There’s an old saying, “Money is the mother’s milk of politics.” From what I’ve heard, Sammy prefers something stronger than milk, and often. There is no doubt a ton of money has been spent to try to defeat me in this election. Sammy’s campaign, to date, has paid for 2 mailers; he has paid the LA Machine to deliver his door hangers; and he has illegally stuffed mailboxes with his campaign material. The estimated cost is about $15,000.

Campaign for Truth and Leadership, an Independent Committee, whose chairperson is Bill Scheel of Javalina Consulting, and Revitalize Arizona (with major funding by Residents for Accountability), shell PACs being used by Javalina Consulting, have spent another estimated $20,000 on campaign mailers and campaign signs for Sammy. And remember, they have not consulted with Sammy or his campaign on their actions or the content of the mailers (read with a heavy dose of sarcasm).

The total estimated cost to date is in the $35,000 range and sure to climb before this campaign is over. The estimate is that by the time of the election Chavira and his people will have spent an estimated $50,000 to defeat me. Imagine that! And I will have spent $10,000.

In one of Sammy’s recent mailers he claims that I called the auditors of the Risk Management and Workmen’s Compensation Fund “nitpicky.” Sammy lied. I did not call the auditors or the auditors’ report “nitpicky.” I did call some of the unnecessary details of the report “nitpicky.” This is just another example of campaign rhetoric when a word is deliberately taken out of context and misused. Imagine, all that money spent and the very worst they can come up with is “nitpicky.” What a hoot! You would have thought Sammy could have found something more dark and sinister to use.

In yet more campaign rhetoric according to Sammy, I broke the piggy bank. I must be some kind of all powerful wizard to have accomplished that all by myself. Sammy conveniently ignores history but let’s not forget how desperate he is to win. Sammy does not acknowledge that former Mayor Scruggs and her obedient mushroom councilmembers,(old country saying: “a mushroom is grown in the dark and fed a diet of horse manure”) Knaack, Frate and Martinez, along with Scruggs were  a majority vote that made the decisions resulting in Glendale’s present condition. I was an afterthought for it is well known that I did not march in lock step with former mayor Scruggs. There were many times that former (and recently deceased) Councilmember Lieberman and I were minority “no” votes. Sammy doesn’t acknowledge Scruggs’ responsibility because that does not fit his campaign rhetoric.

I seem to be pulling up scads of adages and here’s another, “Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you.” Sammy is using the same points he used in 2012. It may have worked then but will not work this time. He fails to recognize one very important difference this time. His record. He now has a record of 4 years of accomplishment or in Sammy’s case, non-accomplishment. As Sammy has said, “my record speaks for itself.”

His record is a disaster.

  • How can he possibly defend a record of abusing taxpayer money with lavish trips to D.C. to see the Pope and a $420 dinner for his Phoenix fire bosses?
  • How can he defend missing 12 council meetings, more than any elected official in Glendale’s history?
  • How can he defend failing to appear in court and a driver’s license suspension?
  • How can he defend holding only one district meeting in 4 years?
  • How can he defend being the deciding vote for a “sweetheart deal” with an out-of-state corporation granting Ice Arizona $15 million dollars a year to manage Glendale’ arena?
  • How can he defend his silences at council meetings, rarely speaking and when he does, only to thank someone for something?
  • How can he defend his inaccessibility to his own district residents?
  •  How can he defend refusing to return constituent calls?

I received a call today from a gentleman and voter who told me he and his family members (7 of them) had voted for me. His reason? He had called Sammy several times to ask for help and Sammy never returned his call. This constituent’s complaint has been echoed to me over and over again. Here are two recent constituent observations: “So I asked this man (Sammy Chavira) a simple question and was very nice about my question, instead of answering my question he deleted my comment. Not someone I would want to be the mouth of the Yucca district. Can’t even answer simple questions and instead ignores the people.” Or “The same thing happened to me!”

Yes, Sammy, your “record does speak for itself” and it’s not pretty or ethical.

We can’t afford Sammy or his ethics.

© Joyce Clark, 2016


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 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.