Friday, June 1, 2012


The "never elected to anything" Christina Hagan (R - Marlboro Township) should be counting her lucky stars that she is running to be retained as a state representative in a fail-safe, "gerrymandered" district (the "new" 50th) with a 56% Republican favorable index.

Hagan doesn't need The Repository to act as her public relations arm inasmuch as she appears to the SCPR to be a lock in being elected in her November 6th match up with Democrat Alliance Councilwoman Sue Ryan.

But if she gets stupid enough and unethical enough, maybe even voters in the Republican rich 50th will be offended to such a degree so as to keep the "never elected" in place.

It is always amazing when a politician trips herself up in doing or saying something the benefit of which, even if successfully pulled off, escapes most people.

Republican Christine O'Donnell of Delaware in her 2010 U.S. Senate race (both in the primary and the general election) comes to mind as a prime example of the phenomenon.

Appointed by the Ohio Republican Caucus on March 4, 2011 to replace Todd Snitchler (who had become Governor Kasich's man chairing the PUCO) as the "old" 50th state representative, Hagan might unwittingly be testing the tolerance of voters in the new district for a politician being too much of a politician.

Recently, The Canton Repository printed, under its "Boards and Ballots" irregularly published regular feature designed to be a conduit for press releases (in the opinion of the SCPR) from Stark County-connected public officials who wish "free ink" coverage of their drive for election to office, a Hagan release touting how much she was for "transparency" in state government.

She cited a Repository editorial of May 21, 2012 as her motivating factor.  (How's this for a little bit of pandering to the press?)

In the editorial, the Rep editorial writer called for Hagan to support  public notice of applications being made for gas/oil drilling permits.

One would think that Hagan would be loathe to support any legislation that the oil and gas industry might not like inasmuch as media reports indicate she received (even as a rookie legislator) $7,500 in campaign contributions from the industry over the little more than one year she has been in office.  Third only to veteran lawmakers Billy Batchelder (the Ohio Speaker of the House) and Republican state Rep. David Hall (who appeared with her at her town hall meeting in Louisville in May, 2011).

Hagan did offer an amendment to legislation under consideration.

What did Hagan's amendment to SB 315 (Governor Kasich's energy bill) actually do?

It called for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources to, on its website, publish public notice of permits after the had been approved and issued.

Accordingly, The Rep editorial could not have been her motivating factor because it clearly calls for publication at the application stage of obtaining a permit.

Notice after the permit has been approved:  That's transparency?  Could Hagan be that dumb so as to really believe what she did was to foster transparency in state government?

The SCPR believes that Representative Hagan had to know she was fudging on the truth in ascribing to herself a transparency motive and was stupid enough to think she would not be caught in the contradiction and, moreover, that she would not be called out on it.

Is the next thing that comes out of Hagan's mouth to be:  "It wasn't my intention to tell an untruth."  "It was merely 'political spin' and all politicians do it."  "My legislative aide misspoke."

Obviously, as we know and she knows and therefore her safe haven:   no one can actually get inside her head to know what really is going on in there.

It could be there is nothing going on.  Yours truly believes that she is the captive of her political caucus and by virtue of having been appointed to  office by the caucus is not free to act independently of the caucus.

Also, The Report believes there is a solid circumstantial case that should tell a reasonable minded person that she was dumb enough, brash enough to think she could pull this little political caper off with none being the wiser.

The demarcation between what the Rep editors asked for and what Hagan delivered is a clear. How could she possibly confuse the two unknowingly?

A follow up Repository (May 30th) editorial is way too generous in giving Hagan credit for "recently add[ing] a small measure of transparency to the governor’s energy bill."

What?  After a permit has been approved, notice of that fact is transparency?

The telling point of the editorial is:
What we asked, however, was that the state be required to let the public know before a permit is approved, not afterward. The May 21 editorial urged Hagan, a Republican from Marlboro Township, to support notifying the public of permit applications. (emphasis added)
Undoubtedly, the oil and gas industry would have no objection to after-the-fact noticing of the public.  But would the industry's attitude be the same about before-the-fact noticing?

Another incident that occurred back in the Fall of 2011 involving claims by Representative Christina Hagan want to join in on sponsoring a bill offered by Democratic Representative Robert Hagan from the Youngstown area.

Exhibit - an e-mail from the SCPR to Robert Hagan and his response:

From: Martin Olson []
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 12:22 PM
To: District60
Subject: HB 343

Representative Hagan,

This morning on WHBC-AM 1480 (Canton, Ohio) Points to Ponder host Ron Ponder was told by Representative Christina Hagan that she tried to contact you in order to sign on as a sponsor of your HB 343 (drug testing for elected officials).

She says you never returned her telephone calls.

I'd be interested in hearing your response.

Exhibit #2 - Robert Hagan's response:

--- On Wed, 12/7/11, District60 <> wrote:

From: District60 <>
Subject: RE: HB 343
To: "'Martin Olson'" <>
Date: Wednesday, December 7, 2011, 10:46 AM
 Hi Martin,

The process for signing on as a co-sponsor in the Ohio House is pretty straight forward. It is usually done electronically through the e-mail system. The co-sponsor request went out to all Democrats and Republicans in the House on 9/1/2011. Everyone is afforded a reasonable opportunity to reply “yes” or “sign me on” -or simply call my office line and leave a message indicating they would like to co-sponsor the proposed legislation (In this case by 9/30/2011). Rep. C. Hagan never did these things. As I understand it, she did leave two messages with my aide, asking that I call her back. I was unable to call her back before the legislation was introduced. I can only assume she wanted to change the legislation or offer some alteration to the bill.

Rep. C. Hagan is still able to add her name as a co-sponsor if her caucus ever brings this legislation up for consideration.



So the question becomes whether or not Ms. Hagan was being disingenuous, at the very least, in impliedly suggesting to Ponder that she supported the notion of applying drug testing to state officials as well as to public welfare benefit recipients.

The foregoing described political machinations suggest that Ms. Hagan early on in her career is developing into a calculating politico who pays more attention to political party interests and special interests over the interests of the ordinary citizens of the 50th district.

And, of course, the SCPR has pointed out (in previous blogs) other instances in her brief career that bring into question where her loyalties rest.

It appears to The Report that she all too often attempts to dissemble her constituents as to where her heart really is on any given piece of legislation.

Accordingly, 50th district voters ought to be asking themselves:

Shouldn't we be taking a closer look at Democrat Sue Ryan in this race?

No comments: