Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Oct 14

17

Like a bad penny, Becker Billboards turns up again

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 17, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , | 6 Comments

From previous actions it appears that Councilmembers Sherwood and Chavira are in lockstep. There was another example of their tag team act at the city council workshop of October 7, 2014. Sammy was not in attendance. Could his job as a Phoenix firefighter be interfering with his attendance at council workshops and meetings?

As a favor for his best council friend, Sherwood, during Council Items of Special Interest and as a proxy for Sammy, reintroduced the infamous Becker Billboards but this is a Sherwood issue, not a Sammy issue. Becker Billboards’ attempt to obtain billboards at Bell Road and the Loop 101 was denied at a council meeting several months ago. Sherwood read Sammy’s request asking that the previous council decision be rescinded and Becker be granted the right to erect billboards by council vote at the October 28, 2014 city council meeting.

Sherwood and Chavira seem not to mind ignoring council guidelines when it suits them. Under the current Council Guidelines, when a councilmember, under Council Items of Special Interest, asks that an item be studied by staff and a presentation on the issue be made to council at a workshop within 60 days. They requested a circumvention of that process and that it immediately be brought to a council voting meeting in 2 weeks.

Councilmember Martinez reviewed the process for a Council Item of Special Interest and pointed out that the item first has to go to a council workshop meeting. He requested the item be reviewed at a future council workshop. City Manager Fischer, an ally of Sherwood’s, immediately placed the billboard issue on the agenda of the next council workshop this coming Tuesday, October 21, 2014.

Do Sherwood and Chavira have the votes to overturn the previous council decision on Becker Billboards? They can probably count on Alvarez. She received a hefty, and I mean really hefty, campaign contribution ($2,500) from Becker. So there are three that will support a reversal. Who’s the fourth? Take your pick…the most likely candidates are Councilmember Ian Hugh or Mayor Jerry Weiers.

Councilmember Martinez is concerned and has every right to be. The residents of the Cholla and Sahuaro districts fought the good fight and thought they had prevailed and there would be no billboards. They are probably angry and very frustrated at this latest turn of events and they have every right to be. Councilmember Martinez issued a special blast electronic alert to the residents of Cholla. Do not expect Councilmember Sherwood to do the same. The fewer people in his district who know about his latest effort, the happier he will be.  Here is the text of Councilmember Martinez’ special alert:

“CALL TO ACTION – October 21, 2014 Council Workshop: Palm Canyon Billboards

“Dear Cholla Residents,

“Under the Glendale City Council Guidelines, Item #2, it addresses Placing Items of Special Interest on a Council Workshop Agenda.

“ ‘City Council Workshop Items of Special Interest’ is listed on every Workshop agenda. This item will be a standing item and will be placed last on the Workshop agenda.

“At the October 7, 2014, Council Workshop, Councilmember Sherwood spoke for an absent Councilmember who wanted the Palm Canyon Billboards to be considered at the October 27th Council meeting (it is actually Oct 28th) on rescinding the previous denial based on recent information on the Becker Boards case at Loop 101 and Bell Road, and that if the rescission is voted successful, to immediately – at the same Council meeting on October 27th (28th) – vote on approving the billboards request of Becker Boards and direct staff to notify all parties as required by law at the expense of the applicant.

“Subsequent to this Workshop our City Attorney, Michael Bailey, sent an email to Mayor and Council that this item will be scheduled for work session on October 21, 2014. At that work session, staff will advise the Council of the necessary procedural steps (rescission and reconsideration) to address the issue. At that time, if the Council desires to move forward on the issue, they may direct staff to then place the item on the November 24th Council meeting agenda.

“This item has been scheduled for the October 21st City Council Workshop at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, at the Glendale Municipal Office Complex at 5850 West Glendale Avenue. Though the City Council does not take public comment at this meeting, your presence and that of your neighbors is a crucial opportunity to show your opposition.

“Please feel free to call me at (623) 561-8263 or email me at mmartinez@glendaleaz.com if you have any questions. Thank you for your support.”

