Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Aug 13

21

Weighty issues stay behind closed doors

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 21, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The most discussed item on the Glendale council workshop agenda of August 20, 2013 was that of prayer. This is not a council that questions staff reports or recommendations. There are several reasons that could account for their lack of inquiry. They could agree with all aspects of the item presented or they might not have done their homework and actually read the material. Take your pick. Keep in mind even when a councilmember agreed with an item, questions were often posed to staff to flesh out and offer further explanation.  In other words, it provided an opportunity to educate. Several councilmembers appeared to be reading the material in their workshop books for the first time. That is not as uncommon as you might expect. On previous councils there were always one or two councilmembers who were reading the material for the first time during meetings.

Glendale City Council

Glendale City Council

This is not a council of passionate belief or extraordinary intellect. Qualities required to create an atmosphere of forthright debate rather than passive acceptance. One exception is Councilmember Alvarez whose stubbornness and lack of understanding of an issue is often mistaken for passion.

Prayer is Mayor Weiers’ initiative. Coming from the state legislature where prayer is offered provided the impetus to introduce the concept in Glendale. He appears to have the support of Councilmembers Hugh, Sherwood, Alvarez and Chavira to bring it to a vote of approval. As stated in my last blog prayer may be fleeting as the Supreme Court takes up the issue of prayer at town meetings this fall. Councilmember Martinez and Vice Mayor Knaack dissented. They preferred continuation of the moment of silence and felt that the concept may cause problems in the future. They represent the sentiment of my unscientific blog poll to date. 67% of the responders do not support initiating a prayer and 33% of the responders do support it. Perhaps the best course of action would have been to “let sleeping dogs lie.”

When it came to Council Items of Interest, nearly all of the items were a recitation of the issues currently facing them, i.e., Camelback Ranch debt, the proposed casino, future revenue projections, the fire department’s “structural deficit,” and employee compensation. There were a few new ideas to explore. Councilmember Martinez asked to look at loose trash collection with the idea of changing it to a quarterly service or eliminating it altogether. That idea is sure to generate a lot of comment from Glendale’s citizens. Councilmember Sherwood suggested a look at the sister city concept with an intent to partner with a Canadian city that hosts hockey. Mayor Weiers agreed saying that Anthony LeBlanc (new owner of the Coyotes hockey team) had suggested the idea. Councilmember Chavira offered an idea, admittedly not his own, that asked staff to look at interim uses (such as an archery range) for the Western Area Regional Park (now called Glendale Heroes Memorial Park).

We know that critical issues such as the arena management contract, the external audit and meeting the City Attorney candidates occurred during what is turning out to be, all-too-frequent, closed Executive Sessions. The weighty issues are not for your consideration…only their eventual outcomes.

©Joyce Clark, 2013

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

Aug 13

19

To pray or not to pray…that is the question

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 19, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Instead of its regular meeting time of 1:30 PM the Tuesday, August 20, 2013 council workshop meeting will convene at 9 AM. The 64 million dollar question is will Councilmember Alvarez show up or call in? She’s on the injured reserve list once again. If she does show will pain medication affect her performance or lack thereof?

They will begin with an Executive Session to meet the candidates for the City Attorney’s position. Do we know how many finalists? Do we know who they are? At least when the City Manager’s position was up for grabs we knew a smidgeon about the finalists. This time there is a cone of silence.

prayerThe most interesting and possibly contentious issue for open workshop discussion is to pray or not to pray at the start of the evening meeting. FYI: Only Phoenix has prayer before its council meeting. The cities of Gila Bend, Winslow, Apache Junction, Litchfield Park, Benson and Florence have invocations before their meetings. What’s the difference between an invocation and a prayer? According to the dictionary an invocation is the act of asking for help or support from anyone or anything.  A prayer is a spiritual communion with God or an object of worship. Is it appropriate to start council meetings with a prayer? You can weigh in by participating in my unscientific poll to the left of this article. This issue could become a moot point of discussion as this fall the Supreme Court will take up the issue of prayer at town meetings as it hears the Greece, New York case.

After their discussion of prayer council will move into another Executive Session where once again they will receive information about the external audit. Apparently the audit has been completed. If that is the case, it’s time to let the citizens of Glendale review the result. After all, taxpayers paid a hefty price for it – a half million dollars. It should be presented to all on a gold plated serving tray! Come on, council, it’s time to give it up and direct staff to post the results on the city’s website.

The other item of note in Esession is discussion of the IceArizona management agreement. What could this be about? The council approved the contract with IceArizona with its public vote on July 2, 2013 followed by the sale of the team by the NHL to IceArizona.  Is the contract still under negotiation?  That is the only way it can be discussed in Esession. Here is the exact verbiage used: “Discussion and consultation with the City Attorney and the City Manager to receive an update, consider its position and provide instruction and direction to the City Attorney and the City Manager regarding Glendale’s position in connection with agreements associated with arena management, the Arena, and the Hockey Team, which are the subject of negotiations (bold emphasis mine). [A.R.S 38-431.03(A)(3)(4)(7)].” Note that discussion is permitted in Esession while the negotiations are in progress but negotiations were concluded with council’s vote on July 2nd. Hmmmm…

©Joyce Clark, 2013

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

Aug 13

14

Vacation’s over…August 13, 2013 Glendale City Council meeting

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 14, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Glendale City Council

Glendale City Council

As meetings go this one was pro forma. It was the last meeting in the old format. The next voting meeting will begin at 6 PM and the public will have the opportunity to speak before regular business. The next workshop meeting is scheduled for 9 AM on August 20, 2013, not at its regularly scheduled time of 1:30 in the afternoon.

The majority of the agenda items were approved with nary a comment. Councilmember Sherwood did pull Item 3, a new liquor license for the 99¢ store at 53rd Avenue and Glendale Avenue. It was pulled to assuage the concerns of downtown merchants who had expressed their disapproval and wanted council to deny this applicant. We all learned more about 99¢ stores than we cared to. It appears that this retail chain has revamped its model and now desires to sell beer and wine to increase its revenues. Perhaps someday we’ll see shoe stores and clothing stores selling liquor “to increase revenues.” A specious argument used ad nausea by applicants applying for a liquor license. The new license was approved despite empty reassurances from various councilmembers that they supported downtown Glendale.

It does bring up some interesting thoughts for your consideration. When does an area have enough liquor stores and can a lot of liquor stores in a small geographical area stigmatize it? A topic best saved for discussion in another blog.

The other discussion that proved most interesting was that of the car cruising event that was held in downtown Glendale. It is Mayor Weiers’ baby and he put a lot of effort into its promotion. Apparently with some success as it brought people to downtown Glendale in the middle of the summer and the merchants loved it. Now it appears that the woman who produced the event has betrayed him. She is moving the event to Westgate where apparently they are willing to pay her for her production. This is in sharp contrast to producing the event in downtown under the city’s thumb. It appears far more attractive to her to be paid for her work rather than paying the city hefty permit fees for permission to hold her event. There was much gnashing of teeth by the mayor, vice mayor and Sherwood and Martinez, promising that they would “look into it” because they were behind the downtown merchants 100% — but not when it comes to denying a new liquor license. It is also noteworthy that Weiers still hasn’t the foggiest idea of how to run a council meeting. He often forgets where he is on the agenda, takes items out of order or has to be corrected by Vice Mayor Knaack.

Norma Alvarez

Norma Alvarez

Lastly and not surprisingly Councilmember Alvarez did not attend and did not call in to participate in the meeting. It appears she has injured herself once again. How many meetings has she missed due to injury?  Feel free to do the research but it’s been a bunch. Sometimes she did call in to participate. Often she did not show or call in. She lost her effectiveness as a councilmember a long time ago and for the good of her district she should resign. She does stand for reelection in 2014 and she would be well advised not to do so. Except for a few Ken Jones types and the Tohono O’odham she has lost the support of many in her district due to a combination of her antics and absences. For the first time I have added a poll question on the left side of this article. It provides you with an opportunity to cast your vote on the question of Alvarez’ resignation.

Vacation’s over, folks.

©Joyce Clark, 2013

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

Aug 13

12

They’re b-a-a-a-ck…City Council reconvenes after summer break

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 12, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Glendale City Council

Glendale City Council

Don’t expect any fireworks at this first voting meeting on August 13, 2013 of the Glendale City Council after their summer break. They are still feeling the warm glow of sand, surf, summer and best of all, having been away from one another. Wait until the contentious issues surface such as the results of the external audit. This item once had a relatively small price tag and has now ballooned to half a million dollars.

This meeting will probably last an hour or less. Although there are 24 items to be decided and voted upon 19 of them are on the Consent Agenda and can be voted upon in one action. Only 5 items are not on the Consent Agenda.

This is the last night meeting that will convene at 7 PM.  Ordinance 2858 (which we can assume will be approved) will change the evening meeting time to 6 PM at the next meeting in two weeks. It seems counterproductive to move the meeting time up by one hour. To what end and to whose end? It makes it more difficult to arrive by 6 PM for those who work and want to attend. It is tied to another change whereby public comments will be at the beginning of the meeting rather than at the end. This change was made under the guise of accommodation of the hoards of citizens wishing to publicly comment and being made to wait until the end of the meeting. It accommodates the hoard consisting of Ken Jones, Arthur Thruston, Bill Dempski and the Marwicks, regular speakers at every meeting. After all they do go to bed rather early. Ironically, the Marwicks live in Phoenix, not Glendale.  In Glendale they have a forum. In Phoenix they do not.

Other changes that will probably be approved on August 13th are: adjusting the term of the Vice Mayor from January to January, a calendar year rather than a fiscal year; instituting a two year term limit of service for councilmembers on subcommittees (too bad it’s not term limits as an elected official); granting staff more time to respond to council items of special interest. It had been 30 days, now it is 60 days; and formalizing the council workshop meeting location in B-3. Mayor Weiers had insisted workshop meetings be held in council chambers. That didn’t last long because it was more expensive and frankly, logistically it simply didn’t work. One action yet to be decided and that will be discussed at the council workshop on August 20, 2013 is the addition of time for prayer at the start of each voting meeting. This item alone could make that workshop session very entertaining.

Fischer 2

City Manager
Fischer

Item 23, the next to the last item on the agenda, is interesting for the very nature of what it does not contain. It is an update of city signature authorization for banking transactions. It recognizes the new City Manger Brenda Fischer. It retains Horatio Skeet as Assistant City Manager and Jamsheed Mehta as Interim Assistant City Manager. Yet Ms. Fischer placed Mr. Skeete on paid administrative leave pending yet another investigation which she institued. This action to recognize signature authorization could merely be procedural. It is quite conceivable that in 2 weeks they will do it all again and add Julie Frisoni as Acting Assistant City Manager. In her role as acting assistant city manager she will oversee communications, information technology, community and economic development, planning and building safety, intergovernmental affairs and the mayor and council

Frisoni

Acting Assistant City Manager
Julie Frisoni

As an Acting Assistant City Manager, what is Frisoni’s expertise and what are her credentials? There is little public information to be had. She studied communication and broadcasting at Arizona State University – but did she graduate? With a degree in Communications?  She worked at KPNX-TV and applied for a communications position with the city. She has no formal training in public administration or business administration and no credentials in managing in any field other than communications/marketing but she has plenty of political savvy. When the former Communications Director left Ms. Frisoni quickly rose to the position of Director of Communications/Marketing. She was part of former City Manager Ed Beasley’s inner power circle and worked closely with him in a position of trust.  Which leads one to ask, when Beasley gave direction or approval to move Trust fund revenues was Ms. Frisoni in that staff meeting? Probably. What did she know about the transfers and when did she know it? Ms Frisoni’s temporary promotion shouldn’t come as a surprise since Ms. Fischer’s early career included public relations in Henderson, Nevada and communications in North Las Vegas, Nevada. Sisters under the skin?

So, folks, city council is back along with a new cast of characters. This season’s political dance, fascinating yet often cruel, is about to begin again. What will be the result for the people of Glendale?

©Joyce Clark, 2013

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

Aug 13

8

Fischer, Skeete and Arizona Attorney General

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 8, 2013
Posted in City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , | 2 Comments

Recently media stories have focused on Glendale’s new City Manager, Brenda Fischer; Glendale’s Assistant City Manager, Horatio Skeete (on paid administrative leave) and the results of the AG’s inquiry into the Glendale City Council’s possible violation of the Arizona Open Meeting Law. Wow! That’s a plate full!

Fischer 2

City Manager
Brenda Fischer

First up…City Manager Brenda Fischer…the true test of her effectiveness will be if she can successfully manage Glendale’s debt crisis. Can she convince this council that cuts of at least $5M (maybe more) must be made over the next 5 years? This council has been reluctant to cut anything and has in fact, spent more on items such as the Beacon Sports contract; the external audit (which has now ballooned to a price tag of half a million dollars); and the $15M a year payment to ArizonaIce for management of the city’s arena.

Skeete

Assistant City Manager
Horatio Skeete

Next up is Assistant City Manager Horatio Skeete currently on leave and replaced in the interim by Communications Director Julie Frisoni. It can be assumed that Fischer’s call for yet another investigation stems from his handling of the transfers from the Risk Management Trust Fund and the Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund. During their tenures, there is nothing — I repeat, NOTHING, that happened in Glendale without the knowledge of and support/disapproval of Ed Beasley, former City Manager and Elaine Scruggs, former Mayor. If one reads the International City Managers Association (ICMA) Code of Conduct, one would see that one of the Code requisites is that subordinate staff, i.e., Assistant City Manager, Department heads, etc., are impelled to carry out the directives of the City Manager, whether they agree with those City Manager directives or not. It is hoped that as the new investigation commissioned by the new City Manager commences the final decision maker regarding the fund transfers will be identified.

Coalition 1 photo

Glendale
City Council

Lastly, the AG’s inquiry into possible council Open Meeting Law violations is laughable. Boy, was it thorough! The AG relied upon an AG interview with only one councilmember and the assertions of no wrong doing by City Attorney Nick DiPiazza who, in turn, asked all seven councilmembers whether they had been bad boys and girls.  It’s like the proverbial fox guarding the hen house. I can see it now. DiPiazza to a councilmember: Did you discuss any deal points when you met with the NHL and Renaissance principals? Councilmember, said with indignation: Heavens no! We talked about the weather, living in Arizona and our families. We never discussed any deal points. After all, it was a  “meet and greet.” Does anyone want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?

 

©Joyce Clark, 2013

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

Jul 13

28

A “walk around” to remember

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 28, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Coalition 1 photo

Glendale City Council
(Alvarez absent)

Lately there has been a rash of media stories about the Attorney General’s office receiving complaints about the now infamous meeting between NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman and Deputy NHL Commissioner Bill Daly, Renaissance Sports and Entertainment (RSE) principals and Glendale City Councilmembers on May 28, 2013. Immediately following that event I posted about the now famous concept of a “walk around.” The media picked up on it followed by official complaints. Of course we see the fine hand of Councilmember Alvarez aided and abetted by Reverend Maupin in this blame game.

The “walk around” has been a procedure whereby an applicant/ developer of a land parcel met with one, two or three councilmembers at a time. The planned project was explained and the councilmember(s) offered commentary. Usually the applicant was not in the final stages of a project and wanted feedback prior to developing a final proposal.  It was also used by staff to brief councilmembers on a variety of items. In either case the staff person or applicant was seeking further refinements or clarification from councilmembers on a project or item before proceeding.

The first question to ask about the May 28 2013 meeting was why didn’t the city call for an executive session? Did it not have enough time (24 hours) to post such a meeting? Who knows? In hindsight an executive session would have been far more preferable as this contract and its deal points was Hot Topic #1 in Glendale and across the Valley. All of the councilmembers would have heard exactly the same information about the RSE deal at the same time. All would have had an opportunity to comment.

As for this particular “walk around” being no more than a “meet and greet” opportunity it would have been essentially unproductive and a waste of time. Mayor Weiers, at one point, told the media that only the broad outlines of the deal were offered—in other words, generalities, not specifics. Even if that were the case, it stretches incredulity to believe that there was no reaction to the generalities from councilmembers. Now Interim City Attorney DiPiazza is tasked with defending poor judgment. Do you think anyone is going to admit to having deal point discussions? Not on your life if it can lead to fines or even removal from office.

Neither side will be unscathed in this latest debacle. There have also been complaints lodged with the AG’s office against Councilmembers Alvarez and Hugh for violating executive session by discussing the Beacon bids publicly at the July 2nd council meeting. What I find fascinating is that Ken Jones, an avid Alvarez cabal member, leaves council chambers BEFORE either Alvarez or Hugh speaks about the Beacon bids and reveals information about several of the bids to the media. How could he have possibly have had that information unless someone who attended the executive session where it was discussed gave it to him?

The old crystal ball says the complaint against the entire council (sans Alvarez who refused to be in the same room with hockey people) will go nowhere. Unless someone is willing to ‘fess up there will be no substantiating proof for the complaint. On the other hand, council meetings are taped and one can go to the city website and view the July 2, 2013 meeting in question and see Ken Jones leave prior to Alvarez’ and Hugh’s comments about the Beacon bids. There, on video, for all to see is the proof required. How it is interpreted by the AG’s office will surely determine their fate.

copyright

Jul 13

25

So you want to be a councilmember…final part

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 25, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 1 Comment

AWARD WINNER FRUGAL SPENDERS…#6 MARTINEZ AND #7 KNAACK

Martinez photo

Manny Martinez

Knaack

Yvonne Knaack

Councilmember Martinez spent $7,117.47 in 6 months of expenditures and Vice Mayor Knaack spent $3,672.29. Both exhibited restraint in their spending with the exception of a few items. It would be appropriate to get an explanation from Councilmember Chavira on his expenditures that in 6 months that are 7 ½ times the amount of Vice Mayor Knaack.

It should be noted that Councilmember Martinez spent $4,126.97 (53% of his 6 months of expenditures) for its intended purpose — that of infrastructure improvements within his district. He, like other councilmembers, has cell phone charges of $411.13 and land line charges of $1,328.00. Otherwise his budget is clean and all of his expenditures are reflected in his infrastructure expenditures, phone charges and the state National League of Cities convention.

Vice Mayor Knaack has no phone charges and is to be highly commended for that practice. She did donate $609.62 to the Glendale Arizona Historical Society. I wonder if she was aware of the thousands of dollars this organization received from other councilmembers. She, too, attended the state National League of Cities convention, very frugally.

money 11Both of these councilmembers have repeatedly called for all councilmembers to reign in their spending and to return portions of their budgets back to the city’s General Fund. They are the only 2 councilmembers to consistently practice what they have preached. They get it. They understand that with Glendale’s financial constraints every penny and every dollar and how it is spent becomes important. Kudos to both.

copyright

Jul 13

24

So you want to be a councilmember…Part 4

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 24, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 1 Comment

MIDDLE OF THE ROADERS…#4 WEIERS AND #5 SHERWOOD

Weiers

Jerry Weiers

Sherwood

Gary Sherwood

There is no earth shaking surprise in either of these gentlemen’s budgetary expenditures. Certainly they have not adopted the philosophy or practice of giving your taxpayer dollars away as Chavira, Alvarez and Hugh have done. Mayor Weiers 6 months of expenditures comes in at $14,041.33 and Councilmember Sherwood is not far behind with expenditures of $11,516.37.

It’s common knowledge that they don’t like each other very much as each vies for the title of ultimate power broker in Glendale. They are discussed in unison because they share commonalities when it comes to spending. Both like to travel with each racking up substantial travel expenses and each spent about the same amount for the use of phones whether land line or cell.

money 3Mayor Weiers spent $4,729.15 (33% of his 6 months of expenditures) on travel for 3 trips. In March he and Councilmembers Sherwood and Chavira, staffed by Intergovernmental Director, Brent Stoddard, went to Washington, D.C. for the National League of Cities (NLC) Congressional City Conference. In April Weiers and Stoddard went to Washington, D.C. for the Greater Phoenix Economic Council (GPEC) Executive Mission. In May Weiers was back in D.C. with Stoddard. If Stoddard’s expenses to staff Weiers and others in D.C. are added those trips become pricier at $8,541.00.

money 5Sherwood spent $3,927.22 (34% of his 6 months of expenditures) on travel as well. If a quarter of Stoddard’s expenses (Stoddard staffed 3 elected officials on the March trip to D.C.) are added, Sherwood’s tab for travel cost the city $5,069.45 in direct and indirect costs. Stoddard typically pays for meals, especially dinners if the elected officials have not been invited by another party. He will pay cab fare and miscellaneous expenses on behalf of the elected officials.

Weiers’ phone bill comes in at $1,259.52 and Sherwood spent $449.10 for his cell and another $789.85 for his land line totaling $1,238.95. Their phone expenditures in 6 months are virtually the same. Is it appropriate to cover their phone expenses? That is a judgment call and something you must decide.The balance of their budgetary expenditures is ordinary and appropriate.

These trips were probably meaningful and were dedicated to lobbying for the city’s interests on issues such as the F-35 to be based at Luke and the casino issue. Everything in D.C. is pricey but we expect moderation. Their lodging and airfare are reasonable for a trip to D.C. but Stoddard’s expenditure of $1,284.52 for meals (dinners for 4) is on the high side.

In an era of frugality and tightened budgetary expenses in Glendale it is more important than ever before that our elected officials spend their travel dollars wisely. A reminder that these trips are funded with taxpayer dollars may encourage them to be more mindful.

copyright

Jul 13

23

So you want to be a councilmember…Part 3

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 23, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

NEXT UP AS BIG SPENDERS ARE #2 ALVAREZ AND #3 HUGH

Norma Alvarez

Norma Alvarez

Hugh photo

Ian Hugh

Councilmember Alvarez is number 2 on the list having spent $26,151.34 and Councilmember Hugh comes in at third at $19,771.12. Both share Chavira’s philosophy of giving away your taxpayer dollars.

 

money 2Here is the list of Alvarez’ donations made in the past 6 months totaling  $16,791.40 (60% of her total 6 month expenditures):

 

  • Glendale Arizona Historical Society……………$3,000.00
  • Community Action Program Holiday Event….$3,000.00
  • Football uniforms for Independence HS…….…$3,391.40
  • Hope for Hunger…………………………………$    500.00
  • Scholarships………………………………………..$   900.00

 

  • Jivemind performance at a Glen. ES*.……………$3,000.00
  • Arizona Melon Festival, LLC*…………………….$3,000.00

*Last two items are for-profit corporations.

Like Chavira, Alvarez donated to the Arizona Melon Festival, LLC money 9(AMF). AMF received a total of $11,000 from 2 councilmembers, Chavira and Alvarez.  Jeff Rose, SW Director of Jivemind, is also a managing member of AMF. Alvarez also donated to Jivemind despite the fact that the Jivemind lease of city property requires the company to offer at least 4 free public events yearly. Ummmm… Also of note Jivemind is renting 6,559 square feet of city property (formerly the Bead Museum) for approximately $2.69/SF. In checking the going rate for lease of downtown Glendale commercial property the lowest cost per square foot that is currently listed is $6.00/SF. Ummmm…

money 8Here is the list of Hugh’s donations made in the past 6 months totaling $9,984.98 (50% of his total 6 month expenditures):

 

  • Glendale Arizona Historical Society……………..$4,669.98
  • Jerseys for youth project………………….……….$1,040.00
  • Hope for Hunger…………………………………..$3,000.00
  • Packages from Home…………………….….….…$1,000.00
  • The Salvation Army………………………..…….$   275.00

Other expenditures of note in Hugh’s budget are 1. Yep, you guessed it. Hugh’s cell phone, just like Chavira’s, is covered at $75 a month and 2. On May 13, 2013 Hugh hosted an event at Shane’s Ribmoney 1 Shack for $1,750.45. That’s a lot of ribs! Was it for his constituents? No further information is provided to clarify this noteworthy expense. It’s ironic that a councilmember whose focus and roots are in downtown Glendale chose a restaurant away from downtown and in Westgate.

All of the non-profits listed above are worthy and deservedly so. They offer much needed services in our community. Some of these groups also receive dollars from Glendale’s From the Heart Program or CBDG funding. From the Heart is a program in which residents have the option to pay an additional dollar on their water/sewer/sanitation bill every month. That dollar goes to From the Heart which often also receives grant match funding from other organizations. The funds are distributed to non-profits on an annual basis. In addition, as Alvarez well knows as a former director of Glendale’s Community Action Program, that the city is a pass-through federal funds (called Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] funds). CDBG funds are distributed annually to non-profits that assist the low to moderate income population in Glendale. These are successful, long-term city mechanisms to distribute funding to the economically disadvantaged and disabled within our community.

Is it appropriate for councilmembers to divert funding from their “communications” and “infrastructure” budgets to non-profits? They are taxpayer dollars and the only judge of these monetary awards is the councilmember. There are dangers in cronyism and abuse. What if there are constituents that are philosophically opposed? These councilmember actions make it perfectly clear that they are not focused on district resident outreach and providing their constituents timely information or in making awards that can physically improve the blight in some of their district neighborhoods.

Yet when these budgets were initially created that was the distinct purpose and intent for the use of these funds in councilmember budgets. The need to fund communication to constituents was an identified primary need as was the ability to “fix” minor neighborhood infrastructure issues that arose and were not budgeted for in the city budget. None of the former councilmembers ever voiced the intent to give the money away to their favorite charities. Yet Alvarez made monetary awards totaling 60% of her entire 6 month expenditures (January 1 to June 30, 2013) and Hugh made awards totaling 50%. It’s time to take a look at councilmember budgets and examine what are to be considered as appropriate expenditures.

money 5These very three councilmembers, Chavira ($27,000), Alvarez ($26,000) and Hugh ($19,000) are big spenders who have no problem in giving your taxpayer dollars to their favorite organizations. Their inability to reign in their individual council budgets demonstrates a philosophy loathe to reign in the city’s budget and to reduce spending. The city must reduce its spending by $23 million by FY 2017 when the increased sales tax sunsets. Yet these councilmembers continue to rack up new expenses that were unbudgeted such as $100,000+ for the Beacon bid process the results of which were ignored; or the $500,000 for an audit which will do no more than place blame on some city middle managers long gone from the organization. If they cannot practice frugality with their own council budgets why should we expect them to cut city expenses, something so desperately needed, that continue to outpace its revenues?

copyright

Jul 13

22

So you want to be a councilmember…Part 2

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 22, 2013
Posted in City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 5 Comments

AS THE BIGGEST SPENDER WE BEGIN WITH CHAVIRA

Chavira photo

Sammy Chavira

We start with Councilmember Chavira who, in 6 months, spent $27,748.18 and is the biggest spender on council. The six district councilmembers have 2 distinct budgets. These budgets do not include staff salaries or office operations (the mayor’s budget does include these items).

One budget will be identified as “Communications” and is for outreach to district residents and totals $15,000 a year. Its purpose is to allow the councilmember to hold district meetings, neighborhood meetings and to publish a district newsletter, if he/she so chooses. It is fortunate having been a councilmember there is personal knowledge with which to make some comparisons. I used the “communications” budget to mail a spring and fall district newsletter to every household in my district for I knew that not all households in my district were connected to the internet. Currently the only other source of district information is an electronic newsletter via the internet and the resident must sign up for it. This funding source was also used to rent space for district meetings and to provide refreshments for the attendees. Those two major activities would consume nearly all of the funds available in this budget.

The councilmembers’ other budget will be identified as“Infrastructure” and is used for physical improvement projects within the councilmember’s district and totals $18,000 annually. Typically it is used for those items that do not make it into the city budget because there is no available funding source. Examples of its use are district park improvements and physical improvements to a specific neighborhood. I have also used this funding source for pilot projects. The two most notable are a pilot project to put up mid-block identification signage for vehicular traffic. The white street identification signs seen as you approach an intersection in your vehicle began as my pilot project. It was later adopted throughout the city. Another pilot project was the purchase of E-readers for loan to district residents. After the project concluded I donated the E-readers to the city libraries and my project provided the impetus for the city’s library system to loan out E-readers to all library users.

My travel expenses were limited. As the National League President’s appointed Arizona representative to the National League of Cities Public Safety and Crime Prevention (PSCP) Policy Committee I attended 2 mandatory policy development meetings a year. I did not consistently attend the annual National or State League of Cities conventions. Those trips were paid from the “Communications” budget. Since 80% of that budget was consumed by district resident outreach I was very selective about travel.

money 4Chavira appears to have a very different philosophy with regard to the spending from these two budgets.  He did spend $7,000 (25%)on park benches for the Western Area Regional Park but his major priorities (40% of his 6 months of expenditures) are a donation to a for-profit corporation and travel. In March, 2013 Chavira attended the 4-day National League of Cities (NLC) Congressional City Conference. Directly attributable to his budget, he spent $2,507.28 on airfare, meals, lodging, registration, etc. Ah, but there’s more. Mayor Weiers and Councilmember Sherwood also attended. All three gentlemen were staffed by Brent Stoddard, Glendale’s Intergovernmental Program Director.  Stoddard’s total travel costs for that conference were $4,568.94. Stoddard’s expenses often include the cost of cab fare, dinners, etc. for elected officials. That expense, divided 4 ways among Stoddard and the three men he staffed, adds another indirect $1,142.23 to Chavira’s direct expense of $2507.28 for that March conference for a total of $3,649.51. That figure averages nearly $1000 a day ($912.38). Sammy spent 10% of his total 6 months worth of expenditures on one trip.

money 3Even more incredibly this past June Sammy gave $8,000 of your taxpayer dollars (29% of the $27K spent) to the Arizona Melon Festival LLC, a for-profit corporation, to host the Arizona Watermelon Festival in downtown Glendale on June 8, 2013. Now it gets interesting. The organizers of the event were the Arizona Melon Festival, LLC; AZ Culture; and the City of Glendale. The sponsors were Coors Light (Beer Garden area); G Farms (donated all of the watermelons); AZ Weekly (small independent entertainment magazine); TSO Apparel (small embroidery business); Southwest Ambulance; the City of Glendale; and the West Valley Resort (the Tohono O’odham’s proposed casino whose project the City of Glendale legally opposes). The relationships of some of these organizations’ principals are interesting to note. In a future blog you will see that Councilmember Alvarez gave $3,000 to the Arizona Melon Festival, LLC. and another $3,000 to Jivemind as well.

Who are the owners of the Arizona Melon Festival, LLC?

  • Its statutory agent is Dustin Chaffin of Jivemind (the city rents this property at below market rate to Jivemind — former site of the bead museum. Go to http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/Contracts/7901.pdf for its rental contract).
  • Gabriel Bey, of AZ Culture
  • Lulu Rodriguez of Bitzee Mama’s
  • Linda Moran-Whittley of Papa Ed’s Ice Cream
  • Jeff Rose of Jivemind
  • Danica Coral of the Pink House

If this festival earned any profit those proceeds would go to the people listed above. The sponsorship of Southwest Ambulance is not surprising. Martin Nowakowski, its Community Relations Director, happens to be a close friend of both Chavira and Alvarez and avidly supported both in their election bids. So did the Tohono O’odham (TO). They not only bore the cost of political campaign mailers endorsing them but solicited campaign contributions.  Yet the city is fending off the proposed TO casino. How embarrassing for the city to be intimately associated with the TO as a sponsor of this newly created, for-profit festival.

money 1At least 40% of Chavira’s 6 months worth of expenditures went for a trip to Washington, D.C. and to assist a for-profit corporation in their production of a new downtown event. And let’s not forget the $75 a month that you, the taxpayer, pay for his monthly cell phone. It is more than ironic that in Sammy’s campaign literature mailed to voters in October, 2012 he said, “Glendale is in fiscal danger and Sam is coming to help.” Was this the kind of help you expected? Or how about this from another campaign mailer, “Sammy is running to fix the budget and save Glendale.” Somehow or another, spending $8,000 on a festival doesn’t seem like the right road to fixing Glendale’s budget or saving Glendale.  Next up will be Councilmembers Alvarez and Hugh with positions #2 and #3 as Big Spenders.

copyright     

« Previous Page — Next Page »