Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Jul 14

9

Picks for the Cholla district city council seat

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 9, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 2 Comments

My vetting of the Cholla district candidates is done. I congratulate them for their willingness to put themselves before the voters to be weighed and measured on the issues of the day.

While each candidate may have developed campaign literature that they pass out or mail to the voters, it is just that, voter specific, and may not reach the entire Cholla district voter universe.

All 4 of the Cholla council district candidates share some commonalities. All are articulate. Sometimes a candidate will pop up and immediately your radar says there is something that is off. Not so with these candidates. My belief is that they want to be part of the solution with regard to Glendale’s financial difficulties. My choice of 2 among the 4 candidates will be based on the information publicly available to date used in my previous blogs about each candidate; plus my personal interviews.

All are self funded to date and have done minimal fund raising. Deardorff and Petrone are the gorillas having loaned their campaigns at least $10,000 each.  DiCarlo and Tolmachoff have made more modest loans under $2,000 each. Does a larger loan indicate more commitment? No, of course not.  It is surprising that none of the candidates appears to be reaching out to their constituency for campaign support to date with the exception of facilitating campaign donations through their websites. But my guess is that political strategy may mean that the candidates prefer to reveal their contributors in later Finance Reports as a means of keeping that information from their opponents.

It is difficult for the voter, based upon publicly available information, to determine how each candidate stands on a particular issue. Deardorff and Petrone have no issues information available on their websites. DiCarlo has taken up one issue, that of Glendale’s finances. Tolmachoff has the most robust site and clearly takes a stand on Glendale’s finances.

All of the candidates acknowledge that Glendale has financial problems. Deardorff, DiCarlo and Tolmachoff support the sunset of the sales tax increase in 2017. Petrone has made no public statements regarding the sales tax and as mentioned above has no issues on his web site as of this date. Petrone has also had a series of past personal financial problems which leads me to question his ability to make sound financial decisions for Glendale. His personal financial decisions have led to court cases and documented judgments against him. His judgments and personal history led to my decision not to interview him as I do not see him as a viable candidate.

All 4 candidates seek to reduce Glendale’s debt burden. Deardorff wants to look at personnel costs and believes there is room to cut those costs. DiCarlo and Tolmachoff believe that selling Glendale’s assets is a viable course of action. All point to Camelback Ranch and want to explore ways to deal with its massive debt.

Deardorff and Dicarlo oppose a reservation, and hence the casino, in Glendale.

Deardorff, DiCarlo and Tolmachoff state that the relationship between staff and council is broken and seek more staff transparency as well as a council united in exploring and solving Glendale’s current crop of problems.

All candidates understand that Glendale has no responsibility or power over local school districts. A Glendale candidate or elected councilor cannot impact education. That is for local school boards. Be wary of any district council candidate promising to “fix” local education for that is simply not true.

All are married and have lived in the Cholla district from 9 to 40 years signaling that they all have roots in Glendale. All are self employed and that does provide them the flexibility they need to fulfill a councilmember’s responsibilities. Only Petrone has served on Glendale’s boards and commissions.

Of Note; Deardorff has received the support of former mayor Elaine Scruggs listed as a member of a Host Committee fund raiser. It was under her watch that Glendale assumed the massive debt with which it must deal. There is an old saying that you are judged by the company you keep. With no other apparent Glendale involvement to balance her influence there is the risk of a second coming of an old strategy…a strategy that drove Glendale over the fiscal cliff. It is because of this issue that he was not picked as one of the two final candidate choices.

Councilmember Martinez has endorsed Petrone and it appears that he will have the endorsement and financial support of the fire union. Fire opposes the sunset of the sales tax. That signals a candidate who agrees with the fire union’s agenda. Another concern with Petrone is related to his service on Glendale’s boards and commissions and it may not play in his favor. His interaction with staff may make him more sympathetic to the current staff agenda. These issues are grave enough to eliminate him as a council candidate pick.

Di Carlo has the experience of a prior campaign. He has experienced the subtleties of staff in dealing with candidates and may have developed a more confident manner in dealing with Glendale staff and current Council.

Tolmachoff has the most informative website with issue specifics in her blog available on that website. She is the only candidate to publicly express her support of the casino.

It seems safe to assume that with 4 candidates no one will take the Cholla councilmember seat out right in the Primary Election. The two top candidates will face off in the General Election in November. It is not an easy decision for any voter but based upon information publicly available to everyone, this writer’s picks for the Cholla district are:               

                                           Gary Deardorff

                                  checkmark__bottomheavy_140 Van DiCarlo  

                                         

                                           Robert Petrone

                                 checkmark__bottomheavy_140  Lauren Tolmachoff

Please be sure to check the straw poll to the left of this column and vote for your choice as the Cholla district city council pick. You do not have to live in the Cholla district to participate.

© 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.

Jul 14

8

Last up…Lauren Tolmachoff Cholla district council candidate

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 8, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Please note: Some of the information presented here is repetition of information from my previous blogs on Cholla candidates Gary Deardorff; Van DiCarlo and Robert Petrone; and applies to all candidates. Some of you reading this blog for the first time may not have read the previous ones.

If you have relatives, friends or acquaintances that live in the Cholla district, please consider passing this series of blogs on to them as another tool to help them evaluate the Cholla candidates prior to casting their vote.

Early ballots are mailed at the end of July, 2014. Candidates (well, most of them) have their websites up, are raising campaign money (or not) and beginning to stake out their positions on Glendale issues.

We begin with the Cholla district council candidates in alphabetical order: Gary Deardorff, Van DiCarlo, Robert Petrone and Lauren Tolmachoff. These 4 candidates share some commonalities. They are running, generally, because they were encouraged by friends or family to do so and obviously, they all believe that they can contribute solutions to fix Glendale’s financial situation.

All of the information to be discussed will be based on the candidates’ websites and their June 30, 2014 Campaign Finance Reports. Some of the candidates I had met previously and am familiar with their positions on various issues. Others I have never met and so I arranged an interview with them.

We’ll take a look at each candidate’s Campaign Finance Report of June 30, 2014. Here is the link to Glendale City Clerk’s posting of each candidate finance report: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/2014PoliticalCommitteeCampaignFinanceReports.cfm . Go to that page and you can choose which candidate’s campaign finance report you wish to read.

Each report totals 19 pages. The first 2 pages are summary pages. Section A will show all contributions from individuals. Section B shows all political committee contributions. Section C shows loans either the candidate made to the campaign or any other loan received. Section D deals with all expenditures. Section E is for In-Kind contributions and Section F shows miscellaneous items.

This could be considered nit-picky but the finance report is 19 pages. Each candidate’s report should consist of a minimum of 19 pages (there may be multiple pages especially in Sections A and D). Some candidates did not submit the minimal 19 pages. It could be assumed that if they had no financial activity to report in certain areas they just did not bother to include those pages. Technically, that is not a complete report. All pages should be submitted and if there was no activity to report in certain categories, the candidate can leave the page blank, draw a line through the page or indicate “NA,” no activity. Even if a candidate has a treasurer who fills out the report the candidate is still ultimately responsible for the accuracy and veracity of his or her filing.

There is another kind of Campaign Finance Report a candidate can submit and that is a No Activity Statement. That means the candidate didn’t receive any contributions and did not spend any money. Some of the council candidates filed this kind of report.

The items to look for are: what individuals are contributing; are they Glendale residents, relatives, attorneys or other professionals; or Political Action Committees (PACs)? Did the candidate loan his or her campaign any money? How much? Are the expenditures typical of a campaign; signs, printing, bank charges, food for fund raising events or volunteers; web site design or hosting? Is the candidate using a paid political consultant? At what cost?

At this stage of the game candidates are often reluctant to reveal too much about their finances. They may ask that large contributions be made after June 1, 2014 to be reported in the Pre-Primary Report or after August 15, 2014 for the Post-Primary Report.

Lauren Tolmachoff

Campaign Finance Report – Her report consists of all 19 pages. Ms. Tolmachoff loaned her campaign committee $1,200.00. Her treasurer is Rhonda L. Gaul. Please remember, Ms. Tolmachoff ultimately bears the responsibility for the accuracy and veracity of her report.

Campaign contribution limits have become very generous as a result of recent court rulings. In the last election of 2012, the individual contribution limit was $400. Now it is $2,500. A political committee’s limit is now $2,500 and a Super PAC’s limit is $5,000. The trick for local candidates is to get large contributions. It’s not an easy task.

Ms. Tolmachoff has received one contribution from Glenn Hickman for $150 to date.  She has no campaign consultant. Her campaign expenditures are for usual items such as printing, web hosting and supplies.

The noteworthy take-aways from Tolmachoff’s campaign report are: 1. Her campaign is self funded in the amount of $1,200 to date; 2. She submitted all 19 pages of the Campaign Finance Report; and 3. There are no unusual contributions or expenditures to date.                         Website — her campaign website:  http://www.electlaurentolmachoff.com .                                                    Contact information:  Elect Lauren Tolmachoff, P.O. Box 10072, Glendale, Az.  85318-0072    Telephone:  (602)730-5589                            E-mail: electlaurentolmachoff@gmail.com

Her website provides you biographical information, an extensive blog on Glendale issues, a mission statement, campaign donation info and contact info. Under the Blog tab she does address many of Glendale’s issues.  I did meet with Ms. Tolmachoff in a meeting that took about an hour. I asked her and any other candidates with whom I met the same series of questions.

Ms. Tolmachoff has lived in Glendale and the Cholla district for 9 years. She is married. She has not participated in Glendale community affairs. She is a realtor and believes that her work schedule is flexible enough to accommodate the demands of serving as a councilmember.

Her observations with regard to the relationship between council and staff are that she respects the work of staff a great deal but feels that the leadership and policies of councilmembers, past and present, are part of the problem. She indicated that she is not receiving fire or police union support and is relying on neighborhood donations and self-funding. Under her Blog tab she states that the sales tax increase should sunset in 2017. She advocates for the liquidation of city assets as a partial solution to Glendale’s debt problem. She understands that city council has no authority over school districts. She is supportive of the Tohono O’odham’s proposed casino on the grounds of job creation.

Now that we have taken a look at all 4 Cholla district candidates we’ll try to narrow the choices down to 2 people. In this district, as with the other council races, there are so many candidates none of them are expected to win outright in the primary and we can expect a run off in the general election in November.  Next up, candidate picks for the Cholla district.

© 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.

Jul 14

7

Third up…Robert Petrone Cholla district council candidate

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 7, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Please note: Some of the information presented here is repetition of information from my previous blog on Cholla candidates Gary Deardorff and Van DiCarlo; and applies to all candidates. Some of you reading this blog for the first time may not have read the previous ones.

If you have relatives, friends or acquaintances that live in the Cholla district, please consider passing this series of blogs on to them as another tool to help them evaluate the Cholla candidates prior to casting their vote.

Early ballots are mailed at the end of July, 2014. Candidates (well, most of them) have their websites up, are raising campaign money (or not) and beginning to stake out their positions on Glendale issues.

We begin with the Cholla district council candidates in alphabetical order: Gary Deardorff, Van DiCarlo, Robert Petrone and Lauren Tolmachoff. These 4 candidates share some commonalities. They are running, generally, because they were encouraged by friends or family to do so and obviously, they all believe that they can contribute solutions to fix Glendale’s financial situation.

All of the information to be discussed will be based on the candidates’ websites and their June 30, 2014 Campaign Finance Reports. Some of the candidates I had met previously and am familiar with their positions on various issues. Others I have never met and so I arranged an interview with them.

