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 Nelssen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nelssen. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
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...
Saturday, June 12, 2010
The melodrama continues in Scottsdale politics
When Councilman Tony Nelssen succumbed to cancer, he left a vacancy on the Scottsdale City Council.
The City Charter clearly states that the remaining members of the Council shall appoint a replacement, but no procedure for doing so is specified. As such, things can get a little creative on those occasions when an appointment is necessary.
This was seen at last Tuesday's meeting, which took place on the same day as Nelssen's memorial service. There, Mayor Jim Lane tried to use the emotions of the day to guilt the Council into immediately appointing Nelssen's widow, Marg, to fill the vacancy on the Council.
The move failed on a 3 - 3 tie vote. Lane, Bob Littlefield, and Lisa Borowsky were in favor; Suzanne Klapp, Ron McCullagh, and Wayne Ecton were opposed. That's the normal breakdown when controversial issues go before the Council, and before his death, Nelssen was the fourth vote in the Lane clique.
In the linked AZ Republic article, Lane is quoted as calling the votes of McCullagh, Klapp, and Ecton an "affront." Many of the commenters on the article agreed with that, calling McCullagh, Klapp, and Ecton "boorish," "grasping," "wankers," and more.
I know certain readers are going to disagree with me on this, but NO, not even close.
If anyone involved was "boorish" it was Lane for trying to take advantage of the genuine grief that many in the city feel over the loss of Tony Nelssen in a shameless attempt to reload the Council with a lockstep majority in his favor.
If Lane had simply waited a week, he would have appeared to be a compassionate and wise (almost statesman-like) public servant instead of a cynical political operative.
As it is, the appointment of a replacement will happen this week (Tuesday, 4 p.m., City Hall Kiva), and it will take place without the public viewing the proceedings through grief-tinged lenses.
Right now, it looks as if each remaining member of the Council will nominate someone to fill the open seat, and a series of votes will be taken. Sources expect (as do I) that when the listof candidates is winnowed down to two candidates, the Council will reach an impasse (aka - another 3 - 3 split) and the names of the two finalists will be placed in a hat with the seat going to whichever name is drawn from the hat.
Also expected (though not guaranteed): Marg Nelssen will be one of the finalists. She has expressed in interest in being one of the candidates, and after last week's very public moon shot by Lane, he is too wedded to the idea of appointing her for him to move his support to someone else.
Tuesday's meeting should be the most openly contentious one of the year, and should provide *lots* of writing material. :)
See you there...
The City Charter clearly states that the remaining members of the Council shall appoint a replacement, but no procedure for doing so is specified. As such, things can get a little creative on those occasions when an appointment is necessary.
This was seen at last Tuesday's meeting, which took place on the same day as Nelssen's memorial service. There, Mayor Jim Lane tried to use the emotions of the day to guilt the Council into immediately appointing Nelssen's widow, Marg, to fill the vacancy on the Council.
The move failed on a 3 - 3 tie vote. Lane, Bob Littlefield, and Lisa Borowsky were in favor; Suzanne Klapp, Ron McCullagh, and Wayne Ecton were opposed. That's the normal breakdown when controversial issues go before the Council, and before his death, Nelssen was the fourth vote in the Lane clique.
In the linked AZ Republic article, Lane is quoted as calling the votes of McCullagh, Klapp, and Ecton an "affront." Many of the commenters on the article agreed with that, calling McCullagh, Klapp, and Ecton "boorish," "grasping," "wankers," and more.
I know certain readers are going to disagree with me on this, but NO, not even close.
If anyone involved was "boorish" it was Lane for trying to take advantage of the genuine grief that many in the city feel over the loss of Tony Nelssen in a shameless attempt to reload the Council with a lockstep majority in his favor.
If Lane had simply waited a week, he would have appeared to be a compassionate and wise (almost statesman-like) public servant instead of a cynical political operative.
As it is, the appointment of a replacement will happen this week (Tuesday, 4 p.m., City Hall Kiva), and it will take place without the public viewing the proceedings through grief-tinged lenses.
Right now, it looks as if each remaining member of the Council will nominate someone to fill the open seat, and a series of votes will be taken. Sources expect (as do I) that when the listof candidates is winnowed down to two candidates, the Council will reach an impasse (aka - another 3 - 3 split) and the names of the two finalists will be placed in a hat with the seat going to whichever name is drawn from the hat.
Also expected (though not guaranteed): Marg Nelssen will be one of the finalists. She has expressed in interest in being one of the candidates, and after last week's very public moon shot by Lane, he is too wedded to the idea of appointing her for him to move his support to someone else.
Tuesday's meeting should be the most openly contentious one of the year, and should provide *lots* of writing material. :)
See you there...
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Services set for Councilman Tony Nelssen
From the City of Scottsdale -
Memorial services to be held for Councilman Tony NelssenOn Tuesday, the Scottsdale City Council will consider possible processes for filling the open seat on the Council, including the possibility of simply appointing Mayor Jim Lane's nominee Marg Nelssen, Tony Nelssen's wife. AZ Republic coverage here. Full Council agenda here.
Memorial services for Councilman Tony Nelssen will begin at 9 a.m. Tuesday, June 8, at WestWorld’s Equidome, 16601 N. Pima Road.
Councilman Nelssen passed away May 26 at his home after battling cancer.
For safety purposes, those attending are being asked to dress appropriately. Temperatures are expected to exceed 110 degrees on Tuesday, and the Equidome is a shaded, outdoor, dirt-floored structure that will be cooled by swamp. If comfortable, those attending can honor Councilman Nelssen’s memory by dressing in Western attire.
Access WestWorld by either Bell or Pima roads. Follow the signs to the Equidome. Parking, including handicapped, will be available in the “H” lot. Attendees may then enter the Equidome’s west side for the services.
The program will include the reading of a poem written by Bob Frost, a former city employee and Parks and Recreation Commissioner. Eulogies will be given by Mayor
W.J. “Jim” Lane, Councilman Bob Littlefield, family friends Amy Ganley and John Washington, and Nelssen’s children, Hannah and Ian.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
The coming week...
As usual, all info gathered from the websites of the relevent political bodies/agencies, except where noted, and subject to change without notice.
...At the federal level, both the U.S. House and Senate are on a break. They'll be back in session next week.
...Back here in Arizona...
- The Arizona Corporation Commission doesn't have any regular meetings scheduled, however they will be travelling to gather public comment on specific issues.
-- On Wednesday at 1 p.m., they will be holding a special meeting in Tucson to solicit public comments on line extension policies for Arizona utilities.
-- Later on Wednesday, they will hold two public meetings in Nogales. The first will start at 6 p.m. and will concern Rio Rico Utilities rates; the second is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. and will concern Valle Verde Water Company rates.
-- The ACC's hearing schedule is here. Most of this week's hearing activity involves Arizona American Water (a name near and not-so-dear to Scottsdale readers :) ).
- The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors will meet on Tuesday at 11:30 a.m. It's a special meeting with one topic - a settlement with the Department of Labor over MCSO's forcing detention officers to work unpaid overtime. AZ Republic coverage of the matter here.
- The Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project will have a busy week.
-- On Tuesday at 1 p.m., there will be a meeting of the Project ADD Water group.
-- On Thursday at 9 a.m., the Board's Public Policy Committee will meet.
-- After the committee meeting, the full Board with hold a regular meeting. The highlights of this meeting will be the setting of property tax and service rates.
- The Tempe City Council isn't meeting this week; the Council Calendar of events is here.
- The Scottsdale City Council also isn't meeting this week; the City of Scottsdale's Community Meeting Notice is here.
Note: When memorial service arrangements for late Councilman Tony Nelssen are announced, an update will be posted.
Not meeting this week: Citizens Clean Elections Commission, Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District, Board of Directors of the Maricopa Integrated Health System, Arizona Board of Regents
...At the federal level, both the U.S. House and Senate are on a break. They'll be back in session next week.
...Back here in Arizona...
- The Arizona Corporation Commission doesn't have any regular meetings scheduled, however they will be travelling to gather public comment on specific issues.
-- On Wednesday at 1 p.m., they will be holding a special meeting in Tucson to solicit public comments on line extension policies for Arizona utilities.
-- Later on Wednesday, they will hold two public meetings in Nogales. The first will start at 6 p.m. and will concern Rio Rico Utilities rates; the second is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. and will concern Valle Verde Water Company rates.
-- The ACC's hearing schedule is here. Most of this week's hearing activity involves Arizona American Water (a name near and not-so-dear to Scottsdale readers :) ).
- The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors will meet on Tuesday at 11:30 a.m. It's a special meeting with one topic - a settlement with the Department of Labor over MCSO's forcing detention officers to work unpaid overtime. AZ Republic coverage of the matter here.
- The Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project will have a busy week.
-- On Tuesday at 1 p.m., there will be a meeting of the Project ADD Water group.
-- On Thursday at 9 a.m., the Board's Public Policy Committee will meet.
-- After the committee meeting, the full Board with hold a regular meeting. The highlights of this meeting will be the setting of property tax and service rates.
- The Tempe City Council isn't meeting this week; the Council Calendar of events is here.
- The Scottsdale City Council also isn't meeting this week; the City of Scottsdale's Community Meeting Notice is here.
Note: When memorial service arrangements for late Councilman Tony Nelssen are announced, an update will be posted.
Not meeting this week: Citizens Clean Elections Commission, Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District, Board of Directors of the Maricopa Integrated Health System, Arizona Board of Regents
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Sad day in Scottsdale
From guest writer John Washington, on his friend Tony Nelssen -
Good night...
On a bright, clear morning in Scottsdale that was so dry the desert sky couldn’t conjure up a cloud—let alone a tear—a giant has fallen. Councilman Tony Nelssen passed away at his home this morning, after a brief and valiant battle with cancer. Even after Tony told us about his diagnosis, I could not bring myself to believe it was possible he might not survive. It is difficult to imagine Scottsdale without Tony.
If anyone deserved the description “larger than life,” it was Tony. Had he lived a thousand years ago, he would have been a Viking warrior. Tony was a big man, but because of his quiet presence you would never know that if you had not stood next to him or shaken his hand. That stoic Scandinavian nature did not incline him to talk of how he suffered with arthritis in the last few years, nor the pain of his disease for the last few weeks.
Always a voice for the residents and the natural beauty of our community, Tony fought for us for twenty-five years. With almost a century-and-a-half of family history in the Valley, Tony’s legacy knowledge of this area was unmatched and irreplaceable. Tony never sought fame or personal gain from his position. He sacrificed thousands of hours of his time to try to keep Scottsdale special.
Tony also worked tirelessly to help others see what he valued. As a photographer, Tony tried to capture the essence and beauty of our community to share with those who could not experience it directly, and for those who might have otherwise missed it. As a photography instructor, he tried to help each student interpret that beauty in their own way.
Tony’s family was with him this morning, along with two childhood friends who’d come to help during Tony’s convalescence. Tony’s wife Marg, son Ian, and daughter Hannah are grateful for all your support over the years, and during this trying time.I miss my friend. Adios, Tony.
Arrangements are pending.
John Washington
Good night...
Tony Nelssen, Scottsdale City Councilman, passes away
From a press release on the City of Scottsdale's website -
Councilman Tony Nelssen passes away
The City of Scottsdale is deeply saddened by the passing of Councilman Tony Nelssen on Wednesday, May 26, and extends its sincere condolences and deepest sympathy to the Nelssen family. “This is a great loss for Scottsdale,” said Mayor Jim Lane. “Tony Nelssen was a passionate and dedicated citizen who was truly devoted to improving our community. He was a great colleague and friend, and he will be missed greatly.”Councilman Nelssen began his service on the Scottsdale City Council in June 2006. He was active in civic affairs for more than two decades prior, serving on a variety of city commissions and advisory groups, as well as neighborhood and civic associations.
In 1996 he founded The Great Sonoran, a group advocating innovative, site specific and climate sensitive architecture suited to the Sonoran Desert. Scottsdale derived much of its sensitive design guidelines from those developed by The Great Sonoran.
He was a member of the Scottsdale Planning Commission for two and one half years, and the city’s Parks and Recreation Commission for six years. On the state level, Councilman Nelssen was a member of the Arizona State Heritage Fund Public Advisory Committee.Tony Nelssen was a strong equestrian advocate who was named Horse Hero of the year in 2002 in the Town of Cave Creek. Nelssen also taught computer graphics and digital photography at Paradise Valley Community College, and had taught courses at Arizona State University, Phoenix College and Scottsdale Community College.
He is survived by his wife Marg, son Ian and daughter Hannah.
In lieu of flowers, the family requests donations to the Scottsdale Police Department’s Mounted Unit in Councilman Nelssen’s name. Donations may be made payable to the Scottsdale Police Department Mounted Unit and mailed to police headquarters at 8401 E. Indian School Road, Scottsdale, AZ, 85251.
I barely knew Councilman Nelssen, having met him only once or twice. While we were almost never in agreement politically, no one who met him could ever question his deep love for Scottsdale.
My condolences go out to Tony Nelssen's family and many friends.
Arizona Republic news coverage here; memorials from AZRep columnist Laurie Roberts here and AZRep editorial writer Cindy Hernandez here.
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Scottsdale Councilman Nelssen reveals that he has cancer
From AZCentral.com -
While Councilman Nelssen and I are usually on the opposite side of most political issues (with him being on the wrong side, of course :) ), I wish him all the best in his fight against his cancer. He's got a tough fight ahead of him and he and his family will need all the support they can get.
Scottsdale City Councilman Tony Nelssen said Tuesday he has been diagnosed with cancer.
Nelssen made the announcement during the public comment period of the City Council meeting. He expects to start treatment next week.
Nelssen, who is running for re-election, said he doesn't expect the diagnosis to affect his official duties or plans to seek another term.
While Councilman Nelssen and I are usually on the opposite side of most political issues (with him being on the wrong side, of course :) ), I wish him all the best in his fight against his cancer. He's got a tough fight ahead of him and he and his family will need all the support they can get.
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)