Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

NOTE: I have over 2,000 subscribers (it’s free!). When I post a blog I get anywhere from 200 to 2000 reads. Since my blog started I have had half a million people read my posts! Be part of the latest news about Glendale, Arizona. Subscribe today. Check the top of the left column and simply enter your email address. Your email address will not be put on any other list and never on a paid list.

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

In the last blog of this series I have to throw Mayor Weiers’ opponent, Michelle Robertson, into the mix. The minimum number of signatures needed to become a mayoral candidate is 1,267. She submitted a little over 2,300 signatures.

The County Recorder invalidated a substantial number of them. I don’t know exactly how many but it was a bunch. In addition, approximately half of dozen of Robertson’s circulators presumably admitted to Robertson’s attorneys that they had done some creative writing and had filled out sheets with bogus information. Her defense team, once they knew that Weiers’ attorney was preparing to call these circulators as witnesses, agreed those signatures were no good and withdrew them. When the dust settled Ms. Robertson had only 57 more signatures than the minimum of 1267 needed.

The same convicted felon that collected 43 signatures for Bryce Alexander also collected signatures for Ms. Robertson. I believe he collected in the neighborhood of 65 to 70 signatures. Invalidation of him as a circulator was as important to the Weiers campaign as it was to mine. Again, I remind you neither Weiers nor I prevailed on getting the convicted felon’s petition sheets invalidated as the judges ruled he had all of his civil rights restored and was a valid circulator.

The same paid circulator, the convicted felon, worked for both campaigns and signed the back of these 2 petition sheets. The yellow highlighting and notations are mine. I erased the photos and ask you to figure out which one is Robertson’s and which one is Alexander’s. They are eerily similar, aren’t they?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another paid circulator signed the back of these two petition sheets. Which is Robertson’s and which is Alexander’s? They seem to be identical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I bring all of these anomalies up for a reason. There are questionable practices being performed by some petition gathering companies and in turn, by the candidates themselves who knowingly submit questionable signatures.

When a local candidate for office turns in petition sheets to the city’s clerk, the only function of the city clerk is to certify that enough signatures have been turned in. The clerk’s office does not validate signatures. Most candidates don’t know this and therefore, don’t check their opponent’s signatures for the required number of signatures as valid. Some of us do. I did.

When a candidate believes the opponent does not have enough valid signatures the only recourse is to file a suit in Superior Court. That is the mechanism that requires the county recorder’s office to check and to validate or invalidate signatures. But it is more complicated than that. The candidate challenging signatures for validity must list every sheet number, line number and reason for challenge for each signature being questioned. The county recorder does not and will not check every signature. It will only check signatures identified by the complainant. I found somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 signatures I believed to be invalid. The county recorder agreed that 43 of those were invalid.

Another aspect of collecting signatures is the use of petition signature gathering companies. A few are reliable and honest but there are others that are not. The unreliable ones will hire any warm body willing to do the work and often do not check backgrounds. That’s how we get convicted felons going door to door to collect signatures…amid the most unusual event in our country’s history…a pandemic. I doubt that the paid circulators wore masks, gloves or social distanced when going door to door, offering the same pen for people to use when signing the petition. How many signers were put at risk? We’ll never know.

The less reputable petition companies do not validate the signatures that are collected. Why would they? In today’s market, a candidate must pay from $1.00 to $3.00 per signature. If the company had to strike invalid signatures before submitting them to the candidate, it would eat into their billing to the candidate. Some candidates have paid for sheets that are garbage…filled with invalid signatures.

The petition signature gathering process has been corrupt for years by practices such as these. That is why we see 40 or 50 challenges in court per election cycle. These practices are not conducive to good government. Filing and defending suits in court for suspected petition wrong doing are expensive and clog the courts diminishing their ability to deal with legitimate cases.

 Alexander and Robertson used paid circulators to go door to door during the worst pandemic this country has ever experienced. To pursue their goals of getting on the ballot they were willing to put the public’s health during CoVid 19 at risk.

Particular to my challenge is the fact that Mr. Alexander never took the stand on his behalf to swear that he was, in fact, the circulator of the challenged petitions. He can state publicly, now that the challenge has been decided, that he did circulate those petitions. How can you believe that what he may say now is not just political expediency? One can say anything when one doesn’t have to swear to it in court. There will always be this little, grey cloud of doubt hanging over him. It should cause everyone to consider his ethics.

Mr. Alexander has this quote as a part of his banner on his Facebook page, “I am a champion of truth. I hate lies. That means I tick people off when they repeat political lies.”

Oh really?

You should judge Mr. Alexander’s declaration in the light of his quest to get on the ballot…any way possible.

P.S. On May 7th the City of Phoenix announced that for its November, 2020 election it will require candidates to use online petition signature gathering. See here:https://patch.com/arizona/phoenix/city-phoenix-launches-new-online-candidate-nomination-petition-process . Will this action remove some of the corrupt practices currently in place?

© Joyce Clark, 2019         

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

Let’s begin with a story. It is Tuesday, March 17th, St. Patrick’s Day. It also happens to be the Democrat Presidential Preference Election Day. CoVid 19 is in full force so many voters that day chose to drop of their mail in ballots at a polling location. One of the polling locations was the Westside Church of God on Bethany Home Road just east of 83rd Avenue.

One of the favorite haunts of paid petition circulators is any place that is hosting an event or where people visit on a regular basis, such as a grocery store. For the same amount of time and effort they can maximize the number of signatures they can collect.

At least one was standing at the Westside Church of God location on March 17th. When people showed up to vote or to drop off their mail in ballots they were asked to sign one and/or both of two petitions. One petition was for a candidate for a local school board and the other petition was…wait for it…for my opponent. Many people signed that day. Here are the two petitions with a total of 20 challenged signatures that were the subject of my court challenge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I contended in court that Mr. Alexander, although he signed the backs of the petitions, did not collect the signatures or witness the signatures. In fact, Mr. Alexander appears to have signed the backs of those two petitions. I think it is fair to say it is his signature when compared to his signature on the Candidate Statement of Interest form presented here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We were able to make contact with several of the petition signers. To protect their privacy, I will not refer to them by their names.  For the sake of brevity I am offering the relevant portions of only 2 of the 3 witnesses’ telephonic testimonies from an official transcript. I have never met them and do not know them. They agreed to testify of their own volition when asked to do so by my attorney.

I personally think their testimonies would have been more compelling if they had been able to appear in court in person. That was not able to happen because of CoVid 19 and proved to be disadvantageous to us.

Clark Attorney (CA): “…You’re a Glendale resident; are you not?”

Witness #1 (W1): “Yes, I am.”

CA: “…do you recall signing a petition sheet for a candidate for the – for a Glendale Council race?”

W1: “Yes.”

CA: “Do you remember the name of that individual?”

W1: “No, I do not.”

CA: “…was it for a council race?”

W1: “Yes, it was for city council.”

CA: “Did you sign more than one petition for a city council race?”

W1: “No, not for the city – I just signed one for city council. There was another one that I signed for, that was for a school board; I believe it was.”

CA: “Were you sent a petition sheet with your signature on it?”

W1: “Yes.”

CA: “Did you review that petition sheet?”

W1: “Yes. I did.”

CA: “Did that appear to be the petition sheet that you signed?”

W1: “Yes, it was.”

CA: “Did that petition sheet – did it have a photo of an individual on the upper left corner?’

W1: “Yes, it did.”

CA: “Was the person whose photo was on that petition sheet, was he the one you signed for?”

W1: “No.”

CA: “Now, in terms of the person who you saw on the petition sheet that was sent to you, that bore your signature, do you ever remember seeing that individual at that time?”

W1: “No at all.”

****************

Clark Attorney (CA): “Do you recall signing a candidate petition sheet for a candidate for Glendale City Council?”

Witness #2 (W2): “I do recall.”

CA: “When was that approximately?”

W2: “I think St. Patrick’s Day, so it was the 17th.”

CA: “…have you seen a copy, since that time, of the petition sheet you signed?”

W2: “I have, yes.”

CA: “Did you recognize your signature on that petition sheet?”

W2: “Yes, I did.”

CA: “And on that petition sheet did you see a photo of a man in the upper left corner, for where the candidate goes?”

W2: “Yes.”

CA: “Do you ever recall seeing that man before?”

W2: “No, I don’t.”

CA: “In terms of who was present when you signed on St. Patrick’s Day, I take it that means that that man was not present?”

W2: “Yeah.”

CA: “So, in other words you’re certain that he was not the circulator?”

W2: “Yes, I am.”

The Superior Court judge in her oral ruling at the end of the hearing that day stated, “The Court also has heard the testimony of the three people who testified here at this hearing. They indicated they were qualified electors. They indicated that they did sign the petition, and the Court does find that their testimony fails to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the circulator improperly verified these signatures, and so those 20 signatures at issue, the Court finds to be valid.”

The only question that needs to be asked and answered is, why didn’t Mr. Alexander testify on his behalf that he did circulate and witness those signatures? It would have put to rest all speculation about his being the circulator or not.

I suspect, although I cannot prove,  it was because Mr. Alexander’s attorneys did not know exactly what my witnesses would say and in not knowing, they advised him not to appear that day in case he was called upon to answer questions that he would not have been able to answer truthfully.

There is one more element to this tale of petitions and petition circulators and that will be the subject of my third and final blog on this issue.

*Please accept my apology if the graphics do not appear lined up correctly. No matter what adjustments I make it doesn’t seem to help the situation.

© Joyce Clark, 2019         

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

I am writing this particular blog on Tuesday, May 5, 2020. As of this date I had already challenged the validity of some nominating petition signatures of my presumptive opponent for the Yucca district city council position, Bryce Alexander, in Superior Court. I did not win the case and so, I appealed to the state Supreme Court. It has not yet been decided and I may not know their decision for several more days. Whether I win or lose at the Supreme Court level, once the decision is made I will post this blog.

I want to share the under belly, the nefarious side of signature gathering for nominating petitions. There are as many petition gathering companies in Arizona as the number of fingers on both of your hands. Some are very reputable…and some not so much.

I, along with many candidates throughout this state, work hard going door to door collecting the needed signatures. You can usually tell when a candidate has done so because the signatures will reflect people who all live on the same street. For example, I went door to door on several streets so I have an entire sheets that have signatures from people who live on those streets.

 I started to collect signatures immediately after I filed to run last winter. I had already gathered the minimum number of signatures needed to file when Covid 19 hit. Just like any other candidate I wanted to obtain the maximum number of signatures (which is usually double the minimum amount required). Then I would have a cushion in case any signatures were declared invalid for any reason.

I did use a petition gathering company for those extra signatures. I used a person I know to be reputable and honest, especially since the person has a relative who was elected and had served in local, political office. This person knew the importance of and valued the need to obtain valid signatures. Before giving me the signatures collected, that company went through each sheet and verified the signatures and struck all those that were invalid. Being careful, I did my own verification after I received the petition sheets. I knew the signatures that I turned into our city clerk were indeed valid.

There are some petition companies out there that don’t necessarily operate in this fashion. They will hire anyone. In some instances, the petition signature gatherers may have a criminal history including felonies. These companies claim to do background checks. However if they are doing so, they are doing a lousy job of it. I am certainly not accusing but I suspect Mr. Alexander (and Michelle Robertson, a presumptive mayoral opponent) used such a company and you will understand the basis of my speculation shortly.

The minimum number of valid petition signatures required for nomination in the Yucca district is 160. Mr. Alexander turned in 210 leaving him a cushion of 50 signatures should any of his signatures be challenged. My challenge at the Superior Court consisted of some of Mr. Alexander’s petition signatures as invalid and I contended that only 134 of his signatures were valid. That was well below the 160 signatures required to get on the ballot.

The County Recorder agreed with me in part and did invalidate 42 of Mr. Alexander’s signatures leaving him with a maximum number of 168 signatures – only 8 over the minimum required to become a candidate.

The balance of my challenge would be decided by a Superior Court judge and my challenge was twofold: I contended in my suit that while Mr. Alexander signed the backs of two petition sheets (totaling 20 signatures) as the circulator, he did not witness those signatures and he was not the circulator of those sheets. On the back of a petition sheet the signer is attesting to the fact that he or she was the circulator and witnessed the signatures. When a person signs as having collected and witnesses those signatures and in fact, did not do so, those signatures are struck from the total count of signatures.

We were able to secure 3 witnesses, all Yucca district residents, who had signed the Alexander petitions and testified in court that it was not Mr. Alexander who asked them to sign the sheets and that they had never seen him before. I did not know any of the witnesses. They were not friends, acquaintances or supporters. They were principled strangers who wanted to do the right thing.

Mr. Alexander did not appear in court. He did not get on the stand and swear on the bible that he circulated those petition sheets and witnessed their signatures. Why didn’t he? The Superior Court judge ruled that the witnesses’ testimonies were not “clear and convincing” and validated those 20 signatures.

The other basis of my challenge was that 43 signatures should be declared as invalid because they were obtained by a convicted felon who had not had all of his civil rights restored thereby disqualifying him from being a petition circulator. On this issue the judge ruled that his civil rights had been restored and therefore his signature collection was also valid. This was a more of a technical issue and rested on the interpretation of previous Arizona Supreme Court decisions which apparently the Superior Court judge did not consider important enough to shape her ruling.

That is why I sit here today as I write this, waiting to hear the decision of my appeal by the Supreme Court. Bryce Alexander may end up on the ballot as a candidate for the Yucca district council seat by the skin of his teeth…8 signatures over the minimum required for nomination.

However, I want to bring up something Bryce Alexander wrote on his Facebook page on April 29th:

“Update: I have received notification that the incumbent has filed a notice to appeal the ruling that the petitions signed by voters was valid.

I do not yet know the basis for the appeal, nor do I wish to speculate on the motivation of Joyce Clark to drag this out at this time. Time will reveal and clarify her intentions.”

Mr. Alexander cannot possibly be as ignorant or uninterested in his fate as he portrays himself to be in this post. He had two attorneys from a very pricey law firm representing him in Superior Court. It would have been a dereliction of their duty to not inform their client of the action and my basis for challenging the validity of his nominating petition signatures.  By the way, I wonder who paid those high priced attorneys? And how much was their fee?

For the record, my campaign is paying my attorney’s fees. Unfortunately, we won’t know the answers about his campaign finances until after July 15, 2020, when the next campaign filings are due. Early ballots will have already been mailed out to voters and the Primary occurs two weeks later on August 4, 2020. So much for a timely full disclosure. Perhaps Mr. Alexander will be willing to share that information on his Facebook page.

Of course he knew my motivation in that I was challenging on the basis that he did not personally circulate those two sheets and that a convicted felon who may or may not have had his civil rights restored circulated his petitions. He just didn’t want to reveal the basis for my challenge as doing so might raise some questions among his followers.

Anyone who knows me even remotely knows that I can be feisty and sometimes I have “a take no prisoners attitude.” If I had been challenged as not being the circulator after I signed the back of sheets attesting that I had, I would have been incredibly angry. I would have marched right into that courtroom, taken the stand, sworn on the Holy Bible to tell the truth and then testified that I did, in fact, circulate and sign the backs of those petitions. Yet, Mr. Alexander did not. Again, why not?

It is now late Thursday afternoon and I just learned that I lost the appeal before the state Supreme Court. I do not have the details yet. I suppose those details are irrelevant. I would be lying if I said I was not disappointed.

In my next blog on this topic, I will be sharing some of the petition sheets Mr. Alexander submitted and some that Ms. Robertson submitted. Once the petition sheets are submitted to the City Clerk, they are a public record. There’s more to this story because not all petition sheets are created equally.

© Joyce Clark, 2019         

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

I have published two blogs on “What’s great about Glendale” and there will be more to come over the next few months but I wanted to take a break from that series and share other events and issues happening in Glendale.

Perhaps the most important events yet to occur this year are the Glendale and national elections. The Primary Election is in August of 2020 and the General Election is in November of 2020. The people of the United States will choose who will be the President of the United States for the next four years.

Perhaps what may be of more importance to you is our local election selecting  3 councilmembers and the mayor of Glendale. Those elected will determine the direction of Glendale for the next four years. Those running for reelection are:

  • Mayor Jerry Weiers. As of this date in January one person has taken out a nominating petition packet with the intent of running against him.
  • Councilmember Ray Malnar. As of this date in January one person has taken out a nominating packet with the intention of running against him.
  • Councilmember Ian Hugh. As of this date in January one person has taken out a nominating packet with the intention of running against him.
  • Councilmember Joyce Clark. As of this date in January three people have take out a nominating packet with the intention of running against me.

These possible opponents must do the following to get on the ballot. Each must form a Political Action Committee (a PAC) and register it with the City Clerk. In March each must turn in their citizens’ nominating signatures to the City Clerk. Those signatures must be verified and then accepted by the City Clerk in order to have their names placed on the ballot. The signatures presented must be of a minimum amount and the number required varies by district and also must be verified as registered voters.

Then the fun begins. Each candidate must make their case to the electorate over the next 4 months – April to the Primary Election date in August. That takes cash for signs and mailers. It may sound like there is lots of time but there really isn’t.

This is where I need your help. If you think I’ve done a good job as your representative please make a contribution to my campaign. I can’t succeed without your help. There are two ways that you can contribute:

  • Please go to my campaign website,www.joyceclark2020.com, click on the “Donate” page and follow the prompts to make an online donation.
  • While you are reading this, make out a check payable to Joyce Clark 2020 and mail it to:

      Joyce Clark 2020                                                                              8628 W. Cavalier Drive                                                                      Glendale, AZ 85305                                  

Thank you for your support. I deeply appreciate it.

Now, on to other things….recently I had the opportunity to meet one on one with Arick O’Hara, the newly elected President of the Glendale Fire Union. We had a thorough and frank discussion and for the first time in many years I believe that this President of the Glendale Fire Union is someone I can work with. Only time will tell but I am very hopeful.

The City Council will begin budget workshops in March for the upcoming Fiscal Year 2020-21. As I have said on previous occasions, in fighting between staff and city council on allocating funding only occurs when the economy is good. When there is no money there is nothing to fight over.

One of my goals is to secure the funding to complete construction of the remaining elements of Heroes Park. Another is to secure some funding for the Scalloped Street program and for upgrading bus stops. I’m sure you’ve driven on a street like 83rd Avenue between Glendale and Northern Avenues. The street is 2 lanes wide in both directions on some portions and not on other portions. That’s because city policy is to have the developer of a new project such as the newly constructed church on the northwest corner of 83rd and Northern put in the new lanes adjacent to their property.  It becomes a safety issue as the second lane appears and disappears along the street. We are at the point where I do not expect much more development, if any, on 83rd. With the Scalloped Street Program the city constructs roadway where it is lacking and no further development is expected.

There are many bus stops that have only a bus stop sign planted in the dirt. These locations need a shade structure with seating, a concrete pad and a waste receptacle. If we are going to not only work on beautifying Glendale and to encouraging bus ridership, upgrading bus stops should be a priority.

Recently on NextDoor, a website application that connects neighbors and neighborhoods together, there was a great deal of comment about New Year’s celebratory fireworks. In my opinion they were excessive and long running. People in my neighborhood started shooting them off in the early evening and they persisted until several hours after midnight. For about 8 hours my neighborhood sounded like a war zone. In addition, I know darn well a lot of them were illegal, shot into the air. I kept waiting for embers to start some kind of fire in my yard. It has become ridiculous.

I’ve read and reread the Arizona Statutes on fireworks. The state legislature has pretty well prohibited cities from regulating them in any way but I think I have found a tiny loop hole. The state legislature mandates the times of year when fireworks are legal to use. OK.  So far the legislature has not messed with the daily time period when fireworks are legal. I have asked our Intergovernmental Department to work with several legislators making for example, the hours from 11 PM to 1 AM, as the legal time period for using fireworks.

Last year I introduced the concept of having a municipal representative on the state liquor board. Many liquor licenses that are granted end up have a detrimental effect in a neighborhood. Having a municipal representative on the board will perhaps make it more sensitive to the concerns of neighborhoods.  The legislation  made it through all of the legislative hoops until it hit the Governor’s office where he vetoed it. State Representative Anthony Kern sponsored the bill last year and has announced that he will introduce it again this year. “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again” or “the second time is the charm?”

I don’t usually make this offer but if you have a topic about which you would like to know more or a topic that needs further discussion or explanation I urge you to post your suggestion as a comment to this blog. No promises but I’ll see what I can do to fulfill your request.

© Joyce Clark, 2020         

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

 

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

News headline announcing my candidacy several years ago

It’s Saturday afternoon and this morning I participated in the Third Annual Glendale Hometown Parade. I rode in a beautiful vintage blue Cadillac convertible. What a treat. This afternoon I should be baking Christmas cookies or doing my ‘homework’ in preparation for Council’s Strategic Policy Workshop this Monday or Tuesday’s Council Workshop meeting and subsequent evening voting meeting. I will do all of those things tomorrow. Instead, after nearly 2 years of serving as Glendale’s Yucca District Councilmember, I spent the afternoon reflecting about the past two years of my service and what my future should be.

When I began this current term I announced it would be my last. I assumed, incorrectly, that after 4 years of service I would experience diminishing capacity, physically and mentally. That has not happened. Every year I get my executive physical and each time I pass with flying colors. There has been no erosion of either my physical or mental capacities to do the job that you elected me to do.

I am announcing today that I will run for another term.

I have won some issues and lost some. I am most gratified that I have secured recognition for and a commitment to complete Heroes Park. I secured funding for the West Branch Library at Heroes Park and it is currently under construction and scheduled to open late March or mid-April of next year (2019). It is my intent to hold my next district-wide meeting at the newly opened library.

I do not intend to stop there. I plan to secure funding for the design of the lake feature in Heroes Park in our upcoming FY19-20 budget and to secure funding for its construction in the following FY 20-21 budget. After that there are still the ball fields, recreation center and library expansion to complete. Those are my goals.

I am proud to have gotten support of the entire council to start LED street light conversion immediately. That action saves the city about $700,000 in annual operating and maintenance costs for our street lights and results in an annual electrical rebate of nearly half a million dollars.

I am also proud of council’s approval of my initiative to start a Council Subcommittee on Business. The committee recently reviewed staff’s suggested amendments to the plumbing, electrical and fire codes resulting in the committee’s recommendations to delete or modify certain provisions all of which received acceptance from the entire city council. There is still more work to be done but the committee is making progress toward the goal of making Glendale more business friendly.

Council approved my request to use modified ‘Zero Based Budgeting’ to review selected departments during Council’s annual building of the city’s budget. This year it will be applied to the IT (technology) department and the Finance Department. It is a method of budget review that can result in greater fiscal efficiency.

My greatest disappointment has been a majority of council’s approval of the amended Stonehaven residential project located from Bethany to Camelback and 83rd to 91st  Avenues. The approval by a majority of council for small lot sizes of 3,000 and 3,500 to be located north of Camelback is clearly detrimental to all those who live adjacent to or near this planned development.

Perhaps the only good to come out of this project will be at the start of the project’s development — Bethany Home Road between 83rd and 91st Avenues will be constructed. That may help to alleviate some of the tremendous traffic we experience on Camelback Road. In the next 2 years Camelback between 91st Avenue and the Loop 101 will be redesigned and reconstructed to mitigate (as much as possible) the traffic in that area.

There is still much to do to advance the interests of our district and the city. Two areas of concern are the performance of the city’s code department and continued pressure to develop vacant, infill parcels in the district.

I am pleased that I will be serving on the newly created Code Compliance Committee and look forward helping to improve the code department’s poor and inconsistent performance seen in so many parts of Glendale.

