Susan Efroymson’s Suggestions for the November 8, 2016 Elections

Views expressed are those of the author’s and not LJN.

Click to view a printable PDF document.

• If you don’t vote, we all don’t count.
• Please remember to bring your driver’s license when you vote.
• The first page is an easy to print summary listing followed by the more expanded explanations.

Please consider voting for the following suggestions:

• President: NO RECOMMENDATION, but please make sure you DO VOTE for one of the two major party candidates.
• US Senator of Ohio: Rob Portman
• Representative to Congress 11th District: Marcia Fudge (Cuyahoga County)
• Representative to Congress 14th District: David Joyce (Lake County)
• State Representative District 9: Janine Boyd
• Member of State Board of Education 11th District: Richard T. Montgomery II
• Chief Justice of Supreme Court: Maureen O’Conner
• Justice of Supreme Court: Pat Fischer, Pat DeWine (both, separate seats)
• Justice of Common Pleas: Kelly Ann Gallagher or James Cochran, Mathew McMonagle, Dick Ambrose, Joan Synenberg,
• Justice of Common Please Domestic Relations: Francine Goldberg, Diane M. Palos, Tonya R. Jones

• Cleveland Heights Issue 51: Yes
• Cleveland Heights Issue 52 : Yes
• Cleveland Heights Issue 109: No recommendation, please see notes below

Remember if you don’t vote, we don’t count. Please vote on Tues. November 8 if not before by absentee ballot

General:

I am just an individual member of the community. Many years ago, I began researching the elections, and people started coming to me for recommendations. And so I continue to do so, by publishing my suggestions. The general guideline I use is to make recommendations on the candidates and issues based primarily on how they will affect our Orthodox Jewish community specifically, and secondarily based on what seems best in general. I certainly recognize that there are many viewpoints, and in no way do I profess to be representing the community.

President:

Regrettably, no recommendation is possible for either candidate in this election. We must vote, but it is understood by anyone following this election we will be holding our noses when we cast a vote for either candidate.
The following hashkafa perspective was provided by my husband:

“When it comes to local elections, our voting is an appropriate effort (“Hishtadlus”) towards the desired outcome, as we are all direct participants in the democratic system, even though we know that the results and outcomes actually come from Hashem.

“However, the election for President of the U.S. falls into the category of a Malchus, Kingdom, even though the government is a democracy. At this level, Hashem’s hashgacha is absolute: Lev Malachim B’yad Hashem. For us to vote as a Hishtadlus, from a standpoint of influencing events, is a contradiction to our Emunah. In other words, we do not vote for a candidate for President with the intent that we are trying to make certain things happen, such as lower/raise taxes, support Israel, support freedom of religion. We vote only to be seen as community that votes so that politicians will consider our needs. As far as the outcomes, we must do our best to serve Hashem through Torah, Mitzvos and Davening to merit the outcomes we desire.

“So, any recommendations for which Presidential candidate to vote for are only from the standpoint of being noticed as voters; not based on trying to make things better for us by electing a particular candidate. These two different perspectives will often lead to the same recommendations, but it is crucial to have the correct intent – kavana, in these recommendations, and in voting.”

What is also clear is that our gedolim have said it is important to vote. When communities are not actively voting and some need arises, the results can be undesirable. This is why I have been told that it can be said it falls under the mitzvah of Lo Saamod Al Dam Rayecha, not to stand by while your friend is in danger. One never knows who the friend will be, or what the issue, but our power as a community to act when needed comes from the power of our vote.

Avoid the temptation to throw away your vote on a third-party option. You should choose between the two leading candidates, for only one will end up winning the election, and our responsibility to do so is increased because we are a swing state with very divided poling.

In most elections, there would be a lot of analysis to present as well as comparing the pros/cons of each candidate. But this election is different. Both candidates have said and done things that would disqualify them in a typical presidential race, and it is only a contest because they are running at the same time against each other.

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party candidate, is a known quantity. She has been in politics for decades. She has the demeanor, intelligence and communication skills to be a respected President. The fact that Hillary Clinton is a career politician means that she knows how to work across the aisle. She is not as ideologically committed to specific policy changes as others within her party, such as President Obama, and may be inclined to govern through compromise, especially if the Republicans retain a majority in either the House or Senate.

But Hillary also represents the Democratic party, and their agenda increasingly makes freedom of religion secondary to other constitutional rights, a point that is increasingly problematic of late. The supporters of their party, including the Obama administration, have fanned the flames of class warfare and turned every minority into a victim. Hillary uses the same rhetoric in her speeches. The Supreme Court currently hangs in balance between the liberal justices who reinterpret the constitution to meet their philosophy and the constructionists who uphold the strict interpretation. Hillary has stated clearly that she will appoint liberal justices, and she is certain to appoint at least one new justice to tip the balance to the liberals, which could erode religious protection even further. Support for Israel has become increasingly partisan, and President Obama with Clinton as Secretary of State, undoubtedly bears some of the blame for this. Finally, after 8 years, the standing of the US as a leader in the international arena has gone down significantly, the world has become much more polarized and dangerous, and the economy has been stuck in anemia. Hillary will be more of the same – there is little difference between her and Obama.

