Over the weekend one of the many emails I received asked questions about Acting Assistant Julie Frisoni’s role in the Early Retirement Program (ERP). What did Frisoni, at that time the Director of Marketing and Communications, know and when did she know it? The writer of the email, based on the information in the audit, asks why the marketing director was conveniently left out of any headlines in the paper.

A review of the external audit report page 22 states, “On August 19, 2009, the Arizona Republic requested information from the City regarding the ERP…” On the same page of the report it further states, “On May 21, 2010 the Arizona Republic made a second public records request for information on the ERP…” In an email dated August 26, 2009 from Pam Kavanaugh (at that time Assistant City Manager) to Alma Carmicle (at that time Director of Human Resources) with reference to the public information requests made by the Arizona Republic she states, “If it is Budget related Sherry can handle – if it is H.R. related you can handle. Please keep Marketing in the loop on what is occurring. Has the other information been released? Have the employees been notified?”

From the audit report (Frisoni was interviewed one time) it appears that Frisoni may not have known the details of the ERP until 5 months after its inception but she certainly knew the facts by August of 2009. She states in the audit report that the information she supplied to the media was based upon her reliance on information supplied by others such as Schurhammer, Kavanaugh and Carmicle. If nothing else, it appears that she could have been a conduit of disinformation to the media. City staffers continue to believe that as Director of Marketing and Communications, she participated in the weekly meetings of upper management. As a result of her presumed attendance at those weekly meetings they believe that she knew of the ERP from its inception and the disastrous results that ensued long before it became public knowledge. As City spokesperson the assumption can be made that she would have needed to know about potential negative news about the city in order to spin it in the most positive light possible. At times that may have required the omission of information. Why hasn’t the media questioned the level of her involvement? Perhaps it’s more convenient for them to overlook one of their own in the business. 

Will we ever know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? It’s doubtful. It looks like 4 staffers will take the fall while the roster of the unscathed continues to grow: Beasley, Kavanaugh, Lynch, Carmicle, Loeb, and Frisoni. Many Glendale residents feel that her appointment as Acting Assistant City Manager is a slap in the face because Frisoni was part of the regime at the time of extremely poor (and perhaps illegal) decision making. Residents are asking why some are made accountable yet others continue to skate? There are no answers here but perhaps we will get answers from the Attorney General’s Office some day.

On another note, the city council approved the hiring of Michael Bailey as the new City Attorney.  According to the media he left Surprise, AZ when he and the city could not agree on his compensation. Mr. Bailey previously worked for Glendale and has history as a result.

Lastly, city council held an Esession on August 4, 2013 after its workshop and guess what was on its agenda…again? Yep, the arena management deal. It could be a standard place holder for an Esession or it could signal that there is some issue still unresolved. This is the second time it’s been on an Esession recently. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

©Joyce Clark, 2013

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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.