Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Dec 13

19

Merry Christmas to all…

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

card 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Joyce Clark, 2013

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

Dec 13

16

Arena numbers confusion

Posted by Joyce Clark on December 16, 2013
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 5 Comments

My blog produced a raft of emails indicating that I wasn’t very clear in my recitation of arena numbers. Here’s an attempt to clarify:

We will not know about parking revenues until January 31, 2014 because that number is due quarterly per the arena management agreement and will reflect October-November-December (4th quarter of Fiscal Year 2013-14) parking surcharges.

However, there is a line item on these monthly reports that troubles me. In none of the monthly reports does it indicate that IceArizona is depositing Supplemental Ticket surcharge revenue ($1.50 per ticket) into an escrow account.  It is an escrow account designed to supplement revenues to the city (If needed) to try to make the city whole for $9 million dollars. You see, this Fiscal Year 2013-14, the city council budgeted $6 million for arena management (keep in mind nothing is budgeted for FY 2014-15 because the budget has not been set or approved  by council and will not be until June 2014). Since the city only budgeted $6 million dollars of the $15 million dollars needed to pay IceArizona the arena management fee, the idea behind the surcharges and fees was to earn an additional $9 million dollars for the city. That would hopefully make the city whole for the $15 million dollars a year to IceArizona. If the $9 million wasn’t generated the Supplemental Ticket surcharge of $1.50 per ticket was to be given to the city to cover the short fall.  Here is the exact verbage:

Supplemental Surcharge

“9.1.3 Supplemental Surcharge. In addition, throughout the Term, a Supplemental Surcharge of $1.50 per Qualified Ticket (“Supplemental Surcharge”) shall be imposed by the Arena Manager for all Hockey and non-Hockey Events. The Supplemental Surcharge shall be deposited by Arena Manager into one or more an escrow accounts in the name of Arena Manager and the City, and shall be the property of each Party to the extent each is entitled to such monies under this Agreement as determined by Arena Manager and the City jointly (the Supplemental Surcharge Escrow Account”): provided that such deposits shall be held in accordance with and subject to audit pursuant to the procedures described on Exhibit “N” attached hereto (the “Supplemental Surcharge Procedures”). City shall have the right to draw upon the Supplemental Escrow Account within 60 days following the last day of each Fiscal Year, to the extent City received less than $9,000,000 in total revenue from operations at the Arena pursuant to this Agreement during the immediately preceding Fiscal Year (the “Deficit Amount”), as further described in the Supplemental Surcharge Procedures and in an amount not to exceed the total funds available in the Supplemental Surcharge Escrow Account at the end of such Fiscal Year. The funds remaining in the Supplemental Surcharge Escrow Account following payment of the Deficit Amount, if any, to City shall belong to Arena Manager free and clear of all claims of City and shall be disbursed to Arena Manager such that said escrow account is reset to a zero balance following the reconciliation pursuant to the Supplemental Surcharge Procedures at the beginning of each Fiscal Year. The Supplemental Surcharge amounts imposed by the Arena Manager which are the property of Arena Manager pursuant to this Section 9.1.3 are pledged to the City, as more fully described in the Supplemental Surcharge Procedures, to the extent of the City’s interest, with the City claiming no interest in the balance of such account. The Supplemental Surcharge Escrow Account shall be held in one or more (FDIC insured) accounts of the Arena Manager and the City jointly, at one or more Third Party financial institutions agreed to by the City and the Arena Manager. To the extent of any inconsistency between this Section 9.1.3 and the terms of the Supplemental Surcharge Procedures, the terms of this Section 9.1.3 shall control.”

Where are the Supplemental Ticket Surcharge numbers per month? There should be $8,206 for October; $101,644 for November; and $96,758 for December for a total of $206, 608 to date. So, where’s the money? Why no accounting in the monthly report? Why is there no indication that these funds have been deposited in an interest bearing escrow account? Could this be considered a breach of contract?

According to the Monthly Arena Revenues & Expenditures, Arena Lease and Safety & Security Agreements, a public document that will be used by staff in its presentation at the December 17, 2013 city council workshop on this issue, here are the monthly ticket surcharge revenues that are to be paid to the city. These are public figures provided by the city based on figures  provided by IceArizona. Here is the link: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agendasandminutes/Workshops/Agendas/121713-W05.pdf .

Month ending Sept 30, 2013:

Ticket surcharge Hockey ($3 per ticket)     $16,413 total revenue surcharge for 1 hockey game.

Divide $16,413 by $3 and attendance for this one game was 5,471.

