Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Well, Sammy finally turned in his campaign finance report on October 3, 2016…late. Wonder if he was fined? Here is the link to his finance report: http://glendaleaz.com/Clerk/documents/Post-Primary-ChaviraforCouncil.pdf .

Sammy raised almost as much money as the two mayoral candidates as each mayoral candidate raised and spent in excess of $100,000. This report pegs him collecting $81,180.74 in contributions from special interests and unions outside of Glendale. His total spending to date is $74,301.74. I spent $11,489.70. Sammy, to date, outspent me 6 and a half times to one. He retains excess cash of $6878.27. How long will it take him to figure out a strategy that allows him to pocket that cash? Legally, a campaign committee may only make contributions to other candidates or committees or to non-profits. The excess funds are not to be spent personally.

As Sammy rides off into the sunset hopefully never to run for any office again, we wish him a fond farewell.

Even though I do not take office until December 13, 2016, I have begun to resume councilmember elect activities. I had been invited to attend a neighborhood annual picnic this past Sunday. I had a great time. I connected with residents who I had served previously and listened to their current concerns as well as issues important to them now. This week I will meet with developers on two upcoming residential zoning projects and attend a grand opening for a local business.

I attribute the result of my win to my previous constituent interactions. My campaign support came from individuals living within the Yucca district or within Glendale. To celebrate that win I am joining Mayor Jerry Weiers, Vice Mayor Ian Hugh, and Councilmember Ray Malnar in a victory party on October 21, 2016. To all those individuals who either donated to my campaign, made phone calls for me, walked for me, worked the polls or had yard signs, consider this personal invitation as a way to thank you for your support. I invite you to join all four of us in celebration. I, personally, am excited to be part of a team committed to moving Glendale forward. We ask that you RSVP by calling 623-939-4052 or emailing ianhugh2012@yahoo.com before October 14, 2016 so that we might have a count for food and refreshment purposes.

invitation-5

© 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.

PLEASE DONATE TO MY CAMPAIGN BY USING THE PAY PAL BUTTON TO THE LEFT.

PLEASE CHECK OUT THE CHAVIRA VIDEOS TO THE LEFT OF THIS COLUMN.

It has been 18 years and 199 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

Last week I posted my campaign finance report on this blog. It is appropriate to look at Sammy’s campaign report. If you wish to see mine or any other Glendale candidate’s finance report, please follow this link: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/PoliticalCommitteeCampaignFinanceReports.cfm .

Chavira begins with the $16,671.14 from his January report. Those funds came from 3 sources: $5,000 from Mark Becker of Becker Billboards; $6,250 from the UFCW99; and $5,000 from the Arizona Pipe Trades #469. Here is the link to Chavira’s report: June 30 2016 .

In this current report he received campaign contributions from 2 sources: the Tohono O’odham Nation contributed $6,250 and Arizona Pipe Trades 469 gave him another $5,000 for total contributions of $11,250.00. By Arizona law an Indian tribe is not a PAC but is considered an individual and the maximum amount an individual can contribute is $6, 250. So the tribe is maxed out on an individual contribution.  If I read the regulations correctly, the Arizona Pipe Trades may contribute a maximum amount of $12,500. It is close to maxing out with total contributions to Chavira of $10,000.

Have you noticed something? Chavira has received nada, none, zilch…not a scintilla of a contribution from anyone in Glendale since January of 2016.  He has received nothing from a Yucca district resident or a Glendale resident. It may be that his lavish trips on taxpayer money, his many absences from city council meetings and his failure to appear in court with a subsequent suspension of his driver’s license have caused many to be reluctant to contribute to his campaign.

 If he has received individual contributions, he may be holding them back to report them after the Primary but a candidate is not supposed to do that.  When a candidate receives contributions they are supposed to be reported when received…not months later.

Chavira has spent to date $13,397. $4,000 has been paid to Patrick Barrett, a consultant who is currently the finance director for Kyrsten Sinema for Congress and the campaign manager for Navarro for Tempe City Council. Barrett was also campaign manager for Glendale fire fighter and Phoenix City Councilman Danny Valenzuela.

Chavira paid the LA Machine, a petition gathering company, $2,797 to collect his petition signatures. He also paid Benjamin Scheel of Bright Phoenix $1,500 for consultancy. I wonder if there is any connection between Benjamin Scheel and Billy Scheel, a partner at Javalina Consulting?

Lastly he paid the Torres Law Group $1750 for petition verification. I assume it was to check my petition signatures. If that’s what this expense was for, he wasted a lot of money because we checked my petitions for valid signatures before turning them in. We knew that we had several hundred extra valid signatures when my petitions were submitted.

Chavira made $3,000 in disbursements to various persons/organizations: $1,000 to the Center for Neighborhood Leadership; $1,000 to Kim Romero; and $1,000 to the Citizens Police Academy Alumni. There is a Stan Chavira on the board of the Center for Neighborhood Leadership. This same Stan Chavira lists himself as the Community Affairs Director for the UFCW (the same UFCW that donated $6,250 to Chavira according to his January, 2016 campaign finance report). Are Stan Chavira and Sammy Chavira related? I don’t know.

In summary, Sammy spent approximately $5,000 on consultants; another approximate $5,000 on petition signature collection and verification; and disbursed $3,000 to persons/organizations.

It certainly is a small world, isn’t it? It appears that all of Sammy’s connections are intertwined. Stan Chavira (is he a relative of Sammy’s??) is on the payroll of the UFCW and on the board of the previously mentioned leadership group. This leadership group received a $1,000 donation from Sammy.  Sammy received $6000 from the UFCW. The LA Machine, the company that collected Sammy’s petition signatures, has ties to Ruben Gallego (the very friend Sammy spent taxpayer money to see sworn in, in Washington, D.C.) who appears to be the only supporter of Sammy’s campaign.

Patrick Barrett, apparently Sammy’s consultant or campaign manager (??) was also campaign manager for Sammy’s buddy, Danny Valenzuela. Danny and Sammy were members of the International Association of Hispanic Firefighters (IAHF) and left after apparently Tony Herrera and Art Jimenez, 2 friends they recommended to sponsor an IAHF fundraiser, produced nothing for the organization.  Herrera and Jimenez left the IAHF holding the bag for event expenses they never paid and the event never raised a dime for the IAHF. Sammy and Danny were among the hosts of a recent fundraising event for mayoral candidate Burdick.

It is evident that Sammy and I are running very different campaigns. Sammy is relying on contributions from special interest groups and is using consultants to run his campaign. The email contact provided on Sammy’s campaign report is ben@brightphxaz.com , Benjamin Scheel, a consultant Sammy hired…it’s not Sammy’s email address.  Sammy appears to have very little involvement in his own campaign.

 I am relying on contributions from people like you. My petition signatures were collected by myself and Glendale volunteers. Sammy paid a company nearly $3,000 to collect his signatures. We verified my petition signatures and Sammy’s petition signatures ourselves. Sammy paid a legal firm over $1,700 to do the very same.

Sammy may have $14,000 left to spend on his campaign, twice the amount I have received to date. The contributions I have received will be spent efficiently and effectively. Sammy seems to have spent his money unwisely. However, the major difference is that it is clear that Sammy no longer enjoys the support of Yucca district residents. On August 30, 2016, at Glendale’s Primary Election, I ask for your vote. It’s time to restore honesty and integrity to the Yucca city council seat and to “get your voice back.”

© 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.

Please note: If you have relatives, friends or acquaintances that live in the Cholla district, please consider passing this series of blogs on to them as another tool to help them evaluate the Cholla candidates prior to casting their vote.

Early ballots are mailed at the end of July, 2014. Candidates (well, most of them) have their websites up, are raising campaign money (or not) and beginning to stake out their positions on Glendale issues.

We begin with the Cholla district council candidates in alphabetical order: Gary Deardorff, Van DiCarlo, Robert Petrone and Lauren Tolmachoff. These 4 candidates share some commonalities. They are running, generally because they were encouraged by friends or family to do so and obviously, they all believe that they can contribute solutions to fix Glendale’s financial situation. All of the information to be discussed will be based on the candidates’ websites and their June 30, 2014 Campaign Finance Reports. Some of the candidates I had met previously and am familiar with their positions on various issues. Others I have never met and so I arranged an interview with them.

We’ll take a look at each candidate’s Campaign Finance Report of June 30, 2014. Here is the link to Glendale City Clerk’s posting of each candidate finance report: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/2014PoliticalCommitteeCampaignFinanceReports.cfm . Go to that page and you can choose which candidate’s campaign finance report you wish to read. Each report totals 19 pages. The first 2 pages are summary pages. Section A will show all contributions from individuals. Section B shows all political committee contributions. Section C shows loans either the candidate made to the campaign or any other loan received. Section D deals with all expenditures. Section E is for In-Kind contributions and Section F shows miscellaneous items.

This could be considered nit-picky but the finance report is 19 pages. Each candidate’s report should consist of a minimum of 19 pages (there may be multiple pages especially in Sections A and D). Some candidates did not submit the minimal 19 pages. It could be assumed that if they had no financial activity to report in certain areas they just did not bother to include those pages. Technically, that is not a complete report. All pages should be submitted and if there was no activity to report in certain categories, the candidate can leave the page blank, draw a line through the page or indicate “NA,” no activity. Even if a candidate has a treasurer who fills out the report the candidate is still ultimately responsible for the accuracy and veracity of his or her filing.

There is another kind of Campaign Finance Report a candidate can submit and that is a No Activity Statement. That means the candidate didn’t receive any contributions and did not spend any money. Some of the council candidates filed this kind of report.

The items to look for are: what individuals are contributing; are they Glendale residents, relatives, attorneys or other professionals; or Political Action Committees (PACs)? Did the candidate loan his or her campaign any money? How much? Are the expenditures typical of a campaign; signs, printing, bank charges, food for fund raising events or volunteers; web site design or hosting? Is the candidate using a paid political consultant? At what cost? At this stage of the game candidates are often reluctant to reveal too much about their finances. They may ask that large contributions be made after June 1, 2014 to be reported in the Pre-Primary Report or after August 15, 2014 for the Post-Primary Report.

GARY DEARDORFF

Campaign Finance Report – his report consists of all 19 pages. Mr. Deardorff loaned his campaign committee $11,858.43. While he reports this amount on his summary pages, he does not report the loan on Schedule C, Candidate Loans.  Mr. Deardorff has a treasurer, Scott Rulon, who filled out the report. Please remember, Mr. Deardorff ultimately bears the responsibility for the accuracy and veracity of his report.

Campaign contribution limits have become very generous as a result of recent court rulings. In the last election of 2012, the individual contribution limit was $400. Now it is $2,500. A political committee’s limit is now $2,500 and a Super PAC’s limit is $5,000. The trick for local candidates is to get large contributions. It’s not an easy task.

Deardorff’s individual contributions consist of a contribution of $100 from a Glendale resident and $50 from another resident. He has a campaign consultant, Gail Meyers, to whom he has paid $1,258.27 to date. Ms. Meyers has often been recommended to various candidates over the years by former Mayor Scruggs. We have our first inkling of Scruggs’ behind-the-scenes support of some of the current crop of council candidates. Here is another clue. The Host Committee for this fundraiser consisted of: Rich Shelton and Michele Tennyson, Campaign Co-Chairs; Robert “Bob” Campbell, Cathy Cheshier, Janet & Sean Lee and former Mayor Scruggs.

image002

While the bulk of Deardorff’s expenditures are the ones usually expected with a campaign there is one that sticks out and that is $3,141.00 to Petition Partners for nominating petition signature collection.  The Sonoran News in March of 2012 reported that the District Attorney of Covington, Kentucky filed suit against Andrew Chavez, CEO of Petition Partners, for fraudulent signature gathering. Here is the link: http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2012/120314/frontpage-Chavez.html . The use of Petition Partners by Deardorff appears to have almost sunk his campaign. Robert Petrone, another Cholla council candidate, filed challenging the validity of Deardorff’s signatures. Deardorff staved off the Petrone challenge by 2 signatures.

The noteworthy take-aways from Deardorff’s campaign report are: 1. His campaign is self funded in the amount of $11,858.43 to date; 2. He has received 2 individual contributions in the amount of $150 to date; 3. former Mayor Scruggs appears to be backing his candidacy; 4. He is using a political consultant; and 5. While he collected some petition signatures personally he hired a seemingly questionable firm to collect petition signatures.

Website — his campaign website is http://deardorff4cholla.com . Here is his contact information: Deardorff for Cholla, PO Box 10430, Glendale, AZ 85318-0430    623.776.5436       Email address:deardorff4cholla@gmail.com .

His website provides you biographical information, a photo gallery, campaign donation info and contact info. As of this posting there is nothing, absolutely nothing regarding Mr. Deardorff’s position on any Glendale issues. In the absence of information I did meet with Mr. Deardorff and his campaign consultant, Gail Meyers. In a meeting that took about an hour I asked him and any other candidates with whom I met the same series of questions.

Mr. Deardorff has lived in Glendale and the Cholla district for 18 years. He is married. He has not participated in Glendale community affairs. He has his own financial consulting business and believes that his work schedule is flexible enough to accommodate the demands of serving as a councilmember. His observations with regard to the relationship between council and staff are summed up with trust but verify. He believes past City Manager “falsehoods” have led to Glendale’s problems of today. He indicated that he is not receiving fire or police union support and is relying on neighborhood donations and self-funding. He believes the sales tax increase should sunset in 2017 and is confident that budget cuts can be made to offset the revenue loss. He readily admits that he does not have enough insider information to offer intelligent solutions to Glendale’s finances but he does think personnel costs are too high and could be cut. He understands that city council has no authority over school districts. He is not supportive of the Tohono O’odham’s proposed casino on the grounds of objecting to the placement of a reservation within Glendale’s boundaries.

After review of all 4 Cholla district candidates we’ll try to narrow the choices down to 2 people. In this district, as with other council races, there are so many candidates none of them can be expected to win outright in the primary and we can expect a run off in the general election in November.  Next up, Van DiCarlo.

© 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.

%d bloggers like this: