There's a lot of material to cover here, so I am breaking up my post - this post will cover the three LD8 candidates; the next one will cover Harry Mitchell. In fact, it's so long that if you are not interested in LD8, you may want to just skim it.
The forum opened with an acknowledgement of two candidates that were not part of the forum, Susan Fuchs, who is running for Justice of the Peace for the McDowell Mountain District, and Rano Singh, Democratic candidate for AZ State Treasurer. She was represented by Fletcher Fowler, who was collecting Clean Elections $5s for her.
Under the format for the forum, the candidates would give an opening statement, then answer a series of questions posed by the moderator, and then respond to audience questions, before giving a brief closing statement.
In his opening statement, State Senate candidate Dan Oseran told us he is a native Arizonan, born in Tucson. He is a graduate of U of A (boo! hiss! :) ) Law School and MBA program and used to work for the Maricopa County Attorney's Office. He currently works for a small high tech business and is an adjunct professor at the University of Advancing Technology in Tempe.
He stated that his biggest issue (no surprise here) is crime. His experience in the County Attorney's office included time fighting fraud and identity theft in this, the county with the most identity theft in the nation. He stressed that he doesn't support just punishment, but crime prevention.
He also supports creating a student loan forgiveness program for Arizona students attending public universities who pursue a career in the public sector. He cited the fact that he had to leave the County Attorney's office to earn enough money to pay off his own student loans.
Noting that education levels in a state and that state's economic development are interrelated, he called for a legislature with the long-term vision to make the investments now in education to ensure future growth of the state.
State Representative candidate Stephanie Rimmer briefly went over her bio as a small business owner, wife and mother of 4 (see her website for more info) before launching into her opening. She spoke of the great quality of life in Arizona, but observed that not everyone in AZ has a chance to experience that quality of life. She would work to expand the benefits of AZ life to more residents.
Her big issue is the environment. She cited that the legislature handled 1400 bills this session, but did nothing to lower vehicle emissions or improve air quality. Her observation that many things are reversible (underfunding schools, bad laws, etc.) but damage to the environment frequently is not reversible.
Lastly, if elected, she would be a strong advocate for schools in the state.
State Rep candidate Bill Sandberg let us know that his motivation for running was very personal. He was the caregiver for his mom while she suffered from Alzheimer's disease and dementia. In early 2004, his mom's condition deteriorated so much that she could not stand on her own any more, so the adult day care center she went to while he worked would not accept her any longer. He took a leave of absence from his jobs to stay with her full time. During that LOA, he was spotted walking with his mom by one of the customers at one of his jobs. Within days, she had organized a group of women to help with his mom so he could return to work.
That lasted until his mom passed away in October of 2004.
Now he wants to repay them by working for the greater good, and that's why he's running for the lege.
After the candidates gave their opening statements, the moderator asked 3 questions, and the candidates were allowed to answer them in turn.
The first question concerned the partisan, poisonous atmospheres in the legislature and Congress. The moderator asked how the candidates would work 'across the aisle' to craft and pass legislation.
Candidate Rimmer cited how her candidacy is already something of an example of this - in addition to Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens and Independents have supported her. She also noted that one of her best skills, and one of the skills most needed to form a consensus, is the ability to listen.
Candidate Oseran started by saying that in the legislature it is "time for policies, not politics." He will use his training and skills as a mediator (from his time in the County Attorney's Office) to build bridges and to remind his colleagues that the legislature is "not a zero-sum game."
Candidate Sandberg admitted that he didn't know exactly how he will reach across the aisle but stated that in his career, particularly in the construction industry, he has worked with diverse personalities and capabilities and is used to bringing them together to complete the project at hand.
The second question concerned the environment. The candidates were asked which environmental issues interested them the most.
Bill Sandberg - Water quality and state trust land. He favors passage of Prop 106 in November and wants to close the loophole in AZ law that allows the lege to borrow from the state land trust for the budget.
Dan Oseran - Air and water quality. He told the audience how he was an ecology co-major in college, and that his senior thesis was on the quality of water in a river (I forget which, and didn't jot it down, but it's back east. Sorry!) He was also part of the Environmental Law Society in law school. He advocates for preserving the quality of the environment because it attracts new business, residents, and tourism.
Stephanie Rimmer - Advocates working to change/improve auto fuel and emissions. She wonders why fossil fuels are still used so much. She also expressed her surprise that when she moved here from Washington years ago, that we (AZ) didn't have any on the recycling activities that she was used to.
The third question asked the candidates how they thought that investment in education would benefit Arizona.
Stephanie Rimmer - "Put Harry in every school." That reference to the 'flag in every classroom' law from this last session of the lege got a good pop from the crowd, and a smile from Harry and the other candidates.
Her position is that improving education is vital, particularly for Arizona to become a biotech research hub. She cited as one of the biggest, or perhaps the biggest, impediment to that starts in our high schools, which have a 65% graduation rate. In addition, many of those who do graduate need remedial classes at the next level before they move into the main curriculum of their chosen college.
She closed with a statement that earned another good pop from the crowd. "Elect a new Superintendent of Public Instruction."
Bill Sandberg - Advocated expanding our community colleges, including allowing them to award 4 year degrees and giving them some help acquiring ever more expensive land for expansion. He also called for expanding pre-K and K programs, perhaps to include some pre-K tutoring and/or the creation of educational childcare centers.
Dan Oseran - Reminded the audience that he is an adjunct professor in Tempe and then went on to state that top tier universities are needed to attract business. If elected, he would advocate for a holistic approach to improving education in Arizona, starting from K through college.
He also thought that it was a shame that Maricopa County, one of the largest in the country, had only one high school ranked in the top 1200 (Chaparral H.S.).
Next up was the period for questions from the audience. I may have some of these out of order, because my notes were getting messy as I tried to keep up (if I keep doing this, it may be time to invest in a recorder).
The first question was on how the candidates would handle some of the personal attacks that are sure to come as the election draws closer.
Sandberg - Would rely on his sense of obligation to those who don't have a voice to see him through.
Rimmer - Would draw upon her desire to see that her children have a good community live and grow up in.
Oseran - Would use facts against personal attacks. He'd get the truth out there.
The next question concerned the candidates' positions on same-sex marriage.
Oseran - considers it a smokescreen issue and an area that the government should not interfere in.
Sandberg - opposes same-sex marriage and favors a constitutional amendment (state and/or U.S.) banning it.
Rimmer - not an area that government should be involved in.
The third audience question asked how the candidates would help Governor Napolitano.
Rimmer - she would work to support women's issues and uphold the Governor's veto. She specifically cited a bill creating a waiting period for abortions passed this last session that the Governor vetoed. Even though she (candidate Rimmer) is a staunch Catholic, she supports a woman right to choose.
Sandberg - Applauded the Governor's Aging 2020 initiative. Also stated that he is pro-choice.
Oseran - "Thank goodness for the Governor." (lots of applause there) Also stated that he would work to uphold the Governor's veto.
The next question (Mine!!! whooo hooo!!!) was asked of Harry Mitchell specifically, but the positions of the other candidates were welcome also.
Harry was advised of the impending visit of Speaker Hastert of the U.S. House and was asked that if he could speak to the Speaker, what would he say Arizona needs.
{Harry's answer will be in the post concerning him}
Sandberg - Supports more National Guard troops on the border, and doing more than supporting the Border Patrol. He advocates having the NG apprehend and detain undocumented immigrants. He doesn't support a wall across the border, though a 'wall of troops' might be good.
Oseran - Thinks illegal immigration is a federal problem that the states have been left to deal with, and called it a 'market-driven' issue (market for cheap labor) and the market forces should be addressed.
Rimmer - Would tell Speaker Hastert to "Stop the baloney" and wants some Department of Homeland Security money to assist in securing the border.
The next audience member asked how the candidates would address healthcare costs.
Oseran - noted that 20% of Arizona residents have no health insurance and that the percentage of AZ's children that are uncovered make us one of the worst states in that regard. He would work to correct that. Supports creating a state health plan.
Sandberg - Observed that AZ's emergency rooms are graded at D+, 43rd nationally and wants to address that. He wants to work to raise the pay of nurses and supports creating a state health plan. He also suggested impact fees on developers targeted to help ERs keep up with growth.
Rimmer - "Overcome fear" (of change, maybe? This wasn't clear to me, but I was getting tired by now) then overcome the health insurance industry to rein in costs.
Closings were brief.
Sandberg - Would focus on aging Arizonans, and stated that, regarding the immigration issue, that the Mexican government needs to shape up and take care of its own citizens.
Rimmer - Quoted Bill Clinton. "It's the economy, stupid."
Oseran - The election is "our chance to make a difference."
Personal observations of the candidates:
Bill Sandberg - the least polished of the candidates, both in stating his positions and in his public speaking skills. I didn't agree with all of his positions, but he earned some honesty points tonight. He took some positions that probably weren't universally supported by the audience (see: same-sex marriage) but he was up front about it.
Dan Oseran - the most polished. His courtroom experience was visible. He was very comfortable being in a room where the audience was focused on him. He spoke well, and even the few 'non-answer' answers that he gave were solid. IMO, he's got some long-term potential. I could see him running for higher office after a term or two in the lege. Of course, if he still has student loans to pay, he'll have to. :))
Stephanie Rimmer - polished, just not quite to the extent that Dan Oseran is. Her presentation of her opening statement was spoken very quickly, a common rookie mistake, but she was very comfortable during the question part of the program. She was also very good at playing off of the other candidates.
Overall, while the candidates bring different strengths and perspectives to the table, they all came across as sincere in their desires to improve the district and the state.
Also, I should commend the LD8 Dems for doing a good job with the forum, and for such a great audience turnout. District Chair Margaret Hogan, 1st Vice-Chair Bob Freund, and the rest of the leadership and volunteers deserve a pat on the back.
To any readers who have lasted through this entire post: Thank you for your patience. This was a lot longer and more work than I thought it would be, and I appreciate your patience.
I'll write the post about Harry Mitchell tomorrow. Writing just this has taken longer the actual forum, lol.
Good night!
No comments:
Post a Comment