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.
On Tuesday, March 26, 2019, the hot topic on the Glendale city council workshop was the new logo. As I stated in the workshop I was disappointed with the process and product. Before we get into that, let’s talk logos.
Glendale Board and Commission challenge coin
Here is a recently adopted logo being used by the Council Government Services Committee(GSC) on its challenge coin:
The City Clerk, who staffs the GSC, offered some designs for the coin for the committee’s consideration. None of them were quite right. So I asked the other members of the committee, Councilmembers Hugh and Turner, if I might try to find something else. They agreed.
In searching the web, I found a free graphic of a hand and heart. When I saw it I knew it was the right one to use. The hand represents our citizen’s willingness to serve their community. The heart represents their love of our community and our fellow man. It symbolizes the values of those citizens who volunteer to serve on Glendale’s many boards and commissions. This symbolism has meaning. Happily, my fellow councilmembers agreed.
What is a logo and what is its purpose? It is defined as, “a graphic representation or symbol of a company name, trademark, abbreviation, etc., often uniquely designed for ready recognition.” Note that it must be unique and identifiable with a certain brand or product. Think the Nike ‘swoosh’ or Apple’s ‘apple’. No words are needed. You immediately associate those symbols with specific brands.
It is very difficult for a city to create a logo that is immediately associated with it. Only two in the Valley have arguably been successful. One is the Phoenix bird as the symbol of Phoenix and the other is the cowboy riding a bucking bronco as the symbol of Scottsdale.
City logo
Even Glendale’s old logo of the 3 pillars is more symbolic and meaningful than the newly created one. The three pillars are meant to represent citizens, business and government. That is the logo I will continue to use.
The context of conversation at the Tuesday city council workshop regarding the new logo dealt with process and product. Councilmember Tolmachoff, concerned about the process, brought forward city documents and the Catalpult contract all of which confirmed a vastly more public process which never occurred.
From a recent Arizona Republic article on the subject, “Councilwoman Lauren Tolmachoff said she found out a few months ago that the staff was moving forward with the ‘G’ design, even though the council hadn’t approved it, when she saw a post about it on NextDoor, a social media site.
Tolmachoff said that, by moving forward with a final logo without council approval, the staff overstepped the authority of the council, which cannot happen. We better not do it again, she said.”
I concurred with her remarks and said that it was disappointing that the city squandered an
New city logo
opportunity to offer a more robust public process coupled with city council approval and it failed to come up with a more unique and iconic symbol. In addition to my concerns about process I also voiced my strong objection to the new logo itself. I have already expressed my dislike in previous blogs. It is enough to say that it is neither distinctive nor iconic. I said that I would not use it despite its adoption.
There were four of us, Councilmembers Tolmachoff, Turner, Aldama and me who expressed our displeasure with the new logo. Then why, as some people have characterized it, did I ‘cave’?
There were two primary reasons. One is the deliberate wasting of the $65,000 paid to Catalpult. Some will say the city wastes that much money in a single day and that may or may not be true. In good conscience I could not deliberately support throwing $65,000 of your money, taxpayer money, down the toilet. That is not right as a steward of Glendale’s finances.
I did not make up my mind on the issue until listening to all of the discussion, including the strong public rebuke, which occurred at that workshop. The process of deciding at the end of discussion is something I have done repeatedly in my years on council. I prefer to hear all sides of an issue before making a final decision.
Another reason for my decision to let the new logo go forward was something truly extraordinary. City Manager Phelps publicly apologized by saying, “Obviously, our team didn’t meet your expectations for this process. I take responsibility for that and I own that.” Never with past Glendale City Managers has that ever occurred. That was a powerful admission and an embarrassing one for him. I believe that he has accepted that Glendale’s city council is extraordinarily engaged, more so than many other Valley councils. We expect to be informed.
Look at our budget process. I have heard other Valley councilmembers actually brag that they approved their city’s budget in a couple of hours in one afternoon. That is not the Glendale city council way.
Our council expects budgetary detail on all including its Capital Improvement Program (CIP), staffing levels and role responsibilities within departments. As stewards of taxpayer dollars it is our responsibility to ensure that the funds are being spent appropriately and in the best interest of every citizen.
So, yes, I ‘caved’. In the great scheme of things in Glendale there are far more important issues on which I will not ‘cave’. The logo as disappointing as it is does not define Glendale and perhaps never will. I consider it to be embarrassing.
You may not agree with my final decision and that is OK. I am always gratified with the many thoughtful comments to my blogs that show while we may disagree we are respectful of one another and that they foster dialogue without dislike.
© 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.
I recorded and watched the March 26th Workshop, Joyce. I gave it my full, undivided attention for the entire 2 hours.
I want to make just a few comments:
1) I was absolutely flabbergasted at the comment the Mayor made about the current CoG Pillars logo being associated with a gang! He was totally wrong and completely misguided in his belief. In fact, it is the newly created logo that is similar to the Grandel Gang logo. It disturbs me to think that he made such a statement.
Was he misinformed?
Did he not research the subject before using this comment to justify it as one of his decisions to change the existing logo to the one created by Catapult Design?
(I noted that you and the Glendale Chief of Police did make comment to “set him straight”.)
2) I thought CM Aldama made some good points in his argument against proceeding with the “G Project”, but CM Turner and CM Tolmachoff (who represents my District) made excellent and intelligent presentations and comments! Unfortunately, their arguments fell on deaf ears.
3) Now to get to your comments:
It was because of your original blog that this “G Project” even came to my attention, and I have been very interested – and vocal – about it.
I thought your verbal argument and the visual presentation of “other G” logos were exceptional, and I had to smile when you said “I hate it! There I’ve said it!”
But then……..
At the end, you made the decision to vote that the “G Project” proceed!
All I could think was, “Nooooo, Joyce! Please tell me I’m not hearing that!”
You were so passionate in your disapproval of this “ugly G”, I thought surely you would never approve of it.
However, it appears that Kevin Phelp’s “apology” worked. It is my belief – and opinion – that Brent Stoddard and Kevin Phelps never intended to comply with the original contract, nor did they plan to go to the City Council for final approval; they intended to move forward regardless of the approval or disapproval of the newly created logo.
It is also my personal opinion that his “apology” was disingenuous, but as I said, it worked.
To say I am angry and disappointed with the consensus vote to proceed with the project is putting it mildly – or to coin your word, putting it “diplomatically”.
I don’t know whether a vote “against” would have made the difference, but, sadly, what’s done is done.
We, the residents of Glendale, will see another waste of our tax dollars; it isn’t the first time, and unfortunately it won’t be the last, I guess.
Thank you for putting into words my disappointment with #Glogogate and for the record, I agree with your every point. It’s exhausting to watch common sense go straight out the window, over and over and over again. This suggested logo was not a real baby, as Mayor suggested. The current City Council held the power (and I think, had the votes) to put it back in/on the shelf, but, instead, they accepted the “ingenuous apology” and gave their approvals to move forward. Perhaps a re-read of title: erosion of city council power, Nov 2017, is called for.
To vote for the”G” because the manager apologizes for not following the process is sad. Maybe you voted for it because you didn’t want to waste the $65k already spent yet you will continue to use the historical logo. Confusing at best Joyce.
It is very disappointing that this logo will move forward. With all the other challenges Glendale has, why spend staff and financial resources on it? A logo will not change perceptions or improve public trust. That has to start with management, engagement with the public and a deeper understanding of what the citizens need and want from the city. I would rather the money have gone to a city-wide community survey. I know Glendale hasn’t done one in over 15 years.
I agree with you. This is so awful that it gives me great concerns about the employees of Glendale who thought this was a good design. I also would never hire Catalpult again. I would never have known it is a ‘G’ if you had not told me. It is neither distinctive or attractive.
The more I think about the newly adopted “G”, and what was discussed in the workshop, the more I question the decision to change what the City of Glendale has used for years.
* It was said that the new G would be implemented “over time”, meaning items such as business cards, stationery, etc. would use the new logo when those items needed to be reordered; the City would not be tossing out all of those items and replacing them immediately.
* When it came to items such as steel manhole covers, concrete sidewalk markers, and/or metal street signs, it was pretty vague as to when and how those items would be replaced. Remember, steel/concrete/metal don’t wear out, and rarely need replacing.
* What about painting the new logo on police cars and City service vehicles? When will that be done – and at what cost?
That said, does it mean that Glendale is going to have TWO logos for years to come?
* Joyce, this is a question for you:
You said you would not use the new logo.
Do you really have a choice?
Isn’t it going to be mandatory to print the new logo on your business cards and stationery, when you need to reorder them?
I would not think use of the new logo is “optional”.
So, in thinking about this whole process, it seems to me that for years to come the City of Glendale is going to be represented by not one, but two, different logos.
Not only does it not make any sense, but it just points out (to me) the total lack of thought that went into this “G project”, the waste of time, AND, most importantly, the unnecessary waste of taxpayers money!
N.A. Loranger, This is the first opportunity to reply to your commentaries. I appreciate all of your thoughtful comments. Keep it up. This city (and I daresay every other city in the Valley) has wasted $$ before. I recall, while I off council, the electronic council voting fiasco. It was publicly billed at $35,000 but I suspect the cost grew.
You ask if I have a choice about using the logo. I do, as an elected official. It is not mandatory that electeds use it. In fact, I have just ordered a refrigerator magnet in preparation for the Grand Opening of the new library branch in my district and it will not have the new logo on it.
I think you are correct that for years Glendale will have two logos. Items ordered on a regular basis, like stationary, will begin using it first while manhole covers will still have the old logo 50 years from now. All public releases and the city’s new iteration of its website will use the new logo by June, I believe. These days city vehicles are “wrapped” rather than painted. I would think as vehicles are replaced they will receive the new logo as a ‘wrap’. So, yes, there will be two city logos but I suspect the same holds true for Mesa and other cities that have updated their logos.
Thanx for your reply, Joyce, and for your “Keep it up” words of encouragement. Sometimes I think I overdo it with my comments, but when I am passionate about a subject (like this “G Project), I tend to write and write until I just run out of gas…
So, Glendale will have 2 logos for years to come; I wonder just how many of the good citizens of Glendale will really notice.
