Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Jan 14

8

The pressure is on the NFL

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 8, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale and the Super Bowl • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

The first item on the Glendale city council workshop session of Jan. 7, 2014 was a legislative update.  Council’s interest was in making a run on the state legislature to adopt a mechanism to reimburse host cities for major events. Reimbursement could be applied to anything major such as the Barrett Jackson Auto Show or a major NBA tournament. It’s an idea long overdue.  From the time Glendale hosted its first Super Bowl and lost money doing so, I have continually pressed for such action. Even in discussions with the Host Committee regarding Glendale’s second hosting of a Super Bowl their reaction in pursuing such legislation was tepid. In the past 7 years there has been no interest, except in Glendale, to create such a mechanism. Glendale’s Intergovernmental Director, Brent Stoddard, continues to sound less than enthusiastic about its successful adoption by the state legislature in direct contrast to Mayor Weiers who said several times that he was “optimistic” that this would be the year for such successful legislation to be adopted. I would prefer to believe that this is the year for its adoption. Let’s hope they suceed in obtaining some kind of legislation to remedy this situation. Glendale simply cannot afford to host events that, in fact, benefit the entire state.

That leads to something that the TV media has been reporting lately. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., has filed a bill to end the tax exemption status of the NFL (granted in the 1940’s) on grounds that Americans are subsidizing a for-profit sports league. The NFL’s non-profit status was something I had highlighted in one of my blogs several months ago. Many were surprised to learn that it had a non-profit status.

Coburn’s bill, the Properly Reducing Overexemptions for Sports Act (PRO Sports Act), would do away with the tax break currently enjoyed by the league offices of the National Football League, the National Hockey League, golf’s PGA Tour, and the Ladies Professional Golf Association. Major League Baseball and the National Basketball Association have voluntarily given up their nonprofit status. Coburn has argued that if all the professional league offices were denied this exemption, Americans could recapture the estimated $91 million that goes each year for the subsidy. There is a group called the Rootstrikers, (http://www.rootstrikers.org), created in 2011 by Harvard law school professor Lawrence Lessig and political activist Joe Trippi to fight political corruption. They want to give momentum to this issue and have started an online petition to support Coburn’s bill. If you feel so inclined, check it out.

It is estimated that the NFL realizes $9 billion dollars annually and their top executives earn more than most corporate CEOs. For example, the NFL’s CEO is paid $30 million dollars a year. With that kind of revenue the NFL is a gorilla when it comes to congressional lobbying. In recent years it spent nearly $4 million dollars and at the same time contributed nearly $2 million dollars to congressional campaigns. It has a lot of clout and Senator Coburn will have an uphill battle to get his bill passed successfully.

Later today we’ll take a look at other council discussions at its recent workshop: one on municipal marketing and one on organizational restructuring.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law 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 14

4

And so it begins…

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 4, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 5 Comments

A new year begins and council resumes its meeting schedule. January 7, 2014 will be the council’s first workshop of the new year. On the agenda are 3 items: a legislative update, consideration of municipal marketing and consideration of revamping the city’s organizational structure.

Two of the items are Julie Frisoni’s. One, municipal marketing is an idea she had floated previously in April of 2012. On its first go-round council rejected the idea but persistence pays off and it has resurfaced. It’s a simple concept. Allow corporations to buy advertising space on city properties — libraries, buildings, vehicles and assorted other assets. While it has been partially implemented by larger cities nationally its use in the Valley has been very limited. Mesa does allow advertising on its utility bills and the revenue generated pays for the printing costs of the city’s newsletters. Other uses in the Valley have been by school districts on their school buses and by independent fire departments like Daisy Mountain Fire Department on their fire trucks. I guess there are a lot of local municipalities who would prefer not to become tacky looking with corporate advertising running rampant.

The cost to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to seek corporate advertising bids is between $40,000 and $75,000. Frisoni ends her presentation with the cryptic, “The source of funding would have to be identified if directed to move forward.” In plain English that means she doesn’t know where the money would come from. You can be sure that some department will end up forking over the money to fund this idea, if adopted. The city’s financial condition makes the idea very tempting. Ask yourself the question: Do you want to see corporate advertising throughout our city, including Arrowhead? I can hear the screams of outrage emanating from North Glendale now. This idea is akin to the billboard fiasco in Arrowhead. If they can’t accept billboards up there what makes Frisoni think they will accept corporate advertising all over the place?

The third item on the agenda is a presentation by Frisoni and Management Partners, Inc. The company was hired by City Manager Brenda Fischer at a cost of $46,800 — just $3,200 under the $50,000 limit that can be independently spent by the City Manager. Could be it that Fischer thought she might not get enough support on council to move on this strategy and so she made sure the contract came in under $50,000?

To the outsider, you and I, it looks like further consolidation of the City Manger’s power base. Management Partner, Inc.’s (MP) primary task was to review the structure of the enterprise funds (water, sewer and sanitation) executives as well as all other executive positions down to the division level and to recommend a new organizational structure that would go into effect on July 1, 2014. Hmmm…before you have visions of a reduction in expenditures for executive level employees, remember this – no employee leaves employment in Glendale unless he/she leaves voluntarily for employment elsewhere, retires or he/she has been fired. They are simply moved around and offered a position somewhere else in the organization at the same pay level.

As for the presentation itself by Frisoni and MP, I guess we will have to wait for the council workshop as no organizational restructuring strategies were publicly released with this agenda. It must be problematical or MP’s recommendations would have been make public already.

Lastly, there are two citizen groups in Cave Creek that are mounting recall petition drives to remove all six councilmembers with the exception of the mayor. Although the two groups oppose one another, their reasons for recall are eerily similar: fiscal irresponsibility, misrepresentations to the public in the last election and lack of transparency. It could have been written about some of our newly elected councilmembers in Glendale for we have seen shades of some of the same shenanigans.

 

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law 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 13

31

2013 Elected Officials Report Card

Posted by Joyce Clark on December 31, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

On January 15, 2013 the new Glendale city council had its first official meeting. It brought new players and new dynamics to Glendale’s power base. It is only fitting that after their year’s performance we take a look back and give each of them a grade. The big issues such as the Arena Management contract and the external audit as well as the small issues such as council guidelines saw shifting alliances. No one has emerged as the majority leader although there are some who believe that they are.

It takes some time to learn the ropes of their new roles. Brighter people get it within 3 to 6 months; others take longer – up to a year or more to figure it all out.

What criteria make for a good elected official? Having “been there, done that,” here’s my list in no order of importance:

Representation of one’s constituency. Some have taken the time to learn of or to seek the opinions of their citizens; others rely on a Ouija Board and think they know.

Outreach to citizens. Some host district meetings and attend neighborhood meetings; others do not. Being visible and accessible to citizens is not only good politics but provides good service.

Understanding the issues. To be effective an elected official has got to read and to understand material on an issue in advance of discussion, follow up with questions if necessary, do independent research if warranted. Some do not read their material until they open their council books at a workshop or meeting.

Representation of city at local, regional and national venues. Some embrace opportunities offered whether it is a local tree dedication or reading to school children to service on a regional/national board. It causes that official to listen to voices other than his/her own and offers an opportunity to learn and to network.

Follow city policies/procedures and council guidelines. Some elected officials are assiduous in adhering to formal and informal policies; others are not. Playing fast and loose by practicing personal interpretation of these strictures causes questionable issues such as giving your taxpayer dollars to non-profit organizations.

Representation of city policy. An elected official may have advocated for a position under council consideration prior to the policy being formally adopted by council. After the council has approved a position on an issue it is incumbent upon an official to publicly uphold the city position. An elected official’s personal position in opposition to a council approved policy should not use city resources to advocate for that personal opposition.

The siren song of elected officialdom. There is no question that an elected official receives perks and is treated differently. The trouble is that after awhile, some elected officials believe that they are special and that it is their due. Some believe their own press and expect special treatment from staff and citizens.

Lead or follow. This is an age-old debate. Does an elected official follow the dictates of his or her constituency? Or does he or she lead by establishing a different position and then working to educate the constituency to accept a different point of view?

Respect. An elected official must treat everyone with respect. I often witnessed elected officials smirk, raise eyebrows or treat a citizen without respect because he or she expressed an opinion differing from that of the elected official. We reap what we sow.  Disrespect earns disrespect.

Honesty, Integrity, Ethics and Values. This is the bedrock of character for everyone. An elected official must not violate basic ethical values and remember always that the money he or she spends or decides how to spend is taxpayer money. A reputation of honesty and integrity once lost is never regained.

That’s quite a list! Based upon the criteria above there is no shining star on Glendale’s city council.  No one earns a grade higher than a “C” and some have earned failing grades of “F” due to lack of performance in several areas.

It is one thing to run on a definitive platform of issues expressed repeatedly to the electorate. It is quite another to deliver on those promises after being elected. Some have not delivered on those promises. An example is that the Mayor and Council all took strong positions on the issue of arena management prior to or during the last election cycle in 2012. Some reneged on their positions. Yet another example is that all publicly recognized Glendale’s financial troubles and promised a new era of fiscal responsibility yet they repeatedly spent money that Glendale didn’t have on new issues. What happened to their pledges to be fiscally responsible?

For some, Councilmembers Ian Hugh, Gary Sherwood, Sammy Chavira and Mayor Jerry Weiers, it is their first year in office. Others, Vice Mayor Yvonne Knaack, Councilmembers Manny Martinez and Norma Alvarez, have served for at least one term. Yet all can and should do a better job of articulating and following through on insuring Glendale’s future. Someone needs to lead. Instead we seem to have a group of people putting their fingers to the wind and choosing popularity over principle. The grades for each are below along with at least one reason for that grade. This is admittedly subjective and I expect opinions about individuals to bounce all over the place. Everyone tends to grade their representative higher and take a more jaundiced view of the others.

Mayor Jerry Weiers – C.  He demonstrates a lack of clear leadership. Instead he relies upon his experience in the State House not realizing what worked there may not work on a local level.

Vice Mayor Yvonne Knaack – C.  Spends her time trying to appease everyone and favors downtown Glendale (where her business is located) over the priorities of her district (Barrel).

Councilmember Manny Martinez – C.  Unfortunately his age has caught up with him and there are times when he has difficulty understanding.

Councilmember Gary Sherwood – C.  His aggrandizement of power is quite obvious and his abilities to connect with and to understand the needs of the average citizen are lacking.

Councilmember Ian Hugh – C.  His silence is deafening. He fails to communicate his thoughts or his positions on the issues until asked directly to contribute.

Councilmember Norma Alvarez  — F.  She displays a real failure in her ability to understand the issues, is obstructionist and cannot get past the Ocotillo district’s rap as a “poor” district.

Councilmember Sammy Chavira – F.  He has shown himself to be unprincipled as witnessed by his flip flop on the arena management agreement and his failure to live up to his pledge to be fiscally conservative.

Lastly, this tidbit came from the 4th floor of City Hall recently. It appears that Vice Mayor Knaack will not run for another term. Perhaps she has decided that in 2 years, if she decides to run for Mayor, she will have distanced herself from some very unpopular council decisions yet to come. Word is that she will endorse Bill Toops, owner of the local newspaper, the Glendale Star, for her Barrel district seat. Hmmm…that could be difficult for Carolyn Dryer, the editor of the Star, when Mr. Toops takes a position on an issue not welcomed by the Star.

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law 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 13

30

Happy 2014, Glendale!

Posted by Joyce Clark on December 30, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale and the Super Bowl • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

As we prepare to enter 2014 it’s a good time to look at the major issues Glendale will face. Here is Glendale’s Top Ten for 2014:

  1. The winner for the coming year is Glendale’s financial future. The City Manager and Executive Finance Director will offer a series of options, some critical, some not, to right the situation. Will the city council grow a backbone and adopt some stringent measures that are sure to be unpopular with the general public?
  2. Will IceArizona be able to deliver on its promise of enhanced arena revenues to recompense Glendale for its annual $15 million dollar management fee? The $15 million annual fee coupled with another $12 million in arena construction debt repayment contributes to Glendale’s heavy financial burden.
  3. The Camelback Ranch area has never delivered on its promise to perform. When the recession hit all development came to a screeching halt. Will the city create n incentive strategy for development of the surrounding area? Its annual $13 million dollar debt construction repayment is yet another major financial burden.
  4. Will the Attorney General’s office investigation into former City Manager Ed Beasley and deals cut with former financial consultant Art Lynch and former HR Director Alma Carmicle result in charges being filed?
  5. What impacts will the arrival of the first of 144 F-35 aircraft have on Luke Air Force Base, Glendale and the surrounding West Valley area?
  6. Will the Arizona Cardinals continue to seek its dream of a bubble tent practice facility on Glendale’s Youth Sports fields? What about their desire for Glendale’s long-promised parking garage as a means of fulfilling its parking requirements as vacant land diminishes at Westgate?
  7. Will the new City Manager Brenda Fischer continue to fire employees as her solution to any future irregularities? Will a new round of internal warfare erupt between police and fire over the severely constrained city revenue pot of money as her empathy toward fire (her husband is/was a firefighter in Henderson, Nevada) becomes more evident?
  8. With November, 2014 city election for councilmembers in the Cholla, Barrel and Ocotillo districts bring new faces and new agendas and another shake up in the fragile council coalitions?
  9. Will the temporary city sales tax increase become permanent as a solution to Glendale’s financial mess? How will citizens react to the broken promise of its sunset in 2017? Will citizens see increases in all kinds of local taxes while experiencing a decrease in the level of services provided?
  10. How will the city find the money to pay for its hosting of the Super Bowl in 2015? A figure of $1.7 million dollars is unrealistic and doesn’t equal the amount spent by Glendale on its last Super Bowl hosting gig.

Lastly there is the unknown. There is always a new, unforeseen crisis. What will it/they be for Glendale in 2014? Councilmembers will continue to combat and to abuse one another and all of us. The City Manager will continue to offer policies to strengthen her power and there is no one on council to guard against it. Departments such as police and fire will vie for shrinking resources. New players and power brokers will emerge. All that can be said with any degree of certainty is that it won’t be a dull year. Thank goodness there will be plenty of fodder for upcoming blogs!

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law 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 13

19

Merry Christmas to all…

Posted by Joyce Clark on December 19, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 22 Comments

card 1

This will be my last posting until after Christmas Day. With less than a week before Christmas family and friends, last minute shopping and baking consume my time. Here goes. This council is often disappointing because of their lack of substantive engagement. Their December 17, 2013 council workshop had a myriad of issues, some of them quite important.

When it came to the presentation on the Monthly Arena Reports we learned some new or corroborating information. The figures that are used by the city are figures provided by IceArizona.  Mr. Duensing, Executive Director of Financial Services, stated that the expected annual arena revenue for this fiscal year will be $6,791,540 and the expected deficiency will be $7.1M. He indicated that as of November 30, 2013 (covers period from Aug. 5 to Nov. 30, 2013) the amount of revenue accruing to the city is $1,168,880. This means the enhanced IceArizona revenues to cover the $9M unbudgeted will be short by approximately $2M by June 30, 2014 (end of current Fiscal Year). I find it amazing that his forecasted estimate of annual revenue is so precise, down to the penny. Nevertheless, it portends that the city will be short a boat load of arena revenue this year.

The city budgeted $6 million dollars for arena management of the $15 million dollar total fee and expected IceArizona’s enhanced revenues to cover the $9 million dollars unbudgeted. Looks like that ain’t gonna happen.  Mr. Duensing also answered a question posed in one of my latest blogs regarding the Supplemental Ticket surcharge of $1.50 per qualified ticket. He said we won’t see this total until the end of this fiscal year per the agreement. Fine but why isn’t a monthly amount being offered to the city in the monthly reports? After all, it’s their specific line item. I’ve been told that an escrow account has been established. It would be nice if the city received confirmation that X amount of dollars is being deposited monthly into that account. After all, it is an interest bearing account and the entire amount, including interest, could very well end up going to the city.

It also raises the question of the definition of what is a qualified ticket. Here is the agreement’s definition: “Qualified Ticket” means a Ticket to a Fee Activity for which (i) the Team Owner, with respect to Hockey Events; (ii) The Arena Manager or sponsor or promoter, with respect to Team Revenue Events, City Revenue Events and other Fee Activities that are not Events; or (iii) the City, with respect to City Sponsored Events, receives valuable consideration (whether in money, services, foods or other value). Any Ticket for which (i) the Team Owner, with respect to Hockey Events; (ii) the Arena Manager or the sponsor or promoter with respect to Team Revenue Events, City Revenue Events and other Fee Activities that are not Events; or (iii) the City with respect to city Sponsored Events, (a) receives no value, or (b) receives money (but not any other services, goods or other value) for such Ticket in an amount less than 25% of the retail priced stated on the face of such Ticket, shall not be a “Qualified Ticket”; provided, however, that, if the aggregate number of Tickets described in the immediately preceding clauses (a) and (b) that are distributed by the Team Owner for a given Hockey Event (other than a Hockey-Related Event) exceeds 1,750 then the Tickets described in the immediately preceding clauses (a) and (b) distributed by the Team Owner for such Hockey Event that exceed 1,750 shall be deemed “Qualified Tickets” for such Hockey Event, unless the City and the Team Owner mutually agree otherwise.”

I suspect the city has one interpretation of this paragraph in mind and IceArizona has another. I’ve learned that arena employee tickets purchased at a discount were counted as qualified tickets in previous years. Apparently now they are not by IceArizona.  Is it because the discount is greater than 25%? What other categories of purchased tickets are no longer considered as qualified by IceArizona? Is IceArizona discounting a large number of tickets? If so, as a result, how much surcharge money is the city not receiving?

Apparently there is some sort of agreement that the number of complimentary tickets to be given away would average no more than 1,000 per game. It appears that IceArizona has far surpassed that average and in one case gave out 3,500 complimentary tickets for one game. The rationale for capping the number of complimentary tickets per game is that it frees up a greater number of qualified tickets to earn the city surcharge. I am hopeful that a Fiscal Year- end audit commissioned by the city will clear up many of these questions.

What was council’s reaction to the dismaying news that arena revenues will experience an approximate $7M deficit? Not a word. Not one single question asking how the projected deficit would be covered. Instead there was a chorus of “thank yous” to staff for bringing this information forward and making it publicly available.

The other substantive issue on council agenda was the Five Year Forecast. As presented by Mr. Duensing the bottom line is that the city faces everything from a minimal deficit of approximately $250,000 next Fiscal Year up to a substantial deficit of $30 million dollars within 5 years. He asked council to approve staff’s development of a short term plan and a long term plan to deal with these expected deficits.  He received council approval to do so along with a chorus of confidence from councilmembers that the deficit can be overcome. Mayor Weiers said it best by asking everything be placed on the table and he hopes council has the courage to make some very difficult decisions. Every citizen of Glendale hopes council has that courage. What better Christmas present could there be?

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law 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 13

4

No ghettos in Arrowhead

Posted by Joyce Clark on December 4, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

On the December 3, 2013 city council workshop there were 6 topics. This was not one of council’s short, one-hour, “whizz bang, thank you ma’am” kind of meetings. It seems whenever there is discussion related personally to council the discussion is intense and prolonged.

Let’s take a look at each one. First up was the issue of 2 hour downtown parking. Someone had complained to Mayor Weiers and so it surfaced as a Council Item of Special Interest. Since the parking restriction was not being enforced there was a question of keeping the signage up. Councilmembers Martinez, Knaack and Sherwood felt there was no problem but supported Weiers, Hugh and Chavira in their request to survey the downtown merchants about the issue. So there will be a second installment on this issue after the survey is completed.

Next item was the city suite policy and its use. This item was requested for discussion by Vice Mayor Knaack who explained that she wanted to disabuse the public of the notion that council had free and unfettered access to the city suites at Jobing.com arena and Camelback Ranch. This notion is widely held when the public sees Mayor Weiers and Councilmember Sherwood often and regularly in the city Jobing.com arena suite. The policy as I remember it allowed for 2 uses: for non-profit use and for city business use (economic development). Apparently there is now a third use allowing for city council city business.  Council finished by directing staff to make more use of the suites as a reward to city volunteers. A good idea. Sources have said that Interim Assistant City Manager Frisoni was able to rent the Jobing.com arena suite in the past for her daughter’s birthday party. If that did occur it most certainly violated stated city policy. Hmmmm…

The third item was allowing citizens to donate a greater amount monthly to the From the Heart Donation program — another Mayor Weiers topic. After much discussion council gave direction to increase the donation option from $1 a month to $2 a month on citizen utility bills. The thinking was that it would double the amount received monthly for the program. Maybe, maybe not. When the price is increased on anything the number of purchasers usually decreases. Let’s see how this works out.

Undoubtedly the hottest topic was the discussion of council budgets. Vice Mayor Knaack requested this item and made the point that she did not think the use of council funds (read your taxpayer dollars) should be given from councilmember budgets to non-profits.  Martinez and Sherwood agreed but it raised Councilmember Alvarez’ blood pressure by at least 100 points. She had been silent on all previous items and did not wake up until this topic came forward. Then she was off and running!

She made sure she cited every past transgression from Knaack benefiting from the city’s VIP (Visual Improvement Program) for businesses to the city’s decision to enter into the $15 million dollar a year management agreement with IceArizona to the absence of recreation programming for kids. She made sure she recited every past sin. She made clear she would not go along with any prohibition council might create regarding council budget donations to non-profits. Hugh and Chavira stood fast with her.

Councilmember Martinez, joined by Vice Mayor Knaack, once again asked that councilmembers reduce their discretionary and infrastructure budgets so that the funds could go back into the General Fund. There is no doubt that Martinez, Knaack and former Vice Mayor Steve Frate believed strongly in doing so. Here is the past history on council budget reductions;

  • Barrel district (Knaack)      reduction of $26,571 and district improvements of $197
  • Sahuaro district (Frate)      reduction of $24,729 and district improvements of $4,965
  • Cholla district (Martinez)    reduction of $23,796 and district improvements of $2,998
  • Cactus district (Lieberman) reduction of $2,563 and district improvements of $500
  • Yucca district (Clark)          reduction of $1,188 and district improvements of $15,445
  • Ocotillo district (Alvarez)    reduction of $0 and district improvements of $9,545 

Donations to non-profit/school districts:

  • Ocotillo district (Alvarez)              $22,134
  • Cactus district (Hugh)                  $11,849
  • Yucca district (Chavira)                $  8,000
  • Cholla district (Martinez)              $  1,000
  • Barrel district (Knaack)                $     609
  • Sahuaro (Sherwood)                    $     419

You can see from the figures above there are two competing philosophies regarding the spending of council budgets. There being no consensus on anything related to how they spend your taxpayer dollars there was no direction given and things will stay just as they are.

The next item was a topic generated by Councilmember Sherwood. Currently all councilmembers can offer a Council Item of Special Interest without having to get 3 other councilmembers to agree to the topic. Sherwood wanted to go back in time and reuse the policy that required 3 other councilmembers to support any Item of Special Interest. As he said, “It was better to have staff work with ‘real’ issues” and he summarily dismissed the value of any Item of Special Interest brought forward by a councilmember. His suggestion went over like a lead balloon and he received no council support for his latest idea.

The last item was city generated and was a presentation on the proposed financial policy on transfers. After the presentation by Tom Duensing, the new Director of Financial Services, he was thanked profusely (especially by Chavira who has become quite adept at thanking everybody for everything) but there was nary a question. The longest part of this item was the presentation by Duensing.

On another unrelated issue, lately there has been a fire storm of public discussion on the siting of billboards in the Arrowhead area adjacent to the Loop 101. I bring this up not to take a position on the issue but because of something I read recently. A Cholla citizen reacting to the billboards said, “How ghetto could that be, to put up signs like that?” This is not an aberration but the typical attitude exhibited by Arrowhead folk. So, billboards are ghetto-izing? It’s OK for billboards to be placed in the rest of Glendale along with pawn shops, loan stores, massive apartment complexes and liquor stores? I’m surprised that Arrowhead has not ceded from the city. It must be embarrassing for Arrowhead people to have to say they live in Glendale with all of its ghettos.

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law 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 13

2

Employed or unemployed…at whose will?

Posted by Joyce Clark on December 2, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

On the November 26, 2013 City Council meeting agenda was Item 23, an ordinance revising employee unclassified and classified positions as well as a revision of Human Resources Policies 201, 513 and 514. It was an item that council tabled and directed to be brought to a workshop — as well they should have.

As Councilmember Martinez stated there had been no review or discussion of this item prior to its appearance as an ordinance that night. City Manager Brenda Fischer took full responsibility for not bringing it to council prior to the vote. She should have. This ordinance, if approved, will be a blatant and naked accrual of more power to the City Manager and a diminishment of employee rights. Instead of former City Manager Ed Beasley’s “iron fist” we now have current City Manager Brenda Fischer’s “velvet glove.”

If I were a city employee I would be concerned. Currently the “at-will” employees are:

  •  City Manager                        1
  •  City Clerk                             1
  •  City Attorney                        1
  •  City Judge                            1
  •  Assistant City Judges             5 estimated

Under the proposal add:

  • Assistant and Deputy City Manager level positions
  • All department Director/Assistant Department Director level positions
  • All employees, exempt and non-exempt, assigned to positions in the legal department (includes City Attorney’s office and Prosecutor’s office);                            
  •  assigned to positions in the City Clerk’s office;                                        
  •  assigned to positions in the Mayor’s and City Council offices;
  •  and all classified employees in their introductory or probationary period of employment.

Under the current system reflected in the FY 2013 budget there are approximately 9 positions (estimate of number of assistant city judges is 5) that are unclassified and are considered as at-will. Under the proposed “velvet glove” system the number grows to approximately 120 positions. That number does not include “all classified employees in their introductory or probationary period of employment.” My math can be shaky but it appears to be a 1,000% increase planned in the number of at-will employees and that does not include probationary employees.

What are the differences between classified and unclassified employees? The major distinction is that unclassified employees have no right of appeal or right of grievance should they be fired. There does not have to be a “cause” to terminate. Consider them to be contract employees. There is no permanence or stability associated with the job. They are salaried employees who earn no overtime pay. There is no annual merit or “step” increase. Rather increases are based upon performance and productivity.

Retirement “vesting” and benefits can be different between the two systems. Unclassified employees can usually vest in retirement immediately while there is a waiting period for classified employees.

A classified job offers an individual job security and stability. Security at work has been demonstrated to improve and to enhance the individual’s performance. In the private sector companies that offer permanent jobs understand the need of promoting higher levels of job satisfaction to improve workforce performance. A classified employee will generally receive more employment benefits and bonuses like health insurance, pay raises and holiday pay.

There is no right or wrong position on these job classifications. Younger, more mobile workers seem to prefer at will employment while older persons are more comfortable with the security of job stability.

However, this new proposal raises a myriad of questions and concerns:

What about the issue of subjectivity? What if a department head has an assistant department head that does terrific work but their personalities clash? There exists the potential for abuse.

What about public safety? Do department heads and assistant department heads in police and fire become unclassified? If so the estimated number of 120 will grow substantially.

What about those employees currently in their introductory or probationary phases? Did those that already accepted employment from the city choose stability or mobility? If it was stability did they unwittingly forego another opportunity at another city assuming that once they passed their current probation they would have a stable job? In this new proposal once they finish probation after January 2, 2014 do they become at-will, unclassified? If so, over time, every employee will become unclassified. The proposed ordinance specifically states, “Legislative note: The expansion of the unclassified service to include employees hired and or promoted on or after January 2, 2014.”

The ordinance also states, “Unclassified employees are entitled to all regular benefits and leaves unless otherwise provided in the human resources policies and procedures.” How long will it be until unclassified employees see revisions to HR policies and procedures?

Then there is the description of classified service within the ordinance, “The objective of this service is to provide public and management services covered by a fair and nonpolitical system of personnel management for the City of Glendale.” Those seem to be desired outcomes in municipal government. So why the proposed change? It goes on to say, “The unclassified service is made up of employees in positions where administrative necessity dictates that the position be more responsive and accountable to city policy.” Is the unclassified system inherently more subjective and political? Yes.

The City Charter under Article III, Section 3, (3) states the City Manager has the authority to “appoint, and when deemed necessary for the good of the service, lay-off, suspend, transfer, demote or remove all department heads, officers and employees of the City subject to such merit system regulations as the Council may adopt.” However, only classified employees are subject to the merit system and even if the City Manager wished to get rid of a classified person there are protections in place that must demonstrate cause. The council may make all the adjustments it wants to the merit system but they will only apply to classified employees whose numbers in this proposed scenario seem to diminish over time.

Another sentence has been added in this section, “The City Manager delegates the Human Resources & Risk Management Executive Director as the decision making authority with regard to the entire recruitment and selection process.” It is worded carefully for it appears that the HR Director can select candidates for positions but the ultimate hiring and firing will be done by the City Manager.

Why was this proposed? I’ve been told by sources that it was adopted by the City Manager after she had to appear before the Personnel Board in the matter of the Don Bolton termination. A different source suggested Mayor Weiers’ love of all legislative practices and procedures (this model is used by the state legislature) drove this initiative. Weiers has tried to have several state legislative practices adopted but what works at the state level does not always work well at a local level.

What justification is offered by either the City Manager and/or the HR Executive Director for a major change in personnel classification? None — apparently.  In the City Council Report under Purpose and Recommended Action the proposed action is described but its purpose is not.

Why the reluctance to offer the purpose of such a major change? We are certain to hear that this proposed system offers flexibility in a changed work environment. Sounds like double-speak, doesn’t it? Make no mistake. This scheme centralizes power in the City Manager’s office. As elected officials leave so, too, will their staff under this proposed system. It can get really expensive in short order.

It was extremely prudent of council to table this proposal for future discussion at a workshop. The questions are many:

* Why is this major policy change necessary? And do not accept the answer of flexibility.

* Exactly how many employees out of the 1,000 plus will become subject to this policy?

* Will it apply to all new employees throughout the organization after January 2, 2014? From that date forward, once they have finished probation, will they be unclassified?

* How does such a policy change affect future budgets? What is the anticipated cost of moving to such a system? Add 20% to any staff estimate, if they provide one.

* Will department heads and assistant department heads in public safety become unclassified? If not, why not?

* Is the City Auditor and her department employees unclassified? If not, why not?

* Who will have the ultimate authority for hiring and firing unclassified employees?

* And most importantly — What practices will be implemented immediately and prior to a council vote to prevent any potential abuses including that created by subjectivity?

 

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law 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 13

4

Glendale alert

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 4, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The reaction to my blog on “Staying quiet in Glendale” hit a nerve with many readers. I received numerous emails from citizens and Glendale employees, past and present. Today’s a good day to round up all the speculative commentary received over the past few months and share.  There were several comments on Glendale’s current environment such as “’Being Quiet in Glendale’ hit the nail on the head!” or ”… not much had changed since Beasley has left….everyone still walking on eggshells and no trust…” Some commenters said the practice of reporting any interaction with councilmembers continues to this day. The general reaction was sympathetic to the four employees that either resigned or were terminated and that Mr. Bolton did not get a fair hearing. Many expressed the sentiment, if it is “so easy to get rid of the ‘good guys’ everyone’s in trouble.”

It also opened up much commentary on other Glendale related issues. Word is out there that we can expect Julie Frisoni’s appointment as Interim Assistant City Manager to become permanent any day.  Many of those commenting pointed out that Frisoni does not meet the minimum necessary qualifications for the position which mandate at least a Masters Degree in Business Administration or Public Administration. Another commenter shared that the very first action by the new City Manager Brenda Fischer was to have a video made about herself by…you guessed it…Julie Frisoni’s department. Several said Jamsheed Mehta is no longer an Interim Assistant City Manager and has been relegated back to his previous duties as Executive Director of Transportation. Hmmm…someone well qualified is shoved to the back of the bus.

Have you ever heard of a “cop card?” Me neither. Apparently it can be used to get out of a speeding ticket in Glendale. Rumor has it that one or two councilmembers could actually possess this “cop card.”

Did you know that City Manager Brenda Fischer’s husband was a firefighter in Henderson, Nevada (he may still hold that position)? Watch for Fischer to recommend making whole firefighters’ overtime pay – not straight time pay but overtime pay. FYI: while the Glendale Police Department has been cut by 16% over the past few years, the fire department’s cuts have come in at considerably less, only 8%.

Lastly, I was sent an article published by the Wall Street Journal on November 1, 2013 entitled Cities revival curbed by red-ink budgets by Jerry A. Dicolo and Cameron McWhirter. It said, in part, “New Orleans was one of five cities among the nation’s largest 250 that in 2012 faced a situation known in municipal finance as a ‘negative fund balance,’ according to data provided to the Wall Street Journal from Merritt Research Services, LLC. The others dealing with the issue, which means at the time the figure was reported, liabilities outweighed assets, were Allentown, PA, Providence, R.I., Glendale, AZ, and Detroit. Data on a few cities weren’t available as of August, 2013, when Merritt collected the information.Credit rating firms consider the metric a sign of a serious structural budget problem. In 2007, before the recession hit, Detroit was the only city with such an imbalance, the figures show. Glendale officials said a new sales tax is expected to generate more revenue and shore up its budget.” The Journal published a graph representing figures from August, 2013 depicting the 10 cities nationally with the lowest reserves (General Fund balance). Here they are in descending order:

  1. Detroit, Mich                     -27%  ( minus reflects negative fund balance to expenditures)
  2. Glendale, Ariz                   -21.2%
  3. Providence, R.I.                –  3.4%
  4. New Orleans, La               –   1.8%
  5. Allentown, Pa                   –  0.90%
  6. Paterson, N.J.                  +  0.07% (plus reflects positive fund balance to expenditures)
  7. New York, N.Y.                 + 0.72%
  8. New Haven, Conn             +   1.7%
  9. Bridgeport, Conn              +   2.4%
  10. Philadelphia, Pa                +   2.7%

In an article by the Arizona Republic dated October 31, 2013 entitled Challenges abound as cities climb out of financial holes by Parker Leavitt. It says, “Glendale’s general-fund reserves fell 143 percent over five years, ending fiscal 2012 with a $26.5 million negative balance, according to financial reports. Payments to the National Hockey League for Phoenix Coyotes operating losses led to significant declines in Glendale’s reserve funds in 2011 and 2012, according to a Moody’s credit report.” Obviously Glendale has significant financial problems. This council continues to spend money the city does not have.

Council has taken actions that were not budgeted in the current Fiscal Year 2013-14 budget: an external audit costing over a half million dollars; the Beacon Request for Proposal for the Arena (never used) costing over $100K; or the biggie, an additional $9M for the arena management fee (that will never be covered in total by the “enhanced revenue fees” promised by IceArizona); or the employee Christmas vacation time costing over $1M dollars. It adds up to approximately another $2M unbudgeted that will have to come from other departments…except for fire, I guess.

In upcoming budget workshops for Fiscal Year 2014-15 council must consider making substantial cuts of approximately $9M and additional cuts of about $5M a year for the next several years. The temporary sales tax increase is due to expire in 2017. There is already talk that the City Manager will recommend that the temporary sales tax increase become permanent. That is not what I, as a former councilmember, or the voters expect. The voter approved proposition mandates that it disappear in 2017 and that is what we demand. Every citizen should be on alert. If you have the time and inclination please watch when city council takes up the budget in March of 2014. I will be watching…will you?

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law 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 13

31

Tohono O’odham like a bad penny

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 31, 2013
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

A word of advice. When you get older, say 70 on up, avoid getting sick at all costs. Wear a mask or go into isolation to save yourself. I speak from experience. Two weeks ago I caught a cold. You know how it goes. You begin to feel better, almost human, and you resume your schedule with gusto. Then you learn your lesson as it comes back, ten times worse. That is exactly what happened last week. Mercifully I was saved from an untimely death by my doctor’s prescription of a really heavy duty antibiotic.

There’s been a lot of activity regarding the Tohono O’odham’s (TO) proposed casino during the week of October 23, 2013. Where to begin? At the council workshop meeting of October 15, 2013 an agenda item was discussion of starting a dialogue with the TO. In a previous blog I described various councilmembers’ positions on the issue. They did not go as far as opening exclusive dialogue with the TO. Rather council majority asked for an assessment from staff of the consequences to Glendale IF the casino were to be built. This assessment was to include gathering factual information from the TO. Good luck to them on that action. Historically the TO have never been very forthright about their plans. A majority of council gave this direction despite newly hired City Attorney Michael Bailey’s admonition to wait until two outstanding casino issues were resolved.

Then at the regular council meeting of October 22, 2013 council passed as part of its Consent Agenda (no discussion occurred and all items were passed in a single vote) Item 14, a resolution of support to accept a $45,000 grant from the TO for use by the Glendale Youth Project. The Glendale Youth Project is a worthy cause and it is not the issue. The issue is the acceptance of any TO grant. How can this council legally or morally accept money from a group that it has opposed and litigated against and continues, as city policy, to oppose? It boggles the mind. Council is repeatedly and short sightedly sending the wrong signal to our friends and supporters – the State Legislature, our Congressional Delegation and all of the Arizona Tribes opposed to machinations of the TO’s gambit to build a casino in the Phoenix Metropolitan area.

On October 26, 2013 the Glendale Republic ran two viewpoint submissions. The pro-casino faction consisted of Bob Barrett, Mayor of Peoria; Adolfo Gamez, Mayor of Tolleson; and Sharon Wolcott, Mayor of Surprise. I find it ironic that not one of these three communities will host or have to pay a dime for the development of the TO casino and continue to believe the TO hype that somehow this project will benefit their communities.  They embarrassingly trotted out their “East Valley Envy” for all to see. The anti-casino viewpoint was signed by Jim Lane, Mayor of Scottsdale; Mark Mitchell, Mayor of Tempe; Jerry Weiers, Mayor of Glendale; Thomas L. Schoaf, Mayor of Litchfield Park; and John Lewis, Mayor of Gilbert. They get it. They understand the broader picture and the ramifications to the entire Valley should the TO succeed. It’s too bad that some of the West Valley cities are greedily willing to chase a mythical pot of gold at the expense of Glendale.

In the October 27, 2013 edition of the AzEconomy Section of the Republic there is an article about Steve Ellman’s Phoenix-like rise from financial death. Ellman was the former owner of Westgate (until 2011) and co-owner of the Phoenix Coyotes (until 2006).  Here is the link: http://www.azcentral.com/business/news/articles/20131026ellman-glendale-coyotes-tribe-deal.html . Part of the story recounted Ellman’s efforts back in 2009 to obtain a $100M investment from the TO. The major city players at that time would have been Ed Beasley, Julie Frisoni, Craig Tindall and Art Lynch. I had heard about such a proposal – not in detail — years ago but dismissed it for a variety of reasons. It was disturbing then and is disturbing now to read it. Ellman was lobbying for a deal that certainly would have benefitted him but not necessarily the City of Glendale. $10M a year for 10 years would have been invested by the TO in the arena AND Westgate. How much would have gone to the arena? Not much. A token amount would have gone toward naming rights but the lion’s share would have been used by Ellman for Westgate. In return for this largesse (read bribe) Glendale would have been required to support the TO’s plan for the casino. The article quotes Ellman as saying, “the deal between the tribe and Glendale ‘would have allowed ME (caps mine) to stay in (sic) the team…and stay in Westgate’.” This unsavory deal was always about Ellman.

The TO continue to press their plan for a casino and we can count on more pressure until the Secretary of the Interior makes his final determination about reservation status and until Representative Trent Franks’ bill is settled one way or another.

If you would like more information about the impact of a casino in Glendale please visit this site: www.keepingthepromiseaz.com . The site recently added information about available county islands within other Valley cities that could become targets for a casino if the TO prevail and break the state compact.

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law 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 13

18

Council left its steak dinner on the table

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 18, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

The City Council workshop meeting of October 15, 2013 had a little something for everyone. Since Mayor Weiers has been at the helm all of their meetings have been extraordinarily brief. Not so this time.

The first item was an informational presentation on light rail in Glendale by Steve Banta, CEO of Valley Metro. Keep in mind that even if all the stars aligned, Glendale still wouldn’t see light rail for a minimum of ten years. The corridors under study remain the same: Northern Avenue to Bethany Home Road; Camelback Road; and the Loop 101. The only strong sentiment was expressed by Vice Mayor Knaack whose business is located in downtown Glendale. She remains adamantly opposed to light rail being sited along Glendale Avenue. Ummm…I guess she didn’t get the memo about Mesa. They deliberately sited their light rail on their Main Street to spur redevelopment. Their experiment with light rail has been so successful that Mesa is paying for an additional 2 miles from a city fund dedicated to street improvements.

Council moved on to the next item, Councilmember Chavira’s plea to get more amenities in the Western Regional Park (now called Heroes Park) at 83rd and Bethany Home Road. He proposed as temporary, soccer fields; or the addition of sod to green the park; or an archery range. He needs to bring something home to his constituents before he runs for reelection. Poor Sammy, it won’t be park improvements. He ran into the same brick wall as I. Keep in mind that a majority of the former council diverted $6M earmarked for the park to the construction of the Public Safety Training Facility. It was a spite move orchestrated by the former Mayor because I refused to become a member of her team. Council has an obligation to restore that $6M deliberately and willfully taken from the park. Chavira heard a resounding “No” from his fellow councilmembers to his requests. Even Alvarez said “No” and called for prioritization of needs. They fell back on the council policy directive that mandates maintaining and improving the parks already in place. They grudgingly agreed to move forward on the concept of an archery range provided it “was at no cost to the city.” I have never seen a project come forward that didn’t involve some cost to the city. In addition when residents of the area publicly participated in the planning of the park there was not one request for an archery range. In all my years on Council I received one call from a father who wanted to establish an archery range in a nearby retention area for his son so that he could conveniently practice. As the Director of Parks and Recreation Erik Strunk stated, “There will be no available funds in the Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Program until Fiscal Year 2018-19.” At that time all seven councilmembers will be vying for the use of those funds.

The Sister Cities Program was next on the agenda.  This item was Councilmember Sherwood’s request. His motive was to partner with Canadian cities that host hockey and perhaps to boost Canadian attendance at Coyotes hockey games. It was a subject that didn’t engender a lot of comment. However, Alvarez and Chavira broadened the concept to include Mexican cities. Council directed this initiative be shifted to the private sector for further exploration and called on the Civic Pride Ambassadors, the Chamber of Commerce and the Convention and Visitors Bureau to lead the effort.

Now we get to the meat and potatoes…er…steak and potatoes of the workshop…the Tohono O’odham and its proposed casino. The new City Attorney, Michael Bailey, presented information first. He said for 5 years the city’s position has been in opposition as expressed by various city council approved resolutions. Until council passes a new resolution expressing a new direction, the city will remain opposed to the proposed casino. He went on to say the city is no longer involved in any active litigation against the TO’s plan. Everyone is waiting for the results of two actions: U.S. Representative Trent Franks bill currently enjoying bipartisan support which has passed the House and moved on to the Senate; and the 9th Circuit’s Court mandate that the U.S. Department of Interior further clarify its justification for provisionally placing the land within Glendale in reservation status. He also expected that no matter what the Department of Interior’s decision, we can expect further litigation.  The City Attorney advised waiting until these issues were resolved before moving in any direction. He likened the current situation to council’s ordering and paying for a steak dinner and then just before it arrives, getting up and walking out of the restaurant. He alluded to the fact that entering into a dialogue with the TO could send the wrong signal to our friends and supporters – the other Tribes, the State Legislature and our Congressional delegation.

Despite his sage advice, here’s how the council lined up on the issue. Mayor Weiers and Councilmember Martinez remain firmly opposed and counseled waiting until the issues resolve. As expected Councilmembers Alvarez and Hugh are in the TO camp, breathlessly awaiting the casino’s arrival as if it is the cure for all of Glendale’s financial woes. Councilmember Chavira, in whose district the proposed casino would be located, has never been one to take a strong position on anything, maintained a fence sitting posture (painful to say the least). If he had a brain, he’d listen to and represent his constituents who will be dramatically affected and simply do not want the casino. Councilmember Sherwood after proclaiming that he was still opposed to the casino then trotted out a litany of reasons in its support. Vice Mayor Knaack, ever ready to appease everyone and anyone, listed the reasons why a casino was not in anyone’s best interest then flopped to supporting dialogue with the TO. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. What happened when the European nations practiced appeasement?

The result of the long and sometimes contentious discussion was 5 of 7 councilmembers supported directing staff to fact find (including dialogue with the TO) to produce an assessment of the impacts of the proposed casino on Glendale. I find it amazing that 5 of them believe they will get specific facts from the TO. This is the same Tribe that hid its ownership of the land in question for years. This is the same Tribe, when asked by Glendale staff, for specifics regarding their proposed casino, offered only conceptual ideas, nothing concrete. This is the same Tribe that publicly stumped for the State Gaming Compact in 2002, knowing that they already had plans to violate the spirit of the compact. There is and should not be, justifiably, any trust regarding assertions that they make. What’s the old saying? Trust but verify?

Council’s reasons in support of dialogue were superficial and may have been motivated by the people who spoke at their last council meeting (by the way, many were not from Glendale). This council left their steak dinner on the table having already paid for it, unwilling to wait and to let the issues play out and knowing that possible further litigation will not see an end to this situation for several years.

© Joyce Clark, 2013

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