Those of you who supported a defeat of the billboard issue last time, please take note and plan to attend this Tuesday’s workshop. Once again, you must send a strong message to members of this council that there is no support in our community for the Sherwood/Chavira Becker Billboard action.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Oct 14

14

Monopoly: I’ll give you a casino for my arena

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 14, 2014
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Sadly, real life should not be played like a Monopoly game although it often is, especially in politics. Horse trading deals seem to be a way of life for many politicians.  Councilmember Gary Sherwood penned a My Turn article entitled, Barrett is wrong, Franks is right: Casino means trouble for the Arizona Republic on April 20, 2013. Eighteen months ago he said:

    •  “Tohono O’odham’s massive casino is too close to residences and schools.”
    • “It denies tens of million (sic) of dollars of future development, construction and sales-tax revenues to our state and local community.”
    • “The casino will have a massive impact on Glendale’s already overwhelmed infrastructure – our police and fire departments and our roads — forever.”
    • “Crime is already up. Does anyone believe that putting a mega-casino in a neighborhood will improve the situation?”
    • “Franks is doing the right thing, and he is not alone.”
    • “The tribe has disregarded our city’s well-being and wishes for years. Now we should simply trust them?”
    • “Sadly, the Tohono O’odham Nation deliberately misled the public and even other tribal nations about this project and their casino-expansion plans for years. What kind of community leaders would willingly welcome such an unwelcome kind of neighbor?”                           

What caused Sherwood to do his flip-flop? Eighteen months ago Gary Sherwood was opposed to the Tohono O’odham casino. Sherwood has been asked repeatedly why he changed from anti-casino to pro-casino. His answers have been all over the place from, I was misinformed by others to Glendale staffers didn’t do their homework.

On September 17, 2014 Gary Sherwood testified at the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. In his testimony he said, “I was stunned to learn that the prior Glendale administration had failed to make any effort to learn more about this proposal before it rushed to oppose it.” When questioned further by Senator McCain on his change of stance he said, “Umm, when I campaigned I had campaigned against this proposed based on information I had and I had read deal…quite a bit of information on it. Umm, the thing that was distressing to me though, that in the very beginning there was a half hour conversation when the city first found out about it in April of 2009 and that was the only conversation the previous administration had and I was, was always quite upset by the fact that we didn’t have the dialogue.” His reasons for changing his position are not only weak but mainly fantasy.

The city first learned of the casino project in January of 2009 when the TO simultaneously issued a press release and appeared at City Hall to reveal their plans. City staffers tried mightily at several subsequent meetings to get meaningful information from the Tohono O’odham about their plans. The TO repeatedly offered their conceptual plans but offered no concrete facts about their proposed project.  They were arrogant and their position was that they were coming and there was nothing the city could do. If Sherwood couldn’t get the date correct about Glendale’s learning of the TO’s plans, how many other statements of his that day played fast and loose with the facts?

His reasons for doing a 180 on his casino position should not be considered as satisfactory. Sherwood’s position remained opposed until the fall of 2013 when at several city council workshops he suddenly supported Alvarez, Hugh and Chavira in their call for “dialogue” with the Tohono O’odham. What other dynamic could have occurred?

Gary Sherwood and Sammy Chavira took office as councilmembers in January of 2013. Sammy ran on his opposition to the casino deals that had been presented to the city prior to his taking office. He said in an October, 2013 campaign mailing, ““Too many sweetheart arena deals for out-of-state corporations have left us deeply in debt.” Sammy outdid himself in supporting not just an out-of-state corporation sweetheart arena deal but out-of-country owners (mostly Canadian) sweetheart deal. He was opposed to any proposed casino deal. He went on to say publicly and repeatedly, “The city needs to be a tough negotiator, making smart planning decisions that preserve Glendale’s future.” Sammy, while running, was in no mood to accept any Coyotes deal. Inexplicably, after 6 months in office he becomes the 4th (and majority) vote to accept the IceArizona deal. Sherwood becomes the 4th councilmember (a majority) to support a dialogue with the TO after 8 months into his term. Coincidence? You must decide for yourselves. Did these councilmembers play a game of Monopoly?

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Oct 14

13

Gila River Arena management agreement

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 13, 2014
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River Arena • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 3 Comments

Ever since the news of Andrew Barroway’s purchase of a 51% interest in the Coyotes (expected to be ratified by the NHL’s Board of Governors) there have been questions about the original management agreement between IceArizona and the City of Glendale.

One of the questions that surfaced was would there be an opportunity to renegotiate the agreement. In reading the contract there does not appear such an opportunity.  Technically Barroway is becoming the majority owner of the team and for now the arena manager remains the same.

The arena manager is responsible for the operation of the arena and for leasing space to the team. The issue is addressed in Section 5. Demise of Arena and Use Rights. In 5.1, Demise of the Arena it states, “The City hereby demises and lets to the Arena Manager, and the Arena Manager hereby takes and leases from the City, effective on the Closing Date, for the Term and upon the provisions (i) The Arena Facility…” In Section 5.2, Grant Use of Rights, it says, “In addition to the rights granted by the City to the Arena Manager in the other provisions of this Agreement, the City hereby grants to the Arena Manager, and approves the right of the Arena Manager to grant to the Team Owner, during the Term, the exclusive right and obligation to use and occupy the Hockey Event Spaces…”

In Section 6.2., Sublease of Exclusive Team Spaces, it says, “The Team Manager hereby subleases the Exclusive Team Spaces to the Team Owner…”  The team is a subtenant of the arena. We know that Barroway is securing a 51% interest in the team but we do not know if he is also acquiring a majority interest in the arena management company.

Even if Barroway became a majority owner of the arena management company in Section 4.2.3, Arena Sub-Manager, “The Arena Manager may, from time to time, delegate all or a portion of its duties and responsibilities to an Arena Sub-Manager…” There is no provision that I can find whereby a change in team ownership requires a renegotiation of the lease since: (1) the lease is with the arena management company and (2) the arena management company can sub-lease to an arena sub-manager without city approval as long as all duties and responsibilities continue to be met satisfactorily.

The other question that has been raised is the city’s ability to audit. A little background is in order. Under the team ownership of Ellman and Moyes the city received financial reports but had to accept them without any corroboration. This eventually became problematical for the city. City Council wanted a mechanism whereby it could verify what the arena manager was reporting in terms of revenues and costs associated with the arena’s management and operation. Hence Section 8.16, Financial Reports and Section 8.17, Audits were incorporated into the agreement. Financial reports must be submitted to the city monthly, quarterly and annually. To ensure the veracity of the reports submitted, in Section 8.17.1, “The City shall have the right to conduct an independent audit of the management and operation of the Arena (or any part thereof) and the Account Records (or any part thereof) and the Team Owner Records (or any part thereof) by City Staff or by an independent certified public accounting firm selected by the City.” This section clearly grants the city the right to audit not just arena manager financial records but financial records of the team as well.

Keep in mind that this agreement was devised by attorneys and as a result, their interpretations of the terms can vary. That’s how they earn their fees…by arguing exactly what a term or provision of a contract actually means. They could argue how many gnats are on the head of a pin.  

As a result you can be sure that every sentence within the agreement can be disputed and argued by attorneys. On the face of it, it appears the city has no legal right to renegotiate the management agreement with IceArizona. IceArizona would have to agree to do so voluntarily and that’s not going to happen. However, the city does have a legal right to audit manager and team financial records and to thereby confirm the revenues and expenses that are reported to it.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Oct 14

12

Deja vu

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 12, 2014
Posted in Casino • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale zoning issues • Tohono O'odham  | Tagged With: , , , , | 1 Comment

From the Associated Press by Sundin Thanawala and reprinted by the Arizona Republic on October 12, 2014. This article was too relevant to ignore and so it is offered below with a few interspersed comments: The article, California tribe’s casino plan to go before voters, is from San Francisco.

 “A Native American tribe’s plan for a Las Vegas-style casino in Central Valley (make that Glendale) nearly 40 miles (change that to 100 miles) from its reservation has drawn opposition from other casino-owning tribes in the state.

“The voters now will weigh in on whether the North Fork Rancheria Band of Mono Indians (insert Tohono O’odham) are ‘reservation shopping,’ as their critics contend, or taking land that was part of their historical territory, as the tribes maintains.

“A referendum on the November ballot asks voters to approve or reject a deal signed by the governor and passed by the state Legislature that would allow the North Fork Rancheria to build a casino with up to 2,000 slot machines ( change to nearly 1,100 slot machines), on a 305-acre (132 acres) plot of land along a major highway (the Loop 101 Freeway) about 30 miles (5 miles) northwest of Fresno (Phoenix).

“With a yes vote, the project would clear its last major hurdle to entering the state’s Indian gambling market, where 58 tribes (21 tribes) are currently running 59 (28) casinos, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

“Critics of the proposal say the tribes is trying to get closer to an urban market that can bring in more gamblers.”

“ ‘This move by North Fork, if it goes forward, will incentivize tribes in rural areas to move to more-lucrative locations,’ said Cheryl Schmit, director of the group Stand Up For California.

“Representatives of the 2,000-member North Fork tribe counter that their existing land is for housing and does not allow gambling and that they went through a lengthy vetting process to get approval for the new land.

“ ‘We’re getting back to the historical land that serves as a reservation for our tribes in the 1850’s,’ said Charles Banks-Altekruse, a spokesman for the tribe, which is being supported by Las Vegas-based Station Casinos.

“Additionally, tribal officials say, the project would create more than 4,500 (change to 6,000) jobs and pump tens of millions of dollars into the local economy.

“Opposition to North Fork’s proposal is coming from other casino-owning tribes, including Table Mountain Rancheria (Gila River Indian Community and the Salt River-Pima-Maricopa Indian Community) whose casino is about 25 miles (20 miles) from the proposed site of the North Fork facility (Tohono O’odham’s Glendale site).

“The campaign against the project is also being funded by New York-based Brigade Capital Management, an investment firm that backs the Chukchansi Gold Resort & Casino, another Indian casino near the site of the proposed North Fork casino.

“Under the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, tribes can build casinos on reservations that existed before Oct. 17, 1988, but not on lands taken into trust after that date (except in Arizona). The law allows the Interior secretary to make an exception in cases where the off-reservations acquisition is in the tribe’s best interest (not proven for Tohono O’odham) and does not hurt the surrounding community (which it will).”

These situations are eerily similar with one major exception. The referendum was not blocked in California and so the voters will have the final say. Not so in Glendale. Glendale has blocked the referendum petitions and the matter is now a court case and a judge will decide whether Glendale voters can determine their own fate.

© Joyce Clark,

2014 FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Oct 14

11

Another Guest Blog

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 11, 2014
Posted in Blogs • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , | 1 Comment

There are times when you have read this blog and wanted to say more than a brief comment. From time to time I will post a Guest Blog. Here is another submitted by Bud Zomok, former Ocotillo district council candidate.

If you would like to submit a Guest Blog I ask the following:

  • Do not plagiarize. If you use facts or quotes, please cite the source
  • Be respectful…no hate filled rants, please
  • You must agree to allow me to edit if necessary. I will not change your opinion or content

Higher expectations for Politicians? by Bud Zomok 

Having taken the time to read the post by Joyce Clark titled Aldama…maybe not, I was surprised by some of the responses submitted.   

Let me take a moment to explain my surprise.   

Mr. Van DiCarlo expressed comments about the policy currently in place by the county as “grossly unfair”.  That may be the case but these are the current rules that the county has created and until those rules are changed one should expect politicians to follow the rules that have been established.   