Congrats on your long awaited library, btw!
As was said “So, in thinking about this whole process, it seems to me that for years to come the City of Glendale is going to be represented by not one, but two, different logos.”
CM Turner covered this quite well in his comments. Having two logos may not accomplish the purpose of the new logo which was a new look and direction for the city.
This is going to be my last comment on the “G Project” subject, (I think) but one more thought keeps coming to mind and I feel compelled to say it.
The rationale of some Councilmembers to vote to proceed with the new “G” was because they didn’t want the $65,000 dollars already paid to Catapult Design to be a waste of money.
However, approval of the project to move forward will result in the expenditure of untold amounts of taxpayer dollars to be spent. The process for final approval by the Glendale City Council was flawed when Kevin Phelps and Brent Stoddard circumvented the requirements, and because they ignored that requirement it never should have been approved – period!
There is a saying that goes, “Cut your losses”.
It’s definition:
“abandon an enterprise or course of action that is clearly going to be unprofitable or unsuccessful before one suffers too much loss or harm.”
In my humble opinion, this is exactly what the City Council should have done, but they didn’t.
Oh well, I guess I should stop venting over this situation and simply live with it.
But come the next election I will remember the “G project”, and those who voted for it.
Dear Vice Mayor Clark,
Thank you for voting on the new logo. It is worth every penny. Thank you for respecting our city employees choice. That how to run a business, having respect for your employees opinion and getting them involved. Yes, it would have been a good idea to see the public have a say on it as well. But we are coming from way behind and have a lot of catching up to do. Mr. Phelps has got us to where we can now build our city back up. Sometimes you have to take action as if end justifies the means. If I were you I would seal that vote by ordering the new logo on your cards right away. Thank you.
Unity, pride, Respect. Long Live USA.
What is going to be done to prevent the lack of proper process in the future? I recall a building recently being sold at a very low cost without putting it on the open market first. Are things being brought to counsel only after they are fait accompli and will this vote, along with the building and others, encourage the practice of asking for forgiveness instead of permission? What is the consequence and how will this be prevented on future projects?
“What is going to be done to prevent the lack of proper process in the future?…”
That’s a very good question, Lynda!
Do you remember back in 2014 when the CoG was considering selling the Foothills Library to Midwestern University for $5million because the City needed the money? That was a highly undervalued offer for the building, the Chihuly glass artwork, and the adjacent 5 acres.
Here’s an article concerning that proposed sale:
http://www.glendalestar.com/news/article_a2ae4000-b091-11e4-b837-8317d4aba7a5.html
It was in large part because of the public outrage by the citizens of Glendale that the sale, thankfully, never went through. If that proposed sale had gone through the Foothills Library would have been “relocated” to a few small rooms at the Foothills Recreation and Aquatics Center. It was an insult to the people to tell them that the “new library” would be “state of the art” with many more computers and less books.
It is only if the people are informed of such dealings, such as the sale of city owned buildings – and this latest “G Project” – that “underhanded deals” can be prevented. But the problem is, not every sale or project is made public.
Unfortunately, this kind of activity goes on ALL – THE – TIME at all levels, from City to State to National.
Councilperson Tolmachoff said in the March 26th Workshop, “This cannot happen again.”, but sadly it probably will.
I am more optimistic. I think the public rebuke had an effect. Then too, council is about to do its annual performance review of its direct hires: city manager, city attorney and city clerk. Public outreach is sure to be part of that discussion.
N-A Loranger, I guess I am a bit like you, I feel compelled to add more. facts are, I have spent the better part of the past 3 years just now learning about the City of Glendale Government operations. I, like many, guess I simply trusted we had policies in place that provided the checks and balances for City Government officials in order to not let “stuff” cloud their good judgment. So, as you see, finally, I am growing a voice, for better or for worse, I like to say, at least I have an opinion. If it walks like a duck…. it is a duck. Actions do speak louder then words, and saving the best for last, Perception is Reality. So, then, Citizens everywhere, I encourage you to pay attention to what is happening in your own local government. Its never too late to learn, and find some time to take actions as needed/get involved. I hope you too, get a voice, and for Glendale, take note, 2020 Elections are right around the corner.
Pay attention to what’s happening in City government, become knowledgeable, and become an involved citizen.
“Pay attention to what’s happening in City government, become knowledgeable, and become an involved citizen.”
Right you are, jane bachman!
It’s not always possible to go to our City Council meetings, but I do try to keep my eyes and ears open to what’s going on around me.
Reading the local news publications, like Glendale Today, is a good source of information; reading my Councilwoman Tolmachoff’s weekly newsletter is also very informative.
Of course, if it wasn’t for this, Councilwoman Joyce Clark’s, blog how would we know about important items like the “G Project”? Unfortunately, our knowledge of that came a little late, but at least we know about it now.
Political dealings may not always make us happy, but staying informed is better than staying in the dark and oblivious to what’s going on in our world.
When I give a minister an order, I leave it to him to find the means to carry it out. —Napoleon Bonaparte