NAC devoted three postings earlier this month to the District 72 (Indiana House of Representatives) race between incumbent Bill Cochran (D) and challenger Ed Clere (R).
Courier confuses chronology in otherwise solid preview of the Cochran vs. Clere District 72 house race.
Open thread: Cochran vs. Clere, District 72.
Clere: "I am interested in substance, and no postcard can change that."
I’ve found Cochran’s case for incumbency eerily similar to Mitch McConnell’s in the latter's bid to carry on as Senator from Kentucky in spite of being joined at the hip with George W. Bush. Paraphrased, it goes something like this:
I’ve been here so long, and I have accrued so much influence, you’d be foolish to turn me out.
Perhaps, but if that’s the case, why do we even bother having elections?
How did Cochran get elected in the first place?
It seems to me that the local Democratic machine venerates Cochran as an elder political statesman of sorts, and I fully understand that bringing home the bacon, and a three-decade long winning streak, have ways of guaranteeing the respect of your fellow practitioners.
At the same time, I’ve listened in vain for quite some time, waiting forlornly for Cochran to take positions on the local issues that we debate on a regular basis here at NAC. That the incumbent is a master of the art of re-election is obvious, but what I’d like to see is a system that doesn’t depend on the personal intervention of a 34-year political veteran to accomplish something.
What does he really think about our civic problems, ranging from slumlords to the continued starvation of local government by state and federal entities? Occasional smatterings of philosophy and theory would be a welcomed development, and Clere has provided them, both in words and his actions within the community.
At this point in time, there are other questions of a tactical political nature (think: timing) that should be asked, but I don’t need to ask them aloud to justify voting for Clere. He’s smart, civic-minded and willing to engage in give and take.
ELECTION Q&A: Indiana House - District 72 (New Albany Tribune)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
I was glad to vote for Bill Cochran (I've already voted), because I am a Democrat and because Cochran has been very good to IU Southest. IU Southeast is a major employer in our community, with a significant positive economic impact. Cochran can claim a lot of the credit for the successful effort to bring student housing to IU Southeast. IU Southeast is a much better university because of his efforts.
From the Courier Journal:
"Cochran is a longtime member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, where the initial draft of the state budget is written, and serves on the bipartisan State Budget Committee, which releases money once the General Assembly approves it.
The positions mean he can influence the funds that go to colleges and parks or whether funds are earmarked for special projects. Indiana University Southeast in New Albany, where Cochran is a special assistant to the chancellor, has been the focus of much of his work....the money for the school a conflict of interest, saying a lawmaker shouldn't work for a public university that he is helping to fund."
Mr. Cochran is on the committee that sets his salary for the his job at the University. That is a direct conflict of interest.
In your quote, you omitted the following (highlighted):
"Clere, an IUS graduate who is involved in a number of community activities, called the money for the school a conflict of interest, saying a lawmaker shouldn't work for a public university that he is helping to fund."
Is this just a manufactured controversy by his opponent, or is Cochran actually in violation of ethics laws?
That is not a manufactured controversy. It is a direct conflict of interest.
Per wikipedia:
A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, insurance adjuster, a politician, executive or director of a corporation or a medical research scientist or physician, has competing professional or personal interests.
As a legislator, he votes to bring funding to the place of his employment which would be a competing professional interests and he votes for his salary which is competing personal interests.
But I asked you if it was illegal. Is it?
As far as I know without further research, no, it is not illegal; however, it is highly unethical.
Actually, it looks like it could be a class D felony according to IC35-44-1-3, if he did not file a written disclosure stating he was. I am not a lawyer though.
We may have one of the resident lawyers look into it.
Cochran love IUS so much he tried to get them out of paying sewer tap fees. Oh that big SPRAWLING campus. I believe the total for taps came to around $70k.
Mr. Cochran is on the committee that sets his salary for the his job at the University. That is a direct conflict of interest.
While I don't disagree with questioning Bill Cochran's employment at IU Southeast, accuracy calls.
The House Ways and Means Committee plays no direct role in setting IU salaries.
One could certainly argue that they affect the total amount of funding the state-wide university system receives on the whole, but that's a far cry from direct influence over who makes how much or even deciding who gets hired.
For my part, my decision in this race was made easier by Mr. Cochran's recent local appearance at a neighborhood gathering.
I respect Ed Clere a great deal, both for his intellect and his obvious commitment to the local community. Admittedly, I'm sometimes troubled enough by his stances on individual issues that deciding to vote for him was more challenging than I expected.
I admire also Ed's sincere request of the state party to stop the offensive mailings. My mailbox makes clear, though, that they're not listening to him. That will be a continuing area of concern should he get elected.
However, Mr. Cochran is quite noticeably weakened in his actual person. While I mean no disrespect as I'm quite aware that age will eventually catch up to each of us, I cannot comfortably send someone to office after witnessing them struggle for coherency during a brief speech. In short, I'm not convinced Mr. Cochran remains physically capable of doing the job.
I briefly entertained the idea that putting Mr. Cochran back in office - and, more specically, into his position on the Ways and Means Committee - so that he may be replaced in short order might be a reasonable strategic, if somewhat insensitive, maneuver. Fairly quickly, the fear of having him replaced with someone far less qualified than either he or Ed Clere caused me to abandon that notion.
I just hope Ed is up for some legitimate debate. My knowledge of him and friendship with him thus far suggests that he is.
And, Daniel, I, too, was in favor of waiving sewer tap fees for the university in the hopes of starting some serious relationship building between the city and school. But, for the record, you can't imagine the amount of hand wringing I've done over the unfortunate campus location decision made decades ago.
Much of our revitalization conversation would likely be unnecessary if it had happened differently. The same principle is true, of course, of Purdue's new campus as well.
In both cases, I imagine it was difficult to argue against large property donations. I wish someone would have successfully.
I agree that the University would have been a huge boon for the downtown vicinity. I also agree that Purdue would have been able to renovate a large building or two downtown, but the land was donated, and is close to the interstate. You know all the usual arguments. I would love to see something of this nature go along with Scribner Place to motivate the revival. I don't agree that in the wake of the sewere fiasco that this city has had to endure along with the rising monthly bills, that we just let them off the hook so we can repair some figment of a relationship.
...that we just let them off the hook so we can repair some figment of a relationship.
That's why my waiver offer would've come with negotiable conditions instead of a simple yes or no.
Bluegill, I saw Mr. Cochran speak the other week at the IU Southeast student housing dedication ceremony. He's certainly not a young man, but he seemed reasonably strong and lucid. Indeed, he got a good laugh when he suggested that the student housing has already improved student life at IUS—alcohol arrests are up this fall.
I don't doubt it, William, but I saw what I saw.
Perhaps it's intermittent.
I was at the same neighborhood association as Jeff and had the same impression of Mr. Cochran. He spent a good portion of his time speaking of his elementary school days and then summed it up by saying that when things happen, he can make phone calls to influential people. He kept drumming the chair he stood behind with his fingers and truly acted as if there were a million places he'd rather be than talking to us that evening.
Mr. Clere came across with a clear picture of what he wanted to do. I may not always agree with him, but I felt he was easily the strongest of the two.
He's one of the two or three Republicans I'll be voting for on Tuesday.
I was referring more to the seemingly involuntary long pauses, but Bayern is right.
When he was speaking clearly, it was largely nostalgic and unfocused.
Whether he set his own salary or not, would Cochran have any job at IUS if he did not steer government money to the school?
I guess we'll find out if Ed is elected and then gets a job as "special assistant to the President" at IUS some years down the road...
How long after Cochran leaves the general assembly do you think he would be working at the university?
That question is insulting to both Mr. Cochran and the University. To beleive that the university's legal staff would have allowed Mr. Cochran to take this job if it was illegal or unethical is just crazy. This line of questioning is just another layer of the nasty, negative campaigning that the republicans are using against a man who has dedicated his life to serving his community. Mr. Cochran may not be as eloquent a speaker as Mr. Clere and he may be slowing down with age, but he is very respected by many and he still has a lot to offer his community.
He may very well be respected, but after what I witnessed that night...you can't characterize Bluegill or myself as anything close to "Republican", Ms. Wisman. I will not vote for Mr. Cochran. Politics is perception, if nothing else. The perception he gave that night was...I'll put it this way. I felt bad for him and said so to some other members that night. I felt sorry for him and I cannot cast a vote for someone who performs in such a manner that I wanted to go up and give him a hug and tell him to just rest for awhile.
Marcey, sometimes a conflict of interest may be legal. That does not make it right. Just look at Connie Sipes. She is on the Health and Providers Service Standing Committee and four of her top ten contributors in 2006 were from PAC's in the medical field. IMPAC, Friends of Indiana Hospitals, Indiana Health Care Association and Indiana State Chiropracter's Association. Is she breaking the law? No. Is she creating a conflict of interest by putting the interest of the PAC's before her constituents? Seems that way. I think we should replace her in two years as well.
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/candidate.phtml?c=81688
And any Republican who also has 4 out of their top 10 PAC contibutors that are related to any committee they sit on.
I think that would create close to 100% turnover, don't you?
Well, I do believe in reform....How about throw the bums out? I am for it.
Post a Comment