Mr. DiCarlo, you once expressed in an article as a candidate that you believe a candidate should represent the interests of the voters and not their own interests.  I find that commendable as it means as a candidate one would to take the time to talk and listen to the voters in order to understand their interests. 

Yet in your reply you make the following two statements, “could the two complainants be paving a way to step in as the official runner up” and “that you have little or no respect for those who attempt to get their nose in the door by exploitation.”   

Exploitation?  

It’s interesting that an attempt to have a politician follow the rules is deemed exploitation.  And, did you have that same lack of respect for Mr. Aldama when he, too, filed complaints against candidates early on in the election?  

I saw Mr. Aldama’s challenges as way of ensuring that any citizen who wanted to run in the Ocotillo District was actually eligible to run. I would assume Mr. Aldama would want to ensure he too is doing everything according to the required process in his current race.   

I would pose one question to Mr. DiCarlo. Have you taken a moment to talk with either me or Mr. Hernandez before writing your comments?  Doesn’t that fly in the face of your campaign statement? Didn’t you make comments based on your own interest or assumptions without checking the facts? 

The letter submitted to the County and Attorney General was not submitted to require Mr. Aldama to stop his campaign. It was done to ensure he follows the rules set by the, city /state/ or in this particular situation, the county. 

Surely you as a past candidate are not supporting the idea that candidates should be able to pick and choose what part of particular policy they wish to follow or ignore.   As a past private investigator I would assume you must have had to follow specific rules in the investigative process and had you not followed those rules (even if you didn’t agree or did not know the rules existed) it would have possibly caused the information you secured to be ruled as not admissible.

Mr. DiCarlo, be assured I have moved on, but moving on does not mean one should turn a blind eye to the current requirements of running for any political position.  If anything we should expect “any” citizen who runs for a political office to at least know the rules and follow them.  

I hope we never get to a point where we allow our desire to replace an incumbent to translate into allowing politicians to pick and chose what rules/laws will apply to their campaigns. We are a country of rules and laws and if we don’t like those rules and laws then we need to work to change them, but choosing to ignore them should never be an acceptable option.  

Bud Zomok

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Oct 14

10

Shooting from the hip…err…make that lips

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 10, 2014
Posted in Arizona Cardinals • Arizona Coyotes • Casino • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Councilmember Gary Sherwood has done it again. On September 17, 2014 he appeared before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hearing on Senate Bill 2670. The bill, if approved by the Senate, would have the effect of stopping the Tohono O’odham from building a casino in Glendale.

Please note that the panel members were not sworn in. It is the usual practice in any Congressional hearing and one wonders why it was not done this time. In his oral testimony Sherwood said, “We have talked to many business leaders in this area including leaders of two professional sports teams and major hospitality developments and they all support this West Valley project.”

It appears that his statement is not true. In fact, the Cardinals have sent a letter to the Chair of the Committee, Senator Jon Tester, as well as the Vice Chair Senator Barrasso, Senator John McCain, Senator Jeff Flake, Mayor Jerry Weiers and all members of the Glendale City Council, categorically stating that they do not support the casino project.  The Arizona Coyotes released a public statement indicating that they have never expressed support for the casino project.

Looks like Sherwood was shooting from the hip…err…his lips…again. Sherwood is on a personal path of self destruction with a history of public statements that have all but destroyed his credibility. No wonder the people of the Sahuaro district, which he represents, seem all too willing to sign a recall petition against him.

On a separate but another questionable note, a blog reader contacted me and asked if Jamie Aldama has the home he owns in the Yucca district registered as a rental property with the City of Glendale and if he is paying monthly rental property tax to the city. I have no answer and the city maintains no online listing of rental properties. I suggest the Ocotillo voters go to the source and ask Mr. Aldama. It begs yet another question. Why is Jamie Aldama still sitting on the citizen’s Planning and Zoning Commission representing the Yucca district if he doesn’t live there and is running as a candidate for the Ocotillo council seat? Councilmember Chavira (Yucca district) should have replaced him when Aldama announced for Ocotillo. Why didn’t he? Perhaps he was just lazy and didn’t want to deal with the hassle of finding a replacement or perhaps he thought he was giving Aldama greater credibility as an Ocotillo district candidate with Planning and Zoning credentials. There’s no love lost between Chavira and Alvarez. She supported him a lot…I mean tons… in his run for his council seat only to be double crossed by him when Chavira voted for the arena management agreement. Alvarez was counting on him to be the fourth vote that would kill the deal. This kind of politics is certainly not for the faint hearted.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Oct 14

9

Aldama…maybe not

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 9, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

 

Right after this blog endorsed Jamie Aldama for the Glendale Ocotillo district council seat, I received the following information.

Zomok ltr Oct 8 2014On October 1, 2014 former Ocotillo district city council candidates Bud Zomok and Michael Hernandez sent a formal letter to the following: Attorney General Tom Horne, Maricopa Supervisors Marie Lopez Rodgers and Clint Hickman, County Attorney Bill Montgomery, Glendale City Clerk Pam Hanna and County Recorder Helen Purcell.

They allege that Jamie Aldama, a current employee of the Glendale Community College Structures Department, is required to resign his position if he wishes to remain a viable candidate for the Ocotillo District City Council seat. Anyone, as does Mr. Aldama, who works for a governmental agency such as the Maricopa Community College district is a paid, public employee. A councilmember’s position is a paid, public office.

The Maricopa County Ethics Handbook on page 18 states, “A public employee, whether merit-covered or unclassified, may not be a candidate for nomination or election to any public office which is either paid or partisan. Upon filing for nomination papers or making a formal public declaration of candidacy, an employee shall be required to submit a letter of resignation.” See this link: http://www.maricopa.gov/InternalAudit/pdf/Controls/ethicshandbook.pdf . It is commonly referred to as ‘Resign to Run’.

If after further investigation by the above cited agencies this stricture applies, Mr. Aldama has only two options. One is to resign from his paid, public position with the Maricopa Community College District or two, immediately terminate his candidacy for the paid, public office of the Ocotillo City Council seat.

Is Aldama waiting to see if he captures the Ocotillo council seat before resigning? That can’t be kosher, can it? Not according to the Ethics Handbook which says upon filing nomination papers one is required to resign.

So, Mr. Aldama, which is it to be? Will you resign your paid, public employment or will you withdraw your candidacy? Those of you planning to vote for Mr. Aldama may want to hold off for a bit to see how this situation plays out.

On yet another front…JMC Irrigation. It’s public address and phone number is that of Jamie Aldama’s residence within the Ocotillo district. Hmmm…either Mr. Aldama has a side business or someone else living at his residence has the business. Either way, in checking the Arizona Corporation Commission, it is unregistered. In checking the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, it is also unregistered with that agency. Is anyone from JMC paying required licensing fees and taxes?

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Oct 14

8

It’s a Coyotes kind of day

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 8, 2014
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River Arena • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Today, October 8, 2014 is a grey, overcast day in the Phoenix metro area…a rarity to be sure. Anywhere else it would portend a day of steady rain but Phoenix is a desert and because it looks like rain, it doesn’t necessarily mean it will happen. It’s a good day to let thoughts rumble around.

A blog reader recently sent me two news stories of interest. One is from the October 5, 2014 Seattle Times entitled Key Arena turns a bigger profit than it ever did with the Sonics by Ashley Scoby. Here is the link: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024708723_keyarena05xml.html. The other is a Deadspin article entitled The Coyotes were damned close to moving to Seattle by Barry Petchesky dated October 8, 2014. Here is the link: http://deadspin.com/the-coyotes-were-damned-close-to-moving-to-seattle-1643791488 . Each article compliments the other.

