Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

It has been 17 years and 214 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

On July 24, 2015 at a special voting meeting the Glendale City Council unanimously passed Ordinance 2949 and the First Amendment to AMULA Final. With these actions the city and Ice Arizona agreed to dismiss all lawsuits and also settled the issue of the million dollars sitting around in a special escrow account as a result of the 2009 bankruptcy filing.

Before the Kumbaya vote Anthony LeBlanc, spokesperson for the ownership group said, “We’re not going to renegotiate…never, never, never.” Oops. The afternoon of the fateful vote in a radio interview with Roc & Manuch, LeBlanc was heard to say, “We haven’t been open with them (the city).”And, “We haven’t been good communicators.” And, “They’ve done well for the taxpayers. They’ve got a win.” When asked if Ice Arizona would consider buying the city’s arena, LeBlanc said about arena ownership, “That’s not the business we’re in.” Should we believe him in light of his long history of “erroneous” statements?

Councilmember Gary Sherwood, IceArizona’s staunch advocate, in an earlier, same day radio interview (July 24, 2015) with Roc & Manuch, said that he had publicly staked out a position that “he was not going to vote.” We can assume his action was to be a public display of disapproval for council’s treatment of his good friends, the IceArizona owners. In his traditional flip-flop fashion, he reversed himself with a little help from his friends. He revealed that the night before the vote “he had discussions with ownership” (presumably Anthony LeBlanc). His remark is interesting in and of itself for the only meeting council had prior to the vote was an executive session on July 20, 2015.  Did he share the conversations and results of that executive session with his good friend LeBlanc? Sherwood went on to say that “ownership wanted a 7-0 vote in support of the new deal.” Always willing to oblige his friends, Sherwood did a 180 and not only voted but voted in favor and made sure his pal, Councilmember Sammy Chavira did as well.

There has been considerable opining in the news media and on social media as to whether this is a good deal…for anybody. I contend that it is a good deal for Glendale if for no other reason than a $197 million dollar liability is gone…poof! That action should warm the hearts of the bond rating agencies. That figure represents the annual lease payments for the balance of the original lease management agreement.

The city gained in reducing the management fee to $6.5M from the original $15M annually. The actual language is: “10.1. Management Fee. Commencing on the Amendment Effective Date, and during the remainder of the Term, in consideration of the Arena Manager’s agreement to perform the management and other services set forth in this Agreement to pay all operating and maintenance costs associated with the Arena Facility (other than capital costs as provided herein), provided there is no breach by the Team Owner of the obligations under the Non-Relocation Agreement or a material breach by the Arena Manager of its obligations under this Agreement, the City shall pay to the Arena Manager, by wire transfer of immediately available funds to an account specified by the Arena Manager, the annual Management Fee in the amount of Six Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($6, 500,000), paid in quarterly (on a three calendar month basis) installments in arrears on or before each October 1st, January 1st, April 1st and July 1st during the Term.” The city was losing an estimated $8+M a year under the original lease agreement even with the shared revenue it received. This management fee is budgeted within the city budget for Fiscal Year 2015-16.

The city also won two important concessions. It now has its own “out” clause with this agreement which ends in two years, in 2017 with recognition that “19. Termination Date means June 30, 2017.”  It now has the freedom to choose its own arena manager in a year’s time as stated, “46. Change of Manager. Notwithstanding what may otherwise be proved in this Agreement or in this Amendment, the City shall have the option to replace the Arena Manager at any time after June 30, 2016…” Everyone hopes the city will craft an RFP immediately and put it out on the street in a time frame appropriate to exercising that option.

The city achieved what can be considered as payback. IceArizona will no longer use former City Attorney Craig Tindall or former Assistant City Manager Julie Frisoni in any capacity including as a consultant. It is in #4 of the Settlement Agreement which states, “No Other City Employee Involved with Arena Agreement. The Parties represent and warrant that, as of the Effective Date, to the best of their individual and collective knowledge, information, and belief, no other former employees of the City, other than Craig Tindall or Julie Frisoni, have become consultants to or employees of IceArizona, in any capacity, since July 8, 2013. Ice Arizona represents and warrants that neither Tindall nor Frisoni has, in any way and to any extent, no matter how substantial or insubstantial, been involved in initiating, negotiating, creating, drafting, or securing the First Amendment. In reliance on these representations and warranties and those in Section 6, the City, City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney, collectively and individually, represent and warrant that they will never in the future seek to cancel or void the Arena Agreement of the First Amendment based o the involvement of Tindall or Frisoni, no matter how substantial or insubstantial, in initiating, negotiating, crating, drafting, or securing the Arena Agreement or the First Amendment on behalf of Glendale, so long as Tindall and Frisoni are not employed or retained as a consultant by IceArizona or any of its affiliates, divisions, parent entities, or subsidiaries.” The language is quite specific. That is just plain Karma for Tindall and Frisoni.

Did IceArizona get anything out of the deal? It stopped a lawsuit in which ultimately the city would have prevailed. Note that the new deal contains a lot of verbiage enjoining the city from suing IceArizona, ever, for any reason, regarding Tindall and Frisoni. The major gain was that it bought IceArizona time…time to decide its future. If the owners cannot put a decent team on the ice this year their future is bleak and they know it. It’s not a matter of distance that fans must travel to a game. That rationale has been over used. When teams win people will eagerly travel long distances to watch the winner. A team that is a contender also fills seats in suites and attracts more expensive advertising dollars…the lifeblood of any team. Each extra playoff game earns in the neighborhood of a million dollars and can spell the difference between a bottom line in the black and a bottom line in the red.

Another important issue finally resolved is that of distribution of the bankruptcy Operating Reserve Account as follows: “10. The Parties acknowledge and understand that in the Bankruptcy Settlement, subject to approval by the Court, the Bankruptcy Lawsuit (the “Bankruptcy Court”), the Operating Reserve Account shall be distributed as follows: $350,000 to the City, $10,000 to the David Reaves, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Arena Management Group, L.L.C., and $640,000 to Ice Arizona.”

In the same radio interviews, Sherwood stated that he wants “to see a new contract (with IceArizona) in 6 to 9 months, by April of 2016.”  LeBlanc stated IceArizona “wants a contract extension immediately” to bring “certainty.” Obviously it is an option both parties will need to pursue. Let us hope they can be successful in crafting a lease extension that is not build on the backs of Glendale’s taxpayers. No one can object to a lease agreement that is fair and equitable.

Be advised it doesn’t matter what the action or situation is, municipal governments do not move quickly. While an immediate contract extension is IceArizona’s goal, the caution is to not become frustrated if the action is not completed quickly. I learned this lesson the hard way. When I first joined city council I had ideas for projects in my district. I mistakenly thought they could be accomplished instantly. Not so. I became satisfied if a project could be completed within a year. It’s the very nature of government. All action is slow, overly deliberate, and far more complicated than it often needs to be.

Everyone appears to be relieved the issue is resolved for now. Let’s hope this positive action leads to further positive outcomes for both parties.

© 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.

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.

During my 16 years of service to Glendale as a councilmember I would often ask questions of staff members. I suspect that I became infamous among staff for my “curious questions.”

No matter how consequential or inconsequential my question(s), it and the answers were routinely copied to the mayor and all councilmembers. I was told repeatedly that all councilmembers should have the same information and that staff was obligated to treat and inform all councilmembers equally. This was habit and practice for years before I became a councilmember and up until January of 2013.

I was quite surprised to recently receive some emails “over the transom” that violated this long standing policy. These emails make it evident that with the advent of City Manager Brenda Fischer and her handpicked crew this policy is no longer being followed.  The emails I received predated the council approval of the IceArizona arena lease agreement. It is clear from the senders and recipients that the policy of distribution to the mayor and all councilmembers was deliberately ignored in an effort to provide information to supporters of the deal and to deny the very same information to those councilmembers recognized as opposed to the deal.

One email from Julie Frisoni dated Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:09 AM was sent to Councilmembers Martinez, Knaack and Sherwood. In it Ms. Frisoni forwarded a response from Tom Hocking on an arena operating cost question. It was not sent to Mayor Weiers or Councilmembers Hugh, Alvarez or Chavira. Apparently it was information Ms. Frisoni felt would assist those in support of the deal and was withheld from those in opposition.Frisoni 1

Yet another email from Frisoni dated Sunday, June 30, 2013 10:34 PM was sent to Councilmembers Sherwood, Chavira, Knaack and Martinez. In it Ms. Frisoni forwarded talking points on the benefits of an anchor tenant at the arena prepared by Jeff Teetsel, Credit Suisse’s Manager of Westgate. Once again the information would assist only those in favor of the deal. It was not sent to Mayor Weiers or Councilmembers Hugh or Alvarez.Frisoni 2

Ms. Frisoni is not the only current or former staff member to violate this policy. Craig Tindall, IceArizona’s Counsel and Glendale’s former City Attorney, sent an email to Councilmembers Sherwood, Knaack and Martinez dated Friday, June 28, 2013 8:04 AM which explained why the deal would no longer be a management agreement but would be a lease agreement. You would think that the city’s former Attorney would know better.Tindall 1

You can be sure there are far more emails floating through city hall that offer information to selected councilmembers in support of an issue and denied to others perceived as being in opposition. These emails are illustrative of an attitude prevalent beginning with City Manager Fischer and working down through the entire organization. It is a cancer causing distrust and divisiveness not only among elected officials but throughout the organization.  It creates  classes of “haves” and “have nots.” If there is a pattern of violating this ethic, it leads one to ask what other situational ethical tenets are being ignored?

Tenet #5 of the International City Managers Association (ICMA) states, Submit policy proposals to elected officials; provide them with facts and advice on matters of policy as a basis for making decisions and setting community goals; and uphold and implement local government policies adopted by elected officials.” It does not say to submit policy proposals to selected elected members. It does not say that all councilmembers are not equal and some deserve more information than others. There is an atmosphere of corrosiveness eating away at Glendale City Hall that City Manager Fischer has a responsibility to eradicate for she is ultimately responsible as the top manager of Glendale’s government.

© 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.

One of the comments I received on my latest Tindall blog was in the form of questions. “If it (referring to Tindall’s advice) were legal advice given to the City, wouldn’t it be provided to the entire City Council? Does a subset of people on the City Council (fewer than would qualify as quorum) qualify as ‘The City’?” They are interesting questions raising a subject I have been thinking about for quite some time. One of the most precious commodities in local government is arguably, the power accrued from knowledge. There is an old saying, “that knowledge is power” and in government is it golden.

From the time I took my seat as a councilmember in 2000, Dr. Martin Vanacour, City Manager at that time, managed by the precept, what one councilmember knew, all councilmembers should know. Whenever I asked for further information on an issue or raised questions, my questions and the answers I received were always copied to all councilmembers and I received the same when other councilmembers asked. That practice was always followed under subsequent city managers until my retirement in 2013. That was the ethical thing to do.

So what has happened to the ethics quotient in City Hall lately? What caused an email request for legal advice to be sent by 3 councilmembers and former City Attorney Craig Tindall’s return response solely and exclusively sent to those 3 councilmembers? To refresh your memory about this specific email, here it is: Tindall email 3 correctedAn investigative cause of concern may turn out to be the legal advice he provided without benefit of a separate agreement permitting him to do so per his Severance Agreement. Legally it may prove troublesome to him at some point.

The greater issue that should be of concern to all Glendale city councilmembers, as well as to that of Glendale’s management, is one of morality and ethics. The three councilmembers that solicited Mr. Tindall’s legal advice were well aware of the terms of his Severance Agreement. I am sure those terms were discussed in at least one council Executive Session. They cannot plead ignorance. If they attempt to do so, shame on them. It is their responsibility to know and understand the terms of agreements such as these. Ignorance, if proffered, is no excuse.

Mr. Tindall was employed by the city for many years. He should have known better than to respond to only 3 councilmembers and not the entire council. During his tenure habit and practice dictated that he share with all of council. Was he advancing the agenda of the pro IceArizona councilmembers? A few months later he became General Counsel to IceArizona.

There is another underlying serious concern and that is, why were three of the four councilmembers who supported the IceArizona Management Agreement, asking Tindall about that very same agreement? They should have properly directed their question(s) to Dick Bowers, Interim City Manager or Nick DiPiazza, Acting City Attorney. Did they hope to gain some advantage over those councilmembers who did not support the IceArizona agreement? In any event, their motivation in seeking exclusive legal advice, not shared with others on the council, is suspect.

There is a separate, ongoing issue regarding ethics and that is the reluctance of senior staff to share all information with the entire council, whether it be helpful or detrimental to their agenda. There is a natural tension between senior management and the council about information sharing. It appears when it is information that furthers staff’s agenda they are all too willing to share but if it is information that does not, it is not shared readily or sometimes, at all, with council. There remains a culture of secrecy at the senior staff level, a walling-off of information that should be shared. It is all too apparent when a councilmember publicly asks for information that a senior staffer believes to be detrimental to his/her agenda. The request for information is stone-walled and a councilmember will frequently and publicly state that his/her previous request still has not been met. It is often obvious what staff’s position is on an issue simply by the way councilmembers’ questions are answered or ignored. It is senior staff’s duty to provide information on an issue, positive and negative, in a fair and impartial manner. It is council’s duty to make a policy decision based upon the provision of such information. It is not senior management’s prerogative to make a pre-determined decision on an issue and then manipulate the manner in which it is presented to council.

Over the years I occasionally asked for copies of a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request made by a member of the public. Sometimes staff would provide copies of FOIA requests when they thought it might be of particular interest to council. None of the copies provided ever contained redactions (blacking out of information). Lately that is no longer the habit and practice of senior management. Copies of FOIA requests have been provided with redactions. So much for transparency. It is not appropriate and the practice should stop immediately. Councilmembers must be fully informed about any situation and redaction of information does not serve them well.

Information is the coin of City Hall’s realm and councilmembers are not receiving their share. We are poorer as a result of this unethical practice.

© 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.

 

When I retired from Glendale City Council in January of 2013, Horatio Skeete was Interim City Manager and Craig Tindall was City Attorney. A new mayor and several new councilmembers were enough of a majority to shake things up. While a new search for a city manager took place Dick Bowers was appointed as Acting City Manager and Craig Tindall was asked to resign. Nick DiPiazza became Acting City Attorney. Tindall’s Severance Agreement was executed on April 1, 2013. Here is the link: http://www.glendaleaz.com/clerk/Contracts/8419.pdf .

In exchange for his immediate resignation, he continued to be employed by the City for six months. Council offered six month’s pay plus benefits totaling $186,378.14 which included pay, benefits, CLE, bar dues, IMLE conference, deferred compensation, and additionally, a joint press release. Mr. Tindall could approach Councilmembers and city officials for recommendations (references).  He was entitled to keep the city phone and phone number and he remained in the system an additional six months and did not exhaust his vacation or sick time. For whatever reasons other than the publicly offered “time for change,” they wanted him gone immediately and were willing to pay nearly $200,000 to have it happen. It’s a sweet deal. For up to 5 hours of work in a 2 week period over 6 months he received over $186,000. I bet you wouldn’t turn it down.

As part of his severance package he would stay on board in a limited capacity as a Special Counsel. The agreement called for him to be available to respond to factual questions he had previously handled for the city. There was a requirement for a separate agreement to allow him to provide legal advice. Here is the exact stipulation: “Employee will be available for up to five hours per two-week period from the date of this Agreement to the Separation Date to respond to factual questions regarding matters Employee previously handled for the City; provided however, Employee will not provide legal advice to the City unless by separate agreement.”

The Severance Agreement was approved by city council on a 5 to 2 vote with Mayor Weiers and Councilmember Alvarez voting “Nay.” Mayor Weiers turned out to be correct in viewing Tindall’s stay for an additional 6 months as problematical.

Can we assume all of council read the agreement? Yes, as there was a great deal of discussion about its terms prior to the vote. They knew that he could respond to factual questions but not offer legal advice. So why did Councilmembers Knaack, Martinez and Sherwood, three of the four votes needed to approve the IceArizona Agreement, ask him for legal advice regarding the IceArizona Agreement? And why did Tindall respond by offering legal advice?

Did Mr. Tindall breach his Severance Agreement by offering councilmembers legal advice regarding the IceArizona Agreement without fulfilling a separate agreement allowing him to provide legal advice?

I received, anonymously, a copy of an email dated Friday, June 20, 2013 sent at 8:04 AM. Here is a copy of that email:

Tindall email 3 corrected

 

 

In Item 1 of his email, Tindall says, “First, in § 8.3.1 the exception for the 2013-2014 season should be removed. That was in the Jamison agreement for last season when the League faced issue sight he (sic) collective bargaining agreement. The year was changed, but it is not needed any longer.” The only recipients are Councilmembers Knaack, Martinez and Sherwood as they apparently asked Tindall for legal advice.  The email is not copied to the Acting City Manager or the Acting City Attorney. Copying others is a usual and typical practice. I always copied my Council Assistant and on city matters copied the City Manager, Assistant City Manager and relevant department heads. It informs others and prevents blind-siding on an issue. It’s also a matter of professional courtesy. Since Tindall referred to the Acting City Manager in his email, he should have copied him as well.

It appears that the councilmembers were the only ones to ever see this email. Was the email offered with the “understanding of the City Manager” as Tindall stated?  If that were the case it would be expected that he Cc the acting city manager and/or the acting city attorney formally for informational purposes at the very least.

Less than 2 months later, August 20, 2013, Mr. Tindall is hired as IceArizona’s (successful bidder for Jobing.com arena Management Agreement) General Counsel. His Severance Agreement retains him as Special Counsel to the city until October 1, 2013. For 6 weeks he continues to work for both the city and IceArizona. He could legally and he did despite appearances. I guess he forgot the old adage, “Perception is reality.”

Former Councilmember Phil Lieberman filed a complaint with the Arizona State Bar Association alleging among other things, that Tindall may have breached his Severance Agreement. Does this issue have the potential to become part of the Bar’s investigation? Despite many who view Lieberman as an old curmudgeon, you have to wonder what else he knows…and in this instance he appears to be right.

© 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.

In the March 13, 2014 edition of the Arizona Republic there is a story by Paul Giblin and Craig Harris entitled Contract violated Glendale Policies. Here is the link: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2014/03/13/contract-violated-glendale-policies/6359209/ .

It reports that former City Attorney Craig Tindall may have used his influence to award a no-bid contract for the city’s external audit to a friend, Jose de Jesus Rivera of the firm of Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman and McAnally. Apparently Tindall was close enough and comfortable enough to Rivera to send an email on his city computer soliciting tax exempt tuition funding for his son.

Typically contracts over $50,000 are required by city policy to go out to bid as a Request for Proposal (RFP). As a professional services contract that requirement may not have been necessary but there remains a question of undue influence. Surely for a contract of this dollar amount, while not required to go to bid, it may have been prudent to do so. Members of the Glendale City Council seem to be shrugging their shoulders while kicking the can down the road and alluding to “that’s the way it has always been done.” They don’t want any part of this latest debacle.

By the end of the external audit the cost would be over half a million dollars, ten times the amount required for an RFP. Rivera thought there would be an RFP and asked Tindall via email about its timing and release. Instead Tindall submitted a memo to then Interim City Manager Horatio Skeete recommending the use of Rivera and his law firm. Skeete wanted to put the contract out for bid and to issue an RFP but for reasons unknown that did not occur. The result of the external audit was to place blame on Skeete and to completely exonerate Tindall. Could it have been that Rivera, as Tindall’s friend, was well aware of the bad blood between Tindall and Skeete? As friends it appears plausible they may have discussed it. Did that knowledge play any role in the final outcome of the external audit? It seems to be worth your consideration and your decision.

Was the external audit result payback to Skeete by Tindall for having lost his bid to become Interim City Manager? It there a connection between Tindall’s failed attempt to become Interim City Manager and the audit conclusions? You will have to decide. It was a bloody battle for the position of Interim City Manager. Tindall’s supporters on city staff lobbied me and I assume, the rest of council, disparaging Skeete. No such effort occurred on the part of Skeete or any supporters he had. During this period Tindall apparently stalled contracts and other documents on his desk seemingly in an effort to further bloody Skeete’s nose. Council was evenly split between the two candidates and it was Alvarez who broke the tie in favor of Skeete. It appears that Tindall wanted the position far more than he was willing to admit publicly and was disappointed that he did not prevail.

The Republic story goes on to say that Tindall is under on-going investigation by the state Attorney General’s regarding the issuance of this no-bid contract. He is also under an on-going investigation by the state bar as a result of a complaint filed by former Councilmember Phil Lieberman regarding a presumed conflict of interest. Lieberman’s complaint alleges Tindall was employed by the city while he also was general counsel to IceArizona, successful bidders on the Jobing.com Arena management contract, constituting a conflict of interest. I do remember a conversation had with Tindall during the period of the Jamison bid for the arena management contract and his assertion that he was talking to other “serious” bidders ready to come forward if the Jamison bid failed. Was Anthony LeBlanc, of IceArizona, one of those “serious” bidders? How much information about the Jamison bid was shared with these “serious” bidders? Skeete alleged to me, and presumably other councilmembers, that Tindall appeared to be holding up negotiations as the Jamison contracts sat on his desk for inordinately long periods of time. When Skeete was queried as to his awareness of the most recent Jamison contract amendments, his response was that Tindall still had them and he had not seen them. Were these actions by Tindall more payback to Skeete or even worse, was it an attempt to railroad the Jamison bid in favor of these other “serious” bidders? I don’t know and don’t know if we will ever find out. All we know is that there are connections – between Tindall and Rivera; Tindall and Skeete; and Tindall and “serious” bidders for the arena management contract.  What part these connections played in the outcomes is yet to be discovered.

© 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.

It all began when the Bidwill’s and the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority (AZSTA) couldn’t find a home for their proposed football stadium. Sites were chosen and were either rejected by the voters of certain municipalities or their city councils or rejected by AZSTA and the Bidwills. Glendale was their last, best hope to make it happen. AZSTA and the Bidwills bought the land from the Pendergast family and the Rovey family. AZSTA and the Bidwills paid for the construction of the stadium. The Bidwill’s share of costs came from an NFL loan made at an incredibly low interest rate.

It was a rocky relationship from the start between Glendale and the Bidwills, in part because the Bidwills suffer from a grandiose sense of entitlement. They demanded various zoning concessions from the city that the city did not grant. So the Bidwills’ heartburn with Glendale started with the first time the city said, “No.” AZSTA and the Bidwills seem to forget that Glendale has some “skin in the game” having ponied up $35 million for infrastructure improvements in and around the stadium.

Glendale knew when the stadium came to town that the Super Bowl was part of the package. The thinking at that time was that Glendale would host its first Super Bowl, hoping to break even. Glendale embraced its hosting duties for the 2008 Super Bowl to make it the best ever. Judging from after-event comments, that is exactly what occurred. Kudos were bestowed on all partners: The Host Committee, AZSTA, the Bidwills and Glendale. Getting to the event and parking were painless thanks to the city’s Transportation Department. The weather was perfect thanks to God. The stadium was breathtakingly new and offered boundless amenities thanks to AZSTA and the Bidwills. Related NFL parties and events went off without a hitch thanks to the Host Committee. It was an unparalleled success.

There was one fly in the ointment – Glendale, the host city, lost money. Glendale had reserved over $2 million dollars for the event and spent over $2 million dollars (probably closer to $3 million) for public safety, transportation and traffic (helicopter rentals used to monitor traffic to the NFL Experience and on game day are not cheap), and sanitation (someone had to empty those pesky garbage cans every day). Those were just some of the costs associated with hosting. Be sure to add in the countless hours of staff time planning and preparing for the event.

Why didn’t Glendale make money? There are countless reasons. Some were that the city did not have the cache of Phoenix or Scottsdale or enough commercial amenities surrounding the site to cash in on. No one can deny that the rest of the state benefitted, from the Grand Canyon to Tucson. International and national visitors came to the state a week or better before the event or stayed for some time after the event. For some visitors to Arizona, it was a once in a lifetime experience and they made the most of their time here.

Is it any wonder why Glendale suffering a fiscal crisis (sports related debt) is asking for reimbursement this time around? It’s not a strange concept. The states of Texas and Florida already have systems in place for reimbursement of host cities. The first Super Bowl hosting was a test, a pilot project for Glendale. This time around it is not. I did not vote to support the bid for the 2015 Super Bowl until there was some replacement mechanism that could recompense Glendale for its hosting expenses.

Lately many of the ill-informed media have been dumping all over Mayor Weiers and Glendale for having the temerity to ask for such a mechanism. If they know the facts, they are ignoring them. Why would anyone volunteer to lose millions of dollars? Surely they must be aware that the entire state benefits from such an event. It just makes for good talky-talky but at the expense of public misinformation.

Michael Bidwill’s trashing of Glendale makes for great news also but does a disservice to everyone. If he thinks that will help to get Glendale’s hotels to cap their rates he is sadly mistaken. Those hotels are private businesses and cannot be made by Glendale to take an action that they prefer not to do. If the NCAA Final Four does not come here, thank Michael Bidwill for poisoning the atmosphere.

Let’s not leave the NFL out of this tirade. It has been reported that the NFL will earn $9 BILLION from the 2014 Super Bowl. They pay no tax on those earnings because they enjoy non-profit status granted to them by Congress. What a joke! If nothing else the NFL can surely afford the cost of making host cities whole. But it’s all about money, isn’t it? The NFL (read the football team owners who are the NFL) is not about to give up a penny. Greed is king. I am always reminded of seeing homes (mansions) with 28 bathrooms. Yet you can only use one at a time. When is enough money enough? Never, some will say.

If the NFL will not make host cities whole and there is no state mechanism to recompense host cities (other than Texas and Florida) then perhaps it is time for the host cities to form their own coalition. I have called for such action for years. If the cities got together, put some basic cost claims forward to the NFL and stuck together, the NFL would have to accede. Where would their event go?

One final word. After weeks of hype in anticipation of a super game instead we witnessed a super dud. It was disappointing to say the very least. The score was not even close. No one can, of course, control the outcome but one hopes that the scoring will be close to make the game entertaining. 43 to 8 is not entertaining. It is a blood bath. A few of the commercials were better than the game. Over 100 million tuned in but by the time it concluded you can be sure many of them had stopped watching.

My last informal poll on the question of the former Glendale City Attorney Craig Tindall’s questionable ethical behavior had 59% saying ‘Yes” his behavior was unethical to 41% saying “No.” My latest poll is to the left of this column.

© 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.

Every once in awhile I collect all of the rumors and speculation and offer them to you, the readers, as such.

It appears that public safety union representatives may have briefed their rank and file to the possibility that Glendale could declare bankruptcy within 18 months. Add to that City Manager Brenda Fischer may have raised the same prospect to employees a few months ago. Looks like everyone within the organization has been forewarned of it as a possibility. Everyone has been told but you, the Glendale taxpayer. Which begs the question: Why the rush to make the temporary sales tax permanent and possibly raise it if it will not stave off a possible bankruptcy declaration?

Also heard around the water cooler is council learned – for the first time — a few months ago when they requested information from staff on assets that could be refinanced, sold or leased, that former City Manager Ed Beasley had already done a lease back for the Public Training Facility. So strike the Public Safety Training Facility as a candidate for refinancing of its debt. As we are all finding out there was a lot that Beasley did not share with city council or the public. This appears to be another in a long list of omissions by Beasley. It also appears that the current council and senior management are not above keeping secrets as well.

Several asked regarding the Tindall blog, “Friday is supposed to be a slow news day…” and it is a fair question to ask: If Frisoni and Burdick were recipients of the infamous Tindall “informational” email about state tuition tax credits for schools, why did they not report the email upon receipt? Tindall used city email for what was evidently a personal purpose. Wouldn’t it have been incumbent upon them to report the violation? Why didn’t they? Was it because they were reluctant to turn in one of their buddies?

The Arizona Republic presented a timeline surrounding Tindall’s activities. Here is the link: http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/20140130glendale-city-attorney-email-timeline.html . It puts events in context and so it is offered here:

  • Jan. 23, 2013 — Then-City Attorney Tindall uses city e-mail to ask at least 40 people to contribute to his son’s private-school tuition.
  • March 26 — Glendale City Council formally selects the law firm Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman & McAnally CQ to head an extensive audit of possible wrongdoing by city employees. Attorney Jose de Jesus Rivera, CQ who was one of the people Tindall e-mailed, leads the project.
  • April 1 — Tindall officially resigns as city attorney, with the provision that he receive full pay for six months for working up to five hours every pay period.
  • May 28 — National Hockey League executives announce Canadian businessmen George Gosbee and Anthony LeBlanc’s investment group as the preferred buyer for the Phoenix Coyotes.
  • July 2 — The City Council agrees to pay Gosbee and LeBlanc’s group $225million over 15 years to manage Jobing.com Arena.
  • July 30 —The Phoenix law firm Fennemore Craig announces that it has hired Tindall.
  • Aug. 5 — The NHL completes the sale of the Coyotes to Gosbee and LeBlanc’s group, IceArizona.
  • Aug. 20 — Tindall begins work as the Coyotes’ general counsel.
  • Aug. 21 — Glendale releases Rivera’s audit, which identifies several employees involved in wrongdoing, but spares Tindall.
  • Sept. 3 — Glendale hires former Peoria City Attorney Michael Bailey, who received Tindall’s e-mail on Jan. 23, to succeed Tindall as Glendale’s city attorney.
  • Oct. 1 — Tindall’s employment with Glendale officially ends.
  • Nov. 26 — Former City Councilman Phil Lieberman asks the state Bar to investigate Tindall for possible violations of ethics rules.
  • Dec. 20, 2013 — The Bar notifies Lieberman that it has launched an investigation.

Did you know Michael Bidwill is deliberately trashing Glendale? He thinks Glendale is “selfish” when it comes to hosting the Super Bowl. Why? Because the city hasn’t forced all Glendale hotels to join the NFL agreement to cap room rates. Really? What does he want Glendale to do? Hold a gun to hotel managers’ heads and say, “Join or else?” He knows that Glendale can ask and suggest but cannot make private companies bow to the will of the NFL. It must be embarrassing to him in front of other owners and execs in the NFL that he does not control everything but to trash the city for it is beyond ludicrous. I think we can assume that he is part of the reason that Glendale is not hosting any Super Bowl events. If he is trash talking Glendale publicly, my goodness, can you imagine what he is saying privately?

There’s more that comes across the transom but that’s enough for you to chew on for now. Try to enjoy your weekend!

© 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.

When a politician or someone of note has a story about him or her on a Friday, he or she should thank the news media profusely. The general thinking is that a story run on a Friday before a weekend when readers are preoccupied by weekend fun will be rapidly forgotten. It’s a ploy that has been used for years. This time it may not work as well as expected. This story will not fade away and will continue to smolder much like a hay fire burning itself out.

Paul Giblin and Craig Harris wrote a piece in the Friday, January 31, 2014 edition of the Arizona Republic relating possible ethics violations by former Glendale City Attorney Craig Tindall entitled “Ethics questions hit ex-Glendale city attorney.” It relates that Tindall attempted to solicit a state income tax credit for his son’s tuition at a private school. He used a city computer to do so. Reportedly he sent his solicitation to at least 40 people. They included:

  • Former City Manager Ed Beasley
  • Former Deputy City Manager Art Lynch
  • Fire Chief Mark Burdick
  • Current Interim Assistant City Manager Julie Frisoni
  • Lobbyist Gary Husk (who recently received probation and community service from the court)
  • Chip Scutari, public relations
  • Lynne Greene, Renaissance Hotel General Manager
  • Peter Sullivan, University of Phoenix executive
  • Jim Foss, Jobing.com  executive
  • Attorney Aaron Cain, Fennemore Craig
  • Attorney Andrew Federhar, Fennemore Craig
  • Attorney Sharon Oscar, Fennemore Craig
  • Attorney Cathy Reece, Fennemore Craig
  • Attorney Sarah Strunk, Fennemore Craig
  • Attorney Christian Beams, Ryley Carlock & Applewhite
  • Attorney Michael Moberly, Ryley Carlock & Applewhite
  • Attorney William Wilder, Ryley Carlock & Applewhite
  • Attorney Former U.S. Rep. John Shadegg, Steptoe & Johnson
  • Attorney Jordan Rose, Rose Law Group
  • Attorney Nicholas Wood, Snell & Wilmer
  • Former Coyotes owner, Steve Ellman
  • Coyotes President Mike Nealy
  • John MacDonald and his wife, Dana Paschke, lobbyists for Glendale
  • Former U.S. Attorney for Arizona Jose de Jesus Rivera, Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman & McAnally

Obviously this is not a complete list. Tindall contends that he was doing a public service by providing information about the state income tax credit for school tuition yet reportedly he happened to mention his son as a possible recipient several times in his “informational emailing.”

You should have problems with his actions if for no other reason than he used a city computer to send what was essentially a personal message/solicitation. One of the first “no-nos” that every city employee learns is that the city equipment, including use of a city computer is for city business only. Tindall and members of his staff taught city ethics to various employee groups and would be very conversant with this restriction.

Hackles should go up at the thought that his very selective recipient list included a lot of people with which Glendale did business. They were put in an awkward position. Would their non-responsiveness hurt them in securing further business from the city? Would their support garner them further business with the city?

Jose de Jesus Rivera, one of Tindall’s email recipients, just happened to secure the contract to conduct the external audit at a cost of over half a million dollars and in one Rivera email response even asked if the RFP for the contract had been released.  Hmmm.

Tindall’s questionable action serves to highlight the web of relationships within the City of Glendale before Ed Beasley’s retirement. Lynch, Burdick and Frisoni were all confidants of former City Manager Ed Beasley. Some of these people had no problem supporting Tindall in his quest to become Interim City Manager by trashing former Assistant City Manager Horatio Skeete who prevailed in securing the job.

It leads to another troubling issue regarding Tindall’s employment. From 2009 until IceArizona’s successful bid to secure the Jobing.com arena management contract Tindall was the city’s attorney. He was privy to the nuances of EVERY deal that came before the city. When he left city employ he spent a brief month at a private law firm before being hired as General Counsel for none other than…can you guess? IceArizona! Several people, including former Councilmember Phil Lieberman, have questioned whether his extensive insider knowledge led to the demise of the Greg Jamison bid and the success of IceArizona. Who knows? We may find out someday…but that “someday” could be just a smidge closer. Lieberman filed a complaint with the Attorney General’s office about the propriety of Tindall’s dual employment for several months continuing to advise the city while being employed by IceArizona. We will have to wait and see if it comes of anything but I’m not holding my breath on this one.

The media’s reporting of Tindall’s problematic judgment and self-serving actions brings into question everything he did, every decision that he made during his years as City Attorney. One that comes to mind is his decision to reject just enough voter ballots in the Goulette-Bohart contest for the Ocotillo council district seat resulting in Goulette’s victory. Or his decision to release the audit information about the city’s trust funds at the very same time he was vying to become Interim City Manager should give you pause. Or the extent of his involvement with pro-sales tax increase groups working to defeat the citizen initiative driven election to kill the temporary sales tax increase?

Tindall was viewed as smart, pleasant and competent by some but as the layers begin to fall away we may begin to see a different view…one not so smart, pleasant and competent.

I will be releasing another blog later today with some other interesting tidbits that have been passed on to me as well as the latest Bidwill blast.

I have posted a new, informal poll about Tindall to the left of this column and as usual, if you would like to know when my next blog is posted you can sign up via an email alert to the right of this column. 65% of the responses to my last poll regarding the health of Glendale’s finances said they did not believe that Glendale could straighten out its financial mess.

© 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 September 14, 2013 edition of the Glendale Republic reports that former Assistant City Manager Horatio Skeete and former Assistant Budget Director Don Bolton are appealing their terminations to the City’s Personnel Board (an advisory board of appointed citizens). Good for them. If there is any justice in this world they shouldn’t be left as the only fall guys (along with former Director of Finance Schurhammer and former Budget Director Goke). At the very least the City will have to back up and to prove its charges to the Personnel Board. There remains faint hope that the Attorney General’s office will bring charges against some of those who left before everything hit the fan. Based upon its track record in dismissing all recent Open Meeting Law violation complaints don’t hold your breath.

In City Manager Brenda Fischer’s termination letter to Skeete she says, “This action is based on your violation of city of Glendale policies and procedures. Specifically, the results of an external audit indicate that you were dishonest and misleading to the Glendale City Council on numerous occasions.” Whoo Hoo! If this is her reason for dismissal then there’s a long list of upper management personnel who fit the City Manager’s Bill of Particulars. As just one example, go all the way back to the “Indictment Period.” That was when the City Clerk told Councilmembers that they could backdate their signatures on their annual financial disclosure statements. If that wasn’t dishonest and misleading then there is no such thing. Councilmembers Eggleston, Goulette, Frate (each charged with 2 felonies; Goulette also received perjury charge) and Martinez (1 felony charge) apparently thought there was nothing wrong in doing so and followed her advice.  In 2004 they were indicted by the Maricopa County Grand Jury along with the City Clerk Pam Hanna (9 felony charges) and were charged with violating financial disclosure laws, tampering with and destroying public records, perjury and presenting false instruments for filing.  The charges were eventually dismissed on a technicality. They should be grateful not just for those “technicalities” but for the sharp attorneys who use them as a means of thwarting justice.

 For a period of nearly 10 years, under City Manager Beasley, misleading and dishonesty appeared to have been practiced as fine arts. It became ingrained in the organization’s culture witnessed by directives limiting what a staffer could and could not say to a councilmember. It reached its peak not just with the 2009 dollar transfers from funds but with the 2012 internecine warfare between former City Attorney Tindall and former Assistant City Manager Skeete vying for Council’s appointment as Interim City Manager. Tindall’s faction appeared to have been particularly adept. Isn’t it ironic that the very people who supported Skeete now find their heads chopped off during Acting Assistant Manager Julie Frisoni’s watch? Frisoni was clearly a supporter of Tindall and I can remember attending an event at the city’s convention center when Frisoni and Fire Chief Burdick lobbied me to support Tindall as the Interim City Manager.

It is also mystifying that City Manager Fischer has announced that the city is dropping an investigation into policy violations outside the scope of the external audit. On August 2nd she announced such an investigation. A month later…poof! It’s gone. Such an investigation might have led to other policy violations by active personnel. It might have led to wholesale dismissals which she might not have been able to afford as a new city manager. If that is what is needed, so be it. When there is an infection it must be removed entirely or it just resurfaces somewhere else. Maybe there’s an unwritten code in the fraternity of city managers that says do no harm to past or present brethren. Who knows?

While all this turmoil occurs there is an entire cadre of Glendale personnel quietly doing their jobs to provide the best service possible to Glendale’s residents. They are the people who keep our water running, our streets safe and take care of our garbage and loose trash. They don’t earn the exorbitant salaries that make the newspapers. They are a quiet army that keeps a city running. They should not be smeared with this executive mismanagement paint brush. Many of them were shocked to learn what had occurred. They are to be recognized and thanked for their fierce commitment to Glendale and its residents. So, thank you to all of the City of Glendale employees who faithfully and loyally serve us all.

©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 Lawwho 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: