Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Jan 14

11

Say what??

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 11, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale and the Super Bowl • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

The Glendale City Council meeting of January 14, 2014 has 19 items. A majority of the items are on the Consent Agenda and are ratifications by council of action items such as approval of an action with APS to relocate an overhead line. There are 3 items of special interest: council approval of final dollar amount to Beacon Sports Capital Partners, Inc.; council approval of position reclassifications; and council approval to rent parking spaces from Westgate, LLC.

If you remember, Beacon Sports was hired to prepare an RFP and seek bids for the management of Jobing.com arena. Council originally authorized an unbudgeted amount of $100,000. The final bill came in at $125,425.43. The cost was $25,425.43 over the stated figure. Well, that’s $125,425.43 down the toilet as the responses to the Beacon RFP were ignored as council pursued and accepted the IceArizona bid of $15 million a year to manage the arena. A management amount that is a far cry from the bids proffered to Beacon and ignored.

The Position Reclassification includes council’s acceptance of all of Management Partner’s recommendations most of which will become effective July 1, 2014. Two reclassifications that are effective as of January 15, 2014 (the day after this meeting) are reclassifying a Secretary’s position in Field Operations to Assistant City Manager as well as reclassifying a Senior Budget Analyst in Finance to a Purchasing & Materials Manager. If you recall, council approval of reclassification allows the Human Resources Director to reclassify nearly every position in the organization. The Director’s decisions are final and not appealable or grievable.

Did you know that the city will be renting parking spaces at Westgate for the Super Bowl? Well, we are this time around. This is to fulfill the city’s obligation to provide 6,000 parking spaces within the Westgate area. Spaces east of 93rd Avenue and west of 95th Avenue go for $20 a pop. Prime parking spaces between 93rd and 95th Avenues go for $30 each. Total cost for parking spaces for the Super Bowl will be between $34,721.72 and $52,082.58. The rental tax is 3.4% and it is unclear whether it is included in the figures presented.

Not bad for a night’s work. Council paid over $125,000 for nothing, took away some employee’s appeal and grievance rights and will spend between $35,000 and $55,000 to fulfill its contractual parking for the Super Bowl. It’s enough to make you scratch your head and say, “Say what??”

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Jan 14

8

Rearranging the deck chairs

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 8, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 1 Comment

At the January 7, 2014 council workshop session there were two items up for discussion and direction. Both were in Julie Frisoni’s, Interim Assistant City Manager, realm. One was municipal marketing and the other was restructuring the organization.

Municipal marketing is a strategy to raise money in a city by allowing corporations to pay for the right to advertise on city property, i.e., libraries, fire stations, police stations, vehicles and any other city asset deemed appropriate. It is used sparingly throughout the country and in the Valley.

Much was made of Mesa’s use of advertising inserts in its utility bills and the fact that since 2010 advertising has earned the city $250,000. What council failed to recognize is that it was not an annual $250,000 windfall but rather $80,000 a year. The cost to the city for implementing such a program will run anywhere from $40,000 to $75,000. Expect the higher cost rather than the lower. The options for payment of this new initiative were either (1) get the bidder to accept no upfront payment from the city. Rather there would be a reduction in the bidder’s first payment to the city to cover the cost; or (2) payment from salary savings. Salary savings are those revenues generated when a position remains vacant and unfilled for a period of time. The salary that would have been paid goes into a salary savings fund. That should be your first clue that there are still dollars to be cut from Glendale’s budget.

It was emphasized repeatedly that this would be a city-wide program. I wonder if Arrowhead residents are prepared to see their Foothills branch library renamed. It will be interesting to see their reaction should the library become, for example, the “Chick-A-Fill” Foothills Library!

All of the revenue earned will go into the General Fund. Will we see advertising revenue from the libraries, sanitation trucks or city buses go into the General Fund to pay for some inane project? Perhaps those assets that earn the revenue should benefit from it.

It was a positively “kumbaya” moment. Councilmembers Knaack, Chavira and Mayor Weiers falling all over themselves to thank Frisoni for the innovation and creativity used to raise money for the city during its current financial crisis. Martinez was part of the chorus as well but threw out the idea that councilmembers could use part of their council budgets to easily cover the cost. That idea met with stony silence. Councilmember Sherwood as well as some other councilmembers berated the previous council for not accepting this idea in 2004. Well, councilmember, it was a different environment at that time. Glendale was not in the financial morass it finds itself in today. In 2004 Frisoni presented very much the same scheme. The cost at that time would have been $39,000 and the no upfront cost idea was also floated. Even Councilmembers Knaack and Martinez though the idea of advertising on city property and assets was tacky. Especially opposed at the time was the former Mayor Scruggs. She turned up her nose and virtually declared the idea dead upon arrival. Councilmember Alvarez, whose mantra is “no” to everything and being true to form, refused to support this concept. She wanted more assurance that it would truly be a citywide program and that the Arrowhead area would not be able to opt out. She also was not happy that the revenue would be dumped into the General Fund to cover what she feels would be an inappropriate expense. Amid all of the congratulations council consensus was to move forward with this idea.

The second presentation on organizational review was presented by Frisoni and Andy Belknap, Regional Vice President and Cathy Standiford, Partner, of Management Partners, Inc. (MP). This initiative came strictly from City Manager Brenda Fischer who was able to hire this consultant without council approval because the cost was under the allowed $50,000 cap for a city manager expenditure.