In the Deadspin story three sources confirm that the Coyotes were a hair’s breadth from moving to Seattle. Ray Bartoszek and Anthony Lanza had formed a buyers’ group with plans to move the Coyotes to Seattle’s Key Arena the day following the Glendale City Council vote on the IceArizona arena management agreement if it had failed to gain approval. The new information in the story is confirmation that the NHL had blessed the scheme. Everyone knew how imminent the move could be….the NHL knew; the presumed buyers had moving trucks on standby; Glendale senior management knew; the Glendale City Council knew; and IceArizona knew. The only ones in the dark were Glendale residents.

Which leads to the second news story about Seattle’s Key Arena. Everyone presumed in 2009 without the Sonics as an anchor tenant the arena would die a pitiful death. How wrong. An average annual loss to Seattle with the Sonics was $1.5 million. In 2013, without the Sonics, the arena generated $1.2 million in profit. The loss of the team didn’t hurt for it opened up more desirable dates for performing artists to utilize the arena. Artists such as Kanye West, Rihanna, Maroon 5 and Bruno Mars performed at the Key in 2013.

I had always supported keeping a professional sports team at the Gila River Hockey Arena because it was my belief that the arena and Westgate could not survive without one. Seattle’s Key Arena disproves that belief. If the Coyotes arena management agreement had failed on that fateful July, 2013 day Glendale would have moved on, just as Seattle did. Glendale would have joined with an AEG-type partner and could have enjoyed the same kind of success that we see today at Seattle’s Key Arena.

P.S. Here’s a link to yet another Seattle Times news story about an almost move to Seattle: http://seattletimes.com/html/hockey/2024716050_seattlenhl07xml.html#.VDWTTHFMEBI.twitter

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Oct 14

7

Glendale General Election: Aldama vs. Alvarez

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 7, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , | 1 Comment

The Glendale General Election is in less than a month and early ballots have been mailed out and voters are beginning to make choices. For the voters of the Ocotillo district in Glendale’s General Election you have no good choices. Norma Alvarez, the incumbent and retired, is running against Jaime Aldama, who works for the Maricopa Community College District as a Coordinator. The Ocotillo voters must choose between an old, worn out Chevy or a brand new, slick Chevy. The trouble is that the make is the same.

If you go to their websites you will find that they are warm and fuzzy without much substance. Both candidates support the Tohono O’odham casino. Aldama’s site on the issues offers generalities on economic diversity, public safety and public services. Alvarez’ site doesn’t offer anything but why should it. The general public has had four years to observe her negativity on nearly every issue. Here are the links to their sites: http://www.jamiealdama.com/  and http://www.normaforglendale.com/ .

Both candidates have shown their commitment to Glendale and its well being. Aldama has shown his community commitment through his volunteerism on Glendale’s Boards and Commissions and Alvarez with her many years as a Glendale employee in Glendale’s Community Action Program (CAP). CAP is a pass through agency that doles out federal funds to those who are economically distressed.  

Let’s look at their campaign reports.  Both candidates filed complete reports. The last report made by their political committees is the Post Primary Report which covers activity through September 15, 2014. Jamie Aldama has raised $16,545 as of Sept. 15th. Norma Alvarez has raised $11,480 as of Sept. 15th.

Aldama’s base of support is big money donors (a few of which are Glendale residents) and Political Action Committees (PACs).  Of the donors listed only 4 are from Glendale and in some instances he does not list his donor’s job occupations or employers. He has loaned himself $2,500 to date. The PACs contributing to his campaign are: the UFCW #99 for $2,000; the Peoria Police Officers Association for $500; and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees for $1,000.

Alvarez’ base of support is from her husband, Fernando for $2,500. In other words, she gave her campaign $2,500 in a form other than a loan. Other notable contributors are Jason and Jordan Rose, attorneys, for $500; and the owner of Gonzalo Tours for $1,400.

Aldama has outspent Alvarez nearly 2 to 1. Aldama spent $15,611.44 to date and Alvarez spent $9,399.62 to date. All candidates had expenses for bank charges and websites. Alvarez has no such charges listed.

The choice in this race is difficult for the Ocotillo voter since there is no real choice…the new model vs. the old model.  Although Glendale races are non-partisan and no political party affiliations are declared it is pretty evident that Aldama and Alvarez are both Democrats. They share the Democrat philosophy of big government and big spending.

It boils down to a choice between the devil you know and the devil you don’t know. The Ocotillo voter knows exactly what he or she will get with Alvarez – more negativity and cheer leading for the Tohono O’odham.  She has made it clear that she only supports transparency and the voice of the people when it fits her positions on issues.

Aldama, if you have viewed his performance on the Planning and Zoning Commission, has a tendency to express his position after he sees which way the wind is blowing. He will be a follower, not a leader. That may be a good thing as city council has too many self-styled leaders these days.  Aldama may end up as the latest swing vote on many Glendale issues.

Based upon readily available information to the Ocotillo voter the choice for this race is:

 checkmark__bottomheavy_140

    Jamie Aldama

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Oct 14

6

Glendale General Election: Miller vs. Turner

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 6, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , | 1 Comment

The Glendale General Election is in less than a month and early ballots have been mailed out and voters are beginning to make choices. For the voters of the Barrel district in Glendale’s General Election you do have a choice between two distinct styles and philosophies. Randy Miller, a self employed IT consultant is running against Bart Turner, a self employed insurance agent.

The mantle of fiscal conservatism goes to Randy Miller.  He has taken the time to research the fiscal issues and to do his “homework.” Each has staked out positions on some of the major issues facing Glendale.  Here are the links to their websites: http://randyforcouncil.com/ and http://bartknowsglendale.com/index.html  . Turner is opposed to the current management agreement for the hockey arena. He supports the recent council passage of the extension of the temporary sales tax increase.  Miller has concerns about the management agreement for the arena and does not support the temporary sales tax increase. He believes there are other strategies, such as reining in the city’s operations and maintenance costs, to help solve Glendale’s financial crunch. Each has taken a position on the proposed casino with Miller opposed on the basis of reservation status and the future losses of critical sales tax revenue and Turner supports the casino because he believes it’s time to stop wasting money on frivolous lawsuits.

Both candidates have shown their commitment to Glendale and its well being through their volunteerism. Miller’s has been in support of Public Safety and Turner’s has focused on the arts, historical Glendale and social welfare.

Let’s look at their campaign reports. The last report made by their political committees is the Post Primary Report which covers activity through September 15, 2014. Miller filed a complete report. Turner continues to turn in only what he considers to be relevant pages of the report. Randy Miller has raised $8,621 as of Sept. 15th. Bart Turner has raised $10,408.94 as of Sept. 15th.They are within the ballpark of one another.

Miller’s base of support is the small business, self-employed community.  He held a local fund raiser and received support from Glendale residents. He has loaned himself $6,821 to date.

Turner’s base of support is from former college classmates; members of non-profits with whom he has worked over the years and a meet & greet with locals. His classmates contributed about $1600 to his campaign. The Young Voters Political Action Committee contributed $100. He made an In-Kind contribution, rather than a loan to his campaign of $3,087.61.  

Their campaign expenditures are also similar to one another. Miller spent $$8,319.49 to date and Turner spent $9,122.77 to date. Since I do not live in the Barrel district I do not have any information related to their political mailings.

The choice in this race is clear-cut for the Barrel voter.  Although Glendale races are non-partisan and no political party affiliations are declared it is pretty evident that Miller is a Republican (or perhaps an Independent) and Turner is a Democrat. Do you want a council representative who will be sympathetic to the interests of the small business and the self employed communities? Then vote for Miller. Or a council representative whose support comes from former classmates and members of the non-profit community? Then vote for Turner. Miller has consistently demonstrated an eagerness to learn and a passion for the issues confronting Glendale.

Based upon readily available information to the Barrel voter the choice for this race is:

 checkmark__bottomheavy_140

 Randy Miller

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

« Previous Page — Next Page »