Author Archive
November 6th, 2009, 4:30 pm by Le Templar
 Stephen Colbert It’s almost not fair anymore to point out when a popular comedy show takes another shot at Arizona state government. With a budget deficit of more than 20 percent (and perhaps double that for the next fiscal year), there are only bad choices and worse options for the governor and state Legislature. Someone is bound to poke some fun, no matter what they do.
But Stephen Colbert’s “The Word” has to be the best regular feature of any comedy show out there. The segment is a parody of Bill O’Reilly’s “Talking Points” commentary on The O’Reilly Factor. Between Colbert’s conservative persona, what he’s actually saying and the running counterpoint in words on the right of the TV screen, there will be two, three or even four levels of humor on display at the same time. Pure hilarity.
So I must call your attention to Tuesday’s “The Word,” when Colbert took on Arizona’s plan to sell nearly all of its prisons for cash to help balance the budget. While I’m not as troubled as other people by the concept of private prisons, I do understand their concerns. And Colbert’s final line really is a classic.
The segment is long at 4.5 minutes, but definitely worth your time.
Hat tip to Jim Nintzel at Tucson Weekly for writing about this first.
Posted in: Arizona Legislature • Arizona government • Arizona state budget • Bill O'Reilly • The Colbert Nation | Post a Comment »
November 6th, 2009, 11:34 am by Le Templar
Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard let the world know this morning via Twitter that he’s going to formally take steps toward running for governor:
“Today I will file papers to explore running for Governor. AZ needs strong leadership focused on jobs & ending partisan gridlock”
It’s been known for some time that Goddard, a former mayor of Phoenix, planned to make another bid for the post after losing out to Republican Fife Symington in 1990 and to Democrat Eddie Basha in the 1994 primary. Goddard is even considered an early frontrunner and likely will be the only major Democratic candidate to enter the race.
He will be “exploring” until at least mid-January to avoid triggering Arizona’s “resign to run” law. However, some people believe the attorney general already has violated it and should have resigned his current job already.
Goddard’s announcement comes less than 12 hours after the Republican incumbent, Jan Brewer, formally entered the race. The timing likely isn’t a coincidence.
Note: This post has been corrected to reflect the accurate information about Goddard’s past campaigns.
Posted in: Congress • Election issues • Governor • Journalism • 2010 elections • Jan Brewer • Terry Goddard | 1 Comment »
November 5th, 2009, 2:13 pm by Le Templar
Gov. Jan Brewer filed her paperwork today and will formally announce tonight that she’s running in 2010. So it might not have been the best day for Republican challenger Vernon Parker to post his first video message of the campaign. (Yes, ignore the “exploratory committee” nonsense. Parker definitely is in the race at this point). But as you can see below, the video does a nice job of succinctly telling Parker’s personal story. Since Parker isn’t well-known outside of Paradise Valley (where he’s mayor), this general introduction definitely is needed. Be sure to look for the quick photo of a younger Parker with a mustache and a bola tie. He’s definitely stepped up his professional image as he has matured.
Posted in: Election issues • Governor • 2010 elections • Jan Brewer • Vernon Parker | Post a Comment »
November 4th, 2009, 3:33 pm by Le Templar
 Gov. Jan Brewer/Capitol Media Services The Arizona Guardian is reporting this afternoon that Gov. Jan Brewer will announce Thursday night in Glendale that she’s running for election next year. Brewer has been quiet for months about her plans, and relatively poor polling numbers has had many people speculating that she would just serve out the current term. Brewer moved up from secretary of state in January after former Gov. Janet Napolitano become secretary of Homeland Security.
Brewer’s decision means other Republicans – John Munger, Vernon Parker and possibly Dean Martin — will have to campaign against her and not just against the expected Democratic nominee, Terry Goddard. Brewer has an uphill climb, but she never has lost an election, including her two victories for in statewide elections. A lot of experience comes with a track record like that could overcome the current political climate.
Posted in: Election issues • 2010 elections • Arizona Guardian • Dean Martin • Jan Brewer • John Munger • Vernon Parker | 1 Comment »
November 4th, 2009, 1:40 pm by Le Templar
 Rep. Gabrielle Giffords sent this photo by Twitter Wednesday morning to show she's reading the latest health care reform bill. One of the most stinging comments about Congress this summer during the health care town halls and TEA parties was Democrats were pushing major bills so fast that lawmakers couldn’t possibly read and understand what was in them before voting. One group even launched a campaign to get written pledges from individual lawmakers that they would read any health care reform legislation before voting “yes” or “no.” In turn, enough pledges would force the Senate and House to prepare written versions of such bills a few days before any votes so the public could digest them as well.
But exactly how do members of Congress “prove” they have read a bill? Issuing news releases would be a written form of saying, “I did my homework,” and wouldn’t convince the skeptical.
So some members of Arizona’s congressional delegation have turned to social media such as Twitter to show what they are learning in real time. Republican Rep. John Shadegg started the trend on Oct. 29 when he sent out the following tweet at 2:51 p.m.:
“Pg. 140 of the #healthbill extends immunity to ERISA insurers when they wrongfully deny coverage http://tinyurl.com/yzaqnac”
Several others joined in Tuesday. GOP Rep. Jeff Flake shared his first thoughts at 1:30 p.m.:
“Sitting around a table with my Republican colleagues, reading the massive Pelosi healthcare bill. Haven’t found anything good in it yet.”
Rep. Trent Franks piled on about 2.5 hours later:
“H.R. 3962 essentially does away with private insurance http://amplify.com/u/sqv via @RepTrentFranks #tcot #handsoff #hcr #gop”
A couple of Democrats have spoken up as well. Rep. Harry Mitchell pointed to a couple of highlights at 4:30 p.m. Tuesday:
“Reading HC Bill – Some items of note: Sen McCain idea - high risk pool pg 16; Insurance can’t drop people w preexisting conditions pg 95″
Then today, Mitchell sent back-to-back tweets at 9:30 a.m.:
“More notes from reading the bill Section 309 PG 202 - Insurance Across State Lines”
“Other sections to look at carefully Public Option Negotiated Rates: Sec 323 PG 216 & Small Business Exemption up to $500,000: Sec 413 PG 276″
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords decided to go the route of “a picture is worth a thousand words,” with the above photo of her with bill in hand. Not to be outdone, Republican Rep. Trent Franks went with this tweet:
“@RepShimkus RT Side by side, the Pelosi Health Care Bill and the GOP Alternative: http://twitpic.com/o8zuh More freedom or more government?”
Here’s the photo that the tweet points to:
So, are you convinced these people will know what they are voting on?
Posted in: Congress • Gabrielle Giffords • H.R. 3962 • Harry Mitchell • health care reform • Jeff Flake • John Shadegg • Trent Franks | Post a Comment »
November 3rd, 2009, 3:14 pm by Le Templar
 Sen. Pamela Gorman Gov. Jan Brewer is trying to reach a deal with the top two legislative leaders to call budget special session this month and reduce at least some of the projected $2 billion deficit. While everyone else waits, some key players are positioning themselves for what comes next.
Sen. Pamela Gorman, R-Anthem, has decided to publicly defend her colleagues from accusations that the Legislature refuses to address the budget crisis. Gorman took offense at a recent media column that suggested lawmakers have been sitting on their hands while the deficit climbs.
She fired both barrels at the Arizona Daily Star in Tucson (a popular target among Republicans). But the Daily Star apparently just linked to a column from Mark Evans at the Tucson Citizen web site, who referred to a “chicken Legislature.” However, Gorman’s underlying point still applies: Just because a journalist doesn’t like the strategies used by the GOP majority shouldn’t be a license to claim the Legislature has done nothing.
The Legislature adopted a budget twice that its analysts said were balanced (with revenue estimates that turned out to be too optimistic), but Brewer’s various vetoes kept adding more spending to the bottom line.
Of course, Gorman was blamed in various corners for those vetoes, as she was one of two Republicans who refused to join their colleagues in supporting Brewer’s call for an election on a temporary sales tax increase. That opposition was just enough to block the election proposal, which could have balanced out many of the proposed budget cuts the governor later vetoed.
Meanwhile, Senate President Bob Burns, R-Peoria, has re-emphasized his willingness to champion a sales tax election again. Burns was careful not to say he supports a sales tax increase. But reading between the lines, he seems to believe an election is the only route to closing the huge political divide in the Legislature that has made budget solutions so difficult to obtain. Whether a sales tax passes or fails, the voters would give some clear guidance to lawmakers about what they want to happen.
Posted in: Arizona Legislature • Arizona government • Governor • Bob Burns • Jan Brewer • Pamela Gorman • state budget | 1 Comment »
November 3rd, 2009, 12:21 pm by Le Templar
A day after the Tribune’s parent company announced it will close the newspaper and its web sites on Dec. 31, I am surprised and heartened by the extensive range of people who have told me they are shocked by the news, saddened by the pending loss of a community voice, and praying for my colleagues and their futures. Even Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said on Twitter this morning that it’s a “sad day,” which is impressive given the Tribune’s ups and downs with him.
But the reaction of other Valley journalists assigned to cover this news story was a little puzzling. As you might expect, those other publications wanted to hear from Tribune employees, to share their story in some fashion. However, as has been reported elsewhere, Tribune Publisher Julie Moreno asked that all media inquiries be referred to her office or to a public relations firm hired by the newspaper’s owner, Freedom Communications.
So those journalists got increasingly frustrated when no one else at the Tribune would speak with them. KPNX-TV (Channel 12) posted a camera crew outside the Tribune’s front door for several hours. Several newsroom staff members (including me) received a number of emails, phone calls and Facebook messages. They were generally polite and understanding, but some reporters practically begged us to comment.
The Arizona Republic and HeatCity.org got around the problem by interviewing former Tribune employees who were laid off (or retired) from the Tribune in January. But Heat City writer Nick Martin asked a question that I think was on the minds of many: Why would a company named Freedom Communications not allow its employees to speak freely? And why would employees about to lose their jobs honor a request to stay silent? I have a couple of thoughts:
- Freedom has a standing policy that only select executives are supposed to speak for one of its media outlets or the company as a whole. The policy was in place long before the current situation with the Tribune and Freedom’s bankruptcy proceedings.
- In fact, nearly every media corporation has a similar policy. Call it hypocritical if you want, but I challenge any of the reporters working for corporate media yesterday to say with sincerity that they would be free to talk if their employer was in a crisis. It’s how the corporate world works.
- No one at Freedom issued any threats if an employee ignored the publisher’s request. But honestly, why would anyone risk losing their job early, and any severance pay after the newspaper closes, just to give a quote to another media outlet?
- This story is about more than the 140 people who currently work at the Tribune. It’s about what the Mesa newspaper has meant to the community for the past 118 years, from its pioneer roots to its Pulitzer Prize for local reporting. I’m not sure anyone here gave much thought to quoting our colleagues in our first story about the newspaper’s closure. We wanted to share what the East Valley was thinking about the news of the day.
We at the Tribune will have plenty to say in the coming weeks and months about what this newspaper has meant to us. You can read a little bit of that in tomorrow’s editions. But our first priority Monday was the story and its impact on the community, not ourselves, just the way that the professionals at the Tribune always have done their jobs.
Posted in: Journalism • Arizona Republican • East Valley Tribune • Heat City • John McCain • KPNX-TV • Nick Martin • Phoenix Business Journal | 2 Comments »
October 29th, 2009, 3:19 pm by Le Templar
The Tribune has receive a sizable number of letters to the editor in the past few months about the claims that President Barack Obama isn’t a natural-born citizen as required by the Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 1). So they claim he never was eligible to be elected or sworn in president. A number of federal lawsuits have been filed around the country on issue, with the arguments getting more convoluted with the passage of time. But every one of the lawsuits have been dismissed, and the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to consider any of them.
Lately, the most virulent believers of Obama’s ineligibility, often referred to as “birthers” by critics (such as myself), have been pining on their hopes on U.S. District Judge David O. Carter of California. Carter didn’t immediately dismiss the lawsuit like other judges. He heard arguments and considered evidence, so the birthers thought they finally would get their day in court.
Nope. The judge ended the case today. Carter’s speaks to why every lawsuit has been a waste of time and money. The Constitution spells out how a sitting president can be removed from office, and the courts have no authority to do so, Carter says. If Obama somehow wasn’t born in Hawaii or if he somehow gave up his U.S. citizenship as a child, it would be Congress’ task to impeach him. However, even staunch conservatives such as Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., reject the birthers’ position in light of the various evidence confirming Obama’s natural-born citizenship.
Posted in: Uncategorized • "birthers" • citizenship • President Barack Obama | Post a Comment »
October 29th, 2009, 2:26 pm by Le Templar
Metadata (met-uh day-ta): Data about data. Metadata describes how and when and by whom a particular set of data was collected, and how the data is formatted. Metadata is essential for understanding information stored in data warehouses and has become increasingly important in XML-based Web applications. (www.webopedia.com)
The Arizona Supreme Court has blazed new ground today for government transparency and access to public records in a case about information that’s created as part of electronic records but often is not seen when those records are printed out.
In Lake v. the city of Phoenix, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that metadata should be treated just like the underlying document and is covered by Arizona’s open records law. This means government agencies won’t be able to withhold key details about an electronic file, such as when it was created, who had access to the record and if there’s any hidden information used by government officials that “disappears” when you click the print button.
The lawsuit is about Phoenix police officer David Lake, who claims he was wrongly demoted by the city. Among the evidence produced in the case are some personnel evaluations that reflect poorly on Lake’s performance. Lake suspects the evaluations were written after his demotion and were falsely backdated.
Since the evaluations were written on city computers using a standard word-processing program, Lake’s lawyers demanded to see the electronic originals including the metadata that would show when the documents were first created, if they were ever changed, and who might have edited them over time. You can type any date you want at the top of a letter, and you can go back and edit that letter weeks or months later to completely change its message. But only a few computer experts can hack into word-processing programs and change the metadata to hide their tracks.
Phoenix lawyers denied Lake’s request, and argued in court that the open records law only applied to parts of a document typed in by a city official that could be printed off. Since metadata often is automatically created by the software outside of the user’s control, it can’t be considered a public record, the city also argued.
A trial judge and the Arizona Court of Appeals agreed with Phoenix’s position. That’s when several media/freedom of information groups took an interest in the case, including the First Amendment Coalition of Arizona. Full disclosure: I’m on the coalition’s board of directors.
Lake and Phoenix were arguing over several issues in different stages of their appeals, and the First Amendment Coalition worried that the fundamental, open government concern involving metadata wouldn’t receive the proper attention before the Supreme Court. So the coalition’s lawyer, Dan Barr, filed a “friend of the court” brief to explain how metadata works and why that information shouldn’t be viewed differently from other parts of a public document.
Part of that presentation came from Steve Doig, a journalism professor at Arizona State University who previously participated in Pulitzer Prize winning investigations with the Miami Herald. Doig explained in writing for the Supreme Court how there are times when you can’t even make sense of an electronic file (especially if it’s created in a spreadsheet like Excel) unless you have the corresponding metadata.
The Supreme Court agreed with the arguments from Lake and the media groups. The court even recognized that governments can avoid the time-consuming hassle of isolating and printing off metadata by simply turning over the original electronic file (usually referred as its “native format”). That’s what most people seeking public records from computers want these days anyway.
But a lot of Arizona governments refuse to release the electronic version of records, claiming state law doesn’t require them to do so. Typically, governments insist on printouts to discourage public record seekers or to limit what they will get to review.
This Supreme Court decision should provide a new incentive for governments to release complete public records in a manner consistent with 21st century technology.
Posted in: Arizona State University • Arizona government • Courts • Freedom of Information • Public records • Arizona First Amendment Coalition • Arizona Supreme Court • Dan Barr • Steve Doig | 2 Comments »
October 28th, 2009, 2:13 pm by Le Templar
 Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas (left) and County Manager David R. Smith We got some unusual insight this week into just how nasty the fighting has become within the upper echelons of Maricopa County government. The county’s top administrator now is hinting that some of the county’s top attorneys have violated a basic ethical standard of the legal profession — always protect the client’s confidentiality. In turn, those attorneys are now risking official sanction to a shine a light on the questioning of their ethics, which they also see as a fundamental attack on their right to free speech.
Two central players in this week’s escalation of the courthouse power struggle are County Attorney Andrew Thomas and County Manager David Smith. As an appointed official who answers to the Board of Supervisors, Smith isn’t as well-known as Thomas. But Smith wields far-reaching influence with his day-to-day control of the county’s $2 billion budget.
As outlined in state law, Thomas’ office normally serves as the “law firm” for the county. The county attorney provides legal advise to the Board of Supervisors and the county manager, and represents the county in court whenever it is sued. But business has been anything but normal ever since Thomas obtained a criminal indictment of one of those supervisors, Don Stapley.
A short time later, the Board of Supervisors said it couldn’t trust Thomas to protect its interests first. So the board essentially fired Thomas as the county’s legal adviser and created it’s own “law firm” called the Office of General Litigation Services. Thomas has tried to stop the board from stripping this authority (his office still prosecutes criminals), but so far the courts have sided with the supervisors.
Despite the current separation, Thomas and his staff had an attorney-client relationship with David Smith and other county administrators. The guidelines that govern this relationship is the first rule of ethics for all lawyers adopted by the state Supreme Court. One key point of that rule: a lawyer almost never can unilaterally decide to talk about private conversations with a client, even after the lawyer and client no longer work together.
On Monday, Smith invoked that ethics rule when he sent a letter to Thomas, six of his top assistants and the county attorney’s public information officer. As Tribune writer Gary Grado reported, Smith asked if Thomas and the others ever shared any confidential information about county business by email with several local media outlets including the Tribune. Smith also wanted to know if the lawyers had ever written about county officials under their own names or anonymously for a political blog called Sonoran Alliance and for two other conservative groups.
Smith, a lawyer himself, isn’t explaining what prompted him to send the letter. But his written questions strongly imply he already has some evidence that he believes point to an ethical breach by Thomas and his top assistants. The evidence apparently wasn’t enough to file a formal complaint with the Arizona State Bar. So Smith must have decided to deliberately provoke Thomas and see what happened.
The response was loud and furious. Barnett Lotstein, a special assistant to Thomas who often speaks publicly for the office, also received Smith’s letter. Lotstein said the county manager is trying to intimidate him from speaking out in defense of the county attorney.
“David Smith isn’t a king,” Lotstein told me. “Perhaps he has forgotten that. Maybe it’s time someone remind him.”
Thomas’ PIO Michael Scerbo forwarded Smith’s letter to Valley journalists, a deliberate move because Scerbo was the only non-attorney to receive the demand for information. Scerbo said he finds the letter alarming because his whole job is to communicate with the media. In theory, Smith could disrupt the county attorney’s ability to speak freely with the public if Thomas has to worry that even if his spokesperson’s conversations are going to be monitored by a powerful critic.
However, Scerbo’s employment by the county attorney means he’s also not supposed to disclose confidential facts of county business. Cari Gerchick, a spokeswoman for the Board of Supervisors’ own “law firm,” drew an analogy to a doctor’s office, where everyone including the nurses and filing clerks legally can’t disclose information about patients, even though those employees aren’t physicians.
Gerchick said Scerbo’s release of Smith’s letter actually was a violation of the ethics rules, because Smith made it clear he was asking for information under the protection of attorney-client confidentiality.
But perhaps the county attorney learned something about the power of transparency when two executives from Phoenix New Times were arrested after they revealed a secret subpoena from a county special prosecutor seeking information about everyone who had visited that publication’s web site. Public backlash to the outrageous overreach of that subpoena prompted Thomas to drop the arrest charges and to cancel the special prosecutor’s investigation.
Any legitimate doubts about Thomas’ legal ethics would have serious implications, as he is likely to campaign for state attorney general next year. But if Smith and the Board of Supervisors want to go after Thomas or his assistants, they better have something more substantial than the public disclosure of a demand letter.
Posted in: Freedom of Information • Maricopa County • Barnett Lotstein • Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas • Maricopa County Manager David Smith • Michael Scerbo • Phoenix New Times | 4 Comments »
|
|
Twitter