Summary of Tonight's LD18 Forum

The Candidate Forum and Town Hall with the candidates for LD18 State Representative sponsored by Mesa ACORN was held tonight in the auditorium at EVIT.

All three candidates, Tammie Pursley, Mark Anderson, and Russell Pearce were invited and confirmed that they would intend, but Russell Pearce was a no-show.

His absence was on short notice, as the Forum was supposed to start at 7, but the organizers held off until they were sure he wasn't going to show up. Things got rolling around 7:25.

Incumbent State Rep Mark Anderson (R) started off the proceedings with his opening statement.

He thanked the audience for their attendance, noting the great turnout for a Thursday night in August. [Note: I don't know the exact number, but the turnout was very good. I'll guess 300 or so people showed up, easily making it the best attended of the 3 forums that I've been to this summer.]

He then went over his bio, his experience in the legislature, and noted that he is actually a neighbor of Tammie's.

As for his campaign, he stated that education was the big issue of his campaign, and that the "proper role of government" was the theme of it.

Tammie Pursley (D) opened her remarks by observing that Russell Pearce's absence was one of the reason's she is running - he's been in office so long that he doesn't bother to show up to speak to and listen to his constituents. [Big round of applause at this.]

She went on to cover a number of topics -

She, and her campaign, is all about "the politics of inclusion, not exclusion"..."building bridges"..."public education is the bedrock of our democracy."

She also believes that Arizona taxpayers should not "shoulder the burden" of a federal duty.

She received a rousing round of applause at the end of her remarks.

This forum was set up a little differently than the others that I have attended so far this election season. All of the questions tonight were from the audience.

[Note: this was faster paced than I am used to. The questions are all paraphrased, and if I haven't got the gist of the question correct, I apologize. If you were there, let me know about any errors in the comments section and I will be happy to correct any mistakes.]

The first question asked if the candidates supported Clean Elections.

Tammie Pursley (TP): Yes, absolutely. [Note: she is running as a Clean Elections candidate.]

Mark Anderson (MA): He's "not a big fan" of the Clean Elections system, and doesn't feel that it has made much of a difference. However, so long as it is the law, that's fine with him. [Not a Clean Elections candidate. Neither is Russell Pearce.]

The second question concerned the spousal rape bill that passed in the lege this past session [ it made spousal rape the same as other rapes, and imposed the same penalty.]

MA - He stated that he was "not familiar with the bill."

TP - She would have sponsored it.

[I was going to hold personal commentary until the end of the post, but on this one, I have to say something now. HE WAS PLAYING DUMB!! He knew all about it, since he tried to kill it the first time it came around in 2005. See the comment in the "Reminder" post I wrote before the forum.]

The 3rd question asked that if the candidates were elected if he/she would be willing to meet with a group of citizens, mostly Latino, to discuss issues of importance to the community.

MA - Yes.

TP - Absolutely.

The 4th question asked the candidates how they voted on the recent proposal in Mesa that sought to institute a property tax there.

TP - Yes, because it would have benefitted the schools.

MA - No, he voted for increasing the sales tax. He thought that was a good compromise.

The 5th question concerned what the candidates would do to ensure health coverage for children.

TP - Keep programs such as KidsCare adequately funded and work with community groups to support educational outreach efforts.

MA - Agreed with Tammie.

The 6th question was directed to Rep. Anderson and was about a constituent's concerns over inadequate streetlights in the area of University and Stapley.

MA - Stated that this was a city issue, and that the concerned constituent should contact the City or his City Council member. He stated that if the constituent were to contact his office about this and ask him to contact the city, he would be happy to help.

The 7th question asked what the candidates would do to raise the abysmally low rankings of AZ in most children- and quality of life-oriented areas.

TP - Her priorities would be to provide equitable funding for public schools and full funding for programs like KidsCare.

MA - He talked about how he thought the priority should be to provide help before the problems arise, not after. He also spoke about he has sponsored efforts and bills to provide faith-based marriage and relationship training and supports character education.

The 8th question was directed at Rep. Anderson. The audience member asked what improvements to K-12 education did he spearhead.

MA - He spoke about the bill that he sponsored to give more money to the education of gifted students and that he supports the "Teach for America" program which places some of the best and brightest college grads in teaching positions in low-income schools.

The 9th question asked Rep. Anderson to justify state funding going to private and religious schools.

MA - He cited the bill he sponsored in 1997 that basically set up the current AZ system of open enrollment across public, private, religious, and charter schools.

TP - Though the question was not asked of her, Mrs. Pursley had a response. She read a quote from a school choice group that stated that "safe and effective" charter and private schools were a better option than "chronically underperforming" public schools.

She noted that public schools would be safe and effective if they were adequately funded.

#10 was less of a question than a statement about Rep. Pearce's absence. The moderator advised the candidates to not respond since they could not know why he chose not to appear.

#11 asked the candidates what they would do to help decrease the dropout rate in Mesa's schools.

TP - Would drop the requirement that students pass the AIMS test to graduate. Too many students believe that they don't have a chance to pass it, so they stop caring about school.

In addition, she expressed support for the Governor's recently-announced proposal to raise the dropout age.

MA - Advocates making school curriculum "more exciting, more relevant." He spoke about EVIT, saying that his children had taken classes there.

He does not support the Governor's proposed increase in the dropout age. He doesn't think that will stop anyone interested in dropping out.

#12 was basically the same question.

#13 was directed at Rep. Anderson and asked him how he, totally removed from classrooms, could make education policy.

MA - He spoke about how he has children in school and he meets with teachers when he is invited to do so. He also mentioned the annual tours of school that legislators go on. During this response, he mentioned that he supports the AIMS test graduation requirement as a motivational tool.

TP - though not directed at her, she also had a response. She advised that this was one of the reasons she is running, to add the perspective of someone who actually works in public schools to the policy-making process. She added that, if she can work it out with the school district, she would like to continue as a teacher.

#14 asked about the ELL funding issue.

MA - He rambled a little, but to be fair, during his response I dropped something and missed most of his answer while picking it up.

TP - This is a big issue with her, she wants to ensure that money and resources actually get to the classrooms.

[Note: neither one was aware of the court ruling today that vacated the lower court's ruling and kicked the whole thing back to the lower court. I would have commented at the forum, but I didn't know the details and didn't feel comfortable bringing it up without some more details.]

#15 concerned the candidates' opinions on the pay day loan businesses that have swamped Mesa.

Both candidates dislike them, strongly.

#16 asked the candidates what they thought of the Latino community and culture.

TP - Embraces the culture and is trying to become bilingual.

MA - Considers it a positive part of Arizona's culture. Spoke a little Spanish left over from his high school days. [It wasn't much, but it was WAY more than my three words - "Si", "Salma", and "Hayek". OK, it's not the greatest joke, but it's getting late. :) ]

#17 asked if the candidates supported raising the minimum wage.

TP - Absolutely supports it.

MA - He hemmed and hawed a little, but stated that he is going to vote for it.

#18 was a question that I really didn't get too much of. It had something to do with the changing demographics in the district, the conflicts between groups caused by that fact, and what would the candidates do to help resolve the conflicts.

MA - Would work with community groups and organizations to help any way that he can.

TP - Agreed with MA, would help introduce and mediate between groups with conflicts.

#19 was spoken rapidly and softly and I missed most of it, but it concerned state employees and asked if the candidates would support the union's desire to meet and confer regarding a wage and compensation package.

MA - not sure. Hedged a lot here.

TP - Meet and confer is very important, and she supports that.

Closings were fairly simple.

Rep. Anderson thanked everyone for coming out, as did Tammie Pursley, who pointedly thanked the audience for taking the time to see the "two of us" in reference to the absence of Russell Pearce.

Personal observations section -

I am not a resident of LD18, so my opinion isn't worth much here, but if I did live in the district, I would wholeheartedly support Tammie Pursley. I already knew that, having met her at the voter registration booth at the Tempe fireworks on the 4th of July. However, I did expect that I would be able to write a 'lesser of two evils' post about Pearce and Anderson.

And when Russell Pearce didn't show up, I sort of assumed that Mark Anderson would be that lesser of two evils by default.

However, while he put a pleasant smile to it, he is very much an ideological hard-liner. His blanket support of cutting taxes and funnelling money to private business while decreasing appropriations for government services totally disqualifies him for elected office, imo.

In addition, his dumb act in response to the spousal rape bill question was repulsive. Even if he didn't want to talk about it, his way of avoiding the issue was sleazy.

The forum was less polished than the last one I went to (not so good), but because of the audience-propelled topics of discussion, it was also a lot more free-wheeling (very good.)

The crowd was very much into things, but courteously so. They would applaud enthusiastically when one of the candidates made a point that they agreed with and respectfully when they did not, with no booing or heckling. A couple of the questions were nearly as much "attack" as "question", but they did not cross the line the moderator had established. Though the moderator did advise the audience that the line had been straddled and even smudged a little. :)

The crowd had a strong Hispanic representation (in keeping with the demographics of the district) and {TOTAL SPECULATION ALERT!} I think that may have contributed to Mr. Pearce's decision to pass on the forum.

I mean, why spend a couple of hours in a room full of people that he has demonized when he could go up the road and spend the time with JD Hayworth?

Anyway, it was a lot of fun, and I hope that after the primary next month and before the general election there is another forum, perhaps one that includes the State Senate candidates.

Good night!