Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Sep 13

20

Dysfunctional

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 20, 2013
Posted in City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 2 Comments

In its September 19, 2013 edition the Glendale Star ran an editorial entitled Dysfunctional city needs one spokesperson—the Mayor. Here’s the link: http://www.glendalestar.com/opinion/editorials/ . It states the obvious. In the absence of one strong voice the vacuum is filled with the multiple voices of all 7 councilmembers often delivering opposing messages while competing for attention. What’s going on?

Jerry Weiers, the Mayor, made a fatal mistake at the outset of his term. He aligned himself with Councilmembers Alvarez and Hugh on the issue of the Coyotes deal. Meanwhile Councilmember Sherwood, knowing that most likely he had the support of Councilmembers Knaack and Martinez, began his successful courtship of Councilmember Chavira. They are now best buddies and it led to successful passage of the Coyotes’ management deal. So began the setup of what is turning out to be a consistent 4-3 vote on nearly every issue. Weiers’ initiative to set up “Car Cruizing” in downtown Glendale ended in disaster when the producer moved the event to Westgate. His call for prayer before the start of council meetings, opposed by a majority of residents, did not help him either. Weiers must do some damage control or he can forget about a second term. One suggestion he might consider is to stop listening to political advisers who do not live in Glendale or truly understand Glendale dynamics. Weiers needs to listen to his residents instead. Perhaps a series of Town Hall meetings would fill that bill. 

As stated in an August 13, 2013 blog entitled Manny…say it ain’t so the election cycle of 2014 will be interesting. Councilmember Martinez is not running for reelection and has endorsed Robert Petrone. Big mistake on Martinez’ part as Petrone is not perceived as a good financial steward with the baggage of financial troubles from 2003 to the present defining him. Others will emerge to run for the Cholla district seat. Alvarez has announced that she will not run again. Good thing, for she’s been a one woman disaster since she took office. She, of course, will endorse someone. Whoever it turns out to be should cause us all to run in the other direction. An Alvarez clone is the last thing Glendale needs.

The really interesting decision to be made is by Vice Mayor Knaack. She stands for reelection in 2014. Does she run for her seat and then vacate it in 2016 to make a run for Mayor? Bets are that is exactly what she will do. Her effort to display leadership has led her to adopt a position of trying to please everyone and in reality, pleasing no one. Her ambition to become mayor could lead to her exit from the Glendale political scene.

The vacuum of leadership appears to have been filled, for now, by Councilmember Sherwood. He took the lead on the single hottest issue in Glendale, the Coyotes issue, right out from under Mayor Weiers. Sherwood is also ambitious and will seek the mayorship…in 2016 when his first term is up? Chavira, a Phoenix firefighter, has the Glendale fire union staunchly backing him and as Sherwood’s newest best friend could get the fire union to support Sherwood in 2016. The fire union will be in the cat bird’s seat choosing whoever promises them the best deal…Weiers, Knaack or Sherwood? In the past, the union has supported all three.

Of course this council is dysfunctional. They are no different than any other political body. They serve as a classic example of putting personal political ambition ahead of taking unpopular actions that best serve the city. They are jostling and shoving to fill the role of leader. It’s an all out contest to restore every unpopular cut to please residents short term rather than ensuring that the city’s long term finances are made healthy by keeping the city lean. Glendale is by no means out of the financial woods. Camelback Ranch and arena debts were back loaded causing the annual debt payments to become substantially larger this year and on into the future. Then there is still the open question of just how much of the $9M unbudgeted due to the arena management will be covered by the enhanced revenue scheme.

 Just one example of jockeying for position was the discussion at the August 17, 2013 council meeting surrounding the city’s Civic Center. Ever since it opened the city has subsidized its operations and maintenance. The rationale used by staff is that council directed that it be a community resource. Most of the community has never set foot in the Civic Center and cannot afford to rent spaces within it. In 2012 the past council directed that it was time for the Civic Center to recover 100% of its costs. It is a business after all. Since that direction, staff has been able to recover about 70% and according to its 5 year plan is set to recover 100% in the future. Several councilmembers, with wringing of hands, are ready to restore its city subsidy. Thank goodness, City Manager Brenda Fischer was able to stave off the notion by declaring it would be a topic of discussion for the spring council budget workshops. She also reminded council that when you add to one department’s budget, you must take away from another department. It’s again time for this council to prioritize city services, from most important to least important.

On a lesser note the Attorney General’s office has now rejected all complaints made related to any councilmembers’ violation of the state’s Open Meeting Laws. It was expected. The only issue remaining is the AG’s investigation into additional charges in relation to the external audit. Do not expect anything to come of that either.

©Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Lawwho 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.

Sep 13

11

Glendale stay the course

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 11, 2013
Posted in Casino  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

On September 11, 2013 the Glendale Republic ran an article by Caitlin McGlade entitled Glendale softens harsh casino tone. It makes me angry to see the AzRepulsive begin its not so subtle media infomercial in an effort to sway public opinion in support of the Tohono O’odham (TO) Tribe’s ambitions.  In my latest unscientific blog poll I asked the question, Is the Arizona Republic’s reporting fair and balanced? Of the 50 respondents, 40 (80%) said, “No” and 10 (20%) said, “Yes.” 4 out of 5 people no longer believe that its coverage is fair and balanced and recognize that its reporting is slanted.

I stand with Congressman Trent Franks, the Gila River Indian Community and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (and all of the tribes in the state supporting them). I do not support a casino in Glendale and I believe a dialogue with the TO only becomes necessary if all legal avenues are closed and the Tribe prevails. It sends the wrong message.

I am not going to repeat all of the reasons why planting a casino in Glendale should not happen. Instead, in April of 2013 I authored a 5 part blog series on the effects of a casino. If you have not read them, please take the time to go back and check them out:

  •    April 11, 2013      Casino, to be or not to be, Part 1
  •    April 15, 2013      Casino…promise made, promise broken, Part 2
  •    April 16, 2013      Casino…good, bad or indifferent?, Part 3
  •    April 22, 2013       A casino is a casino…no matter where it is, Part 4
  •    April 24, 2013      Casino…it’s lose, lose for everyone, Part 5

What truly dumbfounds me is that one of the major rationales for keeping the Coyotes hockey team at Glendale’s Jobing.com Arena is that it generates more people and therefore more sales tax to the businesses (and the city) in Westgate. Yet Councilmember Sherwood apparently believes that the casino will do no harm to Westgate and says, “There’s not enough right now to keep people here. The casino just offers another thing for folks to do if they’re in town.” Is he nuts? Even Peoria Mayor Bob Barrett who has supported the casino from the start acknowledges, “In the short term, it (the casino) will probably hurt Westgate…” Sherwood is speaking from both sides of his mouth. On the one hand keeping the hockey team is good for Westgate and on the other the casino is good for Westgate as “another thing for folks to do.” We know that the casino will siphon discretionary dollars away from Westgate. Councilmember Sherwood, you can’t have it both ways.

Vice Mayor Knaack is performing her usual wringing of hands routine and practicing “kumbaya” with her comment, “We can’t keep on and on and on with this.” She just wants everyone to get along. Whatever happened to sticking to one’s principles? Is this another example like her avowal that she supports the downtown merchants as she votes approval for a liquor license they opposed?

Councilmember Martinez gets it with, “How do casinos attract their clients? Cheap booze, cheap food and the cost of the rooms are minimal. Here (at Westgate) we have hotels and restaurants paying taxes and helping us pay off our debts to the arena and everything else and the tribe comes in with a clean hand and they don’t have to pay anything.” Bravo Councilmember Martinez. You do get it and you are sticking to your principles.

The Gila River Indian Community said, “…any dialogue between the city and the TO would have no bearing on the Gila River’s position.” Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community President Diane Enos said it best in this statement, “If the commitments to keep tribal casinos out of neighborhoods made by all 17 Arizona tribes during Prop. 202 negotiations were being kept, cities like Glendale wouldn’t find themselves in these circumstances, vulnerable to broaching risky developments like this off-reservation casino, exasperated further by the current economic climate in Glendale.” Bravo President Enos. You get it too. I wonder what the Republic’s position would be if the Tribes pulled their considerable advertising dollars?

Let’s at least acknowledge that the TO and its supporters are preying on Glendale’s weakened financial position and using it as leverage to further their cause. Before its indebtedness became a cause célèbre leaders in Glendale stood on principle. How much gold are our elected officials willing to sell out for? Glendale must stay the course.

PS: In the September 12, 2013 edition of the Arizona Republic the story ran again. Only this time the comments from the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and the Gila River Indian Community are omitted while keeping the TO’s comments intact. Way to go Arizona Republic!

©Joyce Clark, 2013

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

Aug 13

28

Manny…say it ain’t so

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 28, 2013
Posted in City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Golly, can you believe that in a year from now, August 26, 2014 to be exact, Glendale voters will be casting ballots in its Primary Election? It seems we just went through this exercise. We did. Every two years, Glendale votes for 3 out of 6 City Council seats. In 2012, the 3 district seats were Yucca, Cactus and Sahuaro. In the 2014 election it will be Cholla, Barrel and Ocotillo districts. Candidate nominating petitions will be available this fall and are due for submission by the end of May, 2014. No candidate will wait until the last minute to pick up nominating packets or to submit petitions to run. So it begins.

While the political picture is still very murky some rays of light are just beginning to emerge. Vice Mayor Knaack was recently asked by the media if she would be running for her Barrel district seat again. Knaack was decidedly non-committal but bets are that she will run for her seat… but wait, there’s more. Many feel that her ambition runs far greater and that she will make a run for mayor in 2016. That may pose a real head scratcher for the Glendale fire union. To date they have supported Weiers (current mayor) and Sherwood (new councilmember) and Knaack (in every one of her elections). If this scenario comes to pass it will be interesting to see whom fire puts its money (which is substantial) on…Weiers? Sherwood? or Knaack?

Councilmember Alvarez has declared that she is not running for reelection but she also declared that she would resign after the results of the external audit were publicly released. Well, that hasn’t happened, has it? If she decides to leave her seat look for a “free for all” in the Ocotillo district. Candidates will be multiplying like rabbits. Ocotillo voters beware. Alvarez is sure to endorse someone and that almost guarantees more Alvarez-esk shenanigans for another 4 years. Lord, help us out here!

Councilmember Martinez has recently announced that he will not seek reelection in the Cholla district. He has been a good and faithful servant of the people and others – perhaps a future blog will be in order. He is in his 80s and there are subtle signs that his faculties are not as sharp as they once were. His announcement comes as no surprise. What is surprising is Robert Petrone’s announcement of his candidacy for the Cholla district council seat. Petrone is the current Chairperson of the citizen Planning and Zoning Commission. What is even more surprising is the story that was run by KPHO Channel 5 News on August 26, 2014. Here is the link:  http://www.kpho.com/story/23261106/glendale-city-council-candidate-looks-to-win-publics-trust . The story by Jason Barry reports, “CBS5 did some digging and found a long history of financial problems in Petrone’s past, dating back to 2003, including not paying credit cards, bounced checks and thousands of dollars in unpaid debt. CBS5 uncovered more than 20 civil and criminal cases in Valley justice courts, all connected to Petrone or his landscaping business.” Petrone attributes his financial woes dating back to 2003 to the national recession but, excuse me, didn’t the recession start in 2007?

courtesy Channel 5 KPHO news

Robert Petrone
Courtesy of KPHO
Chennel 5 News

Petrone says in his interview, “one of his first orders of business is to stop the mismanagement of money that’s plagued the city.” Ahem. Isn’t that a little like the pot calling the kettle black? He then goes on to say, “I see money that was $5.5 million to $6 million of citizens’ money that was tainted, misappropriated, done without the knowledge of the City Council…How many fire trucks and police cars could we have bought with $5 to $6 million?” And the answer is….None, Mr. Petrone, absolutely none. Why? The money he refers to were transfers out of the city’s trust funds which if and when recovered, must go back into the trust funds for risk management and workmen’s compensation. The $5 to $6 million cannot be used to buy fire trucks or police cars…or anything else for that matter. This issue has been widely publicized and one would think Petrone would have a better understanding. Obviously, he didn’t read my “Mushroom” blogs! 

Manny, say it ain’t so. You couldn’t have really endorsed Petrone, could you? In the blink of an eye — no, make that a 2 minute story on Channel 5, Petrone’s viability as a serious candidate was obliterated. Their strategy was transparent. Martinez’ endorsement of Petrone was supposed to create a chilling effect and cause others to reconsider a run for the Cholla seat. Perhaps it would have succeeded if Channel 5 hadn’t reported that Petrone had been practicing a little mismanagement of his own. Let the games, political that is, begin!

 

©Joyce Clark, 2013

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

Aug 13

14

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

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

Glendale City Council

Glendale City Council

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

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

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

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

Norma Alvarez

Norma Alvarez

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

Vacation’s over, folks.

©Joyce Clark, 2013

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

Jul 13

24

So you want to be a councilmember…Part 4

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

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

Weiers

Jerry Weiers

Sherwood

Gary Sherwood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

copyright

Jun 13

18

Council news door opens a crack…

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 18, 2013
Posted in City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

cit mtg 2Wow, we just saw a window into council priorities. Since January and the new council began meeting, their meetings are conducted with lightning speed, usually lasting half an hour and on rare occasion because of the sheer number of items on their agenda it may go as long as an hour. Today, June 18, 2013 there were only 6 items on their workshop agenda and it took them over an hour to deliberate. Why? Because these were all items that have a direct impact on them and their business.

Here’s the lineup:

  1. Council has changed the voting meeting time from 7 PM to 6PM.
  2. The Vice Mayor’s position will follow a calendar year (Jan. to Jan.) rather than the fiscal year (July to June).
  3. Council subcommittees will remain annual appointments with a 2 year consecutive term limit. After serving 2 consecutive terms a councilmember must move to the other subcommittee (there are only two). After being off for 2 years councilmember may again sit on committee vacated.
  4. Response time for Council Items of Special Interest remains 30 days for staff response.
  5. Council has traded Moment of Silence for Prayer after they have opportunity to review suggested guidelines for conducting a Prayer.
  6. Workshop meeting location has moved from Council Chambers back to its old haunt, Room B-3, or the “basement” as Mayor Weiers likes to call it.

calendarInterim City Manager Bowers announced that at the June 25, 2013 meeting the Internal Audit will come forward. After the open meeting, Council went into Esession and it was an unusually long one for them, starting at 2:45 PM and ending at about 6:30 PM. The issues were substantive. From various statements made to the media by the City Attorney and some councilmembers there will be no vote on the Coyotes deal on June 25th. So look for June 28th or July 9th. However, Council has a vacation break in July so it makes more sense for it to become an agenda item at the specially called meeting for June 28th.

polling 1We know council was briefed on the PAD and SMG bids and council probably learned their asking price to manage the arena. It probably made Councilmember Alvarez’ heart beat faster and I imagine she offered an impassioned but hardly eloquent plea for acceptance of one of them. We know another topic of discussion was the Renaissance Sports and Entertainment (RSE) bid. Councilmember Sherwood publicly admitted that there were deal points that caused council difficulty. I would think the city’s guarantee of $15M (or X number—you fill in the blank) a year without any guarantee that there would really be the elusive $8M-$11M in enhanced revenue going to the city could have been a stumbling block. Whatever the issues were, council would have given direction to staff to go back to RSE and renegotiate those deal points. The ball in now in RSE’s court. If RSE is serious, it will have to make further concessions that demonstrate their skin in the game. Councilmember Sherwood also publicly acknowledged that the deal points need to be publicized one week before the vote. I applaud council for their stance on the side of reasonable and prudent public disclosure.

Councilmember Alvarez walked out of Esession in disgust, complaining that council was making “too many concessions” to RSE. The mere idea of entertaining the RSE bid is a “concession” in Alvarez’ mind. One other Alvarezism from the open meeting springs to mind. While discussing putting public comments at the beginning of the meeting she virtually accused her fellow councilmembers of not championing Democracy and the American Way by accusatorily saying, “We’re not dictators.”

copyright

Feb 13

27

Glendale City Attorney asked to resign

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 27, 2013
Posted in Blogs • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Glendale City Attorney Craig Tindall

Glendale City Attorney
Craig Tindall

On Tuesday, February 26, 2013, the City Council held an Executive session for the express purpose of meeting with and discussing the performance of Craig Tindall, City Attorney. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall!

As with all E sessions we will never know exactly what took place and what was said. We do know that Tindall agreed orally to tender his resignation and we now await his formal letter of same. I suspect in the coming days leaks will pour from the City. It’s happened many times in the past and I expect it to occur this time.

Weiers

Mayor Weiers

Mayor Weiers announced that he had asked for Tindall’s resignation and today the Arizona Republic reported Weiers “citing a need to move in a different, more business-friendly, direction.” Weiers is trying to position himself as a strong mayor. Don’t be fooled. In Glendale the City Charter has established a Mayor-Manager form of government. It still takes four votes, or a majority, of the City Council to issue policy or to take any action, including that of asking the City Attorney for his resignation.  As much as Mayor Weiers would like to wave his scepter and make unilateral policy, he still needs to gather 3 more supporters from those pesky councilmembers.

Martinez Knaack Sherwood

Martinez-Knaack-Sherwood

Coalitions are forming among the City Council and their outlines are beginning to emerge. In the same news article, the Arizona Republic quoted Vice Mayor Knaack as saying, “Seriously, I’m going to cry.” One can read into that statement that the Vice Mayor was probably not in the coalition to boot Tindall out. It went on to quote Councilmember Gary Sherwood, “What I don’t like are the people who wanted him to be gone hiding behind a veil that said we’re going a different direction.” Hmmm…don’t think Sherwood was in favor of getting rid of Tindall either. Can we add anyone else to this emerging coalition? How about Councilmember Martinez? It’s no secret that he and Councilmember Alvarez have often clashed publicly. So Coalition #1 is comprised of Knaack, Sherwood and Martinez.

Norma Alvarez

Norma Alvarez

Hugh Chavira

Ian Hugh, Sam Chavira

Coalition #2, almost by default, is Alvarez, Hugh and Chavira. Make no mistake; Councilmember Alvarez is leading this coalition’s parade. Councilmembers Hugh and Chavira owe Alvarez for her marshaling of support for their successful runs, especially from the Tohono O’odham. Norma has said that Tindall “disrespected” her publicly. Why? Because he didn’t give her answers/opinions that supported her statements or her agenda? Which leads one to surmise that if one doesn’t support her point of view or agenda then one is being “disrespectful.”

What then about Mayor Weiers? Right now he’s in the catbird seat. Pick any issue and right now he has the luxury of jumping from one side to the other. He also has the luxury of furthering the animosity that already exists between the two coalitions. He can play both sides against the middle. Wow! All this from a guy who said he was a fence-mender and would work to create harmony on council.

I think what disturbs me about the situation as it played out is the absence of professionalism and the sense of urgency. Why? In four months Tindall would have faced his annual performance review by Council.  That time would have been appropriate for a parting of the ways and the avoidance of embarrassment to a Council appointed employee. Tindall, no matter your opinion of him, served this city for 12, almost 13 years and earned professional action regarding his employment.

I suspect the other Council appointed officials still standing, namely the Interim City Manager and the City Clerk, should be forewarned. A house cleaning appears to be occurring. Why only clean half your house when you can do it all?

copyright

« Previous Page