Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

In its September 19, 2013 edition the Glendale Star ran an editorial entitled Dysfunctional city needs one spokesperson—the Mayor. Here’s the link: http://www.glendalestar.com/opinion/editorials/ . It states the obvious. In the absence of one strong voice the vacuum is filled with the multiple voices of all 7 councilmembers often delivering opposing messages while competing for attention. What’s going on?

Jerry Weiers, the Mayor, made a fatal mistake at the outset of his term. He aligned himself with Councilmembers Alvarez and Hugh on the issue of the Coyotes deal. Meanwhile Councilmember Sherwood, knowing that most likely he had the support of Councilmembers Knaack and Martinez, began his successful courtship of Councilmember Chavira. They are now best buddies and it led to successful passage of the Coyotes’ management deal. So began the setup of what is turning out to be a consistent 4-3 vote on nearly every issue. Weiers’ initiative to set up “Car Cruizing” in downtown Glendale ended in disaster when the producer moved the event to Westgate. His call for prayer before the start of council meetings, opposed by a majority of residents, did not help him either. Weiers must do some damage control or he can forget about a second term. One suggestion he might consider is to stop listening to political advisers who do not live in Glendale or truly understand Glendale dynamics. Weiers needs to listen to his residents instead. Perhaps a series of Town Hall meetings would fill that bill. 

As stated in an August 13, 2013 blog entitled Manny…say it ain’t so the election cycle of 2014 will be interesting. Councilmember Martinez is not running for reelection and has endorsed Robert Petrone. Big mistake on Martinez’ part as Petrone is not perceived as a good financial steward with the baggage of financial troubles from 2003 to the present defining him. Others will emerge to run for the Cholla district seat. Alvarez has announced that she will not run again. Good thing, for she’s been a one woman disaster since she took office. She, of course, will endorse someone. Whoever it turns out to be should cause us all to run in the other direction. An Alvarez clone is the last thing Glendale needs.

The really interesting decision to be made is by Vice Mayor Knaack. She stands for reelection in 2014. Does she run for her seat and then vacate it in 2016 to make a run for Mayor? Bets are that is exactly what she will do. Her effort to display leadership has led her to adopt a position of trying to please everyone and in reality, pleasing no one. Her ambition to become mayor could lead to her exit from the Glendale political scene.

The vacuum of leadership appears to have been filled, for now, by Councilmember Sherwood. He took the lead on the single hottest issue in Glendale, the Coyotes issue, right out from under Mayor Weiers. Sherwood is also ambitious and will seek the mayorship…in 2016 when his first term is up? Chavira, a Phoenix firefighter, has the Glendale fire union staunchly backing him and as Sherwood’s newest best friend could get the fire union to support Sherwood in 2016. The fire union will be in the cat bird’s seat choosing whoever promises them the best deal…Weiers, Knaack or Sherwood? In the past, the union has supported all three.

Of course this council is dysfunctional. They are no different than any other political body. They serve as a classic example of putting personal political ambition ahead of taking unpopular actions that best serve the city. They are jostling and shoving to fill the role of leader. It’s an all out contest to restore every unpopular cut to please residents short term rather than ensuring that the city’s long term finances are made healthy by keeping the city lean. Glendale is by no means out of the financial woods. Camelback Ranch and arena debts were back loaded causing the annual debt payments to become substantially larger this year and on into the future. Then there is still the open question of just how much of the $9M unbudgeted due to the arena management will be covered by the enhanced revenue scheme.

 Just one example of jockeying for position was the discussion at the August 17, 2013 council meeting surrounding the city’s Civic Center. Ever since it opened the city has subsidized its operations and maintenance. The rationale used by staff is that council directed that it be a community resource. Most of the community has never set foot in the Civic Center and cannot afford to rent spaces within it. In 2012 the past council directed that it was time for the Civic Center to recover 100% of its costs. It is a business after all. Since that direction, staff has been able to recover about 70% and according to its 5 year plan is set to recover 100% in the future. Several councilmembers, with wringing of hands, are ready to restore its city subsidy. Thank goodness, City Manager Brenda Fischer was able to stave off the notion by declaring it would be a topic of discussion for the spring council budget workshops. She also reminded council that when you add to one department’s budget, you must take away from another department. It’s again time for this council to prioritize city services, from most important to least important.

On a lesser note the Attorney General’s office has now rejected all complaints made related to any councilmembers’ violation of the state’s Open Meeting Laws. It was expected. The only issue remaining is the AG’s investigation into additional charges in relation to the external audit. Do not expect anything to come of that either.

©Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, 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 Lawwho 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.

On August 21, 2013 at 1:18 PM I received the following email: “Since you were interviewed as part of the process, I wanted to let you know that the City-Council-directed-external-audit of the city’s finances is complete and is being released to the public and media today. The documents will be posted on the city’s home page and are available for you at this link: http://www.glendaleaz.com/documents/SpecialProject-SummaryofFindingsandConclusions.pdf    Julie Frisoni”

This short and not-so-sweet email went to people interviewed for the external audit (or declined the request for an interview) but are no longer working for the city. It would have included me, former Mayor Elaine Scruggs, former City Manager Ed Beasley, former Assistant City Manager Pam Kavanaugh, former Finance Director Ed Lynch, former Human Resources Director Alma Carmicle and former Risk Manager Jim Loeb. I assume another email went to currently employed city personnel who were interviewed.

I had not checked my email all day but I did so late in the evening. I immediately went to the link provided in the email (you can do so as well), downloaded and printed out the 250 plus page external audit produced at a cost of half a million dollars. Then I spent the next couple of hours reading and analyzing it.

Finally, finally, finally, the city has released the results of the external audit. This is an issue for discussion that is long overdue. To do it justice there will be this article to be followed by two more. This first section will flesh out the scope of the audit, the players and the atmosphere surrounding the actions that occurred. It’s time to set the record straight.

The firm hired to perform the external audit was Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman & McAnally, PLC (HMPFM). They, in turn, subcontracted Fidelity Forensics Group, LLC., the Law Offices of A. Bates Butler and Evidence Solutions, Inc.

Their mandate was to investigate actions related to the Early Retirement Program (ERP); transfers between and out of the Risk Management Trust Fund (RMTF) and the Workmens Compensation Trust Fund (WCTF); look at any other cash transfers into the city’s General Fund; and evaluation of city management’s disclosure of these actions to the city council. They would also be charged with identifying any civil or criminal liability related to these actions. As they worked their way through these issues council approved enlarging their scope of investigation to include lack of city contributions to the trust funds; the city’s actions under the Federal Early Retirement Reimbursement Program (FERRP); Art Lynch’s employment arrangements after he retired as well as city action associated with his retirement; and Alma Carmicle’s work arrangement after she moved to Mississippi. In other words did anyone deliberately misdirect city funds or use them improperly, was improper direction given and did the city council know?

We know who was hired to do the work and what they were hired to investigate. To do their work they secured 19 workstations and/or computers and/or other devices such as tablets and phones. They reviewed nearly 75,000 documents but perhaps, most importantly, they performed 37 interviews. 27 people were interviewed (some more than once) as follows:

*    Norma Alvarez        *   Don Bolton             *   Jim Brown               *    Cathy Mcintyre        *   Ann Buchmeier       *   Nick DiPiazza             *   Julie Frisoni             *    Diane Goke           *   Horatio Skeete          *   Julianna Lloyd        *   Christina Parry       *   Craig Sullivan              *   Candace MacLeod   *   John Stern               *   Darcie McCracken       *   Raquel Montero        *   Joyce  Clark          *   Robert Steele           *   Elizabeth Smith        *   Andy Jennings         *   Elaine Scruggs         *   Shelly Kitts               *   Lupe Sierra         *   Craig Tindall                    *    Jill Shaw                *   Jim Summers        *   Michael Morrison              *   Sherry Schurhammer

More telling are those who were asked for interviews but declined them:

             *   Ed Beasley                  *   Art Lynch              

              *   Jim Loeb                     *   Pam Kavanaugh

             *   Alma Carmicle 

Now we have our cast of characters. What was the environment under former City Manager Ed Beasley’s tenure? It can be characterized in two words — very controlling. I used to joke and say that councilmembers were mushrooms. There’s an old country saying that mushrooms are grown in the dark and fed horse manure. It turns out to be more colorfully accurate than anyone imagined. Page 19 of the external audit says, “From the onset of the ERP, City Management and staff failed to keep the City Council appropriately informed, at times misled them and/or provided incorrect information. Under the previous administration, city staff was hindered and/or prohibited from providing valuable information to the City Council. Until recently City staff was hesitant to make independent decisions or communicate directly with the City Council due to a mandate by City Management that all Council communications be run through the City Manager’s office. The few times City staff was allowed to present to the City Council, they were required to do a dry run for City Management and only present that which was approved at that rehearsal. These acts could be most readily observed in official communications by City Management and staff with the City Council.” Finally here is formal vindication of my actions as Chairperson of the Trust Funds and as your councilmember despite the smear tactics used by my opponent in my recent reelection campaign.

In my conversations with various staff, there was confirmation that not only did every council communication have to flow through the city manager’s office but that staff was required to report any verbal communication had with councilmembers. They also, I kid you not, had various staff members act in the roles of individual councilmembers and then rehearse the proposed presentation to be made to council. It was a formidable and intimidating atmosphere in which Beasley expected results. Policy direction was his forte. Immersing himself in detail to achieve the objective was not. Question: Who exactly constituted “City Management” at that time? Or did Beasley instead rely upon his “inner circle” of trusted advisers?”

What occurred disturbs me – no, it’s worse than that. It makes me sick to my stomach. Management staff, almost universally belong to the International City/County Managers Association (ICMA). ICMA’s Code of Ethics can be seen at this link: http://icma.org/en/icma/ethics/code_of_ethics.

Tenet 3 of the Code is as follows, “Be dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity in all public and personal relationships in order that the member may merit the respect and confidence of the elected officials, of other officials and employees, and of the public.” Staff members involved betrayed the trust we placed in them and treated us as mushrooms.

Next up — what did the investigation reveal?

©Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has 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, democracy, 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. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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.

The most discussed item on the Glendale council workshop agenda of August 20, 2013 was that of prayer. This is not a council that questions staff reports or recommendations. There are several reasons that could account for their lack of inquiry. They could agree with all aspects of the item presented or they might not have done their homework and actually read the material. Take your pick. Keep in mind even when a councilmember agreed with an item, questions were often posed to staff to flesh out and offer further explanation.  In other words, it provided an opportunity to educate. Several councilmembers appeared to be reading the material in their workshop books for the first time. That is not as uncommon as you might expect. On previous councils there were always one or two councilmembers who were reading the material for the first time during meetings.

Glendale City Council

Glendale City Council

This is not a council of passionate belief or extraordinary intellect. Qualities required to create an atmosphere of forthright debate rather than passive acceptance. One exception is Councilmember Alvarez whose stubbornness and lack of understanding of an issue is often mistaken for passion.

Prayer is Mayor Weiers’ initiative. Coming from the state legislature where prayer is offered provided the impetus to introduce the concept in Glendale. He appears to have the support of Councilmembers Hugh, Sherwood, Alvarez and Chavira to bring it to a vote of approval. As stated in my last blog prayer may be fleeting as the Supreme Court takes up the issue of prayer at town meetings this fall. Councilmember Martinez and Vice Mayor Knaack dissented. They preferred continuation of the moment of silence and felt that the concept may cause problems in the future. They represent the sentiment of my unscientific blog poll to date. 67% of the responders do not support initiating a prayer and 33% of the responders do support it. Perhaps the best course of action would have been to “let sleeping dogs lie.”

When it came to Council Items of Interest, nearly all of the items were a recitation of the issues currently facing them, i.e., Camelback Ranch debt, the proposed casino, future revenue projections, the fire department’s “structural deficit,” and employee compensation. There were a few new ideas to explore. Councilmember Martinez asked to look at loose trash collection with the idea of changing it to a quarterly service or eliminating it altogether. That idea is sure to generate a lot of comment from Glendale’s citizens. Councilmember Sherwood suggested a look at the sister city concept with an intent to partner with a Canadian city that hosts hockey. Mayor Weiers agreed saying that Anthony LeBlanc (new owner of the Coyotes hockey team) had suggested the idea. Councilmember Chavira offered an idea, admittedly not his own, that asked staff to look at interim uses (such as an archery range) for the Western Area Regional Park (now called Glendale Heroes Memorial Park).

We know that critical issues such as the arena management contract, the external audit and meeting the City Attorney candidates occurred during what is turning out to be, all-too-frequent, closed Executive Sessions. The weighty issues are not for your consideration…only their eventual outcomes.

©Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has 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, democracy, 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. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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

Instead of its regular meeting time of 1:30 PM the Tuesday, August 20, 2013 council workshop meeting will convene at 9 AM. The 64 million dollar question is will Councilmember Alvarez show up or call in? She’s on the injured reserve list once again. If she does show will pain medication affect her performance or lack thereof?

They will begin with an Executive Session to meet the candidates for the City Attorney’s position. Do we know how many finalists? Do we know who they are? At least when the City Manager’s position was up for grabs we knew a smidgeon about the finalists. This time there is a cone of silence.

prayerThe most interesting and possibly contentious issue for open workshop discussion is to pray or not to pray at the start of the evening meeting. FYI: Only Phoenix has prayer before its council meeting. The cities of Gila Bend, Winslow, Apache Junction, Litchfield Park, Benson and Florence have invocations before their meetings. What’s the difference between an invocation and a prayer? According to the dictionary an invocation is the act of asking for help or support from anyone or anything.  A prayer is a spiritual communion with God or an object of worship. Is it appropriate to start council meetings with a prayer? You can weigh in by participating in my unscientific poll to the left of this article. This issue could become a moot point of discussion as this fall the Supreme Court will take up the issue of prayer at town meetings as it hears the Greece, New York case.

After their discussion of prayer council will move into another Executive Session where once again they will receive information about the external audit. Apparently the audit has been completed. If that is the case, it’s time to let the citizens of Glendale review the result. After all, taxpayers paid a hefty price for it – a half million dollars. It should be presented to all on a gold plated serving tray! Come on, council, it’s time to give it up and direct staff to post the results on the city’s website.

The other item of note in Esession is discussion of the IceArizona management agreement. What could this be about? The council approved the contract with IceArizona with its public vote on July 2, 2013 followed by the sale of the team by the NHL to IceArizona.  Is the contract still under negotiation?  That is the only way it can be discussed in Esession. Here is the exact verbiage used: “Discussion and consultation with the City Attorney and the City Manager to receive an update, consider its position and provide instruction and direction to the City Attorney and the City Manager regarding Glendale’s position in connection with agreements associated with arena management, the Arena, and the Hockey Team, which are the subject of negotiations (bold emphasis mine). [A.R.S 38-431.03(A)(3)(4)(7)].” Note that discussion is permitted in Esession while the negotiations are in progress but negotiations were concluded with council’s vote on July 2nd. Hmmmm…

©Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has 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, democracy, 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. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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.

Glendale City Council

Glendale City Council

Don’t expect any fireworks at this first voting meeting on August 13, 2013 of the Glendale City Council after their summer break. They are still feeling the warm glow of sand, surf, summer and best of all, having been away from one another. Wait until the contentious issues surface such as the results of the external audit. This item once had a relatively small price tag and has now ballooned to half a million dollars.

This meeting will probably last an hour or less. Although there are 24 items to be decided and voted upon 19 of them are on the Consent Agenda and can be voted upon in one action. Only 5 items are not on the Consent Agenda.

This is the last night meeting that will convene at 7 PM.  Ordinance 2858 (which we can assume will be approved) will change the evening meeting time to 6 PM at the next meeting in two weeks. It seems counterproductive to move the meeting time up by one hour. To what end and to whose end? It makes it more difficult to arrive by 6 PM for those who work and want to attend. It is tied to another change whereby public comments will be at the beginning of the meeting rather than at the end. This change was made under the guise of accommodation of the hoards of citizens wishing to publicly comment and being made to wait until the end of the meeting. It accommodates the hoard consisting of Ken Jones, Arthur Thruston, Bill Dempski and the Marwicks, regular speakers at every meeting. After all they do go to bed rather early. Ironically, the Marwicks live in Phoenix, not Glendale.  In Glendale they have a forum. In Phoenix they do not.

Other changes that will probably be approved on August 13th are: adjusting the term of the Vice Mayor from January to January, a calendar year rather than a fiscal year; instituting a two year term limit of service for councilmembers on subcommittees (too bad it’s not term limits as an elected official); granting staff more time to respond to council items of special interest. It had been 30 days, now it is 60 days; and formalizing the council workshop meeting location in B-3. Mayor Weiers had insisted workshop meetings be held in council chambers. That didn’t last long because it was more expensive and frankly, logistically it simply didn’t work. One action yet to be decided and that will be discussed at the council workshop on August 20, 2013 is the addition of time for prayer at the start of each voting meeting. This item alone could make that workshop session very entertaining.

Fischer 2

City Manager
Fischer

Item 23, the next to the last item on the agenda, is interesting for the very nature of what it does not contain. It is an update of city signature authorization for banking transactions. It recognizes the new City Manger Brenda Fischer. It retains Horatio Skeet as Assistant City Manager and Jamsheed Mehta as Interim Assistant City Manager. Yet Ms. Fischer placed Mr. Skeete on paid administrative leave pending yet another investigation which she institued. This action to recognize signature authorization could merely be procedural. It is quite conceivable that in 2 weeks they will do it all again and add Julie Frisoni as Acting Assistant City Manager. In her role as acting assistant city manager she will oversee communications, information technology, community and economic development, planning and building safety, intergovernmental affairs and the mayor and council

Frisoni

Acting Assistant City Manager
Julie Frisoni

As an Acting Assistant City Manager, what is Frisoni’s expertise and what are her credentials? There is little public information to be had. She studied communication and broadcasting at Arizona State University – but did she graduate? With a degree in Communications?  She worked at KPNX-TV and applied for a communications position with the city. She has no formal training in public administration or business administration and no credentials in managing in any field other than communications/marketing but she has plenty of political savvy. When the former Communications Director left Ms. Frisoni quickly rose to the position of Director of Communications/Marketing. She was part of former City Manager Ed Beasley’s inner power circle and worked closely with him in a position of trust.  Which leads one to ask, when Beasley gave direction or approval to move Trust fund revenues was Ms. Frisoni in that staff meeting? Probably. What did she know about the transfers and when did she know it? Ms Frisoni’s temporary promotion shouldn’t come as a surprise since Ms. Fischer’s early career included public relations in Henderson, Nevada and communications in North Las Vegas, Nevada. Sisters under the skin?

So, folks, city council is back along with a new cast of characters. This season’s political dance, fascinating yet often cruel, is about to begin again. What will be the result for the people of Glendale?

©Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has 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, democracy, 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. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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.

Coalition 1 photo

Glendale City Council
(Alvarez absent)

Lately there has been a rash of media stories about the Attorney General’s office receiving complaints about the now infamous meeting between NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman and Deputy NHL Commissioner Bill Daly, Renaissance Sports and Entertainment (RSE) principals and Glendale City Councilmembers on May 28, 2013. Immediately following that event I posted about the now famous concept of a “walk around.” The media picked up on it followed by official complaints. Of course we see the fine hand of Councilmember Alvarez aided and abetted by Reverend Maupin in this blame game.

The “walk around” has been a procedure whereby an applicant/ developer of a land parcel met with one, two or three councilmembers at a time. The planned project was explained and the councilmember(s) offered commentary. Usually the applicant was not in the final stages of a project and wanted feedback prior to developing a final proposal.  It was also used by staff to brief councilmembers on a variety of items. In either case the staff person or applicant was seeking further refinements or clarification from councilmembers on a project or item before proceeding.

The first question to ask about the May 28 2013 meeting was why didn’t the city call for an executive session? Did it not have enough time (24 hours) to post such a meeting? Who knows? In hindsight an executive session would have been far more preferable as this contract and its deal points was Hot Topic #1 in Glendale and across the Valley. All of the councilmembers would have heard exactly the same information about the RSE deal at the same time. All would have had an opportunity to comment.

As for this particular “walk around” being no more than a “meet and greet” opportunity it would have been essentially unproductive and a waste of time. Mayor Weiers, at one point, told the media that only the broad outlines of the deal were offered—in other words, generalities, not specifics. Even if that were the case, it stretches incredulity to believe that there was no reaction to the generalities from councilmembers. Now Interim City Attorney DiPiazza is tasked with defending poor judgment. Do you think anyone is going to admit to having deal point discussions? Not on your life if it can lead to fines or even removal from office.

Neither side will be unscathed in this latest debacle. There have also been complaints lodged with the AG’s office against Councilmembers Alvarez and Hugh for violating executive session by discussing the Beacon bids publicly at the July 2nd council meeting. What I find fascinating is that Ken Jones, an avid Alvarez cabal member, leaves council chambers BEFORE either Alvarez or Hugh speaks about the Beacon bids and reveals information about several of the bids to the media. How could he have possibly have had that information unless someone who attended the executive session where it was discussed gave it to him?

The old crystal ball says the complaint against the entire council (sans Alvarez who refused to be in the same room with hockey people) will go nowhere. Unless someone is willing to ‘fess up there will be no substantiating proof for the complaint. On the other hand, council meetings are taped and one can go to the city website and view the July 2, 2013 meeting in question and see Ken Jones leave prior to Alvarez’ and Hugh’s comments about the Beacon bids. There, on video, for all to see is the proof required. How it is interpreted by the AG’s office will surely determine their fate.

copyright

Note: I said that I was taking a hiatus for about a week but this blog begged to be written before my hiatus. It is timely now. See you back here after July 15th.)

Norma Alvarez

Norma Alvarez

There are two words that apparently are not in Councilmember Alvarez’ dictionary — grace and dignity. On July 3, 2013 the Glendale Star published a story entitled Alvarez sets deadline for departure by its Editor, Carolyn Dryer. Here is the link: http://www.glendalestar.com/news/headlines/article_d7f30530-e413-11e2-8882-0019bb2963f4.html.

Norma publicly exploded after the affirmative vote by a majority of council for the RSE arena management deal. She laid the blame for the lease management’s acceptance at the feet of the entire council by saying,“It’s our fault, letting them (Coyotes prospective owners) do what they want to do.”

The city paid approximately $500,000 for an external audit. In the minds of some councilmembers such as Alvarez, it’s purpose is to fix blame. In the story Alvarez claims the audit will reveal all kinds of dastardly deeds performed by ??? and she says, “I’m waiting for the audit. You’re going to be surprised.” She also hinted that she will resign after the results of the audit are made public and said further, “It’s going public. So, I’m going to wait for that.” She claimed that she told the auditors an ear-full and she probably did but how much was hearsay and how much had a factual basis? You can be sure the audit will be fact based and may not include all of Norma’s titillating tales. If that is the case, you may see a second eruption from Mount Norma.

Sherwood

Gary Sherwood

She then went on to trash her fellow councilmembers. She claimed discrimination by her peers because “I have never been included in this council from the first day I’ve been in. I’m not ‘one of the boys.’” She accused Councilmember Sherwood of usurping the Mayor’s role during the month-long Coyotes negotiation process with, “I’m tired of this person walking around and talking like he’s the mayor. Jerry (Mayor Jerry Weiers) has been courteous to him.” Sherwood did take the lead on the Coyotes negotiation and his rubbing elbows with the likes of NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman, Assistant NHL Commissioner Bill Daley, RSE’s Anthony LeBlanc and Daryl Jones and attorneys Grant Woods and Nick Wood (no relation) had to have made Sherwood feel warm and fuzzy all over. I’m sure his ego was stoked as all of these principals whispered sweet nothings.  She also accused Sherwood of inserting himself into the search for the City Manager process by “When Sherwood got the applications, he called her (new city manager hired Tuesday, Brenda Fischer),” Alvarez said. “We didn’t call anybody; that’s why we have HR. He (Sherwood) came back and told us this is the best person.” While not illegal, as far as I know, it is a highly unusual action by a councilmember.

Chavira photo

Sammy Chavira

There were no kind words for Councilmember Chavira either. A little past history is in order. When Sammy ran in 2012 Norma stood “toe to toe” with Sammy’s bid. She funneled money and workers to his campaign and did everything in her power to assure his election.  With regard to Sammy’s positive vote for the Coyotes’ deal she said, “But he’s a disappointment to the people of Glendale. I know people in Glendale who say they are going to make sure he never wins again.” (More about Sammy’s vote in a future blog.) I would think Norma feels betrayed by the very person she was instrumental in getting elected. If nothing else Norma has a long memory and the resources to make good on her promise about Sammy’s future.

There’s more but you will have to read the article for yourself to capture the full flavor of the outrage Norma expresses. Every councilmember, in any community, has at one time or another, experienced back stabbing, betrayal and countless other unpleasant actions from their peers. It’s not usually aired in public because most have a sense of grace and dignity and realize that it’s part of politics. Alas, they are not words in Norma’s vocabulary.

copyright

Sherwood

Councilmember
Gary Sherwood

Here is the transcription of Councilmember Gary Sherwood’s Sports 910 radio interview of Wednesday, June 19, 2013. There is no transcription of the last question asked as it was related to the Cardinals. There is no commentary offered. His words speak for themselves.

Radio Question 1 (RQ 1): “What got accomplished if anything last night, Gary?”

Sherwood Response 1 (SR 1): “Pretty much went the way I had anticipated. For most of the could they were seein’ some of the deal points for the first time. You know, had discussion on ‘em and I think there’s a lotta good that came out of it. I think there’s couple of things that had to go back to the Renaissance. I think they’re very doable. I think we’re waiting right now to get those things in writing and then there’s another meeting scheduled for Friday morning. Hopefully we’ll have consensus to take that to a public meeting. My concern, you know, was that we give the public time to vet this. So even though there’s a place holder meeting for the 28th of June there could also be one on July 2nd. So, we’re sittin’ here on the 19th, we’ll discuss this again on the 21st. If we’re good to go on it in terms of we think we have council support then either that information gets out later in day or Monday at the latest and the public has that week to vet it. We could still vote on it on the 28th. I think by Charter we’re to have it out there for 72 hours. I think we’ve always tried to do a little better than that. Again, this just came to us about four weeks ago. We had to quit acting like car dealers and each of us come with our best, you know, what we needed and their best deal instead of taking two months to go back and forth. And I think that’s what’s occurring.”

RQ 2: “That’s good to hear now. But it does sound like there’s sill some negotiation that have to take place. Do you have time to execute all that?”

SR 2: “I think so…I think so. I mean, you know, they really haven’t give us a deadline. I’ve always had July 9th nailed on my calendar. I don’t know that that maybe…I’m hearing some undertones that it’s gotta be July 2nd. I don’t know that July 9th works. There’s a few people that are going to be out of town on that week. So, I think, again we’re lookin’ at, you certainly can’t have a meeting on the 5th because that’s a long holiday weekend and I think the public would think we’re trying to pull something over on ‘em. So, I think the 2nd. Although no one’s called it that. I think that’s the date we’re shootin’ for. It could happen the previous Friday. Again, I think, I think what came out of yesterday was to be expected. There was a couple of things that we felt uncomfortable with. But surprisingly they were kinda simple things in the scheme of things. So, with that, I know our Acting City Manager in on the phone again this morning and my understanding is that those are gonna be doable in some kind of form or fashion. That should make it a go although I guess I gotta be careful of that because we’ve been down this path so many times.”

RQ 3: “Gary, when it comes to the actual lease, I mean is there an out clause? I mean is that stuff that’s still being negotiated?”

SR 3: “ Yeah, you know, I know previous council have been hung up on the length of those because they didn’t feel like there was enough time to give, you know, the fans, the sponsors, you know, people would be vested that they thought they’d have the rug pulled out from underneath them. But again, when you look at five year, uh, if truly someone’s makin’ an effort on this we gotta know whether hockey will make a go of it. I think, if ya look at the last 3 or 4 years with the threat of the team leaving every year you gotta five the folks over there, Mike Nealy, Jim Foss, and company a lot of credit for what they were able to do, um, with what sponsorships they were able to sell and keepin’ the fan base somewhat energized, um, and of course we had a good product, you know, this is a fickle sports town. We know that if you don’t have a winning product, you know, a lot has been said you know, about attendance figures over the years…10,000, 11,000. So when the DBacks made their run in their last championship they weren’t…their average attendance wasn’t even 50% of their capacity so and I know, baseball’s a little bit different to compare to there, those say hockey and basketball. But, you know, we got knocked a little bit for that. I…I think we truly, um, can make this a go, um, it just hasn’t, you know, it was under managed before, um, we got good management in there and then we didn’t have an owner. So, you know, there’s a lot of things, good things, that occurred over the last 3 and 4 years and givin’ the team with a little bit more of a budget that I’m sure they coulda done more and, um, so I’ve always been optimistic on this. And it’s not just for hockey for me. It’s just for that area. You know, if you don’t have a major tenant there, um, it basically can almost be shuttered. And again, for the mega events we’re trying to attract next door, you know, at the stadium and also the arena, the NCAA Four, the WWE, you know, all the things we’ve been kinda missin’ out on. You gotta fill that arena up. I mean, you gotta have, there’s gotta be more attractions around the area. And again, it was starting to come to fruition before the downturn and all those get put on hold and then the receivership. So that whole area, um, has a lot to gain. That’s why the city never intended to make money on the franchise, just wanted to break  even which we were doin’ until we got it with that first $25 million. And then all of a sudden, you know, again, that was supposed to be short term, we were gonna get an owner. We all know the history in the last 4 years. But when you go back in and look at the lack of revenue streams that the city had, havin’ to pay a management fee, well, then you can see that, um, that’s what we needed to make this deal work. And I think that, uh, the Renaissance group has done a good job at understanding that, uh, I guess I would feel a little better if there was more equity but there’s even some, uh, you know, there’s uh, I mean there’s even some talk about maybe more sweetin’ the pot there. But that’s hyperbole (couldn’t pronounce the word correctly!) right now. So, I feel, I’ve gone from cautiously optimistic to optimistic and again, Friday will be the proof of the pudding. I believe, again, talkin’ to the NHL they wanna know by the 24th, 25th, that we’re close, uh, and then they’ll extend. There’s no magic date but they’re not gonna have a tolerance for much later than that and again, I’ve been hearin’ the date of like, the 2nd. The 9th is maybe a little too late.”

RQ 4: “Gary, I want to piggy back on the management fee because we hear so many different numbers. Have you been able to bridge the gap and I know possibly you can split the parking and some of the other stuff. Just talk about how important that is.”

SR 4: “Well, I mean we have to, I mean, everyone knows what our budget is for that and um, and we can’t afford much more right now. So, uh, yeah, I think, I think with what we say yesterday, uh, a good part of that was closed, and, uh, we’re just lookin’ for, I guess I’ll just use the word ‘certainty.’ And it’s about really, all I can really say on that. And I think it’s, uh, I think it’s, uh, I felt it was an easy things to do and we’ll see whether they come through with that, um, later today or tomorrow. And then we’ll talk about it again on Friday and then it’s hopeful that they give us mostly what we want on that and um, then we come to agreement.”

RQ 5: “All right now. Did it surprise you to learn that the NHL has had contingency plan discussions with the City of Seattle?”

SR 5: “No, not at all. I mean, that’s somethin’ that they haven’t had in the past and uh, of course, I mean there’s 5 or 6 cities there and we hear from them all the time. So, no, I mean, Quebec, I mean they really think they’re in the running. Um, Seattle’s gotten little active here recently and, you know, whether a lot of that. I know Bill Daly, Gary Bettman have been very careful not to, you know, they’ve been through this enough times. They let out just enough information to put a little hear on us and just to let us know that, you know, and again, that’s just all the gamesmanship. You know, I listen and we’ve talked on it before, I was a little surprised is that they came out last week, with um, you know, during their um, their opening press conference for the series and said what they said but again, um, they’ve got as much, ah, experience on this as we do for the last 3 and 4 years. So, I think, that they’re just lettin’ us know that, um, that they have a plan. And whether all that can happen in time or not or whether they have to play in the stadium, arena, for a couple moths, half season, um, they are still negotiating with the players’ union for the all-star, I’m sorry, for the Olympics. So that’s another reason why their schedule’s comin’ out late. I’m sure we’re another reason but it’s comin’ out later than normal and that’s probably helpful, givin’ us a little time as well but still ya have to get goin’. And it would be nice, ya know, it was reported yesterday that Tippet’s under, he started negotiations and of course ya got free agency on the 5th. So it would be nice, well, tha this wraps up in our favor in terms of keepin’ the team here and then that we can do it by the 2nd so that, um, they have a little bit more to go on for the free agency.”

RQ 6: “All right now. There were some rumblings last week that there might be a mystery party getting involved or wanting to get involved. The Commissioner, himself, has said that his phone has been ringing a lot recently. Are you guys convinced that you’ve got the best deal in front of you, the best party, the best potential partner in front of you?”

SR 6: “Yeah. I think it’s funny how at the very last moment all these other sources start bubbling to the top and yet, ya know, we’ve had this for how long? Yeah, I’m convinced of that. There was some, they were comin’ from good sources and those, um, particular potential owners admitted they were out there, you know, lookin’ at some things that maybe they hadn’t looked at before but yeah, no, it’s really way too late for that. Um, it’s been rumored that some of them, or one in particular, may just want to add some equity to, even though, they’re completely out of it they may just want to add some equity on this deal, just to help it. Just because they want to see hockey here in the Valley even though they’re not, um, local residents. They own property here. So that’s the equity piece I spoke of earlier.”

RQ 7: “Right. What’s interesting to me is OK, you guys now, if you’ve got 3 votes and you need a fourth, then you guys need to be able to discuss and come to the agreement that the deal is doable and workable for everybody. Yet, before that even happens, you have to have a trust in the motivation and long term intent of this partner and I know that this 4 or 5 year out clause and the fact that Seattle could be such a lucrative move if a team ever went that direction. There’s fears that maybe they’re using Glendale as a stepping stone to elsewhere. Can everybody get beyond that fear? Are you confident in the intent of Renaissance Sports and Entertainment?”

SR 7: “Um, I am, I mean…I mean you have that in the back of your mind. Um, you know, what’s our alternative? You know, that we just give up on this right away? And then we’re left with whatever. We’re left with which is kinda scary for me. So, you know, if you give it a shot for 5 years and everyone puts their best foot forward and see, ya know, that we continue, you know, with the same management team that guiding the Coyotes and, um, and we do see that attendance can increase and we get those reneue streams. You know, I mean again, uh, sponsors are gonna…sponsors haven’t been paying top dollar for signage and the suites and such. A low percentage of the suites are sold. You know, if all that gets put together and we show those improvements then, you know, then the owners, the new prospective owners then are gonna be convinced to keep it here. So, you know, I mean, so, 4,5 years, ah, I think it’s certainly worth it if it’s not costin’ the city anything additional. I mean, you can do the numbers and see that it costs more money, it cost the city more money without the team than with it, you know, in lost revenue. You’ve got the arena debt service regardless of what’s in there. So, the lack of development, er, the delay of development around there. And of course, you know, attracting the major events. So, yeah, I mean it’s always goin’ to be in the back of the mind. But again, what’s the alternative? You know, at least we get a 5 year chance at this and I think we’re convinced that this particular group, um, really wants to make a run at it but um, they’re not going to stick themselves with a bad deal that they can’t get out of. So, we’re not as hung up on that and when I say ‘we’ obviously I’m new to council but speaking from the city, they…they’re really hung up on that last time around. Uh, they really wanted that out of Jamison deal there was a, that, you know, there was penalty clauses for leavin’ early and do, I, we don’t have that. I don’t believe we have that in this particular arrangement and, um, and again, I don’t know that we coulda got anyone to sign up that way.”

RQ 8: About the Cardinals. Did not transcribe.

copyright

jobing.com arena

Jobing.com arena

To date the media and Glendale residents have been denied access to the four bids submitted to Beacon Sports, the city’s $100,000 consultant hired to accept and vet all bids to manage Jobing.com arena, a city-owned facility. Very recently the city finally released the names of the four bidders and it has been reported that R Entertainment and Phoenix Monarch Group (PMG) were rejected for not meeting minimum specifications. By the way, Art Jimenez, principal of PMG, publicly stated that he has formed a new group, PMG Management and Entertainment, LLC. As of this date it is not registered with the Arizona Corporation Commission and the name is still available, if anyone out there is interested.

There is no legal basis with which to deny the public access to the Beacon bids. We first go to the City Charter to see what it says about bids. In Article VIII, Section 2-Competitive Bidding it says, “The city council shall establish by ordinance formal guidelines regulating the purchase of goods and services by the city. Such ordinance shall specify the conditions pursuant to which formal competitive bidding shall be required, conditions pursuant to which informal competitive bidding shall be required and those conditions under which no bidding for city contracts shall be required.”  Last amended on 3-15-88.

This section authorized the city council to establish a formal bidding process. That formal process is outlined in Glendale’s Municipal Code, which was originally adopted and subsequently amended by city council vote as ordinances. An ordinance is a city law and can only be superseded by the Arizona Revised Statutes (established and passed by the Arizona Legislature).

scalesWe then go to Glendale’s Municipal Code, Section 2-145, Formal Purchase Procedure, (2) b, Sealed Bidding Procedure (IFB) which states, “Bids shall be opened publicly at the time and place designated in the invitation for bids. The amount of each bid, and such other relevant information as may be specified by the materials manager, together with the name of each bidder shall be recorded as determined by the materials manager. This record shall be open to public inspection after the bid opening in a manner prescribed by the materials manager (bold mine). Except to the extent the bidder designates, and the city concurs, trade secrets or other proprietary data contained in the bid documents shall remain confidential.”

Then we have to check Arizona Revised Statutes to see if there is anything different from city code. For that information, we refer to Arizona Revised Statutes, Section 41-2533. Competitive Sealed Bidding. D. which states, Bids shall be opened publicly at the time and place designated in the invitation for bids.  The amount of each bid, and such other relevant information as may be specified by rule, together with the name of each bidder shall be recorded.  This record shall be open to public inspection at the bid opening in a manner prescribed by rule (bold mine).  The bids shall not be open for public inspection until after a contract is awarded.  To the extent the bidder designates and the state concurs, trade secrets or other proprietary data contained in the bid documents shall remain confidential in accordance with rules adopted by the director.”

Well, look at that, the Glendale Municipal Code and Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) almost mirror one another on the language! Please take note of the sentence in the above cited ARS that says, “The bids shall not be open for public inspection until after a contract is awarded.” That prescription is lacking in Glendale’s Municipal Code. As it is not a prescription in Glendale’s Municipal Code it appears that Glendale is required to release the bid information after bid opening and I don’t think it means weeks later. Both bodies of law allow proprietary information to be redacted from any bid. And both codes allow public inspection after the bids are opened.

It would seem that Glendale has failed to follow its own Municipal Code process. It should release the results of the bidding process of all 4 bids NOW (in fact, it should already have done so) and redact only that information that is proprietary.  Just to be sure there is no confusion over what constitutes proprietary information; Webster’s defines it as, “possession, ownership or exclusive right.” It’s time for Glendale to cough it up.

There is no justifiable reason to discuss the Beacon bids in council Executive Session. They should have been publicly released by now. Those bids are what they are. The presentation on the bids should be in public workshop session. Council either accepts one or it rejects all but it would provide the public with an opportunity to discover just exactly how much two major companies, SMG World and Phoenix Arena Development think it’s worth to them to manage and operate Jobing.com.

There is also no reason why Councilmember Sherwood cannot discuss the worth of keeping the Coyotes in Glendale. After all, it’s not new information. During the Jamison negotiations, Interim City Manager Skeete publicly stated that keeping the Coyotes brings Glendale an approximate additional million dollars a year in revenue.

contractIt is justifiable and prudent that council discuss the RSE deal in Executive Session. They are in the midst of negotiations with the group. It provides the full council an opportunity to hear the terms of the deal and to offer any and all changes to those terms for further negotiation. It was no more than the former council did that resulted in a lower management fee and penalties and incentives for under/over performance. Once all terms are satisfactory to both sides, the deal terms should be released publicly and the vote scheduled for one week after release.

It has been widely reported that the Renaissance Entertainment’s management deal with Glendale may come before the council for a vote on June 25th, June 28th or as late as July 9th. When there was all of that furor over the Jamison ownership deal last acceptanceyear a court mandated that the deal be made public one week before any scheduled council vote on the issue. I suspect denialthat prescription still holds true. In that case, if the RSE deal is scheduled for a council vote on June 25th, it must be released to the public for its consideration one week before on June 19th. If the vote is June 28th, it must be publicly available on June 21st. If the vote is on July 9th, the public is entitled to review it on July 3rd. Come on, mayor and council, get your act together and practice the transparency that you love to preach.

copyright

agenda 1June 11, 2013 will be a regular Glendale City Council meeting. The agenda, however, is anything but regular. There are four items of special note. All but one item is under Consent Resolutions. Consent Resolutions means that unless an item is pulled by a councilmember for further discussion that item will be passed or rejected along with the 13 other consent resolutions and there will be no discussion – nary a peep out of anyone. The usual disclaimer prior to introduction of the consent resolutions is to say, “They are of a routine nature or have been previously discussed by council in a workshop session.”  Let me assure you two of the consent resolutions are not of a routine nature and have never been discussed publicly by this council. They are consent resolutions #13 and #14. Here is the link to council’s meeting agenda of June 11, 2013:  http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agendasandminutes/Meetings/Agendas/061113.pdf .

Both of these consent resolutions require doing business with the Tohono O’odham Nation. Item 13 is a grant request from the TO on behalf of the Aguila Youth Leadership Institute (http://www.aguilayouth.org/) in the amount of $112,100. The second item, item 14 is another grant request from the TO on behalf of Heart for the City in the amount of $100,000.

In the Staff Report, staff’s apparent rationale for doing business with the Tohono O’odham is that we have submitted for the same type of grants from the Gila River Indian Community.  So, if we could take grant money from the Gila River Indian Community then by golly, we should be able to take grant money from the Tohono O’odham. Between August, 2010 and June, 2011 the city received grants totaling $290,188 from the Gila River Indian Community. The funds were used by From the Heart, Boys & Girls Clubs of Metropolitan Phoenix and the Glendale Parks, Recreation and Library Department. The Gila River Indian Community have been one of our staunchest allies in the legal warfare with the Tohono O’odham since the issue of a casino IN Glendale (not near Glendale –darn it – but IN it) arose.

Is something missing? Have all legal issues between the City of Glendale and the Tohono O’odham been resolved? Are we suddenly buddies? Receiving grant money from a legal ally is far different than receiving grant money, no matter how well intentioned, from your legal enemy. It is the height of hypocrisy on Glendale’s part. I am ashamed that staff has brought these items forward. If I were on council and could take action at the meeting I would pull both items off of the Consent Resolution Agenda and speak directly to them and vote a resounding “no” on both – no matter how well intentioned they are. If council approves these two consent resolutions, where are this council’s principles?

Glendale City Council

Glendale City Council

Another Consent Resolution is more amusing in context. Item 8 calls for adoption of council’s Key Priorities for Fiscal Year 2013-2014. This one is a hoot! Council’s very first priority is, “Transparency internally and externally to assure the community that the decisions made for the well-being of Glendale are discussed openly with input invited.” Followed by their second priority, “Arena management, debt service, hockey agreement and enhanced revenues will play a large role in policy formation and financial strategy. The above noted transparency will be vital to gaining community support for decisions necessary to optimize the arena value to the Glendale community” (Italics mine). It appears that we all have missed something in council’s translation of transparency.  It looks like council’s definition of transparency is not what the general public assumes it to be. We certainly haven’t seen much transparency when it comes to the Beacon RFP process or Renaissance Sports and Entertainment Group’s discussions with city personnel or council.

greed 1Which brings up our last target of incredulity, Item 21, Fiscal Year Budget Amendments, as an Ordinance to be adopted. I love numbers. While most people won’t go to the numbers pages and really read them. I always do with gusto because they are so revealing. These amendments are transfers from one hand in the budget into a different hand in the budget. The transfer is from Contingency (you know, the “rainy day” account the city is trying to rebuild) to the City Manager’s Office.  In this case, did you know that this council is paying $500,000 for the Council Special Audit? Can you imagine it? Half a million dollars on a special audit – an audit whose primary purpose is to fix blame on somebody. Let’s hope they find a half million dollars worth of blame because they certainly are not going to find a half million dollar pot of gold at City Hall.

The council is also spending another $100,000 on the Arena RFP Process run by their hired consultant, Beacon Sports.  We all thought Councilmember Alvarez wanted to “get rid” of all the consultants? Not so. They must be OK if they are consultants that serve her purposes. Remember, this RFP process is the same one that NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman characterized as “silly.” All of this comes from a council which, when 4 of them were running for office, ran around wringing their hands, complaining about the previous council’s fiscal irresponsibility and vowing it would never occur again because their mission was to be fiscally accountable and transparent about it all. Looks like the joke is on you, Glendale voters.

copyright