The Democratic caucus of the Arizona State Senate has joined the Arizona blogosphere with its creatively named new blog, Arizona State Senate Democratic Caucus.
Look for issue discussions, press releases, coverage from other media, insights into the workings of the legislature and more during the coming months.
The first post is from Senate Minority Leader Jorge Luis Garcia (D-LD27) and concerns the start of the legislative session, the budget crisis, and the blog itself.
Later!
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
A surprising early contender for the Legislative Loon Award
State Sen. Jonathan Paton (R-LD30) is as conservative as they come in the AZ lege, but he's also intelligent and hard-working, and usually avoids heavy-duty involvement with most of the loonier items to come out of the lege.
Which makes his sponsorship of SB1069 almost bewildering.
This bill, which has already gone through First Reading in the Senate, would impact Justice Court fees. In Arizona, Justice Courts handle a lot of 'minor' matters such as evictions, misdemeanor DUIs, traffic tickets, small claims cases and the like.
'Minor' = not minor to the people affected, but not felonies or high-dollar lawsuits either.
His bill would remove the supreme court's authority to adjust Justice Court fees, a power that is currently limited to the change in the national consumer price index.
Specifically the bill deletes Section 1.F of ARS 22-281 -
So...did somebody hit Sen. Paton with a Stupid stick? What possible rationalization could he have for throwing down on the entire Judicial branch? I understand that standard Republican position that all taxes and government fees are bad, but Justice Court fees already have stringent limits on their growth. Why pick this fight?
Of course, if this is rooted in some anti-tax/fee ideology, we can expect a bill with provisions that similarly eviscerates a county sheriff's ability to create or increase fees charged to prisoners in his jail. (That's you, Joe Arpaio.)
Right??
And before somebody protests that the Sheriff's jail is a county function that shouldn't be subject to interference by the state lege, I'd like to point out one thing -
Justice Courts are just as much a county function as county jails.
Later!
Which makes his sponsorship of SB1069 almost bewildering.
This bill, which has already gone through First Reading in the Senate, would impact Justice Court fees. In Arizona, Justice Courts handle a lot of 'minor' matters such as evictions, misdemeanor DUIs, traffic tickets, small claims cases and the like.
'Minor' = not minor to the people affected, but not felonies or high-dollar lawsuits either.
His bill would remove the supreme court's authority to adjust Justice Court fees, a power that is currently limited to the change in the national consumer price index.
Specifically the bill deletes Section 1.F of ARS 22-281 -
F. The supreme court may increase the fees prescribed in subsection A of this section in an amount not to exceed the per cent of change in the average consumer price index as published by the United States department of labor, bureau of labor statistics between that figure for the latest calendar year and the calendar year in which the last fee increase occurred.
So...did somebody hit Sen. Paton with a Stupid stick? What possible rationalization could he have for throwing down on the entire Judicial branch? I understand that standard Republican position that all taxes and government fees are bad, but Justice Court fees already have stringent limits on their growth. Why pick this fight?
Of course, if this is rooted in some anti-tax/fee ideology, we can expect a bill with provisions that similarly eviscerates a county sheriff's ability to create or increase fees charged to prisoners in his jail. (That's you, Joe Arpaio.)
Right??
And before somebody protests that the Sheriff's jail is a county function that shouldn't be subject to interference by the state lege, I'd like to point out one thing -
Justice Courts are just as much a county function as county jails.
Later!
Ooops, I spoke too soon...
A couple of days ago, I posted on some political developments in Scottsdale. In that post, I opined that we probably wouldn't see a move in the lege to adjust nomination signature requirements in municipal elections. The problem with the current sig threshold (5% of voters voting in the prior election) is that a number of cities, Scottsdale among them, are now required to hold their elections in the fall on the same schedule as county and state governments.
That has resulted in a greatly increased turnout (> 3 times in Scottsdale) with a corresponding increase in sig requirements for the 2010 elections ( to approximately 5800 in Scottsdale).
To put that number into a little perspective, seven of the eight winning candidates in AZ's Congressional races last fall found their ways to the ballot with far fewer sigs than would be required in Scottsdale (the exception was Gabrielle Giffords in CD8, who turned in almost 12,000 sigs).
Well, it turns out that I spoke too soon.
HB2048 has been introduced in the AZ lege to deal with exactly this situation.
If passed into law, it would amend current law (ARS 16-322, A.8) thusly -
The bill is sponsored by state reps Michelle Reagan (R-LD8), Ed Ableser (D-LD17), and Ray Barnes (R-LD7) and State Senators Carolyn Allen (R-LD8), Meg Burton Cahill (D-LD17) and Jay Tibshraeny (R-LD21) (co-sponsor). It's probably not a coincidence that all of those legislators with the exception of Tibrshraeny represent part of Scottsdale.
And he spent 16 years as a councilmember or mayor in Chandler, so it's a safe bet that he understands the impact of the new sig requirements.
Of course, even if the bill is enacted into law, there's no guarantee that a Jim Lane-led majority on the Scottsdale City Council will pass an ordinance allowed by the revised state statute.
I can't make any predictions about the likelihood of passage through the lege yet, but it may make it through committee - Tibshraeny is the chair of the Senate's Government Institutions Committee, the committee that is likely to hear the bill.
The LD17 Democrats are meeting tomorrow night; I'll try to find a moment to ask Sen. Burton Cahill about the bill's chances.
Later!
That has resulted in a greatly increased turnout (> 3 times in Scottsdale) with a corresponding increase in sig requirements for the 2010 elections ( to approximately 5800 in Scottsdale).
To put that number into a little perspective, seven of the eight winning candidates in AZ's Congressional races last fall found their ways to the ballot with far fewer sigs than would be required in Scottsdale (the exception was Gabrielle Giffords in CD8, who turned in almost 12,000 sigs).
Well, it turns out that I spoke too soon.
HB2048 has been introduced in the AZ lege to deal with exactly this situation.
If passed into law, it would amend current law (ARS 16-322, A.8) thusly -
, EXCEPT THAT A CITY THAT CHOOSES TO HOLD NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS MAY BY ORDINANCE PROVIDE THAT THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR THE CANDIDATE BE ONE THOUSAND SIGNATURES OR FIVE PER CENT OF THE VOTE IN THE CITY, WHICHEVER IS LESS, BUT NOT MORE THAN TEN PER CENT OF THE VOTE IN THE CITY.
The bill is sponsored by state reps Michelle Reagan (R-LD8), Ed Ableser (D-LD17), and Ray Barnes (R-LD7) and State Senators Carolyn Allen (R-LD8), Meg Burton Cahill (D-LD17) and Jay Tibshraeny (R-LD21) (co-sponsor). It's probably not a coincidence that all of those legislators with the exception of Tibrshraeny represent part of Scottsdale.
And he spent 16 years as a councilmember or mayor in Chandler, so it's a safe bet that he understands the impact of the new sig requirements.
Of course, even if the bill is enacted into law, there's no guarantee that a Jim Lane-led majority on the Scottsdale City Council will pass an ordinance allowed by the revised state statute.
I can't make any predictions about the likelihood of passage through the lege yet, but it may make it through committee - Tibshraeny is the chair of the Senate's Government Institutions Committee, the committee that is likely to hear the bill.
The LD17 Democrats are meeting tomorrow night; I'll try to find a moment to ask Sen. Burton Cahill about the bill's chances.
Later!
Jim Rice finally reaches the Hall of Fame
In a long-overdue development, one of the Boston Red Sox' all time great players, Jim Rice, finally received enough votes to be enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York.
He will be joined by all-time steals leader Rickey Henderson at the July 26 induction ceremony.
While at 15 years his career wasn't quite long enough to produce the eye-popping totals that some HOF voters prefer, during his prime seasons he was as dominanting as any player in history.
His MVP-winning season in 1978 stands as one of the greatest ever. He hit .315, with 46 home runs and 139 RBIs. He also led the league with 15 triples that year, making him the only player to lead baseball in triples, HRs, and RBIs in the same season. Defensively that year, he even had 13 outfield assists while playing left field for the Sox.
This year's balloting was his 15th and last year of eligibility for the Hall's ballot.
The HOF worthiness of his career has long been debated, partly due to the relative brevity of his career and partly due to the contentious relationship that he had with sportswriters (who, not coincidently, vote for HOF candidates). However, when baseball's steroids scandals came to light a few years back, his accomplisments gained stature, culminating in this year's selection.
Congratulations to Jim Rice.
It's about time.
Rice's career stats are available here from ESPN.
He will be joined by all-time steals leader Rickey Henderson at the July 26 induction ceremony.
While at 15 years his career wasn't quite long enough to produce the eye-popping totals that some HOF voters prefer, during his prime seasons he was as dominanting as any player in history.
His MVP-winning season in 1978 stands as one of the greatest ever. He hit .315, with 46 home runs and 139 RBIs. He also led the league with 15 triples that year, making him the only player to lead baseball in triples, HRs, and RBIs in the same season. Defensively that year, he even had 13 outfield assists while playing left field for the Sox.
This year's balloting was his 15th and last year of eligibility for the Hall's ballot.
The HOF worthiness of his career has long been debated, partly due to the relative brevity of his career and partly due to the contentious relationship that he had with sportswriters (who, not coincidently, vote for HOF candidates). However, when baseball's steroids scandals came to light a few years back, his accomplisments gained stature, culminating in this year's selection.
Congratulations to Jim Rice.
It's about time.
Rice's career stats are available here from ESPN.
The Real Bush Legacy
Earlier today, George W. Bush, the soon-to-be ex-president, gave his final news conference. During that event, he spent much of his time defending his presidency and its policies, particularly in the area of foreign affairs. (The White House's transcript here)
Last week, a friend of mine who isn't as political as me but who is aware of the blog sent a link to me that I think illustrates how posterity will truly remember the presidency of George W. Bush.
The toy security checkpoint is available on Amazon.com for $55.00; no word on how much the optional Cavity Search Room with REAL Latex Gloves costs. As a special bonus, it comes packed in shredded Bill of Rights packing material to cushion it in transit.
If perhaps that $55 price tag is a little too much to afford during the Bush economic collapse, save a few dollars and purchase a toy police checkpoint for the bargain price of only $49.99. It features the same loss of civil liberties and also comes shipped in the same shredded Bill of Rights packing material as the airport checkpoint.
Soon to be released -
The Gitmo Water Boarding Room, complete with torturers, MSRP TBD.. That one comes packed in shredded Geneva Conventions.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Arizona's week in Congress
This past Tuesday, the 111th session of the United States Congress began with much of the normal procedural routine that occurs at the beginning of every session. Additionally, there were a few measures that passed that were definite slaps at the outgoing Bush administration.
And all in all, the votes of the AZ delegation broke along strictly partisan lines.
On Tuesday, the House convened and the first order of business was selection of the Speaker. As expected, incumbent Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) easily defeated Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), 255 - 174. (AZ: Democrats Giffords, Grijalva, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell, and Pastor voted for Pelosi; Republicans Flake, Franks, and Shadegg voted for Boehner) After that, the House debated and approved H. Res. 5, its rules for the new session by a vote of 242 - 181 (with Ed Pastor, of all people, crossing over to vote with the Republicans. Otherwise, the AZ delegation followed party lines - Democrats for, Republicans against.
On Wednesday, the House approved two "open government" measures related to Presidental records and Presidential libraries.
H.R. 35, an act that would override a Bush administration executive order that basically allowed former Presidents or their family members to stop the release of any Presidential records that they saw fit. It passed 359 - 58, with all of AZ's Democrats supporting the measure and all of AZ's Republicans opposing it.
H.R. 36, an act to require disclosure of info about contributors to Presidential library organizations. It passed 388 - 31, again with all of the Democrats in the AZ delegation supporting it and all of the Republicans opposing it.
On Thursday, there was a joint session of Congress with no votes cast, but it may have been the most important meeting of the session - it accepted the results of the Electoral College balloting that officially means that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.
Whoooo hoooo!!!
:)
Anyway, back to the boring stuff...
On Friday, the House started on actual legislative business.
It considered and passed H.R. 12, the Paycheck Fairness Act by a vote of 256 - 163. Giffords, Grijalva, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell, and Pastor voted in favor; Flake and Franks against; Shadegg not voting.
It also considered and passed H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, by a vote of 247 - 171. As with H.R. 12, Giffords, Grijalva, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell, and Pastor voted in favor; Flake and Franks against; Shadegg not voting.
Congressman Grijalva gave a floor speech on H.R. 11, available here.
Lastly, the House considered and passed H. Res. 34, a resolution "recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States' strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process." The resolution passed 390 - 5, with 22 answering 'present'. Among AZ's delegation, Flake, Franks, Giffords, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell, and Pastor voted in support, Grijalva was 'present', and Shadegg was still absent. Flake, Giffords, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell, and Shadegg are all cosponsors of H. Res. 34.
Congressman Mitchell submitted a statement for the record (called "Extensions of Remarks) on H. Res. 34, available here.
Congressman Franks gave a special order speech on the subject, available here.
Ummm...Harry Mitchell's statement was brief, positive, and reasonable (in a word: "statesman-like"); Trent Franks' was, well...not. In fact, it seemed to be as much 'anti-Muslim' as it was 'pro-Israel.'
In other Mitchell news, he sponsored H.R. 156, a bill to block Congress' automatic pay increase and submitted a statement regarding it to the Congressional Record, available here. The text of the measure isn't available online yet, though the list of cosponsors is: Flake, Giffords, and Kirkpatrick from Arizona are among those cosponsors.
In light of the cratering economy and skyrocketing unemployment, most people from across the political spectrum think that this is a brilliant idea, and that Congress should make at least a symbolic statement of standing with and supporting those Americans who are suffering from the effects of the economy. What remains to be seen is if a majority of Congress feels the same way.
Don't bet on it.
The Senate was fairly quiet - it had no recorded votes.
The House reconvenes on Tuesday at 12:30 p.m. (D.C. time)
Later...
And all in all, the votes of the AZ delegation broke along strictly partisan lines.
On Tuesday, the House convened and the first order of business was selection of the Speaker. As expected, incumbent Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) easily defeated Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), 255 - 174. (AZ: Democrats Giffords, Grijalva, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell, and Pastor voted for Pelosi; Republicans Flake, Franks, and Shadegg voted for Boehner) After that, the House debated and approved H. Res. 5, its rules for the new session by a vote of 242 - 181 (with Ed Pastor, of all people, crossing over to vote with the Republicans. Otherwise, the AZ delegation followed party lines - Democrats for, Republicans against.
On Wednesday, the House approved two "open government" measures related to Presidental records and Presidential libraries.
H.R. 35, an act that would override a Bush administration executive order that basically allowed former Presidents or their family members to stop the release of any Presidential records that they saw fit. It passed 359 - 58, with all of AZ's Democrats supporting the measure and all of AZ's Republicans opposing it.
H.R. 36, an act to require disclosure of info about contributors to Presidential library organizations. It passed 388 - 31, again with all of the Democrats in the AZ delegation supporting it and all of the Republicans opposing it.
On Thursday, there was a joint session of Congress with no votes cast, but it may have been the most important meeting of the session - it accepted the results of the Electoral College balloting that officially means that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.
Whoooo hoooo!!!
:)
Anyway, back to the boring stuff...
On Friday, the House started on actual legislative business.
It considered and passed H.R. 12, the Paycheck Fairness Act by a vote of 256 - 163. Giffords, Grijalva, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell, and Pastor voted in favor; Flake and Franks against; Shadegg not voting.
It also considered and passed H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, by a vote of 247 - 171. As with H.R. 12, Giffords, Grijalva, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell, and Pastor voted in favor; Flake and Franks against; Shadegg not voting.
Congressman Grijalva gave a floor speech on H.R. 11, available here.
Lastly, the House considered and passed H. Res. 34, a resolution "recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States' strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process." The resolution passed 390 - 5, with 22 answering 'present'. Among AZ's delegation, Flake, Franks, Giffords, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell, and Pastor voted in support, Grijalva was 'present', and Shadegg was still absent. Flake, Giffords, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell, and Shadegg are all cosponsors of H. Res. 34.
Congressman Mitchell submitted a statement for the record (called "Extensions of Remarks) on H. Res. 34, available here.
Congressman Franks gave a special order speech on the subject, available here.
Ummm...Harry Mitchell's statement was brief, positive, and reasonable (in a word: "statesman-like"); Trent Franks' was, well...not. In fact, it seemed to be as much 'anti-Muslim' as it was 'pro-Israel.'
In other Mitchell news, he sponsored H.R. 156, a bill to block Congress' automatic pay increase and submitted a statement regarding it to the Congressional Record, available here. The text of the measure isn't available online yet, though the list of cosponsors is: Flake, Giffords, and Kirkpatrick from Arizona are among those cosponsors.
In light of the cratering economy and skyrocketing unemployment, most people from across the political spectrum think that this is a brilliant idea, and that Congress should make at least a symbolic statement of standing with and supporting those Americans who are suffering from the effects of the economy. What remains to be seen is if a majority of Congress feels the same way.
Don't bet on it.
The Senate was fairly quiet - it had no recorded votes.
The House reconvenes on Tuesday at 12:30 p.m. (D.C. time)
Later...
That's our Jack.
State Sen. Jack Harper is up to his old tricks, and the lege isn't even in session yet.
Now he's seeking to add barriers to the path to becoming an elected official.
He's filed SB1053, a bill to require candidates for public office to prove their citizenship at the time that they submit their nomination petitions.
At first glance, that would seem to be just another one of a long line of nativist measures that Harper has sponsored or co-sponsored all through his years in the lege.
This one is meant to "solve" the non-existent problem of undocumented immigrants running for office.
In other words, the bill is part of Harper's normal pre-session "preen and posture" warmup routine.
The proposal will get a little attention from political geeks like me (the ones that consider C-SPAN and Arizona Capitol Television to be high Comedy), but not much else unless it looks like the bill will actually pass the lege.
What's really fun about it though (and what people should be paying attention to) is that it highlights how Harper is utterly unqualified for the Secretary of State's job that he is aspiring for in 2010.
Somebody should tell Jack that ARS Title 16, Chapter 4, Sections 301 and 341 require that candidates for office be "qualified electors." In addition, Title 16, Chapter 1, Section 121 defines "qualified elector" as "A person who is qualified to register to vote pursuant to section 16-101..."
And from 16-101, the first listed requirement for a registered voter (emphasis mine) -
To sum up, candidates for office already must be citizens, and that documentation is taken care of at the registration step (and at the voting step too.)
In other words, the man who would Secretary of State, the state's chief election officer, isn't familiar with even the most basic election laws.
That's our Jack. :)
Now he's seeking to add barriers to the path to becoming an elected official.
He's filed SB1053, a bill to require candidates for public office to prove their citizenship at the time that they submit their nomination petitions.
At first glance, that would seem to be just another one of a long line of nativist measures that Harper has sponsored or co-sponsored all through his years in the lege.
This one is meant to "solve" the non-existent problem of undocumented immigrants running for office.
In other words, the bill is part of Harper's normal pre-session "preen and posture" warmup routine.
The proposal will get a little attention from political geeks like me (the ones that consider C-SPAN and Arizona Capitol Television to be high Comedy), but not much else unless it looks like the bill will actually pass the lege.
What's really fun about it though (and what people should be paying attention to) is that it highlights how Harper is utterly unqualified for the Secretary of State's job that he is aspiring for in 2010.
Somebody should tell Jack that ARS Title 16, Chapter 4, Sections 301 and 341 require that candidates for office be "qualified electors." In addition, Title 16, Chapter 1, Section 121 defines "qualified elector" as "A person who is qualified to register to vote pursuant to section 16-101..."
And from 16-101, the first listed requirement for a registered voter (emphasis mine) -
A. Every resident of the state is qualified to register to vote if he:
1. Is a citizen of the United States.
To sum up, candidates for office already must be citizens, and that documentation is taken care of at the registration step (and at the voting step too.)
In other words, the man who would Secretary of State, the state's chief election officer, isn't familiar with even the most basic election laws.
That's our Jack. :)
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Jim Lane starts consolidating power in Scottsdale
Among the signs of regime change in Scottsdale (and there have been many of them already)...
...Lane has hired Tim LaSota as his chief of staff. LaSota is the son of former AZ Attorney General Jack LaSota and has spent the last few years with the Maricopa County Attorney's Office as Andrew Thomas'coatholder taxpayer-funded lobbyist special assistant deputy county attorney.
LaSota has a rep as an ideologue (as if working closely with Andrew Thomas doesn't prove that already! :) ) with his association with the far-right Federalist Society.
Anybody want to start a pool on Scottsdale City Attorney Deborah Robberson's separation date? She is definitely viewed as one of outgoing Mayor Mary Manross' allies and is likely gone before too long (spring???). At first blush, it seems that LaSota is in a prime position to assume the office once Robberson is forced out/moves on.
Besides that expected change in a City Charter Officer spot, the City Manager's job is filled on an interim basis by John Little (though he seems to be well-positioned to win the job on a permanent basis...well, as permanent as any of these jobs can be. Three, maybe four years; probably not much more than that.) Also, the City Auditor's and City Treasurer's jobs are open already (like the City Manager's job, these are also currently filled on an interim basis).
Lane could put his imprint on City Staff very quickly if these jobs are filled by "his" people.
BTW - only time will tell if LaSota's move is one of him seeking a promotion (from "special assistant" to "chief of staff" and maybe higher) or one of rats deserting a sinking Thomas ship. Or both. :))
Also, only time will tell is LaSota was hired for his professional qualifications or his partisan connections.
...On the electoral politics side, Lane is looking to change a previous vote (4-3, of course) that directed the City's govermental relations staff ("lobbyists" to us normal folks) to support legislative repeal of a 2006 law that required cities of a certain size to move their municipal elections to the fall. Many people, including me, believe that this change led to an increased turnout of Republicans, giving a close victory to Republican Lane in heavily Republican Scottsdale.
It seems that Scottsdale's Republicans value the benefits that fall elections have for them, even though the municipal races get lost in the clutter of the lengthy partisan ballots. A tendency which led to the next item...
...Also on the electoral politics side, over in the state lege, north Scottsdale/Fountain Hills State Representative John Kavanagh (R-LD8) has introduced HB2033, a bill that would remove undervotes from calculations of the number of votes cast for an office. This is significant because in September's primary election, Lane led Manross when all the votes were counted, but wasn't the declared the winner because there were enough undervotes that Lane didn't gain a majority.
I can't say that I'm opposed to this one - only the number of votes cast for an office *should* be what determines what constitutes a "majority" of votes for that office, but something tells me that Kavanagh's motivation for this one isn't anything as pure as simple idealism.
...One move not seen yet, and based on the policy initiatives proposed thus far, I'll guess that it's not likely to be seen, is support for changing the number of signatures needed on nomination petitions. Because of the move to fall elections, candidates in 2010 and 2012 will need roughly three times as many signatures (5813) to make it on to the Scottsdale ballot as were needed this year (1652). In a municipal election, numbers like that shut out all but the best-funded candidates, thus making it easier for incumbents to retain their seats.
Anyway, look for more moves, both in the areas of personnel and in legislation/policies, as Lane settles into his new role.
Note - The AZ Republic's report on the farewell reception for Manross and outgoing councilmember Betty Drake is here; Lane, returning councilmember Ron McCullagh and new members Lisa Borowsky and Suzanne Klapp will be sworn in this Tuesday, with a reception starting at 4 p.m. and the swearing-in ceremony taking place at 4:30 p.m.
Later!
...Lane has hired Tim LaSota as his chief of staff. LaSota is the son of former AZ Attorney General Jack LaSota and has spent the last few years with the Maricopa County Attorney's Office as Andrew Thomas'
LaSota has a rep as an ideologue (as if working closely with Andrew Thomas doesn't prove that already! :) ) with his association with the far-right Federalist Society.
Anybody want to start a pool on Scottsdale City Attorney Deborah Robberson's separation date? She is definitely viewed as one of outgoing Mayor Mary Manross' allies and is likely gone before too long (spring???). At first blush, it seems that LaSota is in a prime position to assume the office once Robberson is forced out/moves on.
Besides that expected change in a City Charter Officer spot, the City Manager's job is filled on an interim basis by John Little (though he seems to be well-positioned to win the job on a permanent basis...well, as permanent as any of these jobs can be. Three, maybe four years; probably not much more than that.) Also, the City Auditor's and City Treasurer's jobs are open already (like the City Manager's job, these are also currently filled on an interim basis).
Lane could put his imprint on City Staff very quickly if these jobs are filled by "his" people.
BTW - only time will tell if LaSota's move is one of him seeking a promotion (from "special assistant" to "chief of staff" and maybe higher) or one of rats deserting a sinking Thomas ship. Or both. :))
Also, only time will tell is LaSota was hired for his professional qualifications or his partisan connections.
...On the electoral politics side, Lane is looking to change a previous vote (4-3, of course) that directed the City's govermental relations staff ("lobbyists" to us normal folks) to support legislative repeal of a 2006 law that required cities of a certain size to move their municipal elections to the fall. Many people, including me, believe that this change led to an increased turnout of Republicans, giving a close victory to Republican Lane in heavily Republican Scottsdale.
It seems that Scottsdale's Republicans value the benefits that fall elections have for them, even though the municipal races get lost in the clutter of the lengthy partisan ballots. A tendency which led to the next item...
...Also on the electoral politics side, over in the state lege, north Scottsdale/Fountain Hills State Representative John Kavanagh (R-LD8) has introduced HB2033, a bill that would remove undervotes from calculations of the number of votes cast for an office. This is significant because in September's primary election, Lane led Manross when all the votes were counted, but wasn't the declared the winner because there were enough undervotes that Lane didn't gain a majority.
I can't say that I'm opposed to this one - only the number of votes cast for an office *should* be what determines what constitutes a "majority" of votes for that office, but something tells me that Kavanagh's motivation for this one isn't anything as pure as simple idealism.
...One move not seen yet, and based on the policy initiatives proposed thus far, I'll guess that it's not likely to be seen, is support for changing the number of signatures needed on nomination petitions. Because of the move to fall elections, candidates in 2010 and 2012 will need roughly three times as many signatures (5813) to make it on to the Scottsdale ballot as were needed this year (1652). In a municipal election, numbers like that shut out all but the best-funded candidates, thus making it easier for incumbents to retain their seats.
Anyway, look for more moves, both in the areas of personnel and in legislation/policies, as Lane settles into his new role.
Note - The AZ Republic's report on the farewell reception for Manross and outgoing councilmember Betty Drake is here; Lane, returning councilmember Ron McCullagh and new members Lisa Borowsky and Suzanne Klapp will be sworn in this Tuesday, with a reception starting at 4 p.m. and the swearing-in ceremony taking place at 4:30 p.m.
Later!
Rep. David Schapira Pens A Pre-Session Column
State Representative David Schapira has written a column for the AZ Republic. In addition to publishing it in the Rep, he emailed that column to folks.
I couldn't find the column on the website, which is a common occurence for stuff published the the Reps' community sections. As such, here is the complete text of the column (from the email) and not just a link -
An article/interview with Rep. Schapira on AZCentral.com is here.
David's campaign website is here; his legislative website won't be available until the lege's session starts.
Later!
I couldn't find the column on the website, which is a common occurence for stuff published the the Reps' community sections. As such, here is the complete text of the column (from the email) and not just a link -
Tough Times Call for Unified Approach
By David Schapira
The Arizona Republic
The coming legislative session in Arizona promises to be the most turbulent in at least a decade. The ingredients of this recipe for disaster are laid out and ready to mix. Arizona's State Senators and Representatives will come together on Monday to start work. I am just as scared as you are, and I'm one of them.
But there is hope. There is still an element in the Legislature that truly wants to work in a bipartisan fashion to solve many of the problems that the state faces. There are those of us who are willing to work together, to negotiate and to do the job that our constituents elected us to do: represent them.
The most important issue we face as a state is the floundering economy. In much the same way it is affecting your pocketbook, it is affecting the state's. The greatest task or burden of the Forty-ninth Legislature is to balance the state's budget. We don't have the option, as the Federal government does, to simply print more money. We can't run deficits, nor should we. The state's constitution essentially ties our hands when it comes to borrowing money. Therefore, we really are only left with two options: cut funding or raise taxes.
Let's start by throwing out the tax increase, because it's not the solution for this crisis. First, it's just not the best idea in bad economic times. More importantly, it's virtually impossible in Arizona on the legislative level because of existing laws that require a 2/3 vote in both chambers to raise any tax or fee.
So it comes down to fund cutting, to the tune of about $3 Billion for the next fiscal year. As you can imagine, that's no small chunk of change. It's about 30% of the state's General Fund. So where do we find 30%? End health care for children? Release all the state's prisoners? Close a university or two?
There is no easy answer. It's too big a problem for one person, one party or one legislative chamber to solve. It will take all of us, the whole state (yes, even you), to figure this one out. But I'm confident that if we work together, we can get through this. We can use the bad ingredients to make something good, or at least tolerable, for the coming year.
That is my promise to you for the coming session. I will work together with anyone who is willing to work with me to come up with the best solutions to the problems we face. That being said, I will walk into budget negotiations with a set of priorities. I was elected because of my commitment to improving education in our state, and I am not ready to balance our state budget on the backs of students nor am I willing to eliminate vital funding for healthcare for kids whose parents can't afford it.
I also promise to never forget that the most important aspect of my job at the Legislature is to serve the people who elected me, whether you voted for me or not.
As my friend Congressman Harry Mitchell likes to say, "Representative is my title and my job description." I will do my best with that title to continue to represent your needs for the next two years.
State Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe, represents District 17.
An article/interview with Rep. Schapira on AZCentral.com is here.
David's campaign website is here; his legislative website won't be available until the lege's session starts.
Later!
Friday, January 09, 2009
Leave it to Jan Brewer to rain on a parade...
So here I was with this nice little scoop that Hugh Hallman, the Mayor of Tempe, was one of the aspirants who actually interviewed for the Secretary of State's job. His name had been on the seemingly endless list of Reps angling to replace Jan Brewer when she ascends to the Governor's job.
The planned post included sharp (if I do say so myself :)) ) analysis of why such a move would be both a good one for Hallman (getting out of the City budget wars before any serious service cuts and/or tax hikes take place on his watch) and a bad one for Hallman (quoting his opponent in his next race - "When the going got tough, Hugh got gone.") I was even going to write about how much he would be missed in Tempe...actually, not too many people would miss him. He has a rep as being vindictive and overly partisan in what is supposed to be a non-partisan job.
I even called Hallman's office and left a message with his chief of staff trying to fish for a quote (no call back, but even that would have looked good in a post).
Now nobody, including my source (a Tempe activist), thought Hallman was going to get the job, but it would have made for a fun weekend of speculation and checking on the City of Tempe's rules for succession. Unfortunately, I was at work and couldn't write it up, but I figured that was OK since the rumor earlier this week was that Brewer was going to announce her replacement next week.
There was plenty of time to write it up this evening after getting home.
Right? :)
So what happened this afternoon during the intervening hours?
Jan Brewer announced that she has selected former State Senate President Ken Bennett as her replacement.
Oh well, maybe we can hope that the rumor was a little off and Hallman was interviewing for another job with the Brewer administration.
Later!
The planned post included sharp (if I do say so myself :)) ) analysis of why such a move would be both a good one for Hallman (getting out of the City budget wars before any serious service cuts and/or tax hikes take place on his watch) and a bad one for Hallman (quoting his opponent in his next race - "When the going got tough, Hugh got gone.") I was even going to write about how much he would be missed in Tempe...actually, not too many people would miss him. He has a rep as being vindictive and overly partisan in what is supposed to be a non-partisan job.
I even called Hallman's office and left a message with his chief of staff trying to fish for a quote (no call back, but even that would have looked good in a post).
Now nobody, including my source (a Tempe activist), thought Hallman was going to get the job, but it would have made for a fun weekend of speculation and checking on the City of Tempe's rules for succession. Unfortunately, I was at work and couldn't write it up, but I figured that was OK since the rumor earlier this week was that Brewer was going to announce her replacement next week.
There was plenty of time to write it up this evening after getting home.
Right? :)
So what happened this afternoon during the intervening hours?
Jan Brewer announced that she has selected former State Senate President Ken Bennett as her replacement.
Oh well, maybe we can hope that the rumor was a little off and Hallman was interviewing for another job with the Brewer administration.
Later!
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Letter to Congressman Harry Mitchell
This one is rooted in the previous post, but while that was more of a rant, this one is more reasoned.
At least, I hope it comes across that way. :)
The contents of the letter that I just submitted to Congressman Harry Mitchell via his House website's contact form -
While the Rep members of AZ's delegation (Flake, Franks, Shadegg) are sure to oppose any stimulus packages, it wouldn't be a stretch for them to oppose the packages (which are all but certain to pass) while working to ensure that any funds disbursed have the safeguards mentioned in my letter. As such, I recommend that everyone - Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and more - to contact their Congressional representatives and urge them to work to ensure that any funds disbursed end up where they are supposed to.
Our Congressfolks and their contact pages -
Jeff Flake (R-AZ6) - contact (no direct contact page)
Trent Franks (R-AZ2) - contact (no direct contact page)
Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ8) - contact page
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ7) - contact (no direct contact page)
Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ1) - contact page
Ed Pastor (D-AZ4) - contact (no direct contact page)
John Shadegg (R-AZ3) - contact form
Note: the four without a direct contact page utilize a zip code verification process to ensure that the online contact system is utilized by their constituents only. Follow the directions on their websites to contact them.
Note2: In a development that signifies how important I believe this issue is, I have linked to the Republicans' actual House websites, not their crAZyspace pages. You should be impressed. :)
Later!
At least, I hope it comes across that way. :)
The contents of the letter that I just submitted to Congressman Harry Mitchell via his House website's contact form -
Dear Congressman Mitchell,
In the coming weeks and months, there will be much discussion (and some passage) by Congress of efforts to stabilize and stimulate America's economy.
Many of these efforts will include money for various infrastructure projects across the country.I am writing today to ask you to work to minimize the portion of those funds that will be subject to whims of state legislators.
In our home state of Arizona, leaders in the legislature have already started to stated their intent to cut to the bone public services like education while pledging to set aside funds for activities they favor such as widespread roundups of immigrants. (http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/133701)
In a year when municipal, county, and agency revenue has plummeted and budgets have busted, funds that are targeted for projects such as public transit, rural broadband connectivity, alternative energy, schools, etc., shouldn't be subject to siphoning by irresponsible state legislators who are less interested in serving the public than in advancing their personal ideologies.
Please urge your colleagues, including all of the other members of Arizona's Congressional delegation, to pass stimulus packages that either send funds directly to the targeted end recipients or send the funds to the states but with serious strings attached to ensure that the funds are used properly.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
[cpmaz]
While the Rep members of AZ's delegation (Flake, Franks, Shadegg) are sure to oppose any stimulus packages, it wouldn't be a stretch for them to oppose the packages (which are all but certain to pass) while working to ensure that any funds disbursed have the safeguards mentioned in my letter. As such, I recommend that everyone - Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and more - to contact their Congressional representatives and urge them to work to ensure that any funds disbursed end up where they are supposed to.
Our Congressfolks and their contact pages -
Jeff Flake (R-AZ6) - contact (no direct contact page)
Trent Franks (R-AZ2) - contact (no direct contact page)
Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ8) - contact page
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ7) - contact (no direct contact page)
Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ1) - contact page
Ed Pastor (D-AZ4) - contact (no direct contact page)
John Shadegg (R-AZ3) - contact form
Note: the four without a direct contact page utilize a zip code verification process to ensure that the online contact system is utilized by their constituents only. Follow the directions on their websites to contact them.
Note2: In a development that signifies how important I believe this issue is, I have linked to the Republicans' actual House websites, not their crAZyspace pages. You should be impressed. :)
Later!
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
The Top Priority Of Arizona's Republicans...
Want to hazard a guess what it is?
Here's a hint - in spite of the widening deficit, their first priority won't be fiscal responsibility, and in spite of their protestations that they respect the "voters", their first priority won't be following the will of those voters.
First perennial contender for the Legislative Loon Award, Republican Senator-elect Russell Pearce of Mesa announces that the he and the lege won't be able to balance the state's budget unless it gets the authority to interfere with voter-mandated programs.
From the EV Tribune -
While the Reps want to override the wishes of the voters in this period of budgetary distress, they want to ignore that same budgetary distress in favor of their *own* priorities.
Also from the EV Tribune -
So education, health care, arts, and public services will all face heavy (perhaps terminal) budget cuts, but officially sanctioned immigrant-bashing will get a blank check? Or at least a $1.6 million check, with more to come?
You know, the AZ Reps got exactly what they wanted in November's elections - a (slightly) larger majority in both chambers of the lege and, with Barack Obama's victory and designation of Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security, a fellow traveler in the Governor's office.
They may just end up learning the lesson of the old saying "Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it."
They used to be able to say to their base "Hey, we passed the {pick your lunacy here} bill, but that @#%#@$ Napolitano vetoed it."
No longer, not with Jan Brewer stepping in to protect Arizonans from legislative depredations with her brand of matador defense.
The campaign season for 2010 is already looming and not having John McCain on the ballot as a presidential candidate combined with what looks to be two years of Republican placing their ideology and bigotry above the state's fiscal and political reality could set the stage for some significant changes on West Washington.
Republican State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Scottsdale), not exactly a slouch when it comes to riding the Wingnut Express, is the incoming chair of the House Appropriations Committee and he offered an unexpectedly apt observation.
From the Trib's story on overriding voter wishes -
"Lingering mistrust"??? After stunts like these, that may turn out to be the understatement of the entire session of the 49th session of the Arizona Legislature, and it hasn't even started yet.
NB - In case you think I'm overstating, in this post and others, how ideological the Republicans in the lege have gotten, take a look at the list of Rep members of the Senate Appropriations Committee -
Sylvia Allen, newby and a friend of Russell Pearce.
Pamela Gorman - Hardcore social conservative and wiggy enough to hang with anyone else in this post, but only rates a "B" from the Goldwater Institute, perhaps because she occasionally does things such as sponsor bills like a cell phone bill of rights (the bill was killed by the full Senate). The other returning members all received "A's" from the Goldwater Institute.
She was out of town when the budget came to a vote, but hurried back to see that the anti-same sex marriage amendment made it on to the ballot. Guess a little thing like the main reason the lege exists isn't important to her. Still, she may qualify as the least loony of this ready-to-bay-at-the-moon bunch.
Ron Gould, most noted for flying a Confederate Flag in his back yard and opposing any idea that post-dates Abe Lincoln taking office.
Jack Harper, famous for violating Senate rules to protect people who send text messages while driving and to help anti-same sex marriage folks to shoehorn a constitutional amendment on to last November's ballot.
Al Melvin, Vice-Chair - newby who's most famous for taking out Pete Hershberger, one of the few "moderate" Republicans in the lege, in the fall primary. Actually, Melvin called him a liberal. Like Allen, he's also an ally of Pearce.
Russell Pearce, Chair - A listing of the reasons for his notoriety is far too long for this post. Check the crAZyspace entry linked to his name for more details.
Steve Pierce - newby who took out another Tom O'Halleran, another moderate Republican (by AZ standards, anyway). Most famous for buying the seat. A hardcore social and fiscal conservative endorsed by the likes of U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, Congressmen Jeff Flake and John Shadegg, the NRA, AZ Right to Life PAC, a couple of chambers of commerce, etc.
In short, the next state budget would be horrific even without the state's budget crisis. Given that the wingnuts have that crisis to use as cover, expect the worst budget in memory, perhaps ever.
But hey, it'll have plenty of corporate tax cuts and anti-immigrant provisions, so that will make it OK, right?
This is going to be a loooooooong two years, even if rhe agony eventually does lead to the election of some responsible public servants to the lege and statewide offices.
Later...
Here's a hint - in spite of the widening deficit, their first priority won't be fiscal responsibility, and in spite of their protestations that they respect the "voters", their first priority won't be following the will of those voters.
First perennial contender for the Legislative Loon Award, Republican Senator-elect Russell Pearce of Mesa announces that the he and the lege won't be able to balance the state's budget unless it gets the authority to interfere with voter-mandated programs.
From the EV Tribune -
But Pearce said voters should be allowed to reconsider limiting the power of lawmakers to alter voter-approved measures given the state's current fiscal crisis.In Republican-speak, "the voters were fooled" means "the voters approved something we don't like."
"I don't think they expected to raise taxes or to grow government ... when we can't even pay our bills," he said. Pearce also said voters have been "fooled a little bit" into believing the additional spending mandates would pay for themselves.
While the Reps want to override the wishes of the voters in this period of budgetary distress, they want to ignore that same budgetary distress in favor of their *own* priorities.
Also from the EV Tribune -
State lawmakers will consider whether to continue spending tens of millions of dollars a year to arrest illegal immigrants when the legislative session begins next week with Arizona’s government in a $3 billion hole.
{snip}
However, Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, pledges to protect money for operations that target illegal immigrants and to provide additional cash for the Maricopa County Sheriff’s controversial crackdowns.
“Sheriff Joe (Arpaio) is going to get his $1.6 million back to go after human smuggling,” said Pearce, incoming chairman of the Senate appropriations committee.
So education, health care, arts, and public services will all face heavy (perhaps terminal) budget cuts, but officially sanctioned immigrant-bashing will get a blank check? Or at least a $1.6 million check, with more to come?
You know, the AZ Reps got exactly what they wanted in November's elections - a (slightly) larger majority in both chambers of the lege and, with Barack Obama's victory and designation of Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security, a fellow traveler in the Governor's office.
They may just end up learning the lesson of the old saying "Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it."
They used to be able to say to their base "Hey, we passed the {pick your lunacy here} bill, but that @#%#@$ Napolitano vetoed it."
No longer, not with Jan Brewer stepping in to protect Arizonans from legislative depredations with her brand of matador defense.
The campaign season for 2010 is already looming and not having John McCain on the ballot as a presidential candidate combined with what looks to be two years of Republican placing their ideology and bigotry above the state's fiscal and political reality could set the stage for some significant changes on West Washington.
Republican State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Scottsdale), not exactly a slouch when it comes to riding the Wingnut Express, is the incoming chair of the House Appropriations Committee and he offered an unexpectedly apt observation.
From the Trib's story on overriding voter wishes -
But Kavanagh questions whether voters, having tied the hands of lawmakers in a 1998 ballot proposal, will be willing to remove the fiscal handcuffs. "They seem to have a lingering mistrust of the Legislature," he said.
"Lingering mistrust"??? After stunts like these, that may turn out to be the understatement of the entire session of the 49th session of the Arizona Legislature, and it hasn't even started yet.
NB - In case you think I'm overstating, in this post and others, how ideological the Republicans in the lege have gotten, take a look at the list of Rep members of the Senate Appropriations Committee -
Sylvia Allen, newby and a friend of Russell Pearce.
Pamela Gorman - Hardcore social conservative and wiggy enough to hang with anyone else in this post, but only rates a "B" from the Goldwater Institute, perhaps because she occasionally does things such as sponsor bills like a cell phone bill of rights (the bill was killed by the full Senate). The other returning members all received "A's" from the Goldwater Institute.
She was out of town when the budget came to a vote, but hurried back to see that the anti-same sex marriage amendment made it on to the ballot. Guess a little thing like the main reason the lege exists isn't important to her. Still, she may qualify as the least loony of this ready-to-bay-at-the-moon bunch.
Ron Gould, most noted for flying a Confederate Flag in his back yard and opposing any idea that post-dates Abe Lincoln taking office.
Jack Harper, famous for violating Senate rules to protect people who send text messages while driving and to help anti-same sex marriage folks to shoehorn a constitutional amendment on to last November's ballot.
Al Melvin, Vice-Chair - newby who's most famous for taking out Pete Hershberger, one of the few "moderate" Republicans in the lege, in the fall primary. Actually, Melvin called him a liberal. Like Allen, he's also an ally of Pearce.
Russell Pearce, Chair - A listing of the reasons for his notoriety is far too long for this post. Check the crAZyspace entry linked to his name for more details.
Steve Pierce - newby who took out another Tom O'Halleran, another moderate Republican (by AZ standards, anyway). Most famous for buying the seat. A hardcore social and fiscal conservative endorsed by the likes of U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, Congressmen Jeff Flake and John Shadegg, the NRA, AZ Right to Life PAC, a couple of chambers of commerce, etc.
In short, the next state budget would be horrific even without the state's budget crisis. Given that the wingnuts have that crisis to use as cover, expect the worst budget in memory, perhaps ever.
But hey, it'll have plenty of corporate tax cuts and anti-immigrant provisions, so that will make it OK, right?
This is going to be a loooooooong two years, even if rhe agony eventually does lead to the election of some responsible public servants to the lege and statewide offices.
Later...
Monday, January 05, 2009
A nice rumor if it's true...
Paul Rubin of the Phoenix New Times has this wonderful rumor in an entry in the New Times' Valley Fever -
Rubin cited an anonymous source from within the County Attorney's office.
I'm not sure about this one - if Thomas truly is going to run for state AG, sooner or later he will have to resign sooner or later because of AZ's "resign to run" law, but there isn't much reason for him to do it so soon. The reason for the early entry into the race for Thomas, at least the one given in Rubin's piece, is that he doesn't want to give his presumed opponent for the Republican nomination, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne, a head start, but that doesn't make a lot of sense - if Horne officially announces his candidacy before next January, he has to resign too. While there are ways to campaign for an office without "campaigning" and running afoul of the resign-to-run law, the Horne (or whoever runs for the AG's office) campaign won't get fully up to speed until January at the earliest.
Don't misunderstand me - it would be great for the County if Thomas left sooner than later, especially because his departure would remove one of Joe Arpaio's political shields.
However, I just don't see it happening before late 2009.
Unless, of course, the Stapley indictment or something else blows up in Thomas' face, then he just might get out while the getting's good (aka - while he can save a little face). :))
We're hearing that ambitious County Attorney Andrew Thomas ... is thinking about resigning from office in the next several months (we heard April) to free himself up to run for Arizona Attorney General in the 2010 Republican primary.
Rubin cited an anonymous source from within the County Attorney's office.
I'm not sure about this one - if Thomas truly is going to run for state AG, sooner or later he will have to resign sooner or later because of AZ's "resign to run" law, but there isn't much reason for him to do it so soon. The reason for the early entry into the race for Thomas, at least the one given in Rubin's piece, is that he doesn't want to give his presumed opponent for the Republican nomination, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne, a head start, but that doesn't make a lot of sense - if Horne officially announces his candidacy before next January, he has to resign too. While there are ways to campaign for an office without "campaigning" and running afoul of the resign-to-run law, the Horne (or whoever runs for the AG's office) campaign won't get fully up to speed until January at the earliest.
Don't misunderstand me - it would be great for the County if Thomas left sooner than later, especially because his departure would remove one of Joe Arpaio's political shields.
However, I just don't see it happening before late 2009.
Unless, of course, the Stapley indictment or something else blows up in Thomas' face, then he just might get out while the getting's good (aka - while he can save a little face). :))
Bill Richardson's statement on recent events
Governor Bill Richardson sent out an email with a statement on his withdrawal as the Obama Administration's designee as Secretary of Commerce.
The text of the email -
"For nearly three decades, I have been honored to serve my state and our nation in Congress, at the U.N., as Secretary of Energy and as governor. So when the President-elect asked me to serve as Secretary of Commerce, I felt a duty to answer the call.
I felt that duty particularly because America is facing such extraordinary economic challenges. The Department of Commerce must play an important role in solving them by helping to grow the new jobs and businesses America so badly needs.
It is also because of that sense of urgency about the work of the Commerce Department that I have asked the President-elect not to move forward with my nomination at this time.
I do so with great sorrow. But a pending investigation of a company that has done business with New Mexico state government promises to extend for several weeks or, perhaps, even months.
Let me say unequivocally that I and my Administration have acted properly in all matters and that this investigation will bear out that fact. But I have concluded that the ongoing investigation also would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process.
Given the gravity of the economic situation the nation is facing, I could not in good conscience ask the President-elect and his Administration to delay for one day the important work that needs to be done.
So, for now, I will remain in the job I love, Governor of New Mexico, and will continue to work every day, with Lieutenant Governor Diane Denish, to make a positive difference in the lives of New Mexicans. I believe she will be a terrific governor in the future.
I appreciate the confidence President-elect Obama has shown in me, and value our friendship and working partnership. I told him that I am eager to serve in the future in any way he deems useful. And like all Americans, I pray for his success and the success of our beloved country.
I've included President-elect Obama's statement in response to my own:
Statement of the President-elect:
Thank you for your past and continued support.
I look forward to putting this matter to rest and in the meantime I am preparing for the upcoming New Mexico legislative session.
All my best wishes,
"
Later!
The text of the email -
"For nearly three decades, I have been honored to serve my state and our nation in Congress, at the U.N., as Secretary of Energy and as governor. So when the President-elect asked me to serve as Secretary of Commerce, I felt a duty to answer the call.
I felt that duty particularly because America is facing such extraordinary economic challenges. The Department of Commerce must play an important role in solving them by helping to grow the new jobs and businesses America so badly needs.
It is also because of that sense of urgency about the work of the Commerce Department that I have asked the President-elect not to move forward with my nomination at this time.
I do so with great sorrow. But a pending investigation of a company that has done business with New Mexico state government promises to extend for several weeks or, perhaps, even months.
Let me say unequivocally that I and my Administration have acted properly in all matters and that this investigation will bear out that fact. But I have concluded that the ongoing investigation also would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process.
Given the gravity of the economic situation the nation is facing, I could not in good conscience ask the President-elect and his Administration to delay for one day the important work that needs to be done.
So, for now, I will remain in the job I love, Governor of New Mexico, and will continue to work every day, with Lieutenant Governor Diane Denish, to make a positive difference in the lives of New Mexicans. I believe she will be a terrific governor in the future.
I appreciate the confidence President-elect Obama has shown in me, and value our friendship and working partnership. I told him that I am eager to serve in the future in any way he deems useful. And like all Americans, I pray for his success and the success of our beloved country.
I've included President-elect Obama's statement in response to my own:
Statement of the President-elect:
It's with deep regret that I accept Governor Bill Richardson's decision to withdraw his name for nomination as the next Secretary of Commerce.
He is an outstanding public servant and would have brought to the job of Commerce Secretary and our economic team great insights accumulated through an extraordinary career in federal and state office.
It is a measure of his willingness to put the nation first that he has removed himself as a candidate for the Cabinet in order to avoid any delay in filling this important economic post at this critical time.
Although we must move quickly to fill the void left by Governor Richardson's decision, I look forward to his future service to our country and in my administration.
Thank you for your past and continued support.
I look forward to putting this matter to rest and in the meantime I am preparing for the upcoming New Mexico legislative session.
All my best wishes,
"
Later!
The Arizona Guardian - a new political news site for Arizona
Rising from the wreckage of the East Valley Tribune, four longtime political writers and editors have launched a new political news site, The Arizona Guardian.
Paul Giblin, Dennis Welch, Patti Epler, and and Mary Reinhart have joined together, along with Bob Grossfeld (in charge of non-editorial stuff) to form the company behind the website, Arizona Guardian LLC.
Yes, in a move that is reminiscent of the long lost "good ol' days" of journalism, the journalists will be in charge of making journalistic decisions, not some bungee managers whose sole journalism credential is that they may have once read a newspaper between MBA classes.
In an email publicizing their project, they called this the "soft rollout" period, leading me to expect that they'll go to a pay-for-access or advertiser-supported (or some combination of the two) model soon.
Based on what is currently on the site (the possibility of Sue Gerard returning to the Department of Health, a profile of Democratic State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, and a likely date for Jan Brewer to name her choice to replace her as Secretary of State [next Monday], etc.) and the professional histories of the principals (lots of investigative work), I'm hopeful for this site's journalistic success. Certainly, it should be better than the late and not so lamented PolitickerAZ. It should even be more informative than the Arizona Capitol Times, a publication whose news content is mostly filler to wrap around the revenue center of the paper, the legal notices.
As for *business* success, we'll just have to wait and see.
Also, thus far, The Arizona Guardian seems to be non-partisan, though I'm sure that the first time they do an investigative piece on an elected official, that official's supporters will accuse the Guardian of working for the other party.
They seem to be leaving the partisan sniping exactly where it belongs - with bloggers and press secretaries.
Anyway, I wish the Arizona Guardian and its principals success, and hope they bring a modicum of real journalism to AZ's political scene.
Later!
Full disclosure section of the post - I have no association with the Guardian, its principals, or its staff. In fact, I have never even met any of the principals and have no idea who its staffers may be.
So there. :))
Paul Giblin, Dennis Welch, Patti Epler, and and Mary Reinhart have joined together, along with Bob Grossfeld (in charge of non-editorial stuff) to form the company behind the website, Arizona Guardian LLC.
Yes, in a move that is reminiscent of the long lost "good ol' days" of journalism, the journalists will be in charge of making journalistic decisions, not some bungee managers whose sole journalism credential is that they may have once read a newspaper between MBA classes.
In an email publicizing their project, they called this the "soft rollout" period, leading me to expect that they'll go to a pay-for-access or advertiser-supported (or some combination of the two) model soon.
Based on what is currently on the site (the possibility of Sue Gerard returning to the Department of Health, a profile of Democratic State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, and a likely date for Jan Brewer to name her choice to replace her as Secretary of State [next Monday], etc.) and the professional histories of the principals (lots of investigative work), I'm hopeful for this site's journalistic success. Certainly, it should be better than the late and not so lamented PolitickerAZ. It should even be more informative than the Arizona Capitol Times, a publication whose news content is mostly filler to wrap around the revenue center of the paper, the legal notices.
As for *business* success, we'll just have to wait and see.
Also, thus far, The Arizona Guardian seems to be non-partisan, though I'm sure that the first time they do an investigative piece on an elected official, that official's supporters will accuse the Guardian of working for the other party.
They seem to be leaving the partisan sniping exactly where it belongs - with bloggers and press secretaries.
Anyway, I wish the Arizona Guardian and its principals success, and hope they bring a modicum of real journalism to AZ's political scene.
Later!
Full disclosure section of the post - I have no association with the Guardian, its principals, or its staff. In fact, I have never even met any of the principals and have no idea who its staffers may be.
So there. :))
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)