh release those e-mails that his colleagues said are in fact public record?

  3. 3 Keith on November 16th, 2007 2:36 pm

    Wow King you have a way with words:

    “This Steaming Load must be served pipping hot then rammed down the traitorous, America hating, throats of Harry “The Turd” Reid and San Fran Nan Pelosi. In a perfect world, they would be hauled out of the Capitol Building, lined up against a wall and SHOT for betraying their nation in a time of war. We must not let them snatch defeat from the jaws of an essential victory in the war against these Jihadikaze rat bastards.”

    Kinda undercuts whatever opinions you might have over here at a civilized site.

    Sheesh, and they say I’M extreme!

  4. 4 Pho on November 17th, 2007 12:38 am

    Two differences. First, Mandel is trying to protect his personal account. Dann was, according to news reports, writing on a state account.

    Second, Dann campaigned on openness and has been a stickler with everyone else regarding the public records law. Even if he had a colorable case for non-disclosure he couldn’t politically fight it.

    Not that Dann has the finest ear for political tone, but even he knows that he couldn’t go there.

  5. 5 Jill Miller Zimon on November 17th, 2007 9:49 am

    Hi Scott – Yes, I thought of the first, not the second but you are right on that too.

    But…here’s what I also note:

    It’s much harder to construe Dann’s correspondence as being about official business, even if on a state account, than it is to say that Mandel’s was not about official business, according to this Dispatch article which says that a Dispatch reporter exchanged emails with Mandel on official business through Mandel’s private email.

    Either way, Dann represents the legislature and thus Mandel in Mandel’s effort to not dislose those emails and text messages. Interesting conundrum.

  6. 6 King on November 17th, 2007 11:22 am

    Don’t want you to waste time,just admit that Dann’s remarks are offensive to Christianity and he should apologize.

    I guess I am asking you show your tolerance of other religions by actions and not empty words. I do read what you write, you are well versed in skirting around something you don’t want to answer. You know we went through that before….

    But do you read what you write?

    You wrote… It’s much harder to construe Dann’s correspondence as being about official business, even if on a state account…

    Jill, how could anything done using the state email account NOT be considered official business?

    On Josh’s emails – I could care a less what his fellow colleagues feel or say.

    I believe ALL politicians, regardless of party, should be held to the same standard, it just that simple with me!

    A personal account is just what it says.. a personal account and should be kept private. That being said, I will add the following…

    if after a review of the personal emails, it is determined that the personal account was purposely & continually used to skirt public record laws, then I would have an issue.

    Believe it or not, I agree with Marc Dann that public business should NOT be conducted with private accounts.

    Do you read the articles you link too? The Dicourse reported Josh stated he will deal with them when he comes home.

    Kieth– I will pass your praise onto Hambo, the author of Steaming Loads.

  7. 7 Jill Miller Zimon on November 17th, 2007 12:40 pm

    King – interesting point re: how could anything on state accounts not be construed as official business. Indeed an excellent question. Part of the problem, as we see in the news all the time, is people using such accounts for personal business – yes? Shopping for the holidays at work and so on. Not a black and white line at all.

    As for Mandel, he’s not unique – many of the legislators communicate with constituents and others on official business via their private accounts – most likely because it takes such effort to get through to legislators with the official accounts and those official accounts don’t make it easy to continue follow up. Plus, it can be difficult for Ohio residents who don’t live in a particular legislator’s district to communicate via the official business email interfaces and that legislator (have you ever tried that with congressional folks – it’s a total PITA).

    Marc Dann isn’t the only one saying don’t conduct public business with private accounts – the Ohio legislature has now said that too.

    Josh isn’t coming home until next spring, King. His staffers are saying things like since he has his personal computer, they can’t access his email. That is a very lame explanation to anyone who knows anything about email. It’s fine for them to say that, but it’s totally transparent as a non-answer.

    Thanks for taking it down a notch or two though – it’s so, much, better to exchange ideas when you aren’t being all hysterical. :)

  8. 8 Pho on November 19th, 2007 3:13 pm

    Jill, to the extent Dann’s correspondence in question was not about state business, it’s because the correspondence was about politics. I don’t particularly want to protect politicians who use state apparatus to communicate about politics. Even politicians I am generally favorably inclined toward.

  9. 9 Jill Miller Zimon on November 19th, 2007 3:23 pm

    I agree re: not wanting to protect politicians who use state apparatus for communicating about politics.

    Now – here’s the thing – to what extent does any politician’s job require him or her to communicate about politics, in the course of the job? Never? Probably not – when I think about negotiations between say Husted and Strickland.

    But if we mean only politics in terms of campaigning, getting elected and so on, that is more clear.

    Or is it? :)

Leave a Reply




"));