Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

There is a little known back story that has been taking place at the Glendale airport for many years. It deals with this cast of characters: the City of Glendale; the Glendale Airport Pilots Association comprised of hangar owners and renters (GAPA); and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Historically FAA policy required that airport hangars be used exclusively for the storage of aircraft/aeronautical items. Many airport hangars across the country have been built and by far, the majority, are owned and maintained by municipalities. That is not the case in Glendale. For a myriad of reasons Glendale chose to allow the construction of private (not municipally owned) hangars. I believe all of the hangars at Glendale’s airport are privately owned. It presents a unique and a decidedly different situation from 90% of all airport hangars across the country.

For years the privately owned hangar owners and the city coexisted. Glendale would perform occasional hangar inspections aware that non-aeronautical items were stored in these private hangars. All of this kumbaya changed in 2009 when a lawsuit for discrimination was filed by the owner of the south hangars, Valley Aviation Services (VAS). VAS contended that the city’s enforcement of FAA policy that only aeronautical items be stored in their hangars when the north owners’ hangars were not under the same enforcement amounted to discrimination. Several years later VAS won the suit and was awarded damages of $1.7 million. The city was also required to pay attorneys’ fees. By the time all was said and done the city tab was closer to $2.3 million.

The VAS judgment caused the city to become concerned about the FAA policy with regard to hangar storage of non-aeronautical items. It believed that the result of the lawsuit put the airport on the FAA’s radar screen and could result in not only the loss of federal funding for future airport improvements but could lead to an FAA demand to repay grants already allocated and spent as a result of its history of non-compliance.

In 2011 the city held a meeting with all hangar owners and stated that it would begin to enforce the FAA’s policy with regard to the storage of non-aeronautical items and would be implemented immediately. The city then inspected every hangar and advised all hangar owners of issues of non-compliance. However, the problem was that these were privately owned hangars and not municipally owned hangars and the city historically had never enforced this FAA policy. GAPA believed that after a long history of non-enforcement of this policy, the city had no legal standing to abruptly begin its regime of  enforcement.

In 2013-14 GAPA hired legal representation for action in the Glendale court system and subsequently filed a lawsuit in Superior Court. During this period the FAA sent out a “Request for Comments” to a proposed Policy Change to their Federal Register Document that deals with Hangar Storage of Non-Aeronautical Items. This was in recognition by the FAA that it was a situation they had created at most airports across the country.

After a lengthy two year court process in 2016 the court ruled the city had failed to enforce FAA policy from 1999 to 2011. A summary judgment was awarded to GAPA requiring the city to pay its legal fees amounting to a little over $70,000. At that time the city terminated their contract with outside counsel paying them about $156,000. It appears the city paid twice as much for legal fees than GAPA did. The city bill for all legal fees, theirs and GAPA’s, totaled about $226,000; $70,000 for GAPA’s fees and $156,000 for its fees.

In 2016, the FAA made a policy change to hangar storage of non-aeronautical items saying, “A sponsor’s Grant Assurance obligations require that its aeronautical facilities be used or be available for use for aeronautical activities. If the presence of non-aeronautical items in a hangar does not interfere with these obligations, then the FAA will generally not consider the presence of those items to constitute a violation of the sponsor’s obligations.”

 “c. Provided the hangar is used primarily for aeronautical purposes, an airport sponsor may permit non-aeronautical items to be stored in hangars provided the items do not interfere with the aeronautical use of the hangar.”

One could assume the issue between GAPA and the city is now resolved. Not so. The city has hired yet another outside counsel, the law firm of Mandel & Young to fight GAPA’s judgment of payment of legal fees of $70,000 and to appeal GAPA’s favorable court ruling. These two issues were just filed by the city in court in July of 2016. It doesn’t appear to be very logical. The previous outside council cost the city approximately $150,000 and one could assume that the bill for this new outside council will be about the same. Why would the city pay $150,000 to get out of paying $70,000?

Apparently the city does not know when to cry “uncle.” It has cost taxpayers about a quarter of a million dollars to have a judge affirm GAPA’s position. Will the city spend another quarter of a million dollars to try to reverse the judge’s decision and to renege on paying GAPA’s legal fees? It doesn’t appear to be a very wise investment. Albert Einstein once said, “The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

© Joyce Clark, 2016          

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

On September 15, 2016 I received a Notice of Neighborhood Meeting for a Minor General Plan Amendment and Rezoning of a property located in the Yucca district from the law office of David Cisiewski  representing Los Olivos Office Partners, LLC., a Delaware corporation. This is slightly curious. Los Olivos Office Partners is a Delaware corporation that was registered with the Arizona Corporation Commission by yet another law firm who is their agent in Arizona. So who are the principals of Los Olivos? Local people? People out-of-state? A foreign firm?

 They are proposing a subdivision called “Orangewood Terrace.” The property’s location is south of Orangewood Avenue and just east of the West Glenn residential subdivision and just west of 79th Lane. Los Olivos is seeking: 1. a Minor General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan designation from Low Density Residential (LDR, 1-2.5 homes to the acre) to Medium Density Residential (MDR, 2.5 to 3.5 homes to the acre); 2. to rezone the property from R1-10 (10,000 square foot lots) to R1-8 (8,000 square foot lots); and 3. a Preliminary Plat for 55 single family homes.

What’s not to like? 8,000 square foot lots…great. Not so fast. In 2008 the city deliberately planned this property for 10,000 square foot lots with a definite purpose in mind. The property was to act as a buffer between West Glen Estates (a subdivision of 8,000 square foot lots, R1-8) located at the southeast corner of 83rd Avenue and Orangewood Avenue and 79th Lane on the south side of Orangewood Avenue which has about 30 large lot (17,000 square foot lot, SR-17) homes. All of the properties on the north side of Orangewood Avenue directly across from this proposed subdivision are SR-17 residences.

The property in question should remain as a 10,000 SF lot subdivision in order to preserve and to maintain the property values of the residents of West Glen Estates and the residents of 79th Lane. The only conceivable reason to reduce the size of the lots to 8,000 SF is to maximize the profit to be derived by Los Olivos Office Partners. That is not the city’s mission or purpose. Its purpose is to protect the interests of its residents, not developers.

I encourage the residents on the north side of Orangewood Avenue as well as the residents of West Glen Estates and 79th Lane to attend the Neighborhood Meeting:

October 3, 2016

6:00 PM

Hampton Inn & Suite Glendale-Westgate

6630 N. 95th Avenue

Glendale, AZ 85305

Now, chickens…

The next scheduled city meetings are: November 1, 2016 – Second City Council Workshop on the proposed Zoning Text Amendment and November 22, 2016 – City Council Public Hearing on the proposed Zoning Text Amendment.

The Zoning Text Amendment being considered would allow the keeping of contained hen chickens (only) in single family-zoned areas with a zoning district of A-1, RR-90, RR-45, SR-30, SR-17, SR-12, R1-10, R1-8, R1-6 and R1-4. However, per city code chickens are already allowed in these residential zoning districts: A-1, RR-90 (90,000 SF lots), RR-45 (45,000 SF lots), SR-30 (30,000 SF lots), SR-17 (17,000 SF lots) and SR-12 (12,000 SF lots). The text amendment would allow these 4 additional residential districts to have chickens: R1-10 (10,000 SF lots), R1-8 (8,000 SF lots), R1-6 (6,000 SF lots) and R1-4 (4,000 SF lots).

Chicken proponents have cited that other Valley cities allow them. Yes, they do but nearly all cities have restrictions.  Let’s look at Phoenix, the big dog in the Valley. In Chapter 8-7 it states, (a) Except as otherwise provided in this article, it is hereby declared to be a nuisance and it shall be unlawful for any person to keep rodents or poultry within the City. No poultry or rodents shall be kept in an enclosure within eighty feet of any residence within the City. Poultry may be kept within eighty feet of a residence if written permission consenting to the keeping of poultry less than eighty feet from a residence is first obtained from each lawful occupant and each lawful owner of such residence. Poultry shall not be kept in the front yard area of any lot or parcel within the City. Poultry and rodents shall be kept in an enclosure so constructed as to prevent such poultry and rodents from wandering upon property belonging to others.

(b)    No more than twenty head of poultry nor more than twenty-five head of rodents nor more than twenty-five head comprising a combination of rodents and poultry shall be kept upon the first one-half acre or less. An additional one-half acre shall be required for each additional twenty head of poultry or for each additional twenty-five head of rodents or for each additional twenty-five head comprising a combination of poultry and rodents. For areas larger than two and one-half acres the number of poultry or rodents shall not be limited.” Their code goes on to say in Section 8-10, “(a)    Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is hereby declared to be a nuisance and it shall be unlawful for any person to keep any animal, as defined in section 8-1 of this chapter, within the City on any lot or parcel of land consisting of less than ten thousand square feet in area.

(b)    Poultry may be kept on a lot or parcel of land within the City consisting of an area less than ten thousand square feet if written permission consenting to the keeping of poultry on such lot or parcel is first obtained from all of the lawful occupants and the lawful owners of adjoining lots or parcels of land, as defined in section 8-1, which are located in the immediate vicinity of the property whereon the poultry is kept. In summary, the restrictions are that a resident may have up to 25 chickens, 80 feet away from any residence and if the homeowner’s lot is less than 10,000 SF permission must be obtained from all adjacent property owners.

Let’s look at Mesa. In Mesa, a resident can have 10 chickens on the first one-half acre or less provided any enclosure is at least 40 feet from any neighboring residence, any coop is at least 75 feet from any other residence.” Tempe allows, “5 hens and if the enclosure or coop is 200 sq ft or less AND 8′ or less tall, it must meet building code separation requirements (safety issues) and cannot be in the front yard setback; if either more than 200 sq ft OR 8′ height, it must meet all setbacks for the district.” Similar to Tempe, Gilbert will allow up to 5 chickens on the smallest lots size of 6,000 SF. Chandler and Scottsdale do not allow chickens on small, residential lots.

Some people would have you believe that Valley cities allow chickens carte blanche. That is not the case. I would urge all councilmembers to do their homework and to study exactly what other cities allow and do not allow. It is a no-brainer to realize that allowing chickens, if that is the majority position, must occur with restrictions. Let’s see what kind of restrictions city staff comes up on November 1, 2016 when it makes another presentation before city council. Will they have done their homework?

This remains a divisive issue. I am posting one of my informal polls to the left of this column to give my readers a chance to weigh in on the issue. Blog readers on both sides of this issue have offered reasoned comments. I urge you to take a moment to read them as you make up your mind on this issue.

© Joyce Clark, 2016        

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

No contest of the formally accepted final election results has been filed by either of the losing candidates within the 5 day time limit as stipulated by state law. Now, let’s see some loose ends cleaned up. Sammy still has campaign signs up, well past the proscribed 15 day limit. Sammy, take your campaign signs down. You are not above the law.

In August of 2016, Mark Burdick, former Glendale mayoral candidate, sent out a campaign mailer without the disclaimer, “Paid for by …” as is required by state law. Arizona State Statute 16-912 says, “A political committee that makes an expenditure for campaign literature or advertisements that expressly advocate the election or defeat of any candidate or that make any solicitation of contributions to any political committee shall include on the literature or advertisement the words ‘paid for by,’ followed by the name of the committee that appears on its statement of organization, or five hundred dollar exemption statement.” Burdick publicly admitted the omission of this required disclaimer.

In mid-August, City Clerk Julie Bower notified City Attorney Michael Bailey of a violation of ARS 16-912(A.) Bailey had said that he received the City Clerk’s notice and had taken action by shipping the complaint to an outside counsel, namely the Scottsdale City Attorney.

This is a cut and dried situation. Burdick sent out a campaign mailer without the legally required disclaimer. Burdick admitted that it had occurred. So, what’s the problem? Why the delay? It has been over a month. We should have been made publicly aware of the fine imposed upon Burdick and that it has been paid. Instead…silence.

On or about August 17th the City Clerk requested that Burdick provide the cost of producing and mailing the piece. The fine is 3 times the amount spent for production (includes the consultant’s time for designing the piece) and mailing. Since it was mailed to voters within all of Glendale the cost would be substantial. To mail a piece in my district (with perhaps one of the lowest active voter totals) is about $3,000. Multiply that times six districts and a conservative figure would be somewhere in the $15,000 to $18,000 range. Three times that cost puts Burdick’s fine in the neighborhood of $45,000 to $54,000.

Has the fine been assessed? Has Burdick paid the fine? Either the City Clerk or the City Attorney has the responsibility of public notification…for an action that should have been completed by now. It’s the city’s loose end and merits being tied up.

On another note city council met in workshop this afternoon. Councilmembers Jaime Aldama and Sammy Chavira were absent although Sammy did participate, sort of, telephonically. There were only 2 agenda items: 1. Costs associated with workmen’s’ compensation claims and 2. Proposed regulations for donation drop off boxes and permissible flagpole heights.

The presentation on item #1 generated no council comments or questions…not one. Item #2 generated a great deal of comment and questioning by councilmembers present. It holds true that councilmembers tend to spend more time and energy on issues that directly affect residents than on big picture issues. After nearly an hour of discussion council gave consensus to bring both items back with the request for further information related to how other Valley cities handle both issues. Upon advice of the City Attorney Bailey other “clean up” code/zoning items staff had been prepared to present to council were tabled due to insufficient notice to the public.

© Joyce Clark, 2016        

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

A few thoughts after a very eventful week in which the Glendale city council unanimously accepted the Canvass of Votes thereby acknowledging Mayor Weiers, Vice Mayor Hugh, Councilmember Malnar and me as winners of the recent election. It’s over.

image2

Courtesy of Dawn Monaghan

The photo below is from the September 13, 2016 city council meeting. The gentleman kneeling is Bill Toops, publisher of the Glendale Star. After the Glendale Star did not endorse me or my rival I had a conversation with Mr. Toops. He stated that in the event that I won, he would publicly acknowledge my victory.

Every Friday I check out home sales in Glendale. There are about 350 sales a month and about 4500 sales a year. Some sales obviously reflect existent residents either moving up to a larger home or downsizing but the majority are new families moving into Glendale from someplace else. Is it any wonder that voter turnout is so low in Glendale? One of the reasons for voter apathy is the city’s failure to educate and to engage these new residents.

It came as no surprise that the contested election results were so close. Look at the Jones-Biggs contest in Congressional District 5. It appears to be a reflection of a national trend as general analysis suggests that the presidential contest will be close. Remember the hanging chad? Will there be another Florida-type situation this year? Electronic voting will be under tremendous scrutiny because of concerns about hacking into the national voting system. I’m not sure the country is prepared to deal with electronic voting and assuring the public that the results are tamper proof. Perhaps we would be best served to continue the use of paper ballots that at least leave a trail that can be verified.

Social media has grown up and is a legitimate and extremely useful in connecting to voters. With my shoe string campaign budget I know that my use of a blog, Facebook pages, blast emails and a campaign website were extremely important and may have tipped the scales in my favor.  Today any candidate who does not make full use of social media does so at his or her peril.

I will continue to blog about Glendale issues as I am not a formal member of the city council yet. The installation for mayor and councilmember is scheduled for December 13, 2016. After then I will continue to blog but I will make very clear that as a councilmember I am duty bound to support council decisions on issues but that will not preclude me from expressing my personal opinion. I will be sure to delineate those positions to readers.

Look for an announcement concerning an October victory celebration for Mayor Weiers, Vice Mayor Hugh, Councilmember Malnar and me. I will share the details of the event as they become available.

© Joyce Clark, 2016          

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The Glendale city council held its regular voting meeting on September 13, 2016. Sammy Chavira was absent again…gasp. He did participate telephonically. In a Hillary Clinton-esque move he claimed he has pneumonia. If he is ill, I wish him a speedy recovery. Yet, one can’t help but wonder. Pneumonia seems to be the current rage in illnesses since presidential candidate Clinton’s diagnosis.

All items but two were on the Consent Agenda and were voted upon in one motion, quickly. The next agenda item was a land planning issue and was also quickly dealt with. The last agenda item was the Canvass of Votes, a formality without legal standing which directs the City Clerk to record the results of the election, those results having already been approved by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (which does have legal standing).

The backdrop to this agenda item was Sammy’s request to the entire city council requesting that they vote to delay acceptance of the Canvass of Votes. In a September 13, 2016 story entitled Chavira asks council to delay canvass of votes by Darrell Jackson of the Glendale Star, he reported, “Yucca District Councilmember Samuel Chavira is attempting to get other councilmembers and the mayor to stop the canvass of votes at the Sept. 13 council meeting after losing his seat in the Aug. 30 primary. Chavira, who lost his seat on the council to former councilmember Joyce Clark by 46 votes, sent an email to fellow councilmembers obtained by The Glendale Star asking them to ‘delay official canvassing of the election results’.” Here is the link to Jackson’s story: http://www.glendalestar.com/news/article_55d713b0-79d5-11e6-8a39-5f815c2ea5eb.html .

Jackson goes on to say, Chavira also may have violated Arizona State Statues on open meeting violations by sending the email as the statute states that councilmembers ‘may not send or verbally communicate with (any) councilmembers requesting their assent on a council meeting agenda action item’.”

The Arizona Attorney General’s Office in its handbook on the Open Meeting Law states the following:

7.5.2 Circumventing the Open Meeting Law.  Discussions and deliberations (in person or otherwise) between less than a majority of the members of a governing body, violate the Open Meeting Law when used to circumvent the purposes of the Open Meeting Law.  See Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. 75-8; Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison, 296 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1974).  Public officials may not circumvent public discussion by splintering the quorum and having separate or serial discussions with a majority of the public body members.  Splintering the quorum can be done by meeting in person, by telephone, electronically, or through other means to discuss a topic that has been or later may be presented to the public body for a decision.  Public officials should refrain from any activities that may undermine public confidence in the public decision making process established in the Open Meeting Law, including actions that may appear to remove discussions and decisions from public view.   

For example, Board members cannot use email to circumvent the Open Meeting Law requirements.  See Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. I05-004 at 2.  “[E]ven if communications on a particular subject between members of a public body do not take place at the same time or place, the communications can nonetheless constitute a ‘meeting.’”  See Del Papa v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. and Cmty. Coll. Sys. Of Nev., 114 Nev. 388, 393, 956 P.2d 770, 774 (1998) (rejecting the argument that a meeting did not occur because the board members were not together at the same time and place).  Additionally, “[w]hen members of the public body are parties to an exchange of e-mail communications that involve discussions, deliberations, or taking legal action by a quorum of the public body concerning a matter that may foreseeably come before the public body for action, the communications constitute a meeting through technical devices under the [Open Meeting Law].”  See Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. I05-004 at 1.  This may be true even if none of the members of the public body respond to the email.  Id. at 2-3.  If the one-way communication proposes legal action, then it would violate the Open Meeting Law.  Id.  However, other one-way communications, with no further exchanges, are not per se violations, and further examination of the facts and circumstances would be necessary to determine if a violation occurred.  Id. at 3.” 

If you believe, as I do, that Sammy has clearly violated the Arizona Open Meeting Law, you may go to the State Attorney General’s website and file a complaint. Any citizen can do so. Here is the link to the site which contains the Complaint Form: https://www.azag.gov/sgo  .

The Canvass of Votes was approved unanimously by the city council but it was not without comment. In the same Darrell Jackson article cited above, he reported that Councilmember Bart Turner prior to the council meeting said, “I have concerns about several irregularities about the election and I feel that by canvassing the votes, we are just accepting the numbers presented by the county and not confirming them,” Turner said by phone. “By canvassing and passing the vote, that, then opens the door for any candidate to challenge the procedure. Our duty is to be sure that to the best of our ability, the election was fully fair and respects the manner of all voters,” Turner said. “If I were to challenge the canvass, it wouldn’t be for one candidate of the other, but on policy and procedures that may not have been completely followed. As far as challenging results, that is the responsibility of the candidates.” His rhetoric was virtually parroted word for word by Councilmembers Tolmachoff and Aldama.

The “irregularities” to which Turner referred were: 1. Delayed opening of the voting location at Glendale High School and 2. The “missing” voter data discovered at Mensendick Elementary School. In his illegal email letter to all councilmembers Chavira asked the County Recorder to provide evidence that the voter data was not tampered with. Here is the response from the County Recorder’s Office regarding both issues that was sent per the Glendale City Clerk’s request and distributed to all councilmembers the day before their evening voting meeting. The first incident did not occur at a Yucca district polling site:

“Subject: Timeline of events at Glendale High School poll site on Primary election day 8/30/2016

 Primary election day 8/30/2016

 Sometime after 6:30am I was sent to 51 avenue and Maryland to pick up the equipment of a troubleshooter who was rear ended in a car accident. While moving supplies/equipment from the troubleshooter to my truck, I received a call at 6:51am directing me to go the Glendale High School poll site ( one of the rear ended troubleshooters polling places) and assist the inspector who was by himself, in a wheelchair with limited mobility to open the poll site.

 Upon arrival, I saw his wife, whom he called, putting out the vote here sign. Myself and another troubleshooter who arrived just after myself, assisted in putting the rest of the signage. I saw no voters waiting around, just kids and parents dropping the kids off.

 Around 7:30am a gentleman in a walker came in, signed the e-poll book and voted a ballot. 7:58am call send me to another poll site to swap out equipment.”

Primary Election August 30, 2016 – Affidavit re: Precinct 0513

Polling Location:               Don Mensendick School – 67th Ave & Missouri

Election Night – MPS Site reported no black bag no memory pack received

The first call made was to the Inspector Pat Burgett. She let me know that all materials were taken to the MPS truck by John Bowen, the Inspector for the co-located precinct 0045 Bethany Park

I then called John Bowen at approximately 1030pm.

He advised that he along with another board member, turned in all of the materials for both precincts and that he had a receipts. In our conversation I asked specifically about the memory packs to which he advised that both packs were sealed in their designated pink bubble bag and then those were sealed inside their individual black bags for each precinct.

We then waited for the MPS truck to arrive at MCTEC.

I did not know that the MPS site did not have the black bag for precinct 0513 until they arrived and we unloaded the truck.

After searching the truck and finding that the black bag was not in house, I volunteered to go first thing on Wed morning to the school.

I first called John Bowen at approx. 715am on Wed to let him know that we did not receive the black back with the memory pack and advised for him to please check his vehicle. He checked and called me back to let me know it was not in the vehicle. But he did have the receipts from the MPS site. I advised to bring them to the school to meet me so that we could retrieve the bag.

We agreed to meet at the school at 8am to gain access to the room where the equipment/supplies remained. (band room)

John arrived a few minutes before me, he had a school representative escort him to unlock the room and retrieved the bag as I was walking up to the room. He called me as I was approaching the school to advise that the bag was indeed in the room and that it was completely intact and that the seal was not broken.

John had his receipts. I confirmed that the receipt for 0513 did not have the top 2 items checked off (black bag & memory pack) All other items were marked. I wrote in Green ink pen on the receipt for 0513, the number to the seal that was on the black bag. I broke the seal with John there to verify that the pink memory pack bag was inside the black bag.

I then picked up a coworker (Jaime Sumner) at 8:35am from her home (approximately 2 blocks across the street from the school) and we drove together to the office with the black bag/memory pack.

We arrived with the black bag at approximately 9:15am.”

As Councilmember Ray Malnar said at the council meeting, the people who work the polls are volunteers and human. He felt that while some mistakes had occurred, none had risen to the level of voter fraud or vote tampering. I concur with his assessment. Originally I expressed concern regarding the “missing” votes at Mensendick School but after reading the above Affidavit I am satisfied that there was no vote tampering.

Apparently these answers from the County Recorder’s Office are not good enough for Chavira, Turner, Tolmachoff and Aldama. Yet they accepted the County Recorder’s and Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Official Canvass of Votes. If they were really concerned about Glendale’s election results, why did they vote to accept those very same results? Turner made one interesting remark when he said, “As far as challenging results, that is the responsibility of the candidates.” The only one who can contest the results is Sammy.

In another Glendale Star story also posted on September 13, 2016 by Darrell Jackson entitled Weiers wins, Clark reclaims Yucca seat, Chavira’s campaign manager, Ben Scheel, said, “At this point, we are following very closely and we will keep all our options open,” Scheel said. “We have spoken to an attorney, but are not calling for anything at this point. We just want to make sure all the votes are counted and after the final votes are posted, we will examine everything closely and make our decision.” Here is the link to this story: http://www.glendalestar.com/news/article_36fc4d94-79c0-11e6-92fd-7f16a95eaf36.html .

Mayor Weiers stated in response to the possibility of a challenge, “Challenge what? The fact is the machine was still sealed and verified and based on any other voting machine, there was no discrepancy. I believe it is fruitless (to challenge) and there is a point where you have to understand that it is time to do what is right for the city.”

Will Sammy contest the results? At this point, I simply don’t care what he does. Mathematically, any action by him will not change the final outcome – quite simply, I won. The margin of my win could change incrementally but the outcome remains the same. Sammy has a steep financial hill to climb in filing a contest to the election. He has to pay for an attorney and he has to pay for any recount should such an action be approved by a judge. The only two grounds, by state statute, that would allow for a recount are voter fraud and vote tampering. He has no proof of either and the burden of proof rests with him. His court adversaries would not be me but the attorneys representing the County Recorder’s Office. That office has clearly and unequivocally stated that all seals on the bags containing the voter data were intact.

It’s time for Burdick and Chavira to publicly concede. Their sound and fury signify nothing but sour grapes and at this point we are seeing not only sour grapes but grapes that have become moldy and rotten. While we are at it…Sammy take your campaign signs down. All signs belonging to losing primary candidates need to be down 15 days after the polls close. That’s Wednesday, September 14, 2016…today.

© Joyce Clark, 2016        

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Some facts:

  1. Sammy Chavira lost his council seat in the current August 30, 2016 Primary Election.
  2. I am Councilmember Elect of the Yucca district in Glendale.
  3. Yesterday, September 12, 2016 the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to approve and accept the Maricopa County Recorder’s Canvass of Votes.
  4. The Board of Supervisor’s vote is a mandatory legally recognized action taken as required by Arizona State Statutes. Here are the relevant statutes:

“16-646. Statement, contents and mailing of official canvass

  1. The board of supervisors shall deliver a copy of the official canvass for all offices and ballot measures in the primary and general elections to the secretary of state in a uniform electronic computer media format that shall be agreed upon between the secretary of state and all county election officials.
  2. The certified permanent copy of the official canvass for all offices and ballot measures in a city or town election shall be filed with the appropriate city or town clerk, or in a special district election with the clerk of the board of supervisors, who shall maintain and preserve them as a permanent public record.

16-647. Declaration of election to office; delivery of certificate of election

The board of supervisors shall declare elected the person receiving the highest number of votes cast for each office to be filled by the electors of the county or a subdivision thereof, and the clerk of the board shall, unless enjoined from so doing by an order of the court, deliver to each such person, upon compliance with the provisions imposed by law upon candidates for office as conditions precedent to the issuance of such certificates, a certificate of election, signed by the clerk and authenticated with the seal of office of the board of supervisors.”

  1. The Canvass of Votes Resolution is the last item on tonight’s, September 13, Glendale City Council meeting agenda:
16-392 1 28. 2016 Primary Election Canvass of Vote Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 5154 NEW SERIES A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, DECLARING THE OFFICIAL CANVASS OF VOTES CAST IN THE CITY OF GLENDALE PRIMARY ELECTION HELD AUGUST 30, 2016; DECLARING THE ELECTION OF THE MAYOR AND THREE COUNCILMEMBERS; AND ORDERING THAT A CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION BE RECORDED. Staff Contact: Julie K. Bower, City Clerk
  1. This City Council action, whether it is approved or rejected or tabled, has no legal effect on the Canvass of Votes.  There is no state statute that requires a local jurisdiction to approve or reject the Canvass of Votes. The Glendale City Council vote is no more than a formality and ministerial. If necessary, I expect the Glendale City Attorney to verify this fact at tonight’s council meeting. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if each jurisdiction could reject the Canvass of Votes and overturn the voters’ decision? Only the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, by state statute, can vote to accept or reject the Canvass of Votes. By state statute, the Board of Supervisors vote regarding the County Recorder’s Canvass of Votes is a legal and binding action.
  2. Yesterday, September 12, 2016, Sammy sent the following letter to all Glendale City Councilmembers:

“Fellow Glendale Councilmembers,

I am greatly concerned by the election process that took place on August 30th. As my opponent, Joyce Clark, has already pointed out in previous correspondence, Glendale voters need reassurance that every single vote has been counted. (More about this statement further down in this blog.)

The loss of custody of a memory card containing voter completed ballots from the Don Mensendick polling location for over 12 hours brings into question the integrity (sic), and assurance are necessary to remove any shadow of doubt.

I am requesting the Maricopa County Recorder provide evidence to the City of Glendale and its residents that while the memory card was out of custody, it was not tampered with (sic). I am also currently working with the County Recorder to endure Glendale has not had ballots being dismissed due to signature irregularities or other reason (sic) without proper cause and procedure, as is being alleged in other parts of the county.

Until the County Recorder is able to provide this evidence I urge the Glendale Council to delay official canvassing of the election results with respect to Mrs. Clark, myself and Glendale residents.

Regards,

Councilmember Samuel U. Chavira”

  1. Sammy Chavira is in violation of State Statutes regarding the Open Meeting Law.  A councilmember may not send or verbally communicate with all councilmembers(or even another councilmember) requesting their assent on a council meeting agenda action item. The Canvass of Votes is an agenda action item scheduled for tonight, September 13, 2016. His letter to all councilmembers is the clearest and starkest example of an Open Meeting Law violation I have ever witnessed. I had no concern, as Sammy stated, as to whether every vote was counted. Rather in my communication to the County Recorder’s Office I suggested the very opposite.
  2. I sent the following email to the City Clerk when I learned of the situation at Mensendick School:

8/31/2016 12:18:50 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time

Hello Ms. Bower,

Thank you for providing information.

However, I am concerned as I suspect all other affected candidates are, about the integrity of these ‘missing’ ballots. Would you please forward this email on to Helen Purcell, the County Recorder, with the following question:

Ms. Purcell,

I understand the ballots from one Yucca district were ‘missing’ and have been discovered. I also understand they were ‘locked up’ overnight.

Please provide me with some proof of the integrity of these ballots. I don’t see how they can be legitimately counted when they were under no one’s supervision or care for an estimated 12 hours or better.

Respectfully,

Joyce Clark”

  1. Yesterday, September 12, 2016 I viewed the County Board of Supervisor’s meeting. Here is the link: http://maricopa.siretechnologies.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=3072&doctype=AGENDA . Steve Gallardo (a buddy of Sammy’s), District 5 Supervisor, asked about the “Mensendick school situation.” The County Recorder’s Office explicitly stated that the bags holding the voter data had their seals unbroken and intact. I am reassured and satisfied by their explanation of events. I accept the County Recorder’s explanation as true and valid. It seems Supervisor Gallardo accepted their explanation as well and was also satisfied as he seconded the motion to approve the Canvass of Votes. The motion was approved unanimously. There was no follow up questioning by Supervisor Gallardo nor did he make a motion to reject the Canvass of Votes.
  2. Yesterday afternoon the County Recorder’s Office sent to all councilmembers via the City Clerk its assurance and verification that the Mensendick ballots were not tampered with. Each councilmember has the evidence that Sammy requested from the County Recorder.
  3. The only way that Sammy can contest my win is to seek court action. Sammy has already been advised by an attorney that he has no case and will not win in court. It is his burden to prove that the Mensendick ballots were tampered with and that he cannot do.

Why did Sammy get his buddy, Supervisor Gallardo, to ask about the Mensendick situation only to have Gallardo approve the Canvass of Votes? Why did Sammy violate the Open Meeting Law with his request of all councilmembers to table their acceptance of the Canvass of Votes when council’s action has no legal effect? Why is Sammy so willing to deny the will and choice of Yucca district voters?

Sammy is embarrassed that he lost. Sammy is angry after he and his special interests flushed so much money down the toilet. Sammy is unwilling to accept the Yucca district voter’s decision.

Sammy is willing to use any means, foul or futile, to overturn the voice of the people. Sammy is unwilling to accept the voters’ rejection of his record: his abuse of taxpayer money; his failure to attend city council meetings; his failure to hold district meetings; his disdain for the law regarding a simple traffic ticket; and worst of all, his failure to return his constituents’ calls and to represent them. He lost because he didn’t do his job. He thought he was entitled. He was arrogant and exhibited a lack of respect for the very people he was supposed to serve.

Sammy is a loser. He lost the election. He needs to get over it and there is no expectation that he will do so gracefully or honorably. And while he’s at it…Sammy, it is way past time to take down your campaign signs. By law they are to be removed within 10 days. It’s now 13 days and counting. But then again, the law, whether it is the Open Meeting Law or Canvass of Votes, doesn’t seem to mean much to him.

© Joyce Clark, 2016        

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

%d bloggers like this: