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.

 
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.