Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Nov 16

2

Two Glendales

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 2, 2016
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , | 1 Comment

PLEASE NOTE: REPORTS OF PROBLEMS WITH THE TWO GLENDALES POLL.  HAVE REMOVED IT TEMPORARILY. WILL TROUBLESHOOT AND REPOST WHEN FIXED.

The City Manager Kevin Phelps has initiated a major initiative, Strategic Planning: A discussion of values, mission and vision for the entire organization.  The consultancy group facilitating the project is the Advanced Strategy Center located in Scottsdale. There have been two meetings involving the city council as well as other sessions involving various stakeholder groups. Unfortunately I cannot share any commentary made by the city council or the stakeholders who have participated thus far. The material received by council bears the following admonition,“This document in its entirety is Client Confidential and may not be reproduced or distributed without expressed permission.”

A council session on this topic was held on Monday, October 31, 2016. I want to take this opportunity to thank the city council. I remain at this time, a Councilmember Elect without the right to formally participate. Council, at the start of the session, invited me to do so. I thank them for their generosity in granting me the opportunity to be part of the discussion.

In reviewing the material provided for this session, it caused me, as I am sure it did the other councilmembers, to really think about and to reflect upon Glendale…past, present and future. The perspectives I am about to offer are mine exclusively and do not reflect support of or opposition to any of the remarks I may have made at this Strategic Planning Session. The following thoughts  are mine and mine alone and may or may not be shared by other councilmembers.

You will note that I entitled this blog, “Two Glendales.” There are two distinct Glendales with the central portion of the city acting as a buffer between the two. The central area of Glendale is predominately comprised of the middle class who tend to become more vocal and active when an issue directly affects them.

It is the classic north versus south scenario. North Glendale, with the exception of the major economic drivers of Bell Road and Midwestern University, is a sea of residential subdivisions. The residents are predominately more affluent, better educated, more articulate and vocal and certainly more activist. If 20 Arrowhead residents show up at a council meeting, city council will take note, listen and respond.  It suffers of crime but usually in terms of property theft and violent crime, although there is some, is quite low statistically. The demographic is mid to high socio-economic.

South Glendale, is comprised mainly but not exclusively, of zip code 85301, noted in the media for its concentration of a low socio-economic demographic. Here one will find the city’s greatest concentration  of auto loan businesses, pawn shops and bars. The Maricopa Adult Probation Center is located here along with the many non-profits who serve poorer, less educated populations. Its residents tend to be less educated, often poor and dependent on government/non-profit services. They tend not to be articulate, vocal or activist. There is certainly greater reluctance to interface with government. Crime occurs with greater frequency and tends to be more violent.

Take a moment to look at the comparative Census Bureau statistics (latest figures available via city documentation) between two locations. The 67th Avenue and Union Hills Drive 1 mile radius is representative of north Glendale. The 59th Avenue and Glendale Avenue 1 mile radius is representative of south Glendale. Demographically there are stark differences:               

                                             67/Union Hills Drive  1 mile        59/Glendale Ave   1 mile

  • 2014 Projected Population                            16,475                   21,462
  • 2014 Proj. Households                                   4,726                     5,788
  • 2009 Est. Median Age                                      35.9                       27.7
  • 2009 Est. Average Household Income          $99,243                  $37,528
  • 2009 Est. White Population                            85.8%                    59.7%
  • 2009 Est. Black Population                              3.1%                      6.6%
  • 2009 Est. Asian & Pacific Islander                    4.7%                      2.2%
  • 2009 Est. American Indian & Alaska Native       0.8%                      2.6%
  • 2009 Est. Other Races Population                     5.6%                      29%
  • 2009 Est. Hispanic Population Percent             17.3%                    65.8%
  • 2009 Est. Elementary (0 to 8)                           2.3%                   26.5%
  • 2009 Est. Some High School (9 to 11)               4.2%                   15.8%
  • 2009 Est. High School Graduate (12)               22.3%                   27.6%
  • 2009 Est. Some College (13 to 16)                   22.1%                  15.9%
  • 2009 Est. Associate Degree Only                        9.5%                      5%
  • 2009 Est. Bachelor Degree Only                       25.1%                      6%
  • 2009 Est. Graduate Degree                              14.5%                    3.1%
  • 2000 Home Value $200,000 to $299,999    32.3%       $100,000 to $149,999  11.4%
  • 2000 Home Value $150,000 to $199,999      42%         $50,000 to $99,999   66.4%
  • 2000 Home Value $100,000 to $149,999   21.4%        $25,000 to $49,999    15.9%
  • 2009 Est. Civilian Employed                             66.0%                     55%
  • 2009 Est. Civilian Unemployed                           7.0%                    7.1%
  • 2000 Percent White Collar Workers                   76.5%                  34.2%
  • 2000 Percent Blue Collar Workers                     23.5%                  65.8%

This is not an exclusive problem seen only in Glendale. Every other Valley city has some iteration of this same dichotomy. Part of the determinant of Glendale’s future rests upon how we deal with it now…finally.  For too long, probably the last twenty years, all of us have allowed this division between the two Glendales to become more pronounced. It is not hopeless just because it’s been easier not to face. We have failed to address the complicated issues needed to create mitigation and bring the two Glendales together. If we are to craft the Glendale of the future it is an issue that must be resolved.

I don’t pretend to know the solution. If I did I would have become a consultant making big bucks a long time ago. Perhaps part of the solution lies in open and frank dialogue between the two communities. Give them an opportunity to craft solutions that both segments of the community can embrace. It is not a situation that lends itself to imposed fixes but rather offers opportunities for collaboration. Perhaps it it is time to think in terms of equity rather than equality.

There are other issues as a result of my thinking about strategic planning yet to be discussed… in future blogs.

© Joyce Clark, 2016          

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘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 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 material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Oct 16

29

GAIN night

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 29, 2016
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , | 1 Comment

On Friday evening, October 28, 2016, Glendale celebrated its GAIN night (Getting Arizona Involved in Neighborhoods) at Murphy Park in downtown Glendale. It was a wonderful event but it was not img_3921a GAIN night. It could be characterized as a police expo, children’s trick or treat and an entertainment event but it was not a GAIN night. There were a tremendous number of booths available to the public from AARP to Glendale’s Justice Center and everything in between. All were eager to share information with the public about the services they offer. The police department had their SWAT vehicle and Command Center vehicle open for the public to view and to learn about their equipment and responsibilities. A local dance academy provided entertainment for the public. All of the kids were fantastic from the youngest dancers shaking their “tail feathers” to the older children performing hip hop. But none of this was GAIN night.

This is undoubtedly an event that has earned the right to become an annual event. But it was notimg_3940 GAIN night and should not take its place. GAIN night was designed to emphasize the importance of police-community partnerships and to encourage citizen involvement in fighting crime. In fact, some of the event visitors I met were from Surprise, Phoenix, etc.

During my time on city council up until I left at the end of 2012, neighborhoods, large and small, were encouraged to host a get together that brought neighbors together. The registered neighborhood could be as small as one street of 20 neighbors or as large as an HOA led subdivision of a 100 neighbors or better. Typically, neighbors would host a pot luck with activities for the neighborhood children. Everyone would sit around, eat and drink, and talk to one another.

img_3929Neighborhoods would be visited by police officers, often the very officers charged with patrolling their neighborhoods. They would meet face-to-face and neighbors would share their “atta boys/girls” and their concerns. They would also be visited by the nearest fire station and the kids had the opportunity to see those fire trucks, up close and personally. Councilmembers, when requested to do so by a neighborhood, would donate $50 out of their council budget, to help defray the cost of refreshments and they would stop by and visit as many neighborhoods as physically possible. While on council I looked forward to GAIN night as a way to reconnect with some neighborhoods and tried to visit as many GAIN neighborhood gatherings as humanly possible. Typically, I was usually able to stop by at least a dozen of them. The good thing about it was there were always more events than a person could visit.

We all know Arizona is a very transient state. People move in and out continually. People also change neighborhoods in an effort to upsize or downsize their homes or for any number of other reasons. Neighborhoods are in a continual flux. Often neighbors may know who lives on either side or across the street from their home but no one else.

One of the benefits of GAIN is that at least once a year it brought new and old neighbors together. It provided a venue to get to know one another. It provided an opportunity for neighbors to bondimg_3944 and to make new friendships – often long lasting.  It encouraged them to discover who was a part of their neighborhood so that strangers in a neighborhood could be more easily identified.

Another benefit was that it provided neighborhoods the chance to meet and to develop relationships with the very police officers that served their neighborhood. Councilmembers used this event to reconnect with some of their neighborhoods and to learn what was going well and what needed attention. GAIN in that format did exactly what it was designed to do.

img_3941Glendale should continue to promote the police expo. It, too, serves a purpose but it should be considered as an adjunct to the traditional (at least 15 year old) GAIN night. Let’s get back to building neighborhoods by building relationships within them.

 

© Joyce Clark, 2016          

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘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 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 material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Oct 16

21

Glendale’s Civic Center

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 21, 2016
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , | 3 Comments

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 the city council had only one item on its workshop agenda…the performance of its Civic Center. The Civic Center opened in 1999 and is now 17 years old. It is a beautiful building. Former Mayor Scruggs wanted it and sold it under the guise of becoming a destination location in downtown Glendale. Has this facility performed up to its expectations? Let’s take a look.

City personnel made their Tuesday presentation based on figures for the last 5 years of the Civic Center’s operation. I have taken staff’s 5 year average and derived estimates that reflect the entire 17 years of its operation. My figures could be a little too high or a little too low as I did not look up the figures in 17 years of budget books. Hence the estimated were arrived at by multiplying the average annual figures times 17 years.

Over the 17 year life of the facility the General Fund Budget allocation was an estimated $11,422,000.00 and there had been an additional General Fund Subsidy over those 17 years of another $4,400,000. The 17 year total of budget allocations and subsidies is an estimated $15,822,000 or an average of $930,000.00 per year. Not included in this amount are the costs of maintenance and repair that have been expended over the 17 year period as staff did not provide any figures relative to this expense.

What kind of revenue does the Civic Center generate to offset its expenses? Over 17 years an estimated $850,000 had been earned from the catering contract and during the same period the Civic Center had earned an additional $6,800,000.  The total estimated revenues over the 17 year period is approximately $7,650,000.

The Civic Center had earned an estimated $7,650,000 over its life span and had cost the city an estimated $15,822,000. It has cost the city an estimated $8,172,000 to keep the doors of the Civic Center open for the past 17 years.

According to the staff presentation over the last 5 years the Civic Center had drawn an annual average of 51,888 patrons or for the past 17 years an estimated total of 882,096 patrons. That averages about 141 patrons per day. However, there are days when the Civic Center has no business and days when it is booked for large gatherings. It should be mentioned that the Center has very little, if any business, in December due to Glendale Glitters. There simply is not enough parking during that period for Civic Center patrons and over the years patrons have not wanted to deal with the traffic generated by Glendale Glitters.

Has this facility fulfilled its promise? Everyone, even staff, says no.  In their presentation staff offered a plan with a new growth goal of an increase of 5% in patronage per year. Since the average annual patronage is 51,888 patrons, their goal is to increase that number by 2, 594 additional patrons this year. They believe they can accomplish that goal because new funding has been allocated to market the Center; there will be enhanced collaboration with the Glendale Convention and Visitor’s Bureau; their absorption into a new department will create new synergy; and there will be an enhanced building maintenance and repair fund. Staff has also asked for authorization for up to 6 community events at no charge; consideration of rental fee adjustments as part of the Fiscal Year 2017-18 budget; and the flexibility to negotiate rental fee packages.

Will all of this work? Everyone hopes so. The jury is still out. City council is willing to give the Center more time.  Staff’s first annual performance report is due in a year. Make no mistake. Challenges remain. Not having a major hotel nearby as well as inadequate parking space during downtown events will have to be overcome, if possible. Add to this equation the Convention Center space owned by the city and managed by the Renaissance Hotel at Westgate is a direct competitor for the same business.

If staff cannot turn the Civic Center around then it may be time for council to consider whether it will ever meet its purpose financially and philosophically. Perhaps repurposing will become its fate. It was originally designed to be a draw for downtown Glendale. A true destination place is exactly what downtown Glendale desperately needs to become more robust and to grow to its potential.

© Joyce Clark, 2016          

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘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 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 material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Oct 16

17

Glendale’s Archery Complex opens

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 17, 2016
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Heroes Park  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 2 Comments

arcplaque_000On Saturday, October 15, 2016, Glendale celebrated the Grand Opening of the newest amenity at Heroes Park – the Archery Complex. Archery is a sport that seems to be under the radar. Yet as unheralded as it is, there are a lot of archers in the Valley. They were excited and grateful to see this complex become reality for the only other complex is located in the east Valley.

There was one unsung hero in attendance on that bright, beautiful Saturdayphoto-4 morning and that was local realtor and Yucca district resident Tom Traw. If anyone deserves credit for making this complex a reality it is he. For you see, Tom went to Yucca district councilmember Sammy Chavira to pitch the idea. Sammy did nothing, despite his public assertion that as a result of Councilmember Aldama’s idea, he followed up and made it a reality. Nothing could be further from the truth. The thanks and the credit belong to Tom Traw. Tom bull dogged Glendale Parks and Recreation staff when it seemed as if the project had fallen into a black hole. Tom advocated for and kept the pressure on all involved for over 2 years. My thanks and the thanks of all who will enjoy and use this complex go to Tom Traw.

The archery demonstrations were amazing. Eric Bennet, a Paralympian Archer, actually severed the grand opening ribbon and a segment of it was pinned to a target by his shot. 2016 Olympic Archery Coach was surrounded by hoards of young, aspiring archers.

photo-1What is even more amazing was the outpouring of support not just from the non-profit community; the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority and the Arizona Game and Fish Department both of whom granted funds to the project; but from local businesses who donated time, material and labor. Without their donations there is no way this project could have become reality.

 Lastly, Glendale’s Parks and Recreation Department showcased their innovationphoto-3 and ingenuity as well. Instead of purchasing the stakes needed to hold down lane markings they were able to manufacture them at a fraction of the cost. They also manufactured the moveable carts that hold the targets. They saved an incredible amount of money. They are to be congratulated for their hard work and dedication to this project.

Congratulations to all who made this amazing complex a reality. Now, it’s time to complete Heroes Park, one of a very few regional parks in Glendale and still not completed as designed after an 18 year wait.

© Joyce Clark, 2016          

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘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 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 material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Oct 16

13

Glendale Rovey Farm Estates residents’ alert …and archery anyone?

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 13, 2016
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Let’s start with the fun stuff. This Saturday, October 15, 2016 from 9 AM to 10:30 AM the City of Glendale will host the Grand Opening Ceremony for a brand new archery complex located at Heroes Park at  the northeast corner of 83rd Avenue and Bethany Home Road.

It’s the first new amenity in the 88 acre, regional park to be constructed in 7 or 8 years. The last amenity being the ramadas. There will be archery demonstrations by local archers and the public will have the opportunity to meet Eric Bennet, U.S. Archery Paralympian, and Mel Nichols, the 2016 U. S. Olympic Archery Coach.

The major funding partners are The Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority and the Arizona Game and Fish Department. This was a project whose primary funding came from the private sector. All of the following companies contributed money, labor and/or materials:

·       Arizona Rock Products Association

·       CEMEX

·       DBA Construction, Inc.

·       GCON, Inc.

·       Hansen Aggregates of Arizona

·       Heritage Trucking, Inc.

·       Madison Granite Supplies, Inc.

·       Salt River Materials Group

·       Shade ‘n Net

Instead of sleeping in this Saturday, won’t you join us in thanking these organizations and private sector companies for their generosity? This is a family-friendly event. Please bring your children. Who knows? You might have a budding Olympic Archer in your family.

archery-range

I also want to alert Yucca district residents, most especially Rovey Farm Estates residents. Just north of Glendale Avenue, between 83rd Avenue and 91st Avenue sits Crosspoint Christian Church. It owns 23.4 acres currently zoned by the city as R1-10 (10,000 square foot lots yielding approximately 3 to 4 homes to the acre). The church wants the land rezoned to R1-7 PRD (7,000 square foot lots yielding 5 to 6 homes to the acre).

zoning-request-oct-12-2016

The greater the density per acre the more money the church gets for the land. It is the difference between putting 69 to 92 homes on that land versus putting 115 to 138 homes (nearly double the amount) on that land.

Rovey Farm Estates is directly north of this parcel. This subdivision is divided into sections and the section that is north of this parcel abutting it is zoned R1-10. A small portion of the northeast portion of this parcel has R1-7 homes abutting it. The majority of this land will directly impact the 10,000 square foot lots to the north.

What can you do? The zoning request will be heard and approved or denied by the city council on Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at its regular 6 PM city council meeting. You can go to council chambers at city hall located at the intersection of 59th Avenue and Glendale Avenue that evening and express your support for or opposition to the rezoning request. You can also send an email expressing your opinion to the mayor and councilmembers. Here are their email addresses: jweiers@glendaleaz.com, ihugh@glendaleaz.com, rmalnar@glendaleaz.com, bturner@glendaleaz.com, ltolmachoff@glendaleaz.com, jaldama@glendaleaz.com, and schavira@glendaleaz.com.

If you want to protect your quality of life and your home values it is up to you to act. Make your opinion known to the city council. Let them know whether you approve or oppose the proposed rezoning.

© Joyce Clark, 2016        

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘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 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 material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Oct 16

1

Sept. 29th campaign finance reports

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 1, 2016
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale's Fire Union  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Campaign finance reports were due by 5 PM on Thursday, September 29, 2016. As of this posting (after 5 PM on Friday, September 30, 2016) Sammy Chavira’s campaign filing report has not been posted by the City Clerk. Why, you say? Because Sammy has not turned it in. Sammy apparently believes that the laws that everyone tries to uphold do not apply to him. It’s not terribly surprising considering his attitude toward a simple traffic ticket. He failed to appear in court and subsequently had his driver’s license suspended. In addition the Campaign for Truth and Leadership committee and Fire Fighters interested in Registration and Education PAC have not turned in their latest and now overdue campaign finance reports either. These organizations spent a considerable amount of money in support of Sammy’s reelection.

The amount of money spent on the Glendale mayoral race is truly astounding. Burdick reported spending $121,489.60 and Weiers spent $107,356.97. The total for these two races is $228,846.57 or slightly over a quarter of a million dollars. What bumped up the numbers was for the first time there were TV ads, notoriously expensive. Burdick led the way with TV ads beginning during the Republican convention in mid-July and they were run repeatedly and relentlessly until August 30, 2016, the day of the Primary Election. Weiers had no option but to run his own series of TV ads.

It appears from now on a person should not consider running for mayor in Glendale unless he or she can amass a war chest of a minimum of $100,000. That will put many would-be candidates out of the race. It’s a shame that it has come to that.

There could be as many as four aspirants in the 2020 election for mayor. Many suspect that former Councilmember Yvonne Knaack still harbors ambitions. Add to that Councilmembers Turner, Tolmachoff and Aldama, all of whom seem to be jockeying for a run. Throw in a dash of former Assistant City Manager and major player in the Burdick failed contest, Julie Frisoni. During the election season some voters received a survey call asking for a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Julie Frisoni. Many considered it strange since she wasn’t running. It seems she may be preparing for a political future and could decide to run against Lauren Tolmachoff for the Cholla district seat or perhaps…gasp…mayor. A Cholla city council seat  seemed a far more likely proposition if Burdick had won the mayoral contest but despite the outcome Frisoni and her backers may decide to give it or a mayoral race  a try in 2018.

In the other races more modest sums were spent: Vice Mayor Ian Hugh spent $26,815.31; Councilmember Ray Malnar spent $11,696.13 and I spent $11,489.70. Collectively that amounts to $50,001.14. However, we do know from Sammy’s previous campaign report that he had already spent $57,905.98 and we will await seeing what shows up in his overdue report. So far, the collective total for council races is $107,907.12. Anywhere from $10,000 to $40,000 is a typical amount that is usually spent on a Glendale city council race. In its previous campaign report, The Campaign for Truth and Leadership spent $45,218.56 (donated to it from the United Food Workers). The committee is now terminated. The entire amount was not spent on pro Burdick and pro Chavira mailers or anti Weiers or anti Clark mailers (about $30,000). Some of the funds (about $15,000) was spent in support of Larkin and Andrade.

Let’s total what we know has been spent in Glendale’s elections per the latest submitted campaign finance reports. Two candidates spent $228,846.57 on the mayoral races; $107,907.12 was spent on the 3 city council races; and another $30,000 was spent by an Independent Committee. That totals $336,753.69. I suspect Sammy’s missing report will show additional expenditures of about $20,000 bringing the total spent in this round of Glendale elections to somewhere in the neighborhood of $350,000. That’s a surprisingly large amount of money to spend in a Glendale election cycle and has never occurred before.

I don’t have an answer to this escalation of political spending. A friend suggested that perhaps there should be a cap of maybe $50,000 for a mayoral race and $20,000 for a council race. It’s intriguing. It would cause the candidate to spend wisely and effectively. This person believes it would force candidates to have more interaction with voters and perhaps more reliance on social media which costs relatively nothing. What’s your take on the state of Glendale races?

© Joyce Clark, 2016          

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘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 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 material. 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 16

23

A new proposed zoning issue and…chickens

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 23, 2016
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , | 13 Comments

On September 15, 2016 I received a Notice of Neighborhood Meeting for a Minor General Plan Amendment and Rezoning of a property located in the Yucca district from the law office of David Cisiewski  representing Los Olivos Office Partners, LLC., a Delaware corporation. This is slightly curious. Los Olivos Office Partners is a Delaware corporation that was registered with the Arizona Corporation Commission by yet another law firm who is their agent in Arizona. So who are the principals of Los Olivos? Local people? People out-of-state? A foreign firm?

 They are proposing a subdivision called “Orangewood Terrace.” The property’s location is south of Orangewood Avenue and just east of the West Glenn residential subdivision and just west of 79th Lane. Los Olivos is seeking: 1. a Minor General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan designation from Low Density Residential (LDR, 1-2.5 homes to the acre) to Medium Density Residential (MDR, 2.5 to 3.5 homes to the acre); 2. to rezone the property from R1-10 (10,000 square foot lots) to R1-8 (8,000 square foot lots); and 3. a Preliminary Plat for 55 single family homes.

What’s not to like? 8,000 square foot lots…great. Not so fast. In 2008 the city deliberately planned this property for 10,000 square foot lots with a definite purpose in mind. The property was to act as a buffer between West Glen Estates (a subdivision of 8,000 square foot lots, R1-8) located at the southeast corner of 83rd Avenue and Orangewood Avenue and 79th Lane on the south side of Orangewood Avenue which has about 30 large lot (17,000 square foot lot, SR-17) homes. All of the properties on the north side of Orangewood Avenue directly across from this proposed subdivision are SR-17 residences.

The property in question should remain as a 10,000 SF lot subdivision in order to preserve and to maintain the property values of the residents of West Glen Estates and the residents of 79th Lane. The only conceivable reason to reduce the size of the lots to 8,000 SF is to maximize the profit to be derived by Los Olivos Office Partners. That is not the city’s mission or purpose. Its purpose is to protect the interests of its residents, not developers.

I encourage the residents on the north side of Orangewood Avenue as well as the residents of West Glen Estates and 79th Lane to attend the Neighborhood Meeting:

October 3, 2016

6:00 PM

Hampton Inn & Suite Glendale-Westgate

6630 N. 95th Avenue

Glendale, AZ 85305

Now, chickens…

The next scheduled city meetings are: November 1, 2016 – Second City Council Workshop on the proposed Zoning Text Amendment and November 22, 2016 – City Council Public Hearing on the proposed Zoning Text Amendment.

The Zoning Text Amendment being considered would allow the keeping of contained hen chickens (only) in single family-zoned areas with a zoning district of A-1, RR-90, RR-45, SR-30, SR-17, SR-12, R1-10, R1-8, R1-6 and R1-4. However, per city code chickens are already allowed in these residential zoning districts: A-1, RR-90 (90,000 SF lots), RR-45 (45,000 SF lots), SR-30 (30,000 SF lots), SR-17 (17,000 SF lots) and SR-12 (12,000 SF lots). The text amendment would allow these 4 additional residential districts to have chickens: R1-10 (10,000 SF lots), R1-8 (8,000 SF lots), R1-6 (6,000 SF lots) and R1-4 (4,000 SF lots).

Chicken proponents have cited that other Valley cities allow them. Yes, they do but nearly all cities have restrictions.  Let’s look at Phoenix, the big dog in the Valley. In Chapter 8-7 it states, “(a) Except as otherwise provided in this article, it is hereby declared to be a nuisance and it shall be unlawful for any person to keep rodents or poultry within the City. No poultry or rodents shall be kept in an enclosure within eighty feet of any residence within the City. Poultry may be kept within eighty feet of a residence if written permission consenting to the keeping of poultry less than eighty feet from a residence is first obtained from each lawful occupant and each lawful owner of such residence. Poultry shall not be kept in the front yard area of any lot or parcel within the City. Poultry and rodents shall be kept in an enclosure so constructed as to prevent such poultry and rodents from wandering upon property belonging to others.

(b)    No more than twenty head of poultry nor more than twenty-five head of rodents nor more than twenty-five head comprising a combination of rodents and poultry shall be kept upon the first one-half acre or less. An additional one-half acre shall be required for each additional twenty head of poultry or for each additional twenty-five head of rodents or for each additional twenty-five head comprising a combination of poultry and rodents. For areas larger than two and one-half acres the number of poultry or rodents shall not be limited.” Their code goes on to say in Section 8-10, “(a)    Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is hereby declared to be a nuisance and it shall be unlawful for any person to keep any animal, as defined in section 8-1 of this chapter, within the City on any lot or parcel of land consisting of less than ten thousand square feet in area.

(b)    Poultry may be kept on a lot or parcel of land within the City consisting of an area less than ten thousand square feet if written permission consenting to the keeping of poultry on such lot or parcel is first obtained from all of the lawful occupants and the lawful owners of adjoining lots or parcels of land, as defined in section 8-1, which are located in the immediate vicinity of the property whereon the poultry is kept. In summary, the restrictions are that a resident may have up to 25 chickens, 80 feet away from any residence and if the homeowner’s lot is less than 10,000 SF permission must be obtained from all adjacent property owners.

Let’s look at Mesa. In Mesa, a resident can have “10 chickens on the first one-half acre or less provided any enclosure is at least 40 feet from any neighboring residence, any coop is at least 75 feet from any other residence.” Tempe allows, “5 hens and if the enclosure or coop is 200 sq ft or less AND 8′ or less tall, it must meet building code separation requirements (safety issues) and cannot be in the front yard setback; if either more than 200 sq ft OR 8′ height, it must meet all setbacks for the district.” Similar to Tempe, Gilbert will allow up to 5 chickens on the smallest lots size of 6,000 SF. Chandler and Scottsdale do not allow chickens on small, residential lots.

Some people would have you believe that Valley cities allow chickens carte blanche. That is not the case. I would urge all councilmembers to do their homework and to study exactly what other cities allow and do not allow. It is a no-brainer to realize that allowing chickens, if that is the majority position, must occur with restrictions. Let’s see what kind of restrictions city staff comes up on November 1, 2016 when it makes another presentation before city council. Will they have done their homework?

This remains a divisive issue. I am posting one of my informal polls to the left of this column to give my readers a chance to weigh in on the issue. Blog readers on both sides of this issue have offered reasoned comments. I urge you to take a moment to read them as you make up your mind on this issue.

© Joyce Clark, 2016        

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘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 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 material. 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 16

21

Loose ends

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 21, 2016
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

No contest of the formally accepted final election results has been filed by either of the losing candidates within the 5 day time limit as stipulated by state law. Now, let’s see some loose ends cleaned up. Sammy still has campaign signs up, well past the proscribed 15 day limit. Sammy, take your campaign signs down. You are not above the law.

In August of 2016, Mark Burdick, former Glendale mayoral candidate, sent out a campaign mailer without the disclaimer, “Paid for by …” as is required by state law. Arizona State Statute 16-912 says, “A political committee that makes an expenditure for campaign literature or advertisements that expressly advocate the election or defeat of any candidate or that make any solicitation of contributions to any political committee shall include on the literature or advertisement the words ‘paid for by,’ followed by the name of the committee that appears on its statement of organization, or five hundred dollar exemption statement.” Burdick publicly admitted the omission of this required disclaimer.

In mid-August, City Clerk Julie Bower notified City Attorney Michael Bailey of a violation of ARS 16-912(A.) Bailey had said that he received the City Clerk’s notice and had taken action by shipping the complaint to an outside counsel, namely the Scottsdale City Attorney.

This is a cut and dried situation. Burdick sent out a campaign mailer without the legally required disclaimer. Burdick admitted that it had occurred. So, what’s the problem? Why the delay? It has been over a month. We should have been made publicly aware of the fine imposed upon Burdick and that it has been paid. Instead…silence.

On or about August 17th the City Clerk requested that Burdick provide the cost of producing and mailing the piece. The fine is 3 times the amount spent for production (includes the consultant’s time for designing the piece) and mailing. Since it was mailed to voters within all of Glendale the cost would be substantial. To mail a piece in my district (with perhaps one of the lowest active voter totals) is about $3,000. Multiply that times six districts and a conservative figure would be somewhere in the $15,000 to $18,000 range. Three times that cost puts Burdick’s fine in the neighborhood of $45,000 to $54,000.

Has the fine been assessed? Has Burdick paid the fine? Either the City Clerk or the City Attorney has the responsibility of public notification…for an action that should have been completed by now. It’s the city’s loose end and merits being tied up.

On another note city council met in workshop this afternoon. Councilmembers Jaime Aldama and Sammy Chavira were absent although Sammy did participate, sort of, telephonically. There were only 2 agenda items: 1. Costs associated with workmen’s’ compensation claims and 2. Proposed regulations for donation drop off boxes and permissible flagpole heights.

The presentation on item #1 generated no council comments or questions…not one. Item #2 generated a great deal of comment and questioning by councilmembers present. It holds true that councilmembers tend to spend more time and energy on issues that directly affect residents than on big picture issues. After nearly an hour of discussion council gave consensus to bring both items back with the request for further information related to how other Valley cities handle both issues. Upon advice of the City Attorney Bailey other “clean up” code/zoning items staff had been prepared to present to council were tabled due to insufficient notice to the public.

© Joyce Clark, 2016        

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘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 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 material. 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 16

14

Sound and fury, signifying…nothing

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 14, 2016
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Glendale city council held its regular voting meeting on September 13, 2016. Sammy Chavira was absent again…gasp. He did participate telephonically. In a Hillary Clinton-esque move he claimed he has pneumonia. If he is ill, I wish him a speedy recovery. Yet, one can’t help but wonder. Pneumonia seems to be the current rage in illnesses since presidential candidate Clinton’s diagnosis.

All items but two were on the Consent Agenda and were voted upon in one motion, quickly. The next agenda item was a land planning issue and was also quickly dealt with. The last agenda item was the Canvass of Votes, a formality without legal standing which directs the City Clerk to record the results of the election, those results having already been approved by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (which does have legal standing).

The backdrop to this agenda item was Sammy’s request to the entire city council requesting that they vote to delay acceptance of the Canvass of Votes. In a September 13, 2016 story entitled Chavira asks council to delay canvass of votes by Darrell Jackson of the Glendale Star, he reported, “Yucca District Councilmember Samuel Chavira is attempting to get other councilmembers and the mayor to stop the canvass of votes at the Sept. 13 council meeting after losing his seat in the Aug. 30 primary. Chavira, who lost his seat on the council to former councilmember Joyce Clark by 46 votes, sent an email to fellow councilmembers obtained by The Glendale Star asking them to ‘delay official canvassing of the election results’.” Here is the link to Jackson’s story: http://www.glendalestar.com/news/article_55d713b0-79d5-11e6-8a39-5f815c2ea5eb.html .

Jackson goes on to say, “Chavira also may have violated Arizona State Statues on open meeting violations by sending the email as the statute states that councilmembers ‘may not send or verbally communicate with (any) councilmembers requesting their assent on a council meeting agenda action item’.”

The Arizona Attorney General’s Office in its handbook on the Open Meeting Law states the following:

“7.5.2 Circumventing the Open Meeting Law.  Discussions and deliberations (in person or otherwise) between less than a majority of the members of a governing body, violate the Open Meeting Law when used to circumvent the purposes of the Open Meeting 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 has been or later 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.   

For example, Board members cannot use email to circumvent the Open Meeting Law requirements.  See Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. I05-004 at 2.  “[E]ven if communications on a particular subject between members of a public body do not take place at the same time or place, the communications can nonetheless constitute a ‘meeting.’”  See Del Papa v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. and Cmty. Coll. Sys. Of Nev., 114 Nev. 388, 393, 956 P.2d 770, 774 (1998) (rejecting the argument that a meeting did not occur because the board members were not together at the same time and place).  Additionally, “[w]hen members of the public body are parties to an exchange of e-mail communications that involve discussions, deliberations, or taking legal action by a quorum of the public body concerning a matter that may foreseeably come before the public body for action, the communications constitute a meeting through technical devices under the [Open Meeting Law].”  See Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. I05-004 at 1.  This may be true even if none of the members of the public body respond to the email.  Id. at 2-3.  If the one-way communication proposes legal action, then it would violate the Open Meeting Law.  Id.  However, other one-way communications, with no further exchanges, are not per se violations, and further examination of the facts and circumstances would be necessary to determine if a violation occurred.  Id. at 3.” 

If you believe, as I do, that Sammy has clearly violated the Arizona Open Meeting Law, you may go to the State Attorney General’s website and file a complaint. Any citizen can do so. Here is the link to the site which contains the Complaint Form: https://www.azag.gov/sgo  .

The Canvass of Votes was approved unanimously by the city council but it was not without comment. In the same Darrell Jackson article cited above, he reported that Councilmember Bart Turner prior to the council meeting said, “I have concerns about several irregularities about the election and I feel that by canvassing the votes, we are just accepting the numbers presented by the county and not confirming them,” Turner said by phone. “By canvassing and passing the vote, that, then opens the door for any candidate to challenge the procedure. Our duty is to be sure that to the best of our ability, the election was fully fair and respects the manner of all voters,” Turner said. “If I were to challenge the canvass, it wouldn’t be for one candidate of the other, but on policy and procedures that may not have been completely followed. As far as challenging results, that is the responsibility of the candidates.” His rhetoric was virtually parroted word for word by Councilmembers Tolmachoff and Aldama.

The “irregularities” to which Turner referred were: 1. Delayed opening of the voting location at Glendale High School and 2. The “missing” voter data discovered at Mensendick Elementary School. In his illegal email letter to all councilmembers Chavira asked the County Recorder to provide evidence that the voter data was not tampered with. Here is the response from the County Recorder’s Office regarding both issues that was sent per the Glendale City Clerk’s request and distributed to all councilmembers the day before their evening voting meeting. The first incident did not occur at a Yucca district polling site:

“Subject: Timeline of events at Glendale High School poll site on Primary election day 8/30/2016

 Primary election day 8/30/2016

 Sometime after 6:30am I was sent to 51 avenue and Maryland to pick up the equipment of a troubleshooter who was rear ended in a car accident. While moving supplies/equipment from the troubleshooter to my truck, I received a call at 6:51am directing me to go the Glendale High School poll site ( one of the rear ended troubleshooters polling places) and assist the inspector who was by himself, in a wheelchair with limited mobility to open the poll site.

 Upon arrival, I saw his wife, whom he called, putting out the vote here sign. Myself and another troubleshooter who arrived just after myself, assisted in putting the rest of the signage. I saw no voters waiting around, just kids and parents dropping the kids off.

 Around 7:30am a gentleman in a walker came in, signed the e-poll book and voted a ballot. 7:58am call send me to another poll site to swap out equipment.”

“Primary Election August 30, 2016 – Affidavit re: Precinct 0513

Polling Location:               Don Mensendick School – 67th Ave & Missouri

Election Night – MPS Site reported no black bag no memory pack received

The first call made was to the Inspector Pat Burgett. She let me know that all materials were taken to the MPS truck by John Bowen, the Inspector for the co-located precinct 0045 Bethany Park

I then called John Bowen at approximately 1030pm.

He advised that he along with another board member, turned in all of the materials for both precincts and that he had a receipts. In our conversation I asked specifically about the memory packs to which he advised that both packs were sealed in their designated pink bubble bag and then those were sealed inside their individual black bags for each precinct.

We then waited for the MPS truck to arrive at MCTEC.

I did not know that the MPS site did not have the black bag for precinct 0513 until they arrived and we unloaded the truck.

After searching the truck and finding that the black bag was not in house, I volunteered to go first thing on Wed morning to the school.

I first called John Bowen at approx. 715am on Wed to let him know that we did not receive the black back with the memory pack and advised for him to please check his vehicle. He checked and called me back to let me know it was not in the vehicle. But he did have the receipts from the MPS site. I advised to bring them to the school to meet me so that we could retrieve the bag.

We agreed to meet at the school at 8am to gain access to the room where the equipment/supplies remained. (band room)

John arrived a few minutes before me, he had a school representative escort him to unlock the room and retrieved the bag as I was walking up to the room. He called me as I was approaching the school to advise that the bag was indeed in the room and that it was completely intact and that the seal was not broken.

John had his receipts. I confirmed that the receipt for 0513 did not have the top 2 items checked off (black bag & memory pack) All other items were marked. I wrote in Green ink pen on the receipt for 0513, the number to the seal that was on the black bag. I broke the seal with John there to verify that the pink memory pack bag was inside the black bag.

I then picked up a coworker (Jaime Sumner) at 8:35am from her home (approximately 2 blocks across the street from the school) and we drove together to the office with the black bag/memory pack.

We arrived with the black bag at approximately 9:15am.”

As Councilmember Ray Malnar said at the council meeting, the people who work the polls are volunteers and human. He felt that while some mistakes had occurred, none had risen to the level of voter fraud or vote tampering. I concur with his assessment. Originally I expressed concern regarding the “missing” votes at Mensendick School but after reading the above Affidavit I am satisfied that there was no vote tampering.

Apparently these answers from the County Recorder’s Office are not good enough for Chavira, Turner, Tolmachoff and Aldama. Yet they accepted the County Recorder’s and Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Official Canvass of Votes. If they were really concerned about Glendale’s election results, why did they vote to accept those very same results? Turner made one interesting remark when he said, “As far as challenging results, that is the responsibility of the candidates.” The only one who can contest the results is Sammy.

In another Glendale Star story also posted on September 13, 2016 by Darrell Jackson entitled Weiers wins, Clark reclaims Yucca seat, Chavira’s campaign manager, Ben Scheel, said, “At this point, we are following very closely and we will keep all our options open,” Scheel said. “We have spoken to an attorney, but are not calling for anything at this point. We just want to make sure all the votes are counted and after the final votes are posted, we will examine everything closely and make our decision.” Here is the link to this story: http://www.glendalestar.com/news/article_36fc4d94-79c0-11e6-92fd-7f16a95eaf36.html .

Mayor Weiers stated in response to the possibility of a challenge, “Challenge what? The fact is the machine was still sealed and verified and based on any other voting machine, there was no discrepancy. I believe it is fruitless (to challenge) and there is a point where you have to understand that it is time to do what is right for the city.”

Will Sammy contest the results? At this point, I simply don’t care what he does. Mathematically, any action by him will not change the final outcome – quite simply, I won. The margin of my win could change incrementally but the outcome remains the same. Sammy has a steep financial hill to climb in filing a contest to the election. He has to pay for an attorney and he has to pay for any recount should such an action be approved by a judge. The only two grounds, by state statute, that would allow for a recount are voter fraud and vote tampering. He has no proof of either and the burden of proof rests with him. His court adversaries would not be me but the attorneys representing the County Recorder’s Office. That office has clearly and unequivocally stated that all seals on the bags containing the voter data were intact.

It’s time for Burdick and Chavira to publicly concede. Their sound and fury signify nothing but sour grapes and at this point we are seeing not only sour grapes but grapes that have become moldy and rotten. While we are at it…Sammy take your campaign signs down. All signs belonging to losing primary candidates need to be down 15 days after the polls close. That’s Wednesday, September 14, 2016…today.

© Joyce Clark, 2016        

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘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 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 material. 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 16

13

Sammy, the sore loser

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 13, 2016
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Some facts:

  1. Sammy Chavira lost his council seat in the current August 30, 2016 Primary Election.
  2. I am Councilmember Elect of the Yucca district in Glendale.
  3. Yesterday, September 12, 2016 the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to approve and accept the Maricopa County Recorder’s Canvass of Votes.
  4. The Board of Supervisor’s vote is a mandatory legally recognized action taken as required by Arizona State Statutes. Here are the relevant statutes:

“16-646. Statement, contents and mailing of official canvass

  1. The board of supervisors shall deliver a copy of the official canvass for all offices and ballot measures in the primary and general elections to the secretary of state in a uniform electronic computer media format that shall be agreed upon between the secretary of state and all county election officials.
  2. The certified permanent copy of the official canvass for all offices and ballot measures in a city or town election shall be filed with the appropriate city or town clerk, or in a special district election with the clerk of the board of supervisors, who shall maintain and preserve them as a permanent public record.

16-647. Declaration of election to office; delivery of certificate of election

The board of supervisors shall declare elected the person receiving the highest number of votes cast for each office to be filled by the electors of the county or a subdivision thereof, and the clerk of the board shall, unless enjoined from so doing by an order of the court, deliver to each such person, upon compliance with the provisions imposed by law upon candidates for office as conditions precedent to the issuance of such certificates, a certificate of election, signed by the clerk and authenticated with the seal of office of the board of supervisors.”

  1. The Canvass of Votes Resolution is the last item on tonight’s, September 13, Glendale City Council meeting agenda:
16-392 1 28. 2016 Primary Election Canvass of Vote Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 5154 NEW SERIES A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, DECLARING THE OFFICIAL CANVASS OF VOTES CAST IN THE CITY OF GLENDALE PRIMARY ELECTION HELD AUGUST 30, 2016; DECLARING THE ELECTION OF THE MAYOR AND THREE COUNCILMEMBERS; AND ORDERING THAT A CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION BE RECORDED. Staff Contact: Julie K. Bower, City Clerk
  1. This City Council action, whether it is approved or rejected or tabled, has no legal effect on the Canvass of Votes.  There is no state statute that requires a local jurisdiction to approve or reject the Canvass of Votes. The Glendale City Council vote is no more than a formality and ministerial. If necessary, I expect the Glendale City Attorney to verify this fact at tonight’s council meeting. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if each jurisdiction could reject the Canvass of Votes and overturn the voters’ decision? Only the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, by state statute, can vote to accept or reject the Canvass of Votes. By state statute, the Board of Supervisors vote regarding the County Recorder’s Canvass of Votes is a legal and binding action.
  2. Yesterday, September 12, 2016, Sammy sent the following letter to all Glendale City Councilmembers:

“Fellow Glendale Councilmembers,

I am greatly concerned by the election process that took place on August 30th. As my opponent, Joyce Clark, has already pointed out in previous correspondence, Glendale voters need reassurance that every single vote has been counted. (More about this statement further down in this blog.)

The loss of custody of a memory card containing voter completed ballots from the Don Mensendick polling location for over 12 hours brings into question the integrity (sic), and assurance are necessary to remove any shadow of doubt.

I am requesting the Maricopa County Recorder provide evidence to the City of Glendale and its residents that while the memory card was out of custody, it was not tampered with (sic). I am also currently working with the County Recorder to endure Glendale has not had ballots being dismissed due to signature irregularities or other reason (sic) without proper cause and procedure, as is being alleged in other parts of the county.

Until the County Recorder is able to provide this evidence I urge the Glendale Council to delay official canvassing of the election results with respect to Mrs. Clark, myself and Glendale residents.

Regards,

Councilmember Samuel U. Chavira”

  1. Sammy Chavira is in violation of State Statutes regarding the Open Meeting Law.  A councilmember may not send or verbally communicate with all councilmembers(or even another councilmember) requesting their assent on a council meeting agenda action item. The Canvass of Votes is an agenda action item scheduled for tonight, September 13, 2016. His letter to all councilmembers is the clearest and starkest example of an Open Meeting Law violation I have ever witnessed. I had no concern, as Sammy stated, as to whether every vote was counted. Rather in my communication to the County Recorder’s Office I suggested the very opposite.
  2. I sent the following email to the City Clerk when I learned of the situation at Mensendick School:

“8/31/2016 12:18:50 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time

Hello Ms. Bower,

Thank you for providing information.

However, I am concerned as I suspect all other affected candidates are, about the integrity of these ‘missing’ ballots. Would you please forward this email on to Helen Purcell, the County Recorder, with the following question:

Ms. Purcell,

I understand the ballots from one Yucca district were ‘missing’ and have been discovered. I also understand they were ‘locked up’ overnight.

Please provide me with some proof of the integrity of these ballots. I don’t see how they can be legitimately counted when they were under no one’s supervision or care for an estimated 12 hours or better.

Respectfully,

Joyce Clark”

  1. Yesterday, September 12, 2016 I viewed the County Board of Supervisor’s meeting. Here is the link: http://maricopa.siretechnologies.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=3072&doctype=AGENDA . Steve Gallardo (a buddy of Sammy’s), District 5 Supervisor, asked about the “Mensendick school situation.” The County Recorder’s Office explicitly stated that the bags holding the voter data had their seals unbroken and intact. I am reassured and satisfied by their explanation of events. I accept the County Recorder’s explanation as true and valid. It seems Supervisor Gallardo accepted their explanation as well and was also satisfied as he seconded the motion to approve the Canvass of Votes. The motion was approved unanimously. There was no follow up questioning by Supervisor Gallardo nor did he make a motion to reject the Canvass of Votes.
  2. Yesterday afternoon the County Recorder’s Office sent to all councilmembers via the City Clerk its assurance and verification that the Mensendick ballots were not tampered with. Each councilmember has the evidence that Sammy requested from the County Recorder.
  3. The only way that Sammy can contest my win is to seek court action. Sammy has already been advised by an attorney that he has no case and will not win in court. It is his burden to prove that the Mensendick ballots were tampered with and that he cannot do.

Why did Sammy get his buddy, Supervisor Gallardo, to ask about the Mensendick situation only to have Gallardo approve the Canvass of Votes? Why did Sammy violate the Open Meeting Law with his request of all councilmembers to table their acceptance of the Canvass of Votes when council’s action has no legal effect? Why is Sammy so willing to deny the will and choice of Yucca district voters?

Sammy is embarrassed that he lost. Sammy is angry after he and his special interests flushed so much money down the toilet. Sammy is unwilling to accept the Yucca district voter’s decision.

Sammy is willing to use any means, foul or futile, to overturn the voice of the people. Sammy is unwilling to accept the voters’ rejection of his record: his abuse of taxpayer money; his failure to attend city council meetings; his failure to hold district meetings; his disdain for the law regarding a simple traffic ticket; and worst of all, his failure to return his constituents’ calls and to represent them. He lost because he didn’t do his job. He thought he was entitled. He was arrogant and exhibited a lack of respect for the very people he was supposed to serve.

Sammy is a loser. He lost the election. He needs to get over it and there is no expectation that he will do so gracefully or honorably. And while he’s at it…Sammy, it is way past time to take down your campaign signs. By law they are to be removed within 10 days. It’s now 13 days and counting. But then again, the law, whether it is the Open Meeting Law or Canvass of Votes, doesn’t seem to mean much to him.

© Joyce Clark, 2016        

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘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 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 material. 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 »