State Treasurer Martin touts successful first year
November 9th, 2007, 4:45 pm · 2 Comments · posted 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also has several ideas he will bring to the Legislature next year – reforming how the office is funded, replacing an outdated computer system, extending certain investment options – that clearly focus on improving his office’s performance.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.
November 10th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
OPEN LETTER TO LE TEMPLAR
Dear Mr. Templar;
If you are going to write about me, it might be a good idea to contact me and verify your facts before hand. Frankly, just about everything you wrote in the paragraph where my name is mentioned is wrong.
1. You claim that I continue to complain loudly about Martin’s spending in the 2004 race for his last term in the state Senate. Wrong, I have been writing about Martin’s redirecting of campaign contributions into his own pocket for almost three years and urging the press to investigate what appeared to be the laundering of campaign contributions through two apparently front companies. Since it has been announced that the FBI is investigating, I have been pretty quite about the matter, except for my reply to Mr. Martin’s insults about me published in the Capitol Times. Or maybe it’s just that the press is just starting to take notice now that the FBI is involved. All I wanted was an investigation and I got it, now the matter is up to the authorities to handle.
2. In your next sentence you claim that I’m convinced that Martin broke several state campaign finance laws because Martin paid himself and his wife for expenses related to the campaign. First, I never said that, I never wrote that. Since you don’t reveal your source for that statement, I can only assume you made it up. Let me set you straight, I never accused Martin of breaking any campaign finance laws. I know of not a single campaign finance law that he may have broken and certainly not several. If you had none the simplest research before you started writing you would have discovered that I have only accused Martin of intentionally or knowingly violating Arizona Revised Statue, 38-504.C, Conflict of Interest of Officers, Prohibited Acts, a Class 6 felony. In brief what I’m alleging that Mr. Martin did was to aggressively solicit campaign contributions from persons with business before the legislature and by a circuitous route, redirected those contributions through two business entities he and his wife controlled, allegedly for services, and then into his own pocket. In short Mr. Templer, I discovered that Dean Martin turned his public office into a profit making entity for himself. Maybe Mr. Martin and yourself fell that is perfectly OK, but some of us citizens find it a bit corrupt and the law calls it a conflict of interest.
Also, if I were merely alleging that Martin was just paying himself and his wife for expenses related to his campaign, there would be no need for an investigation because no law would have been broken and the Attorney General’s Office wouldn’t have turned the matter over to the FBI if that were the case. Let me make this very simple for you, I don’t belief the business’ were real. I don’t believe that his largest campaign expenditure of $11,903.76 for printing with his company, Digital Print Design, which was just a rented mail drop with no telephone listing, or web site or any other method of marketing was a legitimate business. I don’t believe his second largest campaign expenditure, $7,331.54, for “voter outreach,” to his wife’s company, Grassroots Programs, which was based at the same rented mail drop and which also had no telephone listing or web site or any other method of marketing, was legitimate. Nor do I believe that the over $12,000 that Mr. Martin spent on various electronic and computer equipment, which he gets to keep under his own control was entirely campaign related.
3- You make a statement that I haven’t provided any direct evidence that Martin took money he didn’t actually use on the campaign. What I provided the AG’s office with was the information I had which I felt warranted an investigation. All the information I have written on this matter I have verified and have invited the press to verify, unfortunately the press in Arizona is lazy. If you ever want to play journalist however, you can research what I have written about this matter, I’m not going to give it to you, and you can go verify it yourself.
4- In your article you state that three government agencies declined to pursue any action against Martin in 2004. What three government agencies? To my knowledge no government agency ever looked into this matter until the Attorney General’s Office did and I have been following it very closely. What is your source for that statement, Dean Martin? Or did you just make that up also ? If any government agency would have looked into there matter I wouldn’t have been witting about it and demanding an investigation, would I ?
Do me a favor Mr. Templer, the next time you include me in something you write, get your facts straight and get both sides of the story and maybe do a little research.
BOB HARAN,
Phoenix, AZ
December 26th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Hey Haran -
You might be taken more seriously if you don’t come off like such a whining ninny. Also, if you used a spell check, that might benefit the perception you are trying to portray, as well. I actually grew up being Martin’s neighbor. This guy isn’t the type to fit into your propagating negativity - campaign. I mean look at the guy, I want to pinch his cheeks and give him a pat on the back for all the good he is doing for this state. Instead of being opposed to his seat as Treasurer, why don’t you take the time you waste ranting and raving about how he screwed over the country for a whole whopping $19K, and offer your time to his office and see what you can do (not just sit back and “SAY”) and be a part of something that betters all of us, instead of just acting like a douche bag. Look, you have an exemplary background (most people that read your propaganda won’t spend the time to see who you are, but I did). I would wager that it would be to the benefit of the state of Arizona to have you help make it better instead of pointing fingers at what you may contend as being the problem. Embrace all the experience you have and bring something meaningful to the populace, NOT ALL THIS NEGATIVITY!
Hell, you guys are both republicans for Pete’s sake. He didn’t steal campaign money. You are chasing a red herring, my friend. Give it up. He has the Treasurer position, and will probably be, dare I say… Are you sitting for this Bob? “Governor”
So just stop this nonsense, and reach out to him and work with him, not against him.
When more people like you take personal responsibility and step it up, instead of being the armchair quarterback, YOU ARE THE ONE THAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE and it makes this place a lot better to live in. Good Luck Bob Haran & Congratulations on your position, Dean Martin. Sorry I got in a fight with you and your sister in 5th grade. Haha!