After more than 2 hours of presentations and discussions at Tuesday's meeting of the Scottsdale City Council, the Council voted 5 - 2 to enter into a "Treat and Transport" agreement with Arizona American Water (AAW) whereby Scottsdale will treat TCE-contaminated water from wells controlled by AAW and then return it ("transport") back to AAW's system for delivery to its customers.
Previous posts on the matter here and here.
I'll keep this brief because I walked out of the meeting thoroughly ticked off at the selling out of Scottsdale residents by the majority on the Council, and that anger will affect the quality of my writing.
The five members who voted to shoulder AAW's cleanup responsibilities were Mayor Jim Lane, Vice-Mayor Suzanne Klapp, Council member Wayne Ecton, Council member Bob Littlefield, and Council member Marg Nelssen.
Littlefield and Ecton are up for reelection this year. Littlefield's support of AAW was no surprise - he's long been a corporate apologist. Ecton's was a bit of a surprise, and he had a seriously sour look on his face when he cast his vote, but he voted in favor of AAW nonetheless.
The two members who supported condemnation of AAW were Council member Ron McCullagh and Council member Lisa Borowsky.
McCullagh's support of condemnation was no surprise - he's a customer of AAW and has been the victim of their screw-ups (and AAW's arrogance about those screw-ups) for years. Borowsky's support of condemnation was weaker and seemed to be rooted in some reservations about the trustworthiness of the AAW figures that she has met with, not in a whole-hearted support for acquiring AAW's Scottsdale operation and folding their customers into the Scottsdale municipal system.
In the interests of keeping this brief, and because the AZ Republic will probably cover the matter in more depth later today, here are some observations from the meeting:
- It was definitely a "strange bedfellows" sort of evening - Lane and Littlefield were on the same side of the issue as the Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce. Definitely an unusual event.
- More "strange bedfellows" - former (2008) rivals for the R nod for CD5, Laura Knaperek and Susan Bitter Smith, were there to lobby for AAW. I'm not sure that it means much, but they stayed well away from each other during the meeting.
- They weren't even together during the group hug/backslapping session held outside City Hall by AAW's lobbyists after the hearing.
- Two member of the governing board of the Central Arizona Project were in the Kiva to support AAW, though neither was ID'ed as such. Both Tim Bray, who spoke, and Bitter Smith are current members of the Board. Bray is running for reelection; Bitter Smith is not.
- Before the meeting hypocrisy alert (unrelated to the AAW matter) - at the beginning of the meeting, Jim Lane proudly announced that the City had purchased more land for the McDowell Sonoran Preserve, partially with money from the Growing Smarter/Land Conservation Fund.
A fund that Republicans, including Lane, want to dismantle in favor of corporate tax cuts (Proposition 301).
All in all, it was a very frustrating evening, both for me and for most of the residents in the Kiva. The vast majority of those who weren't there on AAW's dime strongly supported condemnation.
I left the building with one thought - if the issue at hand was a tattoo parlor in north Scottsdale increasing profits by cutting corners on needles, and exposing residents of north Scottsdale to hepatitis, HIV, or something else, the Council would have fallen all over itself to shut down the operation and kick it out of Scottsdale. However, the people exposed to poison as a result of AAW's shoddy maintenance practices (and that was part of the final report of the investigation looking into the incidents that precipitated Tuesday's agenda item) were all in south Scottsdale.
People noticed that, and many of the folks walking out of the Kiva after the meeting left muttering that they would be supporting whoever runs for Mayor against Lane in 2012.
While Tuesday's meeting was a serious setback for supporters of good governance, from any partisan affiliation (I'm a D, yet both McCullagh and Borowsky are active Rs), something tells me this isn't over. Tuesday's vote was for approval of guidance to City staff, not on approval of a specific contract.
Later...
Showing posts with label Ecton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ecton. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Friday, October 08, 2010
Early Ballot Time - 2010 General Election
All over Arizona, early ballots are reaching mail boxes (the ballot for my area is here). Here are my picks (and there isn't anything here that will surprise any regular readers :) ):
U.S. Senate - Rodney Glassman. He's got the energy and focus on the needs of Arizonans (and Arizona) that John McCain hasn't had for decades (if ever).
U.S. Representative in Congress (District 5) - Harry Mitchell. He's got the energy and focus on the needs of his constituents, and has had it for nearly 40 years. If the Rs in CD5 had any appreciation for public service and public servants, they'd have nominated him, too. (Not an unheard-of happenstance. In Massachusetts in 1982, Republican Silvio Conte won both the Democratic and Republican nominations for Congress in MA-CD1. He went on to win the general. Back in a time when public service was valued instead of vilified. [page 18 of the linked .pdf] :) )
Governor - Terry Goddard. He's got the intelligence, experience, and wisdom to move Arizona out of the economic abyss that it's in. And he's got the quiet fire necessary for dealing with the R extremists in the legislature who are less interested in serving Arizona than in adhering to a nihilist ideology.
State Senator (District 17) - David Schapira. Focused on Tempe and Arizona's education system. He has an established track record. Will work "across the aisle" when doing so will help the district or Arizona's students. Will fight like hell when doing so will help the district or Arizona's students.
State Representative (District 17) - Ed Ableser and P. Ben Arredondo. Both have been teachers and community activists in Tempe/South Scottsdale, Ed for most of a decade and Ben for *many* decades. Ed is the more liberal of the two (Ben being areformed former Republican), but both are totally focused on their constituents (Yes, there is definitely a pattern in my picks, and it isn't just the partisan affiliation.)
Secretary of State - Chris Deschene. Will fight for the rights of all voters, not just his party's. That fact alone puts him head and shoulders above his opponent, but he also brings an educational background that includes mechanical engineering and a law degree.
Attorney General - Felecia Rotellini. She's got the smarts, the integrity, and the tenacity to protect Arizonans from predators of all stripes, whether they are smuggling cartels or Wall Street fraudsters.
State Treasurer - Andrei Cherny. A former assistant AG and an economics policy wonk extraordinaire, he is eminently qualified for the job of safeguarding Arizona's public monies. The fact that, unlike his opponent, he isn't an indictment for financial fraud waiting to happen is just gravy.
Superintendent of Public Instruction - Penny Kotterman. Career teacher, teacher trainer, school administrator, education policy advocate, for over 30 years. Her opponent has spent most of the last two decades trying to destroy public education in Arizona. 'Nuff said.
Mine Inspector - Manuel Cruz. He has the educational and professional background in mine safety that a job that is supposed to ensure the safety of miners *should* have. Not in the pocket of industry lobbyists, unlike his opponent.
Corporation Commissioner - David Bradley and Jorge Luis Garcia. Two former legislators with long and distinguished track records of fighting for their constituents. Their opponents have long and not-so-distinguished track records of fighting for Big Business, no matter what state it is based in. The Arizona Corporation Commission is meant to protect the interests of Arizonans by regulating and overseeing utilities, railroads, and securities in the state. Bradley and Garcia are easy choices here.
Maricopa County Attorney - Michael Kielsky. He's a Libertarian, someone I would normally never vote for, but I always vote for the better candidate. There's no Democrat on the ballot for this brief term (2 years instead of the normal 4) and the Republican on the ballot is openly allied with Joe Arpaio. I've been told by some people who are more familiar than I am with Bill Montgomery (the Republican in question) that they think he will probably at least try to appear as neutral, but Arpaio spent hundreds of thousands on ads in the primary race, and incurred thousands more in fines for violating campaign finance laws for doing so. Can you say "quid pro quo"?
I don't think Kielsky will win, but a strong showing could send a message to the Democrats who have all but given Montgomery a free pass.
Maricopa County Clerk of Courts - Sherry Williams. Smart and energetic, with a BA in Political Science and a Masters in Information Systems. She will bring the background and integrity that the clerk of *any* court should have, and that Maricopa County so desperately needs (a Maricopa County official elected countywide with some integrity? Be still my beating heart...)
University Lakes Justice of the Peace - Meg Burton Cahill (no website available). The retiring state senator has a master's degree in Public Administration and a strong background in the law from her time on the Senate's Judiciary Committee. She will make a fine addition to the Maricopa County bench, where her wisdom and experience will stand her in good stead against the pressures that can/will be brought to bear on folks in that position. Ask the current holder of the office - he was Joe Arpaio's "go-to guy" when he needed some sketchy warrants signed for his jihad against the county supes.
University Lakes Constable - No race, so no vote. Joe Arredondo (R) will win.
Central Arizona Water Conservation District (aka - the Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project) - Arif Kazmi and Jim Holway. Both have strong academic, professional and personal backgrounds in water resources management. Both were among the five candidates endorsed by the Arizona Republic, and while the other endorsees of the AZRep are strong, these two are stronger and should be "double-shotted" in order to maximize their chances of election. There is a slate of "Tea Party" candidates running to try to put the management of a major part of Arizona's water delivery system on an ideological basis, not a professional basis. They should be completely shunned. In a desert like central Arizona, water literally is life.
School Governing Board member, Scottsdale Unified #48 - I have absolutely no clue. Decision by elimination time (and I may be doing the eliminated candidate a disservice, but this is the best I've got in this race): Denny Brown (newby) and Dieter Schaefer (incumbent). There is limited info available on the candidates that I could find in a quick search, but while I have some reservations (i.e. - Schaefer was the only candidate who responded to a questionnaire from the extreme RW organization The Center for Arizona Policy), but the third candidate, Pam Kirby. touts a resume that looks good (lots of PTO involvement) but seems to be more purely ideological than the others. Plus the endorsement of Scottsdale City Council member Bob Littlefield didn't help.
Bond question, Scottsdale Unified #48 - Yes. Over the short-term, the legislature cannot be counted on the fund the state's education system, whether for classroom needs or infrastructure needs. Long-term, there could be legal ramifications because while relatively affluent districts like SUSD can use bonding to fund an adequate education system for their students, many poorer districts cannot.
City of Scottsdale Council Member - Ned O'Hearn, Linda Milhaven, and Wayne Ecton. All three care deeply about Scottsdale and its future, and aren't tied to any particular ideology beyond that. Dennis Robbins would have received my fourth vote if a fourth seat was up for election this time around, but he wasn't quite strong enough a candidate to make it into the top three. Bob Littlefield...I like Bob personally, but I'd never vote for him. He definitely is tied to that certain nihilist ideology that permeates the AZGOP, he just covers it with a "good ol' boy" facade. Guy Philips is definitely not ready for prime time. He doesn't hide his obeisance to ideological orthodoxy, but he doesn't even have the redeeming value of knowing that ideology well. If he were elected to the Council, he'd need a staffer with cue cards set up in the back of the City Hall Kiva to tell him how to vote on issues.
The next set of issues concern City of Scottsdale ballot questions, info here.
City of Scottsdale Bond Questions 1 and 2 - Yes. They're for infrastructure, and I'm a big fan of infrastructure.
Proposition 411 - NO. A charter amendment further restricting the City's ability to use condemnation to acquire property. Looks harmless on the surface (must adhere to state law, which is already required), but includes vague language like "all reasonable options have been exhausted." A recipe for frivolous lawsuits.
Proposition 412 - NO. A charter amendment intended to prevent the City from ever paying to participate in organizations like the Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce. Part of Mayor Jim Lane's ongoing tiff with the CofC, possibly related to the fact that they didn't endorse him in 2008. The charter is a document to define the structure of the City's government, not a tool for petty political retribution.
Proposition 413 - Close, but NO. Currently, the City's charter allows citizens to petition the Council and requires the Council to consider any matters brought to its attention within 30 days, which can be difficult considering the timing (right before summer break) or complexity of some of the issues. This charter amendment would remove the thirty day limit entirely. My problem is with that. Make it 45 or 60 days, but don't remove the obligation to hear matters in a timely manner.
Proposition 414 - Probable YES. This charter amendment would clarify the duties of and separate the offices of the various City Charter Officers. This one stems from the tendency in recent years to combine the offices of the City Manager and City Treasurer. God help me for agreeing with the Lane/Littlefield clique on *anything*, but they're right on this one - the treasurer of any organization should be an independent officer, one whose oversight is as far up the org chart as is practicable.
It's not perfect, and it's a powerplay by the Lane/Littlefield clique, but when Lane installs a campaign contributor into the office of treasurer (and he will!), there will be a movement to put specific experience requirements into the charter for that particular job.
Proposition 415 - Probable YES. A charter amendment to clarify that the Mayor and Council shall not have direct control of a City employee's hiring/firing, except for those who work directly for the Mayor and Council.
Proposition 416 - Probable YES. A charter amendment that looks like a "housekeeping" measure clarifying how the Council may act/enact under specific circumstances.
Proposition 417 - Probable YES. A charter amendment that looks to be a "housekeeping" measure related to the appointment and terms of judges on the City Court.
Judges for the Arizona Supreme Court, Court of Appeals - Division One, and Maricopa County Superior Court - I haven't heard of any of them, which is a characteristic that I want in judges. Court judges are like baseball umpires - if you've heard of them, then they probably messed up big-time. I won't be voting to retain/not retain any of them.
Statewide ballot propositions - Previously covered here. Summary: NO on all measures proposed by the legislature, and YES on the one (Prop. 203, Medical Marijuana) sent to the ballot by the citizens.
Whew!
Later...
U.S. Senate - Rodney Glassman. He's got the energy and focus on the needs of Arizonans (and Arizona) that John McCain hasn't had for decades (if ever).
U.S. Representative in Congress (District 5) - Harry Mitchell. He's got the energy and focus on the needs of his constituents, and has had it for nearly 40 years. If the Rs in CD5 had any appreciation for public service and public servants, they'd have nominated him, too. (Not an unheard-of happenstance. In Massachusetts in 1982, Republican Silvio Conte won both the Democratic and Republican nominations for Congress in MA-CD1. He went on to win the general. Back in a time when public service was valued instead of vilified. [page 18 of the linked .pdf] :) )
Governor - Terry Goddard. He's got the intelligence, experience, and wisdom to move Arizona out of the economic abyss that it's in. And he's got the quiet fire necessary for dealing with the R extremists in the legislature who are less interested in serving Arizona than in adhering to a nihilist ideology.
State Senator (District 17) - David Schapira. Focused on Tempe and Arizona's education system. He has an established track record. Will work "across the aisle" when doing so will help the district or Arizona's students. Will fight like hell when doing so will help the district or Arizona's students.
State Representative (District 17) - Ed Ableser and P. Ben Arredondo. Both have been teachers and community activists in Tempe/South Scottsdale, Ed for most of a decade and Ben for *many* decades. Ed is the more liberal of the two (Ben being a
Secretary of State - Chris Deschene. Will fight for the rights of all voters, not just his party's. That fact alone puts him head and shoulders above his opponent, but he also brings an educational background that includes mechanical engineering and a law degree.
Attorney General - Felecia Rotellini. She's got the smarts, the integrity, and the tenacity to protect Arizonans from predators of all stripes, whether they are smuggling cartels or Wall Street fraudsters.
State Treasurer - Andrei Cherny. A former assistant AG and an economics policy wonk extraordinaire, he is eminently qualified for the job of safeguarding Arizona's public monies. The fact that, unlike his opponent, he isn't an indictment for financial fraud waiting to happen is just gravy.
Superintendent of Public Instruction - Penny Kotterman. Career teacher, teacher trainer, school administrator, education policy advocate, for over 30 years. Her opponent has spent most of the last two decades trying to destroy public education in Arizona. 'Nuff said.
Mine Inspector - Manuel Cruz. He has the educational and professional background in mine safety that a job that is supposed to ensure the safety of miners *should* have. Not in the pocket of industry lobbyists, unlike his opponent.
Corporation Commissioner - David Bradley and Jorge Luis Garcia. Two former legislators with long and distinguished track records of fighting for their constituents. Their opponents have long and not-so-distinguished track records of fighting for Big Business, no matter what state it is based in. The Arizona Corporation Commission is meant to protect the interests of Arizonans by regulating and overseeing utilities, railroads, and securities in the state. Bradley and Garcia are easy choices here.
Maricopa County Attorney - Michael Kielsky. He's a Libertarian, someone I would normally never vote for, but I always vote for the better candidate. There's no Democrat on the ballot for this brief term (2 years instead of the normal 4) and the Republican on the ballot is openly allied with Joe Arpaio. I've been told by some people who are more familiar than I am with Bill Montgomery (the Republican in question) that they think he will probably at least try to appear as neutral, but Arpaio spent hundreds of thousands on ads in the primary race, and incurred thousands more in fines for violating campaign finance laws for doing so. Can you say "quid pro quo"?
I don't think Kielsky will win, but a strong showing could send a message to the Democrats who have all but given Montgomery a free pass.
Maricopa County Clerk of Courts - Sherry Williams. Smart and energetic, with a BA in Political Science and a Masters in Information Systems. She will bring the background and integrity that the clerk of *any* court should have, and that Maricopa County so desperately needs (a Maricopa County official elected countywide with some integrity? Be still my beating heart...)
University Lakes Justice of the Peace - Meg Burton Cahill (no website available). The retiring state senator has a master's degree in Public Administration and a strong background in the law from her time on the Senate's Judiciary Committee. She will make a fine addition to the Maricopa County bench, where her wisdom and experience will stand her in good stead against the pressures that can/will be brought to bear on folks in that position. Ask the current holder of the office - he was Joe Arpaio's "go-to guy" when he needed some sketchy warrants signed for his jihad against the county supes.
University Lakes Constable - No race, so no vote. Joe Arredondo (R) will win.
Central Arizona Water Conservation District (aka - the Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project) - Arif Kazmi and Jim Holway. Both have strong academic, professional and personal backgrounds in water resources management. Both were among the five candidates endorsed by the Arizona Republic, and while the other endorsees of the AZRep are strong, these two are stronger and should be "double-shotted" in order to maximize their chances of election. There is a slate of "Tea Party" candidates running to try to put the management of a major part of Arizona's water delivery system on an ideological basis, not a professional basis. They should be completely shunned. In a desert like central Arizona, water literally is life.
School Governing Board member, Scottsdale Unified #48 - I have absolutely no clue. Decision by elimination time (and I may be doing the eliminated candidate a disservice, but this is the best I've got in this race): Denny Brown (newby) and Dieter Schaefer (incumbent). There is limited info available on the candidates that I could find in a quick search, but while I have some reservations (i.e. - Schaefer was the only candidate who responded to a questionnaire from the extreme RW organization The Center for Arizona Policy), but the third candidate, Pam Kirby. touts a resume that looks good (lots of PTO involvement) but seems to be more purely ideological than the others. Plus the endorsement of Scottsdale City Council member Bob Littlefield didn't help.
Bond question, Scottsdale Unified #48 - Yes. Over the short-term, the legislature cannot be counted on the fund the state's education system, whether for classroom needs or infrastructure needs. Long-term, there could be legal ramifications because while relatively affluent districts like SUSD can use bonding to fund an adequate education system for their students, many poorer districts cannot.
City of Scottsdale Council Member - Ned O'Hearn, Linda Milhaven, and Wayne Ecton. All three care deeply about Scottsdale and its future, and aren't tied to any particular ideology beyond that. Dennis Robbins would have received my fourth vote if a fourth seat was up for election this time around, but he wasn't quite strong enough a candidate to make it into the top three. Bob Littlefield...I like Bob personally, but I'd never vote for him. He definitely is tied to that certain nihilist ideology that permeates the AZGOP, he just covers it with a "good ol' boy" facade. Guy Philips is definitely not ready for prime time. He doesn't hide his obeisance to ideological orthodoxy, but he doesn't even have the redeeming value of knowing that ideology well. If he were elected to the Council, he'd need a staffer with cue cards set up in the back of the City Hall Kiva to tell him how to vote on issues.
The next set of issues concern City of Scottsdale ballot questions, info here.
City of Scottsdale Bond Questions 1 and 2 - Yes. They're for infrastructure, and I'm a big fan of infrastructure.
Proposition 411 - NO. A charter amendment further restricting the City's ability to use condemnation to acquire property. Looks harmless on the surface (must adhere to state law, which is already required), but includes vague language like "all reasonable options have been exhausted." A recipe for frivolous lawsuits.
Proposition 412 - NO. A charter amendment intended to prevent the City from ever paying to participate in organizations like the Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce. Part of Mayor Jim Lane's ongoing tiff with the CofC, possibly related to the fact that they didn't endorse him in 2008. The charter is a document to define the structure of the City's government, not a tool for petty political retribution.
Proposition 413 - Close, but NO. Currently, the City's charter allows citizens to petition the Council and requires the Council to consider any matters brought to its attention within 30 days, which can be difficult considering the timing (right before summer break) or complexity of some of the issues. This charter amendment would remove the thirty day limit entirely. My problem is with that. Make it 45 or 60 days, but don't remove the obligation to hear matters in a timely manner.
Proposition 414 - Probable YES. This charter amendment would clarify the duties of and separate the offices of the various City Charter Officers. This one stems from the tendency in recent years to combine the offices of the City Manager and City Treasurer. God help me for agreeing with the Lane/Littlefield clique on *anything*, but they're right on this one - the treasurer of any organization should be an independent officer, one whose oversight is as far up the org chart as is practicable.
It's not perfect, and it's a powerplay by the Lane/Littlefield clique, but when Lane installs a campaign contributor into the office of treasurer (and he will!), there will be a movement to put specific experience requirements into the charter for that particular job.
Proposition 415 - Probable YES. A charter amendment to clarify that the Mayor and Council shall not have direct control of a City employee's hiring/firing, except for those who work directly for the Mayor and Council.
Proposition 416 - Probable YES. A charter amendment that looks like a "housekeeping" measure clarifying how the Council may act/enact under specific circumstances.
Proposition 417 - Probable YES. A charter amendment that looks to be a "housekeeping" measure related to the appointment and terms of judges on the City Court.
Judges for the Arizona Supreme Court, Court of Appeals - Division One, and Maricopa County Superior Court - I haven't heard of any of them, which is a characteristic that I want in judges. Court judges are like baseball umpires - if you've heard of them, then they probably messed up big-time. I won't be voting to retain/not retain any of them.
Statewide ballot propositions - Previously covered here. Summary: NO on all measures proposed by the legislature, and YES on the one (Prop. 203, Medical Marijuana) sent to the ballot by the citizens.
Whew!
Later...
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Wednesday's Forum For Scottsdale City Council Candidates.
On Wednesday, August 11, five of the six candidates for Scottsdale City Council gathered in the City Hall Kiva for a forum sponsored by the Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce.
The candidates in attendance were Wayne Ecton (incumbent), Linda Milhaven, Ned O'Hearn, Guy Phillips, and Dennis Robbins.
(pictured from left to right: candidates Ecton (incumbent), Milhaven, O'Hearn, Phillips, and Robbins)
The sixth candidate, incumbent Bob Littlefield, had a statement read before the forum to explain his absence. A somewhat longer version of that statement was emailed to various members of the community, and it was forwarded to me**. To quote, in part:
The sponsoring group, the Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce in this case, asks a series of questions focusing on issues near and dear to that group.
At Wednesday's event, the questions ranged from...
Scottsdale's participation in regional economic partnerships (Ecton, Milhaven, O'Hearn supported, Robbins reminded people that would-be partners are also competitors, and Phillips said that neighboring cities "want to get into our coffers")...
Through the various proposed amendments to Scottsdale's charter (Milhaven, Ecton, and O'Hearn have reservations about some of them, Robbins basically supported them all, and Phillips opposes any changes to the way that the "founding fathers" wanted the city to operate)...
To attracting new businesses to Scottsdale (Phillips - lower taxes...and that's it; everybody else was more vague, but to be fair, it's a subject that lends itself to generalities)...
To transportation issues (Phillips - privatize buses and synchronize traffic lights...and that was it; the others basically spoke about things like bus rapid transit and implementing the 2008 Transportation Master Plan)...
And so on.
Impressions: At least on the questions that the Chamber asked, candidates Ecton, Milhaven, and O'Hearn tended to have similar positions. Robbins, while polished (as befits his status as a former member of the Council), was closer to the current Council regime (Lane, Littlefield, Nelssen, and Borowsky). Phillips, well, to be blunt, if the name hadn't already been used, I'd label him as a "Not Ready For Prime Time Player." His responses ranged from "the Chamber is bad" to boilerplate Republican/Libertarian ideology. He exhibited no understanding of the issues that face Scottsdale, nor did he show any inclination to learn about those issues. John Washington, an activist and friend of the blog*, thought that Phillips made some good points, but I respectfully disagreed.
If anyone should haveskipped "protested" the Chamber's sponsorship of the forum, it should have been Phillips, not Littlefield. Littlefield is someone I will never vote for, but I have to give him his due - he can handle himself in the spotlight and can spout boilerplate ideological orthodoxy without *sounding* like he is spouting boilerplate ideological orthodoxy.
*John and I don't agree on much of anything politically, but we can talk civilly about it. That's unusual in AZ these days.
** I could respect Littlefield's stand for honest and transparency and a candidate not associating with a group guilty of campaign finance violations.
I could, if he wasn't still part of the leadership of one such group. Littlefield is a member of the State Committee of the Arizona Republican Party.
Anybody remember Joel Fox? SCA? The 2008 election? Profoundly sleazy ads? Huge fines?
The candidates' written responses to Chamber questions can be found here.
A video archive of the forum is here.
The City is soliciting questions from the public to be answered by the candidates with the answers broadcast on CityCable11 during September. Details here.
The City of Scottsdale's Elections Information page can be found here. It includes info on the various ballot questions that will be before the City's voters in November.
Upcoming candidate forums:
September 20, 2010, sponsored by the Brown Avenue Merchants Association
September 27, 2010, sponsored by the Arizona Republic
There will be others. As info becomes available, I'll publish it here.
Later...
The candidates in attendance were Wayne Ecton (incumbent), Linda Milhaven, Ned O'Hearn, Guy Phillips, and Dennis Robbins.
(pictured from left to right: candidates Ecton (incumbent), Milhaven, O'Hearn, Phillips, and Robbins)
The sixth candidate, incumbent Bob Littlefield, had a statement read before the forum to explain his absence. A somewhat longer version of that statement was emailed to various members of the community, and it was forwarded to me**. To quote, in part:
Last week Scottsdale's Channel 11 Programming Commission voted 4-3 to allow the Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce to host a candidate forum on taxpayer-funded Channel 11. Although I am running for re-election in this campaign you did not see me at that forum.Once his statement was read to the audience, the forum proceeded as these things normally do.
You will see me at all the other forums, such as the Realtors forum and the Arizona Republic forum. You may even have already seen me at forums hosted by the Scottsdale Community Council and Scottsdale Healthcare.
But not this one.
Why? Because my participation would have condoned allowing an organization that is guilty of campaign finance law violations to promote itself at taxpayer expense on Channel 11.
The sponsoring group, the Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce in this case, asks a series of questions focusing on issues near and dear to that group.
At Wednesday's event, the questions ranged from...
Scottsdale's participation in regional economic partnerships (Ecton, Milhaven, O'Hearn supported, Robbins reminded people that would-be partners are also competitors, and Phillips said that neighboring cities "want to get into our coffers")...
Through the various proposed amendments to Scottsdale's charter (Milhaven, Ecton, and O'Hearn have reservations about some of them, Robbins basically supported them all, and Phillips opposes any changes to the way that the "founding fathers" wanted the city to operate)...
To attracting new businesses to Scottsdale (Phillips - lower taxes...and that's it; everybody else was more vague, but to be fair, it's a subject that lends itself to generalities)...
To transportation issues (Phillips - privatize buses and synchronize traffic lights...and that was it; the others basically spoke about things like bus rapid transit and implementing the 2008 Transportation Master Plan)...
And so on.
Impressions: At least on the questions that the Chamber asked, candidates Ecton, Milhaven, and O'Hearn tended to have similar positions. Robbins, while polished (as befits his status as a former member of the Council), was closer to the current Council regime (Lane, Littlefield, Nelssen, and Borowsky). Phillips, well, to be blunt, if the name hadn't already been used, I'd label him as a "Not Ready For Prime Time Player." His responses ranged from "the Chamber is bad" to boilerplate Republican/Libertarian ideology. He exhibited no understanding of the issues that face Scottsdale, nor did he show any inclination to learn about those issues. John Washington, an activist and friend of the blog*, thought that Phillips made some good points, but I respectfully disagreed.
If anyone should have
*John and I don't agree on much of anything politically, but we can talk civilly about it. That's unusual in AZ these days.
** I could respect Littlefield's stand for honest and transparency and a candidate not associating with a group guilty of campaign finance violations.
I could, if he wasn't still part of the leadership of one such group. Littlefield is a member of the State Committee of the Arizona Republican Party.
Anybody remember Joel Fox? SCA? The 2008 election? Profoundly sleazy ads? Huge fines?
The candidates' written responses to Chamber questions can be found here.
A video archive of the forum is here.
The City is soliciting questions from the public to be answered by the candidates with the answers broadcast on CityCable11 during September. Details here.
The City of Scottsdale's Elections Information page can be found here. It includes info on the various ballot questions that will be before the City's voters in November.
Upcoming candidate forums:
September 20, 2010, sponsored by the Brown Avenue Merchants Association
September 27, 2010, sponsored by the Arizona Republic
There will be others. As info becomes available, I'll publish it here.
Later...
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Tony Nelssen's widow Marg appointed to finish out his term
...I can't say "the fix was in" (at this point in time, I don't have any evidence that tonight's events were other than above-board and honest) but her public comment before the selection process even took place sounded a lot like a victory speech.
Plus, when her name was not drawn out of the hat by City Clerk Carolyn Jagger (eliminating the candidate whose name was drawn), absolutely no one looked surprised.
It was clear from the outset that the favored candidate among the various residents of who turned out for the meeting was Marg Nelssen - ten people, including Nelssen herself, spoke in support of appointing Nelssen to the Council; none spoke in support of another candidate.
The main argument in favor of Nelssen's appointment seemed to be (I'm paraphrasing here) "Marg is Tony's wife, so she deserves it. Anything else would be disrespectful to the people who voted him into office in the first place."
Certain speakers spent some of their time and rhetoric excoriating three members of the Council (Ecton, Klapp, and McCullagh) for "playing politics." One speaker accused them of "selling their souls."
Of course, all of the speakers ignored the fact that the whole "appoint Marg" theme was a shameless political ploy by the Lane clique to regain a fourth vote, and a majority, on the Council.
In addition to that, Mayor Jim Lane not only expressed his support for Nelssen (something that he has a right to do), he ran the meeting in a way to encourage public pressure on the three Council members who opposed his moved to shoehorn Marg Nelssen onto the Council last week. The normal practice is to ask visitors to not applaud and to gavel it down whenever applause erupts. Tonight, applause was allowed to go on unchecked.
During the meaty part of the proceedings, four people were nominated to fill the vacancy -
Councilwoman Lisa Borowsky nominated Jay Petkunas, a member of the Planning Commission in Scottsdale
Councilwoman Suzanne Klapp nominated Jim Bruner, a former member of the Council and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
Councilman Wayne Ecton also nominated Bruner
Councilman Bob Littlefield nominated Marg Nelssen
Councilman Ron McCullagh passed, with most observers figuring that he was on board with the Bruner nomination. He was, as votes later in the meeting proved.
Mayor Jim Lane expressed his support for the nomination of Nelssen. However, to maintain the illusion (an illusion that no one in the audience bought into, by the way) that the nomination process wasn't going to end in a 3 - 3 tie with the names of the finalist put into a hat, he nominated one Richard Acton (possible incorrect name and/or spelling there).
After a brief round of votes, the choices came down to Nelssen and Bruner, who each received three votes. Littlefield, Lane, and Borowsky supported Nelssen; Klapp, Ecton, and McCullagh supported Bruner.
However, four votes were needed to win the seat.
As such, the two remaining names were placed in a hat, with the name drawn from the hat being the candidate eliminated from consideration. When that name was announced as Jim Bruner's, the most of those assembled burst out in raucous cheers.
Nelssen will be sworn into office next week.
Nelssen may ultimately turn out to be a fine member of the Council, but I have to ask one question to the "give it to Marg! Tony's wife *should* take his place!" crowd" -
If Bill Clinton had died in office, how many of you would have argued "give it to Hillary! Bill's wife *should* take his place!"?
Later...
Plus, when her name was not drawn out of the hat by City Clerk Carolyn Jagger (eliminating the candidate whose name was drawn), absolutely no one looked surprised.
It was clear from the outset that the favored candidate among the various residents of who turned out for the meeting was Marg Nelssen - ten people, including Nelssen herself, spoke in support of appointing Nelssen to the Council; none spoke in support of another candidate.
The main argument in favor of Nelssen's appointment seemed to be (I'm paraphrasing here) "Marg is Tony's wife, so she deserves it. Anything else would be disrespectful to the people who voted him into office in the first place."
Certain speakers spent some of their time and rhetoric excoriating three members of the Council (Ecton, Klapp, and McCullagh) for "playing politics." One speaker accused them of "selling their souls."
Of course, all of the speakers ignored the fact that the whole "appoint Marg" theme was a shameless political ploy by the Lane clique to regain a fourth vote, and a majority, on the Council.
In addition to that, Mayor Jim Lane not only expressed his support for Nelssen (something that he has a right to do), he ran the meeting in a way to encourage public pressure on the three Council members who opposed his moved to shoehorn Marg Nelssen onto the Council last week. The normal practice is to ask visitors to not applaud and to gavel it down whenever applause erupts. Tonight, applause was allowed to go on unchecked.
During the meaty part of the proceedings, four people were nominated to fill the vacancy -
Councilwoman Lisa Borowsky nominated Jay Petkunas, a member of the Planning Commission in Scottsdale
Councilwoman Suzanne Klapp nominated Jim Bruner, a former member of the Council and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
Councilman Wayne Ecton also nominated Bruner
Councilman Bob Littlefield nominated Marg Nelssen
Councilman Ron McCullagh passed, with most observers figuring that he was on board with the Bruner nomination. He was, as votes later in the meeting proved.
Mayor Jim Lane expressed his support for the nomination of Nelssen. However, to maintain the illusion (an illusion that no one in the audience bought into, by the way) that the nomination process wasn't going to end in a 3 - 3 tie with the names of the finalist put into a hat, he nominated one Richard Acton (possible incorrect name and/or spelling there).
After a brief round of votes, the choices came down to Nelssen and Bruner, who each received three votes. Littlefield, Lane, and Borowsky supported Nelssen; Klapp, Ecton, and McCullagh supported Bruner.
However, four votes were needed to win the seat.
As such, the two remaining names were placed in a hat, with the name drawn from the hat being the candidate eliminated from consideration. When that name was announced as Jim Bruner's, the most of those assembled burst out in raucous cheers.
Nelssen will be sworn into office next week.
Nelssen may ultimately turn out to be a fine member of the Council, but I have to ask one question to the "give it to Marg! Tony's wife *should* take his place!" crowd" -
If Bill Clinton had died in office, how many of you would have argued "give it to Hillary! Bill's wife *should* take his place!"?
Later...
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Hypocrisy, Double Standards, and Guilt By Association: Jim Lane's Scottsdale
By now, most folks who care know that at Tuesday's meeting of the Scottsdale City Council, the Council voted 4-3 to withdraw from the Partner Council of the Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce. The vote was taken allegedly in response to a ruling that the C of C violated campaign finance laws during last year's elections and would have to pay some fines.
This particular dust-up has been going on since last year's election cycle when the C of C sent out some mailers that looked to endorse the former mayor, Mary Manross, and three candidates for Council, Ron McCullagh, Betty Drake, and Suzanne Klapp. The mailers purported only to discuss the "pro-business" and "pro-Scottsdale" qualifications of the candidates. The C of C claimed that the mailers (and some related TV spots) weren't "political" because they didn't ask anyone to vote for the candidates.
Complaints were filed by some of the non-endorsed candidates, including eventual mayoral victor Jim Lane. Various legal opinions followed that disagreed with the C of C's position, including one in late November from a state administrative law judge.
During the process and since the latest ruling. there have both been calls for the City to withdraw any support it provides to the Chamber as well as sustained withering criticism of then-candidates Klapp and McCullagh for not resigning their positions in the C of C.
None of this should be much of a surprise, because as Greg at Espresso Pundit notes, when the C of C tried to influence the election, they should have made sure that their candidate won.
In politics, retribution is far more frequent than is forgiveness. Lane's vengeance for the Chamber's lack of support for him was fully expected.
Still, the payback theme of the meetings of this year's Council has overwhelmed almost everything else, including common sense, fairness, and ethical consistency.
During the meeting Tuesday night, Mayor Lane pontificated that the City should withdraw from the Chamber because he didn't think that the City should be associated with any organization that breaks the law, in this case, violations of campaign finance laws.
The money quote; the fact that the City and some members of the Council are involved with the C of C "implies that the City itself participated in this."
Hmmm...where could I find "hypocrisy" and "double standards" there, and perhaps an opportunity to apply a little "guilt by association" here?
The sarcastic cynic in me (which I *never* give free rein to...OK, almost never :) ) thinks that this is all merely retribution from Lane because the C of C didn't support him in last year's election and that his moral outrage is of the "faux and one-sided" variety.
However, it is possible that Lane truly respects organizations that follow the law and simply doesn't want the City, the Council, or any of its members associated with an organization that ever breaks laws.
As Mayor, he has to be concerned for the image of the Council and the City, and doesn't want even the appearance of impropriety to sully that image.
The months-long witch hunt against former City Manager John Little notwithstanding.
Which I could accept, except for the fact that the Mayor and at least five of the six members of the Council are Republicans (Lane freely admits that he is one, Borowsky is a member of the Arizona Federation of Republican Women, Klapp, Littlefield, and McCullagh are members of the AZGOP's State Committee representing LD8, and Tony Nelssen is considered to be a Republican's Republican. I'm not sure about Wayne Ecton's registration - based on the few conversationsI think he is an R, but I cannot find independent verification of that right at this moment.)
So, in light of the fact that during the same election cycle, the AZGOP accepted illegal contributions that were earmarked to fund some of the sleaziest ads in recent memory, for the sake of consistency, they've all resigned their positions within the Arizona Republican Party and barred any organs of the AZGOP from using City facilities, so as not to associate the City with illegal activities...in this case, violations of campaign finance laws.
Right?
OK, so I don't expect them to really resign from the GOP, nor do I think that they should, and unless they were directly involved with campaign contribution laundering scheme with Arpaio, Fox, Pullen, and the rest, it shouldn't even be a matter for discussion. As sleazy as the ads and those campaign violations were, they are the responsibility of the people involved, not all Republicans.
By the same token, unless Lane, his followers on the Council (Borowsky, Littlefield, and Nelssen), and his friends/advisers masquerading as outraged "independent" residents of Scottsdale (Whitmer, Fernandez, et. al.) can show that McCullagh and Klapp were directly involved in the C of C's ad campaign, they should give it a rest, lest the same tactics are applied to them.
I don't expect them to learn that lesson, and neither should any readers -
So far, the scheming, back-biting, and hypocrisy have worked for Lane et. al., and they have no reason to stop until their tactics cease to work.
Laurie Roberts of the Arizona Republic has a pro-Council, anti-C of C view here.
Later...
This particular dust-up has been going on since last year's election cycle when the C of C sent out some mailers that looked to endorse the former mayor, Mary Manross, and three candidates for Council, Ron McCullagh, Betty Drake, and Suzanne Klapp. The mailers purported only to discuss the "pro-business" and "pro-Scottsdale" qualifications of the candidates. The C of C claimed that the mailers (and some related TV spots) weren't "political" because they didn't ask anyone to vote for the candidates.
Complaints were filed by some of the non-endorsed candidates, including eventual mayoral victor Jim Lane. Various legal opinions followed that disagreed with the C of C's position, including one in late November from a state administrative law judge.
During the process and since the latest ruling. there have both been calls for the City to withdraw any support it provides to the Chamber as well as sustained withering criticism of then-candidates Klapp and McCullagh for not resigning their positions in the C of C.
None of this should be much of a surprise, because as Greg at Espresso Pundit notes, when the C of C tried to influence the election, they should have made sure that their candidate won.
In politics, retribution is far more frequent than is forgiveness. Lane's vengeance for the Chamber's lack of support for him was fully expected.
Still, the payback theme of the meetings of this year's Council has overwhelmed almost everything else, including common sense, fairness, and ethical consistency.
During the meeting Tuesday night, Mayor Lane pontificated that the City should withdraw from the Chamber because he didn't think that the City should be associated with any organization that breaks the law, in this case, violations of campaign finance laws.
The money quote; the fact that the City and some members of the Council are involved with the C of C "implies that the City itself participated in this."
Hmmm...where could I find "hypocrisy" and "double standards" there, and perhaps an opportunity to apply a little "guilt by association" here?
The sarcastic cynic in me (which I *never* give free rein to...OK, almost never :) ) thinks that this is all merely retribution from Lane because the C of C didn't support him in last year's election and that his moral outrage is of the "faux and one-sided" variety.
However, it is possible that Lane truly respects organizations that follow the law and simply doesn't want the City, the Council, or any of its members associated with an organization that ever breaks laws.
As Mayor, he has to be concerned for the image of the Council and the City, and doesn't want even the appearance of impropriety to sully that image.
The months-long witch hunt against former City Manager John Little notwithstanding.
Which I could accept, except for the fact that the Mayor and at least five of the six members of the Council are Republicans (Lane freely admits that he is one, Borowsky is a member of the Arizona Federation of Republican Women, Klapp, Littlefield, and McCullagh are members of the AZGOP's State Committee representing LD8, and Tony Nelssen is considered to be a Republican's Republican. I'm not sure about Wayne Ecton's registration - based on the few conversationsI think he is an R, but I cannot find independent verification of that right at this moment.)
So, in light of the fact that during the same election cycle, the AZGOP accepted illegal contributions that were earmarked to fund some of the sleaziest ads in recent memory, for the sake of consistency, they've all resigned their positions within the Arizona Republican Party and barred any organs of the AZGOP from using City facilities, so as not to associate the City with illegal activities...in this case, violations of campaign finance laws.
Right?
OK, so I don't expect them to really resign from the GOP, nor do I think that they should, and unless they were directly involved with campaign contribution laundering scheme with Arpaio, Fox, Pullen, and the rest, it shouldn't even be a matter for discussion. As sleazy as the ads and those campaign violations were, they are the responsibility of the people involved, not all Republicans.
By the same token, unless Lane, his followers on the Council (Borowsky, Littlefield, and Nelssen), and his friends/advisers masquerading as outraged "independent" residents of Scottsdale (Whitmer, Fernandez, et. al.) can show that McCullagh and Klapp were directly involved in the C of C's ad campaign, they should give it a rest, lest the same tactics are applied to them.
I don't expect them to learn that lesson, and neither should any readers -
So far, the scheming, back-biting, and hypocrisy have worked for Lane et. al., and they have no reason to stop until their tactics cease to work.
Laurie Roberts of the Arizona Republic has a pro-Council, anti-C of C view here.
Later...
Monday, November 02, 2009
Scottsdale City Council Fires City Manager John Little
In a meeting that took less than 25 minutes, Mayor Jim Lane and his coterie of supporters on the Council - Lisa Borowsky, Tony Nelssen, and Bob Littlefield - voted to immediately terminate the contract of City Manager John Little.
They did so over the unanimous support for Little from all of the citizens who spoke at the meeting, and over the objections that the meeting was called on short notice and was scheduled at an odd time.
The consensus was that if there had been a little more notice (2 business days, with a weekend between them and the meeting held on the 2nd business day) and if it had been scheduled at the normal time for City Council meetings (5 p.m.), the Kiva would have been filled to capacity with interested residents, most or all there to support Little.
As it was, the Kiva was less than 1/4 full, but seemingly everyone in the audience was there to support Little.
Lane started the meeting with a brief bit, criticizing Little for not living up to a pledge to "abide by and implement" an ordinance change (the hiring of a City Treasurer), engaging in "obstructive and delaying tactics" (unspecified), "working hard to undermine this Council" (also unspecified) with city employees and residents, and for hiring an attorney.
I don't know if that last is illegal per se, but citing the fact that Little has hired legal counsel as a reason to terminate his contract smacks of retaliation and will serve to undermine the City's position when this gets to court, as it likely will.
Lane then moved to fire Little, and the motion was quickly seconded by Bob Littlefield. In his speech supporting his second of the motion, Littlefield cited a quote from Frank Fairbanks, the recently retired long-time City Manager in Phoenix, about sublimating his ideas and preferences to those of the Council. Littlefield then accused Little of "picking and choosing" which ordinances he would implement.
Then the public got to have their say.
James Duchene, a Scottsdale business owner and member of the city's Parks and Recreation Commission, spoke in support of Little, citing the book "Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make The Leap...And Some Don't." One of the tenets of the book is that successful organizations have great leaders and that they bring the right people "on to the bus" and that "Little is one of those great leaders."
He also observed that "a lot of people are watching what happens here" and warned of an outflow of good staff members who are now wondering when the axe will fall on them.
Dick Bowers, a highly-respected former long-time Scottsdale city manager stepped up to support Little, too. He noted that Frank Fairbanks, the model City Manager cited by Littlefield, would have fallen victim to the atmosphere in the Scottsdale City Hall much like Little. He also spoke about his "rage" at what is happening to the direction of Scottsdale, and how he sees the path of the current City government as one of "unrelenting pursuit of mediocrity."
After the public comment period was completed, Tony Nelssen, the Council member who called for today's meeting, spoke of the "toxic environment" that exists in City Hall. He tried to blame the Manross/Dolan era for that, but did so while avoiding mentioning that he and 4 other members of the current Council were part of that era and that environment.
Or that four members of the current council are doing their level bests to exacerbate his "toxic environment."
Council member Wayne Ecton spoke up in support of Little, noting that part of blame for the conflict rests on the Council side with members who are absolutely unwilling to compromise.
Members Ron McCullagh and Suzanne Klapp also supported Little in their comments.
Council member Lisa Borowsky was silent on the matter, but at the previous meeting on this matter, she advocated for the immediate firing of Little, so her vote today was no surprise.
The final tally was four voting in favor of firing Little (Lane, Nelssen, Littlefield, Borowsky) and three opposed (McCullagh, Klapp, Ecton).
By 2:55, the meeting was over, and so was Little's long career with the City of Scottsdale.
Note to potential candidates for the job (hey, it pays over $180K/year, people *will* be interested):
Invest in Chapstick futures.
Whoever gets the job of working with this Council will have to do so much puckering up to keep the job, they'll be buying the stuff by the pallet load.
Welcome to Scottsdale in the 21st Century...
They did so over the unanimous support for Little from all of the citizens who spoke at the meeting, and over the objections that the meeting was called on short notice and was scheduled at an odd time.
The consensus was that if there had been a little more notice (2 business days, with a weekend between them and the meeting held on the 2nd business day) and if it had been scheduled at the normal time for City Council meetings (5 p.m.), the Kiva would have been filled to capacity with interested residents, most or all there to support Little.
As it was, the Kiva was less than 1/4 full, but seemingly everyone in the audience was there to support Little.
Lane started the meeting with a brief bit, criticizing Little for not living up to a pledge to "abide by and implement" an ordinance change (the hiring of a City Treasurer), engaging in "obstructive and delaying tactics" (unspecified), "working hard to undermine this Council" (also unspecified) with city employees and residents, and for hiring an attorney.
I don't know if that last is illegal per se, but citing the fact that Little has hired legal counsel as a reason to terminate his contract smacks of retaliation and will serve to undermine the City's position when this gets to court, as it likely will.
Lane then moved to fire Little, and the motion was quickly seconded by Bob Littlefield. In his speech supporting his second of the motion, Littlefield cited a quote from Frank Fairbanks, the recently retired long-time City Manager in Phoenix, about sublimating his ideas and preferences to those of the Council. Littlefield then accused Little of "picking and choosing" which ordinances he would implement.
Then the public got to have their say.
James Duchene, a Scottsdale business owner and member of the city's Parks and Recreation Commission, spoke in support of Little, citing the book "Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make The Leap...And Some Don't." One of the tenets of the book is that successful organizations have great leaders and that they bring the right people "on to the bus" and that "Little is one of those great leaders."
He also observed that "a lot of people are watching what happens here" and warned of an outflow of good staff members who are now wondering when the axe will fall on them.
Dick Bowers, a highly-respected former long-time Scottsdale city manager stepped up to support Little, too. He noted that Frank Fairbanks, the model City Manager cited by Littlefield, would have fallen victim to the atmosphere in the Scottsdale City Hall much like Little. He also spoke about his "rage" at what is happening to the direction of Scottsdale, and how he sees the path of the current City government as one of "unrelenting pursuit of mediocrity."
After the public comment period was completed, Tony Nelssen, the Council member who called for today's meeting, spoke of the "toxic environment" that exists in City Hall. He tried to blame the Manross/Dolan era for that, but did so while avoiding mentioning that he and 4 other members of the current Council were part of that era and that environment.
Or that four members of the current council are doing their level bests to exacerbate his "toxic environment."
Council member Wayne Ecton spoke up in support of Little, noting that part of blame for the conflict rests on the Council side with members who are absolutely unwilling to compromise.
Members Ron McCullagh and Suzanne Klapp also supported Little in their comments.
Council member Lisa Borowsky was silent on the matter, but at the previous meeting on this matter, she advocated for the immediate firing of Little, so her vote today was no surprise.
The final tally was four voting in favor of firing Little (Lane, Nelssen, Littlefield, Borowsky) and three opposed (McCullagh, Klapp, Ecton).
By 2:55, the meeting was over, and so was Little's long career with the City of Scottsdale.
Note to potential candidates for the job (hey, it pays over $180K/year, people *will* be interested):
Invest in Chapstick futures.
Whoever gets the job of working with this Council will have to do so much puckering up to keep the job, they'll be buying the stuff by the pallet load.
Welcome to Scottsdale in the 21st Century...
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Scottsdale City Manager keeps his job - for another 3 months, anyway
Tuesday's meeting of the Scottsdale City Council began as most of them do, with a local group of kids (a Brownie troop this week) reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. In honor of Constitution Week, they announced that they would also recite the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution (You know, the one that starts "We the People...)
Which they did an awesome job with, except for the fact that they recited the beginning of the Declaration of Independence. (You know, the one that starts "When in the course of human events...)
Close, but... :)
That should have been the first clue that the original plan for the meeting (basically for the Council to fire City Manager John Little via a 4-3 vote) wasn't going to come off *quite* as planned, but would still be in the ballpark.
What was officially supposed to be a discussion of Little's job performance was more of a kangaroo court. It was made clear by a number of Council members that this evaluation was not about how well Little had met the goals and objectives of his job, because they had never laid out any for him to meet.
The tactics of his detractors on the Council (Borowsky, Mayor Lane, Littlefield, and Nelssen) consisted of harping on the things about Little that they didn't like (his "attitude" and conflicts with the Mayor, mostly). Council member Lisa Borowsky *did* mention that she thought Little is a good guy, before excoriating him for "not getting along" with the majority of the Council.
That was a pattern from the detractors - compliment him on his "charm" and then criticize him for his "insubordination."
There was also a tendency to allude to "other issues" without being specific (Borowsky referred to a rumor that not only was Little not "open" with the Mayor and Council, he wasn't "open" with other charter officers who were "open" with the Mayor and Council.)
That would have to refer to City Clerk Carolyn Jagger, who's pretty much the only charter officer left standing since Jim Lane took over the Mayor's job.
Tony Nelssen even accused Little of taking the City Manager's job just so he could list it on his resume.
In the end, though, it all came down to the contentious relationship between the City Manager and the Mayor.
They want to fire Little because he doesn't genuflect enthusiastically enough when the Mayor enters the room.
Nothing more tangible, or job performance-related, than that.
To be certain, Little had his supporters, too.
Council members Ecton, Klapp, and McCullagh made it clear that they thought Little has done well playing the hand he has been dealt and deserves to keep his job.
Ecton - "He has done an excellent job in a difficult time."
McCullagh - This is "not the easiest council to work with."
Klapp - "Six months is too short a period" to evaluate job performance.
Little also had strong support from the community and from rank-and-file City employees, including former Council member Robert Pettycrew and the Scottsdale Police Officers Association.
Most praised Little's honesty and "uncompromising integrity." Pettycrew, being a former member of the Council, brought some historical perspective to the mix, noting that there has been an "erosion" in the how the Council and City Staff relate to each other.
The end result of it all was a bit of a surprise - Council member Ron McCullagh moved to keep Little in his job and revisit the evaluation in six months. Nelssen said he could support a 90-day period, so McCullagh amended his motion to that time period.
Surprisingly, the amended motion passed by a 4-3 vote (Borowsky, Lane, Littlefield opposed - they want to fire Little immediately), giving Little a three-month reprieve.
So, after more than a couple of hours of contentious discussion, nothing was settled. Come back in December.
AZRepublic coverage here.
...A couple of observations on the events at the meeting.
- If Little has failed as City Manager, the most legitimate reason to fire him (and failure wasn't proven or even charged), then the Council has failed too. They hand-picked him to replace Jan Dolan and voted him in by a 7-0 vote.
- While the Mayor and members of the Council are intelligent and educated, they aren't very bright. There was some talk of Tuesday's story in the Republic about how the City has turned around a gaping budget deficit and now has a $6.6 million surplus, but they ignored the story of the investigation of the Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District by the national college accrediting organization. They're in trouble because of "micromanagement."
There's a lesson there for all at the meeting.
While the Scottsdale City Council doesn't have an accrediting agency to answer to, it does have voters to answer to, and will next year. It also has independent measures like the City's bond rating to help gauge the effectiveness of the City's day-to-day management, and the interference of the Mayor and City Council in the day-to-day affairs of the City does not bode well for the City's bond rating and other measures.
- Little was not the only target in Lane's sights during the meeting. Two of his supporters introduced petitions callng for the resignations of non-Lane clique Council members Klapp and McCullagh because the Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce's political activity last year.
Which they did an awesome job with, except for the fact that they recited the beginning of the Declaration of Independence. (You know, the one that starts "When in the course of human events...)
Close, but... :)
That should have been the first clue that the original plan for the meeting (basically for the Council to fire City Manager John Little via a 4-3 vote) wasn't going to come off *quite* as planned, but would still be in the ballpark.
What was officially supposed to be a discussion of Little's job performance was more of a kangaroo court. It was made clear by a number of Council members that this evaluation was not about how well Little had met the goals and objectives of his job, because they had never laid out any for him to meet.
The tactics of his detractors on the Council (Borowsky, Mayor Lane, Littlefield, and Nelssen) consisted of harping on the things about Little that they didn't like (his "attitude" and conflicts with the Mayor, mostly). Council member Lisa Borowsky *did* mention that she thought Little is a good guy, before excoriating him for "not getting along" with the majority of the Council.
That was a pattern from the detractors - compliment him on his "charm" and then criticize him for his "insubordination."
There was also a tendency to allude to "other issues" without being specific (Borowsky referred to a rumor that not only was Little not "open" with the Mayor and Council, he wasn't "open" with other charter officers who were "open" with the Mayor and Council.)
That would have to refer to City Clerk Carolyn Jagger, who's pretty much the only charter officer left standing since Jim Lane took over the Mayor's job.
Tony Nelssen even accused Little of taking the City Manager's job just so he could list it on his resume.
In the end, though, it all came down to the contentious relationship between the City Manager and the Mayor.
They want to fire Little because he doesn't genuflect enthusiastically enough when the Mayor enters the room.
Nothing more tangible, or job performance-related, than that.
To be certain, Little had his supporters, too.
Council members Ecton, Klapp, and McCullagh made it clear that they thought Little has done well playing the hand he has been dealt and deserves to keep his job.
Ecton - "He has done an excellent job in a difficult time."
McCullagh - This is "not the easiest council to work with."
Klapp - "Six months is too short a period" to evaluate job performance.
Little also had strong support from the community and from rank-and-file City employees, including former Council member Robert Pettycrew and the Scottsdale Police Officers Association.
Most praised Little's honesty and "uncompromising integrity." Pettycrew, being a former member of the Council, brought some historical perspective to the mix, noting that there has been an "erosion" in the how the Council and City Staff relate to each other.
The end result of it all was a bit of a surprise - Council member Ron McCullagh moved to keep Little in his job and revisit the evaluation in six months. Nelssen said he could support a 90-day period, so McCullagh amended his motion to that time period.
Surprisingly, the amended motion passed by a 4-3 vote (Borowsky, Lane, Littlefield opposed - they want to fire Little immediately), giving Little a three-month reprieve.
So, after more than a couple of hours of contentious discussion, nothing was settled. Come back in December.
AZRepublic coverage here.
...A couple of observations on the events at the meeting.
- If Little has failed as City Manager, the most legitimate reason to fire him (and failure wasn't proven or even charged), then the Council has failed too. They hand-picked him to replace Jan Dolan and voted him in by a 7-0 vote.
- While the Mayor and members of the Council are intelligent and educated, they aren't very bright. There was some talk of Tuesday's story in the Republic about how the City has turned around a gaping budget deficit and now has a $6.6 million surplus, but they ignored the story of the investigation of the Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District by the national college accrediting organization. They're in trouble because of "micromanagement."
There's a lesson there for all at the meeting.
While the Scottsdale City Council doesn't have an accrediting agency to answer to, it does have voters to answer to, and will next year. It also has independent measures like the City's bond rating to help gauge the effectiveness of the City's day-to-day management, and the interference of the Mayor and City Council in the day-to-day affairs of the City does not bode well for the City's bond rating and other measures.
- Little was not the only target in Lane's sights during the meeting. Two of his supporters introduced petitions callng for the resignations of non-Lane clique Council members Klapp and McCullagh because the Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce's political activity last year.
In case anyone who was at the meeting or watching it on TV thinks that I am exaggerating and that the two petitioners were just concerned citizens, know this -
One was Mike Fernandez, who was/is treasurer of the committee "Republicans for a Bright New Day in Scottsdale", a big player behind an anti-Mary Manross and Betty Drake ad blitz last year.
The other was R. Lamar Whitmer, who was Lane's campaign manager last year.
Even though it wasn't listed on the agenda as such, last night's meeting was *all* about Jim Lane's ongoing quest to consolidate his power and marginalize or remove any potential dissenters within the City's elected and senior staff power structures.
During the meeting, former Council member Pettycrew opined that Little should be kept on because "someone has to tell the emperor that he has no clothes."
That statement is more on point than one might think a usually trite aphorism could be -
It's looking more and more like Lane has a lot of tinhorn Napoleon in him.
- Lastly, in what could be a sign of things to come during the Lane administration, they couldn't appoint an interim City Attorney because all of the potential candidates for the job have withdrawn their names from consideration. Apparently word is getting out about Lane and the Council's penchant for using the City's professional staff as pin cushions when they don't parrot the Lane party line.
Later...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)