Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Feb 25

9

Recall Councilmember Leandro Baldenegro….NO!

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 9, 2025
Posted in Barrell District • Cactus District • Cholla District • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Downtown Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Ocotillo District • Velma Teague Library  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 1 Comment

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

This is a long post but certainly worth reading.

Several factions are mounting a petition drive for a recall election against Councilmember Leandro Baldenegro of the Ocotillo District. In the Spring of 2024, Councilmember Jamie Aldama resigned his Ocotillo seat in a failed attempt to run for mayor. He never made the ballot for mayor because many of his petition signatures were found to be fraudulent and therefore, he never acquired the number of signatures needed to be on the ballot.

In April 2024, city council accepted applications and conducted interviews for the Ocotillo seat. Leandro Baldenegro was interviewed and impressed council with his answers. He is smart, down-to-earth, understands how local government works and expressed a genuine desire to serve the people of the Ocotillo district.

Now, there are several interest groups that have coalesced around obtaining petition signatures to force a recall of Baldenegro because they do not like the way he handled the issue of the Velma Teague Library.

These interest groups include Councilmember Lupe Conchas’ (Cactus district) supporters, Councilmember Bart Turner’s (Barrel district) supporters, the downtown disaffected who dislike a majority of the sitting council as well as senior management and former Councilmember Jamie Aldama’s supporters.

Councilmembers Conchas and Turner have made naked attempts to take over the affairs of the Ocotillo district. It is not either of their districts. Some of their activities have occurred without notifying Councilmember Baldenegro. These actions are in violation of Council Guidelines which require councilmembers when conducting activities in another councilmember’s district to notify the councilmember as a courtesy.

Their agenda is simple. Get rid of Councilmember Baldenegro in a recall election and replace him with Roree Goree. Goree, a pro-Aldama supporter, for the past year has made it a point to speak during the public comment portion of council voting meetings in order to get televised face and airtime. This ploy is a strategy so that Goree will be better known when he runs for the Ocotillo seat.

Make no mistake. If these factions succeed there will be a new majority that will replace the current conservative councilmembers and mayor with a Woke, liberal, Democrat majority comprised of Councilmembers Conchas, Turner and Tolmachoff with a new 4th, majority member, Rory Goree. I do not think the majority of Glendale residents would be happy with such an outcome and could very well force the removal of one or more of this aspiring new majority in upcoming elections.

Did you know the next regularly scheduled election for the Cholla district, Barrel district and Ocotillo district council positions will be in 2026? In fact, candidates wishing to run for these seats will pull nominating packets this Fall/Winter.

If a Special Election is called it will probably occur in November 2025. The cost will be borne by Glendale taxpayers and is estimated to be about $250,000 for a Special Election. This is crazy. Why is a special election needed when there will be a regular election for the seat in 2026? It makes no sense and is wasteful of taxpayer dollars.

I urge the registered voters of the Ocotillo district when asked to sign the recall petition, to just say ‘no’. Do not buy into their propaganda attempting to convince you that Leandro Baldenegro needs to be replaced. It is wasteful and unnecessary.

Recently, Councilmember Baldenegro posted a thorough and thoughtful response to this recall effort. He answers recent questions with fact and forthrightness. I was impressed and decided to offer it to a wider audience.

Leandro Baldenegro .

February 2, 2025 

“SORT OF A LONG POST BUT EVERYONE IN GLENDALE OR FROM GLENDALE NEEDS TO PLEASE READ IT!!!

I thought I would set the record straight on a few things that I am dealing with in my City Councilman life. Please feel free to repost and share with as many people as you like…I don’t have anything to hide and everything that I will be sharing is fact based (not opinions) and can be completely verified by anyone at anytime (Freedom of Information Act). So….here we go.

  1. It has been posted online and spoken in public that I ignored “thousands” of people who reached out to me to oppose the moving of the Velma Teague Library.

THE TRUTH IS when I went back and searched every email with the subject line having anything written about “saving the library” or something related to that sort of wording, I found 9 emails total. 9…not thousands….but only 9 and received maybe as many voicemails. So I can say that roughly 20 people (I added a few more for this conversation) reached out to me. I spoke face to face with about 20 or so people (both residents and business owners) and they were completely satisfied with the original plan to move the library for the reasons given in the presentation.

  1. It has been posted online and spoken in public that I have every intention to still move forward with moving the library to a different location and tearing down the current library building. The picture that is being painted is that I “pressed pause” for now and will carry out the previous plan.

THE TRUTH IS I have contacted city officials to see if the building DOES or DOES NOT qualify to be designated as a historic building. I was told it doesn’t, but I had a citizen that is under the impression that it does. That same citizen also told me that I need to look into seeing if the park itself would qualify as a “historic area” and by extension the building would be labeled “historic” as well and would then qualify for federal grants. Those two ideas were thrown around a lot by people online from what I was told. I am making sure and double checking to see if any of these ideas have merit. EVEN IF THEY DON’T, I will be working with a team of citizens, business owners, parents, teachers, students and library employees to hopefully come up with a few ideas for a new/updated/better library regardless of how that is defined.

  1. It has been posted online and spoken in public that I have made irresponsible decisions on my own without asking the community for any feedback about removing some exercise equipment from one of the parks here in my district.

THE TRUTH IS THAT the only time I have ever been involved with removing anything from any city park was when I attended a meeting with a group of veterans at a park and one of the attendees asked if a certain exercise apparatus could be removed because it was an eyesore and that citizen had never seen anyone ever use it. It was shortly after that meeting that I had another meeting with the director of Parks and Recreation through a Council Item Of Special Interest (CIOSI) request to see what we needed to do moving forward. That particular CIOSI had a few items in it including installing a flagpole (that was already purchased by a citizen), installing a plaque (that was already purchased by the city after a citizen submitted all the required paperwork on her own) and possibly having a military mural painted on the block walls of the park. There is a meeting tentatively scheduled for Saturday February 22nd at Veteranos Park on the southeast corner of 54th Ave and Ocotillo to gather more information from the community.

  1. It has been posted online and spoken in public that I lied about the story of a kind woman who told me on at least 4 occasions that she was mad and upset at my decision to move the library but that she still loved me and hoped that I would change my mind.

THE TRUTH IS that women in question is Martha Dennis. She is a retired teacher. She was my 86-year-old mother’s first friend when my mother arrived here from Mexico. As my mother has told all of my family over the years, my mother was picked on by the other Mexican girls in her school for being friends with a white girl and Martha was picked on by the other white girls for being friends with a Mexican girl. My mother has told my family this story for at least the last 40 years. I believe it to be true…why would my mother ever lie about something like that. Marth and her family have been friends with my mom and our family for many years. Martha was not at the meeting when I explained why it was her that helped me change my vote and do what I felt was necessary to reverse my prior decision. From what I was told, she received a few phone calls letting her know what I did and how she was mentioned. She did leave me a nice voice mail thanking me…and telling me that she loved me.

YOU can verify all of this information by contacting the city clerk’s office and asking for the emails pertaining to all of these issues. I believe you can request a transcript for the workshops and meetings as well. The Freedom of Information Act is in place so you can do this.

I can counter all of their irresponsible claims with VERIFIABLE PROOF. I don’t know if they will ever provide YOU any proof of their claims…but you certainly have the right to ask them to.

Certain individuals have submitted a petition to RECALL me and force the city to spend about $250,000 (that is what I was told it costs to run an election) to force a recall election. They could just wait until next year and run against me in the general election which the city would already be paying to conduct. I just want everyone to ask this very simple question…what has Councilmember Baldenegro done that was so traumatic and so scandalous that it requires him to be removed by a recall election?

In an upcoming post, I will list in detail all of the things that I have been doing since I was sworn in last April. I will gladly show you my body of work that my team (city employees) and I have worked on. I will list what I have planned for the future. I will describe what my life consists of now compared to before I was on the city council. I have been and will continue to be transparent. I have been and will continue to support and promote Ocotillo District and specifically Downtown Glendale. In spite of having purchased some more formal attire, I have been and will continue to be A REGULAR GUY doing a job with a politician’s title.

I look forward to sticking around for a long time as the proud councilmember of the Ocotillo District in the City of Glendale.

THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!”

© Joyce Clark, 2025   

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

 

Jan 25

13

Now the fun begins

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 13, 2025
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

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

Today, just before the deadline of 24 hours before a posted council meeting, a new item was added to the city council workshop agenda. It was called for by Councilmembers Tolmachoff, Turner and Conchas. It is a tactic not used before. Probably because there was a strong majority of 4 councilmembers who would not have supported an item presented by the minority.

These three councilmembers want to discuss how council assistants are selected. There has been a push of late by some on council to hire council assistants by a councilmember’s sole discretion. On the face of it, it sounds great. Why shouldn’t a councilmember be free to select any one they want for the position, whether qualified or not. The concern with that position is that the selection can become a political appointment rather than one chosen by merit. This is a slippery slope indeed. I have seen a case where that occurred. After some time, that person left the position.

Here is the agenda item:

Subject

**DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL ASSISTANT POSITIONS                        Presented by: Councilmember Turner, Vice Mayor Tolmachoff and Councilmember Conchas

Purpose and Recommended Action

This is a council-requested item by Councilmember Turner, Vice Mayor Tolmachoff and Councilmember Conchas to discuss the council assistant positions.

Background

The mayor may, or at the request of three (3) members of the council shall, by giving notice thereof to all members of the council then in the city, call a special meeting of the council for a time not earlier than three (3) hours nor later than forty-eight (48) hours after the notice is given. Special meetings of the council may also be held at any time by the common consent of all the members of the council.  This request was made in accordance with the above-referenced Glendale City Charter provision.

Here’s a little inside baseball. Tolmachoff and Turner use every instance they can to make the City Manager, and the Mayor look bad. They appear to purposefully look for council discussion items that provide them the opportunity to say something nasty about either. They seem to harbor an intense dislike for both gentlemen. This discussion item will give them another opportunity to publicly emphasize their feelings.

There is more to this discussion, however. The minority has a coalition of three councilmembers with the addition of Conchas. Keep in mind, Conchas is beholden to Turner. Turner not only endorsed Conchas enthusiastically, but he also donated 90% of the funding for Conchas’ last hit-piece, a campaign mailer portraying Vice Mayor Ian Hugh as a racist.

At one point in his installation speech Conchas said, “…your belief in me kept me going and you stood by me every step of the way. And I will not forget that.” He was referencing the unions and others, like Turner, who had endorsed him and contributed to his campaign.

That is why Conchas will always follow Turner’s lead and agenda.

It is common knowledge around city hall that both Tolmachoff and Turner have consistently treated their council assistants badly. Each has gone through quite a few council assistants. Each believes that they are good bosses but with a slew of council assistants leaving each of them, the facts prove otherwise.

If you have the time and inclination this might be a good council workshop to view. I know that I certainly will watch.

© Joyce Clark, 2025   

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Dec 24

28

Velma Teague Library…elegant or eye sore?

Posted by Joyce Clark on December 28, 2024
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Downtown Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials • Ocotillo District  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

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

As a preface to this blog, I am pleased to tell you that I now have the luxury of time to write again. I started this blog in 2013 and over the years I have written many pieces. For the last two years, taking care of my husband of 89 years and fulfilling my council responsibilities left no time to write. I retired from my council position this December. That action has provided me with time to do one of the things that I love and that is to write again. Look for more consistent and frequent pieces about Glendale.

Many years ago, for at least 40 years ago, my children and I used Velma Teague all the time. It was the only library us south and west Glendale residents had. As the children grew, they soon had access to other libraries and Velma Teague faded as our resource.

What is Velma Teague today? It is small and outdated. It has no room to expand or to accommodate another generation of readers who rely on computers and phones.

Suddenly and unexpectedly, the city’s Promenade space became available. Did you know that the Promenade features a unique history walk featuring 59 images relating to the history of Glendale imbedded in the sidewalk? Each vibrant mosaic offers insight into the evolution of Glendale. 

The majority of council sees this as an opportunity to move the library out of its old, cramped space into a larger space that can bring it into the 21st Century while meeting the needs of economically disadvantaged children. It is an opportunity to provide them with the tools they need to succeed in an ever-advancing digital economy. The city council views this proposal as an opportunity to provide our children with learning to meet the demands of the highly technical world we live in today.

Not only that but the new larger space can accommodate and encourage more programming of classes and learning experiences for our children. It seemed to be a win-win for all.

Not so fast. Remember the group that sported green T-shirts emblazoned with “Save Murphy Park”? They were opposed to the city hall remodel project, convinced that it would destroy the park. This very same group, against anything the city council proposes, is at it again. This time, it’s save the library. One would think from some of their rhetoric that city council was banning books!

Their two major arguments against removing the Velma Teague building are first, its enormous sentimental value. I ask to whom? 99% of Glendale’s residents don’t know it exists and have never used it. It is not a historical building as there have been several iterations of this library over the years. Its sentimental value is limited to the small group of activists desperately searching for any reason to override the direction of the city council.

Last year I started to clean out our home after 50 years of “stuff” had accumulated. Some of it had sentimental value but if I had saved it all we would still be drowning in an overabundance of “stuff.” Sometimes you just have to get rid of things, if for no other reason than to make room for the new. It’s so nice to use uncluttered rooms with space to accommodate new looks and new gadgets. Velma Teague is exactly the same. Sometimes you get rid of the old with perceived, limited sentimental value to make room for the new and often more useful items that can enrich your life. A new Velma Teague holds the promise of enriching the lives of a new generation of children.

The second reason our merry band of nay sayers say they don’t want to see Velma Teague removed is that city council has a nefarious plan to enlarge the amphitheater. Here are a few facts that they deliberately prefer to ignore. The plans for the remodeling of city hall, the amphitheater and council chamber have been approved and are final. The budget is set. The only changes in the budget that have come forward are an increase in the cost of building materials or unexpected glitches that have been found in the old building that required an unbudgeted remedy.

Have you seen or heard senior management come forward with a plan to increase the size of the amphitheater and an accompanying request for more funding to cover that expansion? The answer is ‘no’. It hasn’t happened and it isn’t going to happen.

Just for a minute, can you imagine Murphy Park, wide open and newly landscaped without that intrusive old building? Imagine Murphy Park, enlarged for an even more spectacular Glendale Glitters when it returns to that location? Without that building there is suddenly more room for people and the events that attract them to downtown Glendale. As I said previously, it’s a win-win for the children and a win-win for the downtown merchants.

What will happen? Now I will use my crystal ball. The dozen activists will win this round, and Velma Teague will stay as the proud, old lady in her tattered finest. We know that Councilmembers Tomalchoff and Turner oppose any plan to remove Velma Teague. Add newbie Councilmember Conchas to the pro Velma Teague faction. All these councilmembers have to do is turn one more councilmember to gain the majority. My guess is that they are gunning for Ocotillo Councilmember Baldenegro. He is a smart, common sense, compassionate guy with the genuine best interests of his constituency at the forefront. Whisperings have started that if he doesn’t support keeping Velma Teague where it is, he can look forward to a recall in his future.

I think that would be enough to get him to change his position. A recall filled with lies, smears and innuendos comparing one to Hitler or Al Capone, no matter how untrue, is something no one wants to face.

So, after all the political sound and fury, I suspect Velma Teague will stay where it is and the children of the Ocotillo district will be the losers, having gained nothing for their future well-being. It will be a sad ending to a project that could have provided these children with enhanced opportunities to move into the digital age.

Suffer the children.

 

© Joyce Clark, 2024    

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Oct 23

31

Follow Up to 3 angry councilmembers

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 31, 2023
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale's Fire Union  | Tagged With: , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

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

Recently I posted a blog in which the surmised conclusion was three councilmembers were attempting to score political points on the issue of presumption cancer claims for Glendale’s firefighters.

Today the City Manager issued a memo addressed to Councilmember Tolmachoff and copied the entire city council on this subject. As such it is a public document and I include the full document here: Memo – Presumptive Cancer

I refer to some relevant portions of that memo.

“To recap, the City’s policy for handling presumptive cancer claims is to follow state statutes as instructed by the ICA (Industrial Commission of Arizona) and administered by our TPA (Third part administrator, CORVEL). Cases that have been denied and have exhausted the ICA appeals process can make their case directly to the City’s Risk Manager. It has been my instruction to the City’s Risk Manager to carefully review each case individually based of the facts of the claim, and further, in accordance with the spirit of the presumptive cancer legislation, approve any claim that has been denied if warranted.”

Earlier this year the City issued a press release that cited a letter of agreement between the City and the Glendale Chapter of the Firefighters Association. In part, it said, “This letter also calls for Glendale staff to work with their labor partners to pass a state law that clarifies that any reoccurrence of cancer diagnosed during the old (state) rules must be covered under the new state law…”

Councilmember Tolmachoff referred to a previous workshop in which she brought up the issue. This was her response when, at that workshop, the Mayor concurred with Councilmember Tolmachoff that reoccurrences of cancer were an important issue for the staff to research. In the actual video of that meeting she said, “And that is not my item of special interest about the reoccurrence of cancer Mayor and I am not going to issue another Council Item of Special interest.”

The Mayor, in response to the previously cited letter of agreement coupled with Councilmember Tolmachoff’s above statement, felt it appropriate to get Council consensus to move forward with working with state legislators to correct any lapses in the state law.

What is really going on? This is an attempt to make political hay. This is certainly not the first time that an attempt has been made to make an issue political for gain and it won’t be the last.

It is important that you, the reader, are made aware of such attempts.

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Oct 23

27

Not 12 Angry Men but 3 angry councilmembers

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 27, 2023
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale's Fire Union  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

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

Please remember that this is a campaign season and things get ugly during such a season, but this is the worst I have ever seen or of which I have been a part.

The reference to Twelve Angry Men is an American courtroom drama written by Reginald Rose in 1954 concerning the jury of a homicide trial in which one man convinces the rest of the jury of reasonable doubt concluding with a not guilty verdict. It’s a really good movie.

Although Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff has not come out and publicly endorsed any candidates as of this date, at Chamber events her actions would lead people to believe that she supports Paul Boyer for Mayor and Lupe Encinas for my Yucca district council seat. This is the context upon which this blog is written.

It is no secret that if you watch City Council meetings lately, you will witness a lot of sniping directed toward the Mayor and City Manager by Councilmembers Tolmachoff, Turner and Aldama. They appear to be quite unhappy with both gentlemen as well as decisions made by the majority of city council. They seem to be using public city council forums to convince you that the majority of city council is acting inappropriately. What you are witnessing these days is pure political theater.

I refer you to this video of the latest city council workshop of October 24, 2023: https://glendaleaz.new.swagit.com/videos/277456  starting at the 37:23 minute mark. On May 9, 2023, Mayor Weiers requested a Council Item of Special Interest to explore state legislation that ensures reoccurring cancers cannot be the sole reason for denying cancer claims and to ensure that reoccurring cancers that result in disability or death are presumed to be an occupational disease as outlined in the Arizona Revised Statutes.

The scope of the October 24, 2023, city council discussion and subsequent deliverables would be focused on the introduction of legislation in the 2024 Arizona Legislative Session that would add the additional protections to firefighters.

City Council has already adopted a policy to recognize reoccurring cancers for Glendale’s firefighters despite the state legislature’s failure to do so. The focus of this CIOSI workshop discussion was not looking for further changes in this policy but rather to take Glendale’s adopted policy and to work with the state legislature to encourage all fire departments to make Glendale’s policy statewide. A fix was no longer needed in Glendale and staff were asking for council consensus to bring Glendale’s approach before the state legislature.

Previous to the Mayor’s May, 2023, request for a Council Item of Special Interest (CIOSI) related strictly to making Glendale’s policy a statewide one, Councilmember Tolmachoff had asked for a similar CIOSI that included among other things, recognition of pre-cancerous conditions. A majority of council did not support her request at the time.

Dismayed by the rebuff of her past CIOSI, Councilmember Tolmachoff said the following during workshop, “…but I think it is shameful to make a campaign issue out of the health and safety of our firefighters and I believe that’s what this is.” She went on to say, “Because of four people, I believe, had been told to snuff this out (her previous CIOSI).” As well as, “I think it’s shameful the way it transpired.” And “So, just like I said, I see this for what I believe it is and I think it’s a campaign move.” During the fifteen-minute discussion of the issue she interrupted the City Manager and the Mayor repeatedly and spoke out several times without being recognized by the Chair (Mayor).

Firefighters are not speaking up in her defense. They are pleased that Glendale adopted a policy recognizing reoccurring cancers and will work with the city to lobby the state legislature to make it a statewide policy. In this upcoming election, the general expectation is that both police and fire will endorse Mayor Weiers, Councilmembers Hugh and Malnar and Diana Guzman, candidate for my Yucca council seat.

Councilmember Bart Turner agreed with Councilmember Tolmachoff and went on to say, “There is something going on and it does feel to me like it’s campaign related and that there’s collusion going on.”

Councilmember Aldama, an announced candidate for Mayor, agreed with Councilmember Tolmachoff and accused the Mayor of unprofessionalism and divisiness.

I support free speech as well as all Glendale Councilmembers’ exercise of such. Rather the concern is when does speech border on slander? Accusing the majority council of collusion or taking direction from some mysterious person at a public council workshop may be considered as slander.

Feeling something or believing something does not make it true. There were no facts presented back up the accusations made. Rather what we heard was “I believe” and “I feel” as if they were matters of fact.

Just remember, this is a nasty political season and if anyone is pushing a political agenda it may very well be the 3 angry councilmembers.

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Oct 17

18

Light rail dead in Glendale

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 18, 2017
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Light Rail  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

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

On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 the Glendale city council met in workshop. The first agenda item of five items was that of light rail. Staff presented by recapping what had been discussed to date and asked for further council direction.

There was a robust discussion by council for well over an hour and a half. I will recap each councilmember’s position in the order of workshop seating. Councilmember Ray Malnar related that the original Glendale proposition ballot had 9 items, one of which was light rail. He believes that voter support for the proposition was based on support for 8 of the 9 ballot items and that voters approved the measure and tolerated light rail on the ballot because of the other items that would bring local transportation improvements. He indicated that he could not support light rail and asked for consensus on that position.

Councilmember Bart Turner is a strong and avid advocate for light rail. He attempted to refute any councilmember comments that offered reasons not to move forward with light rail. He feels that the financial figures presented showing a GO Program deficit and the use of General Fund dollars would not be accurate in the future and that the economic development created by light rail would offset those deficits. When it came time to create consensus he clearly wanted to move forward with light rail.

Vice Mayor Ian Hugh has never made a secret of his position on light rail. He has been opposed consistently.  He asked questions of Valley Metro’s CEO, Scott Smith, about pollution and congestion. The answers provided by Mr. Smith were vague as he could not really speak to the issue of pollution and answered the congestion question by stating that in Mesa light rail has caused vehicular traffic to find alternate routes and therefore he has not seen an increase in vehicular congestion. When consensus was called for, the Vice Mayor joined Councilmember Malnar to request that the light rail issue be discontinued in Glendale.

Mayor Weiers Indicated that at one time he had supported light rail as he believed that local connections in the form of trolleys, etc., would be able to connect with the end of the light rail line. However, having reviewed the financial forecast of dollar needs for light rail, he was reluctant to commit future dollars to light rail. He feels that Glendale is finally in a healthy financial position and does not want to jeopardize that success by committing future dollars that the city may not be in a position to afford.

Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff was clearly torn and on the fence. At one time she had indicated that her support of light rail would hinge on its ability to cross over Grand Avenue. Clearly, the dollars needed to accomplish that were astronomical and frankly unaffordable for Glendale. She did not want to dismiss light rail completely and asked that a decision by council be made after an upcoming council workshop on transportation in Glendale.  There was no support for delaying a decision on the issue. When the call for consensus on ceasing pursuit of light rail in Glendale I, quite honestly, did not see her indicate her position in support for or in opposition to light rail.

Councilmember Jamie Aldama, shared the same position as Councilmember Turner and was a strong advocate for light rail. He believes that light rail will spur downtown economic development. As the Mayor noted, Councimember Aldama was comfortable with his position on the issue as it did not impact LaMar Avenue, located one block south of Glendale Avenue and at one time was considered as a possible location for the light rail line. When it came time for consensus, Councilmember Aldama joined Councilmember Turner in continued support of light rail.

As last in line, I said that I was not ready to sacrifice Go Programming dollars and General Fund resources to pay for light rail. We have immediate needs that can be satisfied by releasing light rail dollars to other transportation needs. When it came time for consensus I joined Mayor Weiers, Vice Mayor Hugh, and Councilmember Malnar in giving direction that council would no longer pursue light rail in Glendale.

On a 4 to 2 consensus with 1 unclear, city council has finally made a decision. Light rail will not come to Glendale…at least not anytime in the next 10 years. Light rail is dead.

© Joyce Clark, 2017                 

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

May 17

8

Council approves Clark’s request

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 8, 2017
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Glendale's Fire Union  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

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

On May 18, 2017 as a Council Item of Special Interest the Glendale City Council approved my request for a temporary council subcommittee on business. Its purpose is to review all codes, ordinances, regulations, policies, etc., associated with businesses in Glendale. This initiative has never been accomplished since the city’s inception in 1912. Over the years there are sure to be outdated and redundant regulations that can be eliminated. It’s an opportunity for the business community to tell Glendale what it’s doing right and where there can be improvement.

The article below by Cecila Chan for Your West Valley News of May 1, 2017, sums it up very nicely:

Glendale to establish subcommittee to help businesses

May 1, 2017 Business

Cecilia Chan Independent Newsmedia

“Glendale wants to improve its climate to keep and grow the business community in the city.

“City Council last week in study session agreed to move forward with the creation of a temporary subcommittee and to solicit feedback from the business community. Mayor Jerry Weiers was absent. The item is expected to come before Council at its next voting meeting.

” ‘This sends a positive message to all business large and small in Glendale that we are interested in them and what they do,’ said Councilwoman Joyce Clark, who came up with the idea. ‘It sends a positive message to businesses thinking about moving here that we are serious about improving the business climate. I’m not saying it’s bad but it can be made better.’

“The one-year subcommittee will be made up of three council members and representatives from the business community who will review the city’s codes and make recommendations to the Council.

“Ms. Clark said during her time on the Council off and on since 1992, there has never been a review of the city’s policies, regulations or laws pertaining to businesses in Glendale.

“The subcommittee will remove outdated, ineffective and redundant business regulations on the city’s books, she added.

“The committee will look at everything the city does relating to business and see where it can become more business-friendly and enhance its reputation as the premier business community in the Valley, Ms. Clark said.

“Development Services Director Sam McAllen said the subcommittee would take an average of two to three hours a week of staff time. For the duration of the committee, it is estimated to take 1,040 hours to 1,560 hours of staff time, he added.

“Councilman Ray Malnar suggested increasing the seven- member committee to include a contractor or builder because that profession, which creates job opportunities in Glendale, is affected by city fees and policies.

“Councilman Jamie Aldama suggested adding two representatives, one from the minority business community and one from a woman-owned business.

“Councilman Bart Turner said the idea of a subcommittee is a worthy endeavor, however, it is a step too soon.

“He cited the large use of staff hours, a city resource.

“Instead, he suggested the city find out what the issues and/or frustrations are for businesses in Glendale by getting it from the members of the Glendale Chamber of Commerce, soliciting input at city hall’s second-floor service counter and establishing a hotline for merchants.

“Try that for a year and then see if the committee is still needed, Councilman Turner said.

“Councilman Aldama asked what the staff hours equated to in money.

“Mr. Allen said staff only went as far as to identify which departments would be involved in the committee. Departments involved include Building Safety, Fire Marshal, Planning, Economic Development and City Attorney.

Councilman Aldama noted despite the cost of creating the committee, its recommendations would generate more revenue for Glendale.

Councilwoman Lauren Tolmachoff suggested the council move forward on both proposals.

” ‘I have no problem doing both at the same time,’ she said.

“The council also agreed to expand the subcommittee to 11 to 13 members, taking in Councilmen Aldama’s and Malnar’s suggestions.

Staff estimated the new subcommittee could be up and running within three to four months upon approval.”

© Joyce Clark, 2017               

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Apr 17

19

Glendale City Council workshop of April 18, 2017

Posted by Joyce Clark on April 19, 2017
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

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

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 city council met in workshop session. There were 3 agenda items: information on the city’s purchase of a new city-wide software program; my Council Item of Special Interest requesting the formation of a temporary council subcommittee on business; and Councilmember Aldama’s  request to move forward with the creation of a citizen Diversity and Human Relations Commission.

PeopleSoft vs. Munis City-Wide Software Systems. City staff provided information on a proposed software system called Munis. Currently the city uses a software system called PeopleSoft for its Finance, Human Resources and Payroll functions. Staff represented that PeopleSoft is inefficient for their needs and estimated the number of hours currently used to support PeopleSoft as 19,562 and the estimated annual cost of that support is $703,475.

I do accept that the Finance functions under PeopleSoft are no longer sufficient to meet our needs but I have not been convinced that the city should abandon PeopleSoft’s functionality for its Human Resources/Payroll needs. 

In 2015 PeopleSoft’s HR and payroll modules were updated at a cost of $1.2 million. These software modules will receive PeopleSoft support until 2017. There does not appear to be any urgency to replace these modules after the city just spent $1.2 million to upgrade them. Yet the proposed city-wide software system contains the option to replace these modules.

A year later, in 2016, staff requested approval to hire a firm, Berry & Dunn, to search for, review and recommend a new city-wide software system. I don’t believe staff explained this request adequately to city council and that city council approved this request without realizing that they had taken the first step in a procurement process. The result is the current proposal to replace the entire city software system at a cost of $6 million over a two year period. Why replace the HR/Payroll modules when the city spent $1.2 million to upgrade them less than 2 years ago? Finance did make a strong case for the replacement of its PeopleSoft modules and I can support their request but I believe we can wait to replace the HR/Payroll modules at a later date.

The areas of my concern about which there were no satisfactory answers provided at the workshop are: 1. What are the cost savings and level of productivity to be gained by switching to this new system? and 2. What is the final, estimated cost of purchasing, supporting and implementing this new system? Staff indicated that answer would be available to council and the public on May 28th. By then the proposed budget is set and council moves into June having to approve the proposed budget. That is not satisfactory to me. It leaves no time to question or to adjust the proposed budget to reflect council’s final direction.

Temporary city council subcommittee on business. I introduced this item several months ago as a “Council Item of Special Interest.” It requests the creation of a temporary city council subcommittee comprised of city council members and representatives from Glendale’s business community. Its purpose is to make Glendale even more business friendly while enhancing Glendale’s reputation for supporting job attraction, creation and retention. This committee would review all of Glendale’s business-related codes, ordinances, regulations and policies for the purpose of removing out-dated, redundant, no longer relevant business imperatives. The committee’s conclusions and recommendations are advisory and would be presented to the full council for acceptance or rejection, in whole or part.

I am grateful to city council for offering their suggestions to make the concept even better and for their support in moving this initiative forward. I am excited that there will be an opportunity to take Glendale toward a 21st Century future by aligning its laws, regulations and policies to enhance our business community.

Diversity and Human Relations Commission. This item was originally initiated as a “Council Item of Special Interest” by former Councilmember Gary Sherwood. That’s how long this item has been floating around…at least 2 years. Sherwood was recalled and replaced by the current Councilmember Ray Malnar representing the Sahuaro district. Councilmember Aldama took up the issue after Sherwood left. Councilmember Malnar introduced an alternative Human Relations Commission proposal to Councilmember Aldama’s Diversity and Human Relations Commission. The proposals were virtually the same with the exception of Section 2-313 – Powers and duties (a).

Here is Councilmember Aldama’s version:

“The commission shall advise the mayor and council regarding issues, regulations or policies affecting diverse members of the Glendale community including, but not limited to, those related to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, genetic characteristics, medical condition, familial or parental status, U.S. Military veteran status, mental development, behavior, illness, or disorder or disability, physical appearance, limitation or disability, education level, socio-economic condition or any other individual or distinct characteristic.”

Here is Councilmember Malnar’s version:

“The Glendale Human Relations Commission will act as an advisory body to the mayor and council by making recommendations on way to encourage mutual respect and understanding among all people, to discourage prejudice and discrimination, and to support cultural awareness and unity of the community in all its diverse forms. The commission may also make recommendations for special events.”

I preferred Councilmember Malnar’s version, as did Vice Mayor Hugh and Councilmember Tolmachoff. Consensus was given to move forward with the Malnar version to be agendized for a future city council voting meeting. My reason for support of the Malnar version is that the country’s current preoccupation with diversity has led to increased tensions and divisiveness among disparate communities. That is an atmosphere I prefer not to bring to Glendale. Rather Councilmember Malnar’s version emphasizes the very values we, as a nation, have seemed to have forgotten, that of mutual respect and understanding, the discouragement of prejudice and discrimination and support of unity within our community.

The next city council meeting will occur on Monday, April 24th at 9 AM. It will give the city council an opportunity to focus on individual department budgets and to pose questions about them. It will be followed by another budget workshop on Friday, April 28th and will be a continuation of departmental budget review by city council. You can watch these workshops online at the city website under the City’s Cable Channel 11 or if you are a Cox subscriber you can watch the workshops on TV Channel 11.

© Joyce Clark, 2017                 

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Mar 16

20

And so it continues…Chavira’s questionable spending

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 20, 2016
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

It has been 18 years and 94 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

On March 19, 2016, Paul Giblin’s article is entitled Glendale expenses get more scrutiny. It is not online as of this date so no link to the story is provided. In his article Giblin solicits reaction to Chavira’s questionable travel expenses from his peers…the Glendale city councilmembers. Giblin reports, “Sammy Chavira’s colleagues on the Glendale City Council said this week they want to strengthen the city’s travel policy following reporting by the Arizona Republic on Chavira’s travel expenses.”

Mayor Weiers said, “‘We’re going to have to do something. Weiers said one option to tighten the travel policy would be to require councilmembers to use personal credit cards, rather than city-issued cards, for all city-related travel. If you want to be reimbursed, then you have to provide us with all the information – who, what, when, why, where. If you don’t provide that, then you’re not going to get reimbursed,’ he said.”

A majority of councilmembers have said this is a future public city council workshop topic of discussion. Silent on the issue were Councilmember Chavira and Councilmember Aldama. “Vice Mayor Ian Hugh and City Council members Lauren Tolmachoff and Bart Turner told The Republic they expect a formal discussion at a public meeting about improving the city’s travel policy for elected officials.”

The reactions from various councilmembers are varied. “Hugh said he is opposed to granting council members authority to approve or disapprove of each other’s trips.” Frankly I agree with his assessment. In towns and cities there are councilmembers who don’t like each other, don’t get along with each other and may downright hate each other. In most cases, the public is never aware of councilmembers’ animosity toward one another because publicly they remain polite to one another. Political animosity (or even revenge) would be a constant threat if councilmembers’ had the power to approve or disapprove of one another’s expenses.

“‘Council members should be held to at least the same standard as rank-and-file city employees,’ Tolmachoff said.” Councilmember Tolmachoff almost got it. Councilmembers should not be held to the same standards as other city employees. They should be held to the highest standard. They should be a model for all employees to follow. Councilmembers are in a unique position. There are only 7 of them elected by the people of Glendale. There is no comparable position in Glendale. That makes them unique. Their major responsibility is to develop all policy for the city. It is an enormous task requiring their best efforts and a commitment to impartiality. It is their responsibility to strive to be above reproach at all times and in all instances.

Councilmember Ray Malnar thinks that a periodic audit of councilmembers’ use of their expense accounts is in order. “Periodic audits of council members’ expenses would help keep members attuned to existing guidelines, Malnar said. ‘There’s always the ability, no matter what kind of controls you have in place, for abuse. And a lot of it is a matter of trust and follow-up.’ he said.” It is a solid suggestion. It bears serious consideration and has the appeal of having a councilmember’s expenses related to his or her budgets scrutinized on a regular basis.

Councilmember Turner, surprisingly, offered very little concern about councilmembers’ travel expenses and instead focused on lost receipts. “Turner said he’s interested in reviewing the city’s policy for lost receipts and perhaps capping the amount allowable for reimbursement using lost-receipt forms. ‘There’s no transparency around a lost receipt, and I think we owe it to our taxpayers to be as transparent as possible,’ Turner said.”

From the councilmembers’ comments two viable themes emerged. Councilmember Malnar suggested audits. If such audits are not publicly posted prominently and instead are buried in the bowels of city hall paperwork, what good is an audit? Councilmember Turner made reference to transparency. However, currently there is no transparency related to any expense incurred by a councilmember. Why tailor transparency narrowly to a lost-receipt? It’s illogical. Transparency only serves the public interest when it brings to light a practice formerly buried and generalized in the city’s annual budget book.

Perhaps audits and transparency should be used in tandem. City councilmembers should consider revising their policy to include an annual audit performed by Glendale’s Audit Office of both their communications/professional development budget and their infrastructure improvements budget to be completed by October 1 of every year. I can hear the City Auditor now saying that it is an onerous burden upon her department. It is not unreasonable. Each councilmember’s two budgets total approximately $35,000 a year. They are simplistic and not as complicated as one would find in auditing an entire city department comprised of millions of dollars. They could be completed quickly and would not require an inordinate amount of audit staff’s time.

These audits should be posted in each councilmember’s Friday e-newsletter no later than the end of each October. If a councilmember had to publicly announce what expenditures he or she made during the course of a year it would constantly reinforce the concept that each and every dollar is a taxpayer dollar and not “theirs.” This is a reasonable policy. It would create an unmatched level of transparency for Glendale’s citizens. Glendale would be the first city in the state to adopt such a model and it is expected it would cause other cities to follow suit. It would have the effect of helping the public to determine if a councilmember was making effective and ethical use of their taxpayer dollars. It would certainly be a breath of political fresh air.

In the meantime, Giblin reported, “While Glendale officials talked about Chavira’s expenditures, Phoenix officials acted on them. Phoenix officials submitted five checks to Glendale on March 9 to reimburse the city for their portions of the seafood dinner, said Glendale spokeswoman Sue Breding.” Obviously these Phoenix officials, such as the Phoenix Fire Chief, by reimbursing the city, are tacitly acknowledging that Chavira’s payment for their dinners was inappropriate. That cannot be good for Chavira who keeps repeating that he did nothing wrong. Perhaps he’s hoping if he repeats it often enough people will believe him…Hmmm, I think not. I wonder if former Glendale Fire Chief Mark Burdick or Phoenix Councilmember Danny Valenzuela (who happens to be a Glendale fire fighter) reimbursed Glendale. There’s no way to know as that information is not forthcoming.

Come on, Glendale councilmembers, think outside the box. Develop a policy that sheds light on the issue for all of Glendale’s taxpayers. After all, it’s not about you. It’s about the citizens and city that you are elected to serve.

© Joyce Clark, 2016

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Feb 15

27

Strange but true plus Foothills library update

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 27, 2015
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , | 5 Comments

Foothills Library Update: All three commissions, Arts, Library and Parks & Recreation, having met this week have voted to disapprove the proposal to sell the Foothills Library. Their recommendations will be presented to the city council at the March 3, 2015 workshop.

It seems Councilmember Gary Sherwood requested formal meetings by going through the council office to set up appointments with Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff and Councilmember Bart Turner. The upshot of each meeting was that Sherwood advised each of them that he would be monitoring their performance and would, at some future date, critique them. How’s that for chutzpah? Coming from a councilmember with two years of experience, under investigation by the Attorney General’s Office for alleged Open Meeting Law violations and now facing recall from office. From all accounts he did not meet in a “mentoring mode” but rather to put them on notice that he would be watching them. Are you astounded? I have never heard of such behavior. I expect each of them advised him to not let the door hit him on his way out.

Sherwood also announced at his district meeting held on February 26, 2015 that he would be meeting with Kathleen Goeppinger, head of Midwestern University to explore the idea of allowing Midwestern to build an addition to Foothills Library for Midwestern’s use. He couldn’t be offering this idea to gain support from Goeppinger for Becker billboards (or perhaps hit her up for a campaign donation to his recall campaign), could he? At the last billboard go-around Goeppinger was on record as being opposed. Sherwood’s habit and pattern seems to be to insert himself into situations, in an attempt to broker deals. Isn’t that an administrative function best left to Glendale staff? Aren’t his actions in trying to broker the arena management agreement enough of a warning that perhaps he shouldn’t participate in such activities? Mayor Weiers, representing all of Glendale or Cholla district Councilmember Tolmachoff where the library is located should be none too happy about Sherwood’s insertion of himself into the situation.

Councilmember Bart Turner had a turnout of about 100 people at his district meeting. Councilmember Sherwood had about 30 people. Some of the Sherwood attendees questioned his position on issues, commented on his non-responsiveness to his constituents’ concerns and infrequency of his district meetings (last one was about a year ago). Perhaps before Sherwood tells other councilmembers how to do their job, he should clean up his own act.

© Joyce Clark, 2015

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.

Next Page »