Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Former councilmember Norma Alvarez is certainly not leaving Glendale City Hall with a whimper. On November 20, 2014 she sent a letter off to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office with yet another allegation of an Open Meeting Law violation. I have heard that this complaint has legs.

In it she alleges that someone on Glendale city council after having received in executive session the infamous legal analysis of Glendale employee financial mismanagement then leaked the information to Paul Giblin of the Arizona Republic. Giblin and the Arizona Republic would not divulge the name of the leaker on city council. That is not surprising as the media routinely and rightly will not name their sources.

She goes on to contend that the City Manager, City Attorney and/or other Glendale city employees know the name of the leaker and to date they have failed to disclose the name in an effort to protect all who may have been involved. She makes the specific request of the AG’s office to investigate and to secure the name of the leaker because she has been accused of this violation. She does not name any of the councilmembers as the leaker. Ask yourselves which of the current crop has the reputation of being a media hound? Ask yourselves which of the councilmembers is already under investigation for other alleged Open Meeting Law violations?  Ask yourselves which of the councilmembers has Alvarez locked horns with on nearly every issue? Here is her letter: GLendaleCityClerk&AlvarezOMCLetters-2pages_Page_2 Ever since the new councilmembers, Sherwood, Chavira and Hugh were elected in November of 2012 there have been a string of allegations regarding alleged violations of the Open Meeting Law with one side or the other making complaints to the AG’s office.  These allegations have arisen because they are probably true. Remember the old adage, where there’s smoke there’s fire. But they have also arisen as a sign of the deep divisiveness on the council for the past two years. Council divisions erupted over major issues such as the casino, the sales tax increase becoming permanent and the Coyotes deal. The prevalent ethic among them seems to be if you can’t win the issue then there should be pay back. It has not been a comfortable place in which to work and the council made no bones about airing their dirty laundry publicly.

Will anything come of these AG investigations? Who knows? Many people hope so and think that this council attitude of take no prisoner has to stop. Will this new council of Weiers, Hugh, Sherwood, Chavira, Tolmachoff, Turner and Aldama rise above the current pettiness? Many think not and point to the lining up of two new camps with Sherwood, Chavira and Aldama on one side; and Hugh, Tolmachoff and Turner on the other; and the Mayor as the deciding vote on many issues.

© 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.

A little of this…

Randy Miller, a former Barrel district Glendale City Council candidate, made complaints to the city regarding a political action committee (PAC) called Revitalize Arizona. Revitalize Arizona is the pipefitters union creation made for one only express purpose…to participate in the Glendale City Council district elections on behalf of specific candidates, one of whom was Bart Turner, the newly elected representative of the Barrel district.

Former candidate Miller viewed the City Clerk’s site to check Revitalize Arizona’s registration as a political action committee (PAC). There was nothing. In addition he discovered Revitalize Arizona did not identify itself on the signs with the acknowledgement “Paid for by…” In accordance with the rules of the electoral process and so he filed complaints with the City Clerk’s office.

To this day Revitalize Arizona has still not filed its expenditures with the city. What were Mr. Miller’s complaints worth to the city? His complaints produced $300 in fines.  It’s a mere slap on the wrist and certainly not a deterrent to future bad acts.

What Revitalize Arizona actions did Michael Bailey, Glendale’s City Attorney, opine to be worth only a $300 fine? He said in a letter to the Torres law firm representing Revitalize Arizona, “Reasonable cause exists that Revitalize Arizona was not a registered political committee in Glendale as required by A.R.S. §16-902.01(E) and A.R.S. §16-912(A) when it had posted campaign signs in the City of Glendale” and “Reasonable cause exists that Revitalize Arizona failed to include requisite statutory disclaimer information on the campaign signs in violation of A. R. S. §16-912(B) and A.R.S §16-912(D).” Bailey went on to conclude, “A.R.S. §16-912(E) provides that ‘(a)person who violates this section is subject to a civil penalty of up to three times the cost of producing and distributing the literature or advertisement’.” Bailey fined them $300. The penalty was supposed to be a triple cost fine for the signs but Bailey valued the signs at $100. What a joke.

Having been a candidate I can tell you campaign signs are not cheap and those signs easily cost in excess of $1700. The fine should have been $5,000. A fine of that magnitude might have made the bad actors in Revitalize Arizona sit up and take notice and cause them to clean up their act in the future.

The Revitalize Arizona attorneys couldn’t respond quickly enough. Whoa…pay a $300 fine and get the heck out of Dodge. They dodged a bullet, high fiving all the way.

Just as in real life, in the City of Glendale, it’s a matter of who you are and who you know.

A little of that…

Have you seen the recently released photo of the new Glendale City Council? I’d be asking for a retake. The City Council is always told to wear dark or black clothing. This time the  instruction produced a group of undertakers. See if you can match the queries below with the right elected official: new council 2015

  • Which one looks like a member of the mafia?
  • Which one needs a new suit that fits?
  • Which one looks like a prissy preacher?
  • Which one looks like Icabod Crane?
  • Which one didn’t follow instructions and wear a dark color?
  • Which one didn’t follow instructions and fold hands in front?
  • Which one is smiling as if there’s a secret to be known?

Glendale certainly got a little of this and a little of that. Let’s see what the recipe produces.

I stand corrected…

I received a phone call from a “Mr. Sims” claiming to be a fire fighter in another jurisdiction. It was obvious he was calling on behalf of City Manager Brenda Fischer. He made the point that Brenda Fischer was not the City Manager when now Assistant City Manager Julie Frisoni sent her emails regarding the pending Coyotes deal to selected councilmembers. He was correct. Dick Bowers was Acting City Manager and Brenda Fischer was hired right after Frisoni sent those emails.

Those emails have since been submitted to the Attorney General’s Office and are part of an investigation into allegations of Open Meeting Law violations by current councilmembers Sherwood and Chavira and former councilmembers Knaack and Martinez.

Ms. Fischer may not have been aware of the emails when she first assumed her position but she most certainly is aware of them now. The question raised remains valid, what will she do to root out “off the reservation” actions by her staff, especially those of Frisoni?

       

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

During my 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.

Final official election tallies for the Glendale Ocotillo district seat show Jamie Aldama winning by 18 votes. This district proves the old adage that every vote counts. It seems fitting as Alvarez won her seat four years ago by a similar slim margin.

Ocotillo district has a majority Hispanic population and the two final candidates were Hispanic. The split in support among Hispanics for the two candidates should send a strong signal to Aldama that he will have to work hard to retain his seat four years from now. Make no mistake, in many ways Aldama is merely a slicker, more polished version of Alvarez. The striking difference is that Aldama blows with the wind. His performance on the Planning Commission showed that he will wait until the last minute to see which side of an issue seems to be prevailing and then vote in that direction. He is not a man of strong convictions.

There remains concern among some Ocotillo voters about his manipulation of his residency requirements. The house he owns is in the Yucca district and is apparently being rented although it appears he has not registered the house as a rental with the City of Glendale. He is currently renting the house in which he now living in the Ocotillo district. The perception is that his action smacks of political expediency. It may be perfectly legal but it creates a sense of impropriety.

Norma, don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Even as a loser Alvarez possesses no sense of grace or dignity. Darrel Jackson’s story in the November 20, 2014 edition of the Glendale Star ably describes Alvarez’ reaction to the loss of her council seat. Her whining never ceases to amaze. She never got it. Alvarez seemed to believe that she was the only advocate in the city for truth, justice and the American way. She pointed fingers at everyone and everything on her way out. Her negativism and lack of positive contributions to the city and her district tipped the balance in favor of Aldama. Alvarez indiscriminately hurled accusations of City Hall corruption but her favorite theme during her four years was her perception of disrespect by anybody and everybody. She forgot that when she was first elected both former Councilmember Phil Lieberman and I befriended her. In fact, there were instances when I delivered her council book to her, went to her home to bring her up to speed on issues and even chauffeured her to and from council sessions. When she and I disagreed on what was a minor issue, she declared I was no longer a “friend.” Frankly her pronouncement was a relief. I moved forward and never regretted her action.

Her actions did not contribute to her public persona as a councilmember. She never once stood up for the pledge of allegiance at city council meetings. She could have. She wasn’t so disabled that she was unable to stand for the pledge. Her deliberate decisions to refuse to attend city events based upon personal feelings was noted and caused ill will among many. Alvarez might have been a stronger voice had she done her homework and used more fact and less emotional rhetoric.

In three weeks new councilmembers will be seated. We wish them well. Make no mistake. They will be under a microscope and their views and votes will be the subject of much blog discussion.

There are coalitions forming that will become more evident as the Glendale mayor’s race shapes up in two years, 2016. Watch out for Councilmember Ian Hugh. While he has been very close to Mayor Jerry Weiers he has also been working quietly to form his own coalition. During this last council race rumor has it that he met with Lauren Tolmachoff and Bart Turner, quietly supporting their council races. Look for a majority voting coalition of Hugh, Tolmachoff, Turner and Aldama. All share the same positions on issues such as the casino and the arena management agreement. Hugh, as Glendale’s downtown homeboy, shares aspirations to become the next mayor as does Councilmember Gary Sherwood. Sherwood has major obstacles to overcome. He is still facing the results of an investigation by the Attorney Generals’ office for alleged violations of the state Open Meeting Law as well as a recall election that should materialize next year. Vice Mayor Knaack is about to retire as councilmember and a year away from that job may be just the ticket to persuade her to run for mayor. We may find that Yvonne Knaack, Jerry Weiers, Ian Hugh and Gary Sherwood all make a run for Glendale’s mayorship in 2016.

Lastly, as Councilmembers Yvonne Knaack and Manny Martinez retire, they deserve our thanks and gratitude for what is often a thankless job. While you may not have agreed with all of their decisions and their votes it is right that you acknowledge that they demonstrated their love of Glendale and made their decisions in what they believed was in the best interest of Glendale. Their dedication to Glendale has been evident in countless ways and it has been recognized by many. So, to Yvonne and Manny…thank you.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Today, November 11, 2014 I checked the Maricopa County elections website to see if there were final results for the Glendale Ocotillo district race for councilmember.

The results are Jamie Aldama received 929 votes and current Councilmember Norma Alvarez received 924 votes. If this isn’t proof that every vote counts I don’t know what is. Aldama prevailed by a margin of 5 votes.

It’s ironic and poetic justice. In  her run for the Ocotillo council seat in 2010 Alvarez won by 9 votes. Will there be a recount? Probably. So it may not be over yet. Stay tuned.

© 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.

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.

Recently a blog reader sent me the following study produced for Fort Wayne, Indiana as it considered allowing casinos in 2009. Here is the link: http://www.ipfw.edu/dotAsset/174199.pdf . He said he believed the study to be reasonable and objective. It was commissioned by the City of Fort Wayne and written by the Community Research Institute of Indiana University/Purdue University. Apparently the 38 pages of information produced did not deter the officials in Fort Wayne and two non tribal casinos are now in operation: the Fraternal Order of Eagles 3512 casino and the Canterbury casino. There are several major differences between Fort Wayne’s casinos and the proposed Glendale casino. No reservation land was created as these are not tribal casinos; local, county and state taxes are paid and revenue sharing deals were implemented. Here are a few highlights of the study.

  • “When fiscal costs were included as well a multiplier effects, most of the options which were calculated results in costs exceeding benefits.”
  • “However, the averages wages are less for casino employees compared to the overall average wage.”
  • “For 5-10 miles, there was an average loss of $195 for all industries…businesses located 10-30 miles away lost $243.”
  • “…casino ‘undercut’ local bars, restaurants, and lodging by subsidizing their on-site casino facilities.”
  • “In 2007, gambling industries (the majority of which are casino employment) had an average wage of $28,148 while the average national wage was $44,458.”
  • “Wichita State (2007) states that 50 percent of new jobs will come through substitution of existing jobs.”
  • “…one negative would be more traffic, more accidents, and more DUI arrests.”
  • “Rose (1998) identifies sewer and road maintenance as a drain on communities, as well as costs of increased crime and crime prevention.”
  • “…approximately 41 percent of the patrons lived within 20 miles, approximately 27% within 20-60 miles, and approximately 32 percent traveled more than 60 miles.”
  • From Wichita State (2007) annual spending per person living 0-10 miles from a casino is $528; 10-25 miles from a casino is $234; and 25-50 miles away is $115.”
  • “Research shows that proximity to a casino increases the likelihood of problem gambling…and most pathological and problem gamblers lives within 50 miles of a casino.”
  • “Strong evidence is produced that there is a correlation between crime and casinos…It has been suggested that after time, the pathological and problem gamblers may resort to crime to cover gambling related debts (bad check, check forgery, theft from employers, tax evasion, tax fraud, loan fraud, embezzlement, larceny, bookmaking, hustling, fencing stolen goods, confidence games, pimping, prostitution, selling drugs, and others.)”
  • “In a 2004 study done b the Department of Justice pathological or problem gamblers were arrested a rate 3-5 times higher than that of the general population.”
  • “Different studies have found ranges which are substantially higher for problem gambling in adolescents.”
  • “Substance abusers appear to be particularly vulnerable to gambling problems.”
  • “Studies indicate that casino employees may also be at higher risk for pathological gambling.”

The Community Research Institute made clear that it had no dog in the fight and was merely compiling research from a vast amount of available material. Their bibliography is extensive. Even an seemingly non-biased study such as this one raises red flags about the long term effects of casinos – tribal or non tribal.

Two of the major reasons supporters advocate for the Tohono O’odham casino in Glendale are: 1. historically we have treated Indians poorly, subjugating and placing them on reservations and therefore we, the United States, owe them; and 2. Glendale will benefit financially from a casino in its community. Questions arise. How far back does this nation have to recall history in paying for past sins? 50 years? 100 years? 150 years? The U.S. government has acknowledged its historical ill treatment of indigenous Indian people and has paid and continues to pay vast amounts of money in reparation.

 Glendale, despite the monies being offered by the Tohono O’odham, will suffer financially. It will be tasked with installing new and upgraded infrastructure to serve the casino and its associated development. It will strain an already strained public safety system and the casino will remove sales tax dollars from nearby businesses through unfair, untaxed, subsidized competition.

The action taken by the Glendale city council to bend over on the casino issue will, in the future, be just as detrimental financially to the city as the infamous arena management deal and the Camelback Ranch Spring Training Facility. It will become just another sink hole draining dollars that could be used to provide amenities that enhance the quality of life of Glendale’s residents.

There is still hope that the casino can be defeated. The General Election of November 4, 2014 produced a Republican majority in the Senate. I suspect that now it may be far easier to get a bill passed that stops the Tohono O’odham in their tracks. Perhaps that is why, even though they had a major ground breaking event a month or so ago, not one shovel full of dirt has moved on the TO site. This may signal the most prudent decision they have made to date. Actually starting a multimillion dollar development while congressional legislation remains a threat would be fool hardy indeed.

I never have and do not now bear any ill will to the people of the Tohono O’odham Nation. The Tohono O’odham people have suffered financially for many years. Where do the annual millions of dollars earned by the Tohono O’odham’s three current casinos go? Apparently not to the people of the Nation. However, I do believe that the actions of Ned Norris, Jr. and the Tohono O’odham Legislative council with respect to violating the State Gaming Compact and attempting to plant a casino in Glendale have been incredibly imprudent, greedy, selfish and self-serving. I do not wish them well in this endeavor.

 © 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.

Relief has set in…at least for a little while. We have a short respite before the presidential election cycle in 2016.  No more daily dozen of political robo calls asking for your money, your vote and virtually your first born child. Politics, as has been said many times, is a rough sport. One has to admire and congratulate all candidates for putting themselves before voters for judgment and eventual approval or rejection.

The old cliché is that every vote counts. There are two stark examples. Nationally, the congressional senate race in Virginia between Mark Warner and Ed Gillespie is still too close to call a winner. 2,132,824 people voted. Warner has 1,072,487 and Gillespie has 1,060,337, a 12,150 vote difference between the two.

In Glendale the Ocotillo race has virtually the same scenario in a tight race between Jamie Aldama and Norma Alvarez. In Ocotillo 1,910 people voted. Of those votes Aldama has 960 votes and Alvarez has 950 votes…a difference of 10 votes. This scenario is not new to Alvarez. In her first election she won by 9 votes. No winner has been declared yet.

What is most disturbing of all is voter apathy. We see it in every election, especially in Glendale. Look at the vote totals by district. In Cholla district 7,080 people voted. In the Barrel district 4,860 people voted and in Ocotillo district 1, 910 people voted.

The last time Glendale reconfigured its districts its goal was to maintain approximately 40,000 people in each district. Slightly over 7,000 people decided who would represent the Cholla district. In Barrel and Ocotillo districts it’s even worse. Nearly 5,000 people decided the fate of the 40,000 residents in the Barrel district and nearly 2,000 people decided the fate of the 40,000 residents of the Ocotillo district.

Congratulations to the winners. You put yourselves before the voters and they approved. It is now your responsibility to represent their interests. Be wary of the temptations to decide that you know what is best or to believe that you have an obligation to pay back the special interests that contributed mightily to your campaigns. Remain humble and respectful of all and their points of view. Above all, listen. Game over…for now.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

About a month ago I was contacted by Robin Respaut, a reporter for Reuter’s News Agency. We sat down and had a face-to-face interview as a result. I also had several phone conversations with her. I asked to be alerted when her article was published. It was published on October 30, 2014. Here is the link and the full text of the article.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/30/us-usa-superbowl-glendale-insight-idUSKBN0IJ1GL20141030

 Bad bets take a big toll on the Super Bowl’s host city

By Robin Respaut

GLENDALE Ariz. Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:49am EDT  Reuters Edition

 (Reuters) – Welcome to the sports-crazy home of February’s Super Bowl.

Over the last decade or so, this city of 230,000 on Phoenix’s northwest border, has reinvented itself from farm town to sports Mecca. It has built the dome stadium where the National Football League’s Arizona Cardinals play, the National Hockey League’s Arizona Coyotes arena, and the new baseball facility where the Los Angeles Dodgers and the Chicago White Sox appear every spring for their pre-season training.

But Glendale’s love of sports has come at a cost: red ink and jobs lost. All told, said Glendale Mayor Jerry Weiers, the town’s sports fetish has produced “a house of cards.”

And even the Super Bowl, the NFL’s annual championship extravaganza, will add to the pain. The game, and the partying that comes with it, will rake in hundreds of millions of dollars for Arizona. For Glendale? Another bill. This time because of the security costs.

A visitor to Glendale doesn’t have to look far to find evidence of its shattered dreams. At the edges of the sports district are vacant lots where there were supposed to be stores and other commercial developments that would generate taxes to pay off the debt taken on to build the sports facilities.

Glendale now spends over $40 million annually on sports-related expenses, including $15 million to manage the hockey arena, and about $25.5 million on debt service. The city’s general fund, the pool of tax money used to support city services like police and fire, has suffered big deficits.

It’s scorecard: Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services downgraded the city’s bonds three times since 2012. The Tax Foundation ranks the city’s sales tax, at 9 percent, as seventh highest in the nation, and Moody’s Investor Service says the direct debt burden is the largest among rated cities in Arizona.

Of course, Glendale’s problems aren’t uncommon. In 2010, professional sports facilities cost taxpayers roughly $10 billion more than what was typically reported – thanks, in part, to subsidies related to land and infrastructure, said Harvard professor Judith Grant Long.

But “Glendale is a particularly sad story,” said Holy Cross Professor Victor Matheson.

FOOL’S GOLD

In the 1950s, Glendale was citrus groves and cotton fields. Then came the housing boom. From 1990 to 2001, population soared 48 percent to nearly 215,000. The city had to beef up public services, but there wasn’t enough revenue-generating commercial development. “We had a mall and not much else,” said Elaine Scruggs, Glendale’s recently retired mayor of 20 years.

So when the Coyotes, in 2001, wanted to move from Phoenix proper and suggested Glendale, Scruggs pounced. The proposal included 1.6 million square feet of flashy new retail, dubbed Westgate City Center. To build the arena, the city agreed to float a $180 million bond with hopes the development would generate taxes to pay off the debt.

Before the ink was dry on that deal, Glendale was presented with another opportunity. In 2002, the Arizona Cardinals owner, Bill Bidwill, was also looking for a new home. The team targeted a site across the street from the future hockey arena. A stadium would lure more visitors to Westgate, which would mean more tax revenue — and, possibly, more development.

Mayor Scruggs couldn’t believe Glendale’s good fortune: “It was like a little kid who caught the fly ball,” she said.

By 2006, Glendale was hot stuff. The Cardinals stadium had just opened, and big name acts like the Rolling Stones were headlining.

And it was about to get better. The next year, Glendale announced its third venture: the Chicago White Sox and the Los Angeles Dodgers were looking for a new pre-season training facility.

This time, Glendale joined with Phoenix to construct a 10,000-seat ballpark and 14 practice fields. A 10-minute drive from Westgate, the facility was located just over the Glendale border in Phoenix. But Glendale agreed to issue a $200 million bond if Phoenix pledged 80 percent of the tax revenue. The anticipated economic impact to the region amounted to $19 million per year. And a new retail complex, of course, would generate revenue to pay off the debt.

Glendale’s finances were in good shape. The general fund had completed 2006 with $72.5 million in its coffers. And the city’s operating budget was $46 million in the black. So the town fathers agreed to pave a road through the desert and waited for new business to arrive.

WELCOME TO THE NIGHTMARE

After the real estate crash, Glendale’s property values dropped by half. Property tax collections slumped by 40 percent in two years. And unemployment in the city eventually spiked to 10.2 percent in 2009 from 3.1 percent in 2007.

That wasn’t all.

The Coyotes hockey team filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2009, triggering an NHL takeover. A year later, the land surrounding the new ballpark was foreclosed on without ever breaking ground. The Westgate developer also lost the property to foreclosure. Only a fraction of the proposed development had been built.

By 2012, the city was looking at $105 million in debt payments and not enough revenue to cover it: expenses of $289 million exceeded revenues by $59 million. “The city,” recalled city councillor Ian Hugh, “was sinking in its own debt.”

COYOTE UGLY

Town officials were also worried about losing the hockey team. After the NHL took over, the league asked the city to pay $25 million to manage the arena as it searched for an owner. Why cave in like that? Simple economics. If the Coyotes left, the city would be stuck with a largely empty arena. “This was the beginning of the city’s demise,” said former city councilor Joyce Clark.

In 2011, the city pulled $25 million fee from Glendale’s sanitation and landfill funds. When no owner was found by the second year, the NHL asked for another $25 million, which came from water, vehicles, technology replacement, and the general fund. “By the third year,” said Clark. “We were bleeding.” The general fund plummeted from a $66.4 million surplus in 2006 to a $26.7 million deficit in 2012.

To make up the difference, the city raised its sales tax by a third, cut 22 percent of its workforce, and, in a terrible irony, eliminated some youth sports like t-ball and flag football. Emergency Medical Service calls increased by 23 percent over a five-year period, but there were fewer workers to respond. And Glendale’s firefighters claimed 911 response times increased by two minutes.

Meanwhile, the NHL found a new owner, IceArizona, that would keep the team in Glendale. But there was a catch. The city had to pay $15 million a year in arena management fees, a cost equal to its entire parks, recreation, library and human services budget.

Glendale signed the deal, but the arena had already turned into a financial sinkhole. After dropping $50 million on NHL fees, Glendale still had an average $12.8 million in annual debt service related to building the arena. In return, the city earned back just $5.9 million during the first year in arena-tied revenues.

A WAY FORWARD?

Today, the city is preparing for the big game. The Super Bowl could bring in $500 million for Arizona, but Glendale budgeted a $2.1 million expense for security. State lawmakers have refused to help, some citing “an awesome display of fiscal mismanagement.”

Still, city officials say there’s hope. A new management team and the now-permanent sales tax increase has made Moody’s more optimistic. In September, the rating agency switched Glendale’s outlook to stable from negative.

The city is also trying to wean itself off sports. For example: A huge American Furniture Warehouse could generate $2.9 million for Glendale in its first year. In August, the city also blessed a $400 million casino resort.

Glendale won’t be on the hook for the casino’s costs and expects to receive an estimated $26 million over 20 years. Still, critics worry that the deal is another misstep. “Money going into the casino,” said Mayor Weiers, “isn’t going to the businesses that hung on by their fingernails to stay open.”

(Reporting by Robin Respaut; Editing by Hank Gilman)

 

Lately we’ve seen a rash of alleged campaign violations, from the use of a Hope for Hunger (a nonprofit agency) truck to a volunteer with the Glendale Fire Department going door-to-door handing out campaign literature. Complaints have been filed with the city of Glendale and other appropriate agencies.

In response to one of the alleged complaints Jim Brown, Glendale’s Director of Human Resources and Risk Management, on October 23, 2014 said, ““The City employee policy regarding political activities does not prevent an off-duty union member from participating in political activities on behalf of his/her union.”

Apparently he did not get (or did not read) the Memo from City Attorney Michael Bailey dated November 14, 2013. Mr. Bailey cites Glendale City Code, Section 2-75(b). Political activities and contributions from employees that says, “No employee, other than an elected official, shall engage in any political activity in a Glendale municipal election, except to sign a petition for nomination, to cast a vote, or express a private personal opinion.”

Some of the prohibited activities cited by Bailey are, distribution of campaign material or literature for a candidate or an issue involved in a city election and the posting or placing of campaign signs for a candidate or issue in a city election.  He says, “The ordinance (city) also reiterates the state statutory restriction on a city employee influencing other employees or seeking contributions of time or money for a political campaign.” He refers to the United States Supreme Court’s recognition that limitations on political activity serve the public interest of prevention of “a government work force from being employed to build a political machine.”

Nowhere in any of these specific prohibitions is there an exception carved out or an exemption for a local union’s participation in their municipality’s elections. Where is Mr. Brown’s authority to carve out an exemption for a local union member? Upon what legal authority did he base his opinion? We all would be interested in reading the legal opinion that he relies upon.

The Supreme Court, State of Arizona and City of Glendale prohibition from municipal employees participating in their municipal elections is the very reason Valley fire unions have developed a “work around” that has been used for years and years. That is why typically union employees from other cities will contribute money and volunteer to work an election in any city but their own. When the time comes, they, as pay back, will contribute to and work an election in a city from which they received previous help.

There is another and far more serious issue that is finally beginning to surface and that is the Glendale fire union’s political machine. For far too long members of Glendale’s senior management have been aware of the fire union’s political machine. For far too long they have turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the Glendale fire union’s political activities and its inclination to skirt the edge of campaign law. Even Glendale’s Fire Chief Burdick does not have the muscle (or will) to control the demands and dictates of Glendale’s fire union.

Do not expect anything to change. After all, City Manager Brenda Fischer’s husband was (any may still be) a fire fighter in Henderson, Nevada. Other city employees have relatives who are Glendale fire fighters. It is any wonder that they would be sympathetic to the fire union and its objectives? If it takes political influence to achieve those objectives those who have the power to rein in fire’s political machine appear to have no will or desire to do so.

© 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.