The Frankie Coleman interpretations

Lots of pixels used up on Joe Hallet’s Sunday editorial in the Dispatch on Frankie Coleman. Here’s LisaRenee of Glass City Jungle’s take:

For me this is one of the key paragraphs:

Despite the excuses and mitigating factors, Mrs. Coleman’s hiring does not pass the smell test: It was cronyism, pure and simple. Politicians never seem to learn the peril in using state resources to take care of their friends.

Why do I feel that is a key paragraph? Because no one was even interviewed for this position, there was not even the fake pretense that we experienced here in Lucas County when the appointment was made for Judge James Ray’s seat that it was going to be a fair and open process not based on politics but qualifications. In this case, I repeat…no one else was even interviewed…As the Cleveland Plain Dealer put it Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher gave the wife of a powerful political ally a $70,000-a-year state job without a clear job description and without interview ing anyone else.

Makes sense to me. In a slightly similar vein, here’s bonobo at Blue Bexley:

Lee Fisher has known Frankie Coleman and considers her to be a friend. He knew she had a problem with alcohol. He knew she had a history of not showing up for work. He hired her anyway. Now why would he do a stupid thing like that? It certainly doesn’t seem to be for money or influence or any sort of quid pro quo, the usual suspects when a government official engages in politically hazardous hires.

I’ve got a guess.

I’m guessing, like the GOP blogger says, that he thought he could help. I’m guessing he thought a 9-5 job tailored to her exact qualifications would be what she needed to re-engage with the world of the sober. I’m guessing he saw in her the potential to really help the DoD if she got herself together. And I’m guessing that she played a big role in convincing him that all of that was true. I’m guessing that Lee ignored one of the most basic pieces of wisdom noted by many but by few so eloquently as William S. Burroughs: Never trust a junkie.

I’ve linked to that before. While I think that is the best possible spin you can put on Lee Fisher’s actions, it still amounts to cronyism, because what is cronyism but using power to help out friends?

More on the Hallett piece at Lincoln Logs:

But, after all that, Hallett comes to the right point. Frankie Coleman is fired and will face further consequences. But, this story isn’t over. Lee Fisher must answer for his actions, ignoring the problem, hiring-by-cronyism, ignoring the problem more, and defending the actions.

Buckeye State Blog liked the piece, [correction: BSB wrote about another Sunday Dispatch post] but Eric at Plunderbund thought it was contradictory:

Hallett spends 3/4 of his column in a very measured piece about Frankie Coleman and was particularly spot on when he noticed someting that us original reporting bloggers on the left have been saying for years now!

She did not deserve to be referred to by Ohio GOP Chairman Robert T. Bennett as someone of “questionable character.” She didn’t deserve the hate-filled, name-calling headline that always-angry Matt Naugle posted on his right-wing blog….

The last 4 paragraphs read like another column entirely spliced onto the one you were just reading. It is bizarre. In it, Frankie - who is established to be well qualified for the position - should not have been hired. Why? Cronyism.

So Hallett’s position is you can’t hire anyone you know who is well qualified for positions if you win an election. It’s funny how the winners claim the victors deserve the spoils while the losers claim cronyism.

But being qualified for a position and being hired due to cronyism are not mutually exclusive categories. As LisaRenee points out, no one else was interviewed for the position. There were no ads placed to solicit applicants. It was just, “let’s hire Frankie.”