Archive for November, 2007
November 30th, 2007, 11:37 am by Le Templar
Government bodies should conduct their business in the open before residents and other interested parties so everyone can listen to the exchange of views and information. Discussion held in public allows residents to have a common understanding of where a council or county board is coming from when it finally acts, and individuals have an opportunity to correct bad information or to persuade council members to reconsider positions.
This is why the Arizona Open Meetings law generally requires city councils to hold study sessions, workshops and background briefings in public, instead of applying only to the meetings where actual votes take place. In the past, the Legislature has specifically added language to the law to cover advisory bodies and subcommittees, to prevent governments from making decisions in smaller groups behind closed doors and then rubber-stamping those decisions with formal votes during a public meeting of the full body.
But the Gilbert Town Council recently thwarted the Legislature’s intent as two council members have been researching concerns raised by some residents about doorknob advertising that continues to appear even when property owners have posted signs telling flier delivery people to stay away.
As Tribune writer Beth Lucas reported Friday, Mayor Steve Berman asked council members Joan Krueger and Don Skousen to lead a committee that included representatives from the police, the municipal court and business leaders to look into the issue. Called an “informal subcommittee,” Krueger and Skousen apparently have been working diligently on the issue for the past month or so, but no meetings have been held in public.
So we have no idea who Krueger and Skousen have been talking to or what information they might have told. We don’t know if they been dealing equally with all of the affected parties – homeowners, businesses that use door-to-door advertising, and the advertising companies – or if their efforts were focused more heavily on one particular side.
Town officials apparently believe that calling the subcommittee “informal” somehow excludes this group from the state Open Meetings law. But the statute is quite clear: “Public body includes all quasi-judicial bodies and all standing, special or advisory committees or subcommittees, or appointed by, such public body.” (A.R.S. 38-431 (6)).
The mere use of the word “subcommittee” should have alerted someone at Gilbert Town Hall that the Arizona Open Meetings law is at issue here. But the term isn’t important. It’s the fact that two Gilbert council members are researching the issue on behalf of their colleagues and will soon make a recommendation on what the town should do. Such research and discussion should have taken place in a public forum with appropriate advance notice so anyone who’s interested could be in the audience to watch.Government discussion held in secret breeds suspicion about motivations and raises doubt that a government body is really considering all of the relevant facts and opinions. Gilbert certainly has done that here. Resident Naida Bloch, who is passionate about getting the town’s help in stopping doorknob advertising at her home, first called my attention earlier this week to the fact that Skousen/Krueger subcommittee never had a public meeting. She’s worried about what the advertisers might have told these council members in secret.
The council can avoid such suspicions simply by following the Open Meetings Law.
Posted in: Freedom of Information | 1 Comment »
November 26th, 2007, 1:05 pm by Le Templar
The Rose & Allyn public relations firm of Scottsdale loves its reputation for over-the-top and sometimes outrageous publicity stunts. They certainly get credit (and blame) for some of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s antics and have been associated with some rather odd ideas such as placing the name of the Pink Taco restaurant on the Cardinals football stadium.
One smaller gag known almost exclusively to Valley journalists is the push by Rose & Allyn to be the PR firm who delivers the first Christmas cards of the year. So they arrange for their usually funny message of seasonal good cheer to arrive in our mailboxes – in July.
But being first doesn’t make you the best (sorry, Jason Rose), as we found out at the Tribune Monday when editorial page editor Bob Satnan received a holiday offering from another Valley firm, HMA Public Relations.
The small, tidy and tasteful envelope simply declares “Cheers.” On the inside are six cards with holiday drink recipes or at least suggestions, each one signed by a different member of the HMA staff. This clever twist on the traditional Christmas card is functional while keeping the HMA identity in front of the eyes of anyone trying out the recipes.
The 5-inch by 5-inch cards are made from strong enough paper stock that they could serve as temporary drink coasters, which also makes this holiday message reusable and little more environmentally friendly.
All six drinks are alcoholic and some feature intriguing names such as the Beer Margarita, the Snowplow and a Raspberry Mocha’tini. But the one that Bob and I like the best comes from the boss himself, Scott Hanson. (Full disclosure: Hanson is a professional acquaintance as we both are members of the Valley professional chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists).
Scott’s recipe doesn’t have a name but says, “Go to Circle K. Purchase Miller Lite. Open can. Consume contents. Crush can when finished and put in the recycle bin. Repeat process.”
Posted in: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »
November 21st, 2007, 3:53 pm by Le Templar
My blogging has fallen off in the past couple of weeks as I have focused on the other aspects of my role as an opinion writer and member of the Tribune Editorial Board. But I haven’t abandoned “What I Know,” and expect to start posting again after Thanksgiving.
I’m blessed to work for a good company in a job I deeply enjoy in a free country (not as free as I would like, but we’re doing our little part at the Tribune to try and change that). I have a wonderful family that truly loves me and I surely love spending time with them in person, on the phone or through our electronic messages.
Even the negative parts of my life, such as a malfunctioning home computer that is keeping me away from World of Warcraft, are momentary inconveniences that pale in comparison to hardships of those who serve our country at home and overseas.
If you are reading this, then you continue to have at least a little interest or faith in “What I Know,” and for that I thank you. Have a great Thanksgiving holiday!
Posted in: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »
November 9th, 2007, 4:45 pm by Le Templar
Dean Martin
Arizona Treasurer Dean Martin stopped by this week to give the Tribune Editorial Board a report on his first year in office. He was brimming with facts, statistics and examples to illustrate how he has turned around the agency that manages the state bank vault and billions of dollars in state and local government investments. As confirmed by the state auditor general, the treasurer’s office has shored up its accounting practices while earning $732.02 million on its investments in the last fiscal year.
When I first heard that Martin would be running for treasurer, part of me thought “here we go again.” Martin was in a similar position as his predecessor, David Petersen, as a state senator who appeared to view this somewhat obscure statewide office as the best chance to further his political career. Petersen turned out to be a disaster as state treasurer, alienating his staff and inspiring a whistleblower lawsuit while spending more time promoting his political agenda than managing the state’s money. This included running around Arizona trying to convince local school districts to buy his “Character First” education program. Petersen failed to disclose his income from this supposedly separate and private job, which eventually led to a criminal plea deal with the attorney general that forced him to resign from office in 2006.
So it’s a pleasant surprise to learn that Martin has immersed himself in being state treasurer and is pursuing a program that places protection of state funds as the top priority, followed by prudent cash flow management and then reliable investing. Martin and his 32 employees currently oversee $12 billion in assets, which include state land trust funds and the local government investment pool.
Some changes Martin said he brought to the office this year include expanding the number of traders from one to three, hiring the first internal auditor, reconciling the books down almost to the last penny, and developing an economic forecasting tool based on collection trends for taxes and investment revenue.
Martin also has several ideas he will bring to the Legislature next year – reforming how the office is funded, replacing an outdated computer system, extending certain investment options – that clearly focus on improving his office’s performance. Peterson’s legislative agenda was much more about political issues that he could use as selling points to voters in future elections.
Martin has dealt with some controversy of his own this year, most of it touching on the aftermath of the Petersen administration and the messy criminal investigation/political dispute pitting Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and County Attorney Andrew Thomas against Petersen and state Attorney General Terry Goddard.
Martin’s problems include the fact that Peterson authorized payment to Goddard’s office of $1.14 million as the state lawyers’ share of a civil lawsuit settlement. Martin said he doesn’t think the attorney general should receive the money, and the Arpaio criminal investigation casts doubt on Goddard’s views on the matter. Martin told the Editorial Board he would accept an independent attorney’s legal opinion on what to do, one way or the other. But Goddard hasn’t allowed Martin to hire an outside lawyer to get such an opinion.
Meanwhile, Republican activist Bob Haran continues to complain loudly about Martin’s spending in the 2004 race for his last term in the state Senate. Haran is convinced that Martin broke several state campaign finance laws because Martin paid himself and his wife for expenses related to the campaign. This was unseemly as political candidates aren’t supposed to go into public service to benefit themselves. But Haran hasn’t provided any direct evidence that Martin took money he didn’t actually use on the campaign. Three government agencies declined to pursue any action against Martin in 2004. Goddard’s office briefly looked into it earlier this year (despite the apparent conflict of interest), until Tribune reporters learned about it. Then Goddard sent the issue to the FBI.
It’s unlikely this campaign spending complaint will go any further than it did three years ago. Martin has been pretty forthcoming about what he did with the campaign money and never has tried to shield himself from reporters’ questions. Politicians usually act this way when they are certain they didn’t do anything wrong.
We’ll have to see what happens, if anything, with the Arpaio/Thomas investigation of Petersen and Goddard.
UPDATE: As Bob Haran mentions in an attached comment, his formal complaint to the attorney general this year involves conflict of interest laws instead of campaign finance laws. It’s a technical difference that will be important if the investigation moves beyond the inquiry stage to formal accusations. But the issue itself still is about campaign fund raising and spending.
Posted in: Arizona government | 2 Comments »
November 6th, 2007, 2:07 pm by Le Templar
Queen Creek officials view Wednesday night’s pending council vote to purchase the town’s private water company as the right move at the right time. It also serves to grow the size of Town Hall and violates a principle of limited government that the public sector should provides essential services only when the private sector is unable or unwilling to do so.
By all accounts, the Queen Creek Water Co. has done a great job of serving the area since it was created in 1954. The owners for the past 35 years, the Gardner family, have properly maintained and updated the water system. Today, the company operates 11 water wells and serves about 9,500 customers, Tribune writer Sarah Boggan reported Monday. The owners have decided it’s time to sell, and water company president Paul Gardner told Boggan he gets about one phone call a month from potential private buyers. But the family wanted to give the town of Queen Creek the first opportunity.
It just so happens that Queen Creek’s strategic documents over the 10 years have called for the town to someday own its own water department, assistant town manager Patrick Flynn told the Editorial Board in a meeting Monday. Actually, Flynn and Queen Creek Mayor Art Sanders called this purchase a long-range plan, but that’s a stretch since the town hasn’t saved any money for this purpose. Instead, Queen Creek would borrow $40 million from a state revolving fund for water projects, and would raise the current customer water rates to repay that debt.
Like the rest of the East Valley, Queen Creek has grown rapidly in the past decade. It won’t ever get as big as its neighbors, as officials expect the population to reach a limit around 35,000. But Sanders and Town Manager John Kross emphasized throughout Monday’s meeting that many of Queen Creek’s newer residents have an urban mindset that prefers government operation of key services, including the drinking water supply. I can’t deny that’s the standard practice for larger municipalities. But often cities step in when a water company is failing to meet local demands. Once in control, a city never considers whether the water utility could operate better under the authority of a more responsible private provider. Sanders pointed out the main reason government officials don’t consider possible alternatives: A city has far more influence over how and where development occurs when it owns the water supply. The city can dictate (or facilitate) when major employers can hook into the system and what rates they will pay.
The mayor admitted city officials are nervous about the Queen Creek Water Co. possibly being sold to an out-of-state buyer, a concern that comes up frequently when growing communities debate the future of private utilities. It’s funny how city officials rarely complain when out-of-state retailers and manufacturers want to do business in their community, but such owners are automatically unsafe when it comes to utilities.
To be fair, Sanders and Kross made a good point that this appears to be the best time, and perhaps the last opportunity, for Queen Creek to buy the existing water system. The current owners are willing, but future ones might not be. Also, the water company’s value might climb to a point that a public purchase would become too pricey. And if Queen Creek elected officials are feeling as much pressure from residents as Sanders hinted at, Town Hall might have little choice but to follow their wishes.
But it’s a shame that we Americans continue to praise free markets and private enterprise with our words, and then repeatedly reject it with our actions in favor of government intervention.
Posted in: Queen Creek | 1 Comment »
November 5th, 2007, 1:45 pm by Le Templar
This test on limited government is so tough, not even Russell Pearce could earn an “A”.
On Monday, the Goldwater Institute released its annual report on the Arizona Legislature, focusing on the regular session earlier this year. Institute researchers rated the votes of all 90 lawmakers on 307 bills, judging them by their willingness to support less government regulation and business favoritism, fewer agencies and lower, equitable taxes. Each lawmaker receives a score somewhere between zero and 100, and a letter grade assigned based on a bell curve (you’ll understand why in a second). If you are fan of the institute’s high-minded libertarian approach to issues like I am, then you’ll be rather disappointed at the trends documented here.
Both the Senate and House had an average score that resulted in a “D.” Heck, nearly half of the 60 House lawmakers received an “F,” while 12 of 30 senators also “earned” a failing grade.
The only lawmaker to get an “A” (A- actually) is Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, who still only scored a total of 77 even though he seems to vote “no” on virtually everything. Well-known East Valley conservatives such as Pearce, R-Mesa, and Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, in the House and Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, and Chuck Gray, R-Mesa, in the Senate, all received a “B” or “B-”. It’s not a big surprise that almost every Democrat received a failing grade; some are known to carry that as a badge of honor.The Goldwater Institute sets rather high standards by emphasizing serious reductions in government and expansion of free-markets. For example, the institute gave bad marks to bills that added to professional licensing requirements, even when those professions had asked for the changes. Extension of the state’s job training program and possible consolidation of some school districts also earned lawmakers negative scores.
The harsh scoring is meant to shake up lawmakers who think of themselves as conservatives or libertarian-leaning, but frequently compromise with those who advocate for more government.
This is the fourth year of the Goldwater Institute’s legislative report card. Not only are the “liberty” scores low, they are lower than in previous reports. Chalk that up to Gov. Janet Napolitano’s enduring influence and her resounding re-election victory last year.
Posted in: Arizona Legislature | Post a Comment »
|
|
Twitter