This is yet another rearranging of the deck chairs. Former City Manager Beasley rearranged the organizational chart at least six times in a period of less than eight years. It is billed, as usual, as a means of improving efficiency and effectiveness but there was another goal not recognized or discussed by anyone. That goal was to physically consolidate the organization enough to free up some city property for sale or lease. Just another flag that indicates the financial stress the city is experiencing…raise revenue by selling corporate advertising rights and figure out ways such as this one, to sell or lease city properties.

What were the recommendations? There were some major ones:

  1. Reduce the number of departments from 14 to 10. Three current executive positions will be absorbed. Previously I said that no one leaves unless fired, retired or left the city for another job. Those expecting a reduction in the number of executive positions and subsequent salary savings will be disappointed.
  2. Centralize functions. One example is to lump capital improvement planning, engineering and project management together.
  3. Keep the two assistant city manager positions. One assistant city manager would supervise infrastructure and the other would supervise community programs. The second position appears to be tailored specifically for Frisoni, the Interim Assistant City Manager. Expect Jim Brown, Director of Human Relations, to have received direction to rewrite the qualifications for assistant city manager to accommodate Frisoni’s lack of qualifications for the position.
  4. Remove the title of Executive Director and reinstate the title of Director. With the inception of the Executive Director titles there was a commensurate increase in pay. With the removal of this title, all pay remains intact.
  5. No change to these departments: City Auditor, Police, Fire, Human Resources/Risk Management, Water Services, City Attorney and City Court. All other departments will be consolidated or moved.
  6. The City Manager will have direct control of the Office of Intergovernmental Programs (IGA), and the Office of Economic Development (ED). This is particularly interesting because the IGA will supervise the council’s and mayor’s offices.
  7. The City Manager will continue to receive direct reports from: Police, Fire, Finance and Technology, Human Resources/Risk Management, City Auditor and the two Assistant City Managers.  The two Assistant City Managers will supervise the departments that deal with city infrastructure and city programs.

One recommendation long overdue is to enhance the city’s use of technology. It is a concept for which I have advocated and welcome. Just one example is the use of GPS to maximize information about the city’s infrastructure and assets. The door was opened for council consideration of privatization of city service delivery. The suggestion was to look at sanitation, street sweeping, traffic signal maintenance, park and landscaping maintenance and custodial services. Last year council mightily resisted the idea of privatizing custodial services. Will this council embrace privatization?

Council’s reaction? The “walk around” performed by Management Partners did a great deal to staunch questions and criticism. A “walk around” is a tried and true technique to sell an idea to council on an individual basis and to quell any public negativism. After the usual chorus of thank yous Weiers, Sherwood, Knaack, Martinez and Chavira voiced their enthusiastic support. Councilmembers Hugh and Alvarez were glaringly silent. Alvarez was probably too stunned to speak.

This council should be commended for seeking new strategies to maximize the city’s revenue streams and to reduce expenses. The question is…do these two strategies achieve those goals?

© Joyce Clark, 2014

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

Jan 14

4

And so it begins…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

© Joyce Clark, 2014

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

Dec 13

31

2013 Elected Officials Report Card

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Joyce Clark, 2013

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

Dec 13

30

Happy 2014, Glendale!

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

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

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

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

© Joyce Clark, 2013

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

Dec 13

19

Merry Christmas to all…

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

card 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Joyce Clark, 2013

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

Dec 13

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

Tidbits of fact or fiction

Posted by Joyce Clark on December 2, 2013
Posted in City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Well, well, well…guess who pulled a city council nomination packet to run again in her district?? Yep…none other than Jaba, er, Councilmember Norma Alvarez. Others have used the nickname repeatedly.  Warranted? You decide. She pulled her nomination packet Wednesday, November 27, 2013. It was the day before Thanksgiving perhaps to fly under the media’s radar screen??

norma and jaba 2

This is the woman who vowed not to run again and told voters during her election campaign that she would be a one-term councilmember. This is the same woman who said after the results of the external audit her work was done and she would resign. This is the same woman, when asked directly by the media recently, waffled for all she’s worth. Your first hint should have been the new hairdo, clothes and her presence at events she couldn’t be bothered with in her previous 3 years.

Let’s hope Jaime Aldalma, an announced candidate for the same Ocotillo district seat, or perhaps some other candidates will give Alvarez a run for her money, er, that’s the Democratic Party’s and the Tohono O’odham’s money. Alvarez has not earned a seat on council with either her actions or her words.

Trading votes?

Sources have speculated endlessly about the reason for Chavira’s vote in support of the new Coyotes ownership deal of $15 million dollars a year. Chavira made it clear when he ran that he did not support the deal and thought there were more prudent ways to manage the city’s arena and money  – such as one of the Beacon bidders. Gary Sherwood ran on a platform that included his opposition to the proposed Tohono O’odham casino. Lately he appears to have flip-flopped. The speculation is that they traded votes. Sherwood may have gotten Chavira to support the Coyotes deal in return for his support of the Tohono O’odham casino. We’ve all seen stranger things happen.
arrow 1

 

 SherwoodChavira photo

These are just some of the tidbits that come my way continually.  Fact or Fiction? You decide.

© 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.

« Previous Page — Next Page »