Inspector General Confirms That Frankie Coleman Received Pay She DIdn't Earn and Lied to Investigators

Frankie Coleman, wife of the Columbus mayor and a long-time friend of Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher (D-Shaker Heights) who hired her for a $70,000 state job in February, has been found to have received pay for 56 hours over 13 work days when she was absent without permission, and to have initially lied to investigators about it. The city prosecutor's office is considering whether to bring charges, while Coleman is in a rehab facility outside the state after resigning from her position.

The Inspector General's report on Frankie Coleman is here, and coverage in the Columbus Dispatch is here. GOP leaders are screaming about corruption, cronyism, and theft. It is important to keep the whole thing in perspective by bearing in mind that the IG found that Coleman was qualified for the job, and that her supervisor was fired for reasons other than complaining about Coleman's absenteeism. Gov. Ted Strickland (D-New Lisbon) should get some credit for requesting the investigation immediately after allegations were reported in the Dispatch. However, this episode is unquestionably a black eye for Fisher, who hired Coleman with knowledge of her alcoholism and apparently did very little to keep tabs on her. The report criticizes Fisher specifically for failing to recognize that hiring Coleman was a mistake:

Coleman’s absenteeism is attributable to her alcohol dependency, for which she is now seeking treatment. It is equally attributable both to her failure to adhere to departmental policies pertaining to attendance and timekeeping and to DOD’s failure to properly communicate those policies to Coleman and then adequately supervise her in order to assure her compliance.

We also question the actions and conduct of Fisher and other DOD officials, who ignored or were oblivious to warning after warning that Coleman’s personal problems were interfering with her job duties. Her poor attendance while working for the transition team, Fisher’s observations about her drinking, her chronic absenteeism, her obviously incorrect timesheets, Haseley’s call on April 6 – all were red flags that Coleman’s hiring was a mistake, regardless of her qualifications.

Fisher has acknowledged errors occurred in the management of the department that he runs, and he accepts responsibility for such errors, as he should. However, the extent of the political damage will be determined by how effectively changes are implemented to make sure that there are no similar situations occurring and that appropriate personnel policies are in place and enforced in the future. Meanwhile, the episode is plainly a disappointment to supporters of this administration and to fans of Lee Fisher personally.

Interview with State Sen. Capri Cafaro

Yellow Dog Sammy: What I’m interested in is you as legislator and looking forward. The first thing I want to ask you is, having long been interested politics and public policy, and having been a candidate twice, how does it feel to be a legislator now that you’ve actually had a couple of months of doing it?

State Sen. Capri Cafaro: It’s been an exciting time and a great honor. I’ve really always believed that public policy is the best way to improve the lives of people and I’ve said that a lot. To finally have an opportunity to do it is exciting every day. And because I’ve run twice, I will never be complacent. If I ever get complacent, slap me around! [laughs]

You go in every day, you recognize the responsibility that you have, and there is a shift … it is different, obviously, than being a candidate. To do the job is different, because now you have to do what you said you were going to do, and you have to remember why you are there, and I try to do all those things every single day. Remembering not only the people of the 32nd Ohio Senate District, but the fact that we are making decisions that are going to affect the lives of 11 million people. So, it’s not about what’s right or wrong for me or for my party or for my political career, but what’s right of wrong for the people of the state of Ohio. And it’s exciting.

YDS: Are there things about the daily routine that surprise you?

CC: Not so far. I’ve been at a pretty rapid pace the last several years because of the campaign, so [I’m accustomed to] the kind of schedule that you keep, or at least that I have been keeping over the last several months, with several meetings [a day] and reading when I’m not at events or in session or in committee. The one thing that I will say is that I did actually expect things to start faster. I guess in my naïveté I assumed that [the day after I got sworn in] things would begin to happen, and that is certainly not how it worked out. But, it did give me tremendous opportunity to sit down and drill down into the state public policy issues. So I really tried to utilize that six weeks or whatever it was to sit and see what happened in the 126th General Assembly, meet with as many organizations, legislative liaisons, and agency people to see what people’s anticipation was for the 127th, and get myself acclimated. So I tried to utilize that time to the best of my ability.

I try to be home as much as I can, but I’ve been appointed to two committees that meet on Mondays and Thursdays. I’m on [the Joint Committee on Agency Rules and Regulations], and I’m also on the Rail Commission. JCARR is every other Monday, and the Rail Commission is one Thursday a month. So, depending on how it goes, my Mondays and Thursdays at home [are limited]. But, no matter what, I’m typically home by Thursday afternoons or early evenings.

YDS: From whom did you seek advice about being a legislator, and what’s the best advice that you got?

CC: That’s a really good question. There’s been a whole host of folks that I’ve talked to. As a legislator, and sort of getting to know the ropes, there are folks that I’ve known before, like Bob Hagan and Harry Meshel [a former Ohio Senate President] and whatnot, who have offered me advice. I mean, they’ve known me since I was a kid! As far as within the Senate caucus, the Democratic caucus, I seem to, when I have questions, ask Sen. Dale Miller. He’s really presented himself, in the short time that I’ve had the opportunity to get to know him, as one who is very measured, very thoughtful, very deliberative, and [he] spends a lot of time on his public policy methodology. He’s been around for a little while in the House and now in the Senate, so when it comes to procedural issues and other things that occur, plus he’s now the ranking Democrat] on [the] Finance [Committee], so he seems to be the one I go to on something obscure. He’s been very good as far as specific policy advice. Marc Dann has given me a lot of advice, as you probably can imagine.

YDS: He certainly knows the territory, too.

CC: Right. I have a lot of respect for Marc. He is a real visionary, I believe. And I think really took his job very seriously as state senator and has subsequently taken his job very seriously as attorney general, utilizing it in ways to really serve the people of Ohio. So I listen very carefully to the things that he took as legislative priorities. Some of it is a little different obviously because he comes form a legal background. While I might be focusing on Medicaid buy-ins, he was focusing on criminal justice issues and some other things, but I try to listen to him very closely as well. He’s given me some funny things. He tells me I talk too much. So. Which he’s right. He says, “If I have one piece of advice for you, it is shut the “f” up.” [laughs]

YDS: You were an intern for two U.S. Senators, Sen. Kennedy and Sen. D’Amato. What’s your take on Columbus versus the Hill?

I think it is very similar. I guess it’s similar because if you take your legislating job seriously, you’re going to approach it in the same manner, whether you are in the city council or in the United States Senate. So I think that the approach that you have as far as being an individual legislator, and I’m speaking from my own perspective, my actions in Columbus would be no different than my actions in Columbus as far as how I present myself. Now as far as the culture, if you will, it really is a microcosm of DC in that you have these events every single night.

Now I will tell you that I was absolutely amazed by the whirlwind of what had occurred literally just a half hour after I got the word that I had the appointment. And I was still in Columbus and they asked me to come over to the caucus room to cast the vote for our leadership. And I walk into the Statehouse … and meanwhile, I have never spent really any time in Columbus previous to my time there now in the legislature …I walk in and I get stopped by the Turnpike Commissioner. “Hi! I understand you just got appointed. Here is my card.” And subsequently that has happened … that evening I got like 45 cards from people at this one event, and it’s been like that. The way that the lobbying community, for better or worse … I mean, there are all kinds of lobbyists, the corporate lobbyists versus the association lobbyists, but the volume that you have I think is I’m sure a similar kind of training ground of interaction than what you would get in DC. Being down there and knowing the events that go on at the Democratic Club and the Capitol Club, and seeing that kind of interaction between special interests and the legislature, is the same kind of activity as what goes on.

Now, the challenge in Columbus is because of term limits. The institutional knowledge lies in the folks that have been there the longest, which are the lobbying community, the journalists, and those who have followed it through, so they always present themselves, “We’re here for you as a resource.”

YDS: Which brings up the fact that three of the four senators around you are also new. Touching your district, Jason Wilson, Tom Sawyer, John Boccieri … you’re all just starting out.

CC: Yeah! Well, John was in the House, so he knows a little bit more than I do. But, what I’ve also seen though is that in the House and the Senate do operate relatively differently. We coordinate, I think, traditionally, with our own legislative delegation, of our house members. So, if there is a specific issue, I’m always in constant contact with our House members in the region, just to say “You know, we want to try to do something concurrently, can we present it at the same time,” this kind of thing. But, we kind of operate in separate bubbles. And we see each other in the evenings, but there is this kind of … and the procedural rules, evidently, are all a little bit different, as well.

And then, like any legislative body, the upper and lower chamber, I mean when you come from being one of 99 to one of 33, I think there is a differentiating point. And we, in the Democratic Caucus, are a caucus of twelve. So it really is a very organic body, and it’s been interesting to me to translate my work in, interest and knowledge of public policy into practical application. And it’s one thing to know and to understand public policy and it’s another thing to be part of an organic legislative body. Again, speaking to the difference between being a candidate and being a legislator. But, none of that is a surprise to me, obviously.

YDS: I see that you’re on the Veterans Committee with John Boccieri. And Aging, Health and Human Services seems like a natural, since you had an early interest in women’s health, particularly the breast cancer area, and you’ve been doing work with the aging. So, do you see that as your special area of expertise?

CC: By virtue of my interest and experience, health care policy and aging policy will continue to be an area that I will focus on as a legislator. I will tell you, part of my advocacy for older adults probably arose because my grandmother had Alzheimers, so in the continuum of long term care, you start to see the gaps in the public policy, when you realize that Medicare doesn’t cover long-term care, that you don’t qualify for the Passport program due to income and asset limitations, what are your options … you know, adult day care, and the prescription drug coverage costs and everything else. As a result, this is when it really becomes exciting. And I say … it’s so cheesy … it’s like my heart soars when I get to do this kind of thing.

The Alzheimers Association came and they knew that I was someone obviously who had experience with older adults, but they made their little pitch about [a particular] line item, and I was like, “Look, you really don’t need to sell me on this!” I’ve lived it, and I’m so excited. They laughed. I was like almost in tears. I cannot believe that I actually have a chance to actually do this.

I co-sponsored in the Senate S.B. 4 an S.B. 5, which just passed. One is for Medicaid buy-in for the disabled, that would give individuals that were fearful of working too much and of losing their access to Medicaid coverage a opportunity to do so, because it increases the asset threshold and some of the income limitations. So it gives them an opportunity to buy into Medicaid and not lose that benefit. And I also co-sponsored a piece of legislation … and it was my first floor speech, actually, on Tuesday, to speak to S.B. 5 … that was presented through Senator Carey, the Chairman of the Finance Committee. I ended up co-sponsoring it. It pertains to the Passport program, and giving older adults who have been on the waiting list, in nursing homes, the opportunity to get into the Passport program. And it also makes some changes to the assisted living waiver that was implemented in July. So, if you’ve already been in assisted living six months prior to your application, now you have an opportunity to get into the assisted living program, because of various contingent parameters surrounding that waiver program. So, again, to actually have a chance to do something, in the ways that I had hoped, is exciting. Not to say that is always going to be that easy!

YDS: I want you to talk about your district a little bit. How would you characterize the 32nd, as distinguished from other districts? Also, it’s kind of interesting that it is a two part district. Most of the population is in the Mahoning Valley, but you also have that big rural area up in the corner [of the state].

CC: The 32nd District is like a microcosm of Ohio. It’s just a two-county district, Trumbull and Ashtabula counties. It has a larger city, which is where we are now, Warren, and it’s very much an urban city. It has got urban challenges, urban problems. A declining industrial base, for a whole host of reasons. So you have that, and you have some of the sort of traditional suburb areas of Liberty and Cortland and Howland that you might see as a Strongsville or North Royalton kind of place with a lot of retail and suburban sprawl. You have places like Girard that are an outgrowth of Youngstown where a lot of people lived [who were] working in the mills, right over the border from Mahoning County. And then you travel north, into some of the most rural area of northeast Ohio, all the way to the lake. And Ashtabula is very different from Trumbull County. I’ve had an opportunity to spend a lot of time up there, over the last couple of years.

YDS: Have you had George Distel’s pickles?

CC: I have not George Distel’s pickles. I don’t like pickles, though.

YDS: They’re killer.

CC: George Distel is the man, though.

YDS: He is a good guy.

CC: He is. He really believes in what he does. He is really involved in the community. This man is at everything, he is at every community event. And that’s another thing. Not to digress, but talking about the district, it’s great to be home because it gives me an opportunity to go to as many events as I can. That’s why I want to be home more than in Columbus, because I want to be out in the community. In previous campaigns I made that a point, that you have to serve like you run, run like you serve, and all the rest of it. You develop this reputation of being this prolific campaigner, at every single event. Now that I am actually a legislator, that doesn’t change. That’s actually even more important, because you have to give more access to the people you serve, because you really can make a difference. And, so George Distel makes his fish, that’s his fund-raising thing, Fish Fridays, you know. We were actually up there last Friday, we hit maybe three different fish frys, but I’m always in search of good macaroni and cheese. Maybe not pickles, but macaroni and cheese.

YDS: I’m not familiar with Warren, but I do know Youngstown somewhat. I was an adjunct professor at Youngstown State for five years, and something that I picked up on from my students, I mean you can’t miss it, is the bitterness and the cynicism about the economy and to some extent about government. I assume that Warren shares in that to some extent.

CC: It’s the Valley.

YDS: Is it changing? How do we address that? I mean, where do we go from here?

CC: That mentality is very deeply engrained in our culture. It’s got very deep roots. Because of the loss of jobs and the shift in the economy, there’s always been a sentiment that we’re going to be left behind. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

YDS: My students faced the conflict of “Do I escape, do I get out of here?” or “Do I stay here because of family ties?”

CC: It is hard. And a lot of people go and come back. It is part of our charge as legislative leadership to try to engage this problem. I think that we do have an opportunity to re-shift the focus of the Valley mentality, because we do have people in leadership now that don’t have the same sort of institutional knowledge/baggage if you will, because we’re just not old enough. We hear it by folklore than anything else. I’m 29 years old, I’ve only seen the bust and not the boom of the Mahoning Valley. But that’s why I got in to public policy, because I saw what happened and I believed that a lot of our legislative leadership didn’t engage in the way that they should.

That being said, between myself and John Boccieri, who I believe is not 40 yet, and Tim Ryan, who’s in his 30s, and Jay Williams, who’s in his 30s, we have an entirely new generation of leaders that will hopefully … and we all have a very good working relationship … can get together and try to shake up this valley, and embrace our assets, rather than our history of self-fulfilling prophecies, if you will. And we’ve seen it time and time again. We’ve seen it in the Youngstown-Warren Airport, and we’re seeing it a little in the negativity surrounding Forum Health. I’ve said this before, it concerns me. I’m very optimistic given how things are progressing with Forum Health.

Forum Health is one of the major [health care providers]. Trumbull Memorial Hospital here, Hillside Hospital. They’ve had some very significant financial difficulties, and to make an extraordinarily long story short, a very very long story short, they’re going to sell. But, it’s better than closing. And there’s just a lot of concerns because the people who are running Forum are not from the Valley, so there is this automatic assumption that if you’re not from here you must be against us.

And that’s not necessarily the case. I mean I think that both labor and management and the community at large really do have one objective and that’s to save the access to care and to save these jobs. They’re like the third largest employer in this area. And Northside Hospital, for example, that’s right on the border between Mahoning and Trumbull County, is a 65% Medicare-eligible facility. So, it serves an underserved population. It can’t afford to close. So, my concern is, there’s all this negativity surrounding personalities, and “if you’re not from the Valley then you must be against us,” and the last thing I want to see is us make ourselves look so unattractive to a buyer that nobody wants to buy. Because, we can be successful in this process.

And we’ve done this before. The thing is the Valley, there’s this sentiment that we’ve been wronged, at the same time, it sometimes translates into this tremendous unifying bond of hope, that we’re the only ones who can help ourselves, because nobody is going to help us. And, you see it in what they did with the BRAC [Defense Base Closure and Realignment] Commission, saving the airbase here. They put together a group called SOAR, within the community, to show the community support for the airbase, in the process of the BRAC Commission reorganization and restructuring. They did the same thing with GM, we worked with the Kobalt in 2003, and I anticipate we’ll do the same thing going into the 2009 cycle, as the Kobalt finishes its term and we’re looking for a new product line General Motors works on. So, we’ve proved that we can be positive, and be united, and get things done here.

I’d like to see us being more proactive in promoting our assets. Making [Youngstown State University] more of a research-based institution. I’m a big advocate when it comes to alternatives and renewables. I think it’s really one of the best ways that we can engage economic development through an entire continuum. And at some point, I’m going to work with some other folks who are really interested in this, on an omnibus energy package. I know that a lot of other folks in the caucus who are really interested.

YDS: Energy economy. Alternative energy, and also help the economy.

CC: Exactly. I mean, in our district we have such an ag economy, and an industrial base, it’s the perfect marriage. But you can’t just build ethanol, bio-diesel, coal gasification plants in a bubble. You have to spur the demand. I actually had a conference call yesterday with the GM E85 expert in Detroit, talking about some of the things that they have done, because they really are the leader in the production of flex-fuel vehicles, and they actually have forged partnerships with retailers to get the pumps into areas [and] make consumers aware of where the pumps are. So these are the kinds of things that we need to do. I have tried to put something forward to temporarily waive the sales tax on E85 flex engine vehicles in the state sales tax. It is not happening in this budget -- we had to take that off the table.

We also have to be very concerned about our revenue stream because of the Moody’s bond rating. It’s been downgraded to negative and a lot of it has to do with our revenues. If we further reduce our revenues, we further jeopardize our Moody’s bond rating, potentially increasing our debt service, and further reducing our GRF [General Revenue Fund], because we’re really bad this cycle. There’s been a lot of debate around that, particularly with some of the stuff on new construction. I’m the ranking member on the Highways and Transportation Committee, and that’s where all the action is right now. The transportation budget has been four hours of testimony in the last couple of days, and they’re doing some very, very interesting stuff.

I think our single greatest asset in this region is our transportation infrastructure, to be able to attract investment. We have the Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport, with a 6,000 foot runway, we have an existing rail infrastructure, we have Interstate 80, Interstate 90, deep-water ports in Ashtabula. So, it’s an obvious place for economic growth as long as we leverage it and position it and promote it in an appropriate manner. And that’s why I’m very excited, and really, really, really wanted to be, the ranking on Highways and Transportation, because I thought it was one of the best ways that I could have a seat at the table to serve this community better.

I subsequently was also appointed to the Rail Commission, as I think I mentioned. Rail spur access is going to be very important, and something we’ve talked about for years, and I’m hope we maybe will have a chance to get to at some point, at the Youngstown Warren Regional Airport, to help that be a cargo hub, too. So, the biggest thing going on with the transportation budget is the language that was put into the House version, that we’ve got in the Senate, that would set a challenging precedent on utilization of the CAT [Commercial Activity Tax] tax. Basically what was put into this [is] they want to utilize the CAT tax when the petroleum exemption goes out of effect and they start collecting July 1st, rather than have that go into the GRF, the proposal is to put it into the motor fuel tax fund, for utilization for highway construction. This is problematic on a multitude of levels. One being that the CAT tax is meant to be an activity tax rather than a commodity tax. So, what is the spirit of what the CAT tax does? The CAT tax is there to backfill the loss integral to the personal property tax phase out, which has a direct impact on local government funds, and their budgets dealing with everything from fire and ambulance to schools. But, they are held harmless for five years. So, if the CAT tax doesn’t do what it is supposed to do for the GRF – which is to backfill the PPT loss – leaving the potential 190.6 million dollar hole in the GRF, challenging the Governor’s budgetary projections, and then going back to the Moody’s thing, increasing the probability that Moody’s is going to continue to downgrade us because of our lost revenue, so to speak, and then that’s just going to cost us money with increased debt service. So, it’s a huge problem.

They did to take action in the House to try to strip this language on the floor. I’m going to try to do the same thing in committee. I’ve alerted the chairwoman that … we’ve had some preliminary discussion saying, look, I do intend to submit some amendments, they will be similar to the House. That’s basically all that I’ve said at this point. We a lot of discussion about this CAT tax issue. The Township Association came in, and the County Commissioner Association came in to testify to the challenge to the CAT tax. So, my anticipation is certainly [that] the purpose is more deliberative than the assumption that we are going to be able to actually strike it because the numbers just aren’t there.

YDS: Right.

CC: But, you know, Governor Strickland does have a line item veto power, and we’re veto-proof in the legislature now. While it’s scary, I don’t think it’s necessarily going to be implemented at the end of the day, at least that’s my hope, but we will certainly bring this to fruition in the debate in the committee and on the floor.

YDS: I wanted to ask you about JCARR. It seems to me that that’s a place where the friction between the party that controls the legislature and the party that controls the executive is going to be really apparent, because the agencies are part of the executive branch and this is where the legislature rides herd on their rule changing and so forth. How do you see that working out, or is it too early to say?

CC: It’s too early to say. I’ve only been to one JCARR meeting so far. Very early. I replaced Director Zurz, so after she received that appointment I filled her vacancy on JCARR. But I actually really wanted to be on JCARR. It came highly recommended by Zurz and by Hagan, who sat on it before, because it gives you a chance to interact with the agencies. But it seems too early to tell about the friction. That seems like a logical assumption, for sure, but a lot of it has to do with [the fact that] in JCARR you have four prongs to invalidate a rule or a portion of a rule, and one of them is legislative intent. So at the end of the day it kind of goes back to us.

It goes back to [us] anyway, because we cannot say these rules are bad. All we can say is we’re going to make a motion to invalidate, which brings it back to the General Assembly. The legislative intent gets passed off to these agencies to make their interpretations of the rules and we have to see, are they out of their scope, essentially. So, ultimately, it goes back to the legislative language that we gave the agencies, too. So I think that there is a little bit of a shared burden, if you will, in regards to this process. Now, it will be extraordinarily interesting to see [because] all the action is going to be in the JCARR on the 24th for the smoking ban rules.

YDS: Ah.

CC: Oh, I mean, that is an issue that actually raises eyebrows on both sides of the aisle, in general. The thing is, with the smoking ban rules, there’s a couple of challenges with it. One being the legislative intent, because it’s a ballot initiative. The legislative intent of a ballot initiative is precarious at best. You’re sort of stabbing in the dark with that. Sort of, “What did the voters think they were voting for?” But there are three big debates with this. One being, how far does the horrible “burning organic stuff” or whatever language go. There’s been concerns about wood-burning fires and pizza ovens, there’s been concerns with candles and cotton wicks.

YDS: Oh my gosh.

CC: This kind of expansive language needs to be hemmed back in. Then there’s the issue of the membership clubs, such as the VFWs, who believe that they were exempted. Obviously the language is very proscriptive and it says “paid or unpaid” staff, so it doesn’t matter if you’re volunteers, it doesn’t matter if you’re a membership organization. So, from a rule-making standpoint, you can’t just invalidate a rule because you don’t like it. It’s very proscriptive now because it is statutory.

We can change it, and I have some problems with the private club stuff, and might potentially go forward and try to make some statutory changes to actually help those VFWs and American Legions and whatnot. And the third thing is the issue pertaining to enforcement. Because, I know there’s a lot of us … Grendell is on it, and Niehaus is on it … I’ve raised some concerns that this is really the case, that you see the sign and you can make an anonymous call to report a violation, so you now you basically get fined or penalized with an anonymous tip, with no real evidence. So I think there’s this problematic precedent that’s set. How can you be convicted of a crime when nobody sees it, nobody know who did it, nobody knows when it happened. There’s no process. Now, it’s one thing to trigger an investigation, it’s another thing to say that you’re going to get penalized by this anonymous call. So I think that has raised questions, and I’ve received conflicting statements on whether that’s true. But, that’s a concern.

So, I’ve learned in this process [that] I’m a civil libertarian to a fault, and I don’t know if that makes me really liberal or really conservative!

YDS: Yeah, it’s hard to say on that.

CC: Because I really believe in protecting individual freedoms, and individuals’ abilities to make their own decisions. Whether or not they want to eat trans-fats, or something bad. Eat Ho-Hos, or whatever. And I understand the workplace issue, having a safe and healthy workplace, but at the same time … particularly in membership clubs where you’re an adult and you’re paying for membership and you know what you are getting yourself into, it seems to me that that might be an area that needs a second [look].

YDS: I wanted you to say a word or two about the budget. You probably knew something in advance about it?

CC: We actually didn’t.

YDS: To me it was a big shock. And trying to decide why, I first thought, well, I expected him to try to not swing for the fences because he’s got to deal with a legislature controlled by the other party so he would make modest proposals. Instead, they are very dramatic proposals.

CC: They’re very dramatic!

YDS: And the second thing is, Ken Blackwell ran against him mostly by saying he doesn’t have innovative ideas, where are his specific plans, and suddenly he shows his hand and it is VERY innovative.

CC: We were just shocked. Not shocked because we didn’t think he had it in him, but shocked by the expansiveness of it. I mean, we knew some of the stuff that was potentially coming in, and a lot of it was laid out in framework in the Turnaround Ohio plan. Subsequently though he came forward with very specific ways of implementation. And the thing that I give him the most credit on, is the fact that he has done it in a way that is not [raising] our spending. [It has] I think the smallest amount of spending growth that we’ve seen in years. He said it was 2.2%, which is the least of what we’ve seen in 35 years, if I recall the speech correctly. That is impressive, and the amount of fiscal discipline that that had to take. I think everybody, Democrat or Republican, has to give him credit there.

YDS: Yes. I should think so. We haven’t heard from the Republicans yet, but I should think so.

CC: But there’s … “game on.” There’s no question, “game on.” But I’m trying to develop good relationships with groups on both sides of the aisle, and we all understand that it’s a different world and we have to find some level of consensus and common ground. And I think hopefully the legislative process and subsequently our policy-making will be better because of that level of necessity for engaged discourse.