Month ending October 31, 2013:

Ticket surcharge Hockey ($3 per ticket)    $203,289 total revenue surcharge for 7 hockey games.

Divide $203,289 by $3 and attendance total for all 7 games was 67,756.

Divide 67,756 by 7 games and average attendance per game was 9,679.

Month ending November 30, 2013:

Ticket surcharge Hockey ($3 per ticket)    $193,517 total revenue surcharge for 5 hockey games.

Divide $193,517 by $3 and attendance total for all 5 games was  64,505.

Divide 64,505 by 5 games and average attendance per game was 12,901.

Oops. I just checked the Coyotes website and it lists SIX games in November. Whose mistake is it? If it’s the city’s incompetence perhaps City Manager Fischer should fire someone else in the Finance Department. If it’s IceArizona’s mistake was it deliberate?

We’ve all heard the rumors about Anthony LeBlanc handing out 2,000 complementary tickets per game. Whether it’s true or not has no bearing on ticket revenues because they would be free tickets there would be no ticket surcharge. You attendance gurus out there better check your attendance figures because these are the numbers that come from IceArizona. After all, IceArizona wouldn’t low ball the numbers to the city only to exaggerate them for the media, would they? Nah-h-h-h-h.

By the way I ran into Mr. LeBlanc at a Coyotes game and had a few minute to quiz him on the numbers of the Coyotes deal. Mr. LeBlanc quite clearly stated to me that they needed attendance of 15,500 per game to “make it.” His number, not mine.

© Joyce Clark, 2013

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

Dec 13

16

Council workshop agenda bears no Christmas presents

Posted by Joyce Clark on December 16, 2013
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale and the NFL Super Bowl • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

The Glendale City Council workshop scheduled for Tuesday, December 17, 2013 will finally force this council to declare its financial intentions for the future. It is a jam packed agenda but there are several items that are especially important to each and every citizen in Glendale. One is a presentation of Monthly Arena Reports and the other is the Five Year Financial Forecast.

The Monthly Arena Reports were a request of Councilmember Alvarez. We know her motive and that is to show how much the city is bleeding from the current management agreement. Staff will prepare and post online each monthly arena report. The December 31, 2013 report is to be public by January 31, 2014.

Unfortunately based upon the material offered at workshop the city does appear to be bleeding as a result, in part, of the latest arena management agreement. Here is what each of the monthly arena reports will include:

Revenues to the city

  • Sales tax collected inside the arena
  • Base rent ($500,000 annually)
  • Ticket surcharge for hockey events ($3 per ticket)
  • Ticket surcharge for non-hockey events ($5 per ticket)
  • Supplemental surcharge ($1 per ticket)
  • Parking revenue for hockey events ($10 per car)
  • Parking revenue for non-hockey events ($15 per car)
  • Naming rights (20% to city)
  • Naming rights for indoor stage (100% to city)
  • City sponsored events (revenues minus expenses)
  • Safety & Security Fee ($174,122 a year)
  • Hourly security costs for police
  • Hourly security costs for fire
  • Interest income placed in an escrow account

Expenses to be paid by the city

  • Arena capital improvements ($500,000 annually for now)
  • Quarterly management fee ($3,750,000 per quarter; $15M annually)

What does all of this mean? The sales tax collection, ticket surcharges and public safety revenues are not new revenues.  The only new revenues, courtesy of IceArizona, are the rent of half a million a year, naming rights and parking revenue. IceArizona has paid $219,702 to date of its annual rent. There is no new contract on naming rights as the current contract has not yet expired. As for parking revenue we will not see the first revenue number until January 31, 2014. It will be an interesting number for IceArizona keeps the first $20,000 (that’s 2,000 cars at $10 each) per game in parking revenue. Tom Duensing, Executive Director of Financial Services, in a recent article forecast(http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/20131213glendale-fiscal-forecast-grim.html) that the Coyotes deal will cost the city an estimated $8.1 million next year, after the city receives its revenue associated with the deal. That’s one Christmas present denied.

The second major agenda item, the Five Year Forecast, is even worse. What it boils down to is that Glendale is spending more than it takes in. The annual amount that the city is short in revenue averages $14M a year until 2017 when the temporary sales tax increase disappears. Then the average deficit balloons to $30M a year. Do you smell the temporary sales tax increase becoming permanent? If it occurs it is a major promise broken and will have consequences the next time the city asks Glendale voters to approve anything.

While operating expenses continue not to be controlled as effectively as they could be there are other obligations that put in the city in trouble. The city’s debt service (of about $30M a year) is 17% of its operating budget. It is way too high and according to Moody’s it should be in the 10% to 12% range. Add the city’s contractual obligations (of about $25M a year) at 13% of its operating budget. Fully 30% of the city’s operating budget is used to pay debt service and contractual obligations. Add to that figure, personnel costs of over 50%. There isn’t enough money to cover all of this. No Christmas present here either.

Also of note is the projected expense for the Super Bowl of $1.7 million dollars with expected revenue of $200,000. It appears that this expense is greatly underestimated. In 2008 the city’s expenses were over $2 million dollars with a loss of about $1 million dollars. In 7 years every expense has gone up, not down and the expectation was, until now, that it could easily cost the city $4 million to host. The city has only factored in the $1.7 million it must pay to the Host Committee. It has not accounted for any additional costs including staff time.

Staff will be asking council to provide direction for the upcoming FY 14-15 council budget workshops. Their choices are: fix the deficit for the coming fiscal year or fix the deficit long term. If they wish to send a strong, positive signal they will embrace a long term fix. If they are still in hopeful mode they will choose to solve the ongoing problem short term and like chicken little, put it off as long as possible. Which way will they go?

© Joyce Clark, 2013

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

Dec 13

4

No ghettos in Arrowhead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donations to non-profit/school districts:

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

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

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

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

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

© Joyce Clark, 2013

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

Dec 13

2

Employed or unemployed…at whose will?

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

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

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

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

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

Under the proposal add:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

© Joyce Clark, 2013

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

Nov 13

19

Wishful thinking

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 19, 2013
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Glendale Municipal Airport • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

 

The Tuesday, November 19, 2013 Glendale city council workshop is jam packed and includes a Development Impact Fee update, the Fire Department Budget deficit, special project recommendations and the Ballpark Boulevard extension.

Since the Arizona Legislature changed the way all cities in the state can impose, collect and spend Development Impact Fees Glendale, like many other cities, has developed a new Impact Fee structure. Impact Fees are charged to new developments and the developers typically add these fees into the price of a home, apartment, office, commercial or industrial building. Tischler Bise is the consultant hired to prepare the study on Impact Fees. I would like to know the cost of the study for I assure you, as thorough as it is, it was not cheap.

The consultants divide Glendale into three zones. The East Zone runs the entire length of Glendale, north to south and from 43rd Avenue to 75th Avenue. It is a very large zone and is approximately 42 square miles.  The Loop 101 zone is the smallest running from Northern Avenue to Camelback Road, 75th Avenue to 115 Avenue. It is a very small zone and is approximately 13 square miles. The West Zone is all land within Glendale’s annexation boundaries and is approximately 36 square miles. Although very thorough the consultants provide no rationale for the establishment of the Zones that are essential to the study.

There is concern with the disparity of size of the zones for they comprise a “nexus.” By that is meant that development impact fees are collected and spent within each zone. With the Loop 101 Zone being the smallest there will be less opportunity to collect/spend fees to provide the same quantity and quality of infrastructure as enjoyed by the East Zone. As an equitable issue all land south of Northern Avenue from 43rd Avenue to 115th Avenue should form the Loop 101 Zone. That would remove approx. 12 square miles from the East Zone making it approx. 30 square miles and increasing the Loop 101 Zone to 25 square miles. The West Zone would remain static at 36 square miles.

The balance of the study is impressive. Their facts and figures are well grounded and formulas are used to determine what the new fee structure for state mandated infrastructure should be. Although the Development Impact Fee structure is no longer what Glendale and every other city used previously there is no choice but to work within the new state-mandated regulations. We will not see the kind of Impact Fees that helped to make Glendale what it is today but it is important that we make the best use of them possible. With the exception of the determination of the zone configuration this is exactly what this study does.

The second item of discussion is the fire department’s deficit. There is but one question to ask. Is the fire department being managed effectively by current Fire Chief Burdick? In juxtaposition the Police Department led by Chief Deborah Black is not facing this kind of deficit. What kind of deficit? How about $1,674,887 minus one-time savings netting a deficit of $1,328,070? In addition the on-going, annual deficit of over $800,000  goes to pay for overtime due to the department’s philosophy of “constant staffing.” It’s time for a study to demonstrate which brings more value to citizens – constant staffing which entails an enormous amount of overtime at time and a half pay or the hiring of more personnel eliminating the need for the constant staffing regimen and its requisite overtime pay.

That item will be followed by a presentation and discussion of recommendations that resulted from the half million dollar external audit.  The City Auditor’s and City Attorney’s roles will be part of that discussion as well as the Trust Fund Citizen Boards and departmental internal premiums for risk management.

The last item of discussion will be what to do about Ballpark Boulevard. The city in an agreement with the two baseball teams agreed to extend Ballpark Boulevard north to 99th Avenue and Maryland Avenue. The current, approved concept will cost the city $18 million to acquire land for right-of-way and construction. Mayor Weiers asked that two alternatives be considered that would come in between $6 and $8 million. Both of these alternatives would run adjacent to the city’s airport on either its west or east side. The only problem with the alternatives is that they will not replace the contractually mandated concept of connecting to 99th and Maryland. That will still have to be done. So the question is…does the city construct a stop gap measure costing $6 to $8 million now knowing that down the road it still must spend $18 million per its contract with the City of Phoenix and both baseball teams? The city has no money right now and without any demonstrated urgency it is something that can wait. Neither Phoenix nor the teams are demanding immediate action.

This is not going to be one of the council’s typical one hour or less meetings. The issues are complex and I would hope that council “has done its homework” and is prepared to ask meaningful and relevant questions on all of these complex issues…but then again, it could be wishful thinking.

© Joyce Clark, 2013

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

Nov 13

4

Glendale alert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Joyce Clark, 2013

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

Nov 13

1

Staying quiet in Glendale

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 1, 2013
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

As a result of an external audit that cost Glendale in excess of a half million dollars four city personnel either resigned or were terminated. Diane Goke, Budget Director and Sherry Schurhammer, Executive Director of Finance resigned. Horatio Skeete, Assistant City Manager (at the time in question he was a Deputy and Pam Kavanaugh was Assistant City Manager) and Don Bolton, Assistant Financial Officer were terminated by newly hired City Manager Brenda Fischer.

In an Arizona Republic article of October 21, 2013 entitled Appeals board: Staying quiet wasn’t option for ex-Glendale bookkeeper City Manager Brenda Fischer said, “City employees are duty bound to find a way to speak up when warranted.” Here is the link: http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/20131018appeals-board-staying-quiet-wasnt-option-for-exglendale-bookkeeper.html . She goes on to say, “Whether it’s going around the management, whether it’s going to the (Attorney General’s) Office anonymously. We had an ethics hotline. They could have anonymously informed the media, put some public pressure on it. They could have written letters to the editor. They could have — if they were uncomfortable being asked to do something inappropriate or illegal — they could have resigned from their employment.” Uh, excuse me but rarely, if ever, are anonymous complaints considered legitimate by the media or Attorney General’s Office and followed up. Since when is a whistle blower required to resign to report wrong doing within the organization?

She must of course be referring to a world peopled by Mother Theresa. Not the real Glendale world as it existed four years ago. There is no such thing as a perfect world, not then and not now – the one that Fischer apparently believes existed at the time. Fischer acted upon her lack of knowledge and her inability to understand a Glendale ruled by City Manager Beasley. She came in as the new City Manager and felt that she needed to make a point.

It was a time of pervasive “Big Brotherism.” If any city personnel had any kind of interaction with a councilmember they were required to report it and its content. Former Councilmember Lieberman’s and my Council Assistant, Perry Baker (now deceased), was terminated because he refused to follow that City Manager directive. It was a time when the atmosphere was heavy with fear and intimidation for all personnel.

 Mr. Skeete and Mr. Bolton graciously shared their submitted correspondence to the city regarding this matter. Mr. Bolton, on page 5 of his correspondence stated, “At this time I would also like to point out that the CM (City Manager) and the executive management team controlled what items were placed on Council agenda’s (sic). The CM and executive management team also performed extensive reviews of all council reports and could slide presentations brought forward by any department. Therefore, all information regarding what to include or not include in any Council presentation had to be reviewed by the CM and executive management team before it could be presented to Council. These CM and executive management team reviews also include multiple ‘dry runs’ where presenters were asked to rehearse their verbal presentations of the content being present to a presenter’s planned ed. It was not uncommon for the CM and executive management team to request modifications verbal and/or slide presentations or the council reports.”

That comment leads to a question long unanswered. Why were these four people targeted exclusively? We know part of the answer. Beasley, Kavanaugh, Tindall, Lynch and Carmicle had left the employ of the city. But other executive management team members stayed and are still there to this day. On page 2 of Gallagher & Kennedy correspondence representing Mr. Skeete it says, “…the City Manager’s Executive Team, including the City Attorney, discussed the ERP (Early Retirement Program) on numerous occasions over the course of several months in 2008-09. Any notion that the staff supposedly tried to hide the ERP from the City Attorney is flatly incorrect.” On page 3 of Mr. Bolton’s correspondence he states, “My email on Exhibit 6 (dated December 15, 2008 used in the external audit) explicitly states…’Sherry, here is the file I received from Craig (Tindall) for the retirement incentive’.” It can be assumed that City Attorney Tindall as part of the Executive Management Team knew of the ERP and its implications. Yet he did not speak up in 2008-09. Why did he wait until 2012 when he was vying with Mr. Skeete for the job of Interim City Manager?

Who were the other members of the Executive Management Team, what did they know and when did they know it? Julie Frisoni as the City’s spokesperson was undoubtedly part of the Executive Management Team and there are emails in the external audit that reflect her knowledge of the Early Retirement Program. Her emails asking for clarification of the factual financial information to be publicly released indicate that she had knowledge of the ERP. Why did she not say anything? According to now City Manager Fischer, she had an obligation to report — to the press, the Attorney General’s Office or the employee hotline. Yeah, right. Keeping quiet got her an appointment by Fischer as an Interim Assistant City Manager, as unqualified as she may be.

The sad part of all of this is that those who appear to be primarily responsible remain unscathed and those who did their bidding at their direction took the pipe. Is life unfair? We all know that it can be but it hits home when it happens to people you know.

Staying quiet in Glendale was an employee’s only option then and guess what? It hasn’t changed. Staying quiet in Glendale is a smart employee option today unless you believe in Fairy Godmothers or Santa Claus.

© Joyce Clark, 2013

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

Sep 13

20

Dysfunctional

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 20, 2013
Posted in City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 2 Comments

In its September 19, 2013 edition the Glendale Star ran an editorial entitled Dysfunctional city needs one spokesperson—the Mayor. Here’s the link: http://www.glendalestar.com/opinion/editorials/ . It states the obvious. In the absence of one strong voice the vacuum is filled with the multiple voices of all 7 councilmembers often delivering opposing messages while competing for attention. What’s going on?

Jerry Weiers, the Mayor, made a fatal mistake at the outset of his term. He aligned himself with Councilmembers Alvarez and Hugh on the issue of the Coyotes deal. Meanwhile Councilmember Sherwood, knowing that most likely he had the support of Councilmembers Knaack and Martinez, began his successful courtship of Councilmember Chavira. They are now best buddies and it led to successful passage of the Coyotes’ management deal. So began the setup of what is turning out to be a consistent 4-3 vote on nearly every issue. Weiers’ initiative to set up “Car Cruizing” in downtown Glendale ended in disaster when the producer moved the event to Westgate. His call for prayer before the start of council meetings, opposed by a majority of residents, did not help him either. Weiers must do some damage control or he can forget about a second term. One suggestion he might consider is to stop listening to political advisers who do not live in Glendale or truly understand Glendale dynamics. Weiers needs to listen to his residents instead. Perhaps a series of Town Hall meetings would fill that bill. 

As stated in an August 13, 2013 blog entitled Manny…say it ain’t so the election cycle of 2014 will be interesting. Councilmember Martinez is not running for reelection and has endorsed Robert Petrone. Big mistake on Martinez’ part as Petrone is not perceived as a good financial steward with the baggage of financial troubles from 2003 to the present defining him. Others will emerge to run for the Cholla district seat. Alvarez has announced that she will not run again. Good thing, for she’s been a one woman disaster since she took office. She, of course, will endorse someone. Whoever it turns out to be should cause us all to run in the other direction. An Alvarez clone is the last thing Glendale needs.

The really interesting decision to be made is by Vice Mayor Knaack. She stands for reelection in 2014. Does she run for her seat and then vacate it in 2016 to make a run for Mayor? Bets are that is exactly what she will do. Her effort to display leadership has led her to adopt a position of trying to please everyone and in reality, pleasing no one. Her ambition to become mayor could lead to her exit from the Glendale political scene.

The vacuum of leadership appears to have been filled, for now, by Councilmember Sherwood. He took the lead on the single hottest issue in Glendale, the Coyotes issue, right out from under Mayor Weiers. Sherwood is also ambitious and will seek the mayorship…in 2016 when his first term is up? Chavira, a Phoenix firefighter, has the Glendale fire union staunchly backing him and as Sherwood’s newest best friend could get the fire union to support Sherwood in 2016. The fire union will be in the cat bird’s seat choosing whoever promises them the best deal…Weiers, Knaack or Sherwood? In the past, the union has supported all three.

Of course this council is dysfunctional. They are no different than any other political body. They serve as a classic example of putting personal political ambition ahead of taking unpopular actions that best serve the city. They are jostling and shoving to fill the role of leader. It’s an all out contest to restore every unpopular cut to please residents short term rather than ensuring that the city’s long term finances are made healthy by keeping the city lean. Glendale is by no means out of the financial woods. Camelback Ranch and arena debts were back loaded causing the annual debt payments to become substantially larger this year and on into the future. Then there is still the open question of just how much of the $9M unbudgeted due to the arena management will be covered by the enhanced revenue scheme.

 Just one example of jockeying for position was the discussion at the August 17, 2013 council meeting surrounding the city’s Civic Center. Ever since it opened the city has subsidized its operations and maintenance. The rationale used by staff is that council directed that it be a community resource. Most of the community has never set foot in the Civic Center and cannot afford to rent spaces within it. In 2012 the past council directed that it was time for the Civic Center to recover 100% of its costs. It is a business after all. Since that direction, staff has been able to recover about 70% and according to its 5 year plan is set to recover 100% in the future. Several councilmembers, with wringing of hands, are ready to restore its city subsidy. Thank goodness, City Manager Brenda Fischer was able to stave off the notion by declaring it would be a topic of discussion for the spring council budget workshops. She also reminded council that when you add to one department’s budget, you must take away from another department. It’s again time for this council to prioritize city services, from most important to least important.

On a lesser note the Attorney General’s office has now rejected all complaints made related to any councilmembers’ violation of the state’s Open Meeting Laws. It was expected. The only issue remaining is the AG’s investigation into additional charges in relation to the external audit. Do not expect anything to come of that either.

©Joyce Clark, 2013

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

31

Daisy chain

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

Stories about Glendale keep popping up like daisies. The Arizona Republic takes positive glee in reporting negativism witness 2 hits on August 30, 2013. Paul Giblin did a story on the fall out of senior staff in the wake of the external audit and Laurie Roberts takes a pot shot at elected officials. Horatio Skeete, former Assistant City Manager, has been fired and Sherry Schurhammer, former Executive Director of Finance, has resigned. So the pound of flesh sought has been realized.  Make no mistake; they should not be absolved for they carried out the City Manager’s direction. Its’ similar, although not nearly as grievous, to those in Nazi Germany who either carried out Hitler’s directives or did not protest them. The reasons for silence in both instances were similar – fear of serious retribution. But they did not order the direction taken. Will those ultimately responsible be held accountable?

Laurie Roberts casts a wider net and accuses city council of mismanagement saying, “The mismanagement in that place apparently knows no bounds…” Mismanagement is defined as the exercise of executive, administrative and supervisory direction. How could council have given direction when senior staff conspired to hide the truth on actions it had taken by not advising council of the facts? If she had read the external audit thoroughly she would have read on page 19 of the report, “From the onset of the ERP, City Management and staff failed to keep the City Council appropriately informed, at times misled them and/or provided incorrect information. Under the previous administration, City staff was hindered and/or prohibited from providing valuable information to the City Council.”

The news media also reported that former Glendale City Attorney, Craig Tindall, has been hired as General Counsel for IceArizona, the new owners of the Coyotes. This development is not so surprising. Mr. Tindall was intimately involved in all of the arena management deals council considered.   I had several telephone conversations with Mr. Tindall during negotiations of various arena management deals over 4 years. I am sure others on council had similar conversations. There was one conversation in particular that stuck in my memory. I did not record it. I did not take notes but it was unusual enough that I remember the gist of it. During the course of the Jamison negotiations, Mr. Tindall alluded that he had been contacted by other, serious buyers of the team and if the Jamison deal fell through there were others waiting in the wings. It is not hard to imagine one buyer could have been Anthony LeBlanc. Mr. Tindall never named anyone. What did Mr. Tindall share with these other serious buyers that was not privileged or confidential information about contract negotiations? We’ll never know but it appears that some of these serious buyers could have been grateful.

To the news media Glendale has turned into the entrée of the day. Slow news day? I can hear it now. Editor: Geez, there’s not much happening right now. Let’s have Giblin write another story about Glendale. Problem solved. You can tell when it’s a slow news day – just look for a regurgitated story about Glendale. They have created a daisy chain of stories about Glendale, day after day, citing the same information over and over and over again.

I’ll be blogging again after Labor Day.

©Joyce Clark, 2013

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