Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Please note: Some of the information presented here is repetition of information from my previous blog on Cholla and Barrel district council candidates and applies to all candidates. Some of you reading this blog for the first time may not have read the previous ones.

If you have relatives, friends or acquaintances that live in the Ocotillo district, please consider passing this series of blogs on to them as another tool to help them evaluate the Ocotillo 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 move on to the Ocotillo district council candidates in alphabetical order: Jamie Aldama, Norma Alvarez, Michael Hernandez and Bud Zomok.

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 or worked with previously and am familiar with their positions on various issues. Others I have never met and so I arranged an interview with them. The same questions were asked of all candidates that were interviewed.

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.

Bud Zomok

Campaign Finance Report – He submitted all 19 pages. He has no treasurer. He is self funded in the amount of $5,000 to date. He had 3 individual contributions totaling $450 to date; 1 individual Glendale contribution from Ken Clark for $250. Contributions under $50 total $320 to date. He reports only 2 expenditures to date; $87 for website hosting and $160 for finance training. Please remember, Mr. Zomok 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.

Campaign website – his website is: http://budforglendale.com  .

However there is no contact information provided – no phone; no address; no email address. The visitor can fill in a form on the Contact page.

His website provides you an Issues page with clear and unambiguous positions on Glendale issues. He opposes removing the sales tax sunset. He opposes placing more debt on Glendale and believes that there are opportunities to sell some of Glendale assets. He believes that Camelback Ranch is a major contributor to Glendale’s debt and would support the renegotiation of that contract as well as others. He opposes negotiation with the Tohono O’odham and believes that their effort to establish a casino in Glendale will destroy the 2002 voter approved state compact. He states that the “new” senior management is drifting in the same direction as that of the “old” senior management. I did meet with Mr. Zomok. I asked him the same series of questions that had been used in previous interviews with candidates.

Mr. Zomok does not share any biographical information on his website. He has participated in Glendale community affairs, most notably in historic preservation. He has his home in Catlin Court and spent a great deal to restore the structure.  He also has a business in downtown Glendale and says it provides the flexibility needed to fulfill the responsibilities and commitments of a councilmember. He understands that the city council has no authority over school districts.

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

© 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.

Please note: Some of the information presented here is repetition of information from my previous blog on Cholla and Barrel district council candidates and applies to all candidates. Some of you reading this blog for the first time may not have read the previous ones.

If you have relatives, friends or acquaintances that live in the Ocotillo district, please consider passing this series of blogs on to them as another tool to help them evaluate the Ocotillo 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 move on to the Ocotillo district council candidates in alphabetical order: Jamie Aldama, Norma Alvarez, Michael Hernandez and Bud Zomok.

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 or worked with previously and am familiar with their positions on various issues. Others I have never met and so I arranged an interview with them. The same questions were asked of all candidates that were interviewed.

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.

Norma Alvarez

Campaign Finance Report – She submitted all 19 pages. Richard Soza is her treasurer.

She had 8 individual Glendale contributions totaling $1750 to date; Bernadette Bolognini for $100; Roberto Gonzalo for $400; Isabel Apodaca for $100; Guadalupe Medina for $400; John Torres for $100; Angela Cruz for $100; Jessica Koory for $250; and last but not least, Ron Kolb for $300. If the name sounds vaguely familiar, Mr. Kolb was an Ocotillo district council candidate until his withdrawal several weeks ago.  Of note: Mark Becker of the famous Becker Board case donated $2,500; Mary Rose Wilcox, currently running for Congress, donated $150; two Phoenix residents, Randy Parraz for $100 and Jarrett Maupin for $100.  Both of these men are professional activists and have a history of inserting themselves into Glendale issues and were visibly at Alvarez’ side for several Alvarez press conferences. 3 individuals made contributions under $50 to date and totaling $140.

Her expenditures are usual and ordinary – supplies, printing and signs; of note $575.87 was spent on food for volunteers who presumably collected petition signatures. Please remember, Ms. Alvarez ultimately bears the responsibility for the accuracy and veracity of her 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.

Campaign website – her website is: http://www.alvarezforglendale.com .

However there is no contact information provided – no phone; no address; no email address. The visitor can fill in a form on the Contact page.

Her website provides you a photo gallery, supporters and endorsements. Ms. Alvarez offers no positions on Glendale’s issues. There is no meat on the bone. Nothing the voter can read and say, I know her position on this issue. I did not meet with Ms. Alvarez. We served on city council together for 2 years.

Ms. Alvarez does not share how long she has lived in Glendale and the Ocotillo district. From her years of service and eventual retirement as Director of Glendale’s Community Action Program we know it has been at least 20 years.  She is married. She has participated in Glendale community affairs. Ms. Alvarez attendance at council workshops, meetings and functions has been spotty. She has had a series of medical issues that prevented her presence for a substantial period of time. The public has also witnessed her non-appearance when she did not support an issue.  The city arranged telephonic participation for Ms. Alvarez but at times it became uncomfortable for all when the public could clearly hear someone coaching Ms. Alvarez on an issue. The city council has no authority over school districts yet Ms. Alvarez, on her website says she, “improved education by supporting new schools.”

Ms. Alvarez spends a great deal of her energy blaming past council actions and decisions. Yet she joined the council in 2010 and became part of the problem she rails against due to her very service as a member of that “bad” council. She is extremely negative about most issues with the exception of the Tohono O’odham and its proposed casino. But then again, she has received tremendous campaign financial support in the form of independent expenditures from them. This time we can expect to see the TO do the same. In her 4 years of service she has not contributed one positive and reasonable solution to Glendale’s many problems. Ms. Alvarez has become part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Have you ever noticed that Mr. Alvarez never stands for the council’s Pledge of Allegiance at the start of council meetings? It was understandable when medically she was unable to do so. But now?

Ms. Alvarez broke her word to her constituency. If I had a nickel for every time she said she would only serve one term I’d be rich. Some elected officials begin to believe that they are the only ones who can effectively represent their constituency. It’s part of a God complex. There is at least one current candidate who would do a far better job of representing the people of the Ocotillo district.

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

© 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.

Please note: Some of the information presented here is repetition of information from my previous blog on Cholla and Barrel district council candidates and applies to all candidates. Some of you reading this blog for the first time may not have read the previous ones.

If you have relatives, friends or acquaintances that live in the Ocotillo district, please consider passing this series of blogs on to them as another tool to help them evaluate the Ocotillo 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 move on to the Ocotillo district council candidates in alphabetical order: Jamie Aldama, Norma Alvarez, Michael Hernandez and Bud Zomok.

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 or worked with previously and am familiar with their positions on various issues. Others I have never met and so I arranged an interview with them. The same questions were asked of all candidates that were interviewed.

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.

Jamie Aldama

Campaign Finance Report – Mr. Aldama submitted 14 of 19 pages. Schedules C and E were not included. It would be preferable if he had submitted those schedules and left them blank to acknowledge that he is aware of them. He has no treasurer. He has received 24 individual contributions to date;  6 of his individual contributors are from Glendale –Martin Samaniego for $300; David Penilla for $500; Marshall Pimentel for $60; Chris Thompson for $200; Jerry Cipriana for $100;  and Donnie Morales for $300.

For the reporting of individual contributors the candidate is required to supply an address, occupation and employer name. On 8 of the individual contributors there is no information supplied by the candidate for the contributors’ occupations and employers; the candidate also listed a husband and wife jointly for an$800 contribution. Each spouse is required to be listed separately, not jointly and no address, occupation or employer was supplied. Mr. Aldama filled in the blanks with “Requested” but there appears to have been no concerted effort to get this information for the campaign report.  Mr. Aldama received contributions under $50; cash of $506 and checks of $275 for a total of $781. He also received contributions from 2 Political Action Committees: the Sheet Metal Workers Local #359 PAC for $500; and the Salt River Project PAC for $400.

His expenditures are usual and ordinary. Of note: he spent $730.83 (25%) out of a total of $2,931.30 for volunteer food & refreshments. Presumably the refreshments were for the volunteers who collected petition signatures for him. Also of note: Chuck Foy of Negotiation Dynamics, is his campaign consultant and he has paid him $860.32 to date. We can assume some of that amount was for his website as there is no line item expenditure item for such.

Please remember, Mr. Aldama 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.

Campaign website – his website is: http://jamiealdama.com/

However there is no contact information provided – no phone; no address; no email address. The visitor can fill in a form on the Contact page.

His website provides you biographical information, a photo gallery, campaign donation info and contact info. He has identified 3 issues: economic diversity, public services and public safety.  In very general terms he supports seeking new businesses, non reliance on sales tax revenues and establishment of Glendale as a destination city. He calls for better review and maintenance of city infrastructure and supports the hiring of more public safety personnel. He offers no specifics regarding Glendale’s debt and does not speak to the sales tax sunset. His comments appear to be vague and not substantive. Mr. Aldama via his campaign manager declined to meet.

Mr. Aldama has lived in Glendale for 45 years and the Ocotillo district for 40 years. He is married. He has participated in Glendale community affairs and is a member of the Glendale Planning and Zoning Commission. He has also served on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. Having worked with Glendale staff he may be sympathetic to their agenda. He works for the Maricopa County Community College District. Is his job flexible enough to allow him the time needed to fulfill councilmember commitments? He does not speak to that issue. He is silent on the understanding that city council has no authority over school districts.

Mr. Aldama has had past personal financial difficulties. In 2005 he had a judgment in the amount of $5,222.62 rendered against him and his wife. Here is the public record link: http://156.42.40.50/UnOfficialDocs2/pdf/20050253617.pdf . I could find no record of release for this judgment on the Maricopa County Recorder’s website. If it has been released it is not posted by the Maricopa County Recorder. He had a second judgment for $140 in 2006. Here is the link: http://156.42.40.50/UnOfficialDocs2/pdf/20061136597.pdf . After payment, this judgment was released by the court a year later. Here is the link: http://156.42.40.50/UnOfficialDocs2/pdf/20070286968.pdf .  How can a candidate with past personal financial difficulties manage Glendale’s present financial problems?

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

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 the Glendale city council held a special meeting. It was posted the required 24 hours in advance of the meeting but other than knowing that the topic would be the casino, the posting was generic. Let me make clear I oppose the proposed casino. I have from the first moment in 2009 when the Tohono O’odham (TO) announced they were coming until this day and beyond.

We now know why this special voting meeting was called. There was evident panic in the pro-casino ranks of Councilmembers Alvarez, Hugh, Sherwood and Chavira. The public cover (read excuse) they used for calling the meeting was that the Department of the Interior recently approved taking TO land into trust (blessing it as a reservation). What really has them steamed is that Mayor Weiers has been invited to testify before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs about off-reservation gaming on July 23, 2014. It was a blatant, back room  attempt to make him toe the city line and support the proposed casino. That was the “gang of four’s” real agenda. There is another element that needs to be considered. The Primary Election. There is every possibility that the majority in favor of the casino could become the minority, especially if Alvarez loses her council seat (a distinct possibility).

There should be some real concern among the public about the orchestration of this special meeting. The four majority vote councilmembers obviously got together and orchestrated this charade. Everyone should be asking, just how much conversation was there between them and was any portion a violation of the state’s Open Meeting Law? They, to a person, repeated each other and called for a new council resolution rescinding Council Resolution 4246 and asking for a declaration of support for gaming on the reservation land.  They obviously were all on the same page and had decided in advance exactly what the strategy and outcome were to be.

It was evident that the four, as a majority, called for the meeting without consultation with the minority. There was obviously a deliberate lack of communication with the 3 minority voting councilmembers. Obviously they were not included in any discussion about this special meeting. In fact, Mayor Weiers stated that he was on vacation and no one bothered to check his schedule for his availability. Vice Mayor Knaack made it clear her attendance was “under protest” and Councilmember Martinez called the meeting “inappropriate.”

Mayor Weiers has the legal right to oppose the proposed casino before this Senate Committee as long as he makes it clear that his comments are personal and do not reflect the city’s newly adopted position.  I sincerely hope that he takes this opportunity to express in the strongest terms possible, the many reasons why this casino is not good for Glendale.

Mayor Weiers made it clear that he was not happy with the process that was occurring and he stated unequivocally that “what is happening is wrong.” He said the entire process was rushed and it was — but now we know why. He reminded everyone that council has a history of making bad decisions when it is rushed.

Vice Mayor Knaack agreed that the entire process was rushed and could have waited until council reconvened in August. Ahhh, but then the majority pro-casino contingent would not have had the opportunity to try to muzzle Mayor Weiers before he testifies before that Senate Committee. She believes that a casino within Glendale will destroy the voter approved Arizona gaming compact passed in 2002 and it will.

Councilmember Martinez said that the council actions could jeopardize any leverage the city might have with regard to negotiations with the TO. Vice Mayor Knaack expressed the same concern and asked, “Will the action today impact the city’s ability to negotiate the best deal possible with the TO?” That finally stopped “the four” and they acceded to going into Executive Session. Apparently whatever they learned from the City Attorney in that E Session was not persuasive enough to dissuade any of the predestined, determined and blind action of the four.

Two comments were made of note. Arthur Thruston, a Glendale Gadfly, said there was nothing wrong with the manner in which the TO had purchased the land. As a reminder, it was purchased by a shell corporation of the TO back in 2002 and kept secret for 7 years, until 2009. Thruston likened it to Intel or any other large corporation buying land before announcing their new location. OMG…Thruston needs to get real. It is not typical for a corporation to wait 7 years between its purchase and announcement.

Councilmember Sherwood again reiterated that all of the businesses in Westgate are just hunky dory at the prospect of the proposed casino. He used the analogy of a hamburger stand on a corner saying, when another hamburger stand locates nearby it creates synergy and each stand will have more business. That’s fine as far as it goes. What if both stands produced hamburgers that tasted equally well but the new stand sold its burgers for less – a lot less? Did it ever occur to him that if both hamburger stands produced hamburgers of equal quality and taste the public would always choose the cheaper product? Voila! Does that make the situation the Westgate area businesses face from the proposed casino clearer?

Predictably Resolution 4828 New Series passed by a vote of 4 to 3.  It has 3 elements: repeal of Council Resolution 4246; support for gaming on the TO land; and direction that this resolution is sent to the entire Congressional delegation. Alvarez, Hugh, Sherwood and Chavira in the affirmative. Weiers, Knaack and Martinez in the negative. Alvarez has finally paid back the TO for their independent expenditures on her behalf. Now they will owe her more in this election.

The seminal question is this: How can anyone possibly trust anything the TO agrees to in its negotiation with Glendale? They kept secret purchase of the land in Glendale for 7 years. They back stabbed their sister Tribes by flagrantly violating the Arizona gaming compact. If you are not dissuaded by their past actions, I have bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you.

This action by council has stirred me to act. I am writing a letter to the entire Congressional delegation repudiating this council’s Resolution. I encourage any reader who is dismayed by this council’s recent policy decision to take the time to write as well.  A trickle of opposition, when joined with one another, becomes a stream and eventually a mighty river. It’s time for Arizona’s delegation to learn there is a mighty river of opposition to the proposed casino.

© 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.

Barrel council district candidates are similar to that of Cholla district candidates. Some are articulate and exhibit varying degrees of intelligence. Some are passionate and believe that they want to be part of the solution with regard to Glendale’s financial difficulties. I congratulate them for their willingness to put themselves before the voters to be weighed and measured on the issues of the day. Choices among the 5 candidates will be based on the information publicly available to date that was used in the previous blogs about each candidate.

John Benjamin filed a No Activity Campaign Finance Report. Michael Patino has one contribution of $200 and has no expenditures. Reginald Martinez raised a little over $1,000 and the bulk of his expenses were for printing and refreshments for volunteers who gathered his petition signatures. Bart Turner and Randy Miller have received a few individual contributions. Randy Miller is self funded to date. All have done minimal fund raising. It is surprising that none of the candidates appears to be reaching out to their constituency for campaign support to date. It just may be that candidates prefer to reveal their contributors in later Finance Reports as a means of keeping that information from their opponents.

It is extremely difficult for the voter to determine how each Barrel candidate stands on a particular issue. Benjamin, Martinez and Patino have no websites. While each candidate may have developed campaign literature that they pass out or mail to the voters, it is just that, voter specific, and may not reach the entire Barrel district voter universe. Turner has a website but there is no publicly available information offered on his positions on Glendale’s issues. Miller has the most robust website and clearly takes a stand on Glendale’s finances. He regularly attends city council meetings and uses the public comment period to discuss issues such as the debt and the sales tax sunset.

Miller acknowledges that Glendale has financial problems and he supports the sunset of the sales tax increase in 2017. He offers several strategies for the reduction of Glendale’s debt including a thorough assessment of Glendale’s O&M costs.  None of the other Barrel candidates have publicly available material that would indicate their positions.

All have lived in the Barrel district for a minimum of 4 years and some have lived in Glendale for far longer but not in the Barrel district. Miller and Turner are self employed and that does provide them the flexibility they need to fulfill a councimember’s responsibilities. The others appear to have regular job commitments that could make it difficult to attend to councilmember meetings and duties.

Only Turner has served on Glendale’s boards and commissions but that may not play in his favor. His interaction with staff may make him more sympathetic to the current staff agenda. Miller recognizes that the relationship between staff and council is broken and seeks more staff openness. He has already demonstrated his willingness to “do his homework” on the issues and to ask meaningful questions.

The candidate picks for the Barrel district are in stark contrast to one another in terms of philosophies of governance. Those voters who are supportive of the status quo should look to Turner. Those voters who are supportive of change and realistic alternative solutions should consider Miller.

It seems safe to assume that with 5 candidates no one will take the Barrel councilmember seat out right in the Primary Election. The two top candidates will face off in the General Election in November. It is not an easy decision for any voter but based upon information publicly available to everyone, this writer’s picks for the Barrel district are:

           John Benjamin

           Reginald Martinez

   checkmark__bottomheavy_140  Randy Miller

           Michael Patino

  checkmark__bottomheavy_140    Bart Turner

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Today, Tuesday, July 15, 2014, a special city council meeting has been called. It is a voting meeting. It appears that council will be asked to vote on an action related to Congressman Trent Franks’ bill HR 1410. I encourage anyone with an interest in the proposed Tohono O’odham casino project to attend. Since it is a public meeting the public will have the opportunity to speak to the issue. The meeting is at 1:30 PM. It will be at City Hall. The meeting notice does not indicate where but I would go to Council Chambers.  If you cannot attend, I urge you to contact your City Councilmember:

  • jweiers@glendaleaz.com
  • yknaack@glendaleaz.com
  • mmartinez@glendaleaz.com
  • ihugh@glendaleaz.com
  • nalvarez@glendaleaz.com
  • gsherwood@glendaleaz.com
  • schavira@glendaleaz.com

Here is a link to the meeting notice: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agendasandminutes/Meetings/Agendas/071514-S01.pdf .

I have also posted verbatim the Council Communication:

Meeting Date: 7/15/2014
Meeting Type: Voting
Title: DISCUSSION, UPDATE AND POSSIBLE ACTION RELATED TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 91ST AND NORTHERN AVENUES AND THE TOHONO O’ODHAM NATION’S APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF THE LAND INTO TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE TOHONO O’ODHAM NATION
Staff Contact: Brent Stoddard, Intergovernmental Programs Director

 Purpose and Recommended Action

Pursuant to direction from City Council, staff is being requested to update the Council on federal actions, legislation and hearings related to the property located at approximately 91st and Northern Avenues.

Background

On Wednesday, July 9, 2014, Glendale was notified by the Clerk of the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs that the Committee would be holding a hearing on Wednesday, July 23, 2014 at 2:30 p.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington D.C. titled “Indian Gaming: The Next 25 Years.” The Committee also invited Mayor Weiers to attend and testify at the Committee hearing.

The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs is also the Committee that House of Representatives Bill 1410 “Keep the Promise Act of 2013” has been referred to. H.R. 1410 was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Trent Franks in April 2013. The bill passed the House in September 2013 and was referred to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. The Committee has taken no action on the legislation.

The City Council, at its March 25, 2014 Council meeting, adopted Resolution No. 4783 opposing House of Representatives Bill 1410 “Keep the Promise Act of 2013” and directed the City Clerk to send the resolution to the members of the Arizona Federal delegation.

The City Council, at its March 18, 2014 Workshop, gave staff direction to bring forward a resolution setting forth the City’s official position relating to H.R. 1410. The City Council also discussed and gave direction that the City of Glendale was not changing or waiving its position relating to Resolution New Series 4246, executed on April 7, 2009, opposing the Tohono O’odham Nation’s application to the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to have land taken into trust and an approval of gaming on the land located at approximately 91st and Northern Avenues.

Previous Related Council Action

At the City Council Workshop held on October 15, 2013 and the Workshop of March 18, 2014, the City Council discussed the direction related to property located at approximately 91st and Northern Avenues and the Tohono O’odham Nation’s application for transfer of property into trust for the benefit of the Tohono O’odham Nation.

Attachments

None

Please note: Some of the information presented here is repetition of information from my previous blogs on the Cholla candidates and applies to all candidates. Some of you reading this blog for the first time may not have read the previous ones.

If you have relatives, friends or acquaintances that live in the Barrel district, please consider passing this series of blogs on to them as another tool to help them evaluate the Barrel 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 move on to the Barrel district council candidates in alphabetical order: John Benjamin, Reginald Martinez, Michael Patino, Randy Miller and Bart Turner. Three of these candidates will be reviewed together and Miller and Turner will be reviewed separately.

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.

Bart Turner

Campaign Finance Report – He submitted 7 of 19 pages. He submitted Schedules A and D and omitted Schedules B, C, E and F. Mr. Turner referred to the Arizona Secretary of State’s campaign finance reporting instructions that state if there is nothing to report those schedules may be omitted. Self omission of those schedules can lead to report errors and a candidate may inadvertently neglect to report information. If disciplined enough, all pages should be filed to indicate that the candidate is aware of the reporting requirements and truly has had no activity in those areas by leaving the pages blank, striking through them or using “NA.” He has received 8 individual contributions to date. Two are from himself and a family member in the amount of $200. Three contributions are from Glendale individuals totaling $650 to date. Of note, one contribution in the amount of $300 is from Rodeane Widom, former Executive Director of the Glendale Library system. He has no treasurer. Please remember, Mr. Turner is 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.

Mr. Turner’s expenditures are usual and ordinary and he spent $580.72 on web site hosting and design.

Campaign website – his website is: http://bartknowsglendale.com  . His contact information is: Bart Turner, 8217 N 57th Drive, Glendale, AZ 85302                                                                   Telephone : 623-487-3808    Email address: Bart_Turner@Cox.net.

His website provides you biographical information, campaign donation info and contact info. He does not offer any information on his positions on Glendale’s issues. I did not meet with Mr. Turner as I have known not only Bart but his Mother for quite some time.

Mr. Turner is a native Glendalian and has lived in the Barrel district for 10 years. He has a long and extensive history of participation in Glendale and Arizona community affairs. Most notably he is the current President of the Glendale Arts Council and was a former Chairperson of the Glendale Parks and Recreation Commission. He has been an ardent advocate for children, the poor and minorities.  He has his own property management business and believes that his work schedule is flexible enough to accommodate the demands of serving as a councilmember.

As a result of his service on boards and commissions he appears sympathetic to staff’s agenda. While his campaign literature will be used with Barrel voters there is no publically available information on his stance on a variety of Glendale issues. By publically available information is meant that his issue positions are available to anyone, in or out of his district. He believes that his knowledge of Glendale gives him the experience needed to understand and to solve Glendale issues.

Having reviewed of all 5 Barrel district candidates we’ll try to narrow the choices down to 2 people. In this district, as with the other council races, there are so many candidates none of them are expected to win outright in the primary and we can expect a run off in the general election in November.  Next up, Barrel district picks for city council.

© 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.

This is a good story about Glendale. In the Arizona Republic of July 11, 2004 it reports that Zanero Falls has been purchased. Many readers will not be familiar with this property. It is located just northeast of Cabela’s and slightly east of the Marriot hotels on the north side of Glendale Avenue.

zanero

Zanjero Falls Corporate Center 2008

It was completed in 2008 for $45 million just before the national economy tanked. It is a 150,000 square foot signature office complex for the West Valley and especially Glendale. It reminds one a great deal of the architecture one would see in southern California around the Newport Beach area with its Spanish colonial architecture. It is a beautiful complex.

It was recently purchased for $9.1 million (a great buy!) by Select Healthcare Solutions LLC, Phoenix Cyberknife and Radiation Oncology Center LLC. The plan is to turn the complex into medical offices. Medical service for west Glendale residents and the surrounding area are long overdue. There is a tremendous pent up demand for such services. It doesn’t hurt that the complex is close to the new Dignity Health St. Joseph’s Westgate Medical Center on 99th and Glendale Avenues. The buyer is investing $6 million in the property and plans to open a cancer center in part of the complex by January of 2015.

Congratulations to all of the principals involved in making this deal happen.  It’s a great development for Glendale but more importantly for west Glendale residents and residents of nearby communities.

© 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.

Please note: Some of the information presented here is repetition of information from my previous blogs on the Cholla candidates and applies to all candidates. Some of you reading this blog for the first time may not have read the previous ones.

If you have relatives, friends or acquaintances that live in the Barrel district, please consider passing this series of blogs on to them as another tool to help them evaluate the Barrel 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 move on to the Barrel district council candidates in alphabetical order: John Benjamin, Reginald Martinez, Michael Patino, Randy Miller and Bart Turner. Three of these candidates will be reviewed together and Miller and Turner will be reviewed separately.

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.

Randy Miller

Campaign Finance Report – He submitted all 19 pages. He is self funded in the amount of $1,500 to date.  He has received 5 individual contributions to date. Two are from Glendale individuals in the amount of $150. Of note, one contribution in the amount of $100 is from Don Rinehart, past CEO of the Glendale Chamber of Commerce. He received contributions of less than $50 and they totaled $70. He has no treasurer. Please remember, Mr. Miller is 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.

Mr. Miller’s expenditures are usual and ordinary. He has hired Gail Meyers as his campaign consultant and paid $1,362 to date. This fee probably includes his web site hosting and design.

Campaign website – his website is: http://randyforcouncil.com  . His contact information is:     Randy for Council, 6439 W Townley Avenue, Glendale, AZ 85302                                                                    Telephone : 623-764–4521                                                 Email address: randy@randyforcouncil.com  .

His website provides you biographical information, a photo gallery, campaign donation info and contact info. His Issues page offers a strategy for dealing with Glendale’s financial problems by advocating for keeping the sales tax sunset provision and looking at Operating and Maintenance Costs throughout the city. I did meet with Mr. Miller. 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. Miller has lived in Glendale for 14 years and the Barrel district for 4 years. When redistricting occurred in 2010 his home became part of the Barrel district. He is married. He has not participated in Glendale community affairs. He has his own computer business and believes that his work schedule is flexible enough to accommodate the demands of serving as a councilmember.

His observation with regard to the relationship between council and staff is that it is best served by doing one’s homework and questioning staff assumptions. He has been highly visible at council meetings and speaks to the council agenda items. He is receiving the police union and former Vice Mayor Tom Eggleston’s endorsements but is relying on neighborhood donations and self-funding. He believes the sales tax increase should sunset in 2017 and is confident that there are other options, such as the sale of city assets and the encouragement of industry location within Glendale, available to offset the revenue loss. He understands that city council has no authority over school districts.

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

© 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.

Joe Hester, President of the Glendale Fire Union, had an opinion piece in the Glendale Star dated July 11, 2014 entitled A lot of talk, now is time for action. Here is the link: http://www.glendalestar.com/opinion/editorials/article_409c876a-0618-11e4-aa9f-001a4bcf887a.html .

He made quite a few statements that bear further scrutiny. One was, “…the fact that Glendale is Arizona’s busiest fire department per capita…” Why, you ask, Is Glendale’s fire department the busiest? Does Glendale have more sick people and medical emergencies than every other city in the Valley? No. Does Glendale have more fires than every other city in the Valley? No. What Glendale does have is an automatic aid system shared with every other city in the Valley. But there is no parity. Glendale responds to its partner cities far more often than they respond in Glendale. That’s why Glendale’s fire department is the busiest.

Glendale Fire Union President, Joe Hester, goes on to say, “Simply put, our city cannot cut $27 million a year in revenue…” That is true but that was never the plan. At the time of the passage of the sales tax increase with the sunset provision, the plan was to gradually cut $5 million a year from Glendale’s budget. It was a plan that could have been accomplished had council had the backbone to implement cuts every year. It was never the plan to cut the entire sales tax windfall of $27 million from Glendale’s budget in one year.

Mr. Hester is now upset with Mayor Weiers and Councilmember Hugh because they filled out candidate questionnaires, “promising to save public safety from the chopping block at all costs.” I suspect that is still their intent but not in the manner the fire union desires.

It is interesting to read Mr. Hester saying, “We know the city in the past has struck bad sports deal and in the future may face the threat of bankruptcy.” Where was the Glendale fire union when the deal with IceArizona for $15 million a year was inked? Where was the Glendale fire union when the Camelback Ranch deal was struck? Will the Glendale fire union support cuts in the fire department of all non-core functions (fire and emergency medical response) if Glendale does indeed face bankruptcy?

Mr. Hester complains by saying, “…especially with paid petition circulators on the street…” He is referring to the fact that the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) has circulated an initiative petition to overturn the permanent sales tax increase recently approved by the city council. What he fails to mention is that fire fighters were out in droves, often blocking the AFEC’s effort to collect signatures. They also recited dire consequences to potential signers if the sunset were to occur.

On July 4, 2014 the Arizona Republic ran a story about the Glendale city clerk’s efforts to validate the initiative petition signatures. Here is the link: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2014/07/04/petitions-filed-let-glendale-voters-decide-tax-hike/12208445/ . I may be incorrect but it has been my understanding that the Secretary of State verifies initiative petition signatures.

Leaving signature verification to Glendale (biased against any effort to sunset the sales tax) is like asking the fox to guard the hen house.  In a previous effort to get an initiative on the ballot regarding removal of the sales tax on food all petition signatures were ruled invalid because the type on the petitions was a smidge too small. When the petitions were reproduced for distribution to signature gatherers the reproduction reduced the petition type slightly, by something like two-tenths. That was enough to terminate the entire effort. This time, with 20,000 petition signatures turned in it may be more difficult for Glendale to disqualify a minimum of 9,000 signatures. If Glendale succeeds expect this issue to end up in court.

© 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: