Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Aug 14

27

You get what you vote for

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 27, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

The 2014 Glendale Primary Election is now history and as expected there will be runoffs in all three Council districts – Cholla, Barrel and Ocotillo. How did the candidates fare?

In Cholla District the vote totals were:

  • Lauren Tolmachoff                    1,751
  • Gary Deardorff                         1,428
  • Robert Petrone                            531
  • Van DiCarlo                                400

Congratulations to Gary Deardorff and Lauren Tolmachoff who will face each other in the Glendale General Election in November. I will confess to being somewhat of a numbers nerd. Let’s dig a little deeper into the Cholla District.

  • Total number of Early Votes Cast                 3,467
  • Total number of Poll Votes Cast                      643
  • Total number of Votes Cast                         4,110
  • Total number of Registered Voters              20,549

Lauren Tolmachoff garnered 8.5% of the total number of registered voters in the Cholla district. Twenty percent (20%) or 4, 110 of all the Cholla district registered voters bothered to vote. The rest of the candidate field took even smaller percentages of all the voters in this district.

Let’s look at the Barrel District:

  • Bart Turner                                862
  • Randy Miller                               831
  • Reginald Martinez                       660
  • Michael Patino                            439
  • John Benjamin                           263

Congratulations to Bart Turner and Randy Miller who will face each other in the Glendale General Election in November. Here’s how the numbers shake out for the Barrel district.

  • Total number of Early Votes Cast                2,443
  • Total number of Poll Votes Cast                     612
  • Total number of Votes Cast                        3,055
  • Total number of Registered Voters            16,457

Bart Turner captured 5% of the total number of registered voters in the Barrel district. Eighteen percent (18%) or 3,055 of all the Barrel district registered voters bothered to vote. The rest of the field took smaller percentages of all of the voters in this district.

Lastly, there is the Ocotillo District:

  • Norma Alvarez                        503
  • Jamie Aldama                         406
  • Bud Zomok                             225
  • Michael Hernandez                  158

Congratulations to Norma Alvarez and Jamie Aldama who will face each other in the Glendale General Election in November. Here are the numbers for the Ocotillo district.

  • Total number of Early Votes Cast                    1,031
  • Total number of Poll Votes Cast                         261
  • Total number of Votes Cast                            1,292
  • Total number of Registered Voters                  8,619

Norma Alvarez took 5% of the total number of registered voters in the Ocotillo district. Nine percent (9%) of all the Ocotillo district registered voters bothered to vote. The rest of the field took smaller percentages of all of the voters in this district.

These figures should be dismaying and disappointing. There are 45,625 registered voters in these three districts. Out of that number a total of 8,457 voted. That’s 18% of all of the registered voters in these districts. 82% of the electorate were so disengaged or didn’t care enough to vote.

There you have it. Voter choices will be among: an incumbent – Alvarez; community activists – Turner and Aldama; and 3 business people – Miller, Deardorff and Tolmachoff. Let’s hope, although do not count on it, that the voter turnout is better than during the primary. The primary vote totals are scary. It is not just your right to vote. It is your obligation. There are many people throughout the world who wish they had the very right so many callously squander. Remember, dear voter, you get what you vote (or don’t bother to vote) for.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Aug 14

25

Feel free to post on your blog

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 25, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , | 2 Comments

Anon Ltr to Fischer

Anonymous letter to City Manager Fischer and City Council

Do you save stuff? I do. I save comments on timely issues, photos of ideas that someday I may be able to accomplish…all kinds of stuff. Lately the cleaning bug hit and I have been tackling a stack of “stuff.”

I ran across this letter. It was sent in December, 2013 to City Manager Brenda Fischer, the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, the Glendale City Council, the Arizona Republic and the Glendale Star. I received it in January, 2014. Unfortunately, it ended up in my stack of “stuff” where it has resided until today. I always meant to post it but obviously it disappeared into a morass of papers, never to see the light of day, until now.

It was sent anonymously. When there is a complaint from an unnamed source no agency will address the complaint.  Hence there would be no action and no follow-up taken regarding its contents. It is obviously written by current employees. I understand their fear and their reluctance to come forward and be identified for their very jobs would be on the line. They appear to have a lot of “inside baseball” information. It’s a shame that they did not provide any proof of their allegations. This blog has repeatedly shared that Ms. Frisoni was part of former City Manager Ed Beasley’s inner circle. One of the councilmembers (I no longer remember who) had publicly called out Councilmember Sherwood’s unseemly advocacy of Mr. Fischer’s candidacy during the council’s hiring process. I had been aware for years that Beasley held rehearsals of council meetings with staff taking the roles of various councilmembers. I was always curious as to who they used to play me. There appears to be a lot of “meat on the bones” of their allegations. Too bad there’s no concrete proof to substantiate them. They do make an interesting point and that is, Ms. Fischer encouraged employees to be anonymous and take their concerns to the media or the AG’s office, knowing full well that as anonymous complaints they would go nowhere. Mmmm…

Here is the text of their letter verbatim:

“Dear Ms. Fischer:

“As long time Glendale employees, we had high hopes when you were hired. We had hoped that the years of paranoia, suspicion and fear from the city manager’s office was over. It was not long after you started that we realized the reign would continue with a new face and some old ones. Your move to evaluate (sic) Julie Frisoni to acting assistant city manager was the start. You had to know that Julie Frisoni was one of Ed Beasley’s most trusted and loyal cohorts. How else would someone of her inadequate experience and limited education ever get hired. She was in on every deceptive move Ed every (sic) made. She sat in on every council meeting rehearsal, including those that are the focus of the recent audit. She knew everything!

“It wasn’t until we started to pull the pieces of the puzzle together that we uncovered why you will soon be making Julie your permanent assistant city manager. So we are accepting your offer to ‘go around management’, ‘go to the Attorney General’s Office anonymously’, or ‘anonymously informing the media, to put some public pressure’ on an issue.

“We know Councilmember Gary Sherwood met with you privately during your hiring process, which is a clear violation of common Human Resources practices. We know he was reprimanded by the city attorney’s office for secretly talking with you and advancing your application through the process. We know he put you in touch with Ms. Frisoni, who was a major, yet stealthy, player in his council election. We know the reason you promoted Ms. Frisoni was because Councilmember Sherwood asked you in exchange for his help in getting you hired. We know she is your closest confidant because Gary Sherwood surreptitiously used her to feed you information during your hiring process. We know her promotion is a ‘payback’ for insider information during your hiring. We know Ms. Frisoni was aware of and involved in Ed Beasley’s directives that led to the trust fund transfers. We know Ms. Frisoni was involved in the secret council meeting rehearsals with staff in which she used her media background to coach staff how to avoid answering questions from the mayor and council.  We know the reason the Arizona Cardinals and the Super Bowl Host committee are penalizing Glendale is because they refuse to work with Ms. Frisoni because of the years Ed Beasley, Craig Tindall and Julie undermined the city’s relationship with the team. We know Ms. Frisoni could have helped those that the audit focused on but because she was not in the spotlight she cowardly choose (sic) to protect her own skin which simply shows the type of person she has become. We know Ms. Frisoni and media relations team spent years misleading the media, including the Glendale Star and the Arizona Republic. We know Bill Toops repeatedly complained about Ms. Frisoni’s inability and unwillingness to release information through the public records process. We know Ed Beasley and Julie Frisoni helped to cover for Alma Carmichael as she ‘telecommuted’ from Mississippi and Art Lynch as he bleed (sic) the city for his own personal benefit. We know Julie Frisoni mislead former Mayor Elaine Scruggs and former and current councilmembers to cover for Ed Beasley’s crimes. We also know this letter will not deter you from promoting Julie Frisoni but perhaps it will make you wonder how someone with Julie’s immoral history will ever help you to become an effective city manager with Glendale employees, businesses and residents.

“We don’t know, but do hope, that both the Arizona Republic and the Glendale Star will print this letter because you asked Glendale employees to come forward anonymously and that is what we are doing.

“Ms. Fischer, we are dedicated employees who can’t afford to take your suggestion to resign if we don’t like it in Glendale so we have elected to follow your advice and make our voices heard to the media, the Attorney General’s Office and the Glendale City Council.

“We had high hopes for a new administration, but with Julie Frisoni as your side, it’s simply more of the same fear mongering, backstabbing, council destabilizing and anxiety riddled days that we have known for so long and learned in which to survive.

“Signed,

“Anonymous (as requested by you)

“CC: Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Glendale City Council, The Arizona Republic, The Glendale Star”

I don’t know if I would have expected the media to print an anonymous letter but aren’t you curious why, 8 months later, the media has not investigated any of these allegations? My apology to “Anonymous” for not blogging on this sooner…much, much sooner. My only advice would be to put “some meat on those bones.”

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Aug 14

24

One more time

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 24, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , | 5 Comments

I votedThis Tuesday, August 26, 2014 voters will go to the polls and vote for the candidates of their choice. If you don’t vote then you are part of the problem and have lost the right to complain about your representative. Glendale’s three district elections are quite important and could determine Glendale’s future for many years to come.

Let’s focus on the Ocotillo district for a moment. Choices are current Councilmember Norma Alvarez; a more polished and slicker version of Alvarez, Jamie Aldama; Michael Hernandez, nearly invisible; and Bud Zomok.

On August 13, 2014 I received a voice message from Councilmember Alvarez. In the space of 62 seconds she managed to call me a liar three times, reminded me I am only an ex-councilmember and then invited me to a verbal duel, of sorts. She suggested we meet and bring “seconds” as witnesses or perhaps the purpose of the “second” would be to drag one of our mangled bodies off the field of verbal combat. As I have said before, one of my favorite sayings is, I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

Ocotillo residents need a strong, sane voice of reasonable representation. Two candidates, Alvarez and Aldama, seem to have their own agendas that are often not in sync with ALL of the residents of the Ocotillo district. For that reason and many more, I urge Ocotillo voters to select Bud Zomok.

