Mirante’s Answer Made My Question More Important, Not Inappropriate

By Bill Keeler

Republican candidate John Mirante came into the studio Friday morning with plenty to say.

The former elementary school teacher, who is running to represent East Utica’s 18th District in the Oneida County Legislature, delivered an upbeat, idea-filled presentation during more than 30 minutes on the air. He offered campaign promises, opinions and proposals, some of which sounded appealing, even if several would likely fall outside the Legislature’s authority or run into procedural and legal obstacles.

I challenged him on his pledge to never vote for a tax increase, even if Oneida County were facing a genuine fiscal crisis. Governing requires judgment, and absolute promises can become dangerous when circumstances change. Mirante stood by his position. I disagreed with him, but I respected the fact that he was clear about it.

Then came my final question.

The Oneida County Republican Committee is in the middle of a bitter internal power struggle involving Chairman Ken Roser and allies of County Executive Anthony Picente. When I first raised the subject, Mirante said the question was too broad. Fair enough. So I made it specific.

When the committee votes for chairman later this fall, will he vote to keep Ken Roser?

Mirante fired back: “That’s an inappropriate question. That’s none of your business.”

I disagreed then, and I disagree now.

It was not a personal question. It was not a gotcha question. It was a question about political judgment, accountability and the leadership of the party whose line Mirante is seeking. Voters in the 18th District have every right to know how a candidate views the people who wield power inside that party.

The question is especially relevant because Republican committee members and donors have publicly raised serious concerns about Roser’s leadership. Those critics have accused him of running the committee in a heavy-handed way, limiting dissent, abandoning Robert’s Rules of Order and concentrating authority in an executive committee. They have also questioned committee spending, including expenditures involving Roser-affiliated businesses and charitable contributions made with money donors believed would help elect Republican candidates.

Those are allegations and criticisms, not findings of wrongdoing. Roser and his supporters have disputed the attacks and defended the committee’s direction. That distinction matters.

But the existence of that dispute makes the question more appropriate, not less.

When political organizations raise money, endorse candidates and influence elections, their leadership matters. How money is raised and spent matters. Whether dissenting members receive fair treatment matters. And if party money is being directed toward a chairman’s own businesses or organizations connected to him, donors deserve a transparent accounting and independent review.

That is not gossip. That is basic accountability.

Mirante ultimately answered the question, even after objecting to it. His response made clear that he intends to support Roser and does not believe the committee’s internal operations are my concern.

Respectfully, John, they are absolutely my concern.

They are your concern, too. They should concern every Republican committee member, every donor and every voter asked to support candidates carrying the party’s endorsement.

No chairman owns a political party. A county committee is not a private club, and its treasury should never appear to function as a revenue stream for the person in charge or as a tool for rewarding allies and punishing critics. Even the appearance of self-dealing erodes trust. That is why transparency and independent oversight are essential.

Mirante was free to answer that he supports Roser. He was free to explain why. He was even free to say he had not made up his mind. What he was not entitled to do was declare a legitimate question off limits simply because the answer might be uncomfortable.

Candidates do not get to decide that accountability is inappropriate.

In fact, Mirante’s answer told voters something important. It showed where he stands, whom he trusts and how he responds when challenged. That is precisely why the question needed to be asked.

If Oneida County Republicans continue to ignore these concerns, dismiss donors and silence internal critics, they should not be surprised when voters lose confidence or when Democrats benefit from the division.

Sunlight does not weaken a political party. It protects it.

And asking where a candidate stands is never inappropriate. It is the job.

Note: Mirante said he'll come back into the studio in a few weeks as a guest. We look forward to it and wonder if he'll have a change of heart.

Here's the full clip of his appearance: