Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

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.

 

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.

For those of you who do not follow the news closely, on January 31st at a press conference, Hakeem Jeffries, House Minority Leader, D-N.Y., pledged Democrats would fight President Donald Trump’s (immigration) agenda with, “We’re going to fight it in the streets.” Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-MA., called for agitation “in the streets.”

A few days later there were coordinated protests of thousands of Mexicans nationalists throughout the country waving the Mexican flag, and burning the American flag, in the streets.

On Sunday, February 2nd that is exactly what happened in Glendale/Phoenix. At the intersection of 67th Avenue and Camelback, approximately 1,000 people gathered about 5 pm to protest the new immigration policies. South of Camelback is Phoenix and north of Camelback is Glendale. So, both police departments responded. A helicopter flew overhead using loudspeakers to advise the crowd that it was an illegal assembly. They ignored it.

The protest remained peaceful until about 8 pm. Then it got ugly. The crowd threw fireworks, large rocks, chunks of concrete and glass bottles at officers who were simply trying to maintain the peace. Cars began doing burnouts and donuts in the intersection. This caused police to close off the intersection for public safety reasons.

Further escalation ensued with the damage of 5 police vehicles, all kinds of things being thrown at police officers and damage to nearby businesses. Employees at neighboring businesses had to shelter in place. Many employees’ vehicles had extensive damage as well as some of the businesses.

At 10:30 p.m., Phoenix and Glendale police officers in riot gear began approaching the intersection. Police used flash bangs, tear gas, and pepper balls after multiple commands to leave were ignored.

Protesters lit fireworks and threw bottles and rocks at officers. In addition, a fire was set to a large storage container near one of the business complexes. It was definitely not a safe situation.

Why would these protestors, shutting down the Camelback and 67th Avenue intersection, burn the flag of the country in which they are demanding to remain while waving the flag of the nation to which they apparently have no desire to return? Blocking traffic while waving foreign flags to get people to oppose deportations makes no sense.

You may know that I am a law enforcement Mom. My son was a police officer for many years. I back the Blue. What I am about to say is not to disparage the Glendale or Phoenix police departments. However, they announced there were no arrests. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt assuming they were terribly outnumbered and at the moment it might have been too dangerous to do so.

The major TV stations have videos of the damage caused by recognizable individuals. I hope at a later date, these departments will view all the footage, identify people and announce arrests in conjunction with this illegal assembly. I also assume that they will work with ICE to deport those who are here illegally.

In 2019, there was a protest in downtown Phoenix against ICE and there were immediate arrests. In fact, one arrestee was none other than Glendale’s latest councilmember, Lupe Conchas. The charges against all who were arrested were later dismissed.

This morning, I learned that there was another protest at 93rd Avenue and Glendale Avenue. Protesters should stop taking it to the streets. They are not making any friends by disrupting commuter traffic and destroying private and public property.

© 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.

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.

Worker Power is at it again. They keep trying to blow up VAI Resort, currently under construction and scheduled to open at the end of this year. VAI Resort is a billion dollar development expected to generate $32 million dollars a year in revenue to the City of Glendale. It promises to be the most impactful project in Glendale’s economic history. It will be the largest resort in the state and probably all of the Southwest. It includes nearly 1200 hotel rooms, an amphitheater that will feature live entertainment 100 times a year, a dozen restaurants, upscale retail, a water feature, a convention center and ample meeting space. Just to its south, as a companion piece, is Mattel Adventure Park. This is Mattel’s first Adventure Park in the country and will feature Barbie, Thomas the Train and other Mattel branded children’s figures.

Worker Power wants to unionize VAI Resort and if they cannot get what they want, it appears they are ready to kill the project all together. This is their third try. First, they obtained petition signatures to stop Glendale from using a GPLET (Government Property Lease Excise Tax) with VAI. That failed to go to an election when VIA and the city announced that there would be no GPLET used. That action erased the need for an election.

Their second salvo was to get enough petition signatures to force the question of mandating a minimum wage of $20 an hour for hospitality workers in Glendale exclusively. That question was defeated in the last general election by 56.6% of Glendale’s voters saying ‘no’.

Now they are at it again. They have successfully collected enough signatures to force a special election this May. City Council approved amending the VIA PAD (Planned Area Development) by including (as a formality) the use of 10 acres on the east side of 95th Avenue (across from the Resort’s hotels) for an office building and additional parking. It is important to note the building is nearly complete.

What is Worker Power’s compelling argument that drove them to force yet another election related to VAI Resort and their use of 10 acres for an office building and parking? Their spokesperson said, “We feel that the removal of landscaping may increase the urban heat island effect.” That’s it. An environmental crisis will occur if those 10 acres are not green space. Give me a break. That’s the best that they can do this time around to try to stop VIA Resort?

Adam Baugh is VAI’s zoning attorney. He is highly respected among his peers and those elected officials that have worked with him. I have worked with Adam on numerous projects in my district. I admire and respect him. His word is his bond. If he promised to work with his client to address issues that I felt needed attention on a development project, that is what he did. He was successful in getting many changes I sought on various projects.

Mr. Baugh said, “The project will not move forward”…”You need the 10 acres for the project to be successful still. If the referendum is successful … then the project doesn’t function the way it’s intended to.” (Arizona Republic) The nearly complete office building will support VAI’s management of the resort complex and offers parking for those employees as well as those who will be working on the resort site.

In essence, the project will grind to a halt which is exactly what Worker Power wants to occur.

It is important to note how Worker Power obtains its signatures for petitions. They go to apartment complexes to gather signatures. It is recognized that renters are typically transient and stay in an apartment complex for a few years and then move. They are not vested in the city in which the apartment complex is located.

Another source of signatures is low propensity (don’t often vote) registered voters, a significant portion of which do not use English as their primary language. It has been revealed by those who have been approached to sign what the petition gatherers say. It appears to be misrepresentation and misinformation of the facts. In other words, whatever it takes to get that signature.

Both of these groups often have no interest in city government and are not informed on the issues. When they are told by petition gatherers how bad the city and VAI are, they will sign. They typically don’t question and will believe what they are told.

Worker Power has a formula and has turned petition gathering into a fine art form. At what point will Glendale taxpayers get tired of paying for Worker Power initiated elections?

I urge Glendale voters to become informed about this issue. When they are they will realize what a frivolous election this is. Reject Worker Power’s latest attempt to go after the city and VAI Resort.

© 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.

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 Shawn Raymundo had an article in the Arizona Republic about the city council receiving stipends. Before I go into that issue, a word about Mr. Raymundo. He is a writer for the Arizona Republic which is part of the USA Today network. The Arizona Republic and USA Today are notoriously ‘progressive’ liberal news organizations. It follows that their reporters hold the same positions and most of them, not all, do. Both organizations have a few token conservative reporters.

Mr. Raymundo has become Councilmember Turner’s lapdog. All that Turner has to do is to call Raymundo and plant something designed to embarrass either the City of Glendale, the city manager, the mayor or city council. It appears that Turner’s other ‘go-to-reporter’ is Richard Smith of the Glendale Independent. Both of these gentlemen harbor a liberal bias seemingly evident in their reporting, especially when covering a council that is, in the majority, conservative.

Some history is in order. When I was first elected as the Yucca district councilmember in 1992, my salary was $24,000 a year. After tax deductions, I probably took home about $19,000 a year. This was my salary for over half of the 24 years I served as a councilmember. It wasn’t ever about the money then or now. It was about having the opportunity to serve the people of Glendale. I was and am still proud of having done so.

In the last portion of my time in office, the voters of Glendale approved a councilmember salary of $34,000 a year. That averages $16.35 an hour, about $1.65 more an hour than Arizona’s required state-wide minimum wage of $14.70 an hour. After tax deductions I earned about $28,000 a year.

What is a stipend? The dictionary defines it as “a fixed sum of money paid periodically for services or to defray expenses.” When I first came to the council the stipends offered to defray expenses were for monthly cell phone usage and car mileage. Receipts had to be submitted for a request for reimbursement (stipend). I chose at that time to not request reimbursement.

I paid for my home office computer, my cell phone and monthly bill, a printer, a scanner and all necessary supplies like printer paper and ink out of my personal funds. I paid for my car’s gas and maintenance personally. Also, I often paid my share or the entire bill for a working lunch in my capacity as a councilmember personally. I paid for my yearly dues to the Glendale Chamber of Commerce from personal funds.

I also paid for things that I never talked about until now. I’ll give you one example. A constituent of mine, in crisis, needed to gravel the front yard immediately. I explored having the city pay but city policy was and is, that no city funds can be expended to enrich a private citizen or that citizen’s property. So, I paid out of my personal funds to have the front yard graveled. That is not the only time over the years that I used personal funds to help a person in crisis. I know for a fact, that former Vice Mayor Ian Hugh has done the same.

Several years ago, when monthly stipends were offered, this time I chose to take them. Everything is far more expensive than when I started, and I found that I needed help to defray costs.

Councilmembers have always had two council budgets. One is for professional development that can include travel, hotels and meals. Rather than travel, I used my funds to send out two district-wide newsletters to every home in the district twice a year. I also used those funds for hosting district-wide meetings as well as numerous incidental items to reach out to constituents. I occasionally made donations for causes such as backpacks filled with school supplies for Glendale’s disadvantaged children or Christmas gifts for families in need.

The second council budget account is for infrastructure improvements within one’s district. Annually, I directed those funds to be used for park improvements not covered in the Parks and Recreation Department’s annual budget. Those funds were used for such things as repainting park ramadas or replacing park infrastructure such as benches. For example, the digital sign at Heroes Park was paid from my infrastructure budget.

Never once did I abuse either account or use those funds for personal expense or gain.

I believe the current stipend policy is warranted. Here’s why. Now that I have retired, my cell phone informs me that my daily usage of about five hours a day has dropped to less than an hour a day. That tells me that my cell phone was used, almost entirely, for city business. I used to fill up my gas tank once a week at about $45 to $50 a pop. In retirement, I can fill my car up once a month. My use of printer paper has dropped from two reams a month to one ream for several months. Laser toner, very expensive by the way, was replaced twice a year. Now it lasts the entire year. These items, among others, had 90% of their usage attributed to city business. Monthly expenses for meals, tickets, donations and events have dropped to zero.

I am typical of most councilmembers. These stipends have helped to defray the expenses I incurred. I am grateful as your councilmember that they were made available in the last few years.

As for Turner, he’s up to his usual tricks. If he doesn’t understand the use of stipends shame on him. If he chooses not to take them, that is his prerogative. Painting the rest of council as somehow underhanded for using them is a typical Turner move.

The nonuse of a stipend by Councilmember Turner does not make him an angel. It appears that he is far, far from that. The use of a stipend by the rest of the councilmembers, just because Turner and his cohort, Raymundo, write about it does not make us devils.

© 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.

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 the Yucca District Councilmember, I worked with Leandro Baldenegro, appointed to represent the Ocotillo District, for 8 months until I retired. During that time, we did not agree on every issue but neither of us harbored ill will toward the other. We had mutual respect for one another, and it remains to this day.

When Jamie Aldama resigned, according to the city charter, it became council’s responsibility to appoint a person to fill that seat until the next regular election in the Spring of 2026. There were many applicants that applied for the appointment. The council narrowed the long list down to five applicants. Each of them was interviewed and the majority chose Mr. Baldenegro. He was very impressive and innately understood the role of a councilmember. It was noticed that some councilmembers did not support his appointment because they had others in mind, presumably more sympathetic to their agendas and whom, they counted on to support those agendas.

Councilmember Baldenegro has since proven to be a hard-working and dedicated councilmember. He is smart and well-grounded. He is humble and caring. He believes in faith, family, friends and the people of his district. He has lived in the district his entire life and loves it. He genuinely wants to lift the people of his district up. He knows the district and he knows those who live there. He is not a typical politician pushing his own agenda.

He is committed to reaching out to the people of the district and soliciting their opinions on the issues that matter to them. In fact, he has a regular meeting for his constituents before every council workshop on alternate Tuesdays.. He truly listens to his constituents and is not afraid to change his stance when presented with sound, well-reasoned arguments, as seen with the Velma Teague Library decision. He had originally supported the move of the library because he believed a new library would offer more content and events to children and their families. It would also have offered the opportunity to become a high-tech library that would provide the tech tools of the 21st Century. He listened to his constituents. They are the ones who convinced him that the best option would be to keep the library in its present location. It is rare for an elected official to be willing to publicly change a position once declared. Councilmember Baldenegro was not afraid to do so.

Turner appears to be targeting Baldenegro not out of personal dislike but to create a new majority on the council. Turner already enjoys support from Councilmembers Tolmachoff and Conchas. Those three are desperately seeking to gain a fourth member of their coalition to become the new majority on council. If they should succeed, Glendale’s city council will become ‘woke’, similar to the disaster that California has become. God help us all.

Make no mistake. Turner and Conchas appear to be behind the recall movement targeting Councilmember Baldenegro. This recall effort against Baldenegro seems driven by political motives rather than genuine concern for the district. How dare Baldenegro have an opinion on the library and how dare he change his opinion. They will use this and other disinformation to try to defeat Baldenegro. It promises to get ugly.

They are courting the disaffected downtown crowd and the pro-Aldama crowd. Two members of the pro-Aldama faction to watch are Warren Wilfong and Rory Goree. I have always been friends with Warren Wilfong but he has an Achilles Heel. That is the poor performance of the Code Department. He is obsessed with that issue. If you do not share his view on this issue, he has no use for you. I’m sure he would love to run for the Ocotillo seat.

However, he has competition that appears to have the inside track with Turner and Conchas, Rory Goree. If you watch council voting meetings, Goree makes it a point to speak at every one. Why? Public comments are televised and Goree gets face time and greater recognition. Unfortunately, only about 11 people actually watch city council meetings. Oh well.

Conchas announced in his last week’s digital newsletter a press conference in support of the library issue and guess who is hosting it? If you said Rory Goree, you would be correct. I would not be surprised if Goree announced his support for the recall of Baldenegro and his candidacy for the Ocotillo district at this press conference. It is required that when a recall petition is circulated, an opposing candidate must be identified on the petition.

I urge Ocotillo residents to continue supporting Councilmember Baldenegro, who has demonstrated honesty and integrity. If the Turner-Conchas- pro Aldama- downtown disaffected factions desire change, they know full well that the next regularly scheduled election for the Ocotillo district councilmember will occur in the Spring of 2026, a year from now. Anyone interested in running will be able to pull a candidate packet this Winter. A recall election before the regular 2026 election is costly for all of Glendale’s taxpayers.

Ocotillo residents can stop this by simply not signing the recall petition. If the leaders of this insurrection do not obtain enough signatures, there will be no election until the regular one in the Spring of 2026 and Councilmember Baldenegro will continue to represent the Ocotillo district residents until then.

Shame on those pushing this costly and untimely recall for their political agendas over the interests of Glendale residents.

© 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.

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.

Fireworks are like rubbing salt in a wound for many residents of the Valley from Scottsdale to Buckeye, Cave Creek to Queen Creek. The major reason for the intense dislike is the misuse of them. Fireworks that shoot into the sky are illegal, yet many revelers persist in using them. They are noisy and a fire hazard. Add to that the extremely long periods when it is legal to shoot them off. It makes for a combination that many Valley residents are fed up with.

Here is the law as it exists:

36-1606. Consumer fireworks regulation; state preemption; further regulation of fireworks by local jurisdiction

  1. The sale and use of permissible consumer fireworks are of statewide concern. The regulation of permissible consumer fireworks pursuant to this article and their sale or use is not subject to further regulation by a governing body, except as follows:
  2. In a county with a population of more than five hundred thousand persons (This applies to Maricopa County), a city or town within its corporate limits or the county within the unincorporated areas of the county may do all of the following:

(a) Regulate, consistent with the standards set forth in NFPA 1124, the sale of permissible consumer fireworks within its corporate limits.

(b) Prohibit the sale of permissible consumer fireworks on days other than April 25 through May 6, May 20 through July 6 and December 10 through January 3 of each year and two days before the first day of Diwali through the third day of Diwali each year.

(c) Prohibit the use of permissible consumer fireworks on days other than May 4 through May 6, June 24 through July 6 and December 26 through January 4 of each year and the second and third days of Diwali of each year.

(d) Prohibit on all days the use of permissible consumer fireworks within a one-mile radius of the border of preservation lands owned by a city or town that has purchased more than fifteen thousand acres of land for preservation purposes.

(e) Prohibit on all days during a stage one or higher fire restriction the use of permissible consumer fireworks within a one-mile radius of the border of any municipal or county mountain preserve, desert park, regional park, designated conservation area, national forest or wilderness area.

(f) Prohibit on all days the use of permissible consumer fireworks between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., except:

(i) Between the hours of 11:00 p.m. on December 31 of each year through 1:00 a.m. on January 1 of each year.

(ii) Between the hours of 11:00 p.m. on July 4 of each year through 1:00 a.m. on July 5 of each year.

  1. In a county with a population of less than five hundred thousand persons, a city or town within its corporate limits or the county within the unincorporated areas of the county may do all of the following: ( I have deleted this portion as it does not apply to Maricopa County.)
  1. A governing body that chooses to regulate, consistent with the requirements set forth in NFPA 1124 and subsection A of this section, the sale or use of permissible consumer fireworks may not require any additional signage requirements for the sale or use of permissible consumer fireworks other than those signage requirements stipulated in NFPA 1124, except that additional signage that is eight and one-half inches by eleven inches in size, that is on cardstock paper in landscape orientation, that lists the days of that year that are described in subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section relating to the time frame surrounding Diwali and that contains the following language on a contrasting background may be posted by the retail sales display of permissible consumer fireworks:

State of Arizona Consumer Fireworks Regulations Arizona Revised Statutes section 36-1601, et al. The use of permissible consumer fireworks as defined under state law is allowed:                                                                                                                                                          May 4 – May 6, June 24 — July 6 and December 26 — January 4 

                                              The sale of permissible consumer fireworks as defined under state law is allowed:   

             April 25 – May 6, May 20 — July 6 and December 10 — January 3 

                                        All other fireworks are prohibited, except as authorized by local fire department permit.

The sale and use of novelties known as snappers (pop-its), party poppers, glow worms, snakes, toy smoke devices and sparklers are permitted at all times. Permissible consumer fireworks may not be sold to persons under sixteen years of age. Check with your local fire department for additional regulations and dates before using.

  1. This article does not prohibit the imposition by ordinance of further regulations and prohibitions by a governing body on the sale, use and possession of fireworks other than permissible consumer fireworks. A governing body may not allow or authorize the sale, use or possession of any fireworks in violation of this article.”

There are three major problems with this law. The first is, in Maricopa County, it is permissible to use fireworks for 22 days a year. That’s nearly a month. Is this necessary? No. I don’t know about you but growing up we celebrated the 4th of July and New Year’s Eve only. We didn’t celebrate for weeks at time. Why does the state legislature allow the sale and use of fireworks for weeks? It appears that some state legislators have interests within the fireworks manufacturing and sales communities. They apparently have had enough influence to ram through extended sales and use periods to increase profit margins in that industry. In other words, all for a buck.

The second issue is the inclusion of more holidays than necessary. Cinco de Mayo? Diwali? When people come to America for a better and more prosperous life they should assimilate. They are becoming American and need to embrace American culture. That, in and of itself, is a whole separate issue. Again, inclusion of other holidays, not part of our American culture, does not encourage immigrants to assimilate.

I am of Polish descent. When my Polish grandparents came to America, they did not presume to establish Polish holidays in this country. They became Americans and fully embraced what it was to be an American. The only two times fireworks should be permissible are New Year’s Eve and the 4th of July from the hours of 7 PM to midnight. That’s it. No exceptions.

The third issue is the types of fireworks being used. When we were kids and celebrated these two holidays, we ran around with sparklers and the adults used ground-based firecrackers. No one used aerial fireworks. The current law stipulates that aerial fireworks are prohibited in Arizona for sale or use. Yet people use them extensively. Since they cannot obtain them in Arizona, they go to Mexico or other states where it is legal to purchase them. For instance, the residents behind our home use aerials. The problem is that when the police are called, they have to see the offence in order to cite. By the time officers arrive the illegal act has long stopped. No police department has the resources to deal with illegal fireworks. That is just a fact of life. So everyone throws their hands up in utter frustration.

In addition, aerial fireworks can be dangerous and a fire safety hazard. We all have either heard or read about someone’s house or patio that caught fire because of the embers of aerials ending up on a roof. Add to that, loud aerials scare pets. Most of us who do have dogs put them inside during fireworks periods. During these periods more dogs run away than any other time of year.

What can be done? The people must rise up to speak and to push the Arizona legislature to change the law. How? A group of people should lead this charge by drafting changes in the law and then circulating those changes in the form of an initiative petition to bring this issue and the proposed changes to a vote of the people. It’s not easy and requires a lot of work and organization but others have done it successfully on other issues. There are a lot of people fed up with the use of illegal fireworks and the excessive time periods when they can be used.

We saw in our last national election that when enough people band together, they can effect change.

© 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.

 

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.

Yesterday, January 14, 2025, city council held its regular workshop meeting. One of the agenda items was that of moving city council assistants from the City Manager’s office to the City Clerk’s office. The item was requested by Councilmembers Tolmachoff, Turner and Conchas.

The Mayor brought up an interesting point. Apparently, these councilmembers requested that there be no discussion of the issue but rather it be on the voting agenda that night for an up or down vote. It appears that these 3 councilmembers wanted no discussion of the item and had not requested that it also be a workshop agenda item. It was the Mayor who requested that this item be brought to the workshop for a full discussion before it was to be voted on.

For Tolmachoff and Turner, who have repeatedly thrown around the word ‘transparency’, it was revealing. Apparently, they want transparency when it is an agenda item that they oppose. Then they want a full and robust workshop discussion. When it is their item, the heck with discussion. They wanted to ram it through with no discussion. It is a telling moment.

Their argument for proposing that council assistants move to the city clerk’s office centered around the notion that it was a better alignment. Their argument was that the city clerk’s office deals with citizens more extensively as council assistants do. Thereby making the two entities a good fit.

Councilmember Dianna Guzman was apparently the only councilmember to ask the council assistants directly for their feedback on the proposed move. To a person, the sentiment was that they preferred to stay under the direction of the city manager’s office. In essence, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Turner and Tolmachoff, both without council assistants, hurled a lot of innuendo. Turner called it, “chaotic at best” and felt there was “disparate treatment of councilmembers.” Tolmachoff, said, “it was not a level playing field” and she felt there were “occasions where some can hand pick” selections for council assistant. Conchas said moving them to the city clerk “keeps the city manager’s office accountable.” There was a lot of squeezing of sour grapes.

The first question that arises is, why don’t Turner and Tolmachoff have council assistants? Everyone in city hall knows why. Suffice it to say, their offices have revolving doors, and each has gone through many, many council assistants. It is common knowledge that their council assistants left because of the treatment they received.

Case in point, during my last two terms as councilmember, I had 3 council assistants, all of whom I loved and with whom I had an excellent working relationship. They were all fantastic and did excellent work. Shelly and Shannon left when they had opportunities to advance their professional careers within the city in other departments. Council assistants have no opportunity for advancement. My last one, Riley, remains a council assistant for newly elected Yucca councilmember Guzman. There was no revolving door.

However, Turner and Tolmachoff each had numerous council assistants. Far more than I or councilmembers Malnar or Hugh. Again, the question is why.

Another startling moment came when the Mayor asked for consensus to move this item forward for a voting meeting. Councilmember Conchas softly said ‘no’ to moving this item forward. Councilmember Turner was surprised, to say the least. After all, Conchas was supposed to be on his side after his endorsement and the hefty campaign contributions he gave to Conchas. To have Conchas betray him on the very first contentious issue where Turner counted on his support must have been quite a shock to Turner.

A majority of council, Mayor Weiers and Councilmembers Malnar, Baldenegro, Guzman and surprisingly, Conchas did not give affirmative consensus to move this item to a voting meeting. Once again, Tolmachoff and Turner remain on their little island of dissent.

© 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.

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.

About a month ago, on Tuesday, December 11, 2024, Glendale held its Installation Ceremony for re-elected Mayor Jerry Weiers, re-elected Councilmember Ray Malnar and Councilmembers-Elect Dianna Guzman and Lupe Conchas. Malnar, Guzman and Conchas were asked to keep their remarks brief, to three or four minutes. Malnar and Guzman did so but not Conchas. It appeared that he deliberately chose to ignore that request and he rambled on and on and on for at least ten minutes. It appeared to be no more than a campaign speech.

Conchas’ speech is too long for inclusion, but I did note some rather interesting remarks (his in italics and mine in parentheses and bold) that I bring to your attention.

He said, “I started my career as a community organizer.”

(He still is. He is Regional Organizing Manager for ONE Campaign based in Washington, D.C. Was Regional Organizer for Bread for the World, Washington, D.C. from 2019-2023.)

Then he remarked, “The unions who (unintelligible), to Worker Power, to Unite Here, to the teacher’s union, to the iron workers, to IBEW, to UFCW, to SMART, and to America Labor Federation, your belief in me kept me going and you stood by me every step of the way. And I will not forget that.”

 (These unions endorsed him:

UNITE HERE Local 11

Worker Power

International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union

United Food and Commercial Workers Union

International Painters and Allied Trades Union

Ironworkers Union Local 75

He publicly declared that he will support their agendas. That includes Worker Power which has mounted several lawsuits and initiatives against the city and VIA Resort. I smell a conflict of interest.)

He went on to say, “I’ve spoken to the City Manager here tonight. I’m excited to announce now that the City of Glendale has secured a $6.7 million-dollar federal grant for pedestrian safety improvements here in Glendale… This grant is a testament to what happens when we listen to our community, and we fight for change…”

(There is not even one, tiny Conchas fingerprint on the securing of this grant. The application was submitted months ago, long before he became Councilmember-Elect. He did not fight for change as he implies.)

He also said, “…a motivating factor in my decision was the quality of our early childhood education programs and my goal to increase literacy in our community. By investing in Pre-K and after school programs…”

(Glendale’s public policy mandate does not include education. That is the responsibility of our multiple school district’s Boards of Education. Glendale city council has no say and does not fund the education of your children. That is done through your property taxes and the line item tax allocations to various educational districts.)

Then he said, “I admire the bravery of our police officers who are standing in the back. A big round of applause for our fire and police officers.”

(This is the same guy who demonstrated against ICE in 2019. His position is one of distrust of and disrespect for law enforcement.)

Lastly, he remarked, “Now, some of you may know that Proposition 314 has been approved by the voters. It’s a new immigration enforcement bill… And let me be 100% clear, my focus is on preserving the civil rights of our residents…”

(He is a participating member of Promise Arizona, which advocates for Democrat party immigration reform. You can assume that he will work to preserve the status of the illegal immigrants who have flooded this country.)

Keep this fact in mind. Lupe Conchas won the election by 69 votes. That is not an overwhelming mandate by the voters in the Cactus district. He did what any good organizer does. He went to apartment complexes and trailer parks to register folks who had never voted and then made sure they did vote…for him. Even using that tactic, he still won by only 69 votes.

Did you know that he moved to Glendale in 2017 to the Ocotillo district?  At that time Jamie Aldama was its Councilmember. I think it’s fair to assume that he knew he couldn’t beat Aldama, and little did he know that Aldama would resign his seat to run for Mayor in mid-2024. In 2023, he moved to the Cactus district with the idea that he might have a better chance of knocking out incumbent Vice Mayor Ian Hugh and it worked.

If you go to the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund website, you will discover that Conchas publicly acknowledges that he is a cisgender male and gay. I don’t care one way or another, but I bet there are many Hispanic voters who are faithful Catholics. Conchas’ lifestyle is a slap in the face of one of their staunchest beliefs. He acknowledges that organization’s endorsement as simply the Victory Fund, not the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund. How many votes would he have garnered from the Hispanic community if they had known this fact?

Many view him as a one-term councilmember. They think he is merely using this council seat as a steppingstone and that his next move will be to run for the Arizona state legislature and eventually on to a congressional seat.

How he performs on Glendale’s city council will determine his future political aspirations. Will he support a majority of this council’s agenda which becomes city policy, or will he assume his traditional role as an activist and disruptor?

© 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.

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.

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.

I applied for the city’s Planning Commission. I would have been appointed by a majority of 4 of the councilmembers with 3 dissenting. I would have been a good commissioner as my goal was to preserve existent residential developments from new development. With my 24 years on city council I believe that my expertise would have served Glendale’s residents well.

A funny thing happened along the way. Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff has decided that if I report on any of certain councilmember’s antics (she characterizes them as attacks) I will be violating some Code of Conduct that reminds one to say nice things about everybody all the time. She is concerned about topics of future blogs.

I don’t believe she is correct. I believe it is a matter of free speech, and it is preserved whether I am a sitting councilmember or commissioner on a board or commission. During my 24 years on city council I have reported on various actions and positions that councilmembers have taken. Some of the councimembers have been furious and tried to muzzle me in the past. It did not work then, and it would not work now.

I would have prevailed in this dispute, but I have chosen not to argue the matter. Consequently, I have withdrawn my name as an appointee to the Planning Commission.

I intend to write a great deal this year and sometimes it will be, among other things, about certain councilmember’s actions or lack thereof.

This issue is a matter of free speech and threats and intimidation posed by Councilmember Tolmachoff or other minority members of council will not deter me. You will see what I mean in my next blog.

© 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.