Right to change mind

| Friday, Oct. 5, 2012, 9:18 p.m.

I believe columnist Eric Heyl is off-base in his recent attacks on state Rep. Peter Daley (“Switcharoo a Daley occurrence,” “Lawmaker's anger takes heavy toll,” Sept. 19, Sept. 9 and TribLIVE.com).

Mr. Heyl's key issue seems to be his focus on Rep. Daley attempting to make changes to legislation that he voted for. What would Heyl suggest that state representatives should do when a piece of policy they voted for is not reaching the desired outcome?

Should Daley continue to support legislation that he believes is not accomplishing its intended goal for fear that Heyl will cry “flip-flopper” from the mountains on high? A state representative's job is to do what is best in the public interest, and sometimes that will include making changes to legislation that just isn't working out as initially intended.

Creating an atmosphere where our representatives must continue to support legislation that is not accomplishing what it was intended to, or is having unintended negative outcomes, is not only not beneficial to our state, it's downright dangerous.

I'm glad we have representatives who are willing to stick their necks out to make sure that legislation that is doing more harm than good doesn't stay enacted, even if they voted for it initially.

George A. Matis

Redstone Township

The writer is Republic Volunteer Fire Co.'s first assistant fire chief.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.


Show commenting policy