YDS: Are there parts of the budget that are going to be of particular concern to this district? I’m thinking of the fact that you are on a state border and the sales tax on cars can’t be making the car dealerships happy, and also you’ve got a lot of schools and this tuition freeze thing has got to be …

CC: Right. I talked about that, yeah, in the Vindicator, I think. The tuition freeze thing is I think going to be great. The alternative energy stuff I hope as an impact on our district. The job training stuff I think is going to impact. The Passport stuff. All of these things are going to have a pretty significant impact on this area. Again, being kind of a microcosm of Ohio. I’ll tell you, I think the EdChoice vouchers program …

YDS: What do you think of that?

CC: I’m amazed. The voucher and charter school moratorium thing will be the most challenging to get through the legislature. A lot of the other things ware going to be … I won’t say easy, but will be given … I think everything will be given fair deliberative consideration. I’m hopefully putting some faith in my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to give fair consideration to everything and to give everything its day in hearings in committee and whatnot. I think that the charter school moratorium and the voucher elimination – the elimination of the EdChoice program – will be the most difficult to get through because of the numbers of the legislature and because of the traditional support that the Republicans have given to public schools. That’s going to be the biggest challenge.

That being said, the EdChoice voucher program is going to have a direct impact on school districts all around this area. Liberty schools, for example, are in continuous improvement. What they did at the end of the lame duck was subsequently move the EdChoice program from not just academic emergency/academic watch but expanded it to continuous improvement. And what has happened, at least in our area, is it has become kind of an epidemic recently, parents are enrolling their kids for a week, and then they are taking the money and going to parochial school or another school. And the catch here is you can be enrolled for a week but they don’t have access to that money for the next twelve years, in theory. So we need to put forth something that basically would tighten it up, and so you have to be in for two years before you can be able to take it, and you can only get the money for the life of the building.

I almost fell out of my chair when he said, “We’re eliminating the EdChoice voucher program.” Oh my God! This is going to have a direct impact on our district – a couple of our districts through Trumbull and Ashtabula – because of the whole continuous improvement situation, are being directly impacted by it. And in some of the discussions I was having yesterday with some of folks in Columbus, the charter school issue – I mean, in this county in particular – the numbers are amazing. Out of the foundation formula, if you will, that comes from the state, the state money into the local school districts. In the City of Warren, for example, 11% of that state money goes to the charter schools -- community schools.

YDS: Wow.

CC: That’s huge. So, it’s going to have a significant impact. The homestead tax relief, one out of four homeowners? That’s going to be huge, for so many reasons. First of all, we do have one of the most rapidly aging populations in the state …

YDS: Here in this area? I guessed that. It seemed that way.

CC: Particularly the oldest old.

YDS: In terms of working across the aisle, all three of the [state] rep[resentatives] in your district are now Democrats, thanks to Tom Letson replacing Randy Law. But part of your district is in Steve LaTourette’s Congressional district, and you ran against him. Is it on your to-do list to develop a working relationship with him?

CC: Actually, I did it, previous to this. I actually really wanted to have the opportunity to bury the hatchet, if you will, with Steve, and did so in October.

YDS: What happened?

CC: I had asked somebody I knew that is a Republican to see whether or not I would have an opportunity to have dinner with Steve and did. We have subsequently developed a working relationship. I talked to Dino in his office in Painesville at least once a month. I probably will see Steve on Saturday at something in Ashtabula on alternative energy. And because I sit on Transportation, and he’s on Transportation, they’ve been a great resource. So, we certainly recognize that there’s the necessity to work together for the betterment of our mutual constituencies. I have a lot of respect for Steve. The guy is bright, he understands the system, and is definitely one of the most effective legislators when it comes to securing federal dollars for the purposes of transportation. He did an excellent job on the floods we had last July, particularly as subcommittee chair for FEMA, so you’ve got to give credit where credit is due. And particularly in that area of transportation infrastructure, he has really proven that. And he has also proven to be a leader who is not afraid to buck his party, which I respect. So, yeah, I look forward to continuing to work with Steve.

YDS: What do you gotta do to keep this seat, in two years?

CC: Do a good job! That is my hope. It’s about doing my job.

YDS: Is it about getting acquainted with the people? Is this about visibility and casework? Or are you seeing it more in terms of results on the floor?

CC: I think it’s all of it. To do a good job isn’t to be a legislator in a bubble in Columbus, presenting public policy in a vacuum, nor is it just doing things to get visible. I guess I am not a politician in that regard. I am not the kind of person who just looks for big hits, to get myself in the paper. I’m not the kind of person that just wants to be in the right place at the right time. It’s about doing what’s right, and what’s right is being available to the community, holding the town hall meetings as I always said that I would do, to engage the people in the political process. We just had one with 250 people on the issue of septic system problems, which is huge in this county.

It’s about engaging the public in a participatory legislative process, being accessible at home, hearing their concerns, doing the best to implement them. I don’t think anyone expects, nor do I purport, that we’re going to be able to solve all of this area’s or the State of Ohio’s challenges in the next year and nine months, but it’s about putting forth an innovative effort and doing your best. And I think that exhibiting that leadership, that kind of accessibility, that effort from the legislative standpoint, is part of helping continue to do this job, for 2008 and beyond.

YDS: Thank you.

CC: Absolutely. Thank you!

OH-16: Boccieri (D) Declares for Congress

State Sen. John Boccieri thanks the crowd as he begins his remarks.
About 100 people gathered on a bright sunny afternoon in a small North Canton municipal park, across the street from the big brick Hoover vacuum factory that is doomed to close later this year, to support State Sen. John Boccieri (D-New Middletown) as he launched his campaign for the 16th Ohio Congressional District seat of 83-year-old Rep. Ralph Regula (R-Navarre). There were many party officials, lawmakers, labor leaders, and veterans in the throng. The master of ceremonies was Stark County Democratic Chair Johnny Maier, who introduced the party chairs of the other counties in the district and pointedly remarked that is it "significant" that they were all present "in unity, to show their support." Maier then introduced North Canton Mayor David Held, who welcomed the crowd and praised Gov. Strickland for his "bipartisan approach" and "availability and responsiveness."

Treasurer Rich Cordray and Gov. Ted Strickland joined in supporting the candidate. Campaign treasurer State Rep. Mark Okey is visible in the background.

Maier returned to note the significance of the location, given the "sad story" of the closing of the Hoover plant, which is "very symbolic of what is going on in this country today under the failed policies of the leadership of this country," with "jobs moving out and workers being left behind." He then introduced Treasurer Rich Cordray, with whom Maier once served in the Ohio General Assembly. Cordray said that as his legislative intern, Boccieri was "one of the finest young men I had ever met" and absolutely dependable, reliable, and true to his word. Boccieri was "the kind of person who if you could pick them out and work with them all life long you would do it," and it makes Cordray proud to say that he was one of Boccieri's mentors. Boccieri will make "the finest Congressman that you could have," having proved himself not only as a legislator but serving multiple tours of duty in Iraq, "when people depend on you not only for the success of the mission, not only for their safety, but for their very lives, and John does not let people down."

Boccieri shakes hands with Stark County Democratic Chair Johnny Maier immediately after speaking. State Sen. Capri Cafaro is between and a little behind them.
Strickland noted the Mayor's praise for his bipartisanship in getting things done for Ohio, and said that Americans increasingly want a Congress that "will act to get things done for America." He said that he had started the day by attending the funeral of a 21-year-old from Tuscarawas County killed during his second tour of duty in Iraq. He related the funeral to Boccieri's candidacy by saying that "we must make sure that our men and women who are fighting this war are equipped with everything that can be given to them to keep them as safe as possible," and that they "are given everything they need to readjust and reenter as they return to this country." Boccieri will "go to the Congress with a special sensitivity to those needs because he is one of them." Strickland also noted that he had visited a medical clinic that day, where he heard about the struggles of Stark County residents with health care expenses, and said that Boccieri will fight for those folks. "I love John Boccieri as a brother," the governor and former Congressman said, "I have urged him for quite some time to seek Congressional office."

Strickland said that Boccieri is in his judgment "the perfect Congressional candidate," because he deeply cares about his community, is devoted to his family, loves his church, and has served his country. He told of visiting the Boccieri family the day of his fourth and most recent deployment, and watching the C-130 military transport depart. "John Boccieri deserves our support for this office," Strickland said. "He has paid the price. And in this community and in this district, whether you are black or white, rich or poor, Republican or Democrat, you will be proud to have John Boccieri as your representative in the United States Congress."

Boccieri pumps a fist to the crowd as he hugs Wayne County Democratic Chair Jean Mohr.
Boccieri thanked Strickland for being his mentor and giving him the "attitudes, values, and beliefs" that he will carry to Congress, and said that it was an honor to have Cordray present. He recalled dropping to his knee in the barracks after a dangerous mission in Iraq and saying a prayer that what they were doing was worth fighting for, and that "this process, this government, and the American way of life" are worth the lives of the injured and fallen. It only takes one step outside the nation, he said, to see that it is worth fighting for. He acknowledged his family and parents, present at the event, and recalled their teaching him that "to whom much is given, much is expected." Boccieri said that he has taken those words to heart more than ever, and that his pride in this country and the story of his grandparents' emigration to this country seeking a better life has motivated him to run for Congress. "My family like yours is fitted with something special," he said. "It has a spirit about it, an American spirit."

Boccieri then said that his family's story and the American spirit is in jeopardy due to "very bad decisions in Washington." Like many Ohioans, Boccieri is concerned that this country is headed in the wrong direction. Unfair trade agreements and the resulting loss of jobs "are costing us the dream that my grandparents emigrated to this great country for." Boccieri said that he "hears people who say that we spending too much time abroad, fighting a civil war in Iraq, when we need to focus on the problems so much closer to home." The Hoover factory behind him represents "the policies of the past, decisions that have been made that cost us a little of who we are," he continued, referring by name to workers whose families will suffer because of the closing of the plant. "I know that we can provide more security for our workers, more security for our borders, and more security for our returning veterans," he said, "if only we had a Congressman that put America first. I want to be that Congressman." He called for putting aside party politics and "solving the real problems that face our nation and our families." Denouncing the defining of the country as red states and blue states, he said "we are all Americans" and called on the president to "sit down with the leadership in Washington and find an American solution" to the conflict in Iraq. We "must demand from this administration that we bring our troops home safely, honorably and soon."

"Is it too much to ask," he queried, "for a Congressman who demands that if our soldiers are wounded in battle, they have every medical condition covered," and that our troops are properly trained and equipped and cared for on their return? Boccieri promised that when he goes to Washington he will fight for "the things that matter most" to Americans and to Ohioans, which are fair and free trade, a living wage, and protecting jobs from leaving the country. From his parents' teaching, Boccieri said, he will say in the campaign that "what lies behind us and what lies in front of us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us," and as Americans "we will have an answer to all the dilemmas that are in front of us."

AUDIO - Boccieri Congressional Campaign Kickoff

I have uploaded the audio of the entire program from yesterday's launch of the Congressional campaign of State Sen. John Boccieri (D-New Middletown). This is a 3.16 MB file and is just over 27 minutes:

Boccieri.mp3

Speaking in the audio are Stark County Democratic Chair Johnny Maier, State Treasurer Rich Cordray (D-Grove City), Gov. Ted Strickland (D-New Lisbon), and Boccieri.

VIDEO - Boccieri Congressional Campaign Kickoff

In the first video clip, Ohio State Treasurer Rich Cordray speaks about his former legislative intern, State Sen. John Boccieri, and master of ceremonies Democratic County Party Chair Johnny Maier follows with some praise of his own:



In the second clip, Maier introduces Gov. Ted Strickland, who speaks about Ohio and about his friend and protege Boccieri:



This is Part One of Boccieri's remarks:



This is Part Two of Boccieri's remarks:

My Interview with Connie Schultz About Marriage, Campaigning, and Putting It All in a Book (Part Two)

This is the second and final part of my interview with Connie Schultz about her new book on spouse Sherrod Brown's 2006 Senate campaign. The first half of the interview is here.

Yellow Dog Sammy: The morning after the election, Sherrod had a press conference and he was asked what was the turning point in this race. He gave two [turning points], and one of them was when you and he made the decision, in the very beginning, that the two of you were going to be true to yourselves, and not “move to a mushy middle …”

Connie Schultz: Right. We were going to be progressives, running a progressive race in Ohio.

YDS: Tell me about that. When did that happen, how did that …

CS: Well, it’s a pivotal scene in the book, as you can imagine. Because I really resisted, as I said, his running. I was really scared about what it would do to us. I was scared as well what it was going to do to him. I was scared about my career. So, I was having discussions with people who are very close to me. Understand that those who were close to me as well as Sherrod also had real concerns about his running. But there was real pressure on Sherrod from [then Senate Minority Leader Sen.] Harry Reid and [Democratic Senate Campaign Committee Chairperson Sen.] Chuck Schumer. They wanted him to decide in July. That’s the thing that a lot people who supported Hackett don’t understand. Sherrod wasn’t saying that he was not going to run ever, he was saying, “If you need to know in July, the answer is ‘No,’ because we’re just not ready yet.”

And Sherrod’s family really wanted him to run. They’re a political family. This is what they do, they care deeply about the country, and this is the way that they express it. They get involved in these races.

We moved [that summer]. We were in two separate homes, because my daughter was a senior in high school and I did not want to uproot her more than her life was already changing. So we waited until she graduated in June of 2005 to move. … At that point we thought we needed to move to Sherrod’s Congressional district. And so there was an awful lot of change going on, if you can imagine. My daughter leaves for school, I move out of Shaker [Heights] where I know everyone in my community, to a development [which is] the first all-white neighborhood I’ve lived in in my life. And we picked it because it was close to the freeway. And, my daughter changed schools really quickly, it wasn’t working where she first went, so we had that going on.

The thing is, though, we moved into a really nice house. And I remember Sherrod saying, “I haven’t had a house like this since I grew up.” And I said, “I have NEVER had a house like this.” … I remember just standing one day in what they call the “Great Room,” and we had just built floor-to-ceiling bookcases, because we have 4,000 books and there were no bookshelves in the house. And Sherrod and I started talking about how we were really risking getting too comfortable. We had not worked this hard to stop working. And, I had a very generous book deal already, the first one. Things were going well.

And then … this sounds so corny … we watched the first two episodes of season two of [NBC drama series] “The West Wing.” I loved West Wing. Sherrod always says they talk too fast, so he never watched it. Besides, he could always see the errors. Are you a West Wing fan?

YDS: Oh, yeah!

CS: Do you remember, this was where they get shot, and they flash back to when they first decided to run. And there’s this scene where [First Lady Abigail Bartlet, played by] Stockard Channing, yells at Josh [Lyman, played by Bradley Whitford], because [President Jed Bartlet’s] not ready yet, he’ll get there but he’s not ready yet. And that’s what part of what the problem [was] for Sherrod, he wasn’t ready yet. You know, it’s kind of like having kids, you’re never completely ready. But you’ve got to make the leap. And we sat and we watched it, and at the end of the second episode Martin Sheen’s character [Jed Bartlet] turns to Josh after Josh had just found out that his father died … and [Bartlet] had been so brutal with the staff, he had been just irritable, because he wasn’t ready. And, I had seen that in Sherrod.

And I looked at him when it was over, and I said, “You’ve got to run, don’t you?” And he said, “I really think I do,” and I said “I think you do, too.” And that’s how it happened. And we thought, “Whew! Everything’s good now!” [Laughter.] It was just beginning. We did not know what [was about to happen]. [Sherrod] called, you know, Paul Hackett, right away. And Paul had not announced yet.

YDS: Oh.

CS: Which people seem to forget sometimes, but Paul had not announced. He was saying that he was going to, and Sherrod said, “I wanted to let you know, I’m going [to run].”

YDS: The part about, “we are who we are …”

CS: Well, and that discussion is what we had then. We said, here are the conditions. You’re going to be the progressive that you’ve always been or you’re not running. We both agreed to this. We’re both progressives. We believe that we speak for the majority of the people in Ohio. Because, as progressives, we really fight for working men and women. That’s one of the things Sherrod and I always had in common, that’s one of the reasons why we fell in love in the first place. It’s our shared values. And, we weren’t going to go to the middle.

And, number two, we were going to fight back. Whenever the Karl Rove machine kicked in, and we knew it would – and we knew that Mike DeWine had a history of really ugly campaigning because of what he did to John Glenn – when that happened, we were going to fight back. We weren’t going to wait. We weren’t going let happen to Sherrod what happened to John Kerry.

We were going to run an 88 county race. That was the other thing that we decided. Because John Kerry … you know, that campaign in Ohio stayed out of a whole bunch of the counties down in Appalachia. We were going to run an 88 county campaign and we were going to have coordinators in every single county, and we were going to campaign in every county. And we did.

YDS: Did you personally get into all 88, do you think?

CS: I got into 66, I think, they figured out. And I don’t know about Sherrod. I think between the two of us, we got into almost every single one of them. … They always had somebody, a family member or somebody. Some Brown family member got to all counties.

Then we decided that … another thing we were going to do is … we decided that we weren’t going to be split up all the time. We were going to have time together. We weren’t going to have much down time, but we were going to have time together. And, that WE would steer that ship. That we would not let consultants, schedulers, anybody trying to manage us, decide they were going to manage our marriage as well. And then Sherrod made one more promise. Whenever I saw him he’d still make my coffee. [Laughter.] And it wasn’t a deal-breaker, but it really helped, and he did. Whenever he was home, he made my coffee in the morning.

We really worked hard to sleep at home, whenever we possibly could. Instead of in a hotel. Sherrod did better, in his home. We have the pets. You have your dogs, we have our dog and cats. And it just helped.

Does that explain that for you? I mean, it all happened that night. That was a very long night for us. But you could just feel the burden lift. I mean we knew how hard it was going to be. Sherrod did not want to believe I would have to leave my job until I felt like leaving my job, just to go campaign. As in, “It’s going to happen sooner than you think.” It was a source of real tension for us. Because he believed in me, and my standards. He didn’t want to think anything could force me out sooner. But, I just felt circumstances were such that I had to.

YDS: You mentioned that you have strong political views.

CS: Mm hmm.

YDS: I have two questions about that. One is, did you feel like they changed at all, as a result of traveling all over the state, talking to lots of people, talking to lots of politicians. And the other is, are you and Sherrod uniformly of the same view on things, or are there flash points where you disagree?

CS: I grew up – I say this in the book – we had Jack and Jesus on the same wall. JFK and Jesus, portraits, on the wall. I grew up in a Democrat’s house. And we weren’t even Catholic! But Dad didn’t care, because, you know ... it didn’t matter. Because he was for the working guy. … I grew up in a different way than Sherrod in that way. The union was our politics. That you fight for the union. The union was the reason we could go to college, that my Dad could afford to health care. So it was a union mentality.

So, what changed I think a little bit … I think probably the better way of saying it is I became more aware. Part of it is Dad dying when he did. It changed how I felt on the road. Because they were sending me down to a lot of small towns with working class [people] – the Home Town Tour, they called it. And I had this moment, right after Dad died. … [T]here’s a big deal often made about my name and how I haven’t changed it. And this man, older man, introduced me to a room of about 150 people down in southern Ohio as a woman who refused to change her name and she became Sherrod Brown’s wife and she’s going to speak to us. And I’d really had it. So I got up and I said, “You know, he’s right, I didn’t change my name, and I’m going to explain a couple of things to you.” And I told them how I’d just gotten married, recently, and we both agreed [about my name]. I said, “Now let tell you about my parents.” So I talked about my mother, who died at 62. She was a hospice home care provider, a nurse’s aide. And I talked about my Dad, [who] just died of a heart attack at age 69, worked for 36 years in a factory job, nearly every day of his life. And I said, “Both my parents wore their bodies out, so I would never have to. So I’m really proud of the name ‘Schultz.’ I’m really very proud of what I come from.” And the man came up, and he had tears in his eyes, and he said “I think Schultz is a wonderful name, and I don’t think you should ever change your name.”

But it changed how I approached the campaign. It made me far more aware of my roots than I had been before. … I really do speak the same language as these people because I grew up with that, and it was something to be really proud of. And here’s the thing. Sherrod Brown, the guy I married? I married him in part because he’s been fighting for the people I come from his entire career. And that really changed how I spoke on the campaign trail. Forget the talking points. [However,] I needed the policy statements. One of the challenges for me as a spouse was, most spouses don’t talk policy. But I was a newspaper columnist. Nobody was going to believe that suddenly I just went blank on policy. So I had to really understand policy.

The only thing that Sherrod and I really disagree on is the flag burning amendment. And, I’ve been very clear with anybody who’s ever asked about it. You know, he’s very sensitive to veterans, and how they feel about the flag. I feel very strongly about the First Amendment. I’m a purist about that. So there you have it! We agree to disagree. …

[Also,] I’m less partisan than Sherrod. It’s probably the journalist in me. I’m always looking for the bridges. Especially the columnist in me, I’m always looking for the bridges. I want to get people to listen to what I have to say.

YDS: Well, specifically the thing that was hard for me was when Sherrod voted for the Military Commissions Act late in the campaign. And, I’ve heard his explanation, that the process had to move forward …

CS: He regrets the vote. He’ll tell you that. Frankly, … he should have thought it through himself instead of relying on the advice he got. So much was going on in the campaign. [Still,] I agree with him that if [Congress] hadn’t passed [the Millitary Commissions Act], then [the detainees] would have just languished for two more years with nothing. And the thing that convinced him is that the soldiers were telling him, “Look, it’s the same standard we’re held to for court martial, and why should they have any higher standard than we get?” But, he regrets the vote. And he’ll tell you that. He wishes that he hadn’t.

YDS: Did you talk about it before it happened, or …?

CS: No. The thing is, I really don’t think he was as knowledgeable as he could have been on it. And he knows that now, I mean. No. None of us were. I’m usually pretty aware of the stuff he’s got coming up. In part because as a columnist I always wanted to make sure that I wasn’t accidentally writing about something that he was going to be voting on. In general I have to be really careful.

I’m not going to blame anyone else, because, bottom line, the responsibility, you know, is with Sherrod, but it wasn’t the best advice.

YDS: I should ask him that.

CS: You should.

YDS: How about campaigning, did it teach you anything about yourself?

CS: I think it taught me that I’m really meant to be a writer. [Laughter.] People keep saying to me, “Did you enjoy it?” No! I enjoyed parts of it. But, I’m not a crowd [person]. I don’t mind giving speeches. But, it’s people taking pictures of you. I just joked the other day, I’ve never had so many bad pictures of me posted on the internet. I’m not comfortable in front of the camera. I don’t like people coming and … and they’ll say, like, “Oh wait, I’ve touched her hair. It’s hers! That’s her hair!” That’s just kind of weird! [Laughter.]

YDS: I’ve never campaigned, but I did work in retail, for a while, when I was very young. And the worst part was having to smile all the time, even when you’re not in a good mood.

CS: Yeah. Yeah. Well, and I’m told that I didn’t always pull that off very well. There was this one moment when a woman came up to me. It was the sixth or seventh event of the night. And, I have chronic asthma. Most people don’t know that. I take regular meds, and I’m really affected by heat and humidity. So I’m down in southern Ohio and this woman comes up to me and she kinda … she just does this to me [adjusting hair] and she says, “Can I give you a little advice?” And I said, “No!” [laughter] And I heard all this talk around me, people saying, “She’s had a very long day, and she’s been …” And I’m like, “No! I don’t want your advice about how I look!”

But you know what most got to me about campaigning? It’s all the suffering that was out there. And all the hope they were investing in Sherrod. It was so sobering. …You mentioned the day after the election, that news conference. When Sherrod got up that morning, I said, “How’re you feeling?” And he says, “Overwhelmed.” Because we knew what it meant. Now the work begins. … I didn’t go down with him [to the press conference] because we had been photographed together a lot that night, I wanted him to just go down and do his thing. And he came back up and we talked about it a little bit and he said, “We had more down there than I expected.” He hadn’t expected so many reporters. Isn’t that funny? We did not know how much life had changed immediately. Because he had just been elected to the Senate. We had no idea. We’re still adjusting to what it all means.

Um, so, [about] watching people suffer. [There was] this moment [when] we were in a room, and all these people … [Are you] near-sighted? Oh, you’re far-sighted. I’m near-sighted, with contacts. When I have glasses on, they’re really thin lenses, [even though] I have really bad eyes. I didn’t know that I have really thin lenses because I can afford the better glasses. [But] we went into a room, full of people, our age, and they all had these really thick glasses on, because they don’t have any money. And, they weren’t asking for second homes, they’re asking Sherrod, “How did I lose my pension? How did this happen, that I could have lost my pension?” And they’re trying to figure out [things like] how much of her insulin she can survive on. And, you know, you’re having these kinds of conversations with people, you can’t leave that. It just hangs with you. At least now I can talk about it without tearing up, because at times I would think about it and … Sherrod and I both would just …

People have no idea how much this affects you, if you care about it. And I don’t want anybody’s sympathy, I don’t mean that, it’s just you think of campaigning as rallies and polls and research. It’s all of that. But it’s these moments when you realize how much hope they’re investing in you. And like the war in Iraq, you know, look at what Bush is doing, despite what everyone is saying that they want. And Sherrod, it’s just bringing him down, because he voted against this war.

You know, we started dating when I was writing against the war and he [had] just voted against the war. That was one of the things we really had in common, by the way. But what do you do then, if you’ve got a president who’s so belligerent? You start paving the way for 2008. You’ve really, really got to figure out how you are going to change the direction of the country. You’ve got to change it from the top.

YDS: That was in 2003, right? I love the story [in the first book], about [Sherrod’s] email comparing you to Barbara Kingsolver.

CS: What a suck-up! And he denies it was, but swear to God it was. [laughter] He always says, “Well, it worked, didn’t it?”

YDS: Well, you rubbed elbows with politicians a lot. Like, you did the statewide tour with the statewide candidates. Did your view of politicians change at all, over the course of this?

CS: I’d never been very cynical about politicians. But, that probably is in part because I interned in ‘79 with Mo Udall. So I thought they were all like him! Ah!

YDS: “Second Place Mo.”

CS: Yes. Poor Mo. But he was such a good progressive, and he worked so hard. And I saw a lot of members who worked really hard.

YDS: I loved him.

CS: Well, I did too.

YDS: His best line was, “The only cure for presidential ambitions is embalming fluid.”

CS: [laughter] I’m in a profession that is so cynical about politicians, as you know. And I’m not a cynical person, so that’s probably part of it. But, I’ve also seen really hard [workers]. But I see a lot of people get in politics because they want the attention. They’re not all [like] that. But I meet so many who do care. … It’s like any other profession, Jeff, you meet those who really mean what they say and they work hard, and those who have all kinds of ulterior motives, and you learn to tell the difference between those two. … Sherrod has always said that he could never get way with that kind of stuff anyway because there I am, and I’m just looking at him like this and he just knows … don’t even try! [laughter]

YDS: How about your colleagues – journalists. Did the experience make you look at journalists differently?

CS: I’ve said this before. There were moments I was really proud to be a journalist, watching journalists do their job, and then there were moments that made me crazy. Um … I’m sorry to say this because you are a middle aged white man and I have nothing against middle aged white men. I was stunned, though, to see how politics is being covered mostly by middle aged white men, who have been doing it for too long. They’ve become very cynical. On Sherrod’s announcement tour, I think we saw two women, total.

Two reporters on the Columbus paper, [had] this theme that Sherrod is an “angry man.” And I didn’t know where they [got that]. He isn’t an angry man! I didn’t know where they were coming from. He’s angry about the state of the nation, but he’s not an angry person. And it finally dawned on me as I was watching some of these guys and how cynical they were toward Sherrod and how they were hammering him on stuff and I said to Sherrod, “You know what? You’re the same age as a lot of these guys. They could never imagine doing this with their lives. Giving up a safe House seat, a job you love, risking it all, to run for an office that most people think [you] can’t win.” [So the reporters think,] “He must have an ulterior motive! It can’t be because he cares about the country.” And once I figured that out, it kind of freed me.

[T]here’s such a difference [between] male reporters who called me, as opposed to women reporters who called me, often. Not all of them. Like Peter Selvin of the Wahington Post – I loved him. He started following us around and he said, “Wow! You’ve really given up a lot. I think you’re a story.” But some of these guys, their anger thing!

I got Sherrod a ping pong table for our anniversary, because he needed to work off stress. And I said, I will put it in the living room for the duration of the campaign. … And we’d play a lot. So this reporter asked, “What, do you guys get up, run off a lot of steam?” And I said, “Well, you know, we get home at midnight sometimes, we’re really kind of wound up, and we just play and we talk, [and] we work things out.” They led the story with this whole scenario that’s never happened. “He thinks about Iraq. Bam! He hits the [ping pong ball]. He thinks about Medicare Part B. Bam!” I thought, where did they get this? [laughter]

YDS: Docudrama.

CS: I never said this! And it was just interesting to watch. Overall, I thought the Plain Dealer – their coverage is what I watched most closely – was very fair. After I left. I did not think they were fair when I was there, and they know that. [It was] part of the reason I left. [Such as,] the plagiarism thing [i.e., a letter sent by Brown to DeWine criticizing Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito parroted language posted on DailyKos.com by blogger Nathan Newman]. They were the only ones who bit on that. You know, four stories on it before it was over, in a week, and I thought, “Okay.”

YDS: This was a staff member wrote something …

CS: Took a blogger’s thing. With the blogger’s permission. But, Sherrod knew nothing about it. He never blamed staff, he never did. But they said he did. And it’s not true.

YDS: That happened and at the time I knew all about it, and I just [had forgotten the details] …

CS: Yeah. Well, I can’t forget it because there was a cartoon that compared him to Nixon, and he was compared again to Nixon again by somebody who had been a family friend for twenty years. So, it was time for me to go.

YDS: Okay, one more question about campaigning as such. Having done that … two questions. What’s the bottom line, do you think people vote for someone because of the issues, or because of the person?

CS: I think it depends on which voter you’re talking to. … I’m serious. I’ve sat in too many focus groups this past year. A lot of women liked how Sherrod looked in that denim shirt. And a lot of workers loved that he walked out of that factory with these guys who, you know … I think it’s a real mix. I think there’s a reason that when you compare the commercials of the two candidates, Sherrod did really well on TV.

YDS: Well, I’ve heard both things. I’ve heard Sherrod won because he hammered economic populist issues, that people responded to …

CS: I think that’s essentially true.

YDS: … and I’ve heard that he won because people like him.

CS: Well, part of the reason they could like him is because he is the real deal. I mean, who you see in those commercials and who you meet on the street is exactly the same guy who I get home [to] at night. He really is real. And that came across very clearly. But the thing is, most people didn’t know who Sherrod was, no matter how much hard campaigning we did, until the TV commercials went up. That made a huge difference. So, that, you’re talking about image.

Issues did matter. We know that from our polling, we know that from the focus groups, the workers issues mattered a lot. But they also just felt that they could look at Sherrod, and they trusted him. He looked real to them. And, that matters to people.

YDS: Last thing. You were exposed to a lot of campaign fund-raising on Sherrod’s behalf. Are you more of an advocate for public campaign financing?

CS: Yes. Are you kidding? Do you know how many fund-raising calls he made a week? He had a goal, and he exceeded it by one every week. He’s such a good sport about it. Never less than 201 calls a week. Two hundred and one calls! That’s in addition to voting, campaigning, speeches, all the other stuff … letter writing. He did 201 fund-raising calls a week.

We traveled the country, raising money. A lot of red-eye flights. It’s insane. You look at the money they’re talking about now for the presidential race!

And one more thing about the media, I’d just like to point out. Sherrod got the endorsement of only one major newspaper in Ohio and he won by almost thirteen points. I’ve argued for a long time that the papers should not endorse candidates because it makes the reporters’ jobs so much harder. Because they get hammered by people then, because most readers do not make the distinction between [the] editorial board and the reporters. And we keep arguing that we’re doing fair and balanced coverage? And then we pick one? The readers don’t make a distinction. And, [editorial endorsements are] clearly irrelevant.

YDS: Let’s turn to your future as a writer, and your plans. Well, first of all, do you think that your approach to your column is going to change, now?

CS: I’m going to write the column I always wrote. … I think I’m changed by my experiences just like any experiences would change me. I don’t know how that will translate into words for me. I’m calmer than I was before, as a writer. I mean a campaign like this [involved] constant triage. So there is nothing, no matter how frantic things seem right now, you know, news room deadlines and all that … [laughter] it’s nothing! So, I’m calmer.

And, I have the long view more. And I certainly feel I’m really ready to start expressing my opinion more. It feels really good to do that. But I also really want to listen [more].

What I’m trying not to do is put so much pressure on myself. … There were letters to the editor [reacting to] my first column [after returning,] announcing “She should resign.” … And then the WCPN [Cleveland public radio] interview, where I finally just said, “This is an insult wrapped in a question, and I’m really getting tired of answering it.” (I got a lot of great reader mail from the interview, so I’m really glad I did that.) But, what I’m trying to do right now is remind myself [that] there are journalists around the [world] who are dying, just because they express views that are unpopular with governments, and they’re dying for their work. If the worst that I have to put up with is some people accusing me of motives I don‘t have, I’m not going to let it trouble me.

You know, I’m appreciative that [former Plain Dealer editor in chief] Doug Clifton believes in my integrity. [He] has definitely stood by me on this and I really appreciate it. And he was right to, because I ... you know, Sherrod never sees a column I write, until it’s already been turned in. He never has any input on a column. He never has. But he loves getting it before it appears in the paper, because he is my husband.

He’s never, ever asked me not to write something. In fact, I worry about him, [concerning the new book.] He feels I gave up so much for this campaign, he’s not going to say “no” to anything. I keep saying, I need to make sure you’re comfortable with this, I need to make sure you’re comfortable with that. As I said to Anna Quindlen, “You know, I can’t write everything that happened in our marriage during this campaign, it would be an invasion of our privacy.” And she said, “You don’t have to. You just need to say that you’re not going to.” And that was really sound advice, I thought.

But as far as the column, I’m just glad to be back in Cleveland. Readers have been unbelievable. I can’t get over the amount of mail I’ve gotten already, and calls. You know, it’s really been quite touching. And I think that a lot of people were quite surprised by my first column [about my Dad and winter weather]. I don’t know what they were thinking I was going to be doing.

YDS: I think you had been saving that one up.

CS: That’s actually not true. What happened is that week I saw a story in the Plain Dealer about how people should quit complaining about winter, because it finally came, and I said to Sherrod, “Of course we complain about winter! That’s what Clevelanders do!” And then I started thinking about my Dad, and winter, how much he hated winter, and then I was sitting in my office, and I looked at the lunch pail, and the hard hat that I have now, and I thought, “Aw, Dad, I wonder where you are.” And what it’s like there. And I thought, that is what I always used to say when I called him, “What’s it like where you are?” And I thought, there’s my column.

YDS: So! Future plans. You got a novel in ya? A screen play? A short history of oatmeal?

CS: [laughter] Random House asked me to consider fiction writing, but I don’t really … real life has been so interesting! So rich in material. And, I’m not one of those five-year plan kind of people. I mean, look what’s happened in my life in the last five years. I’ve gone from [being] a single working mother, trying to figure out how I was even going to pay all my bills, just really trying to do the best that I could, to, you know, the Pulitzer finalist in 2003, I met Sherrod on New Year’s Day of that year …I was a Pulitzer finalist three months later, which he likes to take credit for (nice try) … we were engaged by that Thanksgiving, we get married the following year, I win the Pulitzer the year after that, Sherrod runs for the Senate in 2006, and wins. I mean, talk about ... who could have scripted that, right?

So, who knows what’s coming? I just know that I’m meant to write, I know it now more than ever. It’s kind of nice to know. … You know, a lot of people expressed surprise that I came back, but I love what I do. And I don’t share the inferiority complex that so many Clevelanders have about Cleveland. I love this town. I love being a progressive writer in the Midwest.

YDS: What was the occasion for meeting Sherrod? You said you met him in January …

CS: He sent me that email [comparing Schultz to Barbara Kingsolver.] We corresponded for a bit, and we finally made plans to have dinner on a night when he wasn’t in session.

YDS: Oh, okay, well, I read [in the first book] about that dinner. I just … so you had never met him in person?

CS: No, I wouldn’t have gone out with him if I had ever covered him. He hates when I say that, but it is true. If I ever covered him, if I had ever quoted him, I probably would never have gone out with him. But I had never met him. I knew who he was. And I loved that in his first email he just said “Sherrod Brown, Lorain, Ohio,” he didn’t say Congressman, and I thought, “Oh, I know who YOU are.” And on our first date he brought two pages of his favorite quotes. [laughter] What’s not to love? We’re such dorks!

YDS: Well, since I’m a blogger, I have to ask [for your] thoughts about the future in terms of print media [and] online media, what do you see happening?

CS: I think the biggest mistake that newspapers made was they didn’t charge for their online content right away. Because, now they are going to have a hard time recovering. And, online is where we’re going, there’s no question about it. I mean there will always be people who will want to have hard copy in their hands, right? But the internet is so fast, so immediate. Unfortunately, though, the down side to that is it’s much easier to make mistakes that go off into perpetuity, do you know what I mean? We don’t have the same check systems that you have in place, and we’re still trying to figure that out even in newsrooms.

I love that blogging gives every individual a chance to express him or herself. I hate the way that it abuses people. I really do. I think the only thing that is probably going to stop it is when you have to start abiding by the same libel laws we have to. You know? I don’t know how else you stop that. It doesn’t sound like conscience comes into play for a lot of people.

YDS: I’m pretty sure we do. Libel doesn’t apply just to journalists.

CS: Well, so far there haven’t been any successful … there are a couple pending now, but there have not been any successful libel suits against bloggers, to my knowledge, in this country. So they’re getting away with a lot right now, some of them. The thing is – I’ve said this to you before, and [to Scott Piepho and] Chris Baker – you work so hard on what you’re doing, to be fair and be balanced, but you don’t get the traffic the ones who don’t care about any of that do, sometimes. You know, people want to get worked up, people want to get mad, they want to get outraged. [It’s] pretty interesting to watch. It’s human nature, I guess. You know what it is? It’s codified gossip. It used to be it would go out there but you couldn’t look it up and cite the reference. Now you got gossip and you can look up exactly when it happened, and it can really get trashy.

YDS: I have a question about the Pulitzer. You were nominated for one piece of work and didn’t win, and then you won I guess for one piece of work, although I don’t know off hand …

CS: It was for ten columns.

YDS: Okay. Did it surprise you what you won for?

CS: I thought my best shot was [when I was a finalist in 2003 for] the series, “Burden of Innocence.” So when I didn’t win [for] that, I thought, “Oh, that was my best shot. That was all I had in me.” [In 2005,] I knew [the Plain Dealer] had submitted me, but I thought, “No way.” I’d only been writing a column for two years, for two and a half years.

About a week [or two] before [the Pulitzers were to be announced,] Doug Clifton sends me an email, this was in the morning, telling me to stop by when I get in. It was [already] a big year [for me]. I won the Scripps Howard award for commentary, which we didn’t expect, and I had won the National Headliners award. And Doug called me in and said, “You’re a finalist.” And I said, “For what?” He said, “For the Pulitzer,” and I said “Who else is?” I already knew it was [New York Times columnist Nicholas] Kristoff, and I said “Kristoff is going to win.” I’d been saying all year that Kristoff is going to win. And he said, “Well, he’d better not win, because we’d like you to win.” I never thought, you know. And, can I tell you how we found out?

Sherrod and I had flown to New York that day, to surprise Emily, our daughter, for her birthday. We were having dinner with her fiancée. She didn’t know. We had just checked into our hotel, after we had landed, and my cell phone rang, and I could see that it was a Plain Dealer number but I didn’t know who it was. So I answered and it was Doug Clifton. And I said, “What’s wrong?” And he said “’What’s wrong?’” And I said – and Sherrod is standing right in front of me – and I said, “Well, yeah, do you have bad news for me?” And he says, “Well, is it bad news to win the Pulitzer prize?” So Sherrod is going like this: “Did you win? Did you win?” And I’m trying to talk. And I finally nod at Sherrod and said [in a whisper] “Yes,” and he looks at me and he starts to cry! [laughter] And I’m trying to have this conversation with Doug and I’m crying. It was so unexpected. It was SO unexpected.

So, it was on ten columns, it was on the tip jars [“Here’s A Little Tip About Gratuities,” Apr. 1, 2004], it was about this whole “Merry Christmas” thing [“Merry Christmas everyone – or else,” Dec. 16, 2004], I did a thing on voter registration, taking on Blackwell, when he wasn’t going to let us run a voter registration form [“Start right here to register to vote,” Jan. 19, 2004]. And it was on “Eyes Wide Open,” the exhibit for peace [“A soldier salutes her fallen friends,” July 1, 2004]. So it was all those topics I was constantly warned to stop writing about, because I was just an Arts & Life columnist. But I figured, I want to write about the art of life!

So, I couldn’t have predicted it, it was really stunning, and I cannot tell you it doesn’t change your life, because it does. Random House called me the next day. I had twenty-two literary agents call me, leave messages, or send emails. I didn’t return any of their calls, because Kate Medina from Random House called and she is second in command at the largest publisher in the world. And I knew that she was an opinions publisher. So I went with Random House. And it just kind of went from there. And I’ll tell you something, it made it easier to do what I did, to leave and come back. It gives you credibility.

YDS: Granting the credibility and everything, is there any level at which you ever get sick of it? Of always being the Pulitzer Prize winner? “Connie Schultz, the Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist.”

CS: Um … no. [laughter] Sorry!

YDS: Nah. Good answer.

CS: What, you want me to say, ”Oh, Jeff, it’s so hard …”?

YDS: On my blog I noted your first column, and the only comment I got was some anonymous commenter who said, “What, she won a Pulitzer Prize? Who knew!”

CS: Yeah, I know. [But,] I don’t talk about it. I can’t help it that everyone else talks about it. But, I’ve got to tell you something. When I won, I got more than 4,500 emails in the very first twelve-hour period, after I won. And my phone only holds 90, so it kept filling [up] and I had to keep [deleting them]. But I felt that I was everyone’s daughter, sister, and best friend when I won. People were so proud that I had won, that I was from Cleveland, that the Plain Dealer had won it. I really felt that it was the Plain Dealer’s award, I really did.

I don’t go around saying, “I’m a Pulitzer Prize winner!” I don’t ever do that. It doesn’t matter, everybody knows it anyway. Although, my favorite introduction during the campaign was in Dayton, at a labor event, when I was supposed to introduce Sherrod. And this guy got up … and said, “Connie Schultz is Sherrod Brown’s wife. She’s won the Pulitzer Prize. I have no idea what that is, but I heard it’s really important.” I love that! I just thought that was great. And I just looked at Sherrod and we started laughing. I mean, most people, they don’t [know]. People keep saying that I won the Nobel Prize. A lot of people care, but most people don’t.

YDS: Do you remember that fundraiser at Al Gray’s house in the summer, when [James Carville] did this hair-raising thing, [predicting] nasty things [that Karl Rove and the GOP] were going to say [about Sherrod and his personal life], and you had this look of abject horror on your face, and you said, “I don’t think I like this guy!”

CS: That’s exactly right. Was I that transparent?

YDS: Did you believe what he said?