Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Jul 14

10

Barrel district council candidates…John Benjamin, Reginald Martinez and Michael Patino

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 10, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Please note: Some of the information presented here is repetition of information from my previous blogs on the Cholla candidates and applies to all candidates. Some of you reading this blog for the first time may not have read the previous ones.

If you have relatives, friends or acquaintances that live in the Barrel district, please consider passing this series of blogs on to them as another tool to help them evaluate the Barrel candidates prior to casting their vote.

Early ballots are mailed at the end of July, 2014. Candidates (well, most of them) have their websites up, are raising campaign money (or not) and beginning to stake out their positions on Glendale issues.

We move on to the Barrel district council candidates in alphabetical order: John Benjamin, Reginald Martinez, Michael Patino, Randy Miller and Bart Turner. Three of these candidates will be reviewed together and Miller and Turner will be reviewed separately.

All of the information to be discussed will be based on the candidates’ websites and their June 30, 2014 Campaign Finance Reports. Some of the candidates I had met previously and am familiar with their positions on various issues. Others I have never met and so I arranged an interview with them.

We’ll take a look at each candidate’s Campaign Finance Report of June 30, 2014. Here is the link to Glendale City Clerk’s posting of each candidate finance report: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/2014PoliticalCommitteeCampaignFinanceReports.cfm . Go to that page and you can choose which candidate’s campaign finance report you wish to read.

Each report totals 19 pages. The first 2 pages are summary pages. Section A will show all contributions from individuals. Section B shows all political committee contributions. Section C shows loans either the candidate made to the campaign or any other loan received. Section D deals with all expenditures. Section E is for In-Kind contributions and Section F shows miscellaneous items.

This could be considered nit-picky but the finance report is 19 pages. Each candidate’s report should consist of a minimum of 19 pages (there may be multiple pages especially in Sections A and D). Some candidates did not submit the minimal 19 pages. It could be assumed that if they had no financial activity to report in certain areas they just did not bother to include those pages. Technically, that is not a complete report. All pages should be submitted and if there was no activity to report in certain categories, the candidate can leave the page blank, draw a line through the page or indicate “NA,” no activity. Even if a candidate has a treasurer who fills out the report the candidate is still ultimately responsible for the accuracy and veracity of his or her filing.

There is another kind of Campaign Finance Report a candidate can submit and that is a No Activity Statement. That means the candidate didn’t receive any contributions and did not spend any money. Some of the council candidates filed this kind of report.

The items to look for are: what individuals are contributing; are they Glendale residents, relatives, attorneys or other professionals; or Political Action Committees (PACs)? Did the candidate loan his or her campaign any money? How much? Are the expenditures typical of a campaign; signs, printing, bank charges, food for fund raising events or volunteers; web site design or hosting? Is the candidate using a paid political consultant? At what cost?

At this stage of the game candidates are often reluctant to reveal too much about their finances. They may ask that large contributions be made after June 1, 2014 to be reported in the Pre-Primary Report or after August 15, 2014 for the Post-Primary Report.

John Benjamin

Campaign Finance Report – He submitted a “No Activity” campaign finance report. That means that he has not collected any campaign contributions or made a loan to his campaign committee. He reports no expenditures. Please remember, Mr. Benjamin ultimately bears the responsibility for the accuracy and veracity of his report.

Campaign contribution limits have become very generous as a result of recent court rulings. In the last election of 2012, the individual contribution limit was $400. Now it is $2,500. A political committee’s limit is now $2,500 and a Super PAC’s limit is $5,000. The trick for local candidates is to get large contributions. It’s not an easy task.

Campaign website — He has no website and no campaign signs. He has not paid for the printing of any campaign literature. There is no publicly available information on a website offering his positions on Glendale’s issues.

As of this date, he should not be considered a serious contender for the Barrel district city council seat and consequently I did not meet with him.

Reginald Martinez

Campaign Finance Report – He submitted all 19 pages of the report. He did make one error in reporting. Schedule A has a column labeled “Cumulative total this campaign to date.” It wants the total amount of money that an individual has given to the candidate’s campaign as of the date of filing. That column is not to be used as a running total of all contributions received from all individuals. It’s the first time that I have seen a candidate misunderstand the instructions provided for filling out the Campaign Report.

He reports 3 individual Glendale contributions totaling to date $350. $200 of that amount is from the candidate and is not a loan. There are a total of 15 contributors. 9 are from acquaintances and friends at the Phoenix Union High School District totaling $1,050, where the candidate works; 2 are from Darshak Law totaling $100; and 1 is from attorney Nick Wood in the amount of $200. There is one in-kind contribution reported from Aniset Rodriguez of La Tolteca Restaurant in the amount of $250 for food for a fundraising event. Please remember, Mr. Martinez ultimately bears the responsibility for the accuracy and veracity of his report.

Campaign contribution limits have become very generous as a result of recent court rulings. In the last election of 2012, the individual contribution limit was $400. Now it is $2,500. A political committee’s limit is now $2,500 and a Super PAC’s limit is $5,000. The trick for local candidates is to get large contributions. It’s not an easy task.

Mr. Martinez’ campaign expenditures are usual and ordinary: supplies and printing. One item of note is a cumulative total of $211.76 (or 25%) of $894.16 in total expenditures was spent on food for volunteers who presumably collected his petition signatures.

Campaign website – Mr. Martinez has no campaign website. There is no publicly available information on a website regarding his positions on Glendale issues. He declined a meeting invitation. As of this date, he should not be considered a serious contender for the Barrel district city council seat.

 

Michael Patino

Campaign Finance Report – All 19 pages were submitted. Mr. Patino reported one individual campaign contribution in the amount of $200 from J.D. Campbell of Peoria. Please remember, Mr. Patino ultimately bears the responsibility for the accuracy and veracity of his report.

Campaign contribution limits have become very generous as a result of recent court rulings. In the last election of 2012, the individual contribution limit was $400. Now it is $2,500. A political committee’s limit is now $2,500 and a Super PAC’s limit is $5,000. The trick for local candidates is to get large contributions. It’s not an easy task.

Mr. Patino reported no expenditures of any kind.

Campaign website – Mr. Patino has no website. There is no publicly available information on a website regarding his positions on Glendale issues. As of this date, he should not be considered a serious contender for the Barrel district city council seat and consequently I did not meet with him.

After review of all 4 Barrel district candidates we’ll try to narrow the choices down to 2 people. In this district, as with the other council races, there are so many candidates none of them are expected win outright in the primary and we can expect a run off in the general election in November.  Next up, Randy Miller.

© 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.

Jul 14

9

Picks for the Cholla district city council seat

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 9, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 2 Comments

My vetting of the Cholla district candidates is done. I congratulate them for their willingness to put themselves before the voters to be weighed and measured on the issues of the day.

While each candidate may have developed campaign literature that they pass out or mail to the voters, it is just that, voter specific, and may not reach the entire Cholla district voter universe.

All 4 of the Cholla council district candidates share some commonalities. All are articulate. Sometimes a candidate will pop up and immediately your radar says there is something that is off. Not so with these candidates. My belief is that they want to be part of the solution with regard to Glendale’s financial difficulties. My choice of 2 among the 4 candidates will be based on the information publicly available to date used in my previous blogs about each candidate; plus my personal interviews.

All are self funded to date and have done minimal fund raising. Deardorff and Petrone are the gorillas having loaned their campaigns at least $10,000 each.  DiCarlo and Tolmachoff have made more modest loans under $2,000 each. Does a larger loan indicate more commitment? No, of course not.  It is surprising that none of the candidates appears to be reaching out to their constituency for campaign support to date with the exception of facilitating campaign donations through their websites. But my guess is that political strategy may mean that the candidates prefer to reveal their contributors in later Finance Reports as a means of keeping that information from their opponents.

It is difficult for the voter, based upon publicly available information, to determine how each candidate stands on a particular issue. Deardorff and Petrone have no issues information available on their websites. DiCarlo has taken up one issue, that of Glendale’s finances. Tolmachoff has the most robust site and clearly takes a stand on Glendale’s finances.

All of the candidates acknowledge that Glendale has financial problems. Deardorff, DiCarlo and Tolmachoff support the sunset of the sales tax increase in 2017. Petrone has made no public statements regarding the sales tax and as mentioned above has no issues on his web site as of this date. Petrone has also had a series of past personal financial problems which leads me to question his ability to make sound financial decisions for Glendale. His personal financial decisions have led to court cases and documented judgments against him. His judgments and personal history led to my decision not to interview him as I do not see him as a viable candidate.

All 4 candidates seek to reduce Glendale’s debt burden. Deardorff wants to look at personnel costs and believes there is room to cut those costs. DiCarlo and Tolmachoff believe that selling Glendale’s assets is a viable course of action. All point to Camelback Ranch and want to explore ways to deal with its massive debt.

Deardorff and Dicarlo oppose a reservation, and hence the casino, in Glendale.

Deardorff, DiCarlo and Tolmachoff state that the relationship between staff and council is broken and seek more staff transparency as well as a council united in exploring and solving Glendale’s current crop of problems.

All candidates understand that Glendale has no responsibility or power over local school districts. A Glendale candidate or elected councilor cannot impact education. That is for local school boards. Be wary of any district council candidate promising to “fix” local education for that is simply not true.

All are married and have lived in the Cholla district from 9 to 40 years signaling that they all have roots in Glendale. All are self employed and that does provide them the flexibility they need to fulfill a councilmember’s responsibilities. Only Petrone has served on Glendale’s boards and commissions.

Of Note; Deardorff has received the support of former mayor Elaine Scruggs listed as a member of a Host Committee fund raiser. It was under her watch that Glendale assumed the massive debt with which it must deal. There is an old saying that you are judged by the company you keep. With no other apparent Glendale involvement to balance her influence there is the risk of a second coming of an old strategy…a strategy that drove Glendale over the fiscal cliff. It is because of this issue that he was not picked as one of the two final candidate choices.

Councilmember Martinez has endorsed Petrone and it appears that he will have the endorsement and financial support of the fire union. Fire opposes the sunset of the sales tax. That signals a candidate who agrees with the fire union’s agenda. Another concern with Petrone is related to his service on Glendale’s boards and commissions and it may not play in his favor. His interaction with staff may make him more sympathetic to the current staff agenda. These issues are grave enough to eliminate him as a council candidate pick.

Di Carlo has the experience of a prior campaign. He has experienced the subtleties of staff in dealing with candidates and may have developed a more confident manner in dealing with Glendale staff and current Council.

Tolmachoff has the most informative website with issue specifics in her blog available on that website. She is the only candidate to publicly express her support of the casino.

It seems safe to assume that with 4 candidates no one will take the Cholla councilmember seat out right in the Primary Election. The two top candidates will face off in the General Election in November. It is not an easy decision for any voter but based upon information publicly available to everyone, this writer’s picks for the Cholla district are:               

                                           Gary Deardorff

                                  checkmark__bottomheavy_140 Van DiCarlo  

                                         

                                           Robert Petrone

                                 checkmark__bottomheavy_140  Lauren Tolmachoff

Please be sure to check the straw poll to the left of this column and vote for your choice as the Cholla district city council pick. You do not have to live in the Cholla district to participate.

© 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.

Jul 14

8

Last up…Lauren Tolmachoff Cholla district council candidate

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 8, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Please note: Some of the information presented here is repetition of information from my previous blogs on Cholla candidates Gary Deardorff; Van DiCarlo and Robert Petrone; and applies to all candidates. Some of you reading this blog for the first time may not have read the previous ones.

If you have relatives, friends or acquaintances that live in the Cholla district, please consider passing this series of blogs on to them as another tool to help them evaluate the Cholla candidates prior to casting their vote.

Early ballots are mailed at the end of July, 2014. Candidates (well, most of them) have their websites up, are raising campaign money (or not) and beginning to stake out their positions on Glendale issues.

We begin with the Cholla district council candidates in alphabetical order: Gary Deardorff, Van DiCarlo, Robert Petrone and Lauren Tolmachoff. These 4 candidates share some commonalities. They are running, generally, because they were encouraged by friends or family to do so and obviously, they all believe that they can contribute solutions to fix Glendale’s financial situation.

All of the information to be discussed will be based on the candidates’ websites and their June 30, 2014 Campaign Finance Reports. Some of the candidates I had met previously and am familiar with their positions on various issues. Others I have never met and so I arranged an interview with them.

We’ll take a look at each candidate’s Campaign Finance Report of June 30, 2014. Here is the link to Glendale City Clerk’s posting of each candidate finance report: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/2014PoliticalCommitteeCampaignFinanceReports.cfm . Go to that page and you can choose which candidate’s campaign finance report you wish to read.

Each report totals 19 pages. The first 2 pages are summary pages. Section A will show all contributions from individuals. Section B shows all political committee contributions. Section C shows loans either the candidate made to the campaign or any other loan received. Section D deals with all expenditures. Section E is for In-Kind contributions and Section F shows miscellaneous items.

This could be considered nit-picky but the finance report is 19 pages. Each candidate’s report should consist of a minimum of 19 pages (there may be multiple pages especially in Sections A and D). Some candidates did not submit the minimal 19 pages. It could be assumed that if they had no financial activity to report in certain areas they just did not bother to include those pages. Technically, that is not a complete report. All pages should be submitted and if there was no activity to report in certain categories, the candidate can leave the page blank, draw a line through the page or indicate “NA,” no activity. Even if a candidate has a treasurer who fills out the report the candidate is still ultimately responsible for the accuracy and veracity of his or her filing.

There is another kind of Campaign Finance Report a candidate can submit and that is a No Activity Statement. That means the candidate didn’t receive any contributions and did not spend any money. Some of the council candidates filed this kind of report.

The items to look for are: what individuals are contributing; are they Glendale residents, relatives, attorneys or other professionals; or Political Action Committees (PACs)? Did the candidate loan his or her campaign any money? How much? Are the expenditures typical of a campaign; signs, printing, bank charges, food for fund raising events or volunteers; web site design or hosting? Is the candidate using a paid political consultant? At what cost?

At this stage of the game candidates are often reluctant to reveal too much about their finances. They may ask that large contributions be made after June 1, 2014 to be reported in the Pre-Primary Report or after August 15, 2014 for the Post-Primary Report.

Lauren Tolmachoff

Campaign Finance Report – Her report consists of all 19 pages. Ms. Tolmachoff loaned her campaign committee $1,200.00. Her treasurer is Rhonda L. Gaul. Please remember, Ms. Tolmachoff ultimately bears the responsibility for the accuracy and veracity of her report.

Campaign contribution limits have become very generous as a result of recent court rulings. In the last election of 2012, the individual contribution limit was $400. Now it is $2,500. A political committee’s limit is now $2,500 and a Super PAC’s limit is $5,000. The trick for local candidates is to get large contributions. It’s not an easy task.

Ms. Tolmachoff has received one contribution from Glenn Hickman for $150 to date.  She has no campaign consultant. Her campaign expenditures are for usual items such as printing, web hosting and supplies.

The noteworthy take-aways from Tolmachoff’s campaign report are: 1. Her campaign is self funded in the amount of $1,200 to date; 2. She submitted all 19 pages of the Campaign Finance Report; and 3. There are no unusual contributions or expenditures to date.                         Website — her campaign website:  http://www.electlaurentolmachoff.com .                                                    Contact information:  Elect Lauren Tolmachoff, P.O. Box 10072, Glendale, Az.  85318-0072    Telephone:  (602)730-5589                            E-mail: electlaurentolmachoff@gmail.com

Her website provides you biographical information, an extensive blog on Glendale issues, a mission statement, campaign donation info and contact info. Under the Blog tab she does address many of Glendale’s issues.  I did meet with Ms. Tolmachoff in a meeting that took about an hour. I asked her and any other candidates with whom I met the same series of questions.

Ms. Tolmachoff has lived in Glendale and the Cholla district for 9 years. She is married. She has not participated in Glendale community affairs. She is a realtor and believes that her work schedule is flexible enough to accommodate the demands of serving as a councilmember.

Her observations with regard to the relationship between council and staff are that she respects the work of staff a great deal but feels that the leadership and policies of councilmembers, past and present, are part of the problem. She indicated that she is not receiving fire or police union support and is relying on neighborhood donations and self-funding. Under her Blog tab she states that the sales tax increase should sunset in 2017. She advocates for the liquidation of city assets as a partial solution to Glendale’s debt problem. She understands that city council has no authority over school districts. She is supportive of the Tohono O’odham’s proposed casino on the grounds of job creation.

Now that we have taken a look at all 4 Cholla district candidates we’ll try to narrow the choices down to 2 people. In this district, as with the other council races, there are so many candidates none of them are expected to win outright in the primary and we can expect a run off in the general election in November.  Next up, candidate picks for the Cholla district.

© 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.

Jul 14

7

Third up…Robert Petrone Cholla district council candidate

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 7, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Please note: Some of the information presented here is repetition of information from my previous blog on Cholla candidates Gary Deardorff and Van DiCarlo; and applies to all candidates. Some of you reading this blog for the first time may not have read the previous ones.

If you have relatives, friends or acquaintances that live in the Cholla district, please consider passing this series of blogs on to them as another tool to help them evaluate the Cholla candidates prior to casting their vote.

Early ballots are mailed at the end of July, 2014. Candidates (well, most of them) have their websites up, are raising campaign money (or not) and beginning to stake out their positions on Glendale issues.

We begin with the Cholla district council candidates in alphabetical order: Gary Deardorff, Van DiCarlo, Robert Petrone and Lauren Tolmachoff. These 4 candidates share some commonalities. They are running, generally, because they were encouraged by friends or family to do so and obviously, they all believe that they can contribute solutions to fix Glendale’s financial situation.

All of the information to be discussed will be based on the candidates’ websites and their June 30, 2014 Campaign Finance Reports. Some of the candidates I had met previously and am familiar with their positions on various issues. Others I have never met and so I arranged an interview with them.

We’ll take a look at each candidate’s Campaign Finance Report of June 30, 2014. Here is the link to Glendale City Clerk’s posting of each candidate finance report: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/2014PoliticalCommitteeCampaignFinanceReports.cfm . Go to that page and you can choose which candidate’s campaign finance report you wish to read.

Each report totals 19 pages. The first 2 pages are summary pages. Section A will show all contributions from individuals. Section B shows all political committee contributions. Section C shows loans either the candidate made to the campaign or any other loan received. Section D deals with all expenditures. Section E is for In-Kind contributions and Section F shows miscellaneous items.

This could be considered nit-picky but the finance report is 19 pages. Each candidate’s report should consist of a minimum of 19 pages (there may be multiple pages especially in Sections A and D). Some candidates did not submit the minimal 19 pages. It could be assumed that if they had no financial activity to report in certain areas they just did not bother to include those pages. Technically, that is not a complete report. All pages should be submitted and if there was no activity to report in certain categories, the candidate can leave the page blank, draw a line through the page or indicate “NA,” no activity. Even if a candidate has a treasurer who fills out the report the candidate is still ultimately responsible for the accuracy and veracity of his or her filing.

There is another kind of Campaign Finance Report a candidate can submit and that is a No Activity Statement. That means the candidate didn’t receive any contributions and did not spend any money. Some of the council candidates filed this kind of report.

The items to look for are: what individuals are contributing; are they Glendale residents, relatives, attorneys or other professionals; or Political Action Committees (PACs)? Did the candidate loan his or her campaign any money? How much? Are the expenditures typical of a campaign; signs, printing, bank charges, food for fund raising events or volunteers; web site design or hosting? Is the candidate using a paid political consultant? At what cost?

At this stage of the game candidates are often reluctant to reveal too much about their finances. They may ask that large contributions be made after June 1, 2014 to be reported in the Pre-Primary Report or after August 15, 2014 for the Post-Primary Report.

Robert Petrone

Campaign Finance Report – His report consists of all 19 pages. On the heading of his first Summary page he failed to fill in the name of the office he is seeking and an email address. Mr. Petrone loaned his campaign committee $10,000.00. He has no treasurer. Please remember, Mr. Petrone ultimately bears the responsibility for the accuracy and veracity of his report.

Campaign contribution limits have become very generous as a result of recent court rulings. In the last election of 2012, the individual contribution limit was $400. Now it is $2,500. A political committee’s limit is now $2,500 and a Super PAC’s limit is $5,000. The trick for local candidates is to get large contributions. It’s not an easy task.

Mr. Petrone has received 4 contributions from individuals in the amount of $4,600. He received $900 from David Penilla, an attorney; $1,000 from Simon Kottoor, owner of Sunshine Group Home; $200 from Goodman & Schwartz, a political consulting/lobbying firm; and $2500 from Sovereign Consulting. Petrone employed Sovereign, the same consulting firm that contributed $2,500 to his campaign. He paid Sovereign $1,155.00 for signature collection and verification. The balance of his campaign expenditures are for just one campaign item, signs.

The noteworthy take-aways from Petrone’s campaign report are: 1. His campaign is self funded in the amount of $10,000 to date; 2. He has received 4 contributions in the amount of$4,600 to date; 3. He failed to provide complete information on the Summary page of the Campaign Finance Report; and 4. While he received $2,500 from Sovereign Consulting, he also turned around and paid the firm $1,155 for signature collection and verification. He used information provided by Sovereign to challenge Deardorff’s number of valid petition signatures signaling that he considers Deardorff to be his greatest threat. He appears to have personally collected petition signatures but also used this company to get signatures as well.

Website — his campaign website is http://www.citizens4petrone.com  . Contact information: Citizens4petrone, 19626 N 73rd Ave., Glendale, Az. 85308                                                                                                                 Telephone:  623 451 8328    E-mail: citizens4petrone@aol.com

His website provides you sparse biographical information, a photo gallery (just 1 photo), campaign donation info and contact info. Mr. Petrone offers nothing regarding Glendale issues. Throughout his website he often makes reference to his service as Chairperson of the citizen Planning & Zoning Commission.  It appears that he is relying on that service and the endorsement of Cholla Councilmember Martinez to provide him credibility. I have not talked to Mr. Petrone but I have met him at past city functions and have observed his work on the Planning Commission. I did not meet with him because in a previous blog dated April 22, 2014  (here is the link: Glendale Cholla district council candidate Robert Petrone http://wp.me/p3aHul-wG  )  I discussed Mr. Petrone’s past personal financial difficulties. Those difficulties seem to indicate that he has had problems in managing his financial affairs and seriously diminish his viability as a serious candidate.

Mr. Petrone has lived in Glendale and the Cholla district for almost 40 years. He is married. He has participated in Glendale community affairs most notably as Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission. He has his own landscaping business and believes that his work schedule is flexible enough to accommodate the demands of serving as a councilmember.

His relationships with staff demonstrated by his service on boards and commissions indicate his sympathy for staff’s agenda. Although the fire union will not declare support for candidates until after the Primary Election, Mr. Petrone seems to be first in line to receive their support. He has offered no website stance on the issues of Glendale’s finances, the sales tax sunset or the proposed casino.

After review of all 4 Cholla district candidates we’ll try to narrow the choices down to 2 people. In this district, as with the other council races, there are so many candidates none of them is expected to win outright in the primary and we can expect a run off in the general election in November.  Next up, Lauren Tolmachoff.

© 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.

Jul 14

3

Second…Van DiCarlo of the Cholla district

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 3, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Please note: Some of the information presented here is repetition of information from my previous blog on Cholla candidate Gary Deardorff and applies to all candidates. Some of you reading this blog for the first time may not have read the previous one.

If you have relatives, friends or acquaintances that live in the Cholla district, please consider passing this series of blogs on to them as another tool to help them evaluate the Cholla candidates prior to casting their vote.

Early ballots are mailed at the end of July, 2014. Candidates (well, most of them) have their websites up, are raising campaign money (or not) and beginning to stake out their positions on Glendale issues.

We begin with the Cholla district council candidates in alphabetical order: Gary Deardorff, Van DiCarlo, Robert Petrone and Lauren Tolmachoff. These 4 candidates share some commonalities. They are running, generally, because they were encouraged by friends or family to do so and obviously, they all believe that they can contribute solutions to fix Glendale’s financial situation.

All of the information to be discussed will be based on the candidates’ websites and their June 30, 2014 Campaign Finance Reports. Some of the candidates I had met previously and am familiar with their positions on various issues. Others I have never met and so I arranged an interview with them.

We’ll take a look at each candidate’s Campaign Finance Report of June 30, 2014. Here is the link to Glendale City Clerk’s posting of each candidate finance report: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/2014PoliticalCommitteeCampaignFinanceReports.cfm . Go to that page and you can choose which candidate’s campaign finance report you wish to read.

Each report totals 19 pages. The first 2 pages are summary pages. Section A will show all contributions from individuals. Section B shows all political committee contributions. Section C shows loans either the candidate made to the campaign or any other loan received. Section D deals with all expenditures. Section E is for In-Kind contributions and Section F shows miscellaneous items.

This could be considered nit-picky but the finance report is 19 pages. Each candidate’s report should consist of a minimum of 19 pages (there may be multiple pages especially in Sections A and D). Some candidates did not submit the minimal 19 pages. It could be assumed that if they had no financial activity to report in certain areas they just did not bother to include those pages. Technically, that is not a complete report. All pages should be submitted and if there was no activity to report in certain categories, the candidate can leave the page blank, draw a line through the page or indicate “NA,” no activity. Even if a candidate has a treasurer who fills out the report the candidate is still ultimately responsible for the accuracy and veracity of his or her filing.

There is another kind of Campaign Finance Report a candidate can submit and that is a No Activity Statement. That means the candidate didn’t receive any contributions and did not spend any money. Some of the council candidates filed this kind of report.

The items to look for are: what individuals are contributing; are they Glendale residents, relatives, attorneys or other professionals; or Political Action Committees (PACs)? Did the candidate loan his or her campaign any money? How much? Are the expenditures typical of a campaign; signs, printing, bank charges, food for fund raising events or volunteers; web site design or hosting? Is the candidate using a paid political consultant? At what cost?

At this stage of the game candidates are often reluctant to reveal too much about their finances. They may ask that large contributions be made after June 1, 2014 to be reported in the Pre-Primary Report or after August 15, 2014 for the Post-Primary Report.

Van DiCarlo

Campaign Finance Report – His report consists of only 6 pages. He submitted the 2 summary pages, Schedule C showing his loan to his campaign, Schedule D indicating expenditures and Schedule E showing In-Kind contributions.  The rest of the pages, including Schedules B and F…are simply not there. This is not his first run for the Cholla district council seat. He ran in 2006 and by now should certainly be able to fill out the report fully. Mr. DiCarlo loaned his campaign committee $1,937.00. He has no treasurer. Please remember, Mr. DiCarlo ultimately bears the responsibility for the accuracy and veracity of his report.

Campaign contribution limits have become very generous as a result of recent court rulings. In the last election of 2012, the individual contribution limit was $400. Now it is $2,500. A political committee’s limit is now $2,500 and a Super PAC’s limit is $5,000. The trick for local candidates is to get large contributions. It’s not an easy task.

Mr. DiCarlo has received no contributions from any source to date. He did receive 2 in-kind contributions for the use of a golf cart for a month valued at $350 and web design valued at $400.  He has no campaign consultant. DiCarlo employed Stephen Martin for nominating petition signature collection at a cost of $756.  The balance of his campaign expenditures are for usual items such as printing, web hosting and supplies.

The noteworthy take-aways from DiCarlo’s campaign report are: 1. His campaign is self funded in the amount of $1,937.27 to date; 2. He has received 2 in-kind contributions in the amount of $750 to date; and 3. He failed to submit all 19 pages of the Campaign Finance Report.

Website — his campaign website is http://www.electdicarlo.org  . His contact information:  Committee to Elect DiCarlo, 20280 N. 59th Ave, Suite 115-631 Glendale AZ 85308 Telephone:  623.695.6124                            E-mail: voterinput@dicarlo.phxcoxmail.com

His website provides you biographical information, a sparse blog, a photo gallery, campaign donation info and contact info. Under the Issues tab DiCarlo does address Glendale’s finances in part.  I have talked to Mr. DiCarlo and know him and his positions on the issues. We are not close, personal friends. I did not meet with him because I had discussed issues with him when he first declared his candidacy.

Mr. DiCarlo has lived in Glendale and the Cholla district for 13 years. He is married. He has not participated in Glendale community affairs. He has his own business and believes that his work schedule is flexible enough to accommodate the demands of serving as a councilmember.

His observations with regard to the relationship between council and staff are that staff could be more forthright. He indicated that he is not receiving fire or police union support and is relying on neighborhood donations and self-funding. Under his Issues tab he states that the sales tax increase should sunset in 2017. He advocates for the liquidation of city assets as a way to dig Glendale out of its debt problem. He understands that city council has no authority over school districts. He is not supportive of the Tohono O’odham’s proposed casino on the grounds of objecting to the placement of a reservation within Glendale’s boundaries.

After review of all 4 Cholla district candidates we’ll try to narrow the choices down to 2 people. In this district, as with the other council races, there are so many candidates none of them is expected to win outright in the primary and we can expect a run off in the general election in November.  Next up, Robert Petrone.

© 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.

Jul 14

2

First up…Gary Deardorff from the Cholla district

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 2, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Please note: If you have relatives, friends or acquaintances that live in the Cholla district, please consider passing this series of blogs on to them as another tool to help them evaluate the Cholla candidates prior to casting their vote.

Early ballots are mailed at the end of July, 2014. Candidates (well, most of them) have their websites up, are raising campaign money (or not) and beginning to stake out their positions on Glendale issues.

We begin with the Cholla district council candidates in alphabetical order: Gary Deardorff, Van DiCarlo, Robert Petrone and Lauren Tolmachoff. These 4 candidates share some commonalities. They are running, generally because they were encouraged by friends or family to do so and obviously, they all believe that they can contribute solutions to fix Glendale’s financial situation. All of the information to be discussed will be based on the candidates’ websites and their June 30, 2014 Campaign Finance Reports. Some of the candidates I had met previously and am familiar with their positions on various issues. Others I have never met and so I arranged an interview with them.

We’ll take a look at each candidate’s Campaign Finance Report of June 30, 2014. Here is the link to Glendale City Clerk’s posting of each candidate finance report: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/2014PoliticalCommitteeCampaignFinanceReports.cfm . Go to that page and you can choose which candidate’s campaign finance report you wish to read. Each report totals 19 pages. The first 2 pages are summary pages. Section A will show all contributions from individuals. Section B shows all political committee contributions. Section C shows loans either the candidate made to the campaign or any other loan received. Section D deals with all expenditures. Section E is for In-Kind contributions and Section F shows miscellaneous items.

This could be considered nit-picky but the finance report is 19 pages. Each candidate’s report should consist of a minimum of 19 pages (there may be multiple pages especially in Sections A and D). Some candidates did not submit the minimal 19 pages. It could be assumed that if they had no financial activity to report in certain areas they just did not bother to include those pages. Technically, that is not a complete report. All pages should be submitted and if there was no activity to report in certain categories, the candidate can leave the page blank, draw a line through the page or indicate “NA,” no activity. Even if a candidate has a treasurer who fills out the report the candidate is still ultimately responsible for the accuracy and veracity of his or her filing.

There is another kind of Campaign Finance Report a candidate can submit and that is a No Activity Statement. That means the candidate didn’t receive any contributions and did not spend any money. Some of the council candidates filed this kind of report.

The items to look for are: what individuals are contributing; are they Glendale residents, relatives, attorneys or other professionals; or Political Action Committees (PACs)? Did the candidate loan his or her campaign any money? How much? Are the expenditures typical of a campaign; signs, printing, bank charges, food for fund raising events or volunteers; web site design or hosting? Is the candidate using a paid political consultant? At what cost? At this stage of the game candidates are often reluctant to reveal too much about their finances. They may ask that large contributions be made after June 1, 2014 to be reported in the Pre-Primary Report or after August 15, 2014 for the Post-Primary Report.

GARY DEARDORFF

Campaign Finance Report – his report consists of all 19 pages. Mr. Deardorff loaned his campaign committee $11,858.43. While he reports this amount on his summary pages, he does not report the loan on Schedule C, Candidate Loans.  Mr. Deardorff has a treasurer, Scott Rulon, who filled out the report. Please remember, Mr. Deardorff ultimately bears the responsibility for the accuracy and veracity of his report.

Campaign contribution limits have become very generous as a result of recent court rulings. In the last election of 2012, the individual contribution limit was $400. Now it is $2,500. A political committee’s limit is now $2,500 and a Super PAC’s limit is $5,000. The trick for local candidates is to get large contributions. It’s not an easy task.

Deardorff’s individual contributions consist of a contribution of $100 from a Glendale resident and $50 from another resident. He has a campaign consultant, Gail Meyers, to whom he has paid $1,258.27 to date. Ms. Meyers has often been recommended to various candidates over the years by former Mayor Scruggs. We have our first inkling of Scruggs’ behind-the-scenes support of some of the current crop of council candidates. Here is another clue. The Host Committee for this fundraiser consisted of: Rich Shelton and Michele Tennyson, Campaign Co-Chairs; Robert “Bob” Campbell, Cathy Cheshier, Janet & Sean Lee and former Mayor Scruggs.

image002

While the bulk of Deardorff’s expenditures are the ones usually expected with a campaign there is one that sticks out and that is $3,141.00 to Petition Partners for nominating petition signature collection.  The Sonoran News in March of 2012 reported that the District Attorney of Covington, Kentucky filed suit against Andrew Chavez, CEO of Petition Partners, for fraudulent signature gathering. Here is the link: http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2012/120314/frontpage-Chavez.html . The use of Petition Partners by Deardorff appears to have almost sunk his campaign. Robert Petrone, another Cholla council candidate, filed challenging the validity of Deardorff’s signatures. Deardorff staved off the Petrone challenge by 2 signatures.

The noteworthy take-aways from Deardorff’s campaign report are: 1. His campaign is self funded in the amount of $11,858.43 to date; 2. He has received 2 individual contributions in the amount of $150 to date; 3. former Mayor Scruggs appears to be backing his candidacy; 4. He is using a political consultant; and 5. While he collected some petition signatures personally he hired a seemingly questionable firm to collect petition signatures.

Website — his campaign website is http://deardorff4cholla.com . Here is his contact information: Deardorff for Cholla, PO Box 10430, Glendale, AZ 85318-0430    623.776.5436       Email address:deardorff4cholla@gmail.com .

His website provides you biographical information, a photo gallery, campaign donation info and contact info. As of this posting there is nothing, absolutely nothing regarding Mr. Deardorff’s position on any Glendale issues. In the absence of information I did meet with Mr. Deardorff and his campaign consultant, Gail Meyers. In a meeting that took about an hour I asked him and any other candidates with whom I met the same series of questions.

Mr. Deardorff has lived in Glendale and the Cholla district for 18 years. He is married. He has not participated in Glendale community affairs. He has his own financial consulting business and believes that his work schedule is flexible enough to accommodate the demands of serving as a councilmember. His observations with regard to the relationship between council and staff are summed up with trust but verify. He believes past City Manager “falsehoods” have led to Glendale’s problems of today. He indicated that he is not receiving fire or police union support and is relying on neighborhood donations and self-funding. He believes the sales tax increase should sunset in 2017 and is confident that budget cuts can be made to offset the revenue loss. He readily admits that he does not have enough insider information to offer intelligent solutions to Glendale’s finances but he does think personnel costs are too high and could be cut. He understands that city council has no authority over school districts. He is not supportive of the Tohono O’odham’s proposed casino on the grounds of objecting to the placement of a reservation within Glendale’s boundaries.

After review of all 4 Cholla district candidates we’ll try to narrow the choices down to 2 people. In this district, as with other council races, there are so many candidates none of them can be expected to win outright in the primary and we can expect a run off in the general election in November.  Next up, Van DiCarlo.

© 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.

Jun 14

27

War declared

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 27, 2014
Posted in Camelback Ranch Spring Training Facility • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena • Westgate  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 9 Comments

I had just finished writing this blog when I received 2 robo calls. The first one was from the Arizona Free Enterprise Club announcing it was seeking petition signatures to put the city council’s affirmative decision to eliminate the sunset provision of the temporary sales tax increase on the ballot. In the call they announced that they would be at the Foothills Recreation Center and the Glendale Main Library this weekend from 9 AM to 5 PM both days gathering signatures to get it on the ballot. I wish them success. I will make a special point of going to the Main Library this weekend to sign their petition.

The second robo call was several hours later and it was from the Glendale Fire Union urging people not to sign the petition and promising dire consequences if the sales tax increase is sunset in 2017. Everyone acknowledges that Glendale’s debt burden is unsustainable. Perhaps it would be more productive if the Fire Union got behind an effort to urge reduction of the city’s debt by selling some of its assets. It would make the entire sales tax sunset issue a moot point. 

The battle lines are drawn. Voters will be fed misinformation and exaggeration from both sides. They will have to wade through the claims and counter claims made until their eyes are crossed. Will voters decide to send a strong message of austerity to the city council or will they decide Glendale cannot continue to exist without a permanent sales tax increase? It looks like the voters of Glendale will be given the opportunity to ultimately decide the issue. Which side will be more successful in activating their voter base? It’s fair to say that the Sales Tax Sunset Elimination War is officially declared. Now…on to the rest of this blog.

The June 24, 2016 city council meeting had two major items not yet reviewed in my blog. One was the passage of Ordinance 2897 removing the sunset provision from the sales tax increase. The other was Ordinance 2899 eliminating city permitted events from the requirements of the city’s noise ordinance.

The elimination of noise provisions for city permitted events is a city-wide ordinance. If there is a city permitted event in Sahuaro Ranch Park, it applies. If there is a city permitted event at Arrowhead Mall, it applies. It does not affect just the residents adjacent to Westgate. It was approved unanimously by city council. Councilmember Chavira, representing west Glendale and the area of Westgate, had no qualms about throwing his residents under the Glendale bus. Perhaps it is time for the voters of his district to question his representation of them, their concerns and their interests.

Sam Allen, Code Compliance Director, also neatly side-stepped a question about the number of previous noise complaints in the Westgate area by saying he did not have that figure as noise complaints are handled by the police department. There were allusions by staff that neighborhoods would remain protected but no specifics as to how that would be accomplished.  Another question asked was how many events declined to locate in Glendale as a result of the city’s noise ordinance? That, too, was deftly ignored.

Ken Sturgis, a citizen commentator, said that he lived .8 of a mile away from Westgate and often heard Westgate event noise within his home. His neighbors heard it as well but felt that the city would do nothing about it. I live a mile away from Westgate and heard noise but not at the same level of intrusion that neighbors living closer to Westgate would have heard. So, in the name of flexibility and competiveness, all neighborhoods throughout Glendale have lost all protection from city permitted event noise. They will experience sound and fury…signifying nothing.

The other ordinance, passed on a 4 to 3 vote (with our usual 4, Knaack, Martinez, Sherwood and Chavira in the affirmative), was the elimination of the sunset provision of the sales tax increase. I was the councilmember who originally insisted it be a provision of the sales tax increase. I did not offer that stipulation on a whim. It was the only way I could support the increase. I trusted and relied upon my fellow councilmembers to keep their word. Little did I know that their acceptance of the sunset provision was done with fingers crossed behind their backs.

Barrel district council candidate Randy Miller spoke to the issue and said the two options, making the sales tax increase permanent or utilizing draconian cuts, were not the only options available. Mayor Weiers agreed and that was the basis of his “no” vote. Mr. Miller said there is always an Option 3 and crafting it should be the goal.

At the time of the passage of sales tax increase with the sunset provision senior staff offered a plan to gradually absorb the $25 million in the temporary sales tax increase by making incremental cuts of $5 million a year over a 5 year period. The first signal that council would not have the fortitude to make the necessary cuts over 5 years was when they could not even accept privatization of custodial maintenance of city buildings. That decision sent a message, loud and clear, to senior staff that making the necessary spending cuts over 5 years was a council non-starter.

I marvel at the city’s propensity and adroitness in propagandizing the issue.  Knowing that the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) is currently circulating a petition to get the council’s vote for elimination of the sunset provision on the ballot, senior staff slipped in a new concept.  The sales tax increase will be reviewed during the budget process each year. Be careful what you wish for. It would be ironic indeed if, at the next budget discussions in the spring of 2015, council decided to raise the sales tax increase. After all, Councilmember Sherwood publicly stated that he believed it would be necessary.

The offer of sales tax increase review every year was strategically offered to mitigate the anger of Glendale voters should the AFEC be successful in getting the question on this fall’s ballot. The city will be holding out the hope that the increase has a chance of being reduced or going away in the future. Maybe after we’re all dead.

The city assertion flies in the face of the fact that the bond rating agencies are taking a close look and relying upon the elimination of the sunset provision to satisfy them. The bond rating agencies will again be very concerned about Glendale’s financial stability when they realize that now the sales tax increase stands an annual possibility of reduction or elimination. By adding this provision of annual review the stability that the bond rating agencies rely upon has been removed.

Another mitigation strategy that the city is already employing is on its website under Frequently Asked Questions about the elimination of the sunset provision. Here is the link:http://www.glendaleaz.com/documents/FAQEliminationofSunsetforTempTax062514.pdf .

The city’s message is that dire consequences will occur should the tax sunset in 2017. They used the same strategy years ago when a group of us nearly got the elimination of food sales tax on the ballot. The city prepared a slick pamphlet asking Glendale citizens to choose what cuts they would be willing to make. All choices were dire and it scared the voters. It worked that time and sadly, it may work this time.

If the Arizona Free Enterprise Club is successful in acquiring the requisite number of signatures to get the question on the fall ballot, don’t buy into scare tactics this time. It’s time for Glendale voters to send a direct message to council and senior management staff. That message is, live within your means. Don’t spend more than the city receives in revenue. If 22% of the budget is devoted to the debt burden, tell them it is their job to reduce the debt.

Which brings up the question, can Camelback Ranch, the Media Center, the Parking Garages, the Convention Center, the Civic Center or Jobing.com arena be sold? I’m not an attorney but I would say “yes.” Many years ago as a small business owner, my landlord sold the building in which I was a tenant. The new landlord and I could not come to mutually agreed terms. When my lease expired I did not renew. I left that location.

Glendale owns these buildings and has the right as landlord to sell them. Tenants in any of these sites would then have to negotiate new lease terms with the new landlord. Glendale may lose some money by selling at present market value but it would remove the debt and/or the O&M costs associated with the asset. Glendale must get its debt burden under control. Right now it is over 22%. It should be under 10%. If Glendale cannot afford these assets, selling them seems to be a prudent course of action.

There are those who will immediately say, we can’t do that. Instead, council direction should be given to the city attorney to make it happen. The city simply cannot continue down this unsustainable debt burden path forever.

There are those who will say, what’re you… nuts? The city can’t do that! It reminds me of something Councilmember Hugh said at this council meeting. He said, paraphrased, that the current council is fractured because its members do not share the same strategy for curing Glendale’s financial situation. Each side believes it has the better path and the right path to solve Glendale’s fiscal crisis.

I have no doubt that the councilmembers love this city. They demonstrate it daily by their service. Unfortunately, a majority believe the only solution is to tax the city out of its financial crisis. The minority believes that there are other choices, painful, yes… but other choices.

It has been my honor and a great privilege to have served as a Glendale councilmember for 16 years. I have lived in Glendale for nearly 50 years. I love this city. You love this city. It is our home. Placing a greater and greater tax burden on those who live in this home, is not prudent…and it sure isn’t the best way to grow 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.

Jun 14

20

Where’s the pea?

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 20, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

A retraction: In my June 19, 2014 blog entitled Politics is a rough sport I was factually incorrect when I said, ” I have not heard anything about Alvarez’ campaign manager Chuck Foy’s court filing questioning the residency of Jaime Aldama and Ron Kolb…yet.” Chuck Foy is campaign manager for Jaime Aldama, not Norma Alvarez. Foy is challenging Ron Kolb’s residency within the Ocotillo district on behalf of Aldama, Ocotillo district council candidate. Ron Kolb, another Ocotillo district council candidate, is challenging Michael Hernandez’ and Jaime Aldama’s residency within Ocotillo district.

With all of the law suits flying it’s like following a game of “where’s the pea?” It does get confusing. That’s is no excuse for getting the facts wrong and I extend an apology to Mr. Foy, Mr. Aldama and Ms. Alvarez .

I received a call from one of my readers regarding Mr. Aldama’s residency. I was directed to check the Maricopa County Assessor’s website and do a search on two addresses. The first search showed Mr. Aldama as the owner of:

144-01-363 – ALDAMA JAMIE/MONICA ANN

Property Address: 7326 W MARYLAND AVE GLENDALE, AZ 85303

The second search of a property address which Mr. Aldama claims as his current residence in the Ocotillo district lists the owner as:

143-27-594 – MENDEZ LUCIANO

Property Address: 7329 N 68TH DR GLENDALE, AZ 85303

There could be a simple explanation for all of this. Perhaps the Maryland house is now a rental property or has been sold and Mr. Aldama has purchased the 68th Drive property and the transactions have not yet been posted on the Assessor’s website. Who knows? That is what a judge will decide as a result of Mr. Kolb’s challenge.

This signals that this election year in Glendale is sure to be filled with intrigue, twists and turns…fodder for any political junkie.

© 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.

Jun 14

20

Do you still want the casino if…

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 20, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 3 Comments

I have written about the proposed Tohono O’odham (TO) casino and its impact on Glendale too many times to count. The other day a thought occurred to me. We all know that Glendale is in a financial mess. Its debt burden has prevented the construction of so many much needed facilities such as a western branch library and has caused the cuts in service to residents’ quality of life.

We often hear Councilmember Alvarez complain about service cuts and the on-going lessening of basic infrastructure maintenance. Yet she is all too willing to support the construction of the proposed casino in the name of jobs. Realistically the job numbers touted by the TO are highly inflated and everyone seems to ignore the stipulation that 25% of them must go to Native Americans.

Has anyone considered the financial impacts to a city already struggling financially? I think not.

Several years ago senior Glendale staff presented a cursory assessment of the financial effects of the casino. It was made clear that a new water treatment facility would be required to service the intense demand for water that would be created by the casino and its ancillary uses.  The construction of such a water facility is upwards of $70 million. Who would pay for it? Certainly not the Tohono O’odham. The persons paying the construction bill would be water ratepayers through an increase in water rates.

Then there is the issue of public safety. While a TO reservation would have its own tribal police to handle issues within the reservation it would be Glendale’s police and fire that would respond outside the reservation boundaries. At the very least, Glendale taxpayers would have to bear the costs of an increase in personnel and could experience delayed response times.

Lastly there are transportation costs. Streets adjacent to the reservation may need improvement to handle the increased traffic that will occur 24/7. There may be a need for upgraded traffic signals, signage and upgrades to the city’s Intelligent Traffic System.

For all of those who support the coming of the TO casino, do you still want the casino if it means that you have to pay more for your water provided by the city?  For all of those who support the coming of the TO casino, do you still want the casino if it means that public safety response times get longer as Glendale’s public safety personnel deal with a major traffic accident on adjacent streets or respond to a heart attack victim on the reservation? For all of those who support the coming of the TO casino, do you still want the casino if it means that instead of resurfacing or improving your street the money is used to improve or maintain streets to accommodate the increased traffic adjacent to the reservation?

You know, of course, that because of reservation status, the TO pay no taxes of any kind – no federal taxes, no state taxes, no county taxes and no Glendale taxes. If you were counting on increased sales tax revenue from the casino to offset these new financial burdens to the city’s General Fund, you can forget it. It’s not going to happen.

There are those like Councilmember Sherwood that believe Glendale can negotiate reimbursement for its added financial burden to support the casino from the TO. Do you really think the TO will shell out $70 million for a new water treatment facility or pay the ongoing costs of an increase in public safety personnel or pay millions for new or upgraded street improvements?

Even if a deal is struck, how can you trust people who violated agreements and the trust of their sister Tribes or kept secret its purchase of land for 7 years? If they renege on any kind of agreement with Glendale how will those who have complained about the costs of law suits feel about yet another law suit to get the TO to honor an agreement with Glendale?  

Please don’t regurgitate that the TO are required to give a small portion (8%) of their revenue to non-profits throughout the state. That presupposes that the TO will give their entire portion to non-profits in Glendale and ignore those in the Tucson area (site of their real reservation). Not going to happen. None of that money can go to Glendale’s General Fund to offset the new financial demands created by the proposed casino.

For every action there is an equal reaction. It’s the age old law of unintended consequences. While you may support the proposed casino because it will “create jobs,” are you willing to place further financial burdens on a city already under financial stress? Are you willing “to put your money where your mouth is” and to pay more for your water, deal with longer public safety response times and watch your streets deteriorate even further? I’m not.

© 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 »