Please note there are two picks for the Cholla district and the Sahuaro district. As stated previously, with so many candidates in each district, it is not anticipated that any candidate will capture 50% plus 1 in the Primary Election this Tuesday. This blog’s picks for the three districts are as follows:

Cholla District

  • Van DiCarlo
  • Lauren Tolmachoff

Barrel District

  • Randy Miller
  • Bart Turner

Ocotillo District

  • Bud Zomok

Good luck to all of the candidates who put themselves before the public.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Aug 14

16

Remember…

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 16, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Tohono O'odham  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

On August 14, 2014 two referendum petition packets were taken out for the purpose of obtaining Glendale residents’ signatures. If successful, the two actions taken by the Glendale City Council at its meeting on August 12, 2014 will be decided in an election by the people…as it should be. Glendale’s City Attorney, Michael Bailey, said publicly that neither council vote is referable. In other words, no one can take out a petition to try to overturn the council votes. The Tribal attorneys believe it is referable. When the signed petitions are turned in expect Glendale to reject them. Expect a law suit resulting in yet another judicial decision about Glendale’s ultimate fate.

Here is the text of the first referendum action. It seeks to overturn the council’s vote welcoming a reservation and casino within Glendale: “The Tohono O’Odham casino, targeted for a Glendale neighborhood near homes, schools, daycares and houses of worship, will destroy neighborhoods and create severe budget stress for the nearly bankrupt City, overburdening Glendale’s public safety, street and infrastructure. This petition seeks to refer the August 12, 2014 Glendale City Council vote to agree to the creation of a 121-acre Indian reservation at 91st and Northern avenues. A “no” vote on this referral will overturn the Council’s decision to support a reservation and a casino and respect the NO casino promise, protecting City residents and the Glendale’s budget and core services.”

The second referendum petition seeks to overturn the council approved agreement between the City of Glendale and the Tohono O’odham: “The Tohono O’Odham casino, targeted for a Glendale neighborhood near homes, schools, daycares and house of worship, will destroy neighborhoods and create severe budget stress for the nearly bankrupt City, overburdening Glendale’s public safety, streets and infrastructure. This petition seeks to refer the August 12, 2014 Glendale City Council vote to sign a settlement agreement with the Tohono O’odham Nation in support of the Tribe’s neighborhood casino. A “no” vote on this referral will overturn the Council’s pro-casino decision and respect the NO casino promise, protecting City residents and the Glendale’s budget and core services.”

The pro casino people have already begun their campaign of ridicule and denigration of the referendum petition effort saying, “it’s all about money…the other Tribes do not want the competition of another casino.” Of course it’s about the money. Everyone has their hand in the money pot…the Tohono O’odham, the City of Glendale and the other Tribes.

To accept that their referendum effort is ONLY about “the money” is simplistic, self-serving and makes for great PR but misses the mark. There is a greater imperative for the Gila River Indian Community, the Salt River-Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and all of the Tribes across the state supporting efforts of these two lead Tribes.

As President of the Salt River-Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, Diane Enos, said, “They looked us in the face and lied.”  She is referring to the Tohono O’odham, a member of the coalition of Tribes that negotiated the gaming compact with the state. The TO actively and publicly worked to get voters of the state to approve the compact while deliberately keeping from its Sister Tribes its ultimate plan to put a casino in the Phoenix Metro Area. In fact, it contributed a great deal of money to publicize and to advance the compact with the state’s voters.

The Tohono O’odham lied to its Sister Tribes. It betrayed them. Why? For the money. The Tohono O’odham lied to the State and to every voter who approved the gaming compact. Why? For the money. But somehow for the pro casino supporters that’s supposed to be OK?

Why is the TO’s action simply ignored by the pro casino supporters? For the money.  For all of the Tribes throughout Arizona it is a matter of honor, respect and trust…all of which the TO deliberately chose to betray. That is the real reason the Tribes are driven to oppose the Tohono O’odham’s plans.

If an opportunity to vote on the Tohono O’odham’s casino plans do make it to a Glendale ballot that is what the voters of Glendale should remember. “They looked us in the face and lied.”

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Aug 14

14

So much for transparency

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 14, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Tohono O'odham  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 15 Comments

During my last four years on city council, from the time the Tohono O’odham publicly announced their intent to build a casino within Glendale, I would take notes from presentations and comments of staff regarding the casino’s impact on Glendale. While they retain the essence of the statements made, I did not have the time or opportunity to write the comments verbatim. The other day I was cleaning out some old folder files and I ran across the file where I had been keeping these notes. The following was represented to me and the rest of city council by staff from 2009 to 2012.

This was said with regard to the Nation’s gaming application—  However, the issue of “first impression” within Arizona is a major one. It means that this action if granted would be precedent setting in that it would establish an Indian reservation where one did not previously exist. It may be the first attempt to do so in the nation. It is the first step to create a free for all system that establishes “off-reservation” gaming, not just in Arizona but in the nation.