Hillary has her share of missteps and scandals, and an attitude towards them of laissez fare. Conflicts of interest created by her relationship with The Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of state and as a presidential candidate in waiting are a troubling issue for someone who seeks the highest office. Do her loyalties follow the royalties? This corruption seems increasingly so. Political careers have been ended for far less. The deletion of emails while under subpoena, creation of a private server while Secretary of State, and the lies she has repeated about them reflects a troubling relationship with transparency and makes her vulnerable to accusation that she put her own interests above national security issues while serving in one of our nation’s highest offices and also give us insight into how she would run the Whitehouse.

Donald Trump, the Republican Nominee, is a wildcard. We have no idea how he would run Whitehouse. His campaign platform for the most part would be impossible to carry out, so it is really hard to know what he would actually wind up doing. His temperament and personality are un-Presidential, and in fact quite contrary to any respectability. It isn’t hard to imagine him offending most other countries, appointing his family to high posts, and not being able to work with Congress, and even being impeached. In fact, solidly conservative papers have endorsed Clinton, so afraid are they of what he might do. Stories of his personal conduct are incredibly troubling and should give us pause as to whether this is the man we want representing our country and being the role model that the president has historically been for American children. On the other hand, maybe he will pick a sharp team to run the country well. He is also certain to have the media constantly painting his presidency in a bad light, as they did to George W Bush, severely limiting his effectiveness. And yet, the media already does that and he somehow keeps going. It’s worth noting that the media edits out many of his finer speaking moments now, reinforcing its own negative opinion of him in the public eye, but he does often speak well. He is on record with the most solidly pro-Israel positions of any November election candidate in decades, as well as committing to a solidly constructionist Supreme Court nominee, which among other things is good for religious freedom issues.

To put it succinctly, watching either is painful: Endorsing either impossible. (And yes, my passports are up to date and I know where to find my siddur). “Let’s Face it. This IS an Unpopularity Contest.” (Dennis Prager)

Yet, as the Wall Street Journal reminds us, we are voting not only for the celebrity at the top of the ticket, but also the party that would be leading for the next four years. To that end, the platforms are revealing. Our values are far better represented by the Republican agenda than the Democratic one in its current form, and a vocal part of the Democratic Party has become increasingly hostile towards Israel as well as our values and religious rights. Following this line of thought, one would vote Republican despite the man at the top of the ticket.

We live in a swing state and your vote will not only be counted but scrutinized. I leave you with those thoughts as you make the best decision you can with the choices we have available.

---

Senator:

Rob Portman has been a responsive, Pro-Israel presence and, in the event of a Democrat win either in the Senate or in Washington will provide good balance and has been known to break with the party when the occasion called for it. He has shown his independence and this is a quality we should want in a senator.

Representative 11th:

Marcia Fudge. Those who follow my recommendations may be surprised at this endorsement. I have supported the Republican nominee Beverly Goldstein’s run for other offices before and would look forward to doing so again. Further, Ms. Fudge was one of the Democrats to boycott Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, and has failed to gain the attention of our community in any manner and so hadn’t earned our vote – until now. As head of the Black Caucus, Ms. Fudge fought for funding of the Nonprofit Security Grant Program, a Federal pot of $20 million to be used to make terror targets safer. Cleveland had been left off the eligible list by the Obama administration, but thanks to Marcia Fudge our community wasn’t overlooked.

Representative 14th:

Joyce has been a strong friend of Israel and friend of ours who remains effective while supporting our values.

State Rep 9:

Janine Boyd, knows us and knows our community. She was well liked when she was on the Cleveland Heights Council and she remains responsive to the needs of those in her home town.

Member of State School Board 11th:

Richard Montgomery is the only candidate that can be trusted to have an independent, well-developed opinion. He is a professor of Education at Tri-C and has served at many levels inside schools and classrooms. Both of his opponents are backed heavily by unions and union policy is not always aligned with the best interest of the students.

Judges:

There are a few exceptions, but mostly the only names listed below are the ones in contested races:

Supreme Court:

Maureen O’Conner, Pat Fischer and Pat Dewine: all are constructionists who will not create law in accordance with the social winds but according to the construct of the state and federal Constitutions. O’Conner is running unopposed. Fischer is backed by the Bar Association, and DeWine along with being more qualified is acquainted with our community.

Domestic Relations Court:

In point of fact, we have some really good choices. In some cases, the choice comes down to an incumbent who is doing a good job and should not be removed. Ms. Goldberg, of course, is from our community and served city council in University Heights. She is also an incumbent who came to the bench with related experience and is well respected.

Cleveland Heights Charter Amendment Proposal Issues 51 and 52:

When a candidate wants to run for office, he has to file by a certain date and has only so much time from the date he files to turn in the requisite number of signatures. Issue 51 increases the amount of time from a mere 60-90 days up to 180 days (6 months). This addresses the concerns of those who found it cumbersome to get the signatures in only 3 months. Further, at the request of the Board of Elections, the deadline for filing is being moved up to coincide with the rest of the
county. Given the need for early ballots, this relieves the pressure on the board to print valid ballots without rushing once the deadline passes and all known candidates have their signatures in to be verified. Issue 52 addresses the same time constraints in the event of a recall elections for more than 3 members of council or a question as a result of petitions has to be submitted to the people per council decision. Those seeking to fill that spot would now have 60-120 days instead of 40-90 and council would have to give the same notice to the Board of Elections. Bottom line is that there is no down side here. Its purpose is to unify the deadlines throughout the county to streamline the process for the Board of Elections. Vote Yes on both.

Issue 109:

CHUH School District Tax Levy Increase of 5.5 mills. For most, the annual property tax rate would go from 3.92% to 4.11% of your home value. In dollars, if you own a $100,00 home, you currently pay $3920 in taxes and this levy would add $192, bringing the total to $4112 per year. At $150K, your current tax level is $5880 and $288 would be added bring your total to $6168 and at $200,000 in value your $7840 taxes would go up to $8224 adding $384 per year. This represents an increase of almost 5%.

As a point of interest, we have permanent levies as opposed to surrounding districts that have renewable ones. That means that each time we pass a levy it remains in effect forever and each new levy increases the millage by adding it onto the current millage already due. In other districts, they are forced to come back the voters every few years, for the total amount with any additions.

I am remaining neutral on this levy because of a promising development. The levy committee actually sought out the support of our community and met with several of its members, myself included. They are eager to present their plans for future educational development (a meeting we hope to set up, but not before this levy) to show us how our tax dollars are being spent in the classroom. We hope this will be the beginning of a respectful relationship of the kind it always should have been. We appreciate the time they took to show us how their request for this levy actually addresses their increasing costs and the difficulties they are facing with state cuts, loss of students, and the drop in home values and the taxes they produce. We do want to live in an area with a strong educational system and want to see CH-UH return to its former greatness because good education makes a more pleasant place to live for us all.

But the meeting, while raising hope for continued dialogue and progress, did not address many of the concerns we have. That presentation has yet to happen, but we hope it will. Until then, we cannot just take their word that it will be all they hope.

I am of the opinion that the teachers in the district deserve to be paid as much as we can afford. The problem is that the continued system of levy increases every three years or so does not factor into account the lowered incomes due to hard times in the general population. Historically they have shown disdain for the argument that teachers in private schools make less money and therefore find it harder to pay more in taxes to fund public school teachers, even while paying tuitions that public-school students don’t for their own children’s private education – and these are real families living in the district. Not just teachers, but all those struggling with tuition, families struggling in general, retired seniors struggling to keep their homes, those suffering job loss or businesses hurt in the economic downturn have all been dismissed. It’s a question of can we afford to continue the current revenue plan. Many would argue it’s no longer affordable.

I am aware that when it comes to making good decisions about teaching staff, the Board’s hands are tied by union rules, but I feel that more needs to be done to address this when we are receiving a F rating. “Last In- First Out” and such rules benefit teachers, but not necessarily the students or the district in general. Continuing to pass levies only reinforces union controls currently in place, certainly as long as the school board doesn’t signal any desire to change the status quo. With a high per pupil cost, high teacher salaries, high administrative costs and a declining population there are a variety of fiscal areas to be looked at. This is just one.

Another is the two buildings, Millikin and Coventry, owned by the district but are not being used educationally. Although Coventry is revenue neutral, Milikins costs are $100,000 annually due to underutilization with more empty buildings likely due to declining population. The Board of Education is not in the real estate business and should not be managing empty buildings this way. This is just another part of the fiscal responsibility we’d like to see in the future, but one that touches our neighborhood. We therefore hope they will consider our opinions as they work towards a Millikin resolution.

I want to be clear. I am not opposed to supporting school levies and want to restate my support for those educating our city’s children. We all know it is a central value. While hopeful that this meeting marks the beginning of a positive relationship, before endorsing a levy, I will look to see more of these goals met so that we see valuable return for our dollars.

For more information on this meeting see JVote Letter on the Cleveland Heights University Heights Tax Levy Issue 109 in Local Jewish News. Also note that you can look there for a future article explaining many positive developments in JVote activity.