We’ll take a look at each candidate’s Campaign Finance Report of June 30, 2014. Here is the link to Glendale City Clerk’s posting of each candidate finance report: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/2014PoliticalCommitteeCampaignFinanceReports.cfm . Go to that page and you can choose which candidate’s campaign finance report you wish to read.

Each report totals 19 pages. The first 2 pages are summary pages. Section A will show all contributions from individuals. Section B shows all political committee contributions. Section C shows loans either the candidate made to the campaign or any other loan received. Section D deals with all expenditures. Section E is for In-Kind contributions and Section F shows miscellaneous items.

This could be considered nit-picky but the finance report is 19 pages. Each candidate’s report should consist of a minimum of 19 pages (there may be multiple pages especially in Sections A and D). Some candidates did not submit the minimal 19 pages. It could be assumed that if they had no financial activity to report in certain areas they just did not bother to include those pages. Technically, that is not a complete report. All pages should be submitted and if there was no activity to report in certain categories, the candidate can leave the page blank, draw a line through the page or indicate “NA,” no activity. Even if a candidate has a treasurer who fills out the report the candidate is still ultimately responsible for the accuracy and veracity of his or her filing.

There is another kind of Campaign Finance Report a candidate can submit and that is a No Activity Statement. That means the candidate didn’t receive any contributions and did not spend any money. Some of the council candidates filed this kind of report.

The items to look for are: what individuals are contributing; are they Glendale residents, relatives, attorneys or other professionals; or Political Action Committees (PACs)? Did the candidate loan his or her campaign any money? How much? Are the expenditures typical of a campaign; signs, printing, bank charges, food for fund raising events or volunteers; web site design or hosting? Is the candidate using a paid political consultant? At what cost?

At this stage of the game candidates are often reluctant to reveal too much about their finances. They may ask that large contributions be made after June 1, 2014 to be reported in the Pre-Primary Report or after August 15, 2014 for the Post-Primary Report.

Robert Petrone

Campaign Finance Report – His report consists of all 19 pages. On the heading of his first Summary page he failed to fill in the name of the office he is seeking and an email address. Mr. Petrone loaned his campaign committee $10,000.00. He has no treasurer. Please remember, Mr. Petrone ultimately bears the responsibility for the accuracy and veracity of his report.

Campaign contribution limits have become very generous as a result of recent court rulings. In the last election of 2012, the individual contribution limit was $400. Now it is $2,500. A political committee’s limit is now $2,500 and a Super PAC’s limit is $5,000. The trick for local candidates is to get large contributions. It’s not an easy task.

Mr. Petrone has received 4 contributions from individuals in the amount of $4,600. He received $900 from David Penilla, an attorney; $1,000 from Simon Kottoor, owner of Sunshine Group Home; $200 from Goodman & Schwartz, a political consulting/lobbying firm; and $2500 from Sovereign Consulting. Petrone employed Sovereign, the same consulting firm that contributed $2,500 to his campaign. He paid Sovereign $1,155.00 for signature collection and verification. The balance of his campaign expenditures are for just one campaign item, signs.

The noteworthy take-aways from Petrone’s campaign report are: 1. His campaign is self funded in the amount of $10,000 to date; 2. He has received 4 contributions in the amount of$4,600 to date; 3. He failed to provide complete information on the Summary page of the Campaign Finance Report; and 4. While he received $2,500 from Sovereign Consulting, he also turned around and paid the firm $1,155 for signature collection and verification. He used information provided by Sovereign to challenge Deardorff’s number of valid petition signatures signaling that he considers Deardorff to be his greatest threat. He appears to have personally collected petition signatures but also used this company to get signatures as well.

Website — his campaign website is http://www.citizens4petrone.com  . Contact information: Citizens4petrone, 19626 N 73rd Ave., Glendale, Az. 85308                                                                                                                 Telephone:  623 451 8328    E-mail: citizens4petrone@aol.com

His website provides you sparse biographical information, a photo gallery (just 1 photo), campaign donation info and contact info. Mr. Petrone offers nothing regarding Glendale issues. Throughout his website he often makes reference to his service as Chairperson of the citizen Planning & Zoning Commission.  It appears that he is relying on that service and the endorsement of Cholla Councilmember Martinez to provide him credibility. I have not talked to Mr. Petrone but I have met him at past city functions and have observed his work on the Planning Commission. I did not meet with him because in a previous blog dated April 22, 2014  (here is the link: Glendale Cholla district council candidate Robert Petrone http://wp.me/p3aHul-wG  )  I discussed Mr. Petrone’s past personal financial difficulties. Those difficulties seem to indicate that he has had problems in managing his financial affairs and seriously diminish his viability as a serious candidate.

Mr. Petrone has lived in Glendale and the Cholla district for almost 40 years. He is married. He has participated in Glendale community affairs most notably as Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission. He has his own landscaping business and believes that his work schedule is flexible enough to accommodate the demands of serving as a councilmember.

His relationships with staff demonstrated by his service on boards and commissions indicate his sympathy for staff’s agenda. Although the fire union will not declare support for candidates until after the Primary Election, Mr. Petrone seems to be first in line to receive their support. He has offered no website stance on the issues of Glendale’s finances, the sales tax sunset or the proposed casino.

After review of all 4 Cholla district candidates we’ll try to narrow the choices down to 2 people. In this district, as with the other council races, there are so many candidates none of them is expected to win outright in the primary and we can expect a run off in the general election in November.  Next up, Lauren Tolmachoff.

© 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.

Jul 14

6

Did she lie?

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 6, 2014
Posted in City of Glendale  | 7 Comments

Knaack

Vice Mayor Knaack

 

In the July 3, 2014 Glendale Star story by Darrell Jackson on council’s vote to eliminate the sales tax sunset (here is the link:

 http://www.glendalestar.com/news/article_5f841dba-fcad-11e3-bf0a-0019bb2963f4.html ) Vice Mayor Knaack said the following, “ No one wants to pay more taxes, but this tax already exists. Did we hope this tax would be able to sunset in 2017? Absolutely. And we did not lie when we said that.”

Here is the link to the January 21, 2014 workshop meeting on the city budget:  http://glendale-az.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=245ce331-d4d4-1031-b956-2fc23debe4b6 . At the 47 minute, 8 second mark Vice Mayor Knaack begins speaking and says, “When we did that tax the only reason it sunsetted (sic) was to make it more palatable to the residents. I don’t think we should have sunsetted (sic) it. I really wasn’t for sunsetting (sic) it but that’s what happened. I didn’t think it was realistic…”

Did she lie? You decide.

© 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.

Jul 14

6

The Koi pond in monsoon season

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 6, 2014
Posted in Koi pond  | Tagged With: , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

I thought I would do a quick update of the pond now that it is July of 2014 and we are in the throes of monsoon season. The shade cover has been up since May and is doing its job. It has stretched and when it is taken down this year there will be work to do to tighten it up.

fish in pond

Fish waiting to be fed

The fish are all doing well despite a recent heron scare. I feed them once a day around 3 PM. For several months they have taken to massing together and following me as I walk along the pond’s edge until I feed them.

Water lettuce and lilies

Water lettuce amongst the lily pads

What has really amazed me is the plant growth both in and out of the water. On our last trip to California I purchased a few, maybe half a dozen, water lettuce plants. I threw them in the pond and they took off. The lettuce has proliferated so much that the other day, I scooped about half of the plants out and threw them away. It was getting to be too much and the lettuce was crowding the water lilies and snowflake plants out. I suspect that I will be periodically scooping some out.

Taro explosion

Taro explosion

When the pond was first started, about 3 years ago, a friend gave me two small Taro plants. Well, it’s taken them awhile but this year they have exploded with growth and look magnificent.

Lotus from seed

Lotus from sees

I received some lotus seeds and decided to try to grow some. After three tries with seeds I have finally succeeded. With the first two sets of seeds, they would “hatch,” grow leaves and roots but everytime I put them in the pond it was just a matter of time before they died.  I now know the secret. Start your seeds in the hottest part of your summer. Wait until you have at least four leaves and a healthy set of roots before you pot them and place in the pond. The lotus love hot weather and apparently the hotter the better.

Mountain Laurel

Mountain Laurel

Last summer we planted 3 Mountain Laurel. It took them awhile to take hold but they have finally done so. Right now they look like lanky, ungainly bushes. When they get a bit taller they will be pruned to one major cane that will eventually become a tree.

IMG_5758

Koi pond in July, 2014

We love our Koi pond! We have had countless hours of joy watching Koi antics and watching the pond vegetation mature and look like it belongs there. Was it worth the investment? You bet!

© 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.

Jul 14

3

Second…Van DiCarlo of the Cholla district

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 3, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Please note: Some of the information presented here is repetition of information from my previous blog on Cholla candidate Gary Deardorff and applies to all candidates. Some of you reading this blog for the first time may not have read the previous one.

If you have relatives, friends or acquaintances that live in the Cholla district, please consider passing this series of blogs on to them as another tool to help them evaluate the Cholla candidates prior to casting their vote.

Early ballots are mailed at the end of July, 2014. Candidates (well, most of them) have their websites up, are raising campaign money (or not) and beginning to stake out their positions on Glendale issues.

We begin with the Cholla district council candidates in alphabetical order: Gary Deardorff, Van DiCarlo, Robert Petrone and Lauren Tolmachoff. These 4 candidates share some commonalities. They are running, generally, because they were encouraged by friends or family to do so and obviously, they all believe that they can contribute solutions to fix Glendale’s financial situation.

All of the information to be discussed will be based on the candidates’ websites and their June 30, 2014 Campaign Finance Reports. Some of the candidates I had met previously and am familiar with their positions on various issues. Others I have never met and so I arranged an interview with them.

We’ll take a look at each candidate’s Campaign Finance Report of June 30, 2014. Here is the link to Glendale City Clerk’s posting of each candidate finance report: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/2014PoliticalCommitteeCampaignFinanceReports.cfm . Go to that page and you can choose which candidate’s campaign finance report you wish to read.

Each report totals 19 pages. The first 2 pages are summary pages. Section A will show all contributions from individuals. Section B shows all political committee contributions. Section C shows loans either the candidate made to the campaign or any other loan received. Section D deals with all expenditures. Section E is for In-Kind contributions and Section F shows miscellaneous items.

This could be considered nit-picky but the finance report is 19 pages. Each candidate’s report should consist of a minimum of 19 pages (there may be multiple pages especially in Sections A and D). Some candidates did not submit the minimal 19 pages. It could be assumed that if they had no financial activity to report in certain areas they just did not bother to include those pages. Technically, that is not a complete report. All pages should be submitted and if there was no activity to report in certain categories, the candidate can leave the page blank, draw a line through the page or indicate “NA,” no activity. Even if a candidate has a treasurer who fills out the report the candidate is still ultimately responsible for the accuracy and veracity of his or her filing.

There is another kind of Campaign Finance Report a candidate can submit and that is a No Activity Statement. That means the candidate didn’t receive any contributions and did not spend any money. Some of the council candidates filed this kind of report.

The items to look for are: what individuals are contributing; are they Glendale residents, relatives, attorneys or other professionals; or Political Action Committees (PACs)? Did the candidate loan his or her campaign any money? How much? Are the expenditures typical of a campaign; signs, printing, bank charges, food for fund raising events or volunteers; web site design or hosting? Is the candidate using a paid political consultant? At what cost?

At this stage of the game candidates are often reluctant to reveal too much about their finances. They may ask that large contributions be made after June 1, 2014 to be reported in the Pre-Primary Report or after August 15, 2014 for the Post-Primary Report.

Van DiCarlo

Campaign Finance Report – His report consists of only 6 pages. He submitted the 2 summary pages, Schedule C showing his loan to his campaign, Schedule D indicating expenditures and Schedule E showing In-Kind contributions.  The rest of the pages, including Schedules B and F…are simply not there. This is not his first run for the Cholla district council seat. He ran in 2006 and by now should certainly be able to fill out the report fully. Mr. DiCarlo loaned his campaign committee $1,937.00. He has no treasurer. Please remember, Mr. DiCarlo ultimately bears the responsibility for the accuracy and veracity of his report.

Campaign contribution limits have become very generous as a result of recent court rulings. In the last election of 2012, the individual contribution limit was $400. Now it is $2,500. A political committee’s limit is now $2,500 and a Super PAC’s limit is $5,000. The trick for local candidates is to get large contributions. It’s not an easy task.

Mr. DiCarlo has received no contributions from any source to date. He did receive 2 in-kind contributions for the use of a golf cart for a month valued at $350 and web design valued at $400.  He has no campaign consultant. DiCarlo employed Stephen Martin for nominating petition signature collection at a cost of $756.  The balance of his campaign expenditures are for usual items such as printing, web hosting and supplies.

The noteworthy take-aways from DiCarlo’s campaign report are: 1. His campaign is self funded in the amount of $1,937.27 to date; 2. He has received 2 in-kind contributions in the amount of $750 to date; and 3. He failed to submit all 19 pages of the Campaign Finance Report.

Website — his campaign website is http://www.electdicarlo.org  . His contact information:  Committee to Elect DiCarlo, 20280 N. 59th Ave, Suite 115-631 Glendale AZ 85308 Telephone:  623.695.6124                            E-mail: voterinput@dicarlo.phxcoxmail.com

His website provides you biographical information, a sparse blog, a photo gallery, campaign donation info and contact info. Under the Issues tab DiCarlo does address Glendale’s finances in part.  I have talked to Mr. DiCarlo and know him and his positions on the issues. We are not close, personal friends. I did not meet with him because I had discussed issues with him when he first declared his candidacy.

Mr. DiCarlo has lived in Glendale and the Cholla district for 13 years. He is married. He has not participated in Glendale community affairs. He has his own business and believes that his work schedule is flexible enough to accommodate the demands of serving as a councilmember.

His observations with regard to the relationship between council and staff are that staff could be more forthright. He indicated that he is not receiving fire or police union support and is relying on neighborhood donations and self-funding. Under his Issues tab he states that the sales tax increase should sunset in 2017. He advocates for the liquidation of city assets as a way to dig Glendale out of its debt problem. He understands that city council has no authority over school districts. He is not supportive of the Tohono O’odham’s proposed casino on the grounds of objecting to the placement of a reservation within Glendale’s boundaries.

After review of all 4 Cholla district candidates we’ll try to narrow the choices down to 2 people. In this district, as with the other council races, there are so many candidates none of them is expected to win outright in the primary and we can expect a run off in the general election in November.  Next up, Robert Petrone.

© 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.

Jul 14

2

First up…Gary Deardorff from the Cholla district

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 2, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Please note: If you have relatives, friends or acquaintances that live in the Cholla district, please consider passing this series of blogs on to them as another tool to help them evaluate the Cholla candidates prior to casting their vote.

Early ballots are mailed at the end of July, 2014. Candidates (well, most of them) have their websites up, are raising campaign money (or not) and beginning to stake out their positions on Glendale issues.

We begin with the Cholla district council candidates in alphabetical order: Gary Deardorff, Van DiCarlo, Robert Petrone and Lauren Tolmachoff. These 4 candidates share some commonalities. They are running, generally because they were encouraged by friends or family to do so and obviously, they all believe that they can contribute solutions to fix Glendale’s financial situation. All of the information to be discussed will be based on the candidates’ websites and their June 30, 2014 Campaign Finance Reports. Some of the candidates I had met previously and am familiar with their positions on various issues. Others I have never met and so I arranged an interview with them.

We’ll take a look at each candidate’s Campaign Finance Report of June 30, 2014. Here is the link to Glendale City Clerk’s posting of each candidate finance report: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/2014PoliticalCommitteeCampaignFinanceReports.cfm . Go to that page and you can choose which candidate’s campaign finance report you wish to read. Each report totals 19 pages. The first 2 pages are summary pages. Section A will show all contributions from individuals. Section B shows all political committee contributions. Section C shows loans either the candidate made to the campaign or any other loan received. Section D deals with all expenditures. Section E is for In-Kind contributions and Section F shows miscellaneous items.

This could be considered nit-picky but the finance report is 19 pages. Each candidate’s report should consist of a minimum of 19 pages (there may be multiple pages especially in Sections A and D). Some candidates did not submit the minimal 19 pages. It could be assumed that if they had no financial activity to report in certain areas they just did not bother to include those pages. Technically, that is not a complete report. All pages should be submitted and if there was no activity to report in certain categories, the candidate can leave the page blank, draw a line through the page or indicate “NA,” no activity. Even if a candidate has a treasurer who fills out the report the candidate is still ultimately responsible for the accuracy and veracity of his or her filing.

There is another kind of Campaign Finance Report a candidate can submit and that is a No Activity Statement. That means the candidate didn’t receive any contributions and did not spend any money. Some of the council candidates filed this kind of report.

The items to look for are: what individuals are contributing; are they Glendale residents, relatives, attorneys or other professionals; or Political Action Committees (PACs)? Did the candidate loan his or her campaign any money? How much? Are the expenditures typical of a campaign; signs, printing, bank charges, food for fund raising events or volunteers; web site design or hosting? Is the candidate using a paid political consultant? At what cost? At this stage of the game candidates are often reluctant to reveal too much about their finances. They may ask that large contributions be made after June 1, 2014 to be reported in the Pre-Primary Report or after August 15, 2014 for the Post-Primary Report.

GARY DEARDORFF

Campaign Finance Report – his report consists of all 19 pages. Mr. Deardorff loaned his campaign committee $11,858.43. While he reports this amount on his summary pages, he does not report the loan on Schedule C, Candidate Loans.  Mr. Deardorff has a treasurer, Scott Rulon, who filled out the report. Please remember, Mr. Deardorff ultimately bears the responsibility for the accuracy and veracity of his report.

Campaign contribution limits have become very generous as a result of recent court rulings. In the last election of 2012, the individual contribution limit was $400. Now it is $2,500. A political committee’s limit is now $2,500 and a Super PAC’s limit is $5,000. The trick for local candidates is to get large contributions. It’s not an easy task.

Deardorff’s individual contributions consist of a contribution of $100 from a Glendale resident and $50 from another resident. He has a campaign consultant, Gail Meyers, to whom he has paid $1,258.27 to date. Ms. Meyers has often been recommended to various candidates over the years by former Mayor Scruggs. We have our first inkling of Scruggs’ behind-the-scenes support of some of the current crop of council candidates. Here is another clue. The Host Committee for this fundraiser consisted of: Rich Shelton and Michele Tennyson, Campaign Co-Chairs; Robert “Bob” Campbell, Cathy Cheshier, Janet & Sean Lee and former Mayor Scruggs.

image002

While the bulk of Deardorff’s expenditures are the ones usually expected with a campaign there is one that sticks out and that is $3,141.00 to Petition Partners for nominating petition signature collection.  The Sonoran News in March of 2012 reported that the District Attorney of Covington, Kentucky filed suit against Andrew Chavez, CEO of Petition Partners, for fraudulent signature gathering. Here is the link: http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2012/120314/frontpage-Chavez.html . The use of Petition Partners by Deardorff appears to have almost sunk his campaign. Robert Petrone, another Cholla council candidate, filed challenging the validity of Deardorff’s signatures. Deardorff staved off the Petrone challenge by 2 signatures.

The noteworthy take-aways from Deardorff’s campaign report are: 1. His campaign is self funded in the amount of $11,858.43 to date; 2. He has received 2 individual contributions in the amount of $150 to date; 3. former Mayor Scruggs appears to be backing his candidacy; 4. He is using a political consultant; and 5. While he collected some petition signatures personally he hired a seemingly questionable firm to collect petition signatures.

Website — his campaign website is http://deardorff4cholla.com . Here is his contact information: Deardorff for Cholla, PO Box 10430, Glendale, AZ 85318-0430    623.776.5436       Email address:deardorff4cholla@gmail.com .

His website provides you biographical information, a photo gallery, campaign donation info and contact info. As of this posting there is nothing, absolutely nothing regarding Mr. Deardorff’s position on any Glendale issues. In the absence of information I did meet with Mr. Deardorff and his campaign consultant, Gail Meyers. In a meeting that took about an hour I asked him and any other candidates with whom I met the same series of questions.

Mr. Deardorff has lived in Glendale and the Cholla district for 18 years. He is married. He has not participated in Glendale community affairs. He has his own financial consulting business and believes that his work schedule is flexible enough to accommodate the demands of serving as a councilmember. His observations with regard to the relationship between council and staff are summed up with trust but verify. He believes past City Manager “falsehoods” have led to Glendale’s problems of today. He indicated that he is not receiving fire or police union support and is relying on neighborhood donations and self-funding. He believes the sales tax increase should sunset in 2017 and is confident that budget cuts can be made to offset the revenue loss. He readily admits that he does not have enough insider information to offer intelligent solutions to Glendale’s finances but he does think personnel costs are too high and could be cut. He understands that city council has no authority over school districts. He is not supportive of the Tohono O’odham’s proposed casino on the grounds of objecting to the placement of a reservation within Glendale’s boundaries.

After review of all 4 Cholla district candidates we’ll try to narrow the choices down to 2 people. In this district, as with other council races, there are so many candidates none of them can be expected to win outright in the primary and we can expect a run off in the general election in November.  Next up, Van DiCarlo.

© 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.

Jun 14

30

It’s candidate season

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 30, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale's Fire Union  | Tagged With: , | 4 Comments

Early Primary Voting ballots will be mailed to voters at the end of July, 2014 and the primary voting locations will be open on August 29, 2014. Candidate season reaches a fevered pitch in July. I bet you have already received campaign mailings on behalf of either congressional, state or local candidates.

Recent petition signature verification by the courts shines a light on just how ill informed inexperienced candidates can be. It is a tried and true political tactic to challenge signatures. Sometimes it’s easier to try to knock a candidate out of the running by challenging signatures than running against him or her. Former Councilmember and Vice Mayor Tom Eggleston was a master of this particular art.

Petition signature gathering ranks as an elementary task for a city council candidate. He or she should at the very least, know the district boundaries of the council district they wish to represent. I am always surprised by candidates who get signatures from people who have a Glendale mailing address even though they live in another city. Simply put, if a candidate can’t be bothered to do his or her homework to recognize district boundaries and instead fills his or her petition sheets with signatures from folks with just a Glendale mailing address he or she doesn’t deserve a spot on the ballot. They will be pummeled by those candidates supported by the fire union, who provide their chosen candidates with complete walking lists of registered voters on each street within the district being covered. It is difficult enough for an experienced candidate to run against a fire union candidate. It is a daunting and unpleasant task for an inexperienced candidate.

Another very rudimentary act for the candidate is to check one’s petition signatures against registered voter lists. Inexperienced candidates will accept all signatures not bothering to verify that the signator is a registered voter in Glendale. I suppose they really think no one will check. Do they really think that a massive show of numbers will dazzle enough to overlook the legal validity of signatures?

This year the candidate crop in Glendale is vast. There are a few diamonds-in-the-rough among them and it is revealing to see that there are so many of them ready, willing and eager to change the current culture and vision. However, it is disappointing to see so many that are downright ill informed or completely uninformed about the real issues facing Glendale.

It is no secret that those running are quietly and surreptitiously vetted by City Hall. After all, a new crop of councilmembers can change the city hall equation in an instant. A candidate may be identified by someone in City Hall as sympathetic to the current City Hall agenda. That candidate will receive assistance in subtle, barely discernible ways. A candidate who is not in favor at City Hall will find that the city will keep a very close eye on his/her campaign and will be quick to put up road blocks…also subtle and barely discernible. Having run in 4 Glendale elections I have been a recipient of both kinds of treatment.

Then there’s the tremendous assistance that the Glendale Fire Union will provide to their identified candidates. Now, remember, that pesky federal Hatch Act. Local employees may not be involved in their community’s election, in any way, shape or form. The fire unions have developed a neat “work around.” Fire fighters from other Valley cities will contribute to the candidate’s campaign. Fire fighters from other Valley cities will walk for the candidate and work the polls on election day. Fire fighters from other Valley cities will put up the candidate’s campaign signs. Fire fighters from other Valley cities will form Political Action Committees, registered with the city, and then do “independent mailings” or “independent campaign signs” in support of their candidate. It’s a quid pro quo relationship. Next election cycle you will find Glendale fire fighters doing the same for their brothers in Peoria, Gilbert or Phoenix.

Be wary. The Glendale Fire Union’s agenda is just that…their agenda. Their agenda is to protect what they have in wages, benefits and work schedules and to get more. While that agenda is great for them and while they may tell you it is great for you — it may not be a great agenda for Glendale taxpayers…just remember that’s you and me. One more union thought. Always use this as a voter guide. Does my company give me the same level of benefits enjoyed by union fire fighters? At this time with the nation’s economy still struggling, probably not.

You may find it helpful to realize most voters don’t know the local issues in depth. You are not alone. So it is not surprising that the candidates often don’t know either. Look for candidates who ask questions and offer solutions. They may not have the benefit of insider city hall knowledge but at least they are willing to take their time to do their homework and to learn… and then to develop a position on an issue. Some candidates do nothing more than pander to the voter expressing a popular position assuming that it will produce votes.

One further caveat, reject any city council candidate who promises to “fix” local education. The Glendale city council has no authority over the curriculum, teachers or administrators of the myriad of school districts in Glendale. A councilmember may be asked, from time to time, to do something about traffic or parking adjacent to individual schools. That councilmember may or may not, be able to assist in such a circumstance. That is the sum total of city council involvement in local school issues.

Look for candidates who dress appropriately as a sign of respect for the office they seek. Look for candidates who have developed roots in Glendale. Look for candidates who can not only articulate their positions on issues but also put their positions out there for you to weigh. Having visited all the candidates who have websites I am surprised that quite a few of them do not use this venue to tell you, the voter, where they stand on a particular issue. They’ll put up their bios, ask for a donation or campaign help or provide a “Contact” link but they fail to tell you what their position is, for example, on the sales tax sunset issue, Glendale’s debt burden or the casino issue – three hot topics in Glendale right now.

I would suggest calling the candidate directly. Now is not the time to be shy. All of them should be pleased to have a conversation with you and to be given the opportunity to express their views. Please don’t feel as if you are intruding. Candidates welcome every opportunity to make connections to voters.

During the month of July as I discuss each candidate I will post publicly available phone numbers, websites and contact information. Use this information. Please don’t feel as if you are intruding. Candidates welcome every opportunity to make connections to voters. After all, it is candidate season…

© 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.

Jun 14

27

War declared

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 27, 2014
Posted in Camelback Ranch Spring Training Facility • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena • Westgate  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 9 Comments

I had just finished writing this blog when I received 2 robo calls. The first one was from the Arizona Free Enterprise Club announcing it was seeking petition signatures to put the city council’s affirmative decision to eliminate the sunset provision of the temporary sales tax increase on the ballot. In the call they announced that they would be at the Foothills Recreation Center and the Glendale Main Library this weekend from 9 AM to 5 PM both days gathering signatures to get it on the ballot. I wish them success. I will make a special point of going to the Main Library this weekend to sign their petition.

The second robo call was several hours later and it was from the Glendale Fire Union urging people not to sign the petition and promising dire consequences if the sales tax increase is sunset in 2017. Everyone acknowledges that Glendale’s debt burden is unsustainable. Perhaps it would be more productive if the Fire Union got behind an effort to urge reduction of the city’s debt by selling some of its assets. It would make the entire sales tax sunset issue a moot point. 

The battle lines are drawn. Voters will be fed misinformation and exaggeration from both sides. They will have to wade through the claims and counter claims made until their eyes are crossed. Will voters decide to send a strong message of austerity to the city council or will they decide Glendale cannot continue to exist without a permanent sales tax increase? It looks like the voters of Glendale will be given the opportunity to ultimately decide the issue. Which side will be more successful in activating their voter base? It’s fair to say that the Sales Tax Sunset Elimination War is officially declared. Now…on to the rest of this blog.

The June 24, 2016 city council meeting had two major items not yet reviewed in my blog. One was the passage of Ordinance 2897 removing the sunset provision from the sales tax increase. The other was Ordinance 2899 eliminating city permitted events from the requirements of the city’s noise ordinance.

The elimination of noise provisions for city permitted events is a city-wide ordinance. If there is a city permitted event in Sahuaro Ranch Park, it applies. If there is a city permitted event at Arrowhead Mall, it applies. It does not affect just the residents adjacent to Westgate. It was approved unanimously by city council. Councilmember Chavira, representing west Glendale and the area of Westgate, had no qualms about throwing his residents under the Glendale bus. Perhaps it is time for the voters of his district to question his representation of them, their concerns and their interests.

Sam Allen, Code Compliance Director, also neatly side-stepped a question about the number of previous noise complaints in the Westgate area by saying he did not have that figure as noise complaints are handled by the police department. There were allusions by staff that neighborhoods would remain protected but no specifics as to how that would be accomplished.  Another question asked was how many events declined to locate in Glendale as a result of the city’s noise ordinance? That, too, was deftly ignored.

Ken Sturgis, a citizen commentator, said that he lived .8 of a mile away from Westgate and often heard Westgate event noise within his home. His neighbors heard it as well but felt that the city would do nothing about it. I live a mile away from Westgate and heard noise but not at the same level of intrusion that neighbors living closer to Westgate would have heard. So, in the name of flexibility and competiveness, all neighborhoods throughout Glendale have lost all protection from city permitted event noise. They will experience sound and fury…signifying nothing.

The other ordinance, passed on a 4 to 3 vote (with our usual 4, Knaack, Martinez, Sherwood and Chavira in the affirmative), was the elimination of the sunset provision of the sales tax increase. I was the councilmember who originally insisted it be a provision of the sales tax increase. I did not offer that stipulation on a whim. It was the only way I could support the increase. I trusted and relied upon my fellow councilmembers to keep their word. Little did I know that their acceptance of the sunset provision was done with fingers crossed behind their backs.

Barrel district council candidate Randy Miller spoke to the issue and said the two options, making the sales tax increase permanent or utilizing draconian cuts, were not the only options available. Mayor Weiers agreed and that was the basis of his “no” vote. Mr. Miller said there is always an Option 3 and crafting it should be the goal.

At the time of the passage of sales tax increase with the sunset provision senior staff offered a plan to gradually absorb the $25 million in the temporary sales tax increase by making incremental cuts of $5 million a year over a 5 year period. The first signal that council would not have the fortitude to make the necessary cuts over 5 years was when they could not even accept privatization of custodial maintenance of city buildings. That decision sent a message, loud and clear, to senior staff that making the necessary spending cuts over 5 years was a council non-starter.

I marvel at the city’s propensity and adroitness in propagandizing the issue.  Knowing that the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) is currently circulating a petition to get the council’s vote for elimination of the sunset provision on the ballot, senior staff slipped in a new concept.  The sales tax increase will be reviewed during the budget process each year. Be careful what you wish for. It would be ironic indeed if, at the next budget discussions in the spring of 2015, council decided to raise the sales tax increase. After all, Councilmember Sherwood publicly stated that he believed it would be necessary.

The offer of sales tax increase review every year was strategically offered to mitigate the anger of Glendale voters should the AFEC be successful in getting the question on this fall’s ballot. The city will be holding out the hope that the increase has a chance of being reduced or going away in the future. Maybe after we’re all dead.

The city assertion flies in the face of the fact that the bond rating agencies are taking a close look and relying upon the elimination of the sunset provision to satisfy them. The bond rating agencies will again be very concerned about Glendale’s financial stability when they realize that now the sales tax increase stands an annual possibility of reduction or elimination. By adding this provision of annual review the stability that the bond rating agencies rely upon has been removed.

Another mitigation strategy that the city is already employing is on its website under Frequently Asked Questions about the elimination of the sunset provision. Here is the link:http://www.glendaleaz.com/documents/FAQEliminationofSunsetforTempTax062514.pdf .

The city’s message is that dire consequences will occur should the tax sunset in 2017. They used the same strategy years ago when a group of us nearly got the elimination of food sales tax on the ballot. The city prepared a slick pamphlet asking Glendale citizens to choose what cuts they would be willing to make. All choices were dire and it scared the voters. It worked that time and sadly, it may work this time.

If the Arizona Free Enterprise Club is successful in acquiring the requisite number of signatures to get the question on the fall ballot, don’t buy into scare tactics this time. It’s time for Glendale voters to send a direct message to council and senior management staff. That message is, live within your means. Don’t spend more than the city receives in revenue. If 22% of the budget is devoted to the debt burden, tell them it is their job to reduce the debt.

Which brings up the question, can Camelback Ranch, the Media Center, the Parking Garages, the Convention Center, the Civic Center or Jobing.com arena be sold? I’m not an attorney but I would say “yes.” Many years ago as a small business owner, my landlord sold the building in which I was a tenant. The new landlord and I could not come to mutually agreed terms. When my lease expired I did not renew. I left that location.

Glendale owns these buildings and has the right as landlord to sell them. Tenants in any of these sites would then have to negotiate new lease terms with the new landlord. Glendale may lose some money by selling at present market value but it would remove the debt and/or the O&M costs associated with the asset. Glendale must get its debt burden under control. Right now it is over 22%. It should be under 10%. If Glendale cannot afford these assets, selling them seems to be a prudent course of action.

There are those who will immediately say, we can’t do that. Instead, council direction should be given to the city attorney to make it happen. The city simply cannot continue down this unsustainable debt burden path forever.

There are those who will say, what’re you… nuts? The city can’t do that! It reminds me of something Councilmember Hugh said at this council meeting. He said, paraphrased, that the current council is fractured because its members do not share the same strategy for curing Glendale’s financial situation. Each side believes it has the better path and the right path to solve Glendale’s fiscal crisis.

I have no doubt that the councilmembers love this city. They demonstrate it daily by their service. Unfortunately, a majority believe the only solution is to tax the city out of its financial crisis. The minority believes that there are other choices, painful, yes… but other choices.

It has been my honor and a great privilege to have served as a Glendale councilmember for 16 years. I have lived in Glendale for nearly 50 years. I love this city. You love this city. It is our home. Placing a greater and greater tax burden on those who live in this home, is not prudent…and it sure isn’t the best way to grow Glendale.

© 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 »