Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

From the Associated Press by Sundin Thanawala and reprinted by the Arizona Republic on October 12, 2014. This article was too relevant to ignore and so it is offered below with a few interspersed comments: The article, California tribe’s casino plan to go before voters, is from San Francisco.

 “A Native American tribe’s plan for a Las Vegas-style casino in Central Valley (make that Glendale) nearly 40 miles (change that to 100 miles) from its reservation has drawn opposition from other casino-owning tribes in the state.

“The voters now will weigh in on whether the North Fork Rancheria Band of Mono Indians (insert Tohono O’odham) are ‘reservation shopping,’ as their critics contend, or taking land that was part of their historical territory, as the tribes maintains.

“A referendum on the November ballot asks voters to approve or reject a deal signed by the governor and passed by the state Legislature that would allow the North Fork Rancheria to build a casino with up to 2,000 slot machines ( change to nearly 1,100 slot machines), on a 305-acre (132 acres) plot of land along a major highway (the Loop 101 Freeway) about 30 miles (5 miles) northwest of Fresno (Phoenix).

“With a yes vote, the project would clear its last major hurdle to entering the state’s Indian gambling market, where 58 tribes (21 tribes) are currently running 59 (28) casinos, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

“Critics of the proposal say the tribes is trying to get closer to an urban market that can bring in more gamblers.”

“ ‘This move by North Fork, if it goes forward, will incentivize tribes in rural areas to move to more-lucrative locations,’ said Cheryl Schmit, director of the group Stand Up For California.

“Representatives of the 2,000-member North Fork tribe counter that their existing land is for housing and does not allow gambling and that they went through a lengthy vetting process to get approval for the new land.

“ ‘We’re getting back to the historical land that serves as a reservation for our tribes in the 1850’s,’ said Charles Banks-Altekruse, a spokesman for the tribe, which is being supported by Las Vegas-based Station Casinos.

“Additionally, tribal officials say, the project would create more than 4,500 (change to 6,000) jobs and pump tens of millions of dollars into the local economy.

“Opposition to North Fork’s proposal is coming from other casino-owning tribes, including Table Mountain Rancheria (Gila River Indian Community and the Salt River-Pima-Maricopa Indian Community) whose casino is about 25 miles (20 miles) from the proposed site of the North Fork facility (Tohono O’odham’s Glendale site).

“The campaign against the project is also being funded by New York-based Brigade Capital Management, an investment firm that backs the Chukchansi Gold Resort & Casino, another Indian casino near the site of the proposed North Fork casino.

“Under the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, tribes can build casinos on reservations that existed before Oct. 17, 1988, but not on lands taken into trust after that date (except in Arizona). The law allows the Interior secretary to make an exception in cases where the off-reservations acquisition is in the tribe’s best interest (not proven for Tohono O’odham) and does not hurt the surrounding community (which it will).”

These situations are eerily similar with one major exception. The referendum was not blocked in California and so the voters will have the final say. Not so in Glendale. Glendale has blocked the referendum petitions and the matter is now a court case and a judge will decide whether Glendale voters can determine their own fate.

© Joyce Clark,

2014 FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The 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 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 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.

There are times when you have read this blog and wanted to say more than a brief comment. From time to time I will post a Guest Blog. Here is another submitted by Bud Zomok, former Ocotillo district council candidate.

If you would like to submit a Guest Blog I ask the following:

  • Do not plagiarize. If you use facts or quotes, please cite the source
  • Be respectful…no hate filled rants, please
  • You must agree to allow me to edit if necessary. I will not change your opinion or content

Higher expectations for Politicians? by Bud Zomok 

Having taken the time to read the post by Joyce Clark titled Aldama…maybe not, I was surprised by some of the responses submitted.   

Let me take a moment to explain my surprise.   

Mr. Van DiCarlo expressed comments about the policy currently in place by the county as “grossly unfair”.  That may be the case but these are the current rules that the county has created and until those rules are changed one should expect politicians to follow the rules that have been established.   

Mr. DiCarlo, you once expressed in an article as a candidate that you believe a candidate should represent the interests of the voters and not their own interests.  I find that commendable as it means as a candidate one would to take the time to talk and listen to the voters in order to understand their interests. 

Yet in your reply you make the following two statements, “could the two complainants be paving a way to step in as the official runner up” and “that you have little or no respect for those who attempt to get their nose in the door by exploitation.”   

Exploitation?  

It’s interesting that an attempt to have a politician follow the rules is deemed exploitation.  And, did you have that same lack of respect for Mr. Aldama when he, too, filed complaints against candidates early on in the election?  

I saw Mr. Aldama’s challenges as way of ensuring that any citizen who wanted to run in the Ocotillo District was actually eligible to run. I would assume Mr. Aldama would want to ensure he too is doing everything according to the required process in his current race.   

I would pose one question to Mr. DiCarlo. Have you taken a moment to talk with either me or Mr. Hernandez before writing your comments?  Doesn’t that fly in the face of your campaign statement? Didn’t you make comments based on your own interest or assumptions without checking the facts? 

The letter submitted to the County and Attorney General was not submitted to require Mr. Aldama to stop his campaign. It was done to ensure he follows the rules set by the, city /state/ or in this particular situation, the county. 

Surely you as a past candidate are not supporting the idea that candidates should be able to pick and choose what part of particular policy they wish to follow or ignore.   As a past private investigator I would assume you must have had to follow specific rules in the investigative process and had you not followed those rules (even if you didn’t agree or did not know the rules existed) it would have possibly caused the information you secured to be ruled as not admissible.

Mr. DiCarlo, be assured I have moved on, but moving on does not mean one should turn a blind eye to the current requirements of running for any political position.  If anything we should expect “any” citizen who runs for a political office to at least know the rules and follow them.  

I hope we never get to a point where we allow our desire to replace an incumbent to translate into allowing politicians to pick and chose what rules/laws will apply to their campaigns. We are a country of rules and laws and if we don’t like those rules and laws then we need to work to change them, but choosing to ignore them should never be an acceptable option.  

Bud Zomok

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The 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 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 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.

Councilmember Gary Sherwood has done it again. On September 17, 2014 he appeared before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hearing on Senate Bill 2670. The bill, if approved by the Senate, would have the effect of stopping the Tohono O’odham from building a casino in Glendale.

Please note that the panel members were not sworn in. It is the usual practice in any Congressional hearing and one wonders why it was not done this time. In his oral testimony Sherwood said, “We have talked to many business leaders in this area including leaders of two professional sports teams and major hospitality developments and they all support this West Valley project.”

It appears that his statement is not true. In fact, the Cardinals have sent a letter to the Chair of the Committee, Senator Jon Tester, as well as the Vice Chair Senator Barrasso, Senator John McCain, Senator Jeff Flake, Mayor Jerry Weiers and all members of the Glendale City Council, categorically stating that they do not support the casino project.  The Arizona Coyotes released a public statement indicating that they have never expressed support for the casino project.

Looks like Sherwood was shooting from the hip…err…his lips…again. Sherwood is on a personal path of self destruction with a history of public statements that have all but destroyed his credibility. No wonder the people of the Sahuaro district, which he represents, seem all too willing to sign a recall petition against him.

On a separate but another questionable note, a blog reader contacted me and asked if Jamie Aldama has the home he owns in the Yucca district registered as a rental property with the City of Glendale and if he is paying monthly rental property tax to the city. I have no answer and the city maintains no online listing of rental properties. I suggest the Ocotillo voters go to the source and ask Mr. Aldama. It begs yet another question. Why is Jamie Aldama still sitting on the citizen’s Planning and Zoning Commission representing the Yucca district if he doesn’t live there and is running as a candidate for the Ocotillo council seat? Councilmember Chavira (Yucca district) should have replaced him when Aldama announced for Ocotillo. Why didn’t he? Perhaps he was just lazy and didn’t want to deal with the hassle of finding a replacement or perhaps he thought he was giving Aldama greater credibility as an Ocotillo district candidate with Planning and Zoning credentials. There’s no love lost between Chavira and Alvarez. She supported him a lot…I mean tons… in his run for his council seat only to be double crossed by him when Chavira voted for the arena management agreement. Alvarez was counting on him to be the fourth vote that would kill the deal. This kind of politics is certainly not for the faint hearted.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The 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 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 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.

 

Right after this blog endorsed Jamie Aldama for the Glendale Ocotillo district council seat, I received the following information.

Zomok ltr Oct 8 2014On October 1, 2014 former Ocotillo district city council candidates Bud Zomok and Michael Hernandez sent a formal letter to the following: Attorney General Tom Horne, Maricopa Supervisors Marie Lopez Rodgers and Clint Hickman, County Attorney Bill Montgomery, Glendale City Clerk Pam Hanna and County Recorder Helen Purcell.

They allege that Jamie Aldama, a current employee of the Glendale Community College Structures Department, is required to resign his position if he wishes to remain a viable candidate for the Ocotillo District City Council seat. Anyone, as does Mr. Aldama, who works for a governmental agency such as the Maricopa Community College district is a paid, public employee. A councilmember’s position is a paid, public office.

The Maricopa County Ethics Handbook on page 18 states, “A public employee, whether merit-covered or unclassified, may not be a candidate for nomination or election to any public office which is either paid or partisan. Upon filing for nomination papers or making a formal public declaration of candidacy, an employee shall be required to submit a letter of resignation.” See this link: http://www.maricopa.gov/InternalAudit/pdf/Controls/ethicshandbook.pdf . It is commonly referred to as ‘Resign to Run’.

If after further investigation by the above cited agencies this stricture applies, Mr. Aldama has only two options. One is to resign from his paid, public position with the Maricopa Community College District or two, immediately terminate his candidacy for the paid, public office of the Ocotillo City Council seat.

Is Aldama waiting to see if he captures the Ocotillo council seat before resigning? That can’t be kosher, can it? Not according to the Ethics Handbook which says upon filing nomination papers one is required to resign.

So, Mr. Aldama, which is it to be? Will you resign your paid, public employment or will you withdraw your candidacy? Those of you planning to vote for Mr. Aldama may want to hold off for a bit to see how this situation plays out.

On yet another front…JMC Irrigation. It’s public address and phone number is that of Jamie Aldama’s residence within the Ocotillo district. Hmmm…either Mr. Aldama has a side business or someone else living at his residence has the business. Either way, in checking the Arizona Corporation Commission, it is unregistered. In checking the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, it is also unregistered with that agency. Is anyone from JMC paying required licensing fees and taxes?

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The 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 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 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.

Today, October 8, 2014 is a grey, overcast day in the Phoenix metro area…a rarity to be sure. Anywhere else it would portend a day of steady rain but Phoenix is a desert and because it looks like rain, it doesn’t necessarily mean it will happen. It’s a good day to let thoughts rumble around.

A blog reader recently sent me two news stories of interest. One is from the October 5, 2014 Seattle Times entitled Key Arena turns a bigger profit than it ever did with the Sonics by Ashley Scoby. Here is the link: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024708723_keyarena05xml.html. The other is a Deadspin article entitled The Coyotes were damned close to moving to Seattle by Barry Petchesky dated October 8, 2014. Here is the link: http://deadspin.com/the-coyotes-were-damned-close-to-moving-to-seattle-1643791488 . Each article compliments the other.

In the Deadspin story three sources confirm that the Coyotes were a hair’s breadth from moving to Seattle. Ray Bartoszek and Anthony Lanza had formed a buyers’ group with plans to move the Coyotes to Seattle’s Key Arena the day following the Glendale City Council vote on the IceArizona arena management agreement if it had failed to gain approval. The new information in the story is confirmation that the NHL had blessed the scheme. Everyone knew how imminent the move could be….the NHL knew; the presumed buyers had moving trucks on standby; Glendale senior management knew; the Glendale City Council knew; and IceArizona knew. The only ones in the dark were Glendale residents.

Which leads to the second news story about Seattle’s Key Arena. Everyone presumed in 2009 without the Sonics as an anchor tenant the arena would die a pitiful death. How wrong. An average annual loss to Seattle with the Sonics was $1.5 million. In 2013, without the Sonics, the arena generated $1.2 million in profit. The loss of the team didn’t hurt for it opened up more desirable dates for performing artists to utilize the arena. Artists such as Kanye West, Rihanna, Maroon 5 and Bruno Mars performed at the Key in 2013.

I had always supported keeping a professional sports team at the Gila River Hockey Arena because it was my belief that the arena and Westgate could not survive without one. Seattle’s Key Arena disproves that belief. If the Coyotes arena management agreement had failed on that fateful July, 2013 day Glendale would have moved on, just as Seattle did. Glendale would have joined with an AEG-type partner and could have enjoyed the same kind of success that we see today at Seattle’s Key Arena.

P.S. Here’s a link to yet another Seattle Times news story about an almost move to Seattle: http://seattletimes.com/html/hockey/2024716050_seattlenhl07xml.html#.VDWTTHFMEBI.twitter

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The 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 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 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 General Election is in less than a month and early ballots have been mailed out and voters are beginning to make choices. For the voters of the Ocotillo district in Glendale’s General Election you have no good choices. Norma Alvarez, the incumbent and retired, is running against Jaime Aldama, who works for the Maricopa Community College District as a Coordinator. The Ocotillo voters must choose between an old, worn out Chevy or a brand new, slick Chevy. The trouble is that the make is the same.

If you go to their websites you will find that they are warm and fuzzy without much substance. Both candidates support the Tohono O’odham casino. Aldama’s site on the issues offers generalities on economic diversity, public safety and public services. Alvarez’ site doesn’t offer anything but why should it. The general public has had four years to observe her negativity on nearly every issue. Here are the links to their sites: http://www.jamiealdama.com/  and http://www.normaforglendale.com/ .

Both candidates have shown their commitment to Glendale and its well being. Aldama has shown his community commitment through his volunteerism on Glendale’s Boards and Commissions and Alvarez with her many years as a Glendale employee in Glendale’s Community Action Program (CAP). CAP is a pass through agency that doles out federal funds to those who are economically distressed.  

Let’s look at their campaign reports.  Both candidates filed complete reports. The last report made by their political committees is the Post Primary Report which covers activity through September 15, 2014. Jamie Aldama has raised $16,545 as of Sept. 15th. Norma Alvarez has raised $11,480 as of Sept. 15th.

Aldama’s base of support is big money donors (a few of which are Glendale residents) and Political Action Committees (PACs).  Of the donors listed only 4 are from Glendale and in some instances he does not list his donor’s job occupations or employers. He has loaned himself $2,500 to date. The PACs contributing to his campaign are: the UFCW #99 for $2,000; the Peoria Police Officers Association for $500; and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees for $1,000.

Alvarez’ base of support is from her husband, Fernando for $2,500. In other words, she gave her campaign $2,500 in a form other than a loan. Other notable contributors are Jason and Jordan Rose, attorneys, for $500; and the owner of Gonzalo Tours for $1,400.

Aldama has outspent Alvarez nearly 2 to 1. Aldama spent $15,611.44 to date and Alvarez spent $9,399.62 to date. All candidates had expenses for bank charges and websites. Alvarez has no such charges listed.

The choice in this race is difficult for the Ocotillo voter since there is no real choice…the new model vs. the old model.  Although Glendale races are non-partisan and no political party affiliations are declared it is pretty evident that Aldama and Alvarez are both Democrats. They share the Democrat philosophy of big government and big spending.

It boils down to a choice between the devil you know and the devil you don’t know. The Ocotillo voter knows exactly what he or she will get with Alvarez – more negativity and cheer leading for the Tohono O’odham.  She has made it clear that she only supports transparency and the voice of the people when it fits her positions on issues.

Aldama, if you have viewed his performance on the Planning and Zoning Commission, has a tendency to express his position after he sees which way the wind is blowing. He will be a follower, not a leader. That may be a good thing as city council has too many self-styled leaders these days.  Aldama may end up as the latest swing vote on many Glendale issues.

Based upon readily available information to the Ocotillo voter the choice for this race is:

 checkmark__bottomheavy_140

    Jamie Aldama

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The 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 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 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 General Election is in less than a month and early ballots have been mailed out and voters are beginning to make choices. For the voters of the Barrel district in Glendale’s General Election you do have a choice between two distinct styles and philosophies. Randy Miller, a self employed IT consultant is running against Bart Turner, a self employed insurance agent.

The mantle of fiscal conservatism goes to Randy Miller.  He has taken the time to research the fiscal issues and to do his “homework.” Each has staked out positions on some of the major issues facing Glendale.  Here are the links to their websites: http://randyforcouncil.com/ and http://bartknowsglendale.com/index.html  . Turner is opposed to the current management agreement for the hockey arena. He supports the recent council passage of the extension of the temporary sales tax increase.  Miller has concerns about the management agreement for the arena and does not support the temporary sales tax increase. He believes there are other strategies, such as reining in the city’s operations and maintenance costs, to help solve Glendale’s financial crunch. Each has taken a position on the proposed casino with Miller opposed on the basis of reservation status and the future losses of critical sales tax revenue and Turner supports the casino because he believes it’s time to stop wasting money on frivolous lawsuits.

Both candidates have shown their commitment to Glendale and its well being through their volunteerism. Miller’s has been in support of Public Safety and Turner’s has focused on the arts, historical Glendale and social welfare.

Let’s look at their campaign reports. The last report made by their political committees is the Post Primary Report which covers activity through September 15, 2014. Miller filed a complete report. Turner continues to turn in only what he considers to be relevant pages of the report. Randy Miller has raised $8,621 as of Sept. 15th. Bart Turner has raised $10,408.94 as of Sept. 15th.They are within the ballpark of one another.

Miller’s base of support is the small business, self-employed community.  He held a local fund raiser and received support from Glendale residents. He has loaned himself $6,821 to date.

Turner’s base of support is from former college classmates; members of non-profits with whom he has worked over the years and a meet & greet with locals. His classmates contributed about $1600 to his campaign. The Young Voters Political Action Committee contributed $100. He made an In-Kind contribution, rather than a loan to his campaign of $3,087.61.  

Their campaign expenditures are also similar to one another. Miller spent $$8,319.49 to date and Turner spent $9,122.77 to date. Since I do not live in the Barrel district I do not have any information related to their political mailings.

The choice in this race is clear-cut for the Barrel voter.  Although Glendale races are non-partisan and no political party affiliations are declared it is pretty evident that Miller is a Republican (or perhaps an Independent) and Turner is a Democrat. Do you want a council representative who will be sympathetic to the interests of the small business and the self employed communities? Then vote for Miller. Or a council representative whose support comes from former classmates and members of the non-profit community? Then vote for Turner. Miller has consistently demonstrated an eagerness to learn and a passion for the issues confronting Glendale.

Based upon readily available information to the Barrel voter the choice for this race is:

 checkmark__bottomheavy_140

 Randy Miller

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The 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 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 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 General Election is in less than a month and early ballots have been mailed out and voters are beginning to make choices. For the voters of the Cholla district in Glendale’s General Election, sorry but there are no good, clear-cut choices. Gary Deardorff, a self employed financial consultant is running against Lauren Tolmachoff, a self employed realtor.

Both claim the mantle of fiscal conservatism. Deardorff wins on that score. He has years of expertise in finances. Each has taken a position on the proposed casino with Deardorff opposed on the basis of reservation status and Tolmachoff supporting because of the jobs she believes it will create. Neither has a good grasp, due to lack of incumbent knowledge, on the issues facing Glendale. Both candidates’ websites are disappointing. Here are the links to each:http://www.electlaurentolmachoff.com/ and http://www.deardorff4cholla.com/ .

Gary Deardorff’s “Cholla Chats” are lightweight and generally offer feel-good news about events in the Cholla district. Lauren Tolmachoff’s “Blogs” are stale and have not been updated since August.  Neither website speaks to the issues of the Glendale City Council’s penchant for spending money it doesn’t have, Glendale’s debt burden, the Arizona Coyotes situation or the Camelback Ranch Spring Training Facility. It’s obvious as to why they are reluctant to do so. Taking a clear, definitive position on any of these issues will alienate some voters. If you, the voter, want to know these candidates’ positions on the issues you won’t find it on their warm and fuzzy websites.

Let’s look at their campaign reports. The last report made by their political committees is the Post Primary Report which covers activity through September 15, 2014. Both candidates filed complete reports. Lauren Tolmachoff has raised $10,675 as of Sept. 15th.                  Gary Deardorff has raised $23,822.00 as of Sept. 15th.

Tolmachoff’s base of support is the farming community and real estate related community. Four of the Hickman clan and one Tolmachoff (all related to farming) contributed. Eight of her contributions came from real estate and related interests.  Two contributions of note are a $1,000 contribution from Louis Olsen, Director of the World Wildlife Zoo; and a $2,000 contribution from the Realtors of Arizona Political Action Committee. Tolmachoff has loaned herself $3,200 to date.

Deardorff’s base of support is from former Mayor Elaine Scruggs’ circle of contacts and friends or loans he made to himself. Scruggs along with others hosted a fundraiser for him. It grossed $2,837 but Deardorff met expenses for it for almost $800. Scruggs donated $50 but also made an in-kind contribution of $123.14. We don’t know what the in-kind was for as Deardorff did not answer that portion of the form. He also did not explain what Robert Campbell’s $200 in-kind donation was for. In fact, his reporting for nearly every donation he received from individuals is incomplete as occupations and employers are not listed. His major source of funding is loans made to himself totaling $19,067.00 to date.

Deardorff’s campaign expenses are twice that of Tolmachoff’s. Deardorff spent $18,340 to date and Tolmachoff spent $9,415.56 to date. Both spent funds on Deardorff’s legal challenge regarding petition signatures. The difference in spending may relate to the number of political mailings by each. Since I do not live in the Cholla district I do not have any information related to their political mailings. I hope they were more informative than their websites.

As I indicated earlier, the choice in this race is not clear-cut for the Cholla voter. Do you want a council representative who will be sympathetic to the interests of the farming and real estate communities? Or a candidate primarily self-funded and garnering the support of former Mayor Scruggs and her friends?

Based upon readily available information to the Cholla voter the choice for this race is:

                   checkmark__bottomheavy_140 

Lauren Tolmachoff

Next up: Barrel district candidates.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The 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 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 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 October 2, 2014 Larry Brooks, a reporter for the New York Post, reported that a 51% interest in the Coyotes is in the process of being acquired by Andrew Barroway. Barroway is managing partner and founder of Merion Investment Management LP based in Radnor, PA. He is a failed suitor in the purchase of the Devils and Islanders.  At this point the story is speculation as neither the NHL nor the Coyotes’ owners have confirmed the deal. Here is the link: http://nypost.com/2014/10/02/spurned-islanders-buyer-to-purchase-coyotes-instead/. As an exercise, let’s speculate some more.

Why is Barroway acquiring a majority interest in the team? He wants to own a hockey team. That is evident in his two failed attempts. But he wants more than that. He wants to be in control and to make the ultimate and final decisions about the team’s fate at a future date. The team cannot and will not leave for 5 years. We can enjoy hockey in the Valley through the 2018-2019 season. After that you will need to consult your crystal ball.  Although I would expect that when the fans finally realize the team’s days may be numbered attendance will drop like a stone.

According to the agreement the team cannot leave for 5 hockey seasons and must demonstrate $50 million in operating losses. Here is the exact language in the management agreement: Section 3. Term. 3.3. Early Termination by Arena Manager/Team Owner. “Notwithstanding the other terms and provisions of this Agreement, Team Owner and Arena Manager jointly shall have the right to terminate this agreement without penalty or cost by delivery of written notice to the City at any time within 180 days following the end of the fifth (5th) hockey season year after the execution date if (a) neither terminating Party is in material default of any term or condition of this Agreement, and (b)Team Owner has incurred a cumulative Operating Loss of $50,000,000 or more, calculated as the sum of Team Owner’s operating income/loss for each the Fiscal Year periods then ended, provided that if such notice is given during any NHL hockey season, the termination shall not be effective until the end of the applicable hockey season, including all Home Games associated with the season. In this regard, Team Owner shall deliver to the City, not later than ninety (90) days following the end of each Fiscal Year, a statement (certified to the City by the Team Owner’s chief financial officer or the Team Owner’s certified public accountants, at the option of Team Owner) of the Team Owner’s claimed operating income or loss for such Fiscal Year, which statement shall be subject to audit by the City and the result f such audit shall thereafter be conclusive upon team Owner with respect to the determination of Operating Losses.” This exact same provision applies to the city as well.

The New York Post story cites the team loss in its first year of operation at $24 million. Educated rumors are that it’s on the low side and could be more. As long as we’re speculating, let’s peg their losses at $20 million a year. At the end of 5 years the team’s losses will be north of $100 million and will meet the terms of the agreement.  Barroway’s investment in the team now will cover those expected losses and he will be in the cat bird’s seat to decide the team’s future move.

Let’s wait to see if a majority interest is indeed sold to Barroway. That will deliver a strong message to everyone and you can then decide how much of an emotional investment you wish to make in the team. And just when we thought the Coyotes saga was closed…so it continues.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The 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 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 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.

Can’t find it

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 2, 2014
Posted in Casino  | Tagged With: , , | 1 Comment

One of my readers shared that all Arizona tribes with casinos are audited by the Arizona Department of Gaming. I went online to see if the tribal audits are posted and public. Answer…of course not…you can’t find it. I am going to do a FOIA request but I suspect I will be told the information I seek is confidential. However other interesting information appeared.

Total contributions from all Arizona gaming tribes in Fiscal Year 2013 were $97,581, 815. That’s a lot of money. How is it distributed? Here’s the list:

  • 12% goes directly to cities, towns and counties. In FY 2013 that amount was $11,054,208
  • The rest, 88% goes into an Arizona Benefits fund and is divided thusly:
  •         9% or $8 million, whichever is greater, goes to the Arizona Department of Gaming for expenses. The FY 2013 total was $8 million
  •         8% goes to the state’s Tourism Fund. In FY 2013 it was $6,143,764
  •         8% goes to the Wildlife Conservation Fund. In FY 2013 it was $6,143,764
  •         2% goes to the Office of Problem Gambling. In FY 2013 it was $1,730,552
  •         28% goes to the Trauma & Emergency Services Fund. In FY 2013 it was $21,503,176
  •         56% goes to the Instructional Improvement Fund. In FY2013 it was $43,006,351

Without knowing revenues earned collectively or individually by the gaming tribes it is impossible to figure out how much money is being earned annually. The formula for each gaming tribe’s contribution to the state is as follows:

  1. (b) Tribal Contributions. In consideration for the substantial exclusivity covenants by the State in Section 3(h), the Tribe shall contribute for the benefit of the public a percentage of the Tribe’s Class III Net Win for each fiscal year of the Gaming Facility Operator as follows:
  2. (1) One percent (1%) of the first twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000.00);                                                                          (2) Three percent (3%) of the next fifty million dollars ($50,000,000.00);                                                                          (3) Six percent (6%) of the next twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000.00); and                                                                    (4) Eight percent (8%) of Class III Net Win in excess of one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000.00).

There is another factor that all of us should consider. A best guesstimate is that gaming tribes in Arizona collectively take in a billion dollars a year. That is a billion discretionary dollars diverted from expenditures on food, clothes, housing etc. That is a billion discretionary dollars earning no sales tax locally or statewide.

Did you know it was reported in October of 2013 that “Federal programs operated by the Hopi Tribe are in danger of being taken over by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS) because the Hopi Tribe is seriously delinquent in submitting audits for Fiscal Years 2010, 2011 and 2012? Because of the severity of the problem, the BIA has designated the Hopi Tribe as a “High Risk” tribe and imposed a Level III sanction on the tribe. The BIA Hopi Agency, by federal law, must now take steps to take over these programs and stop all funding to the tribe. Other federal agencies may also pull their funding.” (http://indigenouspeoplesissues.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18261:arizona-hopi-tribe-faces-danger-of-losing-federal-programs&catid=22&Itemid=55 ). Or in July of 2014 it was reported that “The White Mountain Apache Housing Authority misspent millions of federal dollars on entertainment, gift certificates and other improper items, and is so badly managed it should be considered for receivership, according to a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development audit released this week. A HUD Office of Inspector General report issued Tuesday also says the agency’s Southwest Office of Native American Programs should order the tribal housing agency to reimburse $2.3 million and acknowledge the unsupported spending of an additional $8.2 million.”(http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/2014/07/12/audit-millions-misspent-apache-housing-agency/12563303/ ).

When incredible amounts of money are involved, whether as a federal grant or gaming revenue, the possibility of graft and corruption increase dramatically for any group not just tribes. True, the state audits the gaming tribes but 99% of the general public is not aware of that fact much less knows the results of these audits. Again, I ask how the Tohono O’odham that allegedly earns $68 million a year spends it. Chairman Norris, in his Sept. 17, 2014 testimony before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, testified that many in his Nation live in substandard housing without water or electricity. Why?

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The 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 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 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.