Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Mar 15

27

Frisoni and conflict of interest

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 27, 2015
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 1 Comment

It has been 17 years and 85 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

Peter Corbett in the March 26, 2015 edition of the Arizona Republic had a story entitled “Glendale assistant city manager resigns.” Here is the link: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2015/03/26/glendale-assistant-manager-resigns/70490792/ . He leads the story by saying, “A top Glendale manager resigned this week in the wake of questions about a computer contract that had been reviewed more than a year ago.”

One month after City Manager Brenda Fischer was hired she appointed Julie Frisoni as an Assistant City Manager in August of 2013. Frisoni’s husband, Jeff Shumway, is a Vice President of Insight Enterprises, Inc. the parent company of Insight Public Sector, Inc. In late 2013 after an RFP had been issued the city accepted Insight’s bid and entered into a multi-year, multi-million dollar computer contract. A year ago, in January of 2014, when Norma Alvarez was still a Glendale city councilmember she raised the question of a conflict of interest on the part of Frisoni. Michael Bailey, Glendale’s newly hired City Attorney and friend of former City Attorney Craig Tindall (Tindall and Frisoni were close friends), reviewed the allegation and according to Corbett, “City Attorney Michael Bailey reviewed six contracts with Insight and determined in February 2014 that Shumway did not sign any of the documents nor was he part of the company’s sales team.” Apparently that was the extent of Bailey’s review of the allegation of a conflict of interest. It appears to have been marginal and tailored to produce the desired result.

What does Arizona law say about conflict of interest?

“8.2 The Arizona Conflict of Interest Laws. State statute provides in pertinent part:

  1. Any public officer or employee of a public agency who has, or whose relative has, a substantial interest in any contract, sale, purchase or service to such public agency shall make known that interest in the official records of such public agency and shall refrain from voting upon or otherwise participating in any manner as an officer or employee in such contract, sale or purchase.
  2. Any public officer or employee who has, or whose relative has, a substantial interest in any decision of a public agency shall make known such interest in the official records of such public agency and shall refrain from participating in any manner as an officer or employee in such decision.”

Arizona’s conflict of interest law centers on the concept of “substantial interest.” Substantial interest, for purposes of this law, refers only to a financial interest. In other words the public officer or employee of a public agency or relative must receive financial benefit. In strictly interpreting Arizona’s conflict of interest law, neither Frisoni nor her husband, Shumway, violated the law.

But…perception is reality often times. Julie Frisoni with her 12 years of employment with the City of Glendale wrote and reviewed many, many RFPs. She would have the knowledge required to write a successful RFP and would also have the knowledge, knowing Glendale’s financial condition, of what would be a successful dollar amount to request. Did she share that knowledge with her husband? That is your decision to make.

A successful award of the contract to Insight did not benefit Frisoni or her husband financially and therefore conflict of interest laws were not violated but were there other ways to benefit? Did Shumway benefit in greater status and clout within the company? Did the award by Glendale give him a leg up on the Insight corporate ladder that could result in a future promotion and a larger salary? Who knows? I don’t but that’s the kind of speculation that becomes rampant in this kind of situation.

What is apparent is although it appears to have been all above board it smells bad. It does raise a question. Did Frisoni sign a Conflict of Interest Disclosure? According to state law, “8.7 Disclosure of the Interest. Every political subdivision and public agency subject to A.R.S. §§ 38-501 to -511 must ‘maintain for public inspection in a special file all documents necessary to memorialize all disclosures of substantial interest made known pursuant to this article [A.R.S. §§ 38-501 to – 511].’A.R.S. § 38-509. Any public officer or employee who has a conflict of interest in any agency decision or in the award of a contract must provide written disclosure of that interest in the agency’s special conflict of interest file. A.R.S. § 38-503(A), (B). The officer or employee may either file a signed written disclosure statement fully disclosing the interest or file a copy of the official minutes of the agency which fully discloses the interest. A.R.S. §§ 38-502(3), -509.” I have filed a Public Records Request today to see if Frisoni did indeed sign such a disclosure. What if it is discovered that Frisoni did not file a signed disclosure statement? The penalty could be as severe as a class 5 or 6 felony.

Another part of state law relates to doing business with the public agency with which the person was employed and states, “8.11 Representation of Others After Leaving Public Service. State law also places restrictions on representation of others when a public officer or employee departs from state service. In particular, A.R.S. § 38-504(A) provides:

A public officer or employee shall not represent another person for compensation before a public agency by which the officer or employee is or was employed within the preceding twelve months or on which the officer or employee serves or served within the preceding twelve months concerning any matter with which such officer or employee was directly concerned and in which the officer or employee personally participated during the officer’s or employee’s employment or service by a substantial and material exercise of administrative discretion.” This sanction is clear cut. It remains rumored that Fischer and Frisoni are going to partner in their own communication agency. According to this provision neither one can do business or represent a client doing business with Glendale for 12 months. Since both were senior management it is reasonable to acknowledge that each was “directly concerned or personally participated” on every conceivable issue within the city.

So, faithful blog readers, it appears that Frisoni and her husband, Shumway did not violate the Arizona Conflict of Interest law. What about the spirit of the law?

© 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.

