Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Jan 15

29

An idea whose time has not come

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 29, 2015
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , | 5 Comments

After the Super Bowl life returns to normal in Glendale and on Tuesday, February 3, the city council will have its first budget workshop at 9 AM and a regular workshop at 1:30 PM. The afternoon workshop has 3 topics, all of which present future implications for its citizens. The 3 agenda items are: Potential relocation of the Foothills Branch Library; Overview of the Certificate of Necessity (CON) Process; and At Will Employment for Mayor and Council Staffing.

Agenda Item 1 on the potential relocation of the Foothills Branch Library is being driven by staff and Midwestern University. Be aware that former Mayor Scruggs is on the Board of Directors of Midwestern. It seems Midwestern has its eye on the Foothills library building and wants to buy it. Naturally, senior management and Midwestern had to come up with a plan to sell this idea to city council.

This council, to date, has not proven itself to be very aggressive in questioning senior staff on issues that come before it. Let’s hope at this workshop they will reverse this trend and question staff vigorously about this proposal. The library would be relocated to the Foothills Recreational and Aquatic Center (FRAC).

Here is where the sale hype comes in. Note that there are no negative points. Senior staff would have everyone think this idea is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Senior staff contends that:

  • There would be increased library hours (matching the hours of the times when the FRAC is open) for the public with 13 additional hours a week
  • Continuation of provision to patrons access to physical books, materials, technology, meeting space, study room space, special interest classes and events, book drop and online ordering capabilities
  • Increase digital material collections and provide a new array of technologies (tablets, green screens, 3-D printer, new desktop computers, enhanced Wi-Fi)
  • Relocation costs covered by transaction revenue
  • Reduced annual operating expenses without eliminating full-time library staff

The carrot Midwestern University dangles, after buying the Foothills library, is an expression of partnership interest for:

  • Continuing to allow community groups to use the meeting rooms
  • A new and potential partnership with an organization dedicated to helping veterans with health related issues
  • Additional special interest health classes
  • The mentoring and tutoring opportunities for youth
  • The sponsorship of free health-related clinics
  • Partnering with use of medical research and health related materials

This scheme deserves thorough and intensive questioning by city council. Just a sampling of questions to be asked are:

  • The Foothills library is 33,500 square feet in size. The FRAC is 69,000 square feet. How much FRAC space will be used by relocation of a 33,500 SF library?
  • Foothills library was specifically built to be technologically adaptable. Why does relocation only offer the possibility of the library’s technological advancement?
  • What are the costs associated with adapting FRAC to meet the needs of a library?
  • What amenities and services at FRAC would be lost to dedicated space for the library?
  • What amenities and services currently offered at Foothills library would be eliminated due to relocation to FRAC?
  • Dale Chihuly is a world renowned glass artisan. One of his latest exhibits was this past winter at the Desert Botanical Gardens. The city has his ‘Moon and Stars’ piece over the main circulation desk. In addition there is an 80-foot mural by Melissa Paxton, Kathy Bradford’s ‘Magic Doors’ to the children’s reading room as well as countless other pieces of fine art throughout the building. Will senior staff agree to a stipulation that all of the art work within and outside the building remain the city’s property, would not be part of the sale and would be relocated to other city properties?
  • The cost to build the Foothills Library itself (without the fixtures within) was $6.1 million dollars. Will senior staff agree to a stipulation that it would not accept a price lower than the original cost to build the facility?
  • Senior staff was directed by city council to identify city property it could sell. Was the Foothills library one of the properties identified for sale? Were Glendale’s Main Library and Velma Teague Library also identified as potential properties that could be sold? Were the 3 libraries identified by and approved by this council as appropriate for sale?
  • The sale of city property was identified as a means of shoring up Glendale’s financial situation. It can be assumed that after paying the costs of relocation of the library and its art work, the balance would be placed in Glendale’s General Fund where it could be used for anything, including the $15 million dollar annual payment to IceArizona for its management of Glendale’s hockey arena. Yet Glendale library system is woefully inadequate to serve a population of 239,000 residents. On certain days various of the libraries are closed and hours at all 3 have been reduced. Will senior staff agree to stipulate that the first priority for any money realized from a sale of Foothills would be utilized to enhance and upgrade the Main Library and Velma Teague? Are they further willing to agree to stipulate that the funds would not be used for sports related debt or activity as well as the media center, Westgate parking garage and the Public Safety Training Facility?

In summary, on the face of it, the proposal to relocate Foothills Library is driven by senior staff and Midwestern University. This is an idea whose time has not come. It does not serve the best interests of Glendale’s residents. Add to this proposal senior staff’s intent to hire an “outside facilitator” (at thousands of dollars, to be sure) to oversee and coordinate a public input process. Phooey…this facilitator will, in reality, try to sell the idea to the general public. Who is kidding who? This proposal should be rejected. I urge all Glendale residents to contact their district councilmembers before Tuesday, February 3, 2015, pose their own questions about this proposal and let them know that they do not support it. Here are their email addresses:

In my next blog we’ll take a look at the other 2 agenda items: The Fire Department’s request for a Certificate of Necessity (CON) and at-will employees for the mayor and council.

© Joyce Clark, 2015

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Jan 15

19

Just too sweet

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 19, 2015
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Before reviewing the Glendale City Council meeting of January 13, 2015 I wanted to share some information related to the events about to occur in Glendale. With the Direct TV Music Festival, the ProBowl and the Super Bowl fast approaching those residents who live in close proximity to the site of these events may have the need for further information about them or may need to lodge a complaint while the events are occurring.  Below are the Glendale numbers for your reference:

DirecTV Super Fan Festival Hotline

A special hotline has been established for the DirecTV Super Fan Festival.  The hotline number is 602-532-6250.

Neighborhood Protection (barricades)

The Neighborhood protection program is being enacted for the DirecTV Super Fan Festival, Fiesta Bowl, Pro Bowl and Super Bowl.

Electronic Link to Glendale’s Got Game Webpage

The information listed above and specific links are available through the City’s Glendale’s Got Game webpage: http://www.visitglendale.com/ZoneA/index.html

The January 13, 2015 Glendale city council meeting was typical of many council meetings. A proclamation recognizing Dr. Martin F. King Day and then an item packed Consent Agenda. The only interesting segment of the meeting was the choice of a Vice Mayor for this year.

Councilmember Bart Turner nominated and Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff seconded the nomination of Councilmember Ian Hugh. A second nomination of Councilmember Gary Sherwood was offered by Councilmember Sammy Chavira and seconded by Councilmember Jamie Aldama. No surprises there. That left Mayor Weiers as the deciding vote. It was well played by Mayor Weiers. The Mayor offered Councilmember Hugh for a vote first, as it should have been, since Hugh’s nomination was offered first.

Votes were cast on the newest toy, the nearly $50,000 voting system and flashed on the large screen behind them. There were four votes (a majority) in favor of Hugh’s nomination: Mayor Weiers, Councilmembers Hugh, Turner and Tolmachoff. Since Councilmember Hugh’s nomination captured the majority of council votes there was no need to vote on the nomination of Councilmember Sherwood. Congratulations go to the newly elected Vice Mayor of Glendale, Ian Hugh.

We have seen the first vote of the new council majority of Weiers, Hugh, Turner and Tolmachoff. We’ll see how well Councilmember Sherwood plays in the sandbox now that his coalition is no longer in the majority.

A word that seems to aptly describe both Councilmembers Chavira’s and Aldama’s usual commentary during the course of council workshops and meetings is saccharin. According to Webster’s Dictionary saccharin is defined as “sweet or sentimental in a way that does not seem sincere or genuine.” If ever two people fit that bill it appears to be these two. Their greatest claim to fame is certainly not the offering of insightful comment but rather a litany of thank yous to everyone they can possibly think of. Perhaps the voters of their districts will thank them profusely as they wander out the door of Glendale politics.

© 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.

Dec 14

3

All councilmembers not equal

Posted by Joyce Clark on December 3, 2014
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 5 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Nov 14

11

History repeats itself

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 11, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

In the November 6, 2014 edition of the Glendale Star it was reported that, “the attorney general’s office confirmed it had received all necessary information and is investigating the issue against four members of Glendale City Council.” To refresh your memory on June 29, 2013 Councilmember Gary Sherwood sent the following email to Councilmember Manny Martinez:

June 29, 2013

To: Martinez, Manny; Jeff Teesel

From: Sherwood, Gary

RE: Out Clause and Risk Topics

“Yvonne and I spend over an hour with Nick Woods last night and out of the three concerns from what I shared with Nick after our e-session yesterday (as of 7:45p, Nick has not seen the city’s revised draft which was promised right after we got of e-session nor had it been posted to our website – consequently both happened by 8:45p) two were okay with the city and had to deal with the errors the city made — #1, we don’t own the 5500 parking spots we’re proposing to charge for therefore it must be a license agreement and not a license agreement  (sic) #2) since the bonds that are held against the arena are tax exempt – only a governmental agency can hold those bonds so some different language has to be brought in – city agreed with that. The third item is problematic in that it is against the NHL for cities to hold out-clause and none of the other 29 cities have one. That would allow the city to just kick the team out, where would they play, what if in the middle of the season.

“I don’t have the time to get into all the details but I’ve known Nick Woods for a long time and know him to be a trusted friend and right now I can’t turn my back away from anyone in the city manager’s office or out (sic) acting city attorney.

“Manny, I’ve got a booked day with two Habitat for Humanity events, three radio interviews and two TV spots so contact Yvonne for details of our conversation. Sammy is already on board as he was with us last night.

“Thanks for hanging in there!

“Manny – please delete this email after you’ve read it.”

In the Star article Sherwood mounts a defense of his actions. I would remind all that just because something is in print doesn’t make it necessarily true. I could be the Queen of England in print but that is not true. Sherwood asserts the email was innocent and there was no collusion between councilmembers but that doesn’t make it true.  Councilmember Sammy Chavira uses the time honored phrase, “I do not recall…” Just because someone doesn’t “recall” doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Yet Sherwood, in his email, clearly states that “Sammy was already on board as he was with us last night.” If he did not have a conversation with Sammy that night he must have had a conversation at some time with Sammy to be able to confidently declare that “Sammy was on board…”

Vice Mayor Knaack is also back pedaling with her statement, “I do not recall discussing the terms of the deal or any other substantive discussions about the city-Coyotes business deal during the telephone conversation.” Yet again, Sherwood clearly states in his June 29 email that Yvonne and he spent an hour discussing terms of the deal with Coyotes’ attorney Nick Wood. Either Sherwood is lying or Chavira and Knaack are lying. Take your pick.

Facts are facts. Sherwood confirms that Knaack and Sherwood had an hour long conversation with Coyotes’ attorney Nick Wood. Sherwood refers to the substance of the conversation and that it was about the terms of the city-Coyotes deal and what had transpired in a city council e-session held prior to the phone conversation. There was no other city business that would have necessitated a conversation between Sherwood, Knaack and Wood. Sherwood stated unequivocally that Sammy supported the deal. Sherwood sent his email to Martinez to share results of that conversation.

It appears Sherwood was at the center sharing information about the Coyotes deal with the other three councilmembers, Knaack, Martinez and Chavira, in order to keep them informed and quite frankly, to keep them in line to vote in favor of the deal.

Another just as troubling aspect of the current Star article was this, “The city hired the firm of Simms Murray Ltd. To create and present the city’s case to the attorney general on this alleged open meeting violation.” How much will the city end up paying to defend against the latest alleged transgressions of four councilmembers?

It brings up memories of another such situation where the city paid the personally incurred attorney’s fees for councilmembers. Do you remember the 2006 indictments against Councilmembers David Goulette, Steve Frate, Tom Eggleston, Manny Martinez and City Clerk Pam Hanna? All elected officials are required to submit annual financial disclosure statements at the end of every January as a means of publicly disclosing any possible conflict of interest. These four councilmembers submitted them after the due date and back dated their disclosure statements and were indicted for it. They were not exonerated. Rather a judge ruled in March of 2006 that the city attorney could not testify against them due to attorney client privilege. The following month city council approved a “transfer of general fund contingency appropriation authority and funds in the amount of $500,000 to cover the additional anticipated costs associated with special projects.” The “special projects” were the personal attorney’s fees for the four indicted councilmembers. In 2006 the very same councilmembers that were indicted also voted in the affirmative to have the city pay their attorneys’ fees. It looks as if history is about to repeat itself.

© 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.

Oct 14

22

Sherwood refuses to take ‘no’ for an answer

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 22, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River Arena • Glendale elected officials • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , | 3 Comments

 

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 the Glendale city council held a workshop meeting. There were two agenda items: a review of the 4th quarter budget results (more about that later in another blog); and discussion of rescinding a March 2014 city council rejection of Becker billboards at Bell Road and the Loop 101.

You have to be a died-in-the-wool political junkie to appreciate the nuances of council discussion of the second item regarding Becker Billboards. When the issue was first rejected by city council it was on a vote of 5 to 2 with Sherwood and Alvarez being the only affirmative votes.  Keep in mind that Sherwood received over $1700 in political campaign donations from the Becker family and Alvarez received $2500 from Becker. Does that kind of money in a local, seemingly podunk, Glendale election buy not only access to these councilmembers but their advocacy?

When the request for rescinding of the original Becker billboard decision was made on Tuesday, October 7, 2014 Sherwood claimed to be making the request on behalf of Councilmember Chavira. Yet it was Sherwood who penned the letter on October 8, 2014 to the City Manager asking for council discussion and consideration. Apparently Sammy was doing his pal a favor by making the original request even though he was absent for the meeting and Sherwood read Sammy’s request. Everyone recognized that Sammy was trying to give Sherwood some cover. Didn’t work. Many acknowledge that it was Sherwood who rammed through the selection of Fischer as City Manager and that she owes him. No wonder it was on a workshop agenda two weeks later. Typically, staff does not move that fast and normally this would be a workshop agenda item a month or two after the request had been made.

Discussion of rescinding the original Becker billboard decision was extensive. Some councilmember comments stood out. Councilmember Martinez said, “some things will not go away” and the issue has “taken on a life of its own.” Councilmember Chavira tried to use the same rationale that Sherwood had used in the past when trying to explain his flip flop on his casino position.  Chavira claimed to not be fully informed when he originally voted to defeat the billboards and went on to say, “he likes to think he’s well informed about every decision he makes.” What a hoot – it seems pretty evident that Chavira takes his marching orders from Sherwood. Councilmember Alvarez chanted her usual mantra that north Glendale has all of the power in the city and gets all while south Glendale gets nothing. Same song, same verse. She was as much as saying that she was all too happy to stick it to north Glendale residents.

The argument that eventually prevailed was that of precedent. If council were to move forward and rescind their original denial of Becker billboards it would be the opening of Pandora’s box. It would put every council vote up to the possibility of rescission. It could even put past council votes on the arena management deal and the casino issue up for future reversal. It is that very thought that defeated Sherwood’s attempt to reverse council’s prior decision on billboards with Mayor Weiers, Vice Mayor Knaack and Councilmembers Martinez and Hugh indicating through consensus that they did not want to move forward and vote on a rescission. Sherwood failed but he was not finished.

City Attorney Bailey had opened another door during his disjointed remarks explaining procedure for such a rescission vote. He said that 3 councilmembers had the right to call for a special council meeting. Sherwood asked several specific questions about that procedure. Make no mistake – expect Sherwood, Chavira and Alvarez to request such a special meeting.

Why the desperation to get a revote on this issue? Sherwood faces two adverse actions that could impact his seat as a councilmember. One is the ongoing Attorney General’s investigation into allegations of open meeting law violations and the other is the current effort to recall him. Add to that Alvarez is standing for reelection on November 4, 2014 and she may, or may not, survive. With the outcomes of these two events in question it seems imperative that they make another run at the billboard issue before November 4th. It doesn’t leave them much time which makes their request for a special council meeting very attractive. The saga continues and will not conclude as long as Sherwood refuses to take a majority council ‘no’ as an answer.

© 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.

Oct 14

17

Like a bad penny, Becker Billboards turns up again

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 17, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , | 6 Comments

From previous actions it appears that Councilmembers Sherwood and Chavira are in lockstep. There was another example of their tag team act at the city council workshop of October 7, 2014. Sammy was not in attendance. Could his job as a Phoenix firefighter be interfering with his attendance at council workshops and meetings?

As a favor for his best council friend, Sherwood, during Council Items of Special Interest and as a proxy for Sammy, reintroduced the infamous Becker Billboards but this is a Sherwood issue, not a Sammy issue. Becker Billboards’ attempt to obtain billboards at Bell Road and the Loop 101 was denied at a council meeting several months ago. Sherwood read Sammy’s request asking that the previous council decision be rescinded and Becker be granted the right to erect billboards by council vote at the October 28, 2014 city council meeting.

Sherwood and Chavira seem not to mind ignoring council guidelines when it suits them. Under the current Council Guidelines, when a councilmember, under Council Items of Special Interest, asks that an item be studied by staff and a presentation on the issue be made to council at a workshop within 60 days. They requested a circumvention of that process and that it immediately be brought to a council voting meeting in 2 weeks.

Councilmember Martinez reviewed the process for a Council Item of Special Interest and pointed out that the item first has to go to a council workshop meeting. He requested the item be reviewed at a future council workshop. City Manager Fischer, an ally of Sherwood’s, immediately placed the billboard issue on the agenda of the next council workshop this coming Tuesday, October 21, 2014.

Do Sherwood and Chavira have the votes to overturn the previous council decision on Becker Billboards? They can probably count on Alvarez. She received a hefty, and I mean really hefty, campaign contribution ($2,500) from Becker. So there are three that will support a reversal. Who’s the fourth? Take your pick…the most likely candidates are Councilmember Ian Hugh or Mayor Jerry Weiers.

Councilmember Martinez is concerned and has every right to be. The residents of the Cholla and Sahuaro districts fought the good fight and thought they had prevailed and there would be no billboards. They are probably angry and very frustrated at this latest turn of events and they have every right to be. Councilmember Martinez issued a special blast electronic alert to the residents of Cholla. Do not expect Councilmember Sherwood to do the same. The fewer people in his district who know about his latest effort, the happier he will be.  Here is the text of Councilmember Martinez’ special alert:

“CALL TO ACTION – October 21, 2014 Council Workshop: Palm Canyon Billboards

“Dear Cholla Residents,

“Under the Glendale City Council Guidelines, Item #2, it addresses Placing Items of Special Interest on a Council Workshop Agenda.

“ ‘City Council Workshop Items of Special Interest’ is listed on every Workshop agenda. This item will be a standing item and will be placed last on the Workshop agenda.

“At the October 7, 2014, Council Workshop, Councilmember Sherwood spoke for an absent Councilmember who wanted the Palm Canyon Billboards to be considered at the October 27th Council meeting (it is actually Oct 28th) on rescinding the previous denial based on recent information on the Becker Boards case at Loop 101 and Bell Road, and that if the rescission is voted successful, to immediately – at the same Council meeting on October 27th (28th) – vote on approving the billboards request of Becker Boards and direct staff to notify all parties as required by law at the expense of the applicant.

“Subsequent to this Workshop our City Attorney, Michael Bailey, sent an email to Mayor and Council that this item will be scheduled for work session on October 21, 2014. At that work session, staff will advise the Council of the necessary procedural steps (rescission and reconsideration) to address the issue. At that time, if the Council desires to move forward on the issue, they may direct staff to then place the item on the November 24th Council meeting agenda.

“This item has been scheduled for the October 21st City Council Workshop at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, at the Glendale Municipal Office Complex at 5850 West Glendale Avenue. Though the City Council does not take public comment at this meeting, your presence and that of your neighbors is a crucial opportunity to show your opposition.

“Please feel free to call me at (623) 561-8263 or email me at mmartinez@glendaleaz.com if you have any questions. Thank you for your support.”

Those of you who supported a defeat of the billboard issue last time, please take note and plan to attend this Tuesday’s workshop. Once again, you must send a strong message to members of this council that there is no support in our community for the Sherwood/Chavira Becker Billboard action.

© 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.

Oct 14

14

Monopoly: I’ll give you a casino for my arena

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 14, 2014
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Sadly, real life should not be played like a Monopoly game although it often is, especially in politics. Horse trading deals seem to be a way of life for many politicians.  Councilmember Gary Sherwood penned a My Turn article entitled, Barrett is wrong, Franks is right: Casino means trouble for the Arizona Republic on April 20, 2013. Eighteen months ago he said:

    •  “Tohono O’odham’s massive casino is too close to residences and schools.”
    • “It denies tens of million (sic) of dollars of future development, construction and sales-tax revenues to our state and local community.”
    • “The casino will have a massive impact on Glendale’s already overwhelmed infrastructure – our police and fire departments and our roads — forever.”
    • “Crime is already up. Does anyone believe that putting a mega-casino in a neighborhood will improve the situation?”
    • “Franks is doing the right thing, and he is not alone.”
    • “The tribe has disregarded our city’s well-being and wishes for years. Now we should simply trust them?”
    • “Sadly, the Tohono O’odham Nation deliberately misled the public and even other tribal nations about this project and their casino-expansion plans for years. What kind of community leaders would willingly welcome such an unwelcome kind of neighbor?”                           

What caused Sherwood to do his flip-flop? Eighteen months ago Gary Sherwood was opposed to the Tohono O’odham casino. Sherwood has been asked repeatedly why he changed from anti-casino to pro-casino. His answers have been all over the place from, I was misinformed by others to Glendale staffers didn’t do their homework.

On September 17, 2014 Gary Sherwood testified at the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. In his testimony he said, “I was stunned to learn that the prior Glendale administration had failed to make any effort to learn more about this proposal before it rushed to oppose it.” When questioned further by Senator McCain on his change of stance he said, “Umm, when I campaigned I had campaigned against this proposed based on information I had and I had read deal…quite a bit of information on it. Umm, the thing that was distressing to me though, that in the very beginning there was a half hour conversation when the city first found out about it in April of 2009 and that was the only conversation the previous administration had and I was, was always quite upset by the fact that we didn’t have the dialogue.” His reasons for changing his position are not only weak but mainly fantasy.

The city first learned of the casino project in January of 2009 when the TO simultaneously issued a press release and appeared at City Hall to reveal their plans. City staffers tried mightily at several subsequent meetings to get meaningful information from the Tohono O’odham about their plans. The TO repeatedly offered their conceptual plans but offered no concrete facts about their proposed project.  They were arrogant and their position was that they were coming and there was nothing the city could do. If Sherwood couldn’t get the date correct about Glendale’s learning of the TO’s plans, how many other statements of his that day played fast and loose with the facts?

His reasons for doing a 180 on his casino position should not be considered as satisfactory. Sherwood’s position remained opposed until the fall of 2013 when at several city council workshops he suddenly supported Alvarez, Hugh and Chavira in their call for “dialogue” with the Tohono O’odham. What other dynamic could have occurred?

Gary Sherwood and Sammy Chavira took office as councilmembers in January of 2013. Sammy ran on his opposition to the casino deals that had been presented to the city prior to his taking office. He said in an October, 2013 campaign mailing, ““Too many sweetheart arena deals for out-of-state corporations have left us deeply in debt.” Sammy outdid himself in supporting not just an out-of-state corporation sweetheart arena deal but out-of-country owners (mostly Canadian) sweetheart deal. He was opposed to any proposed casino deal. He went on to say publicly and repeatedly, “The city needs to be a tough negotiator, making smart planning decisions that preserve Glendale’s future.” Sammy, while running, was in no mood to accept any Coyotes deal. Inexplicably, after 6 months in office he becomes the 4th (and majority) vote to accept the IceArizona deal. Sherwood becomes the 4th councilmember (a majority) to support a dialogue with the TO after 8 months into his term. Coincidence? You must decide for yourselves. Did these councilmembers play a game of Monopoly?

© 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.

Oct 14

13

Gila River Arena management agreement

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 13, 2014
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River Arena • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 3 Comments

Ever since the news of Andrew Barroway’s purchase of a 51% interest in the Coyotes (expected to be ratified by the NHL’s Board of Governors) there have been questions about the original management agreement between IceArizona and the City of Glendale.

One of the questions that surfaced was would there be an opportunity to renegotiate the agreement. In reading the contract there does not appear such an opportunity.  Technically Barroway is becoming the majority owner of the team and for now the arena manager remains the same.

The arena manager is responsible for the operation of the arena and for leasing space to the team. The issue is addressed in Section 5. Demise of Arena and Use Rights. In 5.1, Demise of the Arena it states, “The City hereby demises and lets to the Arena Manager, and the Arena Manager hereby takes and leases from the City, effective on the Closing Date, for the Term and upon the provisions (i) The Arena Facility…” In Section 5.2, Grant Use of Rights, it says, “In addition to the rights granted by the City to the Arena Manager in the other provisions of this Agreement, the City hereby grants to the Arena Manager, and approves the right of the Arena Manager to grant to the Team Owner, during the Term, the exclusive right and obligation to use and occupy the Hockey Event Spaces…”

In Section 6.2., Sublease of Exclusive Team Spaces, it says, “The Team Manager hereby subleases the Exclusive Team Spaces to the Team Owner…”  The team is a subtenant of the arena. We know that Barroway is securing a 51% interest in the team but we do not know if he is also acquiring a majority interest in the arena management company.

Even if Barroway became a majority owner of the arena management company in Section 4.2.3, Arena Sub-Manager, “The Arena Manager may, from time to time, delegate all or a portion of its duties and responsibilities to an Arena Sub-Manager…” There is no provision that I can find whereby a change in team ownership requires a renegotiation of the lease since: (1) the lease is with the arena management company and (2) the arena management company can sub-lease to an arena sub-manager without city approval as long as all duties and responsibilities continue to be met satisfactorily.

The other question that has been raised is the city’s ability to audit. A little background is in order. Under the team ownership of Ellman and Moyes the city received financial reports but had to accept them without any corroboration. This eventually became problematical for the city. City Council wanted a mechanism whereby it could verify what the arena manager was reporting in terms of revenues and costs associated with the arena’s management and operation. Hence Section 8.16, Financial Reports and Section 8.17, Audits were incorporated into the agreement. Financial reports must be submitted to the city monthly, quarterly and annually. To ensure the veracity of the reports submitted, in Section 8.17.1, “The City shall have the right to conduct an independent audit of the management and operation of the Arena (or any part thereof) and the Account Records (or any part thereof) and the Team Owner Records (or any part thereof) by City Staff or by an independent certified public accounting firm selected by the City.” This section clearly grants the city the right to audit not just arena manager financial records but financial records of the team as well.

Keep in mind that this agreement was devised by attorneys and as a result, their interpretations of the terms can vary. That’s how they earn their fees…by arguing exactly what a term or provision of a contract actually means. They could argue how many gnats are on the head of a pin.  

As a result you can be sure that every sentence within the agreement can be disputed and argued by attorneys. On the face of it, it appears the city has no legal right to renegotiate the management agreement with IceArizona. IceArizona would have to agree to do so voluntarily and that’s not going to happen. However, the city does have a legal right to audit manager and team financial records and to thereby confirm the revenues and expenses that are reported to it.

© 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.

Oct 14

8

It’s a Coyotes kind of day

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 8, 2014
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River Arena • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Today, October 8, 2014 is a grey, overcast day in the Phoenix metro area…a rarity to be sure. Anywhere else it would portend a day of steady rain but Phoenix is a desert and because it looks like rain, it doesn’t necessarily mean it will happen. It’s a good day to let thoughts rumble around.

A blog reader recently sent me two news stories of interest. One is from the October 5, 2014 Seattle Times entitled Key Arena turns a bigger profit than it ever did with the Sonics by Ashley Scoby. Here is the link: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024708723_keyarena05xml.html. The other is a Deadspin article entitled The Coyotes were damned close to moving to Seattle by Barry Petchesky dated October 8, 2014. Here is the link: http://deadspin.com/the-coyotes-were-damned-close-to-moving-to-seattle-1643791488 . Each article compliments the other.

In the Deadspin story three sources confirm that the Coyotes were a hair’s breadth from moving to Seattle. Ray Bartoszek and Anthony Lanza had formed a buyers’ group with plans to move the Coyotes to Seattle’s Key Arena the day following the Glendale City Council vote on the IceArizona arena management agreement if it had failed to gain approval. The new information in the story is confirmation that the NHL had blessed the scheme. Everyone knew how imminent the move could be….the NHL knew; the presumed buyers had moving trucks on standby; Glendale senior management knew; the Glendale City Council knew; and IceArizona knew. The only ones in the dark were Glendale residents.

Which leads to the second news story about Seattle’s Key Arena. Everyone presumed in 2009 without the Sonics as an anchor tenant the arena would die a pitiful death. How wrong. An average annual loss to Seattle with the Sonics was $1.5 million. In 2013, without the Sonics, the arena generated $1.2 million in profit. The loss of the team didn’t hurt for it opened up more desirable dates for performing artists to utilize the arena. Artists such as Kanye West, Rihanna, Maroon 5 and Bruno Mars performed at the Key in 2013.

I had always supported keeping a professional sports team at the Gila River Hockey Arena because it was my belief that the arena and Westgate could not survive without one. Seattle’s Key Arena disproves that belief. If the Coyotes arena management agreement had failed on that fateful July, 2013 day Glendale would have moved on, just as Seattle did. Glendale would have joined with an AEG-type partner and could have enjoyed the same kind of success that we see today at Seattle’s Key Arena.

P.S. Here’s a link to yet another Seattle Times news story about an almost move to Seattle: http://seattletimes.com/html/hockey/2024716050_seattlenhl07xml.html#.VDWTTHFMEBI.twitter

© 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.

Sep 14

30

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hearing, Part IV

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 30, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River-Pima-Maricopa Indian Community • Glendale zoning issues • Salt River Indian Community  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 10 Comments

September 17, 2014 the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing on Senate Bill 2670 introduced by Senators McCain and Flake. I have offered the direct testimonies of the  panelists, Assistant Secretary Kevin Washburn; Governor of the Gila River Indian Community Gregory Mendoza; Glendale Mayor Jerry Weiers; Glendale Councilmember Gary Sherwood and Tohono O’odham Nation Chairman Ned Norris, Jr. Each of the panelists was asked questions by Senators McCain and Tester.

I have never heard so many non-responsive answers in my life. It’s as if the questioner and the person answering were on parallel universes. Isn’t that the mark of a true politician? If so, they all passed the test. The only person to answer a question directly was the Attorney for the Gila River Indian Community, Allison Benney (my apology if I have slaughtered her name).

Sherwood, in his answers to Senators McCain and Tester, pumps out a great deal of misinformation. His reference to one 30 minute conversation between Glendale staff and the TO…wrong. His estimate of jobs created…wrong. There was one very telling revelation however. The city’s position on the referendum petitions submitted in opposition to the TO/Glendale Settlement Agreement et. al., relies exclusively on the argument that council votes were administrative not legislative. Gary Sherwood, went off script (which he does quite frequently). At the 43 minute, 46 second mark of the hearing he refers to the council votes as legislation (in a convoluted way). In his mind, he recognized that those council votes were legislative… Oh Oh. I hope the attorneys take note.

I also stand corrected on the amount of annual revenue the Tohono O’odham (TO) earn from their 3 casinos. I had used $38 million. Well, you can nearly double that. The figure that Senator McCain used was $68.2 million. No matter the number…no matter whether that is net revenue or gross revenue that is still a lot of money. Again, what have the TO been spending all of that revenue on? Too bad no one is allowed to audit their books…they are a sovereign nation, you know.

Chairman Norris downright refused to verify or disqualify the annual revenue figure Senator McCain used. He kinda, sorta answered Chairman Tester’s question. The only relevant fact he could come up with was the $5 million dollar scholarship fund before he began ranting about the use of the Border Patrol agents’ use of TO roads.

Miss Binney, on the other hand, offered some startling testimony when she said they had hand written notes in their possession describing discussion of a possible closure of the 3 TO casinos in Southern Arizona and a move to rebuild and reopen them in the Phoenix area.

The last portion of testimony from the hearing is below:

Chairman Tester: “Thank you, Chairman Norris, for your testimony. Thank you all for your testimonies. Senator McCain.”

Senator McCain: “Thank you, Chairman. Ah, Chairman Norris, would you like to, for the record, supply the, ah, the amount of money, the revenue that your casinos have gained for the tribe on an annual basis?”

Chairman Norris: “I’ll be happy to give that some consideration but I will not do that without the express umm, umm, authorization of my legislative council.”

Senator McCain: “So, what ah, tell us how impoverished you are. I will provide for the record, Mr. Chairman, hearings that Senator Inouye and I had, including that with Attorneys General, especially in states that came and testified before our committee, where their great concerns were what would happen, is happening exactly now. That was one of the reasons why we had great difficulty getting the support of Governors and Attorneys General because they said, ‘if we don’t look out we’re going to have Indian gaming operations in the middle of our towns and cities.’ So, I would be glad to provide the record of hearings and the conclusions and statements that Senator Inouye and I made at the time of the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, um, which clearly was designed to prevent a non-contiguous, middle-of-a-metropolitan area, Indian gaming operation for which the people have, ah, maybe their elected representatives have, maybe some like Mr. Sherwood who changed their mind over time. Umm, but they have not been able to make their will known as far as a very significant impact in not only Glendale but in the entire West Side. So, Mr. Sherwood, out of curiosity I think you used to be very much opposed. You even wrote articles in opposition to this. What changed your mind?

Councilmember Sherwood: “Ah, thank you for the question, ah, Chair and Senator McCain. Umm, when I campaigned I had campaigned against this proposed based on information I had and I had read deal…quite a bit of information on it. Umm, the thing that was distressing to me though, that in the very beginning there was a half hour conversation when the city first found out about it in April of 2009 and that was the only conversation the previous administration had and I was, was always quite upset by the fact that we didn’t have the dialogue. We weren’t very doin’ very good in the courts. So when umm, we ah, after the new council got seated in January ’13 and we, ah, took care of the hockey situation we turned our attention to the casino issue which again, had been laboring for five years and started havin’ that informal dialogue and learned quite a bit more about the project from the fact that it could benefit us umm, in many more ways than what the gaming compact even called out for. So, those informal discussions led into, ah, formal fact finding in the November time frame which led to negotiations in March. Umm, and, and having gone through that and having voted on this a couple months ago to approve the project and to ah, equivocally set ourselves against this legislation (43:46) umm, and the benefits, certainly after talkin’ to other developers, I mean we’ve had several developers come to us uh, since this casino project was announced wanting to develop on Glendale, on land in Glendale city proper.”

Senator McCain: Well, thank you. Chairman Norris, I have before me information that, ah, I’m not sure where it came from but it alleges that your annual revenue from gaming is  $68,200,000. Is that in the ballpark?”

Chairman Norris: “Chairman, Senator McCain, as I stated before without the authorization of my legislative council I’m not at this point, ah, able to disclose, to agree or disagree with your information.”

Senator McCain: “So you refuse to tell this committee who is expected to support your effort to establish a casino and you won’t even tell me whether this is a correct or incorrect number, $68,200,000?

Chairman Norris: “Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, the courts have already made that determination on whether or not the Nation is within its legal right to be able to establish…and our current compact also authorizes it as well.”

Senator McCain: “I asked…that’s not in response to the question I asked Mr. Chairman. You refuse to give, to authenticate or disagree with roughly $68,200,000 in revenue for a year, ah, for your Nation?”

Chairman Norris: “Mr. Chairman…”

Senator McCain: “Is that correct? You do not wish to give that information? Either agree or disagree. “

Chairman Norris: “Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, I am not agreeing or disagreeing. What I’m saying…”

Senator McCain: “Actually what you’ve done is refuse to answer questions before this committee. I’m not sure why you came. Ah, Mr. Mendoza, is there a concern, Chairman Mendoza, President Mendoza, is there a concern that there may be other loopholes such as this exploited and using this precedent to other casinos that would be established in the Valley?”

Governor Mendoza: “Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, uh, thank you for that question. You know, umm, I’ve been hearing about this particular bill and it would create that particular precedence and in my mind, no. The act has been very consistent with Congressional precedents and umm, if you’ll allow me, I will allow my attorney here to offer some specifics. Miss Benney.”

Miss Benney: “Yes, thank you Senator McCain. So the concern that you have is a legitimate concern in that Tohono O’odham if they’re able to build this Glendale casino can actually shut down their other three casinos in the Tucson area and move them up to the Phoenix area basically using the same legal theory. That’s why the East Valley mayors are so concerned because they think the same thing that is happening in Glendale can happen in the East Valley and I think it was Congressman Gossar last time brought it back that showed 200 county islands in other parts of the Phoenix Valley where the same thing can happen. But more importantly, in the negotiations and during litigation, umm, hand written notes have come out from Tohono O’odham’s representatives basically indicating that they would do such a thing. They’re aware that they have that legal ability if they’re successful in Glendale to shut down the other three casinos and move them up to the Phoenix area. That’s one of the biggest concerns of the East Valley mayors.”

Senator McCain: “Well, Mayor Weiers, you find yourself in the minority here. Maybe you can tell us how that happened going from the majority to the minority on this issue. I’m sure it didn’t have anything to do with a $26 million dollar commitment over several years.”

Mayor Weiers: “Chairman, Senator McCain, I don’t actually know how I find myself in that position. I, you know, I’ve been ah, on one line of one thought, ah, ever since this issue came up when I was a state legislator. I know in our campaign, ah, that people have ran their campaigns, ah, stating certain views and certain beliefs and I guess I never really expected people to change their opinion but, ah, I don’t know exactly how we find ourselves here. You know the same facts, the same truths that were there two years ago are the same facts and truths today. Nothing’s changed. People’s opinions have changed and how they’ve changed their minds because of those truths and facts I don’t know. Sir, I really don’t know if that’s the question that maybe I should be asked but I’m not exactly sure how we came to that position.”

Senator McCain: “Thank you. Mr. Chairman, it bears repeating to all the witnesses in response to some of the statements. The Constitution calls for the Congress to have a special responsibility as far as Native Americans are concerned. It’s written in the Constitution. So although some may view this hearing and our action as being unwarranted interference it is a specific Constitutional responsibility of the Congress of the United States. Umm, so Mr. Chairman, this is a very busy week. We’ll be leaving tomorrow for quite awhile and you were kind enough to hold this hearing for me and I take that as a very special favor that you granted me and I wanted to express openly and repeatedly my appreciation for you doing this. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.”

Chairman Tester: “Well, thank you for those kind words, Senator McCain. We always appreciate your commitment to the Senate and to this committee and we thank you for your leadership on a number of issues including this one. I, um, have a few questions here. I’ll start with Governor Mendoza. Ah, Governor, when it comes to tribal gaming in Arizona being successful, could you talk about the kinda success Gila River has enjoyed, ah, because of gaming.

Governor Mendoza: “Thank you for that question, ah, Senator. You know Gila River does enjoy the benefits from our casinos. Ah, we’ve been able to fully fund for our students to go to college, any college in the world. We’ve been able to provide funding for our public safety, police, fire, umm, our emergency management program. We’ve been able to provide programs for our elders, our youth, housing, you name it. We’ve been able to do a lot for our community and again, we’re very thankful and blessed.”

Chairman Tester: “Well, I commend you on your commitment to your people and education, ah, is one of my priorities. You reference, when it comes to the expansion of gaming, you reference a commitment made by the Tribes in 2002 that there be no additional gaming facilities in the Phoenix area. In the current gaming compacts there’s specific limitation on the Tohono O’odhams from building a fourth facility in the Tucson area. If the parties thought enough to put a Tucson limitation expressly in the compact why wouldn’t the state include such a limitation around Phoenix? Any insight into that?”

Governor Mendoza: “Thank you Senator Tester. You know, Senator Tester, I’m not an attorney. I’ll allow my attorney to answer that.”

Chairman Tester: “Well Allison, I think it’s a good point that you’re not an attorney. I’m not either. So, Allison, since you are, have at it.”

Miss Binney: “So, I think there’s some, there’s a little bit of confusion. So in Arizona it’s different than in most other states. Most other states the governors can go and just negotiate a compact directly with the Tribes and enter into it. In Arizona that’s not the case. The governor had to get authority from the voters to enter into compacts and so the voters voted on a model compact that I actually have the Proposition that the voters had here. So Tohono O’odham does say here, like nowhere in the model compact or the compact does it say Tohono O’odham can’t go into Phoenix. I mean, number one there was no need to say that in the compact because no one ever thought that would happen; but two, in all the negotiations which are a key part of what this bill is trying to address Tohono O’odham specifically said their fourth casino would be in the Tucson area or in a rural area. They never once indicated that they would somehow go a hundred miles up to the Phoenix area. But I will say the Proposition that has the model compact that the voters actually saw when they voted to give the governor authority, there’s a chart in there and in the chart it shows the number of casinos that the Tribes in Arizona were authorized to build under the old compact and the number of casinos that the Tribes would be authorized to build under the new compact, the model compact that the voters were voting on. In the Phoenix area Tribes, all are shown as giving up a right to an additional facility that they had under the old compact. Tohono O’odham, because they’re not a Phoenix area Tribe, kept the same number of casinos, the right to build the same number of casinos. So Gila River is shown as giving up an additional casino, right to an additional casino. Salt River gave up the right to an additional casino. Ak Chin gave up the right to an additional casino. Fort McDowell gave up a right to an additional casino and so did Pasqua Yaqui. Tohono O’odham didn’t have to give up the right to an additional casino ‘cause they weren’t in the Phoenix area. So in our view, it is in the compact. Why else would these charts be in here showing that the Phoenix Tribes gave up rights to casinos and Tohono O’odham didn’t if it wasn’t intended that the whole goal of the compact was to limit the number of facilities in the Phoenix area?”

Chairman Tester: “Okay. Umm, if you don’t mind Allison, I wanna ask you another question. Umm, since you are an attorney and since you know the law and I say this in the most friendly way. When I talk to Chairman Norris and I think was referenced in one of your testimonies. Maybe it might have been Washburn’s testimony about breaking ground on a facility already. So ground has been broken. If we are to pass this bill would there be a takings issue?”

Miss Binney: “No and I thought it was interesting that Assistant Secretary Washburn didn’t address this issue at all. Because he was aware of it and Senator McCain asked him about it last time. And the fundamental reason why is because this bill just provides a temporary restriction on gaming activities on certain lands. That’s what IGRA does. The Indian Regulatory Gaming Act was passed to restrict gaming on Tribal lands. So, if this bill is a taking so is the Indian Regulatory Gaming Act and that’s been around for 25 years and that’s been upheld again and again and again.”

Chairman Tester: “So, in one point you’re talking about policy that prevents gaming activities to happen with IGRA. This is an actual, physical construction. You don’t see that there’s any difference there? And I ask this because I don’t know.”

Miss Binney: “Yeah, no. We, actually, when it came up in the last hearing, Senator McCain asked it, we actually went and did a thorough analysis because I will say, last Congress there was some legitimate concerns raised by Tohono O’odham and we addressed them in this new bill. But we looked at it and the other reason it’s not a takings is ‘cause Congress does these types of bills fairly frequently actually restricting gaming on lands and they can build a resort; they can build a new sports stadium. They can do economic activity…”

Chairman Tester: “Thank you. That’s fine. Thank you, Allison. Uh, Chairman Norris, ah, you’ve got a similar question that I just asked Governor Mendoza. You’ve got gaming facilities, umm, can you discuss what benefits you’ve got from these gaming facilities and while you’re in that vein could you also discuss unmet needs that are still out there by your Tribe?”

Chairman Norris: “Mr. Chairman, ah, I, too, am not an attorney. I am the elected chairman of my Nation and have an obligation to speak for my people.”

Chairman Tester: “Yes.”

Chairman Norris: “So I will do so. There are still third world conditions that exist in my tribal community and many tribal communities nationwide. The Nation has had an enormous amount of benefit in comparison to where we were at prior to gaming. We have been able to construct different facilities that were only dreams facilities, that we were needing within our communities to be able to provide the necessary services. We have been able to create a government of employees that are, that are able to provide the necessary services that many of our Nation’s members require. We have been able to provide scholarships to our, to our members. Prior to gaming we had probably less than 300 members that acquired masters, associates and doctors degrees and some law degrees. Today we have graduated more Tohono O’odham with those types of degrees this many years later and my council continues to allocate some $5 million dollars towards scholarship programs to our Nation. So we have had an enormous amount of benefit from the results of gaming but we still have those third world conditions that continue to exist. As far as unmet needs, Mr. Chairman, we know today that we have 500 families that are homeless on the Nation. We know today that there are many people within our communities that do need housing. We know today that much of the roads that are within our Tribal communities are being used and misused by the U.S. Border Patrol because of the influx of Border agents on our Nation, have really done wear and tear on our roads, and primarily BIA are on our roads. And so there’s a need for us to work hand in hand with the Department of Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs to try and address the roads conditions that are so needing to be addressed, to be able to deliver the services, to be able to enter and to exit our Tribal communities nationwide. We have a reservation that is 2.1 million acres square. We have some 2.9 million acres in size. We have some 80 villages within that geographical area. The reservation is vast. The villages are remote. We’ve got homes that do not have running water. We’ve got homes that do not have electricity. So there’s a serious amount of unmet needs on my Tribal community.”

Chairman Tester: “Ah, thank you, Chairman. Mayor Weiers, umm, you’re a former state legislator. You’ve worked with city government as mayor and I think you understand the actual text of laws and contracts and the weight that carries with the weight that carries with those contracts and that text. In this case there was a specific limitation, correct me if I’m wrong, on TO developments around Tucson but not Phoenix. Umm, with that said, if this limitation on gaming around the Phoenix area was important, why was it not included in the contract or Prop 202?

Mayor Weiers: “Chairman Tester, all I can tell you is, is, is the knowledge that I have of talking to one of the authors, Senator McCain, and he had told me, point blank, that, uh, there was never, ever any intention in their mind that this would ever be an issue. And I don’t believe personally, quite honestly, that the average person, a non attorney person, would ever thought something like this. You know, uh, I guess that’s why we have attorneys to sit around and think of ways to get around stuff. But ah, I don’t believe anybody ever believed that this was going to be an issue and, and it is an issue. And, and quite honestly all this bill is trying to is just, let’s do what everybody said and thought we were gonna do and then when that compact’s over, renegotiate. Chances are we’ll probably end up with more casinos in the Valley. Most certainly.”

Chairman Tester: “Thanks, Mayor. Ah, Councilman Sherwood, ah, your testimony discusses the impacts that the agreement with TO would have on the city of Glendale. Ah, positive impacts. Umm, could you talk about those benefits of this development and while you’re on that, if there’s downside that comes to mind, could you talk about that too?”

Councilmember Sherwood: “Ah, thank you, Chair. Well, right off the bat, I can’t see of any downside in the negotiations, ah, in the settlement agreement that we concluded with the Tohono O’odhams in August. Ah, they’re covering existing infrastructure, new infrastructure, umm, water, umm, it’s not costin’ the city a penny. I mean, how often do you get a development where you don’t have to give in to anything? Umm, in terms of the development, we were hurt pretty hard with the down turn of our sports and entertainment. There was 8 funded projects that were to occur, south of the University of Phoenix Stadium where our Arizona Cardinals play. Umm, one of ‘em, umm, was Mr. Bidwill’s, ah, CB 101 Project before he started building. Those either went into litigation afterwards or the developers pulled back. Those are slowly comin’ back but not nearly the pace that was expected. So, our sports and entertainment area which has two professional sports teams, large entertainment area along with some retail, umm, was hurt vastly by that. And so when we have the mega events, like when we have the Super Bowl next February, umm, we don’t have anything to keep people in the area. So they go off into Scottsdale and Phoenix. Umm, a project like this resort will, umm, entice other development. In fact within, within weeks of us signing that agreement we had two major developers; one that had done a large scale project in Phoenix come through and they were only interested in us now because of this project and they were lookin’ at land within the city of Glendale to develop that would, ah, be real close to the sports and entertainment area. So, yes, we’re lookin’ at a lot of, ah, development activity that will directly benefit our city coffers and then again, on the deal that was referenced earlier about the $26 million or so, umm, that we get directly into the General Fund from the Tohono O’odhams. In fact we’ve already received a check for $500,000, ten days after the agreement was signed. Umm, that helps the city that has struggled as has been widely reported, umm, because of our past deals with some of the sporting facilities we have. It’s sorely helped our community.”

Chairman Tester: “Okay. Talk about jobs. How many jobs?”

Councilmember Sherwood: “The jobs, in terms of the operations, you’re gonna see 3,000 jobs, 1,500 of ‘em probably indirect. Ah, 15 direct in terms of construction jobs. It’s right now scheduled for three phases, the casino and then the attached resort and then probably year later, another resort based on how things are movin’ along. So you’re talkin’ thousands of construction jobs, ah, over this project that’s gonna take place over the next four years. But in terms of actual jobs, umm, in the West Valley, I’d say about 3,000.”

Chairman Tester: “Well, once again, I want to thank all of you for, ah, makin’ the trek to Washington, D.C. I know it’s not easy and some of you made it twice and I thank you for that. And I mean that. This is obviously an emotional issue it’s ah, it’s ah, an important issue. Umm, note that the hearing will remain open for two weeks and I encourage all stakeholders to submit written statements for the record. I’m gonna’ say that again. Ah, this hearing record will remain open for two weeks and, ah, if you’re a stakeholder on this issue I would encourage you to write written statements, ah, for the record. With that thank you all and this hearing is closed.”

© 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.

« Previous Page — Next Page »