Glendale staff in meeting with the Tohono O’odham attempted to ascertain more specific information. The Nation would not offer anything beyond conceptuals. Staff, after meeting with the Nation, offered the scope of the project as it was presented to them:

  • 134 acres of land
  • 1.2 million square foot complex
  • Cost of construction approx. $550 million
  • 6,000 construction jobs
  • 3,000 permanent jobs

Gaming portion:

  • 150,000 square feet
  • 1,089 machines
  • 50 tables
  • 25 poker tables
  • 1,000 seat bingo hall 

Spa/Hotel portion:

  • 480 rooms
  • 120 suites
  • 180,000 square foot convention center
  • 40,000 square foot event center

Amenities/Services:

  • 30,000 square feet of retail
  • 5 restaurants
  • 1 food court
  • 2 buffets
  • 1 coffee shop 
  • 2 bars
  • 1 nightclub

Issues identified by staff during the years of 2009 to 2012 included:

  • City’s General Plan has area designated as Corporate Commerce Center with less density and impact.
  • Sales tax revenue anticipated to be lost is $2 million a year or $40 million over 20 years as city cannot collect sales tax from federal land and that removes the land from producing sales tax for the city with other non-Indian uses.
  • There are revenues that flow to the state from gaming. However 88% percent goes directly to the state. The other 12% is distributed to all cities and counties with no larger share or preference to the host city or county.
  • The project will generate jobs but nearly all will be minimum wage employment.
  • Gaming revenues siphon off discretionary income that could have been spent elsewhere in the City
  • Staff projects water demand to be 600,000 gallons per day gpd (gallons per day). Projected wastewater demand to be 400,000 gpd. If they use the on-site well that is available to them it would impact our groundwater table. 
  • Estimated Impact fees loss is $299,500.
  • Police estimate an additional 8,500 calls for service necessitating an additional 11 officers at a cost of $950,903. There is also the problem of suspects committing crime in adjacent areas and fleeing to reservation where Glendale Police have no jurisdiction. Anticipated calls for service expected to be high due to the casino being open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 
  • Fire anticipates the need for an additional fire station costing:
  • 18 additional fire fighters
  • $2.8 annually for Operating & Maintenance costs
  • $14.6 million for land acquisition and construction
  • In addition, there is no mutual aid agreement for off-site service (reservation). Can be negotiated perhaps but no guarantee of total cost recovery.
  • Transportation estimates 20,000 one-way trips per day on weekdays and 30,000 one-way trips per day on weekends. It will generate 8.34 million additional trips in the area per year. There could be traffic conflicts on stadium and arena event days.
  • There is a possible impact on the Northern Parkway Project. 225 feet of right-of-way is needed on the south side of Northern between the Loop 101 and 91st Avenue. Tribe may or may not participate.

 

There are several reasons why I decided to use my old, newly discovered notes. Despite the city council’s inappropriate action this issue is not yet decided. There is still Tribal litigation to be decided and there is still Congressional legislation pending. I would anticipate Referendum petitions on the 2 council actions taken on August 12, 2014. If successful, the voters will decide Glendale’s final position.

Another reason for using them is to ask the question, was this information given to the current council? With senior administrative staff knowing that a majority of council now supports the proposed casino, they may have thought it unwise to fully inform the council. That is no excuse. Council should have had this information. If council did have this kind of information and a majority chose to ignore it and its implications of cost to Glendale, then they are not serving the best interests of Glendale.

Lastly, it is information that should be public. The citizens of Glendale have the right to know that there are costs to Glendale that have not been addressed in the recently approved agreement. I would expect the current senior administration to disavow the facts presented above, especially with regard to water and public safety. They have been given their marching orders to embrace the casino project. The question remains, why weren’t these issues and the costs associated with them addressed in the approved agreement? So much for transparency.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Aug 14

13

Train Wreck

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 13, 2014
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Jobing.com arena • Tohono O'odham  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | 14 Comments

20140812_193537The August 12, 2014 meeting of the Glendale City Council was like watching a train wreck in slow motion. You know the inevitable outcome; you know it will be extremely painful; but you are utterly powerless to stop it. All you can do is watch it unfold. This is the first council meeting I attended since leaving office over a year and a half ago. People have been telling me for months that the animosity among councilmembers was evident. I thought OK, there were times when our council meetings were not happy affairs. Little did I know that the atmosphere reeked of councilmember nastiness and disrespect. It was palpable fueled by the absolute arrogance of the council majority (Sherwood, Hugh, Alvarez and Chavira). The meeting was not unusual as council sped through proclamations and the consent agenda. The last two items were casino related. One was council approval of the draft agreement between the Tohono O’odham and Glendale. The other was the first official groveling of the city council with a resolution supporting the construction of the casino.  All hell broke loose. The draft agreement was introduced and recited by Michael Bailey, Glendale’s City Attorney. Mayor Weiers opened the public comment portion. There were 22 speakers to the item. 15 citizens spoke in opposition to the draft agreement and 7 spoke in favor of the draft agreement. The speakers’ comments in opposition to the proposed casino revolved around these general themes: casinos produce greater crime in the adjacent area; they create a greater rate of gambling addiction and subsequent bankruptcies and home foreclosures. The two major themes were comments about the rush to get this agreement done and the fact that it simply wasn’t a good deal for Glendale. There were some memorable comments to share (my apology if I butcher someone’s name). John Burnell of the Sahuaro district related that a family member, as a gambling addict, maxxed out credit cards and lied to keep it secret. The husband had to take two jobs and it took him over two years to get the family’s finances back on track. Barbara Roberts acknowledged the casino job creation but said, “Yes, we need jobs but what kind of jobs?” Timothy Green of Goodyear said, “Casinos only succeed on the backs of losers.” A rather profound statement. Ron Kolb, Ocotillo district said, “The West Side will never be the same.” Dr. Ron Rockwell, pastor of a Yucca district church very near the casino site, said, “You no longer care about the moral and spiritual culture of this community.” Randy Miller, candidate for the Barrel district council seat, called out Councilmember Alvarez and her continual homage about the importance of listening to the people…yeah, Norma, right. It seems to be a principle of hers only when convenient. Those speakers in support of the casino were arrogant and boastful. John Mendlelberg, former Mayor of Surprise, said, “You must concede.” Reverend Maupin of Phoenix, said, “You lost the war. You should be grateful for whatever you are getting.” He accused Councilmember Martinez of being a liar and a racist. Robert Quizneros of the Ocotillo district complained about the audacity of “the other side’s hiring of attorneys and lobbyists” to defeat the casino. A special “shout out” to Lauren Tolmachoff, candidate for the Cholla district council seat. It appears that she has become a one-trick pony as she reiterated her support for the casino in the name of jobs. Hey, Lauren, don’t you know about “job displacement?” Several pro-casino speakers kept referring to, “it’s their (TO) land.” Well, yes it is after a purchase kept secret for 7 years and its newly minted designation as a reservation. It’s all about a reservation WITHIN Glendale. I defy anyone to identify any city in the State of Arizona that has a reservation within its boundaries. Then it was time for the Councilmembers to speak prior to their vote. Alvarez’ remarks were priceless in their ignorance. She made memorable comments such as, “what’s the difference between a lottery ticket and a casino?” Or, “We have casinos in Scottsdale.” Or, “They (Tohono O’odham) are going to provide a service.” That one caused audible audience derision.  And lastly, “Make us responsible for what we’re doing.” Trust me, we will.   Councilmember Sherwood, self-proclaimed negotiator and leader, was strangely silent all evening except for his monologue prior to his affirmative vote. His comments deserve a special blog and its coming. Councilmember Martinez offered a series of amendments to the draft and that’s when all hell broke loose. Councilmembers Alvarez and Chavira, repeatedly and often, yelled out while Councilmember Martinez was trying to speak, “Call for the question!” Their obvious intent was to silence Councilmember Martinez’ efforts. What were they afraid of? They knew they had the votes to defeat any amendment. Chavira was literally in a rage because of Martinez’ efforts. He lept out of his seat and it looked as if he was about to confront Mayor Weiers physically. Wow, Sammy. Finally we see the true persona and your reaction when crossed and you don’t get your way. The lack of control he exhibited demonstrated that he is unfit to serve as a councilmember and cannot conduct himself in a manner required by the office he holds. Martinez offered 4 amendments: raising the TO payment to $20 million or 3% of the Class III net; offsite infrastructure costs to be paid by the TO up front; a waiver of sovereign immunity especially with regard to fraud and other bad acts; and payments to continue beyond 2026. Each was rejected. The vote was as everyone expected. The majority of 4 – Sherwood, Alvarez, Hugh and Chavira voting to approve the agreement and Weiers, Martinez and Knaack voting against. What was unexpected to the degree it manifested itself, was the vituperativeness and nastiness. At one point a citizen called Martinez a liar and a racist. Mayor Weiers should have stopped the speaker immediately and requested a police officer escort the person from the building. There is no doubt that Mayor Weiers lost control of the meeting during the first casino agenda item. His failure fueled the majority’s contempt and rage. Kudos go to Bonnie Steiger, a Glendale resident and faithful attendee at council meetings for 28 years. She is everyone’s Grandmother. She was so disgusted with council’s behavior that she said their lack of respect for the very office they hold merited the removal of all of them. Lastly, I offer two interesting items for your attention. One is the Coyotes publicly announced today that they had accepted a deal for arena naming rights. Are you ready for this? It will be called the Gila River Arena. Hooray for the Gila River. Although it may require Glendale approval, Glendale may only reject for very narrow reasons and the new naming rights do not fit the criteria. Can you say embarrassing, Glendale?? Or perhaps the majority of 4 will figure out a way to kill the deal. The second item is that just before 5 PM, yesterday, August 12, 2014 a group filed paperwork with the Glendale City Clerk’s office for a Political Action Committee for the purpose of recalling Councilmember Gary Sherwood. Things are heating up in Glendale. As I said at the beginning of this blog, this meeting was definitely a train wreck but the pain is yet to be borne by all of the people of Glendale. © Joyce Clark, 2014 FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Aug 14

11

An open letter to Glendale Councilmember Ian Hugh

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 11, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Tohono O'odham  | Tagged With: , , , , | 3 Comments

August 11, 2014

Dear Councilmember Hugh,

I do not know you on a personal level for your service as a Glendale councilmember the first time was before mine and your service the second time was after mine. I do get a sense of you from your public actions and comments.

You have lived in Glendale all of your life. You own a business, Bridgestone Tires, in downtown Glendale. You married and raised a family in Glendale.  You love Glendale as evidenced by your many years of public service to our community. You are a fiscal conservative and have voiced concerns about Glendale’s financial status. You are a good and honorable man.

From your public statements you support the proposed Tohono O’odham casino. That is a separate issue that merits debate at another time. This agreement is not about whether one thinks the Tohono O’odham has the right to build.

This agreement is a business deal, pure and simple; you give me “X” and I’ll give you “Y.” This agreement is not a good business deal for Glendale. Please review the proposed Tohono O’odham/Glendale Agreement one more time. There are solid, reasonable reasons why the proposed agreement in its present form does not serve the best interests of Glendale. Here are just three of the many, major flaws:

  • It does not protect Luke Air Force Base. It does not allow Glendale the right to design review and the ability to insure that construction of any structure will not interfere with Luke’s mission.
  • The payment to Glendale is too low. By now you have seen what other cities across the country have been able to achieve in terms of revenue sharing. Some tribes share as much as 25% of their revenue.
  • The sovereign immunity waiver offered is restrictive. Glendale must be able to fully and freely access its ability to enforce the provisions in any court and any jurisdiction.

Please put aside your support of the Tohono O’odham and examine this agreement strictly in terms of Glendale’s best interests. I am asking you to make a motion to table this agreement, return to the negotiating table and craft an agreement that reflects the imperative…to create the best deal possible for Glendale. If a motion to table is rejected, I ask that you vote “No” and reject this flawed agreement.

The tabling or rejection of this proposed agreement gives voice to your love for and to your commitment to Glendale.  It will show that you listen to and value the input you receive from the community. There is no reason to rush this through.  As a Glendale City Councilmember it is your responsibility to create policy that serves our entire community. Please show everyone that you take that responsibility very seriously.

Thank you for your service to Glendale. It is recognized and very much appreciated. In times such as these, you have a very difficult job and I doubt the public understands exactly how difficult. Thank you for your consideration of my remarks and request.

Sincerely,

Joyce Clark

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Aug 14

10

Still more reasons to reject a flawed agreement

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 10, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Tohono O'odham  | Tagged With: , , , | 2 Comments

The Glendale City Council will vote on the proposed Tohono O’odham/Glendale agreement on Tuesday evening, August 12, 2014. Expect a packed house with speakers both pro and con. If you would like to attend the meeting here are the details:                                                     

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

6 PM

Glendale City Council Chambers

5850 W. Glendale Avenue

In the proposed agreement the Nation will pay $100,000 to the Glendale Convention and Visitors Bureau with an annual 2% ($2,000) increase. Bet on the payment coming from the state mandated percentage that all tribes must dole out to non-profits annually. Although not specified in the proposed agreement the general understanding is that the money will be used to promote and advertise the casino. Now, that’s a sweet deal for the Tohono O’odham (TO). The funds will be used exclusively for the proposed casino’s promotion to the detriment of other competitor member businesses who have restaurants, bars or hotels.

Glendale would be better served to have a stipulation similar to the Seneca/Buffalo agreement. In June, 2014 the Buffalo News reported, “Seneca Gaming Corp. on Thursday announced a plan to spend $3 million over a year marketing Buffalo’s attractions… The marketing program announced Thursday includes print, television, radio and digital advertising in Ontario, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Among the targeted markets are Toronto, Cleveland and Pittsburgh.” Hmmm…$3 million and Glendale is settling for $100,000 to its Convention Bureau to be used to advertise the proposed casino.

It is widely known that Mayor Weiers, while visiting the City of Niagara Falls, received a great deal of information on that city’s casino revenue sharing arrangement. He brought it back, had it copied and distributed to every member of council. They know there is a better deal to be had yet they continue to rush to accept this deal. People are now openly wondering is there any quid pro quo? Have the Tohono O’odham done or will it do Independent Expenditure campaign mailings for Alvarez? In 2016 will it do the same for Hugh, Sherwood and Chavira? Many readers of this blog still can’t get over Mark Becker’s (Becker Billboards owner) campaign donation of $2,500 to Alvarez and her vote of approval for the billboards. So much for principle. If they are ugly and unwanted in her district, why wouldn’t they be ugly and unwanted in the Cholla district?

Are you dumb founded yet by this proposed agreement? If not, you should be. It’s reminiscent of the arena management deal and the Camelback Ranch deal. The majority (Alvarez, Hugh, Sherwood and Chavira), avid supporters of the TO, have continually pointed fingers at previous councils and their inability to negotiate deals to benefit Glendale. Now they have an opportunity to negotiate in Glendale’s best interest and they have blown it.

This is a deal that begs for rejection. The majority of 4 can’t do that for all kinds of reasons: their haste to get something…anything…before the November General Election when the council make up could change and they lose their majority; their haste to get something…anything…should the Attorney General’s investigation into Open Meeting Law violations drops the hammer on any or all of the 4 of them and they lose their majority; and lastly, out of sheer embarrassment for rejecting an agreement they have publicly proclaimed as a “good deal for Glendale.”

What they fail to recognize is that the Tohono O’odham are desperate. They need Glendale. Glendale does not need the Tohono O’odham. The TO must still secure gaming approval from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Interior Department and to obtain it they need Glendale and the Governor of the State to enthusiastically embrace their plans.

This coalition of 4 councilmembers reminds one of an old, worn out, street hooker bending over and willingly accepting five bucks for services rendered. It’s downright pitiful and embarrassing.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Aug 14

8

Three reasons to reject the proposed Tohono O’odham/Glendale agreement

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 8, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Tohono O'odham  | Tagged With: , , , | 1 Comment

The proposed agreement between the City of Glendale and the Tohono O’odham should not be executed at this time. It is premature. There are outstanding legal actions and Congressional legislation yet to be decided. At the very least, the Glendale City Council should table this action to a time uncertain. There is absolutely no need for execution of this agreement immediately. In the last blog there were 3 major flaws with the agreement. Let’s take a look at them.

  1. The City of Glendale has no authority to review the design and the only entity that can inspect construction is the Fire Marshall. The Fire Marshall will not be able to tell if the plumbing, electrical, etc., construction is up to Code. The reservation is similar to a foreign nation planted inside Glendale. The proposed casino’s design cannot be approved by Glendale and even more importantly, the Federal Aviation Administration. The University of Phoenix Stadium’s height was subject to the FAA process and required approval from the agency. If the Tohono O’odham builds structures whose height interferes with operations of Luke Air Force Base or the Glendale Municipal Airport, Glendale and every agency is prohibited from taking action to stop it. There is precedent for such action. In Kenosha, Wisconsin their agreement stipulates, “That the Menominee Kenosha Gaming Authority will follow all applicable building and Federal Aviation Rules during the construction and operation of the project.”  Glendale should insist on a stipulation in the agreement requiring the Tohono O’odham’s development to be subject to Glendale’s design review process and FAA restrictions.
  2. The amount to be paid to Glendale annually is too low. Here are some examples of Tribal revenue sharing with other cities across the country. In NY Governor Cuomo’s press release of August, 2013 says, “Under the agreement, the local governments in Buffalo, Niagara Falls, and the Salamanca area will receive their full 25% share of local impact payments, a total of $140 million. Today, the Governor traveled to Western New York to present checks to the local governments receiving funds under the agreement: Buffalo will receive $15.5 million, Niagara Falls will receive $89 million, and the Salamanca area will receive $34.5 million.” Because of a dispute between the State of New York and the Seneca Tribe payments were suspended for several years. The money cited in the press release were back payments made by the Seneca Tribe to those 3 cities. These cities receive anywhere from $2 to $8 million annually. The Seneca facility is about half the size of the proposed TO casino and therefore generates about half of the revenue expected at the proposed TO facility. Here is another example and it underscores another problem, “Officials in Duluth, Minnesota, are still trying to reinstate a gaming agreement with the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians. The tribe was sharing 19 percent of gross revenues from the Fond-du-Luth Casino. The tribe stopped making payments in 2009 after sending $75 million to the city.” If the Tohono O’odham stop making their miserly annual payments to Glendale, the city will see itself in a Duluth-type situation, waiting years to rectify the situation. Here is one last example and believe me, there are plenty more that could be cited. The Michigan Pokagon-New Buffalo Area Local Revenue Sharing Agreement says, “Section 18 of the Compact defines how tribal payments are made to local governments…These payments shall equal 2% of the annual net winnings at each casino derived from all Class III electronic games of chance, to the local units of government that are located in the immediate vicinity of each tribal casino site or that are otherwise directly affected by the operation of the casino.  It is the intent of the State and the Tribe that the payments to local units of government provided for in this section will be used primarily to provide financial resources to those political subdivisions of the State that actually experience increased operating costs associated with the operation of the Tribe’s Class III gaming facility.” For the most recent fiscal year, as of July 31, 2011, the total allocations of the tribal payments were shared by 8 cities and 4 educational districts in the amount of $5,818,019. The City Council should renegotiate the Tohono O’odham annual payment and require $15 million annually. That is equal to ONE DAY of estimated net profit or it should stipulate a percentage (no less than 5% annually) of net profit.   
  3.                                                                                                                                                                                                             3.  Lastly, Lastly, there is the issue of tribal sovereign immunity. The TO in the proposed agreement refers to a TO Resolution 14-317. I visited the Tohono O’odham’s web page on its Code and some very interesting information was available: “The Tohono O’odham Code is an unofficial compilation of the Nation’s laws of permanent and general interest, as well as Tohono O’odham Judicial Court rules, canons, and significant administrative orders. While the Code as a whole has not been formally adopted by the Legislative Council, an increasing number of the Nation’s laws are being adopted in a uniformly codified format and the individual laws appearing in the Code have been duly enacted as reflected in their legislative histories.” The web page defines sovereign immunity further: 

“Section 2101 Sovereign Immunity

    1. “The government of the Tohono O’odham Nation (“Nation”) and any person acting within the scope of his or her capacity as an officer, employee, or agent of the Nation are absolutely immune from suit, court process, or liability.
    2. “The Nation’s sovereign immunity extends to the Nation’s districts, enterprises, entities, and the officials, employees, and agents thereof.
    3. “Sovereign immunity cannot be waived except by a resolution or other official action of the Tohono O’odham Legislative Council expressly waiving, or authorizing a waiver of, sovereign immunity; provided that such a waiver shall be limited in accordance with its terms. A Legislative Council action that authorizes a Nation’s district, enterprise, or entity to sue or be sued does not waive sovereign immunity unless a waiver is expressly granted in a separate written contract or other duly approved writing.”

What is Resolution 14-317, where is it and what does it say? On Thursday, July 17, 2014 the TO called a Special Session and the last Resolution approved that day is Resolution 14-316, approving a Pisinemo District 2014 Operations Amendment . When was Resolution 4-317 passed and why is it not posted on the TO web site listing all actions passed by their Legislative Council? The City Council should require a stipulation requiring the TO to completely waive sovereign immunity with regard to any provision of this agreement. If the TO will not do so, then they have something to hide.

The proposed agreement makes me ill. Once again, Glendale is being taken to the cleaners and the majority of 4 councilmembers are too dumb or too ignorant to realize it. If they are truly serving the best interests of Glendale, as they claim to do, ad nausea, then they would take action to reject this TO self-serving agreement or at the very least, table it and craft an agreement that protects Glendale and works in its favor. Any one of these issues is enough grounds to reject or table the current proposed agreement. I would hope Councilmember Hugh might be concerned enough about these agreement provisions to support such action. So should Councilmember Sherwood, who fancies himself a negotiator and businessman extraordinaire.  

©Joyce Clark, 2014

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

Aug 14

8

The cost is too high

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 8, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Tohono O'odham  | Tagged With: , , , | 3 Comments

There is so much wrong with the City of Glendale/Tohono O’odham proposed agreement, one hardly knows where to begin. Let’s start with the fact that it was posted on the city’s website on Wednesday, August 6, 2014. Do you know when the council vote is scheduled for this agreement? How about in 6 days, on August 12, 2014. In a city with a population of 239,000 how many people are even aware of or know any of the details of this agreement? Let’s be generous and acknowledge that perhaps the number is 2,000 residents. That’s .008% of Glendale…not even 1%. What’s the rush? The city should take the time necessary to inform its residents. Each of the councilmembers should be hosting a district meeting to offer information on the proposed agreement and get feedback from their residents. There should be a presentation on its TV cable channel 11. How about a town hall? This is an issue that calls for extensive public outreach.

What does the Tohono O’odham want from Glendale?

  • A restatement of Glendale’s repeal of a past resolution opposing a reservation within Glendale’s Municipal Planning Area (MPA).
  • Support of the Nation’s putting the entire 134 acres into Trust.
  • Admit that the land is not, and never has been within the corporate limits of Glendale.
  • Public acknowledgement of Glendale’s support for the proposed casino and wants it built as quickly as possible.
  • Urge the State of Arizona not to challenge the Secretary of the Interior’s decision and to withdraw its legal appeal regarding annexation
  • Urge Arizona’s Congressional delegation to oppose Representative Trent Franks’ bill and the bill offered by Senators McCain and Flake
  • Issue a joint press release within 10 days of the signing of this agreement to publicly state all of the above stipulations
  • Glendale is not to challenge any decisions made by the Secretary of the Interior
  • Glendale must stipulate to the National Indian Gaming Commission or Department of the Interior that their property meets U.S. Code requirements
  • The land is not subject to Glendale’s design standards or review and the TO will use its own building codes
  • Glendale will provide water and wastewater services

What can be learned from the Tohono O’odham’s Wish List? They are scared because they see the hurdles before them which they may not clear successfully. Of course they want Glendale to repudiate everything. What if the Congressmen’s bills pass? The TO are dead in the water. Any one of the State of Arizona’s challenges could be successful. The National Indian Gaming Commission could deny their right to put gaming on the land. Again, why are 4 Glendale councilmembers so anxious to support the TO and to approve the agreement now…immediately? Because the TO are desperate. Their very Wish List signals that they need Glendale to avidly support them to succeed.

What will the TO give to Glendale?

  • The TO will pay for construction of infrastructure on their property (something that all developers ordinarily do). They refer to Exhibit C with a list of what that would be. Do we know? No…because there is no publicly available Exhibit C
  • The TO will pay for construction of offsite improvements if Glendale can prove they are a direct result of the TO project. They refer to Exhibit D with a list of what that could be. Do we know? No…because there is no publicly available Exhibit D
  • The TO may, if they feel like it, enter into a public safety mutual aid agreement
  • The TO promises to give the Glendale Convention and Visitors Bureau $100,000 a year and increase it by 2% a year ($2,000). That’s easy…that will come from the 8% a year the state requires of all Tribes to be dispersed to non-profits
  • The TO will pay Glendale $1.4 million a year and increase it by 2% a year until 2026. After that the payment drops to $900,000 a year. Why use the year 2026? That’s the year the current State Compact expires. Do you think the Tohono O’odham might suffer under a new Compact? If there is one? You betcha.
  • The TO waives Sovereign Immunity…sort of. First there must be Mediation, then Arbitration. Is the action is in accordance with the TO’s Resolution No. 14-317 the city might be able to legally sue the Tribe. What is in this mysterious and secret Resolution 14-317?

Set aside the fact, for the moment, that Glendale should not be entering into any agreement with the TO now. There are so many issues unsettled. Of all of the flawed stipulations in the proposed agreement the three major ones are: the amount of payment by the Tohono O’odham to Glendale; the prohibition of Design Review and construction inspection by Glendale;  and the issue of sovereign immunity. They will be explored further in the next blog.

Glendale promises to be cheerleader and lapdog, all rolled into one, for the Tohono O’odham…but the cost to Glendale is extremely high, especially in terms of its reputation and its integrity with the Tribes opposing the proposed casino, the State of Arizona, Arizona’s Congressional delegation and all Valley cities. The cost is too high.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

« Previous Page — Next Page »