Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Aug 14

8

Three reasons to reject the proposed Tohono O’odham/Glendale agreement

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 8, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Tohono O'odham  | Tagged With: , , , | 1 Comment

The proposed agreement between the City of Glendale and the Tohono O’odham should not be executed at this time. It is premature. There are outstanding legal actions and Congressional legislation yet to be decided. At the very least, the Glendale City Council should table this action to a time uncertain. There is absolutely no need for execution of this agreement immediately. In the last blog there were 3 major flaws with the agreement. Let’s take a look at them.

  1. The City of Glendale has no authority to review the design and the only entity that can inspect construction is the Fire Marshall. The Fire Marshall will not be able to tell if the plumbing, electrical, etc., construction is up to Code. The reservation is similar to a foreign nation planted inside Glendale. The proposed casino’s design cannot be approved by Glendale and even more importantly, the Federal Aviation Administration. The University of Phoenix Stadium’s height was subject to the FAA process and required approval from the agency. If the Tohono O’odham builds structures whose height interferes with operations of Luke Air Force Base or the Glendale Municipal Airport, Glendale and every agency is prohibited from taking action to stop it. There is precedent for such action. In Kenosha, Wisconsin their agreement stipulates, “That the Menominee Kenosha Gaming Authority will follow all applicable building and Federal Aviation Rules during the construction and operation of the project.”  Glendale should insist on a stipulation in the agreement requiring the Tohono O’odham’s development to be subject to Glendale’s design review process and FAA restrictions.
  2. The amount to be paid to Glendale annually is too low. Here are some examples of Tribal revenue sharing with other cities across the country. In NY Governor Cuomo’s press release of August, 2013 says, “Under the agreement, the local governments in Buffalo, Niagara Falls, and the Salamanca area will receive their full 25% share of local impact payments, a total of $140 million. Today, the Governor traveled to Western New York to present checks to the local governments receiving funds under the agreement: Buffalo will receive $15.5 million, Niagara Falls will receive $89 million, and the Salamanca area will receive $34.5 million.” Because of a dispute between the State of New York and the Seneca Tribe payments were suspended for several years. The money cited in the press release were back payments made by the Seneca Tribe to those 3 cities. These cities receive anywhere from $2 to $8 million annually. The Seneca facility is about half the size of the proposed TO casino and therefore generates about half of the revenue expected at the proposed TO facility. Here is another example and it underscores another problem, “Officials in Duluth, Minnesota, are still trying to reinstate a gaming agreement with the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians. The tribe was sharing 19 percent of gross revenues from the Fond-du-Luth Casino. The tribe stopped making payments in 2009 after sending $75 million to the city.” If the Tohono O’odham stop making their miserly annual payments to Glendale, the city will see itself in a Duluth-type situation, waiting years to rectify the situation. Here is one last example and believe me, there are plenty more that could be cited. The Michigan Pokagon-New Buffalo Area Local Revenue Sharing Agreement says, “Section 18 of the Compact defines how tribal payments are made to local governments…These payments shall equal 2% of the annual net winnings at each casino derived from all Class III electronic games of chance, to the local units of government that are located in the immediate vicinity of each tribal casino site or that are otherwise directly affected by the operation of the casino.  It is the intent of the State and the Tribe that the payments to local units of government provided for in this section will be used primarily to provide financial resources to those political subdivisions of the State that actually experience increased operating costs associated with the operation of the Tribe’s Class III gaming facility.” For the most recent fiscal year, as of July 31, 2011, the total allocations of the tribal payments were shared by 8 cities and 4 educational districts in the amount of $5,818,019. The City Council should renegotiate the Tohono O’odham annual payment and require $15 million annually. That is equal to ONE DAY of estimated net profit or it should stipulate a percentage (no less than 5% annually) of net profit.   
  3.                                                                                                                                                                                                             3.  Lastly, Lastly, there is the issue of tribal sovereign immunity. The TO in the proposed agreement refers to a TO Resolution 14-317. I visited the Tohono O’odham’s web page on its Code and some very interesting information was available: “The Tohono O’odham Code is an unofficial compilation of the Nation’s laws of permanent and general interest, as well as Tohono O’odham Judicial Court rules, canons, and significant administrative orders. While the Code as a whole has not been formally adopted by the Legislative Council, an increasing number of the Nation’s laws are being adopted in a uniformly codified format and the individual laws appearing in the Code have been duly enacted as reflected in their legislative histories.” The web page defines sovereign immunity further: 

“Section 2101 Sovereign Immunity

    1. “The government of the Tohono O’odham Nation (“Nation”) and any person acting within the scope of his or her capacity as an officer, employee, or agent of the Nation are absolutely immune from suit, court process, or liability.
    2. “The Nation’s sovereign immunity extends to the Nation’s districts, enterprises, entities, and the officials, employees, and agents thereof.
    3. “Sovereign immunity cannot be waived except by a resolution or other official action of the Tohono O’odham Legislative Council expressly waiving, or authorizing a waiver of, sovereign immunity; provided that such a waiver shall be limited in accordance with its terms. A Legislative Council action that authorizes a Nation’s district, enterprise, or entity to sue or be sued does not waive sovereign immunity unless a waiver is expressly granted in a separate written contract or other duly approved writing.”

What is Resolution 14-317, where is it and what does it say? On Thursday, July 17, 2014 the TO called a Special Session and the last Resolution approved that day is Resolution 14-316, approving a Pisinemo District 2014 Operations Amendment . When was Resolution 4-317 passed and why is it not posted on the TO web site listing all actions passed by their Legislative Council? The City Council should require a stipulation requiring the TO to completely waive sovereign immunity with regard to any provision of this agreement. If the TO will not do so, then they have something to hide.

The proposed agreement makes me ill. Once again, Glendale is being taken to the cleaners and the majority of 4 councilmembers are too dumb or too ignorant to realize it. If they are truly serving the best interests of Glendale, as they claim to do, ad nausea, then they would take action to reject this TO self-serving agreement or at the very least, table it and craft an agreement that protects Glendale and works in its favor. Any one of these issues is enough grounds to reject or table the current proposed agreement. I would hope Councilmember Hugh might be concerned enough about these agreement provisions to support such action. So should Councilmember Sherwood, who fancies himself a negotiator and businessman extraordinaire.  

©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.

Aug 14

8

The cost is too high

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 8, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Tohono O'odham  | Tagged With: , , , | 3 Comments

There is so much wrong with the City of Glendale/Tohono O’odham proposed agreement, one hardly knows where to begin. Let’s start with the fact that it was posted on the city’s website on Wednesday, August 6, 2014. Do you know when the council vote is scheduled for this agreement? How about in 6 days, on August 12, 2014. In a city with a population of 239,000 how many people are even aware of or know any of the details of this agreement? Let’s be generous and acknowledge that perhaps the number is 2,000 residents. That’s .008% of Glendale…not even 1%. What’s the rush? The city should take the time necessary to inform its residents. Each of the councilmembers should be hosting a district meeting to offer information on the proposed agreement and get feedback from their residents. There should be a presentation on its TV cable channel 11. How about a town hall? This is an issue that calls for extensive public outreach.

What does the Tohono O’odham want from Glendale?

  • A restatement of Glendale’s repeal of a past resolution opposing a reservation within Glendale’s Municipal Planning Area (MPA).
  • Support of the Nation’s putting the entire 134 acres into Trust.
  • Admit that the land is not, and never has been within the corporate limits of Glendale.
  • Public acknowledgement of Glendale’s support for the proposed casino and wants it built as quickly as possible.
  • Urge the State of Arizona not to challenge the Secretary of the Interior’s decision and to withdraw its legal appeal regarding annexation
  • Urge Arizona’s Congressional delegation to oppose Representative Trent Franks’ bill and the bill offered by Senators McCain and Flake
  • Issue a joint press release within 10 days of the signing of this agreement to publicly state all of the above stipulations
  • Glendale is not to challenge any decisions made by the Secretary of the Interior
  • Glendale must stipulate to the National Indian Gaming Commission or Department of the Interior that their property meets U.S. Code requirements
  • The land is not subject to Glendale’s design standards or review and the TO will use its own building codes
  • Glendale will provide water and wastewater services

What can be learned from the Tohono O’odham’s Wish List? They are scared because they see the hurdles before them which they may not clear successfully. Of course they want Glendale to repudiate everything. What if the Congressmen’s bills pass? The TO are dead in the water. Any one of the State of Arizona’s challenges could be successful. The National Indian Gaming Commission could deny their right to put gaming on the land. Again, why are 4 Glendale councilmembers so anxious to support the TO and to approve the agreement now…immediately? Because the TO are desperate. Their very Wish List signals that they need Glendale to avidly support them to succeed.

What will the TO give to Glendale?

  • The TO will pay for construction of infrastructure on their property (something that all developers ordinarily do). They refer to Exhibit C with a list of what that would be. Do we know? No…because there is no publicly available Exhibit C
  • The TO will pay for construction of offsite improvements if Glendale can prove they are a direct result of the TO project. They refer to Exhibit D with a list of what that could be. Do we know? No…because there is no publicly available Exhibit D
  • The TO may, if they feel like it, enter into a public safety mutual aid agreement
  • The TO promises to give the Glendale Convention and Visitors Bureau $100,000 a year and increase it by 2% a year ($2,000). That’s easy…that will come from the 8% a year the state requires of all Tribes to be dispersed to non-profits
  • The TO will pay Glendale $1.4 million a year and increase it by 2% a year until 2026. After that the payment drops to $900,000 a year. Why use the year 2026? That’s the year the current State Compact expires. Do you think the Tohono O’odham might suffer under a new Compact? If there is one? You betcha.
  • The TO waives Sovereign Immunity…sort of. First there must be Mediation, then Arbitration. Is the action is in accordance with the TO’s Resolution No. 14-317 the city might be able to legally sue the Tribe. What is in this mysterious and secret Resolution 14-317?

Set aside the fact, for the moment, that Glendale should not be entering into any agreement with the TO now. There are so many issues unsettled. Of all of the flawed stipulations in the proposed agreement the three major ones are: the amount of payment by the Tohono O’odham to Glendale; the prohibition of Design Review and construction inspection by Glendale;  and the issue of sovereign immunity. They will be explored further in the next blog.

Glendale promises to be cheerleader and lapdog, all rolled into one, for the Tohono O’odham…but the cost to Glendale is extremely high, especially in terms of its reputation and its integrity with the Tribes opposing the proposed casino, the State of Arizona, Arizona’s Congressional delegation and all Valley cities. The cost is too high.

© 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.

Aug 14

7

Glendale sells its soul for 30 pieces of gold

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 7, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Tohono O'odham  | Tagged With: , , , | 2 Comments

Glendale released the draft of an agreement with the Tohono O’odham (TO). Here is the link: http://www.glendaleaz.com/documents/SettlementAgreementDRAFT.pdf  . The Arizona Republic has an August 7, 2014 article on the subject as well. Here is their link: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2014/08/06/glendale-council-casino-agreement-tohono-tribe/13680763/ .

The first question that arises is why the sudden rush to get this accomplished? Think about it. Councilmember Gary Sherwood is under investigation by the Attorney General’s Office over allegations of violations of the Open Meeting Law. What if it proves true? There is always the possibility that he could be removed from office. If that were to occur, poof…the coalition of 4 councilmembers could become a minority of 3. There goes the coalition driving Glendale’s Tohono O’odham train.

As Mayor Weiers said in his testimony before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, why should one man, Gary Sherwood, who reneged on his anti-casino pledge to voters, be allowed to decide the fate of Glendale?

What is stranger still, there are Tribal law suits undecided and even if a decision is rendered, appeals are sure to follow. Legally this issue is far from being decided. Then there is legislation introduced by Senators McCain and Flake. Should the bill’s passage occur after the November General Election with the strong possibility of a Republican majority in the Senate, the TO are stopped in their tracks. Again, the question, why the rush?

Should we expect this issue to appear on the August 12, 2014 council meeting agenda? Remember all of the countless times Councilmember Alvarez has called for an issue to be decided by a vote of Glendale’s residents? Her silence in requesting a public vote on this issue is deafening. When an issue is going her way, as far as she is concerned there is no need for a public vote.

In an earlier blog I referred to educated and credible industry estimates of the kind of revenue that will be generated should such a casino be built in Glendale. The estimate is that the TO casino will net between $300 million and $350 million a year. Over 20 years the TO’s earnings from the proposed casino will be the stratosphere of $6 Billion. It’s a number that is mind boggling and nearly incomprehensible. And the TO, in a fit of generosity, are willing to give Glendale $26 million over 20 years? The Glendale City Council is now truly and certifiably nuts.

The draft agreement certainly favors the interests of the Tohono O’odham and not the City of Glendale. Look for the next blog to discuss the specifics of the draft agreement.

There has been so much deception and betrayal throughout this entire saga, not yet ended. The Tohono O’odham deceived and betrayed its Sister Tribes, the State of Arizona and the voters who approved the 2002 Compact. Councilmember Gary Sherwood deceived and betrayed his constituency by running on an anti-casino platform and then reversing his stance. Glendale is poised to betray the Tribes opposing the proposed casino, the State of Arizona, Arizona’s Congressional delegation, all of the region’s cities and most importantly, the people of Glendale…all for what? 30 pieces of gold.

© 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.

Jul 14

29

Casino reality

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 29, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Tohono O'odham  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 4 Comments

This is the proposed casino’s reality. Fort McDowell Casino isFort McDowel prime-rib 2 currently running ads that offer Prime Rib on Tuesdays for $6.99 and Crab Legs on Wednesdays and Thursdays for $7.99. It’s not possible for a Yard House, Gordon Biersch, McFadden’s or Saddle Ranch Chop House at Westgate to offer these prices.

Fort McDowell prime rib July 2014You will not see prices like these at the Westgate restaurants for very good reasons: sales tax and regulatory costs. You see, these restaurants have to collect federal, state, county and Glendale sales tax. The Glendale portion of the restaurant sales tax is 3.9%. When state and county taxes are added the total rate is 11.2%.What sales tax does the proposed Tohono O’odham casino with its planned restaurants pay? Nada…zip…nothing.

The icing on the cake is that the Glendale city council just voted to make the temporary sales tax increase permanent…just another stake in the hearts of these restaurants.

Add to the unlevel playing field of all kinds of taxes paid by businesses in Westgate the myriad of federal, state and local regulations with which these businesses must comply. It eats into Westgate businesses’ profits to do so. As a sovereign nation the TO is not required to comply with federal, state, county or local regulations. What regulatory costs does the proposed Tohono O’odham casino bear? Nada…zip…nothing.

TV Channel 5 weekly runs a “Dirty Dining” segment with recent results of inspections of restaurants in Maricopa County. Have you ever seen a Tribal restaurant inspection review? Of course not. Tribal reservations are not subject to these kinds of inspections. They are not subject to federal (OSHA), state, county or local health, safety and welfare regulations because they are a reservation and have sovereign immunity…consider the reservation as a foreign country planted within Glendale. A call placed to the Maricopa County Department of Environmental Services revealed that it has no jurisdiction over tribal restaurants and the Indian tribes regulate themselves. What regulations are there to protect the health, safety and welfare of the casino’s workers and patrons? Nada…zip…nothing.

What do you bet one of the very first elements the Tohono O’odham (TO) will build is paved parking lots. Why, you ask? So they can undercut parking prices for Cardinals games, hockey games and other non-sporting events held at Glendale’s arena, less than a mile away. Is there anything that can prevent the TO from offering cheap parking? Nada…zip…nothing.

I can see it now…shuttle busses packed to the gills disgorging seniors coming from the Sun Cities and Youngtown, spending their time playing bingo and the slots, then partaking of a buffet lunch or dinner before being whisked back to whence they came, never seeing the light of day at Westgate or Tanger Outlets.

Recently I received over the Indian gaming transom some  reliable estimates of what the proposed TO casino is projected to earn in revenue. The numbers are astounding. The numbers offered are not carved in stone but are reasonable estimates provided by people who would know within the industry. Estimates provided are that a new casino in Glendale would earn between six hundred million dollars and seven hundred million dollars a year in gross revenue.

It is estimated that the Tohono O’odham’s net will be half that amount (50%) or three hundred to three hundred and fifty million dollars a year. The net amount reflects the subtraction of all costs associated with O&M as well as an amount of 1% to 8% of the tribe’s gross gaming revenue to the state. To put that in some kind of perspective, it is estimated the TO will net a million dollars a day. Think about that…a million dollars a day.

Which leads to the question of why do the 32,000 members of the TO Nation average an income of $8,000 a year as Chairman Norris testified, under oath, before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs this past week, “Most of our reservation land is located in remote isolated areas and our population is one of the poorest in the United States with average individual incomes of just over $8000.” The Tohono O’odham have 3 casinos operating in southern Arizona. Their website says, “The Desert Diamond Casino, owned and operated by the Tohono O’odham Nation, provides three exciting entertainment venues in Southern Arizona: Desert Diamond Casino (Nogales Highway), Desert Diamond Casino (I-19 & Pima Mine Rd) and Golden Ha:san Casino (Why, AZ).” It goes on to say, “The mission of the casinos is to provide the means for a better quality of life for Tohono O’odham Nation and all people in Southern Arizona.” If the TO are netting even a portion of these revenue estimates from its three southern Arizona casinos, why is part of the net not distributed to the Nation’s members by the Tribal leadership to reduce the poverty rates of its 32,000 members?        

It is widely known that 4 Glendale councilmembers directed staff to negotiate with the Tohono O’odham and the results will be discussed at their August 5, 2014 workshop. Rumor has it that the city council has negotiated something in the neighborhood of $100,000 from the TO. That’s got to be a joke. If it turns out to be true, once again, Glendale’s city council will get snookered…this time by the TO…all the while congratulating staff for their work and patting themselves on the back.

They should demand…not ask…demand a 5% payment of the Tohono O’odham’s annual net revenue earned by all of the development placed on that site. It has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? What does 5% equal? How about $15,000,000 a year? Doesn’t that number sound familiar? It’s the same amount the city must pay annually to IceArizona under the management agreement. It would certainly go a long way to relieving the tremendous financial pressure the city faces annually as a result of that payment to IceArizona.

Are Glendale residents willing to sell their souls and bear yet another financial burden for not only a token payment but for the TO’s highly inflated numbers of temporary construction jobs and low-paying service industry jobs? Is this city council while pandering to a small number of extremely vocal residents that desperate and gullible? Is this the best that we can expect from our city council?

© 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.

Jul 14

26

More situational ethics

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 26, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 19 Comments

A comment received in response to my blog entitled Situational Ethics was that the commentator had talked to Councilmember Gary Sherwood who named me as the leaker to Darrell Jackson (reporter for the Glendale Star and original FOIA requester) of the infamous Sherwood email. There can be but one response to such ignorance and idiocy. My thanks to a  friend who sent me this YouTube clip that sums up my response perfectly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0 .

Councilmember Sherwood has responded to the allegations publicly, most notably in Darrell Jackson’s article in the Glendale Star. Here is the link: http://www.glendalestar.com/news/headlines/article_b55d0f60-1122-11e4-a1bb-0019bb2963f4.html . Let’s see what Mr. Sherwood has to say for himself, “It is no secret that I was pushing for the Coyotes,” Sherwood said by phone. “At the time we had acting attorney and city manager and a deputy city manager that we were not trusting of.” That in and of itself, is an incredible statement. Sherwood and the rest of council had enough confidence in Dick Bowers and Nick DiPiazza to appoint them as Acting City Manager and Acting City Attorney, respectively. Bowers and DiPiazza had been given direction by a majority of council (Sherwood, Martinez, Knaack and Chavira) to execute the best possible management agreement for the city with IceArizona. Bowers and DiPiazza took their obligation to craft the best deal possible seriously. Bowers, in fact, had publicly stated that he was concerned about the management fee of $15 million annually and its impact on Glendale’s precarious financial situation. Apparently this did not sit well with Sherwood, et.al. No wonder Sherwood and crew were doing an end-run around Bowers and DiPiazza by meeting with the IceArizona attorney, Nick Woods, and negotiating the deal. More situational ethics.

Sherwood goes on to say, “All of the items discussed (at the meeting with Wood) were supposed to be posted on our website; they just got delayed in posting.” That is no excuse for divulging Executive Session material. Sherwood’s expectation that it would eventually be publicly posted was not a valid rationalization for his giving Executive session material to Woods. More situational ethics.

Sherwood explains his direction to Martinez to delete the email by saying, “That last line was damning to look at, it was just for information.” He goes on, “Manny had no personal e-mail account, that (to delete) was for his benefit. I just wanted him to be careful so I just suggested he delete it.“ If the email had been appropriate to begin with, there would be no need to instruct Martinez to delete it. More situational ethics.

Sherwood’s dismissive attitude is reflected in, “We have had so many things go to the AG and it is another thing for them to look at. I just don’t see anything becoming (sic) of it.” He may be the only person on the planet to feel this way. The allegations of Open Meeting Law violations are serious this time. He practically calls out the Attorney General’s Office as being ineffectual.

Lastly, Sherwood says, “…he feels that this is a personal attack and was upset with the way it is being handled.” Why? Because he wasn’t given advance notice that a complaint was being filed? Welcome to the world of politics.

It is no secret that Gary Sherwood’ ambition is to become the next Mayor of Glendale. After all, since he was elected as a councilmember he has repeatedly tried to assume that role usurping Mayor Weiers at every available opportunity. It is also no secret that he can be extremely arrogant and rude. It has been demonstrated numerous times in his manner of response to citizen public hearing comments at council meetings. For example, his reaction to citizen comments on the billboard issue was to dismiss their lack of knowledge on the issue and to berate the numbers of anti-billboard attendees.

Many find it creditable to believe that Sherwood lined up four votes for an approval of the IceArizona contract. There has been rampant speculation for over a year that he and Chavira traded votes. Chavira would vote for the management agreement if Sherwood would vote for the casino. Coincidentally, Sherwood who ran on a platform of opposition to the casino flip-flopped and came out in favor of the casino in August, 2013, after the vote on the arena management deal. Many also believe that Sherwood was taking the lead and personally negotiating the arena contract and side-stepping the responsibilities of Glendale’s senior management. At that time he made public statements in media interviews which he used to portray himself as taking the lead position.  Is it any wonder that his actions are now under scrutiny?

It’s also no secret that many have expressed concern that Sherwood may have used the same tactics to secure a very recent council majority vote (Sherwood, Chavira, Alvarez and Hugh) of support for the proposed Tohono O’odham casino. That meeting appears to have been choreographed by the same 4 majority councilmembers who voted in the affirmative. Did they collude prior to the meeting causing yet another Open Meeting Law violation? I don’t know but I suppose over time we will all find out. A spider’s web of deceit and deception seems to be the hallmark of this council – a notion troubling many Glendale residents.

© 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

Jul 14

23

Ocotillo district candidate council pick

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 23, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Ocotillo council district candidates are similar to that of Cholla and Barrel district candidates. Some are articulate and exhibit varying degrees of intelligence. Some are passionate and believe that they want to be part of the solution with regard to Glendale’s financial difficulties. I congratulate them for their willingness to put themselves before the voters to be weighed and measured on the issues of the day. Choices among the 4 candidates will be based on the information publicly available to date that was used in the previous blogs about each candidate.

Michael Hernandez filed a No Activity Campaign Finance Report. He has raised no money and has spent nothing. The scheduled interview with him was cancelled by Mr. Hernandez.  These factors lead to the conclusion that he is not a viable candidate.

Jamie Aldama, Norma Alvarez and Bud Zomok have raised $5,000 to $8,500 to date. Bud Zomok is self funded in the amount of $5,000. It appears that Aldama will capture union campaign contributions while Alvarez will enjoy independent expenditure support from the Tohono O’odham tribe once again. Some of Alvarez’ contributors are not only activists such as Parraz and Maupin but they may well have been within her inner circle as advisors. What is extremely interesting is the Becker campaign contribution of $2,500. Read into that one whatever you wish and you would probably be correct. Aldama has had previous personal financial problems and has had 2 judgments rendered against him. His personal finances call into question his ability to deal with Glendale’s financial problems.

It is extremely difficult for the voter to determine how 3 out of the 4 Ocotillo candidates stand on a particular issue. Hernandez has no website. While each candidate may have developed campaign literature that they pass out or mail to the voters, it is just that, voter specific, and may not reach the entire Ocotillo district voter universe. Aldama and Alvarez have websites but there is no publicly available specific information offered on their positions on Glendale’s issues. Aldama does have an Issues page with the topics of economic diversity, public safety and public services. But what is offered is warm and fuzzy without acknowledging Glendale issues such as the sales tax sunset and Glendale’s enormous debt. Alvarez simply does not specifically address any issue. Zomok has the most robust website and clearly takes a stand on economic issues.

Zomok acknowledges that Glendale has financial problems and he supports the sunset of the sales tax increase in 2017. He offers several strategies for the reduction of Glendale’s debt including a thorough assessment of Camelback Ranch and the sale of some of Glendale’s assets.  None of the other Ocotillo candidates have publicly available material that would indicate their positions.

Alvarez, Hernandez and Zomok have lived in the Ocotillo district for a minimum of 10 years and some have lived in Glendale far longer. Questions have been raised about Aldama’s current residence in the Ocotillo district. Ocotillo candidate Ron Kolb filed a court complaint questioning Aldama’s residency. He then dropped the complaint, has withdrawn as an Ocotillo council candidate and contributed to Alvarez’ campaign. Maricopa County Recorder documents show Aldama still owns a home in the Yucca district and there is no public record available that shows his ownership of property in the Ocotillo district. It is possible that he could be renting a home in the Ocotillo district.

Hernandez works and it seems evident that finding the necessary time to fulfill councilmember responsibilities will be difficult for him. Zomok is self employed and that does provide him the flexibility needed to fulfill a councimember’s responsibilities. Alvarez has served on city council for 4 years and has demonstrated her inability to fulfill councilmember commitments due to medical issues or just plain pique. Aldama’s job may also prove problematical in finding the necessary time to participate in councilmember activities.

Alvarez has demonstrated her inaccessibility as a sitting councilmember. The only publicly available contact information for her is the main city council office telephone number published for all of the councilmembers. It is evident that she relied upon coaching when she participated in council workshops/meetings — coaching could be heard during her telephonic attendance. It has also become quite evident that if one does not support her version of reality she will seek retribution, if possible. Her past performance as a councilmember has provided ample evidence of her lack of positive contribution and a vote for her would reinforce her obstructionism.

There is also the question of breaking her word. When she ran for office the first time she pledged that she would serve one term. Up until the time to file for the Ocotillo seat this election cycle she had not reneged on her promise. Suddenly she filed to run for a second term.

Aldama is very similar to Alvarez but is a more polished version. The nagging questions about his residency need to be addressed and have not to date. His past personal financial difficulties signal a weakness that will not serve Glendale’s current financial needs.

On the other hand, Bud Zomok has demonstrated his thoughtful consideration of Glendale’s issues and he has been willing to share his position on those issues publicly. Zomok is articulate and intelligent. His willingness to solve Glendale’s problems is clearly evident.  Michael Hernandez’ lack of participation in the candidate process makes him a non-contender.

What is most fascinating about this district race is that there are 3 Hispanic candidates running in a majority Hispanic district. It is inevitable that they will split this demographic’s voting strength. It will be decided by which one can successfully get their voter base to the polls. Those voters who are supportive of the status quo should look to Aldama and Alvarez. Those voters who are supportive of change and reasonable alternative solutions should consider Zomok.

It seems safe to assume that with 4 candidates no one will take the Ocotillo councilmember seat out right in the Primary Election. The two top candidates will face off in the General Election in November. In previous blogs I could identify two candidates that should be examined more closely by the voters and appear worthy of support. For the reasons presented that is not possible in this district race and only one candidate merits voter support. It is not an easy decision for any voter but based upon information publicly available to everyone, this writer’s pick for the Ocotillo district is:

                       Jamie Aldama            

                       Norma Alvarez

                      Michael Hernandez

               checkmark__bottomheavy_140Bud Zomok

© 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.

Jul 14

22

Situational ethics

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 22, 2014
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • Blogs • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 19 Comments

Yesterday’s blog entitled “Please delete this email after you read it” regarding Councilmember Gary Sherwood’s email resulting in an allegation of violation of the state’s Open Meeting Law created quite a bit of controversy rippling through the Coyotes world, Glendale’s political world and even the journalistic world. I suppose the reaction from the Coyotes world is the most predictable.  As anyone would expect, the Coyotes fans are fiercely loyal and anything that raises the specter of the disappearance of their team from Glendale sends them into overdrive. Their first reaction is to kill the messenger. In this case that includes not only me but Mayor Weiers, the Glendale Star and the Arizona Republic.  They denigrated Mayor Weiers for outing actions that may prove to be illegal. They gnashed their teeth over my blog and the newspapers’ articles because they perceived the information as yet another hit on their beloved team.

What they fail to recognize is that while the 4 councilmembers’ actions preceded a vote on the Coyotes deal, those actions could have preceded any council vote on any issue.  The troubling issue for many people is not the outcome of the vote but rather the actions that preceded and led up to the vote. The allegation is not about the Coyotes. The allegation is about improper behavior by 4 councilmembers. An investigation by the AG’s Office will surely answer the question, did they collude behind closed doors prior to the vote? Did they conduct city business secretly to assure a positive vote? Why speak to the issue of a possible Open Meeting Law violation when instead fans can deride the messengers? Why is it alright to dismiss possible illegal behavior because it is associated with a vote on the Coyotes deal? It’s a case of situational ethics.

The reaction from the Glendale political world is also predictable. It was learned that when the email first came to light, Vice Mayor Knaack denied attending the meeting. However, that would never do and would not last long. It would have had Sherwood and Knaack as adversaries; something they can ill afford right now. Today, the explanation given is that Sherwood and Knaack were in the same car when they received a cell phone call from Woods. Two things are questionable about this scenario. Where was Sammy? After all, Sherwood in his email says, “Sammy is already on board as he was with us last night.” Even if you can swallow this car explanation, it doesn’t make the allegation go away. The Open Meeting Law says, “Splintering the quorum can be done by meeting in person, by telephone, electronically, or through other means to discuss a topic that is or may be presented to the public body for a decision.” Note that they are not denying the basis of the allegation. Are they trying to muddy the waters by responding to minutia such as where they were when the meeting of the 3 and Woods took place? It’s another case of situational ethics.

The reaction from the print world can only be described as fascinating. Yesterday afternoon, July 21, I received a phone call from Paul Giblin, an Arizona Republic reporter. He proceeded to express his offense that I dared to say that I had scooped reporter Peter Corbett and the Arizona Republic.  He opined that my writing was done on the back of Peter Corbett who had made the FOIA request. He said that my journalistic standards were not as high as that of the Arizona Republic’s, and ended by saying; enjoy writing your little blog.

Later that day, I learned that Darrell Jackson of the Glendale Star had made the same kind of FOIA request. Who made the first request?  Update: July 23, 2014. I learned today that Darrell Jackson made the original FOIA request over 2 weeks ago. Did Peter Corbett do his story on the back of Darrell Jackson? Isn’t it weirdly coincidental that 2 reporters made the same FOIA request? Even more interesting is who tipped them off to the Sherwood email and why? What was the source’s motive for doing so? Situational ethics once again.

As for journalistic standards…hah…that’s like the pot calling the kettle black. Arizona Republic readers have complained about the perceived bias in this paper’s stories for years; to the point that it has become legendary.   Paul Giblin’s outrage is much ado about nothing. More situational ethics.

© 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.

Jul 14

21

Please delete this email after you read it

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 21, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , | 23 Comments

Sherwood signatureVery recently I received this email over the Glendale city hall transom. It was produced as a result of a Freedom of Information Request. It is an email sent by Councilmember Gary Sherwood to Councilmember Manny Martinez and Jeff Teetsel (IStar manager of Westgate). It was sent on June 29, 2013 approximately one week before a majority of the Glendale City Council voted to accept the $15 million a year management agreement with IceArizona.

The main figures in the Glendale cast of characters at that time were: Mayor Jerry Weiers, Vice Mayor Yvonne Knaack, Councilmembers Martinez, Hugh, Alvarez, Chavira and Sherwood. The Acting City Manager was Dick Bowers and the Acting City Attorney was Nick DiPiazza. Nick Woods represented IceArizona in contract negotiations for management of the city’s arena.

SherwoodtoMartinezJune292013_Page_1 Blog

Sherwood email to Martinez

 

 

 

 

The actual email is pictured to the left but the text reads as follows:                                                                                       To: Martinez, Manny; Jeff Teetsel                                                     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.”

Thanks,

Gary D. Sherwood

There are several issues of grave concern with this email. The most serious is a possible violation of the State’s Open Meeting Law.  The following is taken from the AG’s office explanation of one section of the Open Meeting Law:

 “7.5.2 Circumvention of the Open Meeting Law.Discussions and deliberations between less than a majority of the members of a governing body, or other devices, when used to circumvent the purposes of the Open Meeting Law violate that law. See Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. 75-8; Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison, 296 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1974). Public officials may not circumvent public discussion by splintering the quorum and having separate or serial discussions with a majority of the public body members. Splintering the quorum can be done by meeting in person, by telephone, electronically, or through other means to discuss a topic that is or may be presented to the public body for a decision. Public officials should refrain from any activities that may undermine public confidence in the public decision making process established in the Open Meeting Law, including actions that may appear to remove discussions and decisions from public view.”

What the explanation above means is that there are to be no private discussions by a majority (4 councilmembers or more) of the governing body if the topic of the discussion is about a matter to be voted upon by the city council. The IceArizona contract was voted upon one month later. The law also prohibits an elected official (councilmember) from acting as a “go-between,” relaying a position on an issue to be voted upon from one councilmember to another.  Sherwood’s email shows him relaying information to Martinez he had discussed the previous night with Nick Woods, Knaack and Chavira. That action is known as “daisy-chaining.”

Sherwood, Knaack, Martinez and Chavira were the 4 affirmative votes for the IceArizona contract. All four could be considered equally culpable of a possible violation of the Open Meeting law by discussing/negotiating elements of the Coyotes contract amongst themselves, privately, when it was soon to come before them for a public vote… all the while excluding the remaining 3 councilmember: Weiers, Hugh and Alvarez.  

Another alarming admission by Sherwood in this email is that he shared Executive session material with Nick Woods. The city was negotiating with IceArizona. The ad hoc discussion between Sherwood, Knaack and Chavira and Woods may have harmed or weakened the city’s position. City contract negotiations are a direct managerial responsibility of the City Manager and City Attorney. Could this action be a violation of the city’s charter? We’ll explore this topic in the next blog.

Every councilmember knows of the prohibition about not sharing E session material. Doing so is a very serious violation of the Open Meeting Law. Sherwood says quite clearly in his email that is exactly what he did with Nick Woods and then attempts to minimize the violation by characterizing Woods as a friend. It makes no difference. E session material is not to be shared with anyone…even friends or family.

It seems that Sherwood was putting pressure on Acting City Manager Dick Bowers and Acting City Attorney Nick DiPiazza to get the IceArizona deal done…quickly. We know that Mr. Bowers publicly addressed the $15 million a year IceArizona (at that time IceArizona was called Renaissance) contract and voiced concerns about Glendale’s fiscal health if it were approved at that figure. In a June 23, 2013 Dick Bowers memo to city council he said, “Contrary to what might appear in the papers I don’t see this as a ‘done deal’. Far from it.” He went on to say, “I cannot shake the concern for the level of risk expected to be borne by the city…I keep coming back to that same level of discomfort of Glendale having all of the risk in this deal.” Clearly Bowers had substantial concerns and it is not unreasonable to think that Sherwood was advising Bowers that he had the four votes needed to approve the deal.

From this email we can see who was talking to who privately about this issue. Sherwood seems to have taken the lead and all 4 councilmembers may have been negotiating collectively yet privately with IceArizona’s attorney. He acknowledges Knaack and Chavira as participants in his meeting with Nick Woods. He then sent his summary email to Martinez.

names                                                

Why did Sherwood ask Martinez to delete his email after reading? It appears to be tantamount to an admission that its contents should not have been memorialized.  There are so many questions and so few answers. Is it possible that Sherwood asked Martinez to delete his email because he realized he was “daisy-chaining?” Did Martinez delete this email as requested? Maybe…maybe  not, leading to its discovery now, over a year later.

Sherwood’s email and his comments within it warrant an investigation by the Attorney General’s Office to determine the validity of Open Meeting law violation allegations sure to arise as his email becomes more and more public. At this point, Sherwood’s email raises a lot of questions. I suspect that it may generate many citizen complaints to the AG’s Office. From my years of experience on council, it looks like a “smoking gun,” written by Sherwood himself that implicates him and 3 other councilmembers in possible Open Meeting Law violations.

So, for all those citizens who spoke in favor of or against the Coyotes deal the night council voted on the matter, it was in vain. It appears that 4 councilmembers, Sherwood, Knaack , Martinez and Chavira, had already made their minds up and shared their positions with one another at the end of June, 2013.

Update 1:00 PM. I am pleased to report that I have scooped the Arizona Republic. At 11:16 AM I published my blog on the Sherwood email. At 12:30 PM Peter Corbett, a reporter for the Arizona Republic released his story on the same Sherwood email. Here is the link:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2014/07/21/glendale-mayor-council-members-violated-open-meeting-law/12956523/ . I knew Corbett had made the FOIA request for said email but I was perplexed because there was no Arizona Republic story. I was beginning to think someone had quashed it.

Mayor Jerry Weiers is considering filing a complaint with the AG’s office. If after reading this blog and Corbett’s article, you think Mayor Weiers should file a complaint, please send him an email at: jweiers@glendaleaz.com and let him know you support such an action.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

 

Jul 14

18

Ocotillo district council candidate Michael Hernandez

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 18, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , | 1 Comment

Please note: Some of the information presented here is repetition of information from my previous blog on Cholla and Barrel district council candidates and applies to all candidates. Some of you reading this blog for the first time may not have read the previous ones.

If you have relatives, friends or acquaintances that live in the Ocotillo district, please consider passing this series of blogs on to them as another tool to help them evaluate the Ocotillo candidates prior to casting their vote.

Early ballots are mailed at the end of July, 2014. Candidates (well, most of them) have their websites up, are raising campaign money (or not) and beginning to stake out their positions on Glendale issues.

We move on to the Ocotillo district council candidates in alphabetical order: Jamie Aldama, Norma Alvarez, Michael Hernandez and Bud Zomok.

All of the information to be discussed will be based on the candidates’ websites and their June 30, 2014 Campaign Finance Reports. Some of the candidates I had met or worked with previously and am familiar with their positions on various issues. Others I have never met and so I arranged an interview with them. The same questions were asked of all candidates that were interviewed.

We’ll take a look at each candidate’s Campaign Finance Report of June 30, 2014. Here is the link to Glendale City Clerk’s posting of each candidate finance report: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/2014PoliticalCommitteeCampaignFinanceReports.cfm . Go to that page and you can choose which candidate’s campaign finance report you wish to read.

Each report totals 19 pages. The first 2 pages are summary pages. Section A will show all contributions from individuals. Section B shows all political committee contributions. Section C shows loans either the candidate made to the campaign or any other loan received. Section D deals with all expenditures. Section E is for In-Kind contributions and Section F shows miscellaneous items.

This could be considered nit-picky but the finance report is 19 pages. Each candidate’s report should consist of a minimum of 19 pages (there may be multiple pages especially in Sections A and D). Some candidates did not submit the minimal 19 pages. It could be assumed that if they had no financial activity to report in certain areas they just did not bother to include those pages. Technically, that is not a complete report. All pages should be submitted and if there was no activity to report in certain categories, the candidate can leave the page blank, draw a line through the page or indicate “NA,” no activity. Even if a candidate has a treasurer who fills out the report the candidate is still ultimately responsible for the accuracy and veracity of his or her filing.

There is another kind of Campaign Finance Report a candidate can submit and that is a No Activity Statement. That means the candidate didn’t receive any contributions and did not spend any money. Some of the council candidates filed this kind of report.

The items to look for are: what individuals are contributing; are they Glendale residents, relatives, attorneys or other professionals; or Political Action Committees (PACs)? Did the candidate loan his or her campaign any money? How much? Are the expenditures typical of a campaign; signs, printing, bank charges, food for fund raising events or volunteers; web site design or hosting? Is the candidate using a paid political consultant? At what cost?

At this stage of the game candidates are often reluctant to reveal too much about their finances. They may ask that large contributions be made after June 1, 2014 to be reported in the Pre-Primary Report or after August 15, 2014 for the Post-Primary Report.

Michael Hernandez

Campaign Finance Report –He submitted a No Activity campaign finance report. He raised no money and spent no money.

Campaign contribution limits have become very generous as a result of recent court rulings. In the last election of 2012, the individual contribution limit was $400. Now it is $2,500. A political committee’s limit is now $2,500 and a Super PAC’s limit is $5,000. The trick for local candidates is to get large contributions. It’s not an easy task.

Campaign website – He has no website.

I scheduled an interview with him and on the day of the interview he stated he could not participate due to work commitments.

With no funds, no information about him or his positions on the issues Mr. Hernandez cannot be considered as a viable candidate.

After review of all 4 Ocotillo district candidates we’ll try to narrow the choices down to 2 people. In this district, as with the other council races, there are so many candidates none of them are expected to win outright in the primary and we can expect a run off in the general election in November.  Next up, Bud Zomok.

© 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.

Jul 14

18

Ocotillo district candidate Bud Zomok

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 18, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , | 1 Comment

Please note: Some of the information presented here is repetition of information from my previous blog on Cholla and Barrel district council candidates and applies to all candidates. Some of you reading this blog for the first time may not have read the previous ones.

If you have relatives, friends or acquaintances that live in the Ocotillo district, please consider passing this series of blogs on to them as another tool to help them evaluate the Ocotillo candidates prior to casting their vote.

Early ballots are mailed at the end of July, 2014. Candidates (well, most of them) have their websites up, are raising campaign money (or not) and beginning to stake out their positions on Glendale issues.

We move on to the Ocotillo district council candidates in alphabetical order: Jamie Aldama, Norma Alvarez, Michael Hernandez and Bud Zomok.

All of the information to be discussed will be based on the candidates’ websites and their June 30, 2014 Campaign Finance Reports. Some of the candidates I had met or worked with previously and am familiar with their positions on various issues. Others I have never met and so I arranged an interview with them. The same questions were asked of all candidates that were interviewed.

We’ll take a look at each candidate’s Campaign Finance Report of June 30, 2014. Here is the link to Glendale City Clerk’s posting of each candidate finance report: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/2014PoliticalCommitteeCampaignFinanceReports.cfm . Go to that page and you can choose which candidate’s campaign finance report you wish to read.

Each report totals 19 pages. The first 2 pages are summary pages. Section A will show all contributions from individuals. Section B shows all political committee contributions. Section C shows loans either the candidate made to the campaign or any other loan received. Section D deals with all expenditures. Section E is for In-Kind contributions and Section F shows miscellaneous items.

This could be considered nit-picky but the finance report is 19 pages. Each candidate’s report should consist of a minimum of 19 pages (there may be multiple pages especially in Sections A and D). Some candidates did not submit the minimal 19 pages. It could be assumed that if they had no financial activity to report in certain areas they just did not bother to include those pages. Technically, that is not a complete report. All pages should be submitted and if there was no activity to report in certain categories, the candidate can leave the page blank, draw a line through the page or indicate “NA,” no activity. Even if a candidate has a treasurer who fills out the report the candidate is still ultimately responsible for the accuracy and veracity of his or her filing.

There is another kind of Campaign Finance Report a candidate can submit and that is a No Activity Statement. That means the candidate didn’t receive any contributions and did not spend any money. Some of the council candidates filed this kind of report.

The items to look for are: what individuals are contributing; are they Glendale residents, relatives, attorneys or other professionals; or Political Action Committees (PACs)? Did the candidate loan his or her campaign any money? How much? Are the expenditures typical of a campaign; signs, printing, bank charges, food for fund raising events or volunteers; web site design or hosting? Is the candidate using a paid political consultant? At what cost?

At this stage of the game candidates are often reluctant to reveal too much about their finances. They may ask that large contributions be made after June 1, 2014 to be reported in the Pre-Primary Report or after August 15, 2014 for the Post-Primary Report.

Bud Zomok

Campaign Finance Report – He submitted all 19 pages. He has no treasurer. He is self funded in the amount of $5,000 to date. He had 3 individual contributions totaling $450 to date; 1 individual Glendale contribution from Ken Clark for $250. Contributions under $50 total $320 to date. He reports only 2 expenditures to date; $87 for website hosting and $160 for finance training. Please remember, Mr. Zomok ultimately bears the responsibility for the accuracy and veracity of his report.

Campaign contribution limits have become very generous as a result of recent court rulings. In the last election of 2012, the individual contribution limit was $400. Now it is $2,500. A political committee’s limit is now $2,500 and a Super PAC’s limit is $5,000. The trick for local candidates is to get large contributions. It’s not an easy task.

Campaign website – his website is: http://budforglendale.com  .

However there is no contact information provided – no phone; no address; no email address. The visitor can fill in a form on the Contact page.

His website provides you an Issues page with clear and unambiguous positions on Glendale issues. He opposes removing the sales tax sunset. He opposes placing more debt on Glendale and believes that there are opportunities to sell some of Glendale assets. He believes that Camelback Ranch is a major contributor to Glendale’s debt and would support the renegotiation of that contract as well as others. He opposes negotiation with the Tohono O’odham and believes that their effort to establish a casino in Glendale will destroy the 2002 voter approved state compact. He states that the “new” senior management is drifting in the same direction as that of the “old” senior management. I did meet with Mr. Zomok. I asked him the same series of questions that had been used in previous interviews with candidates.

Mr. Zomok does not share any biographical information on his website. He has participated in Glendale community affairs, most notably in historic preservation. He has his home in Catlin Court and spent a great deal to restore the structure.  He also has a business in downtown Glendale and says it provides the flexibility needed to fulfill the responsibilities and commitments of a councilmember. He understands that the city council has no authority over school districts.

After review of all 4 Ocotillo district candidates we’ll try to narrow the choices down to 2 people. In this district, as with the other council races, there are so many candidates none of them are expected to win outright in the primary and we can expect a run off in the general election in November.  Next up, Ocotillo district council picks.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

« Previous Page — Next Page »