 Land development is oft times a harder nut to crack. If a property owner sells a piece of land and the developer builds to the current property’s zoning it is impossible to stop that private commerce. However, I have been successful in gaining many developers’ agreement (which does not have to be granted) to build mixed sized projects that include not just standard lot sizes but larger lot sizes within their projects.

There is much to be done to keep Glendale and the Yucca District moving forward in a positive direction. I am thankful that I have had an opportunity to shape policy thus far and look forward to continuing to make both the best they can be.

I will establish a political action committee (PAC) in January of 2019 and begin fund raising for the campaign ahead. I ask for your support by donating to my campaign or volunteering to help me as I walk neighborhoods. As I move forward I will establish a secure method of online donation.  I am always available for small neighborhood or HOA meetings. Just call and I will be there.

I would appreciate seeing your comments regarding my announcement. Thank you for the opportunity to serve you and to represent you. It has been and continues to be my honor and privilege. I will continue to do the very best job that I can.

© Joyce Clark, 2018         

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

 

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

As many of you know I have previously stated that this will be my last term of office. From the very start of my term as the Yucca district councilmember I have been asked repeatedly to run again. Lately the pressure to do so has become very intense and has caused me to reconsider. If I were to decide to run again I would need to make that decision soon in order to begin fund raising for another election run.

To assist me in making that decision let me share factors that I, and you, should consider in making the decision. Perhaps the most important is my age as that is determinant of my mental and physical acuity. This October I will celebrate my 77th birthday. Every year I take an executive physical and the most recent results are that my health is excellent. The only medication that I have taken for many years is for my low Thyroid. I take nothing else. My eyesight and hearing are excellent. Physically the most challenging aspect for me is walking. I no longer climb stairs. My knees are not in good shape but are not drastic enough to require surgery.

It’s not as if I would be the first elderly councilmember. Councilmember Lieberman and Councilmember Martinez each served well into their 80’s. Each had physical challenges but they were not an impediment to service.

In terms of my mental acuity I have no signs or symptoms of any Dementia or Alzheimer’s. I am still as sharp as ever. With regard to council deliberations I continue to do my homework by reading all materials as well as questioning staff incessantly. I still enjoy the work as no two topics are ever the same. I possess a great deal of city/council historical memory which has proven invaluable to me and stood me in good stead on issues that come before us.

What about the political aspects to be considered? In my last run in 2016 my campaign was funded exclusively by the citizens of Glendale, many of whom resided in the Yucca district. I raised in the neighborhood of $15,000 while my opponent out raised and out spent me at a ratio of about 5:1. I suspect I would need to raise at minimum the same amount I previously raised and probably more.

Some of the current councilmembers have urged me to run again. I enjoy and respect my fellow councilmembers.  It’s been a breath of fresh air and the way in which previous councils should have operated.  I wish I had had the same experience in the early terms of my service. Alas, that was not the case.

Library stem walls Sept. 5, 2018

My priority continues to be the completion of Heroes Park, long, long overdue. I am pleased and grateful that the current council has funded Phase I of the West Branch Library. As I write this it is currently under construction and we should see the walls go up within the next few weeks. But there is so much more to be done to complete the park. My next goal is to secure funding for the design and construction of the long awaited water feature that is planned to be sited just east of 83rd Avenue. Then there are still the ball fields, Phase II of the library, a dog park and a Recreation/Aquatics Center yet to be built.

I have been accessible and transparent in my service. I reinstituted district meetings and twice a year I sent out district newsletters to every household in the district. I use Facebook regularly to post information about city and district issues.

There is certainly more to share in the coming months but for now in order to make my decision I need to hear from you, the people of the Yucca district, for if I do not have your support then it becomes a moot issue.

 I am not going to run an informal poll because I have learned that it may not always be accurate. Instead, please comment to this blog. Please take the time to express your point of view. Your reaction is extremely valuable to me and I can’t make a final decision until I hear from you. If you do not wish to comment publicly, please send a personal email to me at clarkjv@aol.com .

Thanks. I look forward to comments…the good, the bad and the ugly!

© Joyce Clark, 2018         

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

%d bloggers like this: