Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

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

PLEASE CHECK OUT THE CHAVIRA VIDEOS, ESPECIALLY “MONEY, MONEY” TO THE LEFT OF THIS COLUMN.

It has been 18 years and 202 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

The July 8, 2016 edition of the Arizona Republic has an editorial penned by Phil Boas. Here is the link: http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2016/07/07/sammy-chavira-glendale-travel/86789948/ . In part he says, “Glendale council members have also shied away from tackling the problem head-on by censuring Chavira. Shying away from that action also would be a mistake.” He goes on to say, “It is important, indeed, to refine policies and procedures to ensure ethical, professional practices. And we hope Glendale officials come through soon with clearer standards, including on junkets, freebies and late fees.

“But those efforts don’t preclude the mayor and council from passing judgment on a colleague’s decisions that were clearly inappropriate. And sending a message to constituents that the illegitimate use of their taxes isn’t tolerated. That requires and overdue – and well-deserved – censure.”

I agree. The problem is that a majority of council may not. Obviously Chavira must recuse himself in such deliberation and consequent action. That leaves a council of 6 members. Lately there has grown to be a 3 to 3 split between them with Turner, Tolmachoff and Aldama vs. Weiers, Hugh and Malnar. Take the latest major issue, light rail. The vote was 4-3 to approve and move forward – Turner, Tolmachoff, Aldama (and Chavira) for approval and Weiers, Hugh and Malnar against, citing the need for more information on their unanswered questions.

There are mechanisms in council guidelines that allow fellow councilmembers to sanction one another. They have never been used but it seems appropriate in Chavira’s case. How can a split council decide on censure for Chavira? The public perception, rightly or wrongly, is that Turner, Tolmachoff and Aldama would not support Chavira’s censure. So, they are at an impasse and the public may never see the very message the Arizona Republic calls for – that of “sending a message to constituents that the illegitimate use of their taxes isn’t (and will no longer) be tolerated.”

Add to a split council, the fact that Glendale’s City Attorney, Michael Bailey, had given Chavira a pass by publicly stating that he could find nothing wrong with Sammy’s spending. City councilmembers are his bosses so of course, he’s not going to throw one of them under the bus. What should have occurred and did not, was for Bailey to ask an independent third party, such as a city attorney from another jurisdiction, to review and make a decision.

In governmental terms, $25,000 is not a lot of money. In citizen terms, especially when it’s their taxes, it is. There are people at the poverty level who earn no more than that in an entire year. There are senior citizens who receive no more than that amount each year from Social Security. Chavira makes far more than that annually. Between his Phoenix firefighter position and his councilmember salary it seems he would be in the six-figure range.

That brings up another action that should be required and that is reimbursement to the city. Obviously Sammy can afford to do so but don’t hold your breath. It is unlikely that Glendale taxpayers will see this council censure one of its own or will see Sammy repay the money he lavished on trips.

Sammy’s only censure will come from the voters of the Yucca district at the Primary Election on August 30th for they will make clear their anger.

© 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.

It has been 17 years and 85 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

Peter Corbett in the March 26, 2015 edition of the Arizona Republic had a story entitled “Glendale assistant city manager resigns.” Here is the link: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2015/03/26/glendale-assistant-manager-resigns/70490792/ . He leads the story by saying, “A top Glendale manager resigned this week in the wake of questions about a computer contract that had been reviewed more than a year ago.”

One month after City Manager Brenda Fischer was hired she appointed Julie Frisoni as an Assistant City Manager in August of 2013. Frisoni’s husband, Jeff Shumway, is a Vice President of Insight Enterprises, Inc. the parent company of Insight Public Sector, Inc. In late 2013 after an RFP had been issued the city accepted Insight’s bid and entered into a multi-year, multi-million dollar computer contract. A year ago, in January of 2014, when Norma Alvarez was still a Glendale city councilmember she raised the question of a conflict of interest on the part of Frisoni. Michael Bailey, Glendale’s newly hired City Attorney and friend of former City Attorney Craig Tindall (Tindall and Frisoni were close friends), reviewed the allegation and according to Corbett, “City Attorney Michael Bailey reviewed six contracts with Insight and determined in February 2014 that Shumway did not sign any of the documents nor was he part of the company’s sales team.” Apparently that was the extent of Bailey’s review of the allegation of a conflict of interest. It appears to have been marginal and tailored to produce the desired result.

What does Arizona law say about conflict of interest?

8.2 The Arizona Conflict of Interest Laws. State statute provides in pertinent part:

  1. Any public officer or employee of a public agency who has, or whose relative has, a substantial interest in any contract, sale, purchase or service to such public agency shall make known that interest in the official records of such public agency and shall refrain from voting upon or otherwise participating in any manner as an officer or employee in such contract, sale or purchase.
  2. Any public officer or employee who has, or whose relative has, a substantial interest in any decision of a public agency shall make known such interest in the official records of such public agency and shall refrain from participating in any manner as an officer or employee in such decision.”

Arizona’s conflict of interest law centers on the concept of “substantial interest.” Substantial interest, for purposes of this law, refers only to a financial interest. In other words the public officer or employee of a public agency or relative must receive financial benefit. In strictly interpreting Arizona’s conflict of interest law, neither Frisoni nor her husband, Shumway, violated the law.

But…perception is reality often times. Julie Frisoni with her 12 years of employment with the City of Glendale wrote and reviewed many, many RFPs. She would have the knowledge required to write a successful RFP and would also have the knowledge, knowing Glendale’s financial condition, of what would be a successful dollar amount to request. Did she share that knowledge with her husband? That is your decision to make.

A successful award of the contract to Insight did not benefit Frisoni or her husband financially and therefore conflict of interest laws were not violated but were there other ways to benefit? Did Shumway benefit in greater status and clout within the company? Did the award by Glendale give him a leg up on the Insight corporate ladder that could result in a future promotion and a larger salary? Who knows? I don’t but that’s the kind of speculation that becomes rampant in this kind of situation.

What is apparent is although it appears to have been all above board it smells bad. It does raise a question. Did Frisoni sign a Conflict of Interest Disclosure? According to state law, 8.7 Disclosure of the Interest. Every political subdivision and public agency subject to A.R.S. §§ 38-501 to -511 must ‘maintain for public inspection in a special file all documents necessary to memorialize all disclosures of substantial interest made known pursuant to this article [A.R.S. §§ 38-501 to – 511].’A.R.S. § 38-509. Any public officer or employee who has a conflict of interest in any agency decision or in the award of a contract must provide written disclosure of that interest in the agency’s special conflict of interest file. A.R.S. § 38-503(A), (B). The officer or employee may either file a signed written disclosure statement fully disclosing the interest or file a copy of the official minutes of the agency which fully discloses the interest. A.R.S. §§ 38-502(3), -509.” I have filed a Public Records Request today to see if Frisoni did indeed sign such a disclosure. What if it is discovered that Frisoni did not file a signed disclosure statement? The penalty could be as severe as a class 5 or 6 felony.

Another part of state law relates to doing business with the public agency with which the person was employed and states, 8.11 Representation of Others After Leaving Public Service. State law also places restrictions on representation of others when a public officer or employee departs from state service. In particular, A.R.S. § 38-504(A) provides:

A public officer or employee shall not represent another person for compensation before a public agency by which the officer or employee is or was employed within the preceding twelve months or on which the officer or employee serves or served within the preceding twelve months concerning any matter with which such officer or employee was directly concerned and in which the officer or employee personally participated during the officer’s or employee’s employment or service by a substantial and material exercise of administrative discretion.” This sanction is clear cut. It remains rumored that Fischer and Frisoni are going to partner in their own communication agency. According to this provision neither one can do business or represent a client doing business with Glendale for 12 months. Since both were senior management it is reasonable to acknowledge that each was “directly concerned or personally participated” on every conceivable issue within the city.

So, faithful blog readers, it appears that Frisoni and her husband, Shumway did not violate the Arizona Conflict of Interest law. What about the spirit of the law?

© Joyce Clark, 2015

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.

A little of this…

Randy Miller, a former Barrel district Glendale City Council candidate, made complaints to the city regarding a political action committee (PAC) called Revitalize Arizona. Revitalize Arizona is the pipefitters union creation made for one only express purpose…to participate in the Glendale City Council district elections on behalf of specific candidates, one of whom was Bart Turner, the newly elected representative of the Barrel district.

Former candidate Miller viewed the City Clerk’s site to check Revitalize Arizona’s registration as a political action committee (PAC). There was nothing. In addition he discovered Revitalize Arizona did not identify itself on the signs with the acknowledgement “Paid for by…” In accordance with the rules of the electoral process and so he filed complaints with the City Clerk’s office.

To this day Revitalize Arizona has still not filed its expenditures with the city. What were Mr. Miller’s complaints worth to the city? His complaints produced $300 in fines.  It’s a mere slap on the wrist and certainly not a deterrent to future bad acts.

What Revitalize Arizona actions did Michael Bailey, Glendale’s City Attorney, opine to be worth only a $300 fine? He said in a letter to the Torres law firm representing Revitalize Arizona, “Reasonable cause exists that Revitalize Arizona was not a registered political committee in Glendale as required by A.R.S. §16-902.01(E) and A.R.S. §16-912(A) when it had posted campaign signs in the City of Glendale” and “Reasonable cause exists that Revitalize Arizona failed to include requisite statutory disclaimer information on the campaign signs in violation of A. R. S. §16-912(B) and A.R.S §16-912(D).” Bailey went on to conclude, “A.R.S. §16-912(E) provides that ‘(a)person who violates this section is subject to a civil penalty of up to three times the cost of producing and distributing the literature or advertisement’.” Bailey fined them $300. The penalty was supposed to be a triple cost fine for the signs but Bailey valued the signs at $100. What a joke.

Having been a candidate I can tell you campaign signs are not cheap and those signs easily cost in excess of $1700. The fine should have been $5,000. A fine of that magnitude might have made the bad actors in Revitalize Arizona sit up and take notice and cause them to clean up their act in the future.

The Revitalize Arizona attorneys couldn’t respond quickly enough. Whoa…pay a $300 fine and get the heck out of Dodge. They dodged a bullet, high fiving all the way.

Just as in real life, in the City of Glendale, it’s a matter of who you are and who you know.

A little of that…

Have you seen the recently released photo of the new Glendale City Council? I’d be asking for a retake. The City Council is always told to wear dark or black clothing. This time the  instruction produced a group of undertakers. See if you can match the queries below with the right elected official: new council 2015

  • Which one looks like a member of the mafia?
  • Which one needs a new suit that fits?
  • Which one looks like a prissy preacher?
  • Which one looks like Icabod Crane?
  • Which one didn’t follow instructions and wear a dark color?
  • Which one didn’t follow instructions and fold hands in front?
  • Which one is smiling as if there’s a secret to be known?

Glendale certainly got a little of this and a little of that. Let’s see what the recipe produces.

I stand corrected…

I received a phone call from a “Mr. Sims” claiming to be a fire fighter in another jurisdiction. It was obvious he was calling on behalf of City Manager Brenda Fischer. He made the point that Brenda Fischer was not the City Manager when now Assistant City Manager Julie Frisoni sent her emails regarding the pending Coyotes deal to selected councilmembers. He was correct. Dick Bowers was Acting City Manager and Brenda Fischer was hired right after Frisoni sent those emails.

Those emails have since been submitted to the Attorney General’s Office and are part of an investigation into allegations of Open Meeting Law violations by current councilmembers Sherwood and Chavira and former councilmembers Knaack and Martinez.

Ms. Fischer may not have been aware of the emails when she first assumed her position but she most certainly is aware of them now. The question raised remains valid, what will she do to root out “off the reservation” actions by her staff, especially those of Frisoni?

       

© 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.

A word of advice. When you get older, say 70 on up, avoid getting sick at all costs. Wear a mask or go into isolation to save yourself. I speak from experience. Two weeks ago I caught a cold. You know how it goes. You begin to feel better, almost human, and you resume your schedule with gusto. Then you learn your lesson as it comes back, ten times worse. That is exactly what happened last week. Mercifully I was saved from an untimely death by my doctor’s prescription of a really heavy duty antibiotic.

There’s been a lot of activity regarding the Tohono O’odham’s (TO) proposed casino during the week of October 23, 2013. Where to begin? At the council workshop meeting of October 15, 2013 an agenda item was discussion of starting a dialogue with the TO. In a previous blog I described various councilmembers’ positions on the issue. They did not go as far as opening exclusive dialogue with the TO. Rather council majority asked for an assessment from staff of the consequences to Glendale IF the casino were to be built. This assessment was to include gathering factual information from the TO. Good luck to them on that action. Historically the TO have never been very forthright about their plans. A majority of council gave this direction despite newly hired City Attorney Michael Bailey’s admonition to wait until two outstanding casino issues were resolved.

Then at the regular council meeting of October 22, 2013 council passed as part of its Consent Agenda (no discussion occurred and all items were passed in a single vote) Item 14, a resolution of support to accept a $45,000 grant from the TO for use by the Glendale Youth Project. The Glendale Youth Project is a worthy cause and it is not the issue. The issue is the acceptance of any TO grant. How can this council legally or morally accept money from a group that it has opposed and litigated against and continues, as city policy, to oppose? It boggles the mind. Council is repeatedly and short sightedly sending the wrong signal to our friends and supporters – the State Legislature, our Congressional Delegation and all of the Arizona Tribes opposed to machinations of the TO’s gambit to build a casino in the Phoenix Metropolitan area.

On October 26, 2013 the Glendale Republic ran two viewpoint submissions. The pro-casino faction consisted of Bob Barrett, Mayor of Peoria; Adolfo Gamez, Mayor of Tolleson; and Sharon Wolcott, Mayor of Surprise. I find it ironic that not one of these three communities will host or have to pay a dime for the development of the TO casino and continue to believe the TO hype that somehow this project will benefit their communities.  They embarrassingly trotted out their “East Valley Envy” for all to see. The anti-casino viewpoint was signed by Jim Lane, Mayor of Scottsdale; Mark Mitchell, Mayor of Tempe; Jerry Weiers, Mayor of Glendale; Thomas L. Schoaf, Mayor of Litchfield Park; and John Lewis, Mayor of Gilbert. They get it. They understand the broader picture and the ramifications to the entire Valley should the TO succeed. It’s too bad that some of the West Valley cities are greedily willing to chase a mythical pot of gold at the expense of Glendale.

In the October 27, 2013 edition of the AzEconomy Section of the Republic there is an article about Steve Ellman’s Phoenix-like rise from financial death. Ellman was the former owner of Westgate (until 2011) and co-owner of the Phoenix Coyotes (until 2006).  Here is the link: http://www.azcentral.com/business/news/articles/20131026ellman-glendale-coyotes-tribe-deal.html . Part of the story recounted Ellman’s efforts back in 2009 to obtain a $100M investment from the TO. The major city players at that time would have been Ed Beasley, Julie Frisoni, Craig Tindall and Art Lynch. I had heard about such a proposal – not in detail — years ago but dismissed it for a variety of reasons. It was disturbing then and is disturbing now to read it. Ellman was lobbying for a deal that certainly would have benefitted him but not necessarily the City of Glendale. $10M a year for 10 years would have been invested by the TO in the arena AND Westgate. How much would have gone to the arena? Not much. A token amount would have gone toward naming rights but the lion’s share would have been used by Ellman for Westgate. In return for this largesse (read bribe) Glendale would have been required to support the TO’s plan for the casino. The article quotes Ellman as saying, “the deal between the tribe and Glendale ‘would have allowed ME (caps mine) to stay in (sic) the team…and stay in Westgate’.” This unsavory deal was always about Ellman.

The TO continue to press their plan for a casino and we can count on more pressure until the Secretary of the Interior makes his final determination about reservation status and until Representative Trent Franks’ bill is settled one way or another.

If you would like more information about the impact of a casino in Glendale please visit this site: www.keepingthepromiseaz.com . The site recently added information about available county islands within other Valley cities that could become targets for a casino if the TO prevail and break the state compact.

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, 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 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.