Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

As I’ve remarked previously, due to the COVID pandemic this has been one of the strangest campaigns I’ve had. People must wear masks and socially distance. Bars and gyms are still not open. Tubing on the Salt River, a long-held, dearly loved outdoor activity is not allowed. The traditional, annual Glendale Women’s Club candidate forum was cancelled. Going door to door was frowned upon. Holding a campaign event was impossible. The life blood of a political campaign is reaching out to as many voters as possible in person. That was not to be.

How does a candidate campaign in this environment? Everyone is going digital and using the internet. Major candidates are running TV ads but the cost is prohibitive for a local council race. I think more mailers have been used in this campaign than in any previous one. By my count and I’m not sure I acquired all of them, at least 30 mailers from the 2 contested races—mayoral and Yucca council seat—hit your mailboxes. I estimate their collective value at about $65,000. In addition, the fire union dropped 2 door hangers for Robertson and 1 door hanger for Alexander, representing another estimated $5,000 and that does not include the manpower used by the union to deliver them. Add the cost of political consultants, polling, digital advertising, campaign signs and the expenses become even more significant. This may turn out to be the most expensive campaign cycle that Glendale has ever had.

I did note one very strange set of campaign finance reports – those of Corey Bowen. Mr. Bowen filed a statement of campaign committee organization on September 9, 2019. Candidates’ nominating petitions were filed at the end of March, 2020. Mr. Bowen never submitted nominating petitions and was therefore out of the Yucca council race at the end of March, 2020.

In his first campaign finance report filed on January 1, 2020 which reported financial activity through December 31, 2019, Mr. Bowen reported contributions of $2,950.00 and expenditures of $1,086.42 leaving him with a balance of $1,853.58. In his second report covering the period through March 31, 2020, he spent $266.51 leaving him a balance of $1,596.82. Here’s where it gets strange. By the end of March, 2020, he and we know he is not on the ballot and is no longer a candidate for the Yucca council seat.

In his next campaign finance report covering through June 30, 2020, Mr. Bowen spent another $828.29 as if he were still a viable candidate:

  • On 5/21/2020 $98.01 to Lyft for “campaign transportation.”
  • On 6/1/2020 another $53.01 went to Lyft for “campaign transportation.”
  • On 5/2/2050(sic) he spent $491.28 to WalMart for “campaign event supplies.”
  • On 6/1/2020 he spent another $255.99 at WalMart for “canvassing supplies.”

In his last campaign filing report covering through July 18, 2020, he continues to spend $658.89 as if he were a viable candidate:

  • On 7/2/2020 $56.50 to Lyft for “campaign transportation.”
  • On 7/13/2020 $42.01 to Lyft for “campaign transportation.”
  • On 7/2/2020 he spent another $226.89 to WalMart for “campaign event supplies.”
  • On 6/1/2020 to WalMart $33.49 for “canvassing supplies.”
  • On 7/03/2020 to Adelina’s wedding venue for $300.00 for “campaign event venue.”

Mr. Bowen, the non-candidate for the Yucca district council seat, now has a balance in his campaign committee account of $39.62. How can this be? How could he spend over $1,500 for campaign expenses when he is not on the ballot? It’s not the amount of money spent but the principle involved. I know that some of the readers of this blog work in the Maricopa County Attorney General’s Office. I would hope one of them would bring this to the attention of the Attorney General.

In my race with my opponent, I ask you, the voter, to consider several issues. He has declared himself to be a Democrat. Part of the Democrat agenda is to “defund the police” or at the very least, reprioritize police expenditures. That seems to be a nice euphemism for saying defund them. In his campaign material he says, “…we need to reduce the tax burden on each citizen…” One way to reduce that burden is to reduce or reprioritize police funding. How could the two police unions support this man when this is part of his agenda?

My opponent’s major support comes from the fire union. As I’ve stated previously, they poured money into his campaign with signs, a mailer and a door hanger, not because he’s an outstanding candidate but because of the mere fact that he is my opponent. I did a blog on union release time and the fact that city council eliminated one of two union release time positions for fire and police. This action angered them to the point where they would have supported cardboard cutouts of candidates in opposition to the Mayor and myself.

Most disturbing is his Facebook comment, “I get a special feeling when I see my name in print.” This is an unusual remark to make. It seems my opponent is in this race to become more recognized, more important within our community. That’s not a valid reason to run.

Keep in mind I took him to court to challenge the validity of his nominating petition signatures. I produced witnesses, registered Yucca district voters, who swore that it was not he who witnessed their signatures on his nominating petitions. My opponent never went to court and swore on a Bible (remember he’s an Associate Pastor) that it was indeed he who witnessed those signatures.

Lastly, my opponent is cerebral, a thinker…not a doer. His entire platform is comprised of initiatives I have done or I am currently doing. He offers no new ideas. I have a proven record of successful performance. I get things done. I have helped countless Yucca residents to resolve problems. I am accessible and take calls and texts from residents all the time. I have been there when you needed help.

My opponent’s motive for running is questionable. I will always harbor doubt about his nominating petitions and their validity. He has not contributed to the life of our district or community. His only support comes primarily from the fire union and I think it’s fair to assume he will support their extensive agenda. He has offered no new initiative that you can support or would be excited about. He really is a cardboard candidate.

The big gorilla in this race is the mayoral contest. There’s an old saying, “the past is prologue.” That means the past will inevitably be repeated. That certainly raises concerns with regard to the mayoral opponent Robertson. We know from publicly available records she accused her ex-husband of sexual molestation of their daughter and the court found her accusation to be invalid. We know that she accused the former Chief Financial Officer of the Cartwright District of sexual harassment. From her publicly available emails it appears that it was she who encouraged a mutually sexually charged relationship. I was disturbed to see the email photo of her breasts that she sent to him with reference to “the girls are oiled up.” Now that is disgusting.

Her scrubbing of her Facebook past demonstrating those causes she supports including “Black Lives Matter” should give you pause for concern. Her action appears to be intentional with the removal of controversial issues.

Another issue for your consideration is her commitment to retain her current job at the Cartwright School District while trying to be mayor. I, as a councilmember, can confirm that it is a full time job to serve and the mayor’s position is exactly the same. Promising to be a part time mayor does a disservice to every Glendale resident.

Again, the unions in their haste to back any opponent for mayor either did not vet this candidate or did and chose to ignore what they discovered. Either way, it screams of a naked power grab to run the City of Glendale to their advantage.

Having worked with the current mayor I know that the allegations the unions made against him are not true. It’s a tried and true tactic to take a snippet of fact and twist it until your opponent appears to be a monster. The fire union is very good at it.

Remember how you could go to your local polling location? It might be a school like Desert Mirage Elementary School or a church like Faith Baptist Church. No more. Thanks to COVID, this time you have a choice of five “Voting Centers” in Glendale.

For the August Primary Election, Maricopa County voters can cast a ballot at any Vote Center. Locations are open from July 8-August 4, including some nights and weekends. All Vote Centers listed are open on Election Day:

  • Arrowhead Mall 8/1/2020 Open 11am to 7pm; 8/2/2020 Open 12pm to 5pm; 8/3/2020 Open 11am to 5pm and 8/4/2020 Open 6am to 7pm.
  • ASU West Campus 8/1/2020 Closed; 8/2/2020 Closed; 8/3/2020 Open 8am to 5pm; 8/4/2020 Open 6am to 7pm.
  • Glendale Market Square 8/1/2020 Open 9am to 7pm; 8/2/2020 Open 12pm to 5pm; 8/3/2020 Open 9am to 5pm; 8/4/2020 Open 6am to 7pm.
  • Glendale Civic Center 8/1/2020 Open 7:30am to 6:30pm; 8/2/2020 Closed; 8/3/2020 Open 7:30am to 5pm; 8/4/2020 Open 6am to 7pm.
  • Glendale Christian Church 8/1/2020 Closed; 8/2/2020 Closed; 8/3/2020 Closed; 8/4/2020 Open 6am to 7pm.

You can drop off your ballot or vote in person on the days and times that these 5 Glendale locations are open. I can’t see how this scheme aids people in avoiding COVID but it’s the system that will be used on August 4th.

No matter what you do – drop off your ballot or vote in person, I urge you to vote on August 4th. Your vote matters…your vote counts.

© Joyce Clark, 2020         

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

In my previous blog I’ve described the various groups that have coalesced supporting the candidacies of Michelle Robertson and Bryce Alexander. Why? It seems to be an “anyone but the current leadership” kind of moment where these groups are encouraging voters to support a rock, a clown or a zero rather than leadership that brought the city off the cliff of possible bankruptcy.

What is the union’s beef in this election cycle? Arick O’Hara is the Glendale chapter President of the International Fire Fighters Union (IAFF). Justin Harris is the President of the Glendale Law Enforcement Association (GLEA) and Julie Pendergast is the President of the Glendale chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP). All of them are leading the charge to unseat Mayor Weiers and/or me. There is no polite way to say that they hate us, have declared war and will use whatever is necessary to get rid of us.

Did you know that you, the taxpayer, pay union representatives to conduct union business during their working hours instead of paying them for their duties as a firefighter or police officer? It’s called union “release time.” What other cities in the Valley pay for union release time? Only Phoenix. No other city, not Scottsdale, Chandler, Mesa, Tempe, Peoria or Surprise pay employees to conduct union activities during that employee’s work day. If you think they are not heavily involved in Glendale’s election activities, you are mistaken. Even though such election activities are in violation of the federal Hatch Act.

Every two years the city negotiates a renewal of an agreement on the pay and benefits for all public safety employees (commonly known as “represented employees”). When the previous agreement (2017) was negotiated and accepted, it included two union release positions for the fire union and two union release positions for police unions, one for GLEA and one for the FOP.

Think about this. You, the taxpayer, pay for union representatives to negotiate enhanced fire and police pay and benefits agreements with the City, which is, in essence, you. So you’re paying both sides of the table. You’re paying city employees to negotiate on your behalf and to protect your interest as a taxpayer and you’re paying for union representatives to negotiate for their union members getting the best pay and benefits possible for their membership – at your expense.

Subsequent to the agreement accepted two years ago, there was a rash of school shootings. Council wanted to make sure every high school in Glendale had a school resource officer. A few schools did have a resource officer and paid for the position. Others did not and chose to use their school funding for things other than a school resource officer. So the city council stepped up to the plate and with each high school’s approval placed a resource officer on each high school campus, paid for by the City of Glendale.

The funding had to come from somewhere else as the yearly budget and its expenditures had already been approved by council several months earlier. Council decided to eliminate one taxpayer funded fire union release position and one police union release position leaving each union with one release time position. No one lost their job. With each release position there were also extra hours of release time. The cost of each release position and the extra dedicated hours is in the $200,000 to $250,000 range per representative. Four union release positions and additional hours came to between $750,000 to a million dollars a year.

Each union went ballistic. How dare the city eliminate a release time position! A release position in fire was eliminated and the person occupying that position, Tony Butch, left and went to another city. FOP President Julie Pendergast’s release time position was eliminated. Julie remains in a non-patrol position within the department and has never forgotten or forgiven the loss of her use of release time.

There is more to this story. Here are the real funding numbers for each department for the past 5 years:

Fire Department

  • Fiscal Year 2017 actual budget                      $43,637,282.00
  • Fiscal Year 2018 actual budget                      $46,472,394.00
  • Fiscal Year 2019 actual budget                      $49,866.189.00
  • Fiscal Year 2020 budget estimate                  $52,127,595.00
  • Fiscal Year 2021 budget request                   $53, 501,963.00

In 5 years the Fire Department budget increased by nearly $10 million dollars or about 20% a year, far above any annual inflation rate.

Police Department

  • Fiscal Year 2017 actual budget                      $87,206,875.00
  • Fiscal Year 2018 actual budget                      $91,831,365.00
  • Fiscal Year 2019 actual budget                      $98,529,310.00
  • Fiscal Year 2020 budget estimate                 $102,471,164.00
  • Fiscal Year 2021 budget request                  $104,742,510.00

In 5 years the Police Department budget increased by $17 million dollars or about 5% a year, again greater than the yearly inflation rate.

In addition, the Fire Department, in this year’s budget alone, received additional, one-time, supplemental funding of $411,000 and the Police Department received $100,000 in supplemental funding.

One final fact to consider is that both Glendale firefighters and police officers rank among the top three paid agencies in the Valley. And oh, by the way Glendale firefighters work 52 hours compared to every other agency in the Valley that works 56 hours.

Here’s something else to think about. Fire and Police are the largest consumers of the city’s General Fund operating budget coming in between 65% and 70% annually. This council can always give them more money but when is enough, enough? More money to Public Safety means less money for every other city department funded by the General Fund. What are you willing to cut to increase Public Safety’s insatiable appetite for funding? Parks, Libraries, City Court, Community Services to the underserved and Transportation, including our streets repair program, all compete for the same funding as Public Safety. Each year’s budget is a balancing act by city council through prioritization to fund as many departmental needs as possible. Clearly this council has been generous to both departments over the past 5 years.

Why go after the mayor or me for the elimination of union release positions? We are running opposed and Councilmembers Hugh and Malnar have no opposition. They would have taken out these councilmembers as well if the opportunity existed. It is a given that they would support anyone running against any of us. If any opposition was talking and breathing, that was good enough reason for the unions to support them. 

Their goal is to get rid of the mayor, or me, hoping that there will no longer be council majority support for decisions not to their liking.

What is disappointing is that the police unions have joined the fire union is this political warfare. They should heed this warning: the fire union will stab you in the back if it is in their best interest. They come first. Police unions, you are a distant second and you know this. A stunning question to ask is why would the police unions support Democrat candidates whose presidential nominee has finally come out in favor of ‘defunding the police’?

If they succeed they will acquire political influence with the installation of Robertson and Alexander, willing to grant the fire union its agenda. Glendale could repeat the debacle of Ed Beasley and a fire union influenced administration, plunging the city into debt once again. After all, who will Robertson and Alexander owe if they win? Both are relative unknowns and neither has historically been part of community leadership or been involved in Glendale’s affairs by serving on a city board or commission and has no real working knowledge of Glendale’s affairs.

Anyone can run for any elected office as long as they meet the minimum qualifications such as being of a certain age and living in the jurisdiction to be represented. You, the voter, should expect more than that. What experience within the community do they possess? What do they plan to do to make your life better? Where do they stand on raising taxes? If Robertson and Alexander are not offering that kind of information perhaps they don’t deserve your vote. How long can they hide behind the buzz words we have heard ad nausea…like ‘transparency’? What the heck does that mean anyhow?

Glendale is the 7th largest city in the state with the adoption of this fiscal year’s budget of $747 million dollars…nearly ¾ of a billion dollars. It is the country’s 88th largest city out of nearly 20,000 incorporated cities in the United States. Glendale is no longer a small, ‘podunk’ city. It is a large suburban community reflecting the diversity of our country. You, the voter in Glendale, deserve to know each candidate’s position on a variety of issues that are important to you. Yet all Robertson and Alexander have offered is what’s wrong with Glendale. How about some positivity by sharing their vision and plans for Glendale and you? That’s not what you are getting from them.

Glendale deserves better than two liberal Democrats, whose seats were bought and paid for by the unions. Two politicians willing to sacrifice your needs for those of the unions.

Unfortunately that is politics.

Now you know who is backing Michelle Robertson and Bryce Alexander and their motives for doing so. It is important information that every voter in Glendale deserves to know.

© Joyce Clark, 2020         

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

NOTE: I have over 2,000 subscribers (it’s free!). When I post a blog I get anywhere from 200 to 2000 reads. Since my blog started I have had half a million people read my posts! Be part of the latest news about Glendale, Arizona. Subscribe today. Check the top of the left column and simply enter your email address. Your email address will not be put on any other list and never on a paid list.

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

In the last blog of this series I have to throw Mayor Weiers’ opponent, Michelle Robertson, into the mix. The minimum number of signatures needed to become a mayoral candidate is 1,267. She submitted a little over 2,300 signatures.

The County Recorder invalidated a substantial number of them. I don’t know exactly how many but it was a bunch. In addition, approximately half of dozen of Robertson’s circulators presumably admitted to Robertson’s attorneys that they had done some creative writing and had filled out sheets with bogus information. Her defense team, once they knew that Weiers’ attorney was preparing to call these circulators as witnesses, agreed those signatures were no good and withdrew them. When the dust settled Ms. Robertson had only 57 more signatures than the minimum of 1267 needed.

The same convicted felon that collected 43 signatures for Bryce Alexander also collected signatures for Ms. Robertson. I believe he collected in the neighborhood of 65 to 70 signatures. Invalidation of him as a circulator was as important to the Weiers campaign as it was to mine. Again, I remind you neither Weiers nor I prevailed on getting the convicted felon’s petition sheets invalidated as the judges ruled he had all of his civil rights restored and was a valid circulator.

The same paid circulator, the convicted felon, worked for both campaigns and signed the back of these 2 petition sheets. The yellow highlighting and notations are mine. I erased the photos and ask you to figure out which one is Robertson’s and which one is Alexander’s. They are eerily similar, aren’t they?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another paid circulator signed the back of these two petition sheets. Which is Robertson’s and which is Alexander’s? They seem to be identical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I bring all of these anomalies up for a reason. There are questionable practices being performed by some petition gathering companies and in turn, by the candidates themselves who knowingly submit questionable signatures.

When a local candidate for office turns in petition sheets to the city’s clerk, the only function of the city clerk is to certify that enough signatures have been turned in. The clerk’s office does not validate signatures. Most candidates don’t know this and therefore, don’t check their opponent’s signatures for the required number of signatures as valid. Some of us do. I did.

When a candidate believes the opponent does not have enough valid signatures the only recourse is to file a suit in Superior Court. That is the mechanism that requires the county recorder’s office to check and to validate or invalidate signatures. But it is more complicated than that. The candidate challenging signatures for validity must list every sheet number, line number and reason for challenge for each signature being questioned. The county recorder does not and will not check every signature. It will only check signatures identified by the complainant. I found somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 signatures I believed to be invalid. The county recorder agreed that 43 of those were invalid.

Another aspect of collecting signatures is the use of petition signature gathering companies. A few are reliable and honest but there are others that are not. The unreliable ones will hire any warm body willing to do the work and often do not check backgrounds. That’s how we get convicted felons going door to door to collect signatures…amid the most unusual event in our country’s history…a pandemic. I doubt that the paid circulators wore masks, gloves or social distanced when going door to door, offering the same pen for people to use when signing the petition. How many signers were put at risk? We’ll never know.

The less reputable petition companies do not validate the signatures that are collected. Why would they? In today’s market, a candidate must pay from $1.00 to $3.00 per signature. If the company had to strike invalid signatures before submitting them to the candidate, it would eat into their billing to the candidate. Some candidates have paid for sheets that are garbage…filled with invalid signatures.

The petition signature gathering process has been corrupt for years by practices such as these. That is why we see 40 or 50 challenges in court per election cycle. These practices are not conducive to good government. Filing and defending suits in court for suspected petition wrong doing are expensive and clog the courts diminishing their ability to deal with legitimate cases.

 Alexander and Robertson used paid circulators to go door to door during the worst pandemic this country has ever experienced. To pursue their goals of getting on the ballot they were willing to put the public’s health during CoVid 19 at risk.

Particular to my challenge is the fact that Mr. Alexander never took the stand on his behalf to swear that he was, in fact, the circulator of the challenged petitions. He can state publicly, now that the challenge has been decided, that he did circulate those petitions. How can you believe that what he may say now is not just political expediency? One can say anything when one doesn’t have to swear to it in court. There will always be this little, grey cloud of doubt hanging over him. It should cause everyone to consider his ethics.

Mr. Alexander has this quote as a part of his banner on his Facebook page, “I am a champion of truth. I hate lies. That means I tick people off when they repeat political lies.”

Oh really?

You should judge Mr. Alexander’s declaration in the light of his quest to get on the ballot…any way possible.

P.S. On May 7th the City of Phoenix announced that for its November, 2020 election it will require candidates to use online petition signature gathering. See here:https://patch.com/arizona/phoenix/city-phoenix-launches-new-online-candidate-nomination-petition-process . Will this action remove some of the corrupt practices currently in place?

© Joyce Clark, 2019         

FAIR USE NOTICE

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