Mar 15

24

Westgate parking garage to cost $46+ million and counting

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 24, 2015
Posted in Arizona Cardinals • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • University of Phoenix Stadium  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 8 Comments

It has been 17 years and 82 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

This afternoon, March 24, 2015 at 1:30 PM the city council will be meeting in workshop session to receive more information on the proposed Fiscal Year 2016-17 budget. The focus will be on the Capital Improvement Program.

The City of Glendale has posted the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 2016-2025 on its website.  Here is the link: CIPDRAFT3_24v

The current proposed CIP has no funding from the General Fund for anything other than construction of a parking garage at Westgate. One note: you will see funding for water, sewer and sanitation projects but their bond repayment is not from the General Fund. They are paid from stand alone Enterprise Funds and the Enterprise bonds issued are paid back from the rate payers who use those services. You will also see funding for some street and airport projects but the funding for those does not come from the General Fund either. They are funded from the voter approved, dedicated portion of the sales tax that goes into the Transportation Fund.

The city’s General Fund is used to pay ongoing operating (the largest line item being employee salaries) and maintenance expenses (for city facilities) as well as to pay back bonds that have been issued for the following categories:

  • Fund 1980 – Street/Parking bonds
  • Fund 2140 – Open Space/Trails bonds
  • Fund 2060 – Parks bonds
  • Fund 2160 – Library bonds
  • Fund 2040 – Public Safety bonds
  • Fund 2080 – Government Facilities bonds
  • Fund 2130 – Cultural Facility bonds
  • Fund 2100 – Economic Development bonds
  • Fund 2180 – Flood Control bonds                                                                                              

The major General Fund bond issuance in the draft CIP 2016-2015 is for a parking garage at Westgate. It is Project 68124, Parking garage at Westgate with the following schedule of funding:

  • FY 2016 $  2,404,337
  • FY 2017 $20,000,172
  • FY 2018 $23,999,730
  • TOTAL  $46,404,239

Within the General Fund bond capacity funding are a few, small street projects (about 3), each less than $350,000; $1.6 million to upgrade storm drains; and an upgrade of the police digital communication system for $1.9 million. There is nothing even considered until after 2020 for Open Space/Trails, Parks, Library, Government Facilities, Cultural Facilities or Economic Development. These are all quality-of-life amenities that make a city great. They are the projects that attract new residents to Glendale and new businesses that appreciate the amenities that will help them attract quality employees. All of that is forsaken for a new parking structure at Westgate for over $46 million dollars. Trust me…that price tag will increase over time.

This new parking garage will cost a little under a million dollars annually for utilities and maintenance. A new operating expense will be added to the General Fund. For the past ten years staff was required to show where new money for a new operating expense would come from. The narrative for this expense within this CIP is cursorily dismissed with “Additional O and M will be absorbed within the current operating budget.”

The bottom line is that Glendale still has a structural deficit. To date, former City Manager Fischer and the Director of Finance, Tom Duensing, have used band aids. They have refinanced the city’s debt (done previously and historically when the market is favorable) and they have relied on making the temporary sales tax increase permanent. They have never attacked the real problem – the city is spending more than it takes in while it’s major debt components (construction debt for the arena and ball park and the annual $15 million dollar payment to Ice Arizona for managing the arena) bleeds the city dry.

Until senior management decides to live within its means by cutting General Fund expenses and resolves the construction debt burden and the $15 million annual payment burden we won’t see the city build amenities that can be used by its residents.

Apparently senior management believes there is some debt repayment capacity within the General Fund. What is it being used for? A parking garage at Westgate. Can you imagine what could be done with $46 million dollars? The city could build the West Branch Library, and still have money left over to renovate and upgrade existing parks and build some new parks as well. In other words, that money could be used to upgrade your quality-of-life and attract new business development to Glendale.

Why a parking garage at Westgate now? There is a 2002 contractual obligation with the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority (I no longer have a copy of the agreement) that requires the city to guarantee 6,000 parking spaces for games. Those spaces have been located within Westgate since the stadium opened. As Westgate’s land is used for new development those 6,000 spaces diminish. However, there is still a great deal of raw land to the east and north within Westgate. The purpose of the Youth Sports fields construction just to the east of the stadium was to relieve any parking spaces lost in Westgate proper. It provides 4,000 to 6,000 overflow parking spaces that still fulfill the agreement’s requirement for parking. Apparently that’s not good enough for the Bidwill’s who have been grousing and pushing for this parking garage for several years. So, the city has caved and will build the parking garage to be completed by the end of 2017. Great for the Bidwills…not so great for the residents of Glendale.

It’s a matter of priorities. It seems the greatest priority is to build a parking garage in Westgate while bonding for another $46 + million dollars and lesser priorities — to be fulfilled someday — are the quality-of-life amenities that Glendale citizens can enjoy.  Is this your priority? If not, what are you going to do about it? Sit back and eat it? Or let your councilmembers know what matters to you?

© 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.

 

Mar 15

20

Glendale council special workshop meeting

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 20, 2015
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale's Fire Union  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

On Monday, March 16, 2015 the Glendale city council held a special workshop meeting. The only agenda item was the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRC). There were 4 presenters: Brian Jeffries, President of the Professional Firefighters of Arizona (PFFA); Scott McCarty, representing the Arizona League of Cities and Towns Pension Reform Task Force; Justin Harris, President of the Glendale Law Enforcement Association (GLEA) and Secretary of the Arizona Police Officers Association (APOA); and Julie Pendergast, President of the Glendale Chapter of the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police (Glendale FOP) and Co-Chair of the Glendale Law Enforcement Coalition (GLEA +GFOP).

Mr. Jeffries (PFFA) began with a 35 minute presentation of the history and background of the PSPRC; legal challenges as a result of SB 1609 passed by the Arizona Legislature in 2014; and the state fire union’s call for a constitutional amendment to the state constitution. Mr. Jeffries was articulate and offered a slick presentation. One can appreciate why he is the president of the state fire union.

He acknowledged as their partners in seeking a constitutional amendment several law firms hired by the union; TriAdvocates hired by the union as their communications arm; the Fire Chiefs Union and the Fire Districts Association; and last but not least, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Arizona Police Association and the Arizona Highway Patrol Association.

He did clarify at one point, that while law enforcement had attended fire’s meetings on the issue of pension reform it was there to observe rather than as an active participant.

In essence, Jeffries was asking for council to sign on as a supporter of their constitutional amendment proposal. Their fire referendum’s basic language states, “The benefits of the beneficiaries shall neither be diminished nor impaired except for the provisions on Bill xxxx (sic), as passed by the legislature in 2014.” I don’t pretend to be an expert on SB 1609 and its provisions but it appears as if the fire union really, really wants this bill – to the extent that they want it to be a constitutional amendment. They don’t appear to be interested in true pension reform.

There have been lawsuits filed against SB 1609 and in the Harris case, one provision relating to retiree benefits has been struck down successfully. Another case, the Hall case relating to active personnel benefits, looks like it, too, will be struck down successfully.

Despite those provisions being removed the fire union still wants this bill to remain in perpetuity. Jeffries threw down the gauntlet when he proclaimed that the fire union wanted action now and were prepared to mount a statewide referendum campaign to get it on the ballot this year. We should all be asking, why the rush? Next year, 2016, there will be a presidential election and it could be on the ballot at that time. Instead they are ready to fund it and run it as a full, political operation with TV advertising, direct mail and a statewide grassroots effort – now, right now. The question remains, why?

The next presenter, Scott McCarty represents the Arizona League of Cities and Towns. The league, last June, put together a task force on pension reform. The League is taking a measured approach and is currently preparing a Draft Yardstick of pension reform goals, measurements and outcomes. In May or June of this year, they will compare the fire union’s proposal against their Draft Yardstick and by August, 2015 they will present their proposal for pension reform along with their findings of the fire union proposal to all participating cities at their Annual League Meeting.

Last up were Justin Harris (GLEA) and Julie Pendergast (Glendale FOP). Mr. Harris spoke on behalf of both Glendale police unions. He disputed Jefferies’ assertions that the police were on board by unequivocally stating, “The police union is not working in ‘concert’ with the fire union.” He went on to say, “Currently the police union is at odds with the fire union over an agreeable solution.” He said, “The police union wants a plan that is legitimate, legal and long standing.” If Mr. Jeffries’ statements about police union support for this constitutional amendment were in fact, misstatements, what else in his presentation was a misstatement?

Mayor Weiers made some interesting comments. He explained that at the time SB 1069 was introduced, he was Chair of the House Rules Committee. Upon legal advice he came to the opinion that SB 1069 was unconstitutional and would face legal challenges. Kirk Adams was former House Speaker and fully supported SB 1069. In essence, Mayor Weiers said Adams threatened him with removal of his chairmanship if he did not pass SB 1069 out of committee. Weiers acceded.

Weiers also stated that Mike Colletto of the Professional Fire Fighters Association was opposed to the bill but eventually caved and joined in signing off on it. It just so happens that Kirk Adams is Chief of Staff for newly elected Governor Doug Ducey. So don’t be surprised if the fire union effort eventually receives an endorsement from the Governor’s office.

Mayor Weiers then asked Acting City Manager Dick Bowers if this agenda item was informational or required direction because…he and the rest of council had received an email from…you, guessed it…Councilmember Gary Sherwood…asking that council give direction to place this item on an evening voting meeting agenda so that council could support the fire union’s proposed statewide referendum. Doesn’t Sherwood ever quit?

Councilmember Chavira, a firefighter for Phoenix, just couldn’t stand Mayor Weiers’ characterization of his self proclaimed mentor, Mike Colletto and said, “I never saw Mike Colleto cave on anything.” After thanking Jeffries profusely for his “complete presentation” (he almost said “complex”) he then went on to chide the council by stating the need for “solidarity” between the two unions implying that shamefully the police unions were not standing toe to toe with their brother union.

The most important lesson coming out of this informational presentation is that cooler heads…a majority of them…prevail. Those cooler heads are willing to take the time necessary to come up with public safety pension reform, built on compromise, that will stand up to legal challenge and last over time. The fire union’s proposed constitutional amendment speaks to a hidden agenda…what do you think it is?

© 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.

Mar 15

19

Fischer’s departure

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 19, 2015
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale's Fire Union  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 2 Comments

March 19, 2015….17 years and 78 days without a West Branch Library

Please note: From now on my header will contain the length of time West Glendale has been waiting for its long promised library.

It’s only been a few weeks since former City Manager Brenda Fischer resigned and her “publicists” remain hard at work. I have no doubt there will be more positive stories planted in the local media about the “great job” Fischer did in her 17 months in Glendale.

On March 13, 2015 Eric Jay Toll authored an article entitled “The two sides of the Fischer-Weiers split” in the Phoenix Business Journal. Unfortunately unless one has a paid subscription one cannot read the entire article as the website only posts a paragraph or two. As luck would have it, my neighbor does subscribe and gave me his copy.

There was one very notable quote in the article. “Brenda Fischer was good to employees, and she was good for business in the city,” said Glendale Firefighters Association President Joe Hester. “When she left, it was an extreme disappointment. I’ve worked with a number of city managers and she was the first one I’ve worked with who was fully transparent, operated with integrity and had a word that could be trusted.”

Is Joe Hester implying that Interim City Manager Dick Bowers is not “fully transparent,” does not “operate with integrity” and his word is not to “be trusted?” After all, Hester states categorically that she was the first city manger that he worked with who embodied those qualities. Dick Bowers, former City Manager of Scottsdale for many years, is a person with an impeccable reputation of the utmost integrity, transparency and trust. If I were Mr. Bowers I would be none too happy with Mr. Hester’s remarks.

Hester has only been President of the Glendale Firefighters Association for a few years. As president of the union he did not work with Dr. Martin Vanacour, Glendale’s City Manager from 1985 to 2001. If he worked with Glendale’s next City Manager from 2001 to 2012, Ed Beasley, it was for a very brief time prior to Beasley’s departure. So who did Hester work with? That leaves Horatio Skeete, City Manager for about 4 or 5 months in 2012; Dick Bowers for approximately 8 months in 2012 to 2013; Brenda Fischer for 17 months from 2013 to 2015; and now Dick Bowers again. It appears that the number of city managers with whom Hester has worked is three. His characterization of a “number of city managers” would lead one to believe that there have been scads of them. Hmmm.

Then again, of course Mr. Hester was delighted to have Fischer as Glendale’s city manager and why not? Ms. Fischer’s husband was, and may still be for all I know, a firefighter in Henderson, Nevada. It is understandable that Ms. Fischer’s natural bias would be in favor of the firefighters. Wouldn’t Hester feel he had a sympathetic ear when it came to firefighter goals and issues?

Mr. Hester also stated that Ms. Fischer was “good for business in the city.” Perhaps he should have checked with Robert Heidt Jr., President and CEO of the Glendale Chamber of Commerce. I don’t think anyone has forgotten Ms. Fischer’s temper tantrum directed at Mr. Heidt at the Yard House restaurant…a very public place.

Mr. Toll’s headline for his article, “The two sides of the Fischer-Weiers split” implies that Mayor Weiers was responsible for her leaving. Not so. Ms. Fischer was capable of causing it all on her own. Her actions including promoting Julie Frisoni as Assistant City Manager when she was unqualified for the position at the time; her very public berating of the Glendale Chamber President; her perceived advocacy for one councilmember’s (Gary Sherwood) agenda; and her brazen request for three sitting councilmember’s emails were more than enough to sour a majority of council on her leadership.

Many have come to the conclusion that Ms. Fischer orchestrated her own demise as Glendale’s city manager.

© 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.

Mar 15

18

Build it and they will come

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 18, 2015
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , | 4 Comments

My hope is that all of the hundreds of Glendale library patrons who fought so hard to save Foothills Library will fight just as hard to demand that the West Branch Library become a reality.

With all of the recent discussion of the possible sale of the Foothills library building it’s a good time to review promises made by the city with regard to the construction of the West Branch Library.

In 1997 the city was considering reneging on its first promise to West Glendale residents by allowing land earmarked for a major regional park in the city’s General Plan document to be rezoned for homes. West Glendale residents were successful in defeating that proposal and insisted the city immediately purchase the land at the northeast corner of Bethany Home Road and 83rd for its promised regional park. The city did so and the land was acquired.

Major city facilities such as the construction of libraries and parks are placed within the city’s Capital Improvement Program or CIP. The first time we see the West Branch library appear in the city’s CIP is Fiscal Year 1998-99 when funds were allocated for Fiscal Year 2001-02 to design the library with construction slated to begin in Fiscal Year 2004. That was 17 years ago. Obviously, none of these scheduled events happened. Instead there was a steady erosion and slippage of dates.

  • From Fiscal Years 1998 to 2000 the scheduled completion of the library was 2004
  • From Fiscal Year 2002 to 2003 the scheduled completion of the library was 2005
  • From Fiscal Years 2003 to 2005 the scheduled completion of the library was 2006
  • From Fiscal Years 2005 to 2008 the scheduled completion of the library was 2009
  • From Fiscal Years 2008 to 2009 the scheduled completion of the library was 2010
  • From Fiscal Years 2009 to 2012 the scheduled completion of the library was 2020
  • From Fiscal Years 2012 to present the library has no funding allocated until after 2024

If the West Branch library had been built as promised, “by 2010 the West Branch Library will serve a population of approximately 50,000 in the western area of Glendale, and it is anticipated that more than 1,000 people per day will utilize the services of this branch” (quote from staff presentation at the September 16, 2008 city council workshop meeting). Nothing demonstrates the need for a West Branch Library today better than this quote.

The rationale for not building the west branch library can be attributed to the adoption by a majority of council mandating that there be enough new revenue in the General Fund to support the annual costs of opening and operating a new CIP facility. This criterion was not used to approve the Foothills library. It was crafted later by the former mayor and her coalition when there arose yet another discussion about approval for construction of the West branch library. In a span of 7 years, from the opening of the Foothills library in 1999 to the opening of the Foothills Recreation & Aquatic Center, north Glendale received over $20 million dollars worth of CIP projects. West Glendale received squat.

The majority of councilmembers that consistently voted in line with the former mayor for any CIP project but the west branch library were Eggleston, Frate, Martinez, Goulet and Knaack (all former councilmembers serving differing terms). In 2006 a majority of council diverted $6 million dollars of west branch library construction funding to assist in the construction funding of the Public Safety Training Facility.

Every time the west branch library was on an agenda the “gang” created a new rationale. Before the effects of the Great Recession stopped all CIP projects, they had pitted building a new courthouse against the west branch library and would have funded that first as a means of further delaying the library.

There was a time, in the early 2000s, when council realized the necessity and value in developing amenities such as a library, recreation center, baseball fields, a fishing lake and dog park in west Glendale that would attract high quality residential and commercial development but that evaporated with the advent of the former mayor whose agenda was to block construction of city amenities in west Glendale.

It’s time…17 years is a long time to wait to have the city make good on its promise…for Glendale residents to bring this issue to the forefront once again. It should be requested that as CIP funding becomes available, the West Branch Library must be considered a priority. West Glendale is “amenity poor” and it’s time that this city council redresses a wrong committed by others many years ago.

Oh, and while you are at it, demand that the city replace the O’Neil Swimming pool at Missouri Avenue and 65th Avenue. The city shut it down several years ago because the cost of repair was prohibitive. It was the only city pool west of 59th Avenue and it served some of the city’s poorest demograhic area.

© 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.

Mar 15

17

Foothills library sale DOA

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 17, 2015
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , | 27 Comments

The Glendale city council is meeting in workshop today, March 17, 2015. At 10 AM Mayor Jerry Weiers officially declared the proposal to sell the library building and relocate the library to the Foothills Recreation & Aquatic Center as dead.

Many people deserve thanks. First and foremost the residents of Glendale are to be congratulated for their participation in the process. Many of you attended all six public meetings on the issue. Others made public comment either at the meetings, on comment cards, by calling a city hotline, or by sending email’s or letters to the mayor and council. Your efforts made the difference. Your expression of support for Glendale’s entire library system was noted.

Thanks also to the the three boards and commissions, Arts, Parks & Recreation and Library, that received information on the issue, listened to public comment, deliberated with serious consideration and recommended denial of the proposal to the city council.

Thanks to the city council for listening to the voices of the people and refusing to move forward with the proposal. They did their jobs in representing their constituents.

Thanks to Parks, Library and Recreation Director Erik Strunk and Chief Librarian Michael Beck for withstanding the public criticism of this proposal with grace and respect.

Councilmember Bart Turner offered an idea to provide library services in west Glendale by utilizing space within Glendale’s Media Center at Westgate. Glendale staff will now be tasked with researching the suggestion. I applaud Councilmember Turner’s suggestion and should it become reality, it is not a substitute for Glendale’s long term promise to establish a stand-alone, dedicated library building at Hero’s Park at 83rd Avenue and Bethany Home Road. It is an excellent interim solution to the lack of service we, who live in the Yucca district, have experienced for 15 years but it should not be considered the ultimate solution.

Once again, congratulations to all who participated in the process of consideration of the proposal. Job well done by all.

© 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.

 

Mar 15

16

Updates

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 16, 2015
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale and the NFL Super Bowl • Glendale elected officials • Glendale zoning issues • University of Phoenix Stadium  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

  • The Recall Councilman Gary Sherwood finally has its website up and running. Here is the link: http://www.stopsherwood.com .If you live in the Sahuaro district please share this site with your friends and neighbors. Below you will note an upcoming meeting on Becker billboards. Sherwood has been an ardent advocate for Becker billboards and that issue is just one of the reasons for his recall.
  • On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 9:30 AM at Glendale City Hall in the Council Chambers city council will hold a workshop meeting. Item #1 on its agenda is to receive the recommendations of the three citizen commissions. There is no opportunity for public comment. City Council does not vote at a workshop meeting. They discuss an issue and present their positions. A consensus if formed and further direction is given to staff by council. There are only 3 possible directions that can be given by council tomorrow: rejection of the proposal to sell the Foothills library building and its relocation to the Foothills Recreation & Aquatic Center; tabling the item for further information and discussion; or direction to move forward with the proposal.
  • A neighborhood meeting hosted by Mark Becker of Becker Billboards is scheduled for this coming Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at the Arrowhead Elementary School at 6:00 PM. He is again seeking city approval to place digital and static billboards at the Loop 101 and Bell Road. Glendale planning staff will be in attendance to listen and take notes.
  • On March 4, 2015 I made a Public Records Request for costs associated with three recent events held at the University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale – the Fiesta Bowl, the Pro Bowl Records request Mar 4 2015and the Super Bowl. What you may or may not know is that preparation for the Super Bowl began the day after it was announced that Glendale would be the host city. Glendale personnel were involved in visiting the previous year’s Super Bowl; were involved in countless hours of preparation; met with various Valley city agencies in joint preparation; and met with the Host Committee and NFL representatives. City supplies and vehicles were used. There were times when the hours used by employees went beyond the standard 40 hour work week and time and half pay or special pay was used. Many employees were involved from the City Attorney’s Office to the Zoning Department. Here is the text of my Public Records Request:

“The total cost of hosting the Pro Bowl, Fiesta Bowl and Super Bowl to the City of Glendale to include the following:

  1. The cost attributable to each event of planning for, preparation for, game day hosting and after actions.
  2. A list of all departments that contributed, by event, in any way, including but not limited to Public Safety but any and all departments involved from the Attorney’s Office to Zoning (A to Z).
  3. The number of employees used for each event from all departments you list, including but not limited to consultants, contract employees or regular (salaried and at will) employees.
  4. The number of hours attributable to each event, by department, including but not limited to planning, preparing, acting upon and after action review of these 3 major events.
  5. The total dollar figure for employee costs attributable to each event, including but not limited to, straight time pay, overtime pay, special pay, time and half pay. List of all employees by job title and department, dollar amount for each of those employees who received overtime pay, special pay, assignment pay, time and a half pay, bonuses, Police & Fire to include sworn and non-sworn administrative staff from those departments. Separate list for each of those three events.
  6. The total dollar figure attributable to each event, for use of all equipment by department from but not limited to vehicles to trash cans whether a city asset or rented.

The total of revenues earned by the City of Glendale directly attribute to each of the 3 events, including but not limited to sales tax, fees, in-kind contributions and reimbursed costs.

All information to be included from April 1, 2014 to March 4, 2015.”

Tom Duensing, Glendale’s Finance Director, has publicly stated that the cost of the Super Bowl was about $2 million dollars. I believe when all of the information and data I requested is researched and made available to me, the cost will be way over the $2 million dollar mark. You will note I also requested the city costs associated with the Fiesta Bowl and Pro Bowl. Those are additional real dollars and real costs borne by the city. I suspect the numbers will surprise everyone.

I asked for an extensive amount of data and do not expect the information to be supplied in a week. I do expect it within a reasonable time period — a month. After all, Mr. Duensing is already claiming a number but I don’t think he has included all of the hidden costs. I will advise readers of the date that my Public Records Request is fulfilled.

This is the kind of hard data that should have been provided to every councilmember and the public. I hope that the results of my request will be shared with them and with the public-at-large. It’s our tax dollars and we surely have a right to know.

© 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.

Mar 15

16

IceArizona submits audit to Glendale

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 16, 2015
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River Arena • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 13 Comments

On Friday, March 13, 2015 we learned that the Coyotes had finally finished their audit and submitted it to the City of Glendale. What is troublesome is the fact that the results were submitted to Glendale five months late. The first question is, why? IceArizona’s rationale is sure to be that the Barroway purchase was the cause of the delay. But his purchase was in December and it is now March. Audits do take time but not this much time.

Another troublesome aspect is IceArizona’s inability to abide by the arena management agreement stipulation 8.16.1 (c) Annual Financial Reports, “Not later than 90 days after the end of each Fiscal Year (June 30), provided, that if all necessary information from the NHL related to the following items (a), (b) and (c) shall not have been received by the date which is 30 days after the end of each Fiscal Year, then interim reports shall be provided within the normal time frame and final reports shall be provided within 60 days after the receipt of all necessary information from the NHL related thereto): (a) a balance sheet relating to Arena Facility operations as to the end of such Fiscal Year, (b) a statement of profit or less for Arena Facility operations during such Fiscal Year, and (c) a statement of charge of financial condition for Arena Facility operations during such Fiscal Year, each prepared in accordance with GAAP as consistently applied (if there are multiple interpretations of the application of GAAP, GAAP as traditionally interpreted by the Arena Manager and the Team Owner shall apply) (collectively, the “Annual Financial Reports”), and accompanied by a report containing an opinion of the Arena Manager’s accountants, stating that such Annual Financial Reports relate, that such Annual Financial Reports have been prepared in accordance with GAAP as consistently applied and that the examination by the Arena Manager’s accountants in connection with such financial reports was made in accordance with GAAP.” The agreement then states in 8.17.1. Audits, “The City shall have the right to conduct an independent audit of the management and operation of the arena (or any part thereof) and the Account Records (or any part thereof) and the Team Owner Records (or any part thereof) by the City Staff or by an independent certified public accounting firm selected by the City.”

The City should have received an Interim Audit about October 1, 2014. Instead it received the Final Audit on March 13, 2015, five months late. On November 4, 2014 in anticipation of receiving the expected Audit, the City hired Proeminent Sports, LLC, and a Nevada limited liability company, to audit the information IceArizona was supposed to provide in a timely fashion and to present its findings by December 15, 2014.

Note that the City’s expectation was that the audit would take about Coyotes Audit contract_Page_26 weeks, not months and months and months. Tony Tavares, former president of the Anaheim Mighty Ducks and Los Angeles Angels and Managing Member of Proeminent Sports, is the lead in conducting the audit. Tavares just happened to have been involved with Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf in 2011 when Reinsdorf was trying to purchase the Coyotes from the NHL. Is there any conflict of interest?

On March 13, 2015 the media began sharing leaked results of the audit. Since the city has not publicly posted the audit results the leaking appeared to have been on the IceArizona side. What has been reported by some media traditionally sympathetic to the Coyotes is a total loss figure of $34,831,000.  It breaks out into operating losses of $16,458,000 and one time charges of $18,373,000. Their argument is that one should only look at the operating losses of nearly $16.5 million dollars and should not consider the nearly $18.4 million dollars in additional losses because they are one time charges and will not recur. They are correct in stating those specific charges will not recur but it is reasonable to assume that there will be other, onetime charges each and every year. While they will not be the specific ones attributed to this Fiscal Year, there are bound to be other onetime charges annually.

I attended the Blackhawks game last week and couldn’t help but notice that the majority of attendees were Hawks fans. The robust chants for the Hawks in our house were downright embarrassing. It appeared as if nearly every Coyotes ticket holder had sold their seats to Hawks fans. With a team that is not performing well it is not surprising to see the fan base shrink. Fans are fickle. Everyone loves a winner…a losing team? Not so much.  It may well be that operations and team revenue earnings will reflect this downward trend this Fiscal Year.

That brings us to the troublesome “out” clause that IceArizona may exercise after 5 years of losses totaling $50 million dollars or more. There has been considerable past discussion that lingers to this day over that particular clause. Many fans asked why the stipulation was necessary if the owners’ intent is to keep the team in Arizona. Others, from the Glendale resident side, called for the very same stipulation for the city. Quietly, oh so quietly, the IceArizona owners retained the “out” clause and the city never received such a stipulation in its favor. Is it any wonder that speculation about the owners’ long term intent has surfaced again upon learning that first year losses are $38.4 million dollars? After all, that figure is more than half of the $50 million dollars required in demonstrated loss before the owners can exercise the “out” clause.  

In a March 13, 2015 Craig Morgan story for FoxSports Arizona CEO Anthony LeBlanc stated, “Naysayers will try and bring up the out clause at every opportunity… It leads to a simple question: If the franchise is successful financially, why would you even consider exercising it? The out clause was a protection mechanism.” The better question is…if the franchise is successful financially, why are you, Mr. LeBlanc et.al, keeping it? There would be no speculation every time Las Vegas or Seattle is mentioned if there was no “out” clause.

© 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.

Mar 15

14

Foothills library and Becker billboards meetings this week

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 14, 2015
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 4 Comments

This Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 9:30 AM at Glendale city hall in the Council Chambers the city council will receive an update on the proposal to sell the building to Midwestern University and to relocate Foothills library to the Foothills Recreation & Aquatic Center. Since it is a council workshop the public does not have any opportunity to speak at this meeting but citizens can still make their voices heard silently by showing up in large numbers.

By all rights it should be DOA (dead on arrival). Hundreds of Glendale residents have voiced their disapproval by either contacting members of the council or speaking at public meetings. The three citizen commissions, the Arts Commission, the Parks & Recreation Commission and the Library Advisory Board, heard staff presentations and unanimously voted to send city council advisory recommendations of denial. It is undeniably clear that there is no citizen support for this idea and it deserves a merciful death. Let’s hope that March 17, 2015 will be the last day of consideration for this proposal.

A neighborhood meeting is scheduled for this coming Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at the Arrowhead Elementary School at 6:00 PM. Mark Becker is the host as he once again seeks city approval to place billboards at the Loop 101 and Bell Road. Glendale planning staff will be in attendance to listen and take notes.

This issue has returned like a bad penny. Almost a year ago to the day, March 24, 2014, Glendale city council voted 5-2 (Sherwood and BeckerMaps_Page_3Alvarez voted in favor) to deny the Becker billboard proposal (ZON 13-04). Glendale’s current ordinance only allows new billboards to be placed in M1 and M2 (light and heavy industrial) zoning areas. Perhaps it is time to revisit the ordinance and prohibit any new billboards anywhere in the City of Glendale. The current ordinance also restricts billboard height to 25 feet. Yet Becker billboards is asking for approval of 85 foot tall billboards.

You would think the issue died with the March, 2014 council denial. Not so. In October of 2014 Councilmembers Gary Sherwood and Sammy Chavira attempted and failed to resurrect the proposal by asking for a special council meeting for the purpose of rescinding the council’s March, 2014 votes. Their motives could be considered questionable. Did Sherwood push for a rescinding of the original billboard vote because Mark Becker and his family members donated to Sherwood’s election campaign? Did Sherwood push for a rescinding of the original billboard vote because Becker’s attorneys on the matter, nearly a dozen attorneys of the Rose Law group, contributed to Sherwood’s election campaign? And what about Sammy? In March of 2014 he voted against the billboard proposal. By October, 2014 he was actively supporting it. Was it at the request of his good friend, Gary Sherwood? Sammy and Sherwood seem to share the same record of flip-flopping on issues.

Now, a year later, Becker billboards is back with a more egregious proposal than the first one. This time they don’t want static billboards but a combination of digital and static and they want them to be 85 feet high. There’s an old adage, ‘don’t take no for an answer.’ Mark Becker and Gary Sherwood certainly didn’t. I guess Glendale’s residents are going to have to convince them once and for all, that no means no.

This information is courtesy of Rodeane Widom, former Glendale Library Director:  For readers who would like to get their opinion to the Mayor and City Council, here is a great link: http://www.gplfriends.org/15-105-agenda-item-for-relocation-of-the-foothills-library/

The Friends of Glendale Public Library have made the process very simple! Just add your name and send your letter off via email or snail mail.

© 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.

Mar 15

10

Casino assumptions wrong

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 10, 2015
Posted in Casino • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Westgate  | Tagged With: , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

I belong to a neighborhood website that encompasses my area as well as about a dozen other subdivisions adjacent to Westgate and the Tohono O’odham temporary casino (currently under construction). A few days ago a conversational thread began on the site reflecting residents’ opinions regarding the effects of a casino near all of us. About 7 people have posted their opinions to date. I feel compelled to dispel some of their assumptions.

A local realtor in the Westgreen Estates subdivision said, “I do not recall any values going down as a result of a casino being built.” It’s one of the first questions you hear when someone wants to build a casino somewhere near you. That question is what’s it going to do to my property value?

There is now enough data from other areas of the country and their experiences with a casino to prove property values are impacted negatively from a nearby casino. From American Attitudes on Development comes, “A nuclear power plant, while the least-favored type of power plant, would still be preferable to a landfill, a casino, or an aggregate quarry.” A Foxboro, Maine resident and realtor for 23 years offered this in an op-ed in the Foxboro Sun Chronicle, March 11, 2012. Foxborough was facing the prospect of a casino in its community. Based on his 23 years of real estate experience he said, “A casino is controversial. Anything controversial will cause some home buyers to exclude Foxboro and surrounding towns. This potential reduction in buyers will negatively affect the price and resale of homes here.” He went on to say, “A casino will change the demographics and feel of the town. The casino developer is setting aside funds to deal with the increased need in law enforcement the casino will bring. Many families moved to Foxboro because of the community feel. Any significant change in crime, drug abuse, alcohol abuse and, domestic violence, or any other demographics will change the feel and fabric of Foxboro and surrounding towns.”  A 2013 study by economists belonging to the National Association of Realtors concluded that, “the impact of casinos was ‘unambiguously negative’ on a housing market.”

I can hear the outrage from casino supporters now but the fact remains, while they support the casino, few property owners (including casino supporters) actually want to live near this casino. Most people understand that, at the very least, a casino operates 24/7 and will lead to an increase in crime, traffic congestion, drunken drivers, trash, tour buses and road noise – and that these things will be ultimately reflected in a reduction in property values.

None of the local resident responses asked about a casino and its effect on crime rates. Yet it is another area of concern. The following is an Abstract entitled Casinos, Crime and Community Costs by Earl L. Grinols and David B. Mustard, originally published in 1996 but this excerpt is from the Review of Economics and Statistics (February 2006). The authors say,“Casinos increased all crimes except murder, the crime with the least obvious connection to casinos. Most offenses showed that the impact of casinos on crime increased over time, a pattern very consistent with the theories of how casinos affect crime. The crime-ameliorating effects of casinos through increased employment opportunities and wages for low-skilled people will be concentrated shortly after opening. Between 5.5% and 30% of the different crimes in casino counties can be attributed to casinos.

“According to the study, five years after a casino opens, robbery in the community goes up 136 percent, aggravated assault is up 91 percent, auto theft is up 78 percent, burglary is up 50 percent, larceny is up 38 percent, rape is up 21 percent and murder is up 12 percent, compared to neighboring communities. Crime-lowering effects, like additional police and the new jobs represented by a casino are overwhelmed by rising crime increased by the presence of the casino, according to the study.”

Locals responding on this thread believed that traffic would be manageable. A resident of Westgreen Estates subdivision said, “We have enough open space to adapt to any increase traffic (sic).” A Rovey Farm subdivision resident said, “A quick drive around the other casinos in the valley will show you what kind of traffic to expect. (Not much).”

The Connecticut South Western Regional Planning Agency issued a Casino Traffic Impact Study in 2009.  “The purpose of this study was to estimate the possible traffic and air quality impacts of the development of a casino in Bridgeport.” The study concluded, “the development of a casino would have a significant impact on traffic congestion in southwestern Connecticut. Casino traffic is not seasonal because the number of trips to and from casinos is relatively consistent from month to month. Casinos operate 24 hours per day; there is no peak travel period to and from casinos thus traffic impacts of casinos may be experienced at all times of day.”

The increased traffic in the area will not just be due to the number of visitors to the casino. Add to that, traffic from employees as well as vendors and suppliers making deliveries with their semis at all hours of the day and night. Many transportation agencies in many states where casinos have located have done similar studies. All of these transportation studies recommend new transportation infrastructure whose costs are borne by you – the taxpayers. Increased traffic in our area will not be the result of an occasional Cardinals football game. Instead imagine that kind of traffic every day of the year, 24/7.

Yet other studies demonstrate sales tax revenue moving from other, traditional sources to a casino. In essence there is a shifting of sales tax revenue away from hotels and restaurants such as in Westgate, toward gambling facilities. Visitors and residents spend money on gambling that would otherwise be spent on other goods and services. This effect is known as “substitution.” There is also a shift of workers currently in one industry to the gambling industry. This is known as “displacement.”  This new development will take workers from other industries and move them into the casino industry. A New Hampshire study also offered, “For a standard casino, most patrons come from within 30 miles and participation declines exponentially as distance increases.”

So, respondents from Provence, Rovey Farm and Westgreen Estates, to the thread of discussion about casino impacts, be careful what you wish for. Then again, if you don’t mind a reduction in your property value, increased crime and increased traffic congestion, continue to welcome this casino that will most assuredly change the long treasured fabric of our community.

© 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.

« Previous Page — Next Page »