ARIZONA STATE QUARTER (Tribune file photo)
  Gov. Janet Napolitano and state Treasurer Dean Martin have been dueling, politics-style, over the ephemeral prize of being associated with the one and only Arizona state quarter.
  Napolitano, a Democrat, had the real task of actually picking the final design of the state quarter, one of the last in the 50-state series to be minted by the federal government. So it’s no surprise she has been working the publicity angles through several stages leading up to Monday’s official release of the quarter to the public.
  But Martin, a Republican, has managed to horn in on Napolitano’s show. As keeper of the keys to the state vault, Martin has been doing his best to stake a claim to the positive vibes that the U.S. Mint program has generated.
  This face-off was highlighted May 16 when Napolitano and Martin both made the trip to the U.S. Mint plant in Denver for the ceremonial striking of the quarter. Of course, the offices of Napolitano and Martin sent out competing statements promoting their travel plans.
  Then, the duel continued today with separate news releases about Monday’s unveiling of the quarter. Martin’s news release (not online yet) actually arrive by e-mail first at the Tribune at about 11:24 a.m. Martin talks about how he will ride in an authentic Wells Fargo stagecoach to deliver the first rolls of quarters to the state Capitol in a strongbox.
  Napolitano’s version arrived by email about 1:24 p.m. Friday, and focuses on a ceremony that will take place at the Capitol Monday to honor the coin. Napolitano’s news release mentions that children will receive their very own quarter for free, while adults will be able to exchange $10 for a roll of brand-spanking new Arizona coins.
  It’s strange how Martin and Napolitano seem to be completely unaware that the other public official will be anywhere near Monday’s celebration …
  Anyway, Napolitano might be winning the publicity dual so far, if this news release from the U.S. Mint is any indication.

GOV. JANET NAPOLITANO  (as found at azgovernor.gov)
  I knew it has been a frustrating legislative session for Gov. Janet Napolitano, but I was stunned to learn just how badly her agenda has fared so far in 2008. As Tribune writer Mary K. Reinhart points out in that story, a multi-billion dollar budget shortfall disrupts everyone’s best laid plans. But with more seats held by Democrats and sympathetic Republicans, it certainly seemed like Napolitano would match what she has accomplished in prior years.
  Napolitano is cagey in that she offers up proposals in the State of State address that she expects to give away or let Republicans play with and heavily modify. This strategy allows critics to believe they have won a victory over Napolitano, but in fact they have to compromise and hand Napolitano the issues she really wants. This is how Napolitano won passage of full-day kindergarten and funding for the Science Foundation of Arizona, among other priorities.
  The challenge, even after more than 5 years of her administration, is figuring out which proposals she sincerely wants and which ones are simply negotiating positions.
  For example, last year Napolitano proposed spending $30 million for a new school of construction management at Arizona State University. From the outset I thought this issue likely would drop from the negotiating table as it didn’t fit Napolitano’s central agenda of promoting math and science education. And it did.
  But the idea is back this year as part of a $1.4 billion borrowing package promoted by ASU and the other state universities. Napolitano has offered her support for this package, too, but is smart enough to recognize there’s no hope of it passing the Legislature this year. So I’ll bet there are other, smaller matters in her proposed budget that will receive approval instead simply because critics have been more focused on stopping the huge university spending plan.
  Legislative Republicans caught on to this strategy a couple of years back and have undertaken their own version of horse trading. That’s how they convinced Napolitano to approve the 2006 cuts in income and property taxes and $5 million in funding for new school voucher programs for disabled students and children in foster care.
  This year, Republican leaders have been more interested in making deeper budget cuts to avoid the borrowing and budget gimmicks that Napolitano prefers. The fact that we have reached the end of May without serious negotiations between her office and Republican leaders on the next budget means the Republican strategy hasn’t gone over well with fellow lawmakers.
  On the other hand, as Reinhart pointed out, Napolitano and her fellow Democrats aren’t really getting anything out of this process, either.
  What we have is a real stalemate at the state Capitol. Maybe talk about state government shutting down on July 1 isn’t just fanciful doom saying, after all.

   Note to Florence and every other Arizona city and town: Stop making side agreements and secret deals to hide public records from … well … the public.
   Tribune writer Sarah Boggan has a story today about a court ruling in Pinal County that Florence must release a taxpayer-funded study of the possible purchase of the Johnson Utilities water system. Relying on this study, Florence officials offered $190 million to buy the water system, but Johnson Utilities decided to not go through with the sale. That’s when Boggan discovered that as part of the negotiations, Florence promised to tip off Johnson Utilities if anyone asked to see the study so Johnson could get a judge to keep it secret.
   Tuesday’s court decision reflects what the Tribune Editorial Board previously called for: access to general research about the water system which might have influenced Florence’s decisions while withholding any unique business practice details or proprietary information. This is what Florence should have done in the first place, instead of giving a private business control even temporary control of public records.
   Florence isn’t alone with this. When I covered Chandler in 1999 and 2000, the city attorney’s office routinely delayed release of any records related to city employees so those employees would have time to go court and try to block their release. No one ever did when I was involved, and the Tribune has subsequently demonstrated in court with Scottsdale that such employee records are open to the public and should be immediately released.
   More recently, Tribune writer Katie McDevitt spent weeks arguing with the Chandler Police Department about seeing reports on an internal affairs investigation of several officers who had looked up another officer’s personal vehicle license plate just out of curiosity, not for official business. I have to wonder if someone within the department was hoping the officers involved or their police union would go to court to keep the investigation secret. Once McDevitt firmly pressed Chandler police to show her what law allowed the agency to withhold the report, the city finally released it.
   Such tactics significantly test the patience of average citizens and interfere with the public’s ability to monitor what government does in our name. It should come to an end, now.

Original photo at www.museo-fisogni.org

   Just how wild are the rising gas prices? I paid 20 cents more for a gallon of gasoline at my neighborhood station last night than the last time I filled the 13-gallon gas tank of my 2003 Honda Civic. Wow.
   One piece of good news – average Valley gas prices are the lowest in the nation, a significant turnaround from a few years ago when they seemed to be among the highest.
   I remember when I paid 79 cents a gallon in southern Oklahoma and northern Texas. I guess that was well over a decade ago, but it seems like it was just yesterday.

ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES)

   Capitol Media Services had a story Monday about last-minute efforts to secure a little bit of funding toward a huge remodeling of the state Capitol complex. The goal is to replace the House and Senate buildings, and possible the nine-story executive tower, by the 2012 centennial celebration of statehood.
   I recoil at the idea that Arizona can afford to spend $100 million to $500 million to give better offices to the Legislature and perhaps the governor and the secretary of state. But I worked as a Tribune reporter at the state Capitol for almost four years. And I can say that Arizonans should be embarrassed by what is supposed to be the centerpiece of their state government.
   The House and Senate buildings, built in 1960, are ugly, giant concrete boxes that appear intended to fend off a foreign military assault rather than be home to the noble governance of a democratic republic. Even worse, the designers of those two buildings made almost no effort to blend them with the original Capitol, a statuesque structure built in 1900 similar to other Western capitols from the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
   Finally, the House and Senate buildings simply are dysfunctional. The House endures a serious lack of office space that disrupts the public’s ability to meet lawmakers and to watch them in action. The Senate suffers from plumbing problems that result in pipes bursting from time to time, causing real damage that must be repaired over and over.
   The executive tower, which opened in 1974, is more attractive from my point of view (which lacks any architectural training) and still is quite functional. But many people believe that building doesn’t match the original Capitol either, in design or in scope because of its domineering height.
   In January, Utah rededicated its state capitol after a four-year, $200 million remodeling project that restored its original beauty while adding 200,000 square feet of office space.
   I don’t know what the answer is for Arizona. But don’t we deserve to be as proud of our state Capitol as our northern neighbors are of theirs?

 
Pinal County Sheriff Chris Vasquez
   Someone in Pinal County thinks routine plagiarism is a serious offense. Tribune writer David Biscobing is reporting that a petition drive has been launched to recall Pinal County Sheriff Chris Vasquez after Biscobing revealed Vasquez had stolen the words and speeches of others to fill a monthly newsletter.

   Vasquez apologized in writing but clearly believes that his kind of plagiarism just isn’t a big deal.

   Casa Grande resident Ethan Groh says he takes it quite seriously and is the leader of the recall effort. But Groh couldn’t have thought this through.

   Under Arizona law, recall elections are designed to be an outlet to remove an elected official when a regular election is too far into the future and no criminal charges are likely to do the job. But recall elections must be held on specific dates in May, June, September or November (like all Arizona elections). And if a recall election is called, the incumbent isn’t necessarily removed from office. Another candidate must stand for election and actually receive more votes than the office-holder.

   That makes launching a recall drive on May 23 when Vasquez already must stand for regular election this year rather silly. The earliest a recall election could be held would be in September on the same date as the primary. Wouldn’t it be confusing if Vasquez is selected to be the Democratic candidate for the general election on the same day that he’s voted out of office?

   The only thing that would be worse is if the recall election were scheduled for the general election date in November, which also is possible depending on when petition signatures were turned in and verified.

   Since the recall committee has until Sept. 17 to turn in those signatures, Biscobing notes that a recall election also could be held after the November general election if Vasquez wins. But then, the recall election would have to be in May 2009, a full year after this issue came up.

    If Groh sincerely wants to see Vasquez voted out of office, it would make far more sense for him to drop the recall effort and to work for Vasquez’s defeat in the September primary and the November general election. Otherwise, Groh really is just grandstanding for public attention.

 
Jonathan Rauch
 

  I’ve been out of touch for a few days. While I was gone, Harry Mitchell shook up his congressional staff, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio appears to be on his way out as the contract police chief for Guadalupe and some wacky, spring-like weather rolled into the East Valley.

   I was attending an event in San Antonio called Freedom School. Hosted by the Tribune’s parent company, Freedom Communications, this training seminar is designed to remind editors and opinion writers about the core libertarian values that guide the company and to discuss how this philosophy can be applied to current political and cultural issues.
   Two prominent speakers were Freedom School favorites, Tom Palmer, who oversees the Cato Institute’s efforts to create a libertarian movement around the world, and Timothy Sandefur, a public-interest lawyer for libertarian causes.
   But my favorite speaker was Jonathan Rauch, a columnist for National Journal and Atlantic Monthly and a guest scholar at the Brookings Institute. Rauch, raised in Paradise Valley, was invited to provide a constructive critique of modern libertarian thinking.
   Rauch said he generally likes the goals of limiting government power, promoting expansive civil liberties and protecting a bright line between church and state. But libertarians, especially activists in the Libertarian Party, have become their own worst enemies, he said.
   Libertarians don’t celebrate small victories, and demand a dramatic return to a government modeled after the 1780s or mid-1800s. Such a view is completely crazy for a world power in the 21st century, he said.
   “A philosophy that fundamentally impractical is fundamentally flawed,” Rauch said.
   Ed Crane, founder and president of the Cato Institute, tried to counter Rauch’s comments with the argument that the New Deal of the 1930s was a radical transformation of the role of American government that took place virtually overnight. Why can’t such a tidal shift take place again back toward government structure that the founding fathers originally intended?
   Rauch pointed out all governments tend to grow size and power, and they build up collections of special interests that are entrenched to keep things that way. That’s certainly is the case in this country.
   “Trimming government back to the pre-New Deal model is complete fantasyland,” Rauch said.
  Tom Palmer made a stronger case when he said people need to be presented with a strong vision of change to be motivated to act in any direction. He called it “realistic idealism.”
   “People won’t move, they won’t donate, they won’t volunteer to pursue reasonable alternatives. They are motivated by ideals,” Palmer said.
  Finally, Tibor Machan, Freedom Communications’ in-house libertarian philosopher, made an interesting point near the end of Freedom School:
   “Being libertarian doesn’t mean you are for small government, but for a government that is limited in scope.”

Scottsdale resident Andrea Weck and daughter Lexie have been advocates for state-funded private school scholarships (from www.ij.org). 

   Libertarians and school choice advocates aren’t going to like it, but I have to admit it’s hard to argue with today’s ruling from the Arizona Court of Appeals that private school vouchers violate the state constitution.
   This case dealt with a couple of new scholarship programs created by Legislature in 2006 to provide private tuition scholarships for disabled children and those in foster care who might find better education if their options weren’t limited to only public schools.
   School choice advocates, including the Tribune Editorial Board, had thought these vouchers would be safe because of a previous Supreme Court ruling that said state tax credits which encourage people to donate to student tuition organizations didn’t run afoul of the Arizona Constitution.
   But the appeals court said that previous ruling dealt only with the issue of whether the tax credits violated the state constitution’s equivalent of the First Amendment religion establishment clause. In creating the tax credits, the state said the STOs can pay for private tuitions at any school, church-affiliated or not, so there’s no attempt to support a specific religion, the appeals court said.
   But in the new case, the critics of school vouchers pointed to a different section of the state constitution, Art. IX, Sect. 10, which says, “No tax shall be laid or appropriation of public money made in aid of any church, or private or sectarian school …”
   The appeals court said that section makes it pretty clear the state can’t hand out scholarships or vouchers that wind up in the hands of private schools.
   “Only by ignoring the plain text of the Arizona Constitution prohibiting state aid to private schools could we find the aid represented by the payment of tuition fees to such schools in this case constitutional,” the court wrote.
  This dispute isn’t over, as defenders of the tuition scholarships have promised to appeal to the state Supreme Court. But in the meantime, school choice advocates need to start thinking about possible constitutional amendments to clear this hurdle. The Legislature puts such amendments before the voters every two years.

Dan Saban 

   Opinion writers at the Tribune were informally discussing Wednesday the story about Gov. Janet Napolitano taking $1.6 million in funding that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been using for illegal immigration enforcement. One question I had: Where is Dan Saban, the alleged Democratic challenger to Arpaio’s fifth term as sheriff?
Saban has been remarkably quiet as a candidate, given that he has been working for more than five years to defeat Arpaio, a Republican, at the ballot box.
   I don’t see Saban standing next to Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon or Guadalupe Mayor Rebecca Jimenez when they complain about Arpaio’s illegal immigrant sweeps. I don’t see Saban standing next to Phoenix attorney Michael Manning when he claims the county jails are so poorly run that inmates are routinely dying in Arpaio’s custody. In fact, I don’t see Saban much of anywhere, other than occasional quotes in the Phoenix New Times, which has a full-fledged mission to drive Arpaio out of office.
   If Saban isn’t prepared to instantly react to these legitimate controversies, then what exactly is Saban’s campaign up to? In fact, why isn’t Saban, who has decades of service in Valley law enforcement, among the first to tackle those issues that Arpaio’s critics believe should bring the sheriff down?
   In other words, is Saban a serious candidate or is he wasting everyone’s time including Joe Arpaio’s?
   So it was interesting to find in my email shortly after that meeting a guest column from Saban talking about who should serve criminal warrants, the issue that underlies this week’s feud between Arpaio and Napolitano. Now, I happen to disagree with Saban that Arpaio and other Arizona sheriffs have any unique responsibility for serving warrants and tracking down fugitives. Given the mobility of American society, and our proximity to the Mexican border, this task belongs to every law enforcement agency and should be addressed through broad alliances and task forces. (Just like Napolitano has now ordered the Department of Public Safety to do.) But I respect that Saban is actually speaking out on how he would manage the sheriff’s office differently than Arpaio.
   Today, Saban followed up with an early notice to the media that he will be turning in his signature petitions on Friday to formally qualify for the September primary ballot.
   Maricopa County voters deserve a robust debate about Arpaio’s 16 years in office and whether he should have another term. Perhaps Saban is finally starting to fully engage in that debate.

From left: Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and state House Speaker Jim Weiers at a news conference Monday (Capitol Media Services).

   There go those hopes of seeing the next state budget adopted anytime soon.
Stalled budget talks are likely to get caught up in the immediate fallout from Gov. Janet Napolitano’s decision to take away $1.6 million that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been using for illegal immigration enforcement.
   One lawmaker with at least some influence was standing next to Arpaio Monday at a hastily called news conference to protest Napolitano’s act. Another lawmaker who knows a thing or two about state budgets was the primary champion of Arpaio’s funding last year.
   I expect both of them to rattle all sorts of cages in and around the Capitol unless Napolitano does the unlikely and changes her mind about using the $1.6 million to fund a new statewide fugitive warrant task force. Certainly, Republican leaders will try telling Napolitano face-to-face she has to give Arpaio his money back if she wants budget negotiations to go anywhere.
   The governor, a Democrat, has won most budget showdowns with Republicans in the past. Even with the public volatility of the illegal immigration debate, I wouldn’t bet against her this time either. For those who can’t get things done without a deadline, the state budget has to be adopted by June 30 to avoid any risk of violating the state constitution.