Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

On September 17, 2014 the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs met to consider the Senate Bill, S. 2670, Keep the Promise Act of 2014, introduced by Senators McCain and Flake. I have transcribed the testimony verbatim. Since I am not technically savvy enough to create a link to my file I will offer the first portion of the testimony at the end of this blog. If anyone reading this can tell me how to create a link to one of my files I would appreciate it.

This portion of the hearing deals with Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior, Kevin Washburn. He offers his testimony and then is questioned by Senator McCain and Chairman of the Committee Tester. He has to defend the Department of the Interior’s action of having approved reservation status to the Tohono O’odham. He does not work for the Bureau of Indian Affairs that will decide the question of allowing gaming on the TO’s new reservation. Having watched the hearing via the internet and then transcribing the hearing one cannot help but develop first impressions.

Mr. Washburn appears to be your typical bureaucrat, a small minded man enamored by his title and power; and rigid beyond all reason. I bet his business cards are engraved in gold. He certainly is good at towing the party line. He insisted that the Tohono O’odham (TO) are an impoverished tribe despite their annual revenue of over $36 million derived from their 3 casinos in the Tucson area but when asked if he knew how much revenue the TO earned annually he admitted that he did not know. He also insisted that there was no prohibition in any law, including the current Arizona Gaming Compact, that would prevent the TO from building a casino in the middle of Glendale.  His stance was since there is no legal prohibition from driving your car over a cliff or eating yourself to death, it’s perfectly all right to do so. The absence of a “no” makes any action permissible according to Mr. Washburn.

Senator McCain repeatedly and forcefully made clear the intent of the Inouye McCain Bill, formally known as the Gila River Indian Land Replacement Act of 1988. McCain said that just as with the voter approved state gaming compact, the universal assumption was that the TO would build its fourth casino in southern Arizona. No one contemplated the recent action taken by the TO. There is now concern that the TO may close its casinos in southern Arizona and rebuild on other county islands in Maricopa County. It’s not so farfetched a notion. Apparently TO council notes have been discovered that outline just such a scenario.

I expect that the McCain Flake bill will make it out of committee and will be approved or rejected by the full Senate. Until such time, the Tohono O’odham are making a millions of dollars bet that they will prevail and the casino will become a reality. They could end up losing millions of dollars. Not bad for an “impoverished tribe.”

Here is a verbatim transcript, Part I, of the Committee hearing:

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs Sept 17 2014

Chairman Tester:  “The committee will come to order. Today we are holding a hearing at the request of Senators McCain and Flake on S. 2670. The bill would address an issue specific to Arizona but one that could have broader implications for this committee and affect the role of Congress with regard to gaming compacts between tribes and states. The Indian Regulatory Act affirmed the authority of tribes to conduct gaming on Indian reservations and specifically required states and tribes to negotiate gaming compacts. The Act further requires the Department of Interior to approve or disapprove these compacts. The Act provided no further role for Congress in this process and I think most of the members of this committee would agree that’s a good thing. The state of Arizona and the tribes within the state entered into a compact which was voted on and passed through a statewide vote in 2002. Now, however, the tribes within the state and some municipalities disagree on what the vote approved. Senator McCain was highly involved in the drafting and passage of both the Indian Regulatory Gaming Act and the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Land Replacement Act. These acts form the basis of the issue that S. 2670 would address. We heard witness testimony on this issue earlier this year and now we have called the stakeholders back to discuss the specifics of this legislation and also invited the administration to give their perspective. Welcome Kevin. Overall this committee wants to insure that any action taken on this specific issue doesn’t have broader impacts for tribes across the country. Senator Brasher do you have anything to say?…”

Senator McCain:  (Missed much of Sen. McCain’s opening remarks) “…and I can assure the witness it was never the intent of Senator Inouye and I through months…weeks and months of hearings, to have an airdrop, no matter what rationale you are using for it because of some settlement, to have reservations, indian gaming, have non contiguous indian gaming air dropped in the center of a metropolitan city, without at least the people of that area being allowed to vote on it…at least. But the fact is, it was never the intent of the law and what you are about to do, Mr. Washburn, apparently, is to violate the intent of the law. Quite often around here we hear about legislation and people talk about the intent of Congress. I’m telling you the intent of Congress because it was called the Inouye McCain Act and it was a great act in light of the Cabazon decision it was mandatory that the United States Congress act and I’m proud of that act and I’m proud of the benefit that has accrued to Indian Country. I am proud that there has been revenue sharing between, as it in our state of Arizona , between the gaming tribes and the state of Arizona, the contribution they’ve made. I never contemplated air dropping in the middle of Glendale, no matter what the rationale was for, an indian gaming operation. So, I want to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, what the intent of the law was because I was one of the two authors. I thank you Mr. Chairman.”

Chairman Tester: “Thank you Senator McCain and Senator Brasher for your comments. I will now call up our first witness, Mr. Kevin Washburn, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs in the Department of Interior. Kevin, you’ve been with us many times. We always look forward to hearing the administration’s thoughts on these issues. The committee knows you’re busy so we’ll try to get through your portion of the testimony as soon as possible. We will have some questions. We appreciate your time. Thank you for being here today. You may proceed.”

Mr. Washburn: “Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Vice Chairman, Senator McCain, thank you for having me here today. Maybe I shouldn’t be thanking you. This is a difficult issue and umm, I find myself nervous today and I guess it’s because I never like to disappoint my friends and umm, there are umm, no more passionate tribal leaders in the country that I know of than Greg Mendoza and Diane Enos and they are probably here in the room. Umm, and yet, we find ourselves being asked, being forced to provide our perspective on this bill. Umm, I have to tell you that I’m not really happy to be here, but, umm, when pushed I will tell you what I think about this bill and, umm, I believe that, ah umm, the Tohono Nation has an expectation of land in Maricopa County or in Pinal or Pima County and they’ve had that expectation for nearly 30 years now based on the Gila Bend Act. And they came by that expectation righteously. We assured them that we wouldn’t flood their lands in the San Lucy District back in 1960 when we started working on a dam and we proceeded to do just that. We flooded those lands and, umm, they came to Congress and looked for a settlement. Given the fact, umm, their expectations didn’t come out, umm, as they should have with regards the dam. So, Congress enacted the Gila Bend Act and promised them land, up to 10,000 acres, umm, in three counties and umm, in Arizona, central Arizona so long as it was not within an incorporated municipality. And umm, that was their expectation, that’s what the Gila Bend Act and Congress was well aware of gaming at the time the Gila Bend Act was passed and it didn’t preclude any prohibitions on Indian gaming. Indian gaming had been, was a robust industry by that time and the very next year it ended up in the U.S. Supreme Court in the Cabazon case, and uh, cases don’t just arrive in the Supreme Court. They go through multiple levels before they reach the Supreme Court. So this was, again, well known to Congress. There had already been hearings before Congress on Indian gaming and it was well known at the time the Gila Bend Act was passed. And then shortly thereafter, in 1988 Congress enacted the Indian Regulatory Gaming Act that Senator McCain spoke eloquently about. The Indian Regulatory Gaming Act did not mention Tohono O’odham and indeed included a specific provision, umm, that allows umm, that allows, umm, an exception to the prohibition that allows gaming after the enactment of IGRA on lands acquired after that time. Umm, it included a specific provision, umm, that essentially speaks right to the situation involving the Gila Bend parcel. So, Tohono O’odham had an expectation, a reasonable expectation, that this land which was certainly thought to be for economic development that they would be able to game on this land. I think a more practical perspective is also in order. I hear over and over that gaming distributes resources unfairly because it creates tribes who are haves and tribes that are have-nots. And despite the popular conception most tribes do not have gaming. Most tribes don’t benefit in any way from gaming. Umm, gaming was being strongly encouraged when the Gila Bend Act was passed. Ronald Regan’s Department of the Interior was strongly trying to get tribes to increase gaming because that would increase self sufficiency for tribes. And when Ronald Regan signed the Indian Regulatory Gaming Act in 1988 he said he was supporting the statute because he wanted tribes to be more financially independent, more self sufficient. And I come over to this committee all the time and I get beat up because some members of this committee think that this administration is not asking for enough money from the taxpayers for indian tribes and maybe we aren’t. But this action by Tohono O’odham to try to open up this casino is their effort to provide for their own people and is clearly allowed by existing law. And that issue has been litigated over and over and that’s what Judge Campbell, a Republican appointee, found when he looked at this issue. Let me add, too, that when gaming began in the Valley of the Sun the population of the Phoenix metropolitan area was in the neighborhood of 2 million people. Today the Phoenix metro area exceeds 4.3 million people. Surely there is enough room in the vast market for another tribe to benefit from gaming, especially an impoverished tribe. Last I checked, despite the recession and everything else that’s been going on, Phoenix is still one of the fastest growing cities on the country. And again, surely, umm, in the fastest growing cities there’s an opportunity for a growing gaming market, an opportunity for one more tribe to benefit from this vast market. The promise referenced in the title of S. 2670 is kind of ironic. It’s not one that’s known to me and it certainly is not a federal promise. The federal promise was to take land into trust for Tohono O’odham anywhere in Pima, Pinal or Maricopa counties so long as it was not within an already incorporated area of a municipality. In my mind our trust responsibility demands that we keep our federal promises. We have broken a lot of treaties and we have broken a lot of federal promises to Indian people in the past and the only promise of the United States that’s at issue here today is the one made in the Gila Bend Act. And the only way the federal government can keep its promise to the Tohono O’odham is for this committee is to reject this bill. The Tohono O’odham property near Glendale presents an opportunity for another Indian tribe to share the wealth and open a new part of this gaming market. And in a tight fiscal market that kind of economic development should be an imperative. Opening this facility will help make President Ronald Reagan’s dream come true of using gaming to lift tribes out of poverty and help make them more self sufficient. I’ll stand for your questions. Thank you Mr. Chairman.”

Chairman Tester: “Thank you Secretary Washburn. I know that Senator McCain has a conflict with Foreign Affairs, I believe. So I’ll let him go ahead of me.”

Senator McCain: “Mr. Washburn, ah, you talk about impoverished tribes. Would you say  Tohono O’odham fit into that category since they already have 3 casinos?”

Secretary Washburn:  “Yes, Senator. Despite…”

Senator McCain: “Yeah, in other words, you just, you just falsely gave the committee the impression as if the Tohono O’odham was an impoverished tribe without Indian gaming. They have 3 casinos, right?”

Secretary Washburn: “I didn’t…”

Senator McCain: “Is that true?”

Secretary Washburn: “I didn’t mean to give the impression that they were not a gaming tribe. They, indeed, already are. But I will tell you their gaming is in Tucson and Phoenix is a much larger market than Tucson and they are…”

Senator McCain: “They are certainly not impoverished, Mr. Washburn. Mr. Washburn, ah, in the ah, you said that it was the intent that indian gaming not be located in incorporated areas. Right?”

Secretary Washburn: “Yes. I…”

Senator McCain: “Isn’t that kind of technical because it’s in the middle of the city of Glendale ? It’s technical. Everything around it is incorporated. It’s not out in the desert.”

Secretary Washburn: “Senator, it was your bill and you wrote the language. We’re just applying it.”

Senator McCain: “You know something, Mr. Washburn? That’s a pretty smart ass answer and the fact is I’m telling you what the intent was. Okay? Now we wrote the bill and when we wrote it so that there would not be exactly what has happened now and if you want to interpret it that way, fine. You can interpret how you want to. I interpret it as not ever intending to have a gaming operation in the middle of an incorporated area without the permission of the people, not only in Glendale, because as you said, this is a large metropolitan area, but the people of the metropolitan area. They should have a say in this. You’re not giving them a say in this. The city of Glendale has been split on this in various ways. So, so, you’re saying one, that it’s for impoverished tribes. Clearly, by any measurement, this tribe is not impoverished. Second of all, you say it was not the intent of the tribe, of the Act, to be in incorporated areas. It’s surrounded by incorporated areas, Mr. Washburn, and I can tell you what the intent is and I believe also that it’s your interpretation of the law versus my interpretation of the law. And I really appreciate your concern for impoverished tribes. I have that same concern. The Tohono O’odham tribe isn’t one of those. It isn’t one of those. They are doing very well with the three casinos that they have already and there are established casinos within the Phoenix metropolitan area that this is going to impact. That’s why the other tribes are against such a move which would then impact their gaming operations and revenue. And has that been taken into consideration in your decision? The impact on other Native American tribal gaming?”

Secretary Washburn: “As I said, Senator, this is a rapidly growing market. Umm, it continues to be one of the fastest growing cities in the country. We certainly have a trust responsibility to all the tribes, but…”

Senator McCain: “So, it’s up to you to decide whether an area is fast growing or not, as to whether, what guides your decision?’

Secretary Washburn: “No…”

Senator McCain: “Mr. Washburn that has nothing to do with the law.”

Secretary Washburn: “It’s my responsibility to follow the law and follow what Congress said and what you said was, umm, outside of any municipality, incorporated municipality, anywhere in Maricopa County, and that’s what we read. That’s relatively clear and, umm, that’s what we determined and that’s what the courts have upheld and umm, we believe that they are a tribe that’s got significant burdens. They are one of the largest tribes in the country. They have roughly 40,000 members and they’ve got a lot of land to try to take care of with a modest revenue source. And umm…”

Senator McCain: “Three casinos is not a modest revenue source?”

Secretary Washburn: “Given their burdens, yes Senator. This is not a tribe with 30 people or 300 people. This is a very, very large tribe with a lot of responsibilities and I can assure you they can use more revenues.”

Senator McCain: “I can assure you every tribe in America can use more revenue. So you’re basing your decision as to what…are you saying they are impoverished?”

Secretary Washburn: “Senator, ahh….”

Senator McCain: “Are you saying they are impoverished, because you said, you’re referring to impoverished tribes. Are you saying this tribe is impoverished?

Secretary Washburn: “I, I want gaming to benefit all tribes but yes, I’m, I’m, I’m willing to live with the fact but yes, the Tohono O’odham is an impoverished tribe. It’s got a large number of members and many of them are living in very, very terrible conditions.”

Senator McCain: “And are you aware of the gaming revenue from the three casinos?”

Secretary Washburn: “Umm, ah, I’ve heard the revenue from the three casinos. I don’t have ‘em in front of me as I sit here.”

Senator McCain: “Do you know what they are, roughly?”

Secretary Washburn: “No.”

Senator McCain: “So, It doesn’t matter to you what, since you don’t know, it doesn’t matter what it is. So, you’re making a judgment as to the economic condition of the tribe without knowing what their revenues are. That’s really, really good Mr. Washburn. I don’t have any more questions for this witness.”

Chairman Tester: “Assistant Secretary Washburn, the department approves Class III tribal state gaming compacts. I believe, ah, the department has approved the latest compacts between the state of Arizona and the Arizona tribes. Ah, do you know if the type of compact currently in effect have a limitation as to the type of facilities in the Phoenix area?”

Secretary Washburn: “They, they do not have any limitations, umm, as to the number of facilities in the Phoenix area.”

Chairman Tester: “Ok. Ah, you mentioned in your testimony that the department does not support the bill as it would undermine promises made by the United States to the TO Nation and the Gila Bend Indian Reservations, ah, Land Replacement Act. Ah, I want you to describe if this bill were enacted, cause you describe the policy implications it might have on future settlements and negotiations between the tribes and the United States.”

Secretary Washburn: “Well, the potential is that, um, we will have, um, tribes feeling, um, this is the same stuff, a different day; that we were, ah, are just continuing in the mode of breaking treaties, breaking promises to tribes and that’s a, that’s a tough situation to be in because I had hoped we were past all that and that we were working to live up to our promises to Indian tribes going forward. And so this would significantly undermine the promise that we made to Tohono O’odham and the Gila Bend Act and umm, I think that that, umm, would cause tribes to, umm, great pause in settling with the United States government that doesn’t live up to its promises.”

Chairman Tester: “So you believe that, ah, the Gila Bend Act, umm, gave the Tohono O’odham the authority?”

Secretary Washburn: “I believe it gave them the opportunity to take land into trust anywhere in Pima, Pinal or Maricopa counties and, umm, with some caveats. One of the caveats being it couldn’t be already incorporated land. And this is, so they went out and bought land that was not incorporated but was in Maricopa County. Umm, and umm, if we add requirements to that we’ve changed the promise. We’ve changed the deal we struck with Tohono O’odham.”

Senator McCain: “And did that Act anywhere refer in it, any reference to gaming?”

Secretary Washburn: “It had no prohibition on gaming whatsoever.”

Senator McCain: “Did it have any reference to gaming?”

Secretary Washburn: “It said that, umm, Indian reserve, lands could be used for all purposes, which…”

Senator McCain: “It made no reference to gaming. Thanks Mr. Chairman.”

Chairman Tester: “That’s ok. Assistant Secretary Washburn, ah, some of the witnesses’ testimony that we’re going to hear today talks about possible violations of the Arizona tribal compacts whether by the TO project itself or by possible repercussions if the TO project is allowed to proceed. What role does the department play in instances where the tribe or the state violates provisions of the compact?”

Secretary Washburn: “Well, first of all, we approve those compacts. So we stamped approval on those compacts and those compacts, umm, would be violated by this statute and again, would change, again, the terms of those compacts. And so, there are potential provisions for violations of gaming compacts. Umm, I’m not sure what the steps would be for the United States to take for those violations. Umm, but one of the compact’s, umm, terms was that this compact, the final agreement for the parties on these issues and introducing new terms after everybody agreed that, umm, they’ve agreed on all the terms is definitely a change in the promise.”

Chairman Tester: “Ok. Do you have any more questions Senator McCain? Alright, thank you Secretary Washburn. Appreciate taking time out of your schedule to be here today. We’ll give the staff, ah, a moment, ah, to reset the witness table. (Pause) And the witnesses can come up. At this time. (Pause) I, ah, want to welcome our second panel of up to the witness table. We will first hear from Governor Gregory Mendoza of the Gila River – Pima – Maricopa Community. Then we’ll turn it over to Mayor Jerry Weiers. Got it right this time. The City of Glendale. Welcome back, Mayor. Ah, we then will have Sammy Chavira, a Glendale City Councilman, and finally, we’re gonna hear from Ned Norris, Chairman of the Tohono O’odham Nation and we  welcome you back. (Pause)  Oh, Ok, in place of…oh, I’m sorry, alright. Gary, my apologies.  Umm, we’ll then hear from Gary Sherwood, Glendale Councilman. Same position, different person. Umm, and finally we’re gonna hear from Chairman Ned Norris of the Tohono O’odham Nation and we welcome you back as well, Mr. Chairman.  Thank you all for being here today. Ah, Governor Mendoza, we’ll start with you. Go ahead.”

© 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.

image002

Is this Timothy Schwartz?

image003

Or is this Timothy Schwartz?

Who is Timothy Schwartz and where did he come from? Here’s a good example why newspaper coverage is so disappointing and more and more people are turning to other sources. 

Timothy Schwartz is chair of Republican Legislative District 30 and used this event to get some media face time. His only claim to fame is that he apparently made a motion at a state Republican event a year or two ago to censure Senator John McCain. To say that he is to the right of Genghis Khan would be an understatement. His position within the groups, No More Bad Deals for Glendale and Keep the Promise is as mythical as that of a leprechaun.  Gary Hirsch chairs both of those committees and is the only legitimate spokesperson for those two political action committees.

Schwartz’ committee, Glendale Citizens for Voice and Choice is also mythical. It is not a political action committee registered with the Glendale City Clerk or the Arizona Secretary of State. Its existence is a figment of Schwartz’ imagination, as mythical as Schwartz’ self-proclaimed position as spokesperson.

So how did Schwartz get to be spokesperson and quoted in the media? Frankly, he was blustery and loud enough to attract a reporter’s attention. The Glendale Star was the first to give Schwartz credibility by saying, “After turning in what they claim is nearly 15,000 signatures protesting the city council’s vote to approve the West Valley Casino and Resort, a group called Glendale Citizens for Voice and Choice is hoping to have the question placed on the ballot for citizens to have their say.” Too bad no one bothered to fact check first. The referendum petitions signatures were collected by and turned in by No More Bad Deals for Glendale and Keep the Promise. Schwartz magically appeared the day the petitions were to be turned in to the City Clerk. Schwartz’ imaginary political action committee did not collect any petition signatures or turn them in. His only contribution to the effort was to hook up with the legitimate group and offer to carry two boxes of petitions into the City Clerk’s office.

Then Monica Alonzo in her Phoenix New Times blog capacity called Schwartz, self proclaimed leader who did not bother to disabuse her of the notion, and she ran with it saying, “A group calling itself ‘Glendale Citizens for Voice and Choice’ reportedly turned in more than 13,000 signatures on a ‘petition protesting the way the Glendale City Council approved the gaming Casino at 91st Avenue and Northern without notice to the citizenry’.”

It is now a self perpetuating story with no one bothering to check. After all, if one newspaper ran it, it must be true. Then the same misinformation is picked up by other media such as myfoxatlanta.com and yourwestvalley.com.  Again, no one bothered to check the facts and assumed that if another media source ran it, it must be true.

Should you believe what you read in the papers? This is but one example how they feed off one another and repeat the same erroneous information until it becomes “fact.” There are other errors within these stories covering the submission of these petitions but why bother giving them legs. The media, in a time honored tradition, will continue its questionable practice of covering events using unsubstantiated “facts.”

P.S. On September 18, 2014 the City Clerk announced that the city is rejecting both petitions citing the two council votes as administrative rather than legislative…meaning the actions are not referable to the voters. Expect this issue to wind 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.

On September 9, 2014 at its regular council meeting the Glendale City Council approved a new name for its arena. It will now be known as the Gila River Arena. The following day there was a press conference to announce the name change. Anthony LeBlanc, one of the Coyotes’ owners was there; Gregory Mendoza, Governor of the Tribe was there; Jan Brewer, our state Governor was there; and Jerry Weiers, Mayor of Glendale was there.  Guess who wasn’t there? Our infamous “gang of four,” Councilmembers Alvarez, Sherwood, Hugh and Chavira. It’s perfectly understandable. After all, their allegiance is to the Tohono O’odham Nation. Alvarez was also the lone negative vote on the name change to Gila River. Instead she stubbornly questioned staff on the necessity of bringing the name change before council for ratification.  It appeared as if she questioned the action long enough and hard enough she could make the need for a council vote disappear. Didn’t happen. Apparently Norma’s love for minorities does not extend to the Gila River Community.

However, it’s not so strange a move. Gila River has been a long time partner of the Arizona Coyotes hosting the Gila River Club within the arena proper. If I were the Gila River I would be secretly smug and taking enormous satisfaction in the fact that their name will be prominently displayed across the street from their duplicitous sister tribe, the Tohono O’odham’s new casino.

Here’s a reminder that today, Wednesday, September 17, 2014 at 2:30 PM Eastern time, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs will have a legislative hearing on Senate bill 2670, Keep the Promise Act of 2014, introduced by Senators McCain and Flake. It can be viewed online live.  Panel One of the hearing will have Governor Mendoza of the Gila River Indian Community, Ned Norris Jr., Chairman of the Tohono O’odham Nation, Glendale Mayor Jerry Weiers and Glendale Councilmember Gary Sherwood. It should prove interesting as 2 champions of the casino face off against 2 opponents of the casino. Hopefully, the bill will move out of committee paving the way for a full senate vote.

Considering the fact that Glendale did not recoup its $14,002,055 (not a full fiscal year, prorated for 11 months) paid for the management fee and capital improvement fund and that you can add another $12 million for the arena construction debt, you would think Alvarez would welcome the new Gila River name and the 20% of the fee paid by Gila River to IceArizona. It will offset the approximately $20 million in arena costs, not by much, but every penny is welcome. A lot of Glendale’s residents are anxiously awaiting the audit of IceArizona’s budget and hope it is made public and put on the city’s website. If not, don’t be surprised if there are a lot of FOIA requests for a copy of the audit.

There was no council workshop on Tuesday, September 16, 2014 because there was not a quorum. How many of Glendale’s council is attending the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs legislative hearing today? I guess we’ll find out.

© 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.

photo aOn September 12, 2014 two political action committees, No More Bad Deals for Glendale and Respect the Promise turned in approximately 15,000 petition signatures collected in 28 days for each of two referendum petitions. These petitions seek to overturn the city council votes of August 12, 2014 approving a settlement agreement with the Tohono O’odham and supporting the TO’s reservation status by requesting an election.

The approximately 15,000 petition signatures turned in is greater than the 10,914 Glendale citizens who exercised their right to vote in the recent Primary Election. That’s disconcerting. You would think that the number of petition signatures collected would send a strong message to this city council that Glendale residents want to weigh in on this issue by virtue of an election.

The Glendale City Clerk has 20 business days to do something, anything with the petitions before she turns them over to the Secretary of State. She is not an independent agent. She will be told what to do. Now it gets interesting. Wanna-be mayor, Councilmember Gary Sherwood was in attendance for the delivery of the petitions to the City Clerk. He could be heard muttering, the council votes of August 12th are not referable and these petitions are no more than toilet paper. You can be sure the “gang of four” (Sherwood, Alvarez, Hugh and Chavira) as the majority on council will give direction to the City Manager and City Attorney to reject these petitions. The City Attorney and his minions are burning the midnight oil to find Arizona case law that supports the city’s act of rejection. What does “not referable” mean? The city will take the position that the council votes were not legislation per se. Therefore the petitions which seek to refer those council actions to Glendale residents are not valid and thereby rejected by the city. Their position will be that those council votes were not legislative action and only legislation can be referred to the voters.

Make no mistake. Both groups, No More Bad Deals for Glendale and Respect the Promise are prepared to go to the legal mat on this issue of referability. If and when the city rejects the petitions on those grounds expect both groups to file suit. Isn’t it ironic that Alvarez and her merry band of pro casino councilmembers have complained bitterly about the money spent by the city on legal action when its position was in opposition to the casino and reservation? Will they decide not to spend money to defend the city’s position of petition rejection now that the city supports the casino and reservation? I guess the spending of taxpayer money on legal action depends on whose ox is being gored.

Alvarez, nearly every time she casts a “no” vote on a major city issue, can be heard pontificating that it is an issue upon which Glendale residents should vote. This time she has been amazingly silent in advocating that view when it comes to the casino and reservation. What, Norma, when it’s an issue you personally do not like it merits a vote of the people but when it is an issue that you do like, forget the people?

For those of you following this saga, this Wednesday, September 17, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Eastern time (11:30 AM in Arizona) the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs will hold a legislative hearing on Senate Bill 2670, Keep the Promise Act of 2014, introduced by Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake. Here is the link to the site where it can be viewed live, online:  http://www.indian.senate.gov/hearing/legislative-hearing-s-2670-keep-promise-act-2014 . If this link doesn’t work please copy and paste the link into your browser.

It appears that the bill could be marked up and passed out of committee for a full Senate vote. If that is the case and the bill is approved in the Senate there would be a House and Senate Conference Committee meeting to make sure the House version and Senate version of the bill are in agreement. It would then go to the President to sign or veto. If the bill were to be successful the Tohono O’odham, despite their ground breaking, would not be able to build a casino in Glendale or any other portion of the Phoenix Metro area.

On another note, to date the Attorney General’s Office is still investigating the alleged Open Meeting Law violation by Councilmembers Sherwood, Knaack, Martinez and Chavira. If the complaint had no merit we would have received that opinion by now. The fact that it is taking so long would lead one to assume that there is merit to the allegations. If that turns out to be the case, look for some kind of major sanction against Councilmember Sherwood and perhaps a minor sanction for the three others. I wouldn’t be surprised if the AG’s Office required another vote on the original IceArizona/City of Glendale Management Agreement. This, too, could prove interesting dependent upon which candidates win council seats at the General Election in November.

It looks like Councilmember Hugh has met with Lauren Tomachoff and Bart Turner. Tolmachoff is a candidate for the Cholla district seat and Turner is a candidate for the Barrel district seat. It seems Councilmember Hugh is busy trying to build his own coalition. It appears that he fancies a run against current Mayor Jerry Weiers. Hey, Jerry, watch out! It looks like they are starting to line up for a run against you…Sherwood and now, Ian Hugh. It wouldn’t be too surprising to see Councilmember Knaack (retiring in January, 2015) decide on a run for mayor. Being part of a clearly dysfunctional council is no fun but perhaps becoming mayor is.

A lot is riding on this Attorney General Office’s investigation. It could kill any mayoral ambitions of both Sherwood and Knaack. It’s rather difficult to win the support of the Glendale electorate if you have been found to have violated the law. Just when you thought Glendale’s problems were cooling down, they’ve heated up again. As President Truman once said, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” I wonder if the Glendale city council loves the kitchen heat now.

© 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.

NOMOREBADDEALS-talkingpoints_Page_1Today, Friday, September 12, 2014 at 1 PM two Political Action Committees (PACs), NO MORE BAD DEALS FOR GLENDALE and RESPECT THE PROMISE, chaired by local resident Gary Hirsch, will turn in to the Glendale City Clerk approximately 15,000 signatures in opposition to the Glendale City Council’s recent votes regarding the Tohono O’odham (TO) casino. The minimum number of signatures required by law on each measure is 6,956 and the PACs have far surpassed that number by almost double. Expect the city to fight them with every fiber of its being by declaring the council votes to be “administrative actions” not subject to referral to the voters. Expect after that to see the issue wind up in the courts. On August 12, 2014 at its regular city council meeting the council approved two actions related to the Tohono O’odham.  Agenda item 36 by council’s majority vote (Alvarez, Sherwood, Hugh and Chavira) approved a settlement (read contract) with the TO. The settlement terms are embarrassing. The deal is so bad it’s as if the council had accepted a dollar from the TO and called it good. One of the petitions being submitted this afternoon is for the purpose of bringing the settlement before Glendale voters to accept or reject. In agenda item 37 the city council voted in the affirmative to support the creation of an Indian reservation. This action is the cherry on top of the cake for the TO. They need Glendale’s support desperately to show the Feds that the host city within which the reservation is located is in favor of their action. The second petition seeks to bring before the Glendale voters the majority vote of council (Alvarez, Sherwood, Hugh and Chavira) that supports a reservation within Glendale’s boundaries. All of these council votes are for the benefit of a Tribe that:

  • Violated a 2000 agreement signed by 16 state Tribal leaders, including the Tohono O’odham, vowing “to strive for a good-faith cooperative relationship between and among themselves.”
  • Created a corporation  in 2000 chartered by the TO actively seeking land in the Phoenix Metro area for the “possibility of doing a casino” prior to the 2002 statewide vote on the Gaming Compact.
  • Looked it sister Tribal leaders in the face and lied to them.
  • Actively promoted and financially contributed to the campaign in support of Proposition 202, the Tribal Gaming Compact, promising voters that there would be no new casinos in the Phoenix Metro area.
  • Actively participated in the election campaigns of sitting councilmembers who voted for these agenda items through the TO’s independent expenditures for campaign mailers in support of these council persons. Expect them to do the same in this election cycle. These four elected officials owe the TO and they know it.

These majority council votes by Alvarez, Sherwood, Hugh and Chavira stink to high heaven. Were these four elected officials acting in the best interests of Glendale? You can decide for yourselves but I think not. If and when these council votes come before you, the voter, you will have an opportunity to reject these council votes and send a strong message to these councilmembers that “back door” deals will not be tolerated. There are still actions that have not been settled…legal decisions not yet rendered and legislation introduced by Senators McCain and Flake awaiting a full Senate vote up or down. The Tohono O’odham are making a million dollar bet that nothing will stop them. They could end up losing that bet. Remember, it’s not over until the fat lady sings and she hasn’t sung…yet. © 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 August 28, 2014 the Tohono O’odham broke ground for their casino WITHIN Glendale. I love the way some people not only rewrite history but change geographical boundaries. All of the expected players were there…members of the Nation, Tohono O’odham vendors and contractors (and wanna bes) on the project, a few West Valley elected officials, and of course the infamous 4 Glendale Councilmember supporters – Alvarez, Hugh, Sherwood and Chavira. There was a by-invitation-only gathering at the Renaissance Hotel prior to the ground breaking and only the most ardent were invited.

Norma was positively giddy during the entire event and proudly strutted around with her ceremonial walking stick. Sherwood was there acting in his capacity as pseudo-mayor of Glendale. Hugh and Chavira were…just there. From reports of a few who attended, it was a sight to behold.

But…hold on a minute. Isn’t there still legal action not yet decided? Doesn’t the Tohono O’odham still have to get gaming permits from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of the Interior? Isn’t there a bill introduced by Senators McCain and Flake yet to be approved or denied by the Senate? Yes…to all.

Even Councilmember Martinez’ reading of a letter at the last council meeting in opposition to the casino penned by former Glendale Mayor Elaine Scruggs held no sway with anyone…then or now.  

The Tohono O’odham are making a bet that nothing stands in their way to stop their project. What more could one expect from a casino operator who relies on your losing bets every single day? That’s chutzpah.

© 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 August 14, 2014 two referendum petition packets were taken out for the purpose of obtaining Glendale residents’ signatures. If successful, the two actions taken by the Glendale City Council at its meeting on August 12, 2014 will be decided in an election by the people…as it should be. Glendale’s City Attorney, Michael Bailey, said publicly that neither council vote is referable. In other words, no one can take out a petition to try to overturn the council votes. The Tribal attorneys believe it is referable. When the signed petitions are turned in expect Glendale to reject them. Expect a law suit resulting in yet another judicial decision about Glendale’s ultimate fate.

Here is the text of the first referendum action. It seeks to overturn the council’s vote welcoming a reservation and casino within Glendale: “The Tohono O’Odham casino, targeted for a Glendale neighborhood near homes, schools, daycares and houses of worship, will destroy neighborhoods and create severe budget stress for the nearly bankrupt City, overburdening Glendale’s public safety, street and infrastructure. This petition seeks to refer the August 12, 2014 Glendale City Council vote to agree to the creation of a 121-acre Indian reservation at 91st and Northern avenues. A “no” vote on this referral will overturn the Council’s decision to support a reservation and a casino and respect the NO casino promise, protecting City residents and the Glendale’s budget and core services.”

The second referendum petition seeks to overturn the council approved agreement between the City of Glendale and the Tohono O’odham: “The Tohono O’Odham casino, targeted for a Glendale neighborhood near homes, schools, daycares and house of worship, will destroy neighborhoods and create severe budget stress for the nearly bankrupt City, overburdening Glendale’s public safety, streets and infrastructure. This petition seeks to refer the August 12, 2014 Glendale City Council vote to sign a settlement agreement with the Tohono O’odham Nation in support of the Tribe’s neighborhood casino. A “no” vote on this referral will overturn the Council’s pro-casino decision and respect the NO casino promise, protecting City residents and the Glendale’s budget and core services.”

The pro casino people have already begun their campaign of ridicule and denigration of the referendum petition effort saying, “it’s all about money…the other Tribes do not want the competition of another casino.” Of course it’s about the money. Everyone has their hand in the money pot…the Tohono O’odham, the City of Glendale and the other Tribes.

To accept that their referendum effort is ONLY about “the money” is simplistic, self-serving and makes for great PR but misses the mark. There is a greater imperative for the Gila River Indian Community, the Salt River-Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and all of the Tribes across the state supporting efforts of these two lead Tribes.

As President of the Salt River-Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, Diane Enos, said, “They looked us in the face and lied.”  She is referring to the Tohono O’odham, a member of the coalition of Tribes that negotiated the gaming compact with the state. The TO actively and publicly worked to get voters of the state to approve the compact while deliberately keeping from its Sister Tribes its ultimate plan to put a casino in the Phoenix Metro Area. In fact, it contributed a great deal of money to publicize and to advance the compact with the state’s voters.

The Tohono O’odham lied to its Sister Tribes. It betrayed them. Why? For the money. The Tohono O’odham lied to the State and to every voter who approved the gaming compact. Why? For the money. But somehow for the pro casino supporters that’s supposed to be OK?

Why is the TO’s action simply ignored by the pro casino supporters? For the money.  For all of the Tribes throughout Arizona it is a matter of honor, respect and trust…all of which the TO deliberately chose to betray. That is the real reason the Tribes are driven to oppose the Tohono O’odham’s plans.

If an opportunity to vote on the Tohono O’odham’s casino plans do make it to a Glendale ballot that is what the voters of Glendale should remember. “They looked us in the face and lied.”

© 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.

During my last four years on city council, from the time the Tohono O’odham publicly announced their intent to build a casino within Glendale, I would take notes from presentations and comments of staff regarding the casino’s impact on Glendale. While they retain the essence of the statements made, I did not have the time or opportunity to write the comments verbatim. The other day I was cleaning out some old folder files and I ran across the file where I had been keeping these notes. The following was represented to me and the rest of city council by staff from 2009 to 2012.

This was said with regard to the Nation’s gaming application—  However, the issue of “first impression” within Arizona is a major one. It means that this action if granted would be precedent setting in that it would establish an Indian reservation where one did not previously exist. It may be the first attempt to do so in the nation. It is the first step to create a free for all system that establishes “off-reservation” gaming, not just in Arizona but in the nation.

Glendale staff in meeting with the Tohono O’odham attempted to ascertain more specific information. The Nation would not offer anything beyond conceptuals. Staff, after meeting with the Nation, offered the scope of the project as it was presented to them:

  • 134 acres of land
  • 1.2 million square foot complex
  • Cost of construction approx. $550 million
  • 6,000 construction jobs
  • 3,000 permanent jobs

Gaming portion:

  • 150,000 square feet
  • 1,089 machines
  • 50 tables
  • 25 poker tables
  • 1,000 seat bingo hall 

Spa/Hotel portion:

  • 480 rooms
  • 120 suites
  • 180,000 square foot convention center
  • 40,000 square foot event center

Amenities/Services:

  • 30,000 square feet of retail
  • 5 restaurants
  • 1 food court
  • 2 buffets
  • 1 coffee shop 
  • 2 bars
  • 1 nightclub

Issues identified by staff during the years of 2009 to 2012 included:

  • City’s General Plan has area designated as Corporate Commerce Center with less density and impact.
  • Sales tax revenue anticipated to be lost is $2 million a year or $40 million over 20 years as city cannot collect sales tax from federal land and that removes the land from producing sales tax for the city with other non-Indian uses.
  • There are revenues that flow to the state from gaming. However 88% percent goes directly to the state. The other 12% is distributed to all cities and counties with no larger share or preference to the host city or county.
  • The project will generate jobs but nearly all will be minimum wage employment.
  • Gaming revenues siphon off discretionary income that could have been spent elsewhere in the City
  • Staff projects water demand to be 600,000 gallons per day gpd (gallons per day). Projected wastewater demand to be 400,000 gpd. If they use the on-site well that is available to them it would impact our groundwater table. 
  • Estimated Impact fees loss is $299,500.
  • Police estimate an additional 8,500 calls for service necessitating an additional 11 officers at a cost of $950,903. There is also the problem of suspects committing crime in adjacent areas and fleeing to reservation where Glendale Police have no jurisdiction. Anticipated calls for service expected to be high due to the casino being open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 
  • Fire anticipates the need for an additional fire station costing:
  • 18 additional fire fighters
  • $2.8 annually for Operating & Maintenance costs
  • $14.6 million for land acquisition and construction
  • In addition, there is no mutual aid agreement for off-site service (reservation). Can be negotiated perhaps but no guarantee of total cost recovery.
  • Transportation estimates 20,000 one-way trips per day on weekdays and 30,000 one-way trips per day on weekends. It will generate 8.34 million additional trips in the area per year. There could be traffic conflicts on stadium and arena event days.
  • There is a possible impact on the Northern Parkway Project. 225 feet of right-of-way is needed on the south side of Northern between the Loop 101 and 91st Avenue. Tribe may or may not participate.

 

There are several reasons why I decided to use my old, newly discovered notes. Despite the city council’s inappropriate action this issue is not yet decided. There is still Tribal litigation to be decided and there is still Congressional legislation pending. I would anticipate Referendum petitions on the 2 council actions taken on August 12, 2014. If successful, the voters will decide Glendale’s final position.

Another reason for using them is to ask the question, was this information given to the current council? With senior administrative staff knowing that a majority of council now supports the proposed casino, they may have thought it unwise to fully inform the council. That is no excuse. Council should have had this information. If council did have this kind of information and a majority chose to ignore it and its implications of cost to Glendale, then they are not serving the best interests of Glendale.

Lastly, it is information that should be public. The citizens of Glendale have the right to know that there are costs to Glendale that have not been addressed in the recently approved agreement. I would expect the current senior administration to disavow the facts presented above, especially with regard to water and public safety. They have been given their marching orders to embrace the casino project. The question remains, why weren’t these issues and the costs associated with them addressed in the approved agreement? So much for transparency.

© 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.

20140812_193537The August 12, 2014 meeting of the Glendale City Council was like watching a train wreck in slow motion. You know the inevitable outcome; you know it will be extremely painful; but you are utterly powerless to stop it. All you can do is watch it unfold. This is the first council meeting I attended since leaving office over a year and a half ago. People have been telling me for months that the animosity among councilmembers was evident. I thought OK, there were times when our council meetings were not happy affairs. Little did I know that the atmosphere reeked of councilmember nastiness and disrespect. It was palpable fueled by the absolute arrogance of the council majority (Sherwood, Hugh, Alvarez and Chavira). The meeting was not unusual as council sped through proclamations and the consent agenda. The last two items were casino related. One was council approval of the draft agreement between the Tohono O’odham and Glendale. The other was the first official groveling of the city council with a resolution supporting the construction of the casino.  All hell broke loose. The draft agreement was introduced and recited by Michael Bailey, Glendale’s City Attorney. Mayor Weiers opened the public comment portion. There were 22 speakers to the item. 15 citizens spoke in opposition to the draft agreement and 7 spoke in favor of the draft agreement. The speakers’ comments in opposition to the proposed casino revolved around these general themes: casinos produce greater crime in the adjacent area; they create a greater rate of gambling addiction and subsequent bankruptcies and home foreclosures. The two major themes were comments about the rush to get this agreement done and the fact that it simply wasn’t a good deal for Glendale. There were some memorable comments to share (my apology if I butcher someone’s name). John Burnell of the Sahuaro district related that a family member, as a gambling addict, maxxed out credit cards and lied to keep it secret. The husband had to take two jobs and it took him over two years to get the family’s finances back on track. Barbara Roberts acknowledged the casino job creation but said, “Yes, we need jobs but what kind of jobs?” Timothy Green of Goodyear said, “Casinos only succeed on the backs of losers.” A rather profound statement. Ron Kolb, Ocotillo district said, “The West Side will never be the same.” Dr. Ron Rockwell, pastor of a Yucca district church very near the casino site, said, “You no longer care about the moral and spiritual culture of this community.” Randy Miller, candidate for the Barrel district council seat, called out Councilmember Alvarez and her continual homage about the importance of listening to the people…yeah, Norma, right. It seems to be a principle of hers only when convenient. Those speakers in support of the casino were arrogant and boastful. John Mendlelberg, former Mayor of Surprise, said, “You must concede.” Reverend Maupin of Phoenix, said, “You lost the war. You should be grateful for whatever you are getting.” He accused Councilmember Martinez of being a liar and a racist. Robert Quizneros of the Ocotillo district complained about the audacity of “the other side’s hiring of attorneys and lobbyists” to defeat the casino. A special “shout out” to Lauren Tolmachoff, candidate for the Cholla district council seat. It appears that she has become a one-trick pony as she reiterated her support for the casino in the name of jobs. Hey, Lauren, don’t you know about “job displacement?” Several pro-casino speakers kept referring to, “it’s their (TO) land.” Well, yes it is after a purchase kept secret for 7 years and its newly minted designation as a reservation. It’s all about a reservation WITHIN Glendale. I defy anyone to identify any city in the State of Arizona that has a reservation within its boundaries. Then it was time for the Councilmembers to speak prior to their vote. Alvarez’ remarks were priceless in their ignorance. She made memorable comments such as, “what’s the difference between a lottery ticket and a casino?” Or, “We have casinos in Scottsdale.” Or, “They (Tohono O’odham) are going to provide a service.” That one caused audible audience derision.  And lastly, “Make us responsible for what we’re doing.” Trust me, we will.   Councilmember Sherwood, self-proclaimed negotiator and leader, was strangely silent all evening except for his monologue prior to his affirmative vote. His comments deserve a special blog and its coming. Councilmember Martinez offered a series of amendments to the draft and that’s when all hell broke loose. Councilmembers Alvarez and Chavira, repeatedly and often, yelled out while Councilmember Martinez was trying to speak, “Call for the question!” Their obvious intent was to silence Councilmember Martinez’ efforts. What were they afraid of? They knew they had the votes to defeat any amendment. Chavira was literally in a rage because of Martinez’ efforts. He lept out of his seat and it looked as if he was about to confront Mayor Weiers physically. Wow, Sammy. Finally we see the true persona and your reaction when crossed and you don’t get your way. The lack of control he exhibited demonstrated that he is unfit to serve as a councilmember and cannot conduct himself in a manner required by the office he holds. Martinez offered 4 amendments: raising the TO payment to $20 million or 3% of the Class III net; offsite infrastructure costs to be paid by the TO up front; a waiver of sovereign immunity especially with regard to fraud and other bad acts; and payments to continue beyond 2026. Each was rejected. The vote was as everyone expected. The majority of 4 – Sherwood, Alvarez, Hugh and Chavira voting to approve the agreement and Weiers, Martinez and Knaack voting against. What was unexpected to the degree it manifested itself, was the vituperativeness and nastiness. At one point a citizen called Martinez a liar and a racist. Mayor Weiers should have stopped the speaker immediately and requested a police officer escort the person from the building. There is no doubt that Mayor Weiers lost control of the meeting during the first casino agenda item. His failure fueled the majority’s contempt and rage. Kudos go to Bonnie Steiger, a Glendale resident and faithful attendee at council meetings for 28 years. She is everyone’s Grandmother. She was so disgusted with council’s behavior that she said their lack of respect for the very office they hold merited the removal of all of them. Lastly, I offer two interesting items for your attention. One is the Coyotes publicly announced today that they had accepted a deal for arena naming rights. Are you ready for this? It will be called the Gila River Arena. Hooray for the Gila River. Although it may require Glendale approval, Glendale may only reject for very narrow reasons and the new naming rights do not fit the criteria. Can you say embarrassing, Glendale?? Or perhaps the majority of 4 will figure out a way to kill the deal. The second item is that just before 5 PM, yesterday, August 12, 2014 a group filed paperwork with the Glendale City Clerk’s office for a Political Action Committee for the purpose of recalling Councilmember Gary Sherwood. Things are heating up in Glendale. As I said at the beginning of this blog, this meeting was definitely a train wreck but the pain is yet to be borne by all of the people of Glendale. © 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.

August 11, 2014

Dear Councilmember Hugh,

I do not know you on a personal level for your service as a Glendale councilmember the first time was before mine and your service the second time was after mine. I do get a sense of you from your public actions and comments.

You have lived in Glendale all of your life. You own a business, Bridgestone Tires, in downtown Glendale. You married and raised a family in Glendale.  You love Glendale as evidenced by your many years of public service to our community. You are a fiscal conservative and have voiced concerns about Glendale’s financial status. You are a good and honorable man.

From your public statements you support the proposed Tohono O’odham casino. That is a separate issue that merits debate at another time. This agreement is not about whether one thinks the Tohono O’odham has the right to build.

This agreement is a business deal, pure and simple; you give me “X” and I’ll give you “Y.” This agreement is not a good business deal for Glendale. Please review the proposed Tohono O’odham/Glendale Agreement one more time. There are solid, reasonable reasons why the proposed agreement in its present form does not serve the best interests of Glendale. Here are just three of the many, major flaws:

  • It does not protect Luke Air Force Base. It does not allow Glendale the right to design review and the ability to insure that construction of any structure will not interfere with Luke’s mission.
  • The payment to Glendale is too low. By now you have seen what other cities across the country have been able to achieve in terms of revenue sharing. Some tribes share as much as 25% of their revenue.
  • The sovereign immunity waiver offered is restrictive. Glendale must be able to fully and freely access its ability to enforce the provisions in any court and any jurisdiction.

Please put aside your support of the Tohono O’odham and examine this agreement strictly in terms of Glendale’s best interests. I am asking you to make a motion to table this agreement, return to the negotiating table and craft an agreement that reflects the imperative…to create the best deal possible for Glendale. If a motion to table is rejected, I ask that you vote “No” and reject this flawed agreement.

The tabling or rejection of this proposed agreement gives voice to your love for and to your commitment to Glendale.  It will show that you listen to and value the input you receive from the community. There is no reason to rush this through.  As a Glendale City Councilmember it is your responsibility to create policy that serves our entire community. Please show everyone that you take that responsibility very seriously.

Thank you for your service to Glendale. It is recognized and very much appreciated. In times such as these, you have a very difficult job and I doubt the public understands exactly how difficult. Thank you for your consideration of my remarks and request.

Sincerely,

Joyce Clark

© 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.