Whether one likes unions or not, or a particular constituent or not, by the very definition of being an elected representative, an officeholder is not entitled to ignore a political stakeholder who seeks an officeholder's - office seeker’s - ear.It does not bode well for residents of the 50th Ohio House District that both the contestants for this seat failed to show up for the invitation of the Ohio Education for an endorsement interview. Whom else will they ignore if the person or issue is not to liking.
Both, because they very likely have philosophical differences with unions, may not want the endorsement. But, because the OEA represents hundreds of teachers who live in the 50th District, DeHoff and Snitchler are not entitled to refuse sharing their policy views with this political stakeholder and derivatively their very own constituents.
The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT has reason to believe that both DeHoff and Snitcher strongly dislike unions (DeHoff by her anti-union action as a Tuscarawas Township trustee and the fact she got no union support in her primary election battle [highly unusual for a Democrat] and Snitchler because of his hand-in-glove relationship with the Ohio and Lake Township Chambers of Commerce, and the reality that Republican officeholders/seekers are generally anti-union).
This apparent snub should not be acceptable to 50th District voters. The current seat holder John Hagan (Republican - Marlboro who is now running for Stark County Commissioner) in an “in your face" type of encounter told OEA representatives a few years ago that since the OEA had not endorsed him but his opponent (yours truly), he would not give them the time of day.
Does anyone accept the premise that an elected official is entitled to ignore those with whom she/he disagrees?
No comments:
Post a Comment