The reaction from the Alex Arshinkoff haters has been amazing, to say the least, almost pathological, especially if you apply a simple test to their argument: take the name of the person you want out, insert the name of the person you support, and see if your argument still holds.
Apparently the editorial writers at Exchange and Main don't like playing Switch the Names. Normally I figure what they write is their business, but this morning actually had my head spinning trying to dodge all the rationalizing whizzing past my head.
This morning's diatribe over not getting their way shouldn't be surprising, especially since the writer apparently sees no conflict of interest with the local Democrat boss handing over "anonymous" material (primarily ABJ newspaper articles) to an official representative of the Democrat Secretary of State, who then delivered the material as "anonymous" even though he personally picked it up and hand-delivered it to the Statehouse. I guess FedEx didn't have service to Columbus that day.
The political gambit worked: Republican Arshinkoff was deposed, then Republican Daley was denied despite a vote by the Republicans charged with selecting him to represent their interests. THEN the Democrat party boss got the Democrat Brunner to appoint a hand-picked candidate of choice. In a nutshell that's what led to the Elephant Wars when the State stepped in.
If you play Switch the Names here's what we would have: Wayne Jones shouldn't be on the board because he's too partisan, often votes to tie decisions, and is manipulative (according to the accounts of the paper editorializing Wayne should go.) Alex calls Ken Blackwell, who not only kicks off Wayne but denies local Democrats their second choice and then installs an Arshinkoff buddy who's got a (D) at the end of their name. The target is argumentative and overbearing, so any method to make the change works, right?
Can you imagine the wailing if that were to happen with names reversed? The problem with the politics in this case is there should have been a word of caution to begin this sordid tale given the political shenanigans going on behind the scenes. Even some of AA's most vocal critics admit this who process stank from the beginning, but so long as it met their political goals did it really matter?
What is ironic in this whole case is the heavy-handed approach actually worked against the Republicans who were working the system by the rules to challenge Arshinkoff's leadership and try to force a debate on the running of the GOP party. Any cogent and well-argued points made by Carol Klinger were drowned out in the minds of Republican Central Committee members who didn't need the newspaper to tell them they were being stiffed by the enemy. One member summed it up when I spoke with him while waiting for the show to begin: he was here to vote against Wayne Jones. Talk about overplaying your hand...

The system itself is designed to be partisan, from Columbus down to the smallest precinct. Acting as if it shouldn't be that way because you didn't get the person you want in office isn't just silly, it is intellectually dishonest. Using the elections system to get rid of a party boss, whether it be Alex or Wayne, ignores the fact both of them are where they are because the people who vote for them make it so. Democracy at the finest: if you can win, you win. Want to get rid of Alex/Wayne: put up superior challengers. Question what they do instead of looking the other way, making excuses, and rationalizing away the basics.
Now if reformers really wanted non-partisan election operations they could fashion a professional civil service structure similar to many state boards and commissions, where the executive nominates a choice subject to advise and consent of the legislative body; that choice would exercise similar judgment in appointing workers regardless of party affiliation, those workers would be given professional civil service protection and the parties (both of 'em) would stop using elections as patronage plums. No more failed candidates for Mayor or relatives of sitting office holders serving as Executive Director; no more annual stories where elections workers pony up with either time or money in support of local parties; no more phony talk of "non-partisan" management of elections. Say goodbye to thousands of jobs controlled by the politicians, including the job of the top elections officer statewide.
Think that'll happen?