Today is mostly going to consist of cold medicine, soup, juice, and sleep.
Depending on how I feel later, blogging may be a possibility (Congressional Republicans have come out with their "budget", aka - more tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest Americans, and spending cuts for anything that doesn't involve invading other countries to take their oil.)
April Fool's Day is definitely the appropriate day for the Reps to trot out a budget proposal that is more of the same garbage that helped put the country in the economic mess that it's in.
But that will be later, if at all...time for a nap.
Later...
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Why my city is hosed...
"Eat Drink Be Pretty"????
Somebody who has a penchant for thoroughness might want to add cracks about "Botox" or "NIMBY" or "Destroy Neighborhoods", but that would be unnecessary piling on after the whistle has blown the play dead.
That one slogan covers all that Scottsdale really stands for.
Conspicuous consumption and vapid shallowness.
This is not to be taken as a criticism of the Scottsdale Culinary Festival itself - it's a lot of fun and I recommend attending if you can (April 18 and 19). Just don't expect much intellectual stimulation.
Oh, and fortunately for the Culinary Festival, the Tempe Music Festival is taking place two weeks earlier (this weekend!).
In the event there had been a conflict in the schedule, well, college towns are a lot more interesting (something about the higher number of triple-digit IQs).
:)
Monday, March 30, 2009
The Best Reason To See A Sean Penn Film
Bill O'Reilly of Faux News won't.
From The Hollywood Reporter via Yahoo! -
This is pretty petty, even for O'Reilly. Even as liberal as I am, I've never not watched a Charlton Heston movie because he was the president of the NRA or not watched a Law and Order rerun because Fred Thompson is in it. More importantly, I don't know anyone who has.
Yes, Sean Penn is annoyingly smug, but he's also undeniably talented. As with Bono of U2 (somebody who is also annoyingly smug), I'm a fan because of what they can do on screen or in the studio, not because of their politics.
(Full disclosure - I didn't go out of my way to watch Heston's films, but mostly because he had done almost nothing noteworthy after The Planet Of The Apes. And most of Thompson's work was as a secondary character. As such, his performances wouldn't have had an impact on my "see/don't see" decision anyway.)
From The Hollywood Reporter via Yahoo! -
THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER: ARE THERE ACTORS WHOSE POLITICAL OPINIONS DISTURB YOU SO MUCH YOU WON'T SEE THEIR MOVIES?
O'Reilly: Just Sean Penn
THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER: SOMEONE WILL READ THAT AND ACCUSE YOU OF ENCOURAGING A NEW BLACKLIST ERA.
O'Reilly: Not at all. He's a great actor, and if you hire him, you'll get a good performance. I'm just not going to give a guy who gives aid and comfort to people like (Iran president Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and Saddam Hussein, when he was alive, my 10 bucks. That's my right as an American.
This is pretty petty, even for O'Reilly. Even as liberal as I am, I've never not watched a Charlton Heston movie because he was the president of the NRA or not watched a Law and Order rerun because Fred Thompson is in it. More importantly, I don't know anyone who has.
Yes, Sean Penn is annoyingly smug, but he's also undeniably talented. As with Bono of U2 (somebody who is also annoyingly smug), I'm a fan because of what they can do on screen or in the studio, not because of their politics.
(Full disclosure - I didn't go out of my way to watch Heston's films, but mostly because he had done almost nothing noteworthy after The Planet Of The Apes. And most of Thompson's work was as a secondary character. As such, his performances wouldn't have had an impact on my "see/don't see" decision anyway.)
More 2010 campaigns news
Among the new campaigns for 2010 that have registered with the Secretary of State's office are -
Dugan is Tom Horne's Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction. Don't know much about her yet, but the entry into the race of an ADE insider is certain to complicate things for the likes of legislators like State Sen. John Huppenthal and State Rep. Rich Crandall who were eyeing the seat.
Janelle Wood is an almost total unknown. However, a "Janelle Wood" with the same email address as is listed with the SOS' office is also listed as an Arizona contact person for something called the "Independent American Party." The IAP seems to advocate transforming America into some kind of semi-libertarian Christian theocracy (see its platform page here.)
In short, they're trying to out-Republican the Republicans.
If Wood's candidacy is real and gains any traction at all, it could undermine the Republicans in their efforts to win the Governor's office outright.
Especially if their extremists succeed in their efforts to defeat Jan Brewer in the primary.
In the "unofficial speculation" department, blog Gila Courier has some interesting observations about the activities of former AZGOP chair John Munger; current GOP Congressman Jeff Flake and former State Senator Karen Johnson are also mentioned in the post.
A Flake candidacy would be a serious one; a Johnson candidacy less so.
Later...
Cheryl Cage, Democrat, running for the LD26 State Senate seat currently occupied by Republican Al MelvinCage is a former candidate for the seat, and her entry into the race is far from unexpected. Tedski at Rum, Romanism, Rebellion is certain to have coverage of this race as the campaigns heat up.
Margaret Dugan, Republican, running for State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Janelle Wood, no party affiliation listed, running for Governor
Dugan is Tom Horne's Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction. Don't know much about her yet, but the entry into the race of an ADE insider is certain to complicate things for the likes of legislators like State Sen. John Huppenthal and State Rep. Rich Crandall who were eyeing the seat.
Janelle Wood is an almost total unknown. However, a "Janelle Wood" with the same email address as is listed with the SOS' office is also listed as an Arizona contact person for something called the "Independent American Party." The IAP seems to advocate transforming America into some kind of semi-libertarian Christian theocracy (see its platform page here.)
In short, they're trying to out-Republican the Republicans.
If Wood's candidacy is real and gains any traction at all, it could undermine the Republicans in their efforts to win the Governor's office outright.
Especially if their extremists succeed in their efforts to defeat Jan Brewer in the primary.
In the "unofficial speculation" department, blog Gila Courier has some interesting observations about the activities of former AZGOP chair John Munger; current GOP Congressman Jeff Flake and former State Senator Karen Johnson are also mentioned in the post.
A Flake candidacy would be a serious one; a Johnson candidacy less so.
Later...
House Democrats Release Common Sense Budget Proposal
On Monday, the Democratic caucus of the Arizona House released a budget proposal for Arizona that uses both fair spending cuts and common sense tax reforms to balance the budget while protecting education and jobs in the state.
The Democrats' proposed budget will (from the press release linked above) -
...There are many reasons to criticize the Reps' proposal that was leaked on Friday (and trust me, those criticisms are forthcoming :) ), but amid all of the carnage they want to blindly wreak upon the state's education system and public services are some nuggets of head-scratching, "say what?" utter stupidity.
Today, we highlight their proposal to save all of $211,000 by doing away with Arizona Commission on Indian Affairs.
The Commission is dedicated "to strengthening the relationship between Arizona's tribes and urban Indian communties and state government."
Now of course, anyone with any experience watching the Reps in action knows that they don't care about strengthening relationships with anyone who isn't rich, white, and Republican, so this move doesn't come as much of a surprise.
On the other hand, even the Reps have to respect the natural resources that Native American tribes control, even if they don't respect Native Americans as people.
And Native American tribes control 28% of Arizona's land.
Maintaining as many open lines of communications as possible with folks who control that much of the state and its natural resources would seem advisable, but apparently communication is not part of their plans. Given that their budget schemes since the beginning of the session have been hatched behind closed doors and shrouded in secrecy, this isn't shocking.
However, like the rest of the Reps' budget proposal, that doesn't seem to make much long-term sense.
From Monday's press conference -
The Democrats' proposed budget will (from the press release linked above) -
More details are available at StrongerArizona.com.- Utilize $2.4 billion — the maximum — of the federal stimulus funding available to Arizona in 2010
- Clean up government waste by stopping tax giveaways to big corporations and closing corporate tax loopholes
- Implement smart, responsible cuts across state government, including in our own House of Representatives
- Restore necessary funding to education and middle-class families that makes our economy thrive
...There are many reasons to criticize the Reps' proposal that was leaked on Friday (and trust me, those criticisms are forthcoming :) ), but amid all of the carnage they want to blindly wreak upon the state's education system and public services are some nuggets of head-scratching, "say what?" utter stupidity.
Today, we highlight their proposal to save all of $211,000 by doing away with Arizona Commission on Indian Affairs.
The Commission is dedicated "to strengthening the relationship between Arizona's tribes and urban Indian communties and state government."
Now of course, anyone with any experience watching the Reps in action knows that they don't care about strengthening relationships with anyone who isn't rich, white, and Republican, so this move doesn't come as much of a surprise.
On the other hand, even the Reps have to respect the natural resources that Native American tribes control, even if they don't respect Native Americans as people.
And Native American tribes control 28% of Arizona's land.
Maintaining as many open lines of communications as possible with folks who control that much of the state and its natural resources would seem advisable, but apparently communication is not part of their plans. Given that their budget schemes since the beginning of the session have been hatched behind closed doors and shrouded in secrecy, this isn't shocking.
However, like the rest of the Reps' budget proposal, that doesn't seem to make much long-term sense.
From Monday's press conference -
"It is key to our economic recovery and stability that we invest in education so that our children are competitive in the global economy," said Assistant House Democratic Leader Kyrsten Sinema. "House Democrats' traveled around the state listening to Arizonans' concerns about deep cuts to the state budget and we developed a comprehensive budget plan that will move Arizona forward to a brighter future."Now to find 8 - 10 Republicans with triple-digit IQs and souls.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
The week ahead...
Note: all info culled from online sources and subject to change without notice as events unfold. Check the appropriate organization's website for updates.
...In the U.S. House, the agenda looks to be a busy and somewhat contentious one.
- H.R. 1388, the "GIVE" Act, has passed the Senate with amendments. Those amendments are coming up for House approval. That will give the Three Amigos from AZ (Shadegg, Flake, and Franks), as well as the GOP caucus as a whole, another opportunity to vote against public service and volunteerism.
- Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick's (D-AZ1) H.R. 1513, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2009, will be heard as a suspension bill (2/3 support required to pass).
- Rep. Jeff Flake is bringing forward his sixth privileged motion "raising a question of privileges of the House. " The text isn't available online, it is probably related his call for both FBI/DOJ and ethics investigations into the campaign contributions made by PMA, a lobbying firm, and their relation to earmarks.
- H.R. 985, the Free Flow of Information Act. This one came up last year and passed the House, but later died in the Senate.
As with last year's version, this bill creates a federal journalists' shield law.
Also as with last year's version, this bill specifically provides coverage for corporate media personnel and specifically excludes bloggers and other citizen journalists.
It'll pass, but it's still inadequate.
- H.Res. 279, "Providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Eleventh Congress." It provides over $300 million for House committee operations. Call this one the "Peacock Act" in honor of all the preening and posturing that will be associated with this one.
- H.R. 1664, "To amend the executive compensation provisions of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards." Sounds good, until you read the fine print - the Secretary of the Treasury decides what is "unreasonable and excessive." It'll pass the House but face serious hurdles in the Senate.
- And in what is sure to be the most contentious of all, the House will be considering the "Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY 2010." Whatever final form the bill takes after a Rules Committee hearing on Wednesday, the Republicans and most of the Blue Dog Dems (including AZ5's Harry Mitchell) will probably oppose the measure.
...Back here in the AZ Legislature, it will be a mostly quiet week on the committee front, as only the House Rules Committee is scheduled to meet. On the Senate side, a few committees will meet, but only to consider executive appointments and to hear about the parts of the federal stimulus package that fall into their bailiwicks.
The House COW (Committee Of the Whole) calendars (here and here) offer up a couple of interesting nuggets.
HB2352 exempts Class II Injection Wells from the Aquifer Protection Permit requirement. From the "fact sheet" for the bill -
An APP permit is required when "one owns or operates a facility that releases pollutants directly into an aquifer, onto the land surface, or in between an aquifer and the land. Currently, injection wells are considered a polluting facility, along with ten other facility types."
In committee, every Republican supported increasing contamination in our drinking water, and every Dem opposed it.
Expect the same trend in the COW session.
Another interesting bill could be HB2101, a measure to require that counties with a population of greater than 175,000 residents have five member boards of supervisors. The current threshold is 200,000. As it turns out, it only affects Pinal County, which under the current law would be converting to a five-member board in 2012 anyway. The county supervisors association opposed it, too, because of the increased costs to the county during a time when all budgets are tight. There are also some questions about whether or not the USDOJ would approve any new districts (that darn Voting Rights Act! :) ).
Again, in committee, all Dems opposed it and all Reps favored it.
Again, expect the same in COW.
The highlight of the week in the AZ lege, though, could be the Democrats' unveiling of their budget proposal on Monday at 10:30 a.m. That one is sure to set up some cross-chatter/smack-talk between the two caucuses. Once the Reps "official" release theirs (which looks to be so harsh that they may have trouble getting it past some of the more vulnerable members of their caucus), the mutual criticism society will start in earnest.
...The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors will be meeting twice this week.
At Monday's "Informal" meeting (10:00 a.m., Supervisors' Auditorium, 205 W. Jefferson in Phoenix), the highlights include more budget balancing moves and an executive session, possibly to discuss the latest source of antagonism between them and the Maricopa County Attorney.
The agenda for Wednesday's meeting (9 a.m., Supervisors' Auditorium) is more mundane, yet still highlights the ongoing feud between the supes and the County Attorney and Sheriff.
One item (#16) covers the executive compensation package for Wade Swanson, the newly-hired director of the County's General Litigation Department. You know, the civil litigation duties taken away from Andrew Thomas.
AZRep coverage of the issue here.
...Anyway, those look to be some of the highlights of the upcoming week, though stuff could crop up out of the blue, like when Mayor Phil Gordon of Phoenix said Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's anti-immigrant jihad is making Maricopa County look like Selma, Alabama in the 1950s.
...In the U.S. House, the agenda looks to be a busy and somewhat contentious one.
- H.R. 1388, the "GIVE" Act, has passed the Senate with amendments. Those amendments are coming up for House approval. That will give the Three Amigos from AZ (Shadegg, Flake, and Franks), as well as the GOP caucus as a whole, another opportunity to vote against public service and volunteerism.
- Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick's (D-AZ1) H.R. 1513, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2009, will be heard as a suspension bill (2/3 support required to pass).
- Rep. Jeff Flake is bringing forward his sixth privileged motion "raising a question of privileges of the House. " The text isn't available online, it is probably related his call for both FBI/DOJ and ethics investigations into the campaign contributions made by PMA, a lobbying firm, and their relation to earmarks.
- H.R. 985, the Free Flow of Information Act. This one came up last year and passed the House, but later died in the Senate.
As with last year's version, this bill creates a federal journalists' shield law.
Also as with last year's version, this bill specifically provides coverage for corporate media personnel and specifically excludes bloggers and other citizen journalists.
It'll pass, but it's still inadequate.
- H.Res. 279, "Providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Eleventh Congress." It provides over $300 million for House committee operations. Call this one the "Peacock Act" in honor of all the preening and posturing that will be associated with this one.
- H.R. 1664, "To amend the executive compensation provisions of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards." Sounds good, until you read the fine print - the Secretary of the Treasury decides what is "unreasonable and excessive." It'll pass the House but face serious hurdles in the Senate.
- And in what is sure to be the most contentious of all, the House will be considering the "Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY 2010." Whatever final form the bill takes after a Rules Committee hearing on Wednesday, the Republicans and most of the Blue Dog Dems (including AZ5's Harry Mitchell) will probably oppose the measure.
...Back here in the AZ Legislature, it will be a mostly quiet week on the committee front, as only the House Rules Committee is scheduled to meet. On the Senate side, a few committees will meet, but only to consider executive appointments and to hear about the parts of the federal stimulus package that fall into their bailiwicks.
The House COW (Committee Of the Whole) calendars (here and here) offer up a couple of interesting nuggets.
HB2352 exempts Class II Injection Wells from the Aquifer Protection Permit requirement. From the "fact sheet" for the bill -
"Injection wells discharge liquid byproducts in deep, underground porous rock. Class II wells inject fluids associated with oil and natural gas production. The majority of the liquid that is released is a salt water (brine) solution. In order to prevent contamination, class II wells inject brine deep underground."
An APP permit is required when "one owns or operates a facility that releases pollutants directly into an aquifer, onto the land surface, or in between an aquifer and the land. Currently, injection wells are considered a polluting facility, along with ten other facility types."
In committee, every Republican supported increasing contamination in our drinking water, and every Dem opposed it.
Expect the same trend in the COW session.
Another interesting bill could be HB2101, a measure to require that counties with a population of greater than 175,000 residents have five member boards of supervisors. The current threshold is 200,000. As it turns out, it only affects Pinal County, which under the current law would be converting to a five-member board in 2012 anyway. The county supervisors association opposed it, too, because of the increased costs to the county during a time when all budgets are tight. There are also some questions about whether or not the USDOJ would approve any new districts (that darn Voting Rights Act! :) ).
Again, in committee, all Dems opposed it and all Reps favored it.
Again, expect the same in COW.
The highlight of the week in the AZ lege, though, could be the Democrats' unveiling of their budget proposal on Monday at 10:30 a.m. That one is sure to set up some cross-chatter/smack-talk between the two caucuses. Once the Reps "official" release theirs (which looks to be so harsh that they may have trouble getting it past some of the more vulnerable members of their caucus), the mutual criticism society will start in earnest.
...The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors will be meeting twice this week.
At Monday's "Informal" meeting (10:00 a.m., Supervisors' Auditorium, 205 W. Jefferson in Phoenix), the highlights include more budget balancing moves and an executive session, possibly to discuss the latest source of antagonism between them and the Maricopa County Attorney.
The agenda for Wednesday's meeting (9 a.m., Supervisors' Auditorium) is more mundane, yet still highlights the ongoing feud between the supes and the County Attorney and Sheriff.
One item (#16) covers the executive compensation package for Wade Swanson, the newly-hired director of the County's General Litigation Department. You know, the civil litigation duties taken away from Andrew Thomas.
AZRep coverage of the issue here.
...Anyway, those look to be some of the highlights of the upcoming week, though stuff could crop up out of the blue, like when Mayor Phil Gordon of Phoenix said Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's anti-immigrant jihad is making Maricopa County look like Selma, Alabama in the 1950s.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Whooo hooo! I've hit the big time!!
Tedski's arch-pain-in-the-assneck, Roy Warden, has started spamming me (here and here)!!
I feel so...so...so...privileged. Really.
I feel so...so...so...privileged. Really.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Well, we expected the Republican budget proposal would be ugly...
The GOP leadership in the state lege has been behind closed doors busily ginning up an FY10 budget. A summary of a draft version is floating around.
The Reps are attacking pretty near everything that they hate -
KidsCare Children's and Parents' programs
Adding copayments to AHCCCS
Massive lump sum salary reductions to state employees
Cut child care subsidies
Suspend Lottery payments to homeless programs
Implement drug testing for TANF recipients
Eliminate full day kindergarten and early kindergarten
Suspend operations of the Governor's Office of Equal Opportunity
Suspend general fund appropriations to Arizona Commission on Indian Affairs
Reduce state share of Justice of the Peace salaries
Rollback the FY08 state university financial aid and WICHE increases
Eliminate Math/Science funding (I think that refers to the Teacher Student Loan Forgiveness program, but I'm not sure)
More university rollbacks relating to the Water Institute, medical, science and other specific programs
Major fund transfers from the AG's office and other agencies
...There's more, but I'll let folks with more time and patience cover this in more detail.
One other thing?
While the cuts that they are proposing to the agencies and organizations that serve Arizonans are specific, deep, and painful (as pretty much everybody expected), the cuts that they are proposing for legislative operations and the agencies and organizations that serve the lege are unknown.
Literally.
Those are all up to the discretion of the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate.
Looks like this year's budget is going to be an exercise in "do as we say, not as we do."
Expect more details to hit the AZ blogosphere tomorrow and this weekend; the rumor is that this will be officially unveiled on Monday.
Stay tuned...
P.S. - if a reader wants a copy of the summary that came in today, email me or let me know in a comment and I'll send it to you.
The Reps are attacking pretty near everything that they hate -
KidsCare Children's and Parents' programs
Adding copayments to AHCCCS
Massive lump sum salary reductions to state employees
Cut child care subsidies
Suspend Lottery payments to homeless programs
Implement drug testing for TANF recipients
Eliminate full day kindergarten and early kindergarten
Suspend operations of the Governor's Office of Equal Opportunity
Suspend general fund appropriations to Arizona Commission on Indian Affairs
Reduce state share of Justice of the Peace salaries
Rollback the FY08 state university financial aid and WICHE increases
Eliminate Math/Science funding (I think that refers to the Teacher Student Loan Forgiveness program, but I'm not sure)
More university rollbacks relating to the Water Institute, medical, science and other specific programs
Major fund transfers from the AG's office and other agencies
...There's more, but I'll let folks with more time and patience cover this in more detail.
One other thing?
While the cuts that they are proposing to the agencies and organizations that serve Arizonans are specific, deep, and painful (as pretty much everybody expected), the cuts that they are proposing for legislative operations and the agencies and organizations that serve the lege are unknown.
Literally.
Those are all up to the discretion of the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate.
Looks like this year's budget is going to be an exercise in "do as we say, not as we do."
Expect more details to hit the AZ blogosphere tomorrow and this weekend; the rumor is that this will be officially unveiled on Monday.
Stay tuned...
P.S. - if a reader wants a copy of the summary that came in today, email me or let me know in a comment and I'll send it to you.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
New Republican Candidate For Governor Now Available
Should have covered this on Monday, but other things came up...
From the blog of former D-Backs (and now "former Red Sox") pitcher Curt Schilling -
Now that Schilling is leaving baseball behind him, expect him to move into politics.
He's been popular in Republican circles for a while (of course, all that takes is a conservative viewpoint, a loud mouth, and deep pockets). There was talk about him running for U.S. Senate against John Kerry last year (which didn't happen last year, but if Ted Kennedy retires due to his medical issues, expect Schilling's name to crop up again) and he campaigned for John McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign.
With his ties to AZ (and the fact that MA is bluer than the North Atlantic), his political ambitions could take him back to the desert.
Of course, regardless of his Rep bonafides, gaining a nomination here in AZ will be tough. The Reps seem to be turning on Jan Brewer, signalling what could be a crowded and bloody primary for the governor's spot on the ballot. The seat, while not technically "open," it won't have an elected incumbent in it, so pretty much every Rep who's kissed a baby or worked the LD circuit is eyeing the seat.
They won't roll over for a newbie outsider, deep-pocketed or not.
...Now this post is either incisive speculation on possible 2010 candidates, or it's a cheap ploy to boost readership by mentioning someone famous.
You decide which it is. :))
Other 2010 candidate news -
- Somebody named Roy Miller has filed as a "$500 Exemption" candidate for Governor, no party affiliation listed. A "$500" committee for Governor would be more accurately called a "tilting at windmills" committee.
- State Sen. John Huppenthal has semi-confirmed the rumors of his future plans by forming an "exploratory" committee for Superintendent of Public Instruction. (SOS filer ID: 201000065 )
- John McCain's CountryFirst PAC has formed an AZ version of same (SOS filer ID: 201000066)
From the blog of former D-Backs (and now "former Red Sox") pitcher Curt Schilling -
"Turn out the lights, the party’s over"
I used to wait with bated breath for Don Meredith to start singing that on "Monday Night Football."
Normally, it was sweet music if the Steelers were playing. If I could get him to sing it again, I would. This party has officially ended. After being blessed to experience 23 years of playing professional baseball in front of the world's best fans in so many different places, it is with zero regrets that I am making my retirement official.
Now that Schilling is leaving baseball behind him, expect him to move into politics.
He's been popular in Republican circles for a while (of course, all that takes is a conservative viewpoint, a loud mouth, and deep pockets). There was talk about him running for U.S. Senate against John Kerry last year (which didn't happen last year, but if Ted Kennedy retires due to his medical issues, expect Schilling's name to crop up again) and he campaigned for John McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign.
With his ties to AZ (and the fact that MA is bluer than the North Atlantic), his political ambitions could take him back to the desert.
Of course, regardless of his Rep bonafides, gaining a nomination here in AZ will be tough. The Reps seem to be turning on Jan Brewer, signalling what could be a crowded and bloody primary for the governor's spot on the ballot. The seat, while not technically "open," it won't have an elected incumbent in it, so pretty much every Rep who's kissed a baby or worked the LD circuit is eyeing the seat.
They won't roll over for a newbie outsider, deep-pocketed or not.
...Now this post is either incisive speculation on possible 2010 candidates, or it's a cheap ploy to boost readership by mentioning someone famous.
You decide which it is. :))
Other 2010 candidate news -
- Somebody named Roy Miller has filed as a "$500 Exemption" candidate for Governor, no party affiliation listed. A "$500" committee for Governor would be more accurately called a "tilting at windmills" committee.
- State Sen. John Huppenthal has semi-confirmed the rumors of his future plans by forming an "exploratory" committee for Superintendent of Public Instruction. (SOS filer ID: 201000065 )
- John McCain's CountryFirst PAC has formed an AZ version of same (SOS filer ID: 201000066)
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Maricopa Community College District Governing Board visiting Bizarro World
Edit on 3/27 to make a correction (thanks to Katie for the heads-up in her comment)...
My ongoing (and self-appointed) quest to focus some attention on some of the lower profile but still important elected offices and boards in Maricopa County took me to the March 24, 2009 meeting of the Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District (MCCCD).
In the big news of the meeting, the Board voted down a proposal to raise tuition (by $5/credit hour in-county and $27/credit hour out-of-county/state) by a 1 - 4 margin.
The bizarro part of this was the fact that while the board ended up opposing the tuition hike, students who spoke at the meeting actually spoke in *favor* of the hike (their support was reluctant, but it was support nonetheless). They understood the maxim "you get what you pay for."
Generally, students opposed tuition increases while governing boards absolutely love them (ask any ASU/UA/NAU what they think of the Board of Regents' record on tuition hikes at those institutions.)
The respective positions taken at the MCCCD meeting were weird, to say the least.
The board members who opposed the tuition increases gave some vague reasons about public opposition before voting against the proposal.
I admit, I was a little befuddled by the turn of events - the opponents of the proposal were the three Republican board members (normally anti-student) and one of the Democrats (Randolph Lumm) while the supporters were the students and another (I think) Democrat on the Board, Dr. Donald Campbell.
A more likely reason behind the apparent switch became clear later in the meeting.
The Board saw the proposed budget for FY2010. (Tonight was information only; consideration and probable final passage will take place in early June.)
One that has revenue from the tuition hike built in.
One that has 2% cuts in most operating costs built in, mostly because of a likely large cut in state aid to community colleges.
One that will now need to be changed, with greater cuts implemented, because of the reduction to projected revenues.
This move definitely fits in with the Republican theme of killing public education by cutting it to the point of ineffectiveness, then using that very ineffectiveness (that they caused!!) as an excuse to start funnelling public money to private businesses.
Other notes from the meeting -
...During the public comment portion of the agenda, Carmen Cornejo rose to speak in support of the student who was harassed by Board member Jerry Walker during a trip to D.C. in February. She also spoke in support of the DREAM Act, and then demanded Walker's resignation.
Walker later responded with an indignant "HOW DARE YOU!" before the Board's President, Colleen Clark, interceded to get the meeting back on track (Cutting Walker off before he could say something really bad).
...Debra Pearson (nee Brimhall) is evidence that one neither needs to be intelligent nor well-informed to hold elected office (as if the Presidency of George W. Bush didn't prove that already).
When she wasn't mispronouncing the names of the various college presidents or asking them outright "So...who are you?", she was asking questions that were so jaw-droppingly vague yet overwrought, they made the assembled crowd (mostly intelligent and educated professionals) sit up and go "Huh???"
...There was no sign of the previous meeting's move to censor campus newspapers. However, it can still come up at a later meeting, and I expect that it will.
More later...
Edit on 3/25 to add an apology to readers -
When I woke up this morning, I took a look at what I had written and realized that it was loaded with typos and writing that was simply lousy. I've corrected the typos and patched up the weak spots without noting each one as is my normal practice. There were just too many.
I apologize to readers of the earlier version of this post, and promise to try harder to avoid writing when I'm exhausted.
End edit...
My ongoing (and self-appointed) quest to focus some attention on some of the lower profile but still important elected offices and boards in Maricopa County took me to the March 24, 2009 meeting of the Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District (MCCCD).
In the big news of the meeting, the Board voted down a proposal to raise tuition (by $5/credit hour in-county and $27/credit hour out-of-county/state) by a 1 - 4 margin.
The bizarro part of this was the fact that while the board ended up opposing the tuition hike, students who spoke at the meeting actually spoke in *favor* of the hike (their support was reluctant, but it was support nonetheless). They understood the maxim "you get what you pay for."
Generally, students opposed tuition increases while governing boards absolutely love them (ask any ASU/UA/NAU what they think of the Board of Regents' record on tuition hikes at those institutions.)
The respective positions taken at the MCCCD meeting were weird, to say the least.
The board members who opposed the tuition increases gave some vague reasons about public opposition before voting against the proposal.
I admit, I was a little befuddled by the turn of events - the opponents of the proposal were the three Republican board members (normally anti-student) and one of the Democrats (Randolph Lumm) while the supporters were the students and another (I think) Democrat on the Board, Dr. Donald Campbell.
A more likely reason behind the apparent switch became clear later in the meeting.
The Board saw the proposed budget for FY2010. (Tonight was information only; consideration and probable final passage will take place in early June.)
One that has revenue from the tuition hike built in.
One that has 2% cuts in most operating costs built in, mostly because of a likely large cut in state aid to community colleges.
One that will now need to be changed, with greater cuts implemented, because of the reduction to projected revenues.
This move definitely fits in with the Republican theme of killing public education by cutting it to the point of ineffectiveness, then using that very ineffectiveness (that they caused!!) as an excuse to start funnelling public money to private businesses.
Other notes from the meeting -
...During the public comment portion of the agenda, Carmen Cornejo rose to speak in support of the student who was harassed by Board member Jerry Walker during a trip to D.C. in February. She also spoke in support of the DREAM Act, and then demanded Walker's resignation.
Walker later responded with an indignant "HOW DARE YOU!" before the Board's President, Colleen Clark, interceded to get the meeting back on track (Cutting Walker off before he could say something really bad).
...Debra Pearson (nee Brimhall) is evidence that one neither needs to be intelligent nor well-informed to hold elected office (as if the Presidency of George W. Bush didn't prove that already).
When she wasn't mispronouncing the names of the various college presidents or asking them outright "So...who are you?", she was asking questions that were so jaw-droppingly vague yet overwrought, they made the assembled crowd (mostly intelligent and educated professionals) sit up and go "Huh???"
...There was no sign of the previous meeting's move to censor campus newspapers. However, it can still come up at a later meeting, and I expect that it will.
More later...
Edit on 3/25 to add an apology to readers -
When I woke up this morning, I took a look at what I had written and realized that it was loaded with typos and writing that was simply lousy. I've corrected the typos and patched up the weak spots without noting each one as is my normal practice. There were just too many.
I apologize to readers of the earlier version of this post, and promise to try harder to avoid writing when I'm exhausted.
End edit...
Was it a hearing on warrant service, or a platform to spew nativist blatherings?
On Monday, the AZ Senate's Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the service of felony warrants. The hearing was called in response to a Goldwater Institute report that criticized Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his office for its failure to address the growing number of unserved felony warrants in Maricopa County. (40K and counting)
Note: my comments, snark and all, will be in italics.
The first presenter was Paul Chagolla, former spokesman and current deputy chief of MCSO. While he is no longer the official PR guy for Arpaio, it was obvious from the start that he still retains his skills at spinning and twisting facts.
Chagolla started right off by declaring that "there is not a warrant crisis" in Maricopa County. He repeatedly stressed the idea that it isn't his agency's responsibility to serve other agencies' warrants.
Is Chagolla deputy chief of the "It's not our fault" division of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office?
He cited some statistics that seemed to show that while the County's population has been growing, the number of unserved warrants has stayed basically the same, concluding that "if it's a crisis, then it's a 10-year crisis."
Conveniently breezing right past the fact that Arpaio has been in office since 1993, which is...let me do the math here...16 years. I know Arizonans pride themselves on being independent and all, but 16 is greater than 10, even here. In other words, Chagolla tried to evade responsibility for the warrant backlog by saying that Arpaio and MCSO have been letting the problem fester for at least a decade.
Another point that Chagolla emphasized was that of the outstanding warrants, nearly 50% are for "failure to appear" or "contempt of court" (aka - other words that frequently mean 'failure to appear).
Ignoring the underlying crimes that the fugitives "failed to appear" in court over.
Chagolla acknowledged that MCSO doesn't have *anyone* specifically assigned to serve felony warrants.
Apparently, it's the policy of MCSO to leave fugitives alone except in situations where they come to the attention of law enforcement for things like, you know, committing other crimes. Which they wouldn't have the opportunity to commit if....well, you know the rest.
Chagolla did suggest one way to address the glut of warrants - judges should simply remand more people who have been accused of crimes.
Yup, MCSO does so well in handling the prisoners that it now oversees that it can handle more.
Anyway, despite the unintentionally humorous nature of Chagolla's testimony, the highlight of the hearing on Monday was when State Sen. Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance) took over.
Like Chagolla, he began his remarks by saying that the warrant backlog isn't the fault of the sheriff. Unlike Chagolla however, he didn't immediately attempt to slough off responsibility on to "all law enforcement officers".
Nope, all the hubbub over MCSO leaving rapists and murderers to roam free while devoting scarce resources to hunting down undocumented immigrants is because the media "has an agenda" and is conducting a "witch hunt."
He went on to blame immigrants for a whole host of Arizona's ailments -
Low wages, underfunded and overcrowded schools, sex crimes are all the fault of undocumented immigrants.
Obviously, right-to- (not) work laws, neanderthal legislators, and perverts have nothing to do with any of that.
He spent a lot of time discussing violent crimes by immigrants, while ignoring the same crimes if they were committed by those who are legally here in the country.
You know, the ones who have warrants out for them.
However, egalitarian that he is, Pearce reserved some of his contempt for the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.
At one point, someone suggested that the lege find funds to help out with warrant service. Pearce pronounced that the BOS could be "redirected" by the supes.
At another point, when Democratic Sen. Ken Cheuvront pointed out that the supes control their county's money, Pearce announced that the lege was in charge of, well, *everything.*
Which may explain the mess that the state is in.
Pearce spouted many statistics of questionable provenance and accuracy, but my favorite his assertion that one-third of the inmates in the federal prison system are illegal immigrants.
A quick check of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) website gave lie to that particular dubious assertion.
According the BOP, 73.4% of all inmates are of U.S. citizenship, which means that 26.6% have a citizenship that is other than U.S.
Basic math - 26.6% is lower than 33.333% (which is 1/3 in decimal form).
Also, the same page shows that less than 11% of inmates in the federal system are there for immigration-related offenses.
On the other hand, he may have confused his basic bigotry against brown-skinned people with statistical fact - the BOP website does show that inmates with Hispanic ancestry make up 32% of the inmate population.
Maybe he believes that all Hispanic people are illegal immigrants - that 32% is close enough to the "1/3" that he cited to be confusing to a unthinking nativist like Pearce.
Note: I contacted the BOP's media relations office to seek clarification on the stats - as in "how many undocumented immigrants are in the system?" Not everyone who is in the country and is a non-U.S. citizen is undocumented. In addition, those inmates who are undocumented immigrants could be incarcerated for non-immigration related crimes.
The woman who answered the phone for the BOP didn't have anything to offer other than what is on the website.
Anyway, the stats that are available definitively refute Pearce's "33%."
I finally packed it in when the chair of the committee, Jonathan Paton, announced that the committee would adjourn at 5:00 p.m., and that the representatives of the other police agencies present would be invited back at a later date. He then allowed the rep from the Goldwater Institute, Clint Bolick, to give his testimony. (AZ Rep coverage here)
Bolick basically directly refuted Chagolla's early testimony that there was no warrant "crisis" in Maricopa County.
Paton promised to schedule the next hearing within a few weeks.
Why not sooner? It's not like the Senate is doing anything else anyway.
The video of the meeting should be posted here within a few days.
Other coverage of the meeting - An immigration blogger, Chapparal, watched the hearing via streaming video, and offers his/her take on the proceedings here. He offers a similar opinion of Pearce's activities.
Similar, but far more succinct. :)
Note: my comments, snark and all, will be in italics.
The first presenter was Paul Chagolla, former spokesman and current deputy chief of MCSO. While he is no longer the official PR guy for Arpaio, it was obvious from the start that he still retains his skills at spinning and twisting facts.
Chagolla started right off by declaring that "there is not a warrant crisis" in Maricopa County. He repeatedly stressed the idea that it isn't his agency's responsibility to serve other agencies' warrants.
Is Chagolla deputy chief of the "It's not our fault" division of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office?
He cited some statistics that seemed to show that while the County's population has been growing, the number of unserved warrants has stayed basically the same, concluding that "if it's a crisis, then it's a 10-year crisis."
Conveniently breezing right past the fact that Arpaio has been in office since 1993, which is...let me do the math here...16 years. I know Arizonans pride themselves on being independent and all, but 16 is greater than 10, even here. In other words, Chagolla tried to evade responsibility for the warrant backlog by saying that Arpaio and MCSO have been letting the problem fester for at least a decade.
Another point that Chagolla emphasized was that of the outstanding warrants, nearly 50% are for "failure to appear" or "contempt of court" (aka - other words that frequently mean 'failure to appear).
Ignoring the underlying crimes that the fugitives "failed to appear" in court over.
Chagolla acknowledged that MCSO doesn't have *anyone* specifically assigned to serve felony warrants.
Apparently, it's the policy of MCSO to leave fugitives alone except in situations where they come to the attention of law enforcement for things like, you know, committing other crimes. Which they wouldn't have the opportunity to commit if....well, you know the rest.
Chagolla did suggest one way to address the glut of warrants - judges should simply remand more people who have been accused of crimes.
Yup, MCSO does so well in handling the prisoners that it now oversees that it can handle more.
Anyway, despite the unintentionally humorous nature of Chagolla's testimony, the highlight of the hearing on Monday was when State Sen. Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance) took over.
Like Chagolla, he began his remarks by saying that the warrant backlog isn't the fault of the sheriff. Unlike Chagolla however, he didn't immediately attempt to slough off responsibility on to "all law enforcement officers".
Nope, all the hubbub over MCSO leaving rapists and murderers to roam free while devoting scarce resources to hunting down undocumented immigrants is because the media "has an agenda" and is conducting a "witch hunt."
He went on to blame immigrants for a whole host of Arizona's ailments -
Low wages, underfunded and overcrowded schools, sex crimes are all the fault of undocumented immigrants.
Obviously, right-to- (not) work laws, neanderthal legislators, and perverts have nothing to do with any of that.
He spent a lot of time discussing violent crimes by immigrants, while ignoring the same crimes if they were committed by those who are legally here in the country.
You know, the ones who have warrants out for them.
However, egalitarian that he is, Pearce reserved some of his contempt for the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.
At one point, someone suggested that the lege find funds to help out with warrant service. Pearce pronounced that the BOS could be "redirected" by the supes.
At another point, when Democratic Sen. Ken Cheuvront pointed out that the supes control their county's money, Pearce announced that the lege was in charge of, well, *everything.*
Which may explain the mess that the state is in.
Pearce spouted many statistics of questionable provenance and accuracy, but my favorite his assertion that one-third of the inmates in the federal prison system are illegal immigrants.
A quick check of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) website gave lie to that particular dubious assertion.
According the BOP, 73.4% of all inmates are of U.S. citizenship, which means that 26.6% have a citizenship that is other than U.S.
Basic math - 26.6% is lower than 33.333% (which is 1/3 in decimal form).
Also, the same page shows that less than 11% of inmates in the federal system are there for immigration-related offenses.
On the other hand, he may have confused his basic bigotry against brown-skinned people with statistical fact - the BOP website does show that inmates with Hispanic ancestry make up 32% of the inmate population.
Maybe he believes that all Hispanic people are illegal immigrants - that 32% is close enough to the "1/3" that he cited to be confusing to a unthinking nativist like Pearce.
Note: I contacted the BOP's media relations office to seek clarification on the stats - as in "how many undocumented immigrants are in the system?" Not everyone who is in the country and is a non-U.S. citizen is undocumented. In addition, those inmates who are undocumented immigrants could be incarcerated for non-immigration related crimes.
The woman who answered the phone for the BOP didn't have anything to offer other than what is on the website.
Anyway, the stats that are available definitively refute Pearce's "33%."
I finally packed it in when the chair of the committee, Jonathan Paton, announced that the committee would adjourn at 5:00 p.m., and that the representatives of the other police agencies present would be invited back at a later date. He then allowed the rep from the Goldwater Institute, Clint Bolick, to give his testimony. (AZ Rep coverage here)
Bolick basically directly refuted Chagolla's early testimony that there was no warrant "crisis" in Maricopa County.
Paton promised to schedule the next hearing within a few weeks.
Why not sooner? It's not like the Senate is doing anything else anyway.
The video of the meeting should be posted here within a few days.
Other coverage of the meeting - An immigration blogger, Chapparal, watched the hearing via streaming video, and offers his/her take on the proceedings here. He offers a similar opinion of Pearce's activities.
Similar, but far more succinct. :)
Monday, March 23, 2009
Text of Justice McGregor's address to the lege
Courtesy an email (I haven't edited the content, but I have changed the paragraphing for readability - Chief Justice McGregor is a fine jurist, but she writes like a lawyer. :) ) -
STATE OF THE JUDICIARY ADDRESS
THE HONORABLE RUTH V. MCGREGOR
CHIEF JUSTICE, ARIZONA SUPREME COURT
MARCH 23, 2009
Good afternoon, President Burns, Speaker Adams, members of the Arizona Senate and House of Representatives, colleagues, judges, guests and fellow Arizonans.
This is the third year that I have spoken to you about the state of Arizona’s judiciary.When I first became Chief Justice, we established a Strategic Agenda, called “Good to Great,” that focuses on the principle that, while Arizona has a good court system, we can always find ways to make it better.
During the past four years, we have made significant improvements at every level of our court system.
For example, we launched an effort to expedite the processing of DUI cases because of the severe consequences these cases have on our communities statewide. That effort, which continues today, has reduced DUI cases pending for more than 180 days by 77%. We instituted new appellate proceedings that have substantially reduced the time needed to complete review of cases involving the termination of parental rights. And, when we call on jurors to serve at the courthouse, we offer an online service that allow jurors to select their most convenient jury service date.
All of our courts, working with our Commission on Technology, have continued their efforts toward greater automation and better electronic communication with other justice agencies.In addition, our courts have found new ways to work with and support one another and our partners in the justice system. I anticipated that we would make progress in these and many other areas. What I did not foresee was the magnitude of the current economic downturn.
While the Legislature and Governor have primary responsibility for finding a solution to Arizona’s fiscal crisis, the court system understands that we must do our part to find ways to manage in these hard times.
In my past reports on the state of the judiciary, I did not speak about financial issues facing the courts: other conversations provided more appropriate opportunities to address that subject.Currently, however, the courts, like all parts of government, simply cannot describe their condition without reference to financial challenges. So today, I will talk with you and the peopleof Arizona about our efforts to continue moving our courts from “Good to Great” in very hard times.
I can report to you that, viewed as a reflection of the dedication and skill of our judges, clerks of court, administrators, staff, and hundreds of volunteers, the state of the judiciary is strong indeed.Viewed in the context of Arizona’s fiscal crisis, the state of the judiciary is precarious.
As you are well aware, recent years have seen substantial growth in Arizona’s state government; that growth, however, has not occurred within the state-funded portion of the Judicial Branch.Since 2000, the Judicial Branch’s General Fund allocation has actually decreased by 13% and the courts now receive only 1.25% of the General Fund. Given the combined effect of the decrease in Arizona’s General Fund and the state courts’ reduced proportion of that fund, we are limited in the difference we can make to the State’s bottom line.
Even though we play a limited role in the state budget, during this crisis the Judicial Branch has stepped forward to propose a budget reduction plan that allows us to do our part while helping to keep the public safe. Working with the Legislature and the Governor during the past two years, the Courts have absorbed state funding cuts and fund sweeps of more than $28 million.Because of those cuts, we have eliminated more than 125 state positions, and Arizona’s trial courts, superior, justice, and municipal, have frozen hundreds of other positions as a result of cuts imposed by counties and cities. In addition to reducing personnel, we have taken a number of other steps to respond to the budget crisis. I have directed the courts to re-examine all expenditures and revenue sources to find ways to reduce costs and increase revenue.
We have taken other actions: we have temporarily reduced by half the annual training requirement for non-judicial employees, which saves court education costs; we have moved to re-structure and streamline court operations; and we will expand the highly successful FARE program to increase revenues. As you know, the FARE program is a public-private partnership through which we collect court-ordered fees, fines, and restitution and then return the collected amounts to state, county, and city coffers, as directed by statute.
By expanding FARE, we will not only enforce more court orders but also increase revenues to the cities, counties, and state. Over the past five years, our efforts through the FARE partnershiphave increased revenues by an impressive $460 million, and we intend to further increase those revenues.
Any cost-reducing efforts by the judicial branch must involve the costs of probation services, which account for 80% of the General Fund dollars we receive. To identify possible cost savings involving probation, our presiding judges are developing and implementing plans to determine whether we can safely move offenders currently on probation to a lower level of probation, or terminate probation early. We also are re-engineering our probation pre-sentence reports to ensure that we have the most important information prioritized and readily available for public protection purposes.
We cannot avoid the reality that additional cuts to the judicial branch budget will necessarily impact probation services, but we must move cautiously because reducing the level of supervision unwisely can impact public safety. For that reason, we have proposed to the Legislature some carefully-defined procedures to reduce the cost of probation. Cuts beyond those we have proposed come with public safety consequences. I say this not to cause alarm, but to alert you to the very real impact of further cuts to the judiciary.
Our ability to absorb cuts is not without limits.The judicial branch of government is a separate, coequal branch of government, not a discretionary agency: we must operate no matter the economic climate. A lack of resources, at some point, makes it impossible for the court system to function. Faced with similar budget crises, some states have reached a point of constitutional confrontation between the political branches of government, with their constitutional obligation to manage budgets and appropriations, and the judicial branch, with its constitutional obligation to maintain the justice system.
By working together, Arizona has avoided that situation, and the budget reduction plan we have submitted allows us to continue to avoid a collision that benefits no one, least of all the people we all serve. Our courts understand that we must bear some of the financial burden facing Arizona, we have pledged to you that we will continue to work with you to find solutions.
What we cannot do, however, is take steps that make it impossible for the judicial branch of government to operate. In these challenging days, Arizona’s state government may have to eliminate some services; a fair and impartial justice system cannot be one of them.In fact, during bad economic times, people need the courts more than ever, and our caseloads increase even as our resources decrease. This economic downturn is no exception: we currently are experiencing an unprecedented growth in court filings. Based upon that growth, we project that, for the FY 07 through FY 09 period, statewide superior court civil filings will increase by 50%; we expect contract lawsuits to increase by 90%. Juvenile abuse and neglect cases are on track to increase by 53%.
One need not be an expert in court administration to understand the combined effect of reduced resources and increased case filings. The only possible result of the intersection of those two forces is that the courts can resolve a smaller percentage of their cases in a timely manner. It will take longer and longer to move cases through the courts.You might ask, "Who is harmed when a backlog of cases develops in the courts?"
The answer is, “Almost everyone.”
Delay in criminal cases harms the State, harms defendants waiting for a speedy trial, and harms victims awaiting the prompt resolution of their cases, as guaranteed by the Arizona Constitution. Delay prevents the placement of abused and neglected children in permanent homes after parental rights are severed. Delay increases, sometimes to nearly unbearable levels, the stress experienced by those awaiting child custody or child support decisions. Delay harms those suing or being sued in personal injury suits, as either recovery or exoneration awaits the availability of a judge and jury. And delay harms businesses.The expected increase in eviction and foreclosure actions, construction litigation, and contract disputes, coupled with the decrease in resources available to our courts, assures that resolution of those disputes will take longer.
It is important to recognize that a court system’s efficiency in resolving disputes is one factor businesses consider when selecting a state in which to locate.
Unfortunately, civil and business cases are the first to be delayed when court budgets are cut, as our Arizona Constitution requires that criminal cases be decided first and statutes mandate priority for juvenile, workers’ compensation, and unemployment cases. We cannot let budget cuts return us to the time not so long ago in Arizona when it took 5 to 6 years to complete the resolution of civil cases and still hope to attract new business to Arizona.
Unwarranted delay in processing cases not only frustrates litigants, but also leads to reduced revenue, which in turn impacts all those programs that you have, by statute, directed court receipts to support. We fully recognize the cost of delay. However, the court system simply cannot process the more than 2.8 million cases filed with us each year or maintain and expand FARE without implementing an adequate automated case management system.
Our current case management system requires that we program each new statutory change manually, court by court, across Arizona, each year. Over the years, particularly in the criminal justice system, these changes have increased exponentially and have overwhelmed our current case management system, which is almost twenty years old and failing. We delayed replacing it during the last recession, but delay is no longer an option. Building on several years’ planning, we have started the process of converting to a robust, reliable case management system; we must complete this automation work for the rest of our courts.
I cannot exaggerate how serious a problem we face with regard to our case management system.Last summer the judicial branch’s central computer room, which will be replaced as part of this project, failed twice during a thirty-day period. In those two instances, we were able to complete temporary repairs to the computer center by working in crisis mode overnight.
If this system were to permanently collapse, our network and case processing system would not just be delayed: it would come to a halt, and we would have lines of people stretching for blocks around our courts as they try to conduct their business.
If the system were to collapse, we would not be able to manage the orders that process the tens of millions of dollars in child support payments; we could not adequately respond to those seeking secure orders of protection; we would not be able to process cases that affect the economic well-being of the state; and we could not perform our constitutional duty to provide access to the courts.
We must be able to serve the civil and criminal justice system and the public and, to do so, we must complete our vital work on the new automation system. The good news is that this automated system does not depend upon state General Fund monies. Its cost will be paid by those who use the courts through user fees that flow into automation funds established by statute by this body. I ask only that you work with our plan and not divert these dedicated user fees to other uses.
Arizona’s courts are committed to minimizing the case-processing delays that we know will occur as resources decline. So, like other areas of government, and most of the private sector, we will have to find ways to operate with fewer employees over the next several years. Given our increasing caseloads, we must implement strategic changes in the way we operate the courts.
The judicial system has many projects that are “shovel ready” and needed to make our court system better. We know that, in this economic climate, we must place some of those projects on hold, but some are so essential to maintaining court productivity that we must proceed.To this end, today I am pleased to announce that, even in the midst of this economic chaos, the Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts has negotiated a new public/private e-filing partnership called “AZ Turbo Court.”
In formulating this program, we took a lesson from the highly successful MVD “Service AZ” website, another public/private partnership.
When AZ Turbo Court is operational, it will:
• Increase court productivity, which currently is being negatively affected by staff shortages;
• Improve the productivity of the businesses and the lawyers who use our courts by
allowing not only e-filing but also electronic storage and access to documents; and
• Greatly simplify the process for citizens filing matters for themselves.
The new system will allow traditional e-filing of documents, but also will provide much more: an intelligent form production process will walk a person through an interview process, determine the required forms and complete those forms with the filer. Modest user fees will finance this service, which, like our case management system, will not require the expenditure of any General Fund monies.
As I mentioned earlier, given the small size of our budget, cuts to the courts do little to help with the budget problem, and additional cuts can do great harm. But we can and have helped in other ways. In addition to the cost-cutting steps I mentioned earlier, the courts will focus on four goalsduring this fiscal crisis:• First, we must maintain a quality civil case processing system to serve all courts users and to help attract business to the state.
• Second, we must preserve public protection by maintaining quality criminal case
processing, and effective probation systems.
• Third, we must find ways to safely reduce probation revocations to save state prison costs; and
• Finally, the courts must increase revenues by expanding the FARE program.
While our courts must continue their efforts to move from “Good to Great,” I recognize we will have to move more slowly as we manage through these rough times. With your help, we will find solutions that continue to assure Arizonans access to a court system that is efficient, responsive, and just.
Thank you for your support and assistance as we continue to fulfill our joint obligation to the rule of law.
RETIREMENT STATEMENT
THE HONORABLE RUTH V. MCGREGOR
Before I leave you today, I have one more announcement. I contacted Governor Brewer this morning and notified her that I intend to retire from the Arizona Supreme Court at the end of June.
I have been privileged to serve this State for the last 20 years as an appellate judge. During my combined years on the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, I had the pleasure of working with dozens of outstanding and dedicated colleagues, with irreplaceable staff attorneys, and with the talented young graduates who worked with me as my law clerks.
My term as Chief Justice has given me the opportunity to work closely with the judges, clerks of court, court administrators, staff, and hundreds of volunteers who make our courts operate statewide, and I value that opportunity.
I also value the opportunity I have had to work with the members of the Legislative and Executive branches. While we have not always agreed, you did me the honor of listening and considering our branch’s views with respect, and I hope you felt reciprocal respect from the courts.
It will be hard to leave the court; the work we do is challenging and meaningful, and the court has become my work family.
But my husband and I, after a half-century of gainful employment, have decided that now is the time to spend more time with family and friends and to take more time to pursue other interests.
I leave the courts in the best hands possible. My colleagues on the Supreme Court—Vice Chief Justice Rebecca Berch, Justice Mike Ryan, Justice Andy Hurwitz, and Justice Scott Bales--have amply demonstrated their ability to lead and serve the judicial system and the State.Our courts across the state benefit from the leadership of our chief and presiding judges, as well as from the combined efforts of our administrators, beginning but not ending with Dave Byers and Mike Baumstark, and our clerks of courts.
I have made no specific plans for my retirement. I expect to remain involved with issues important to our judicial system, including the need to retain judicial independence and our own merit system, as well as the need to provide adequate resources for all our courts so we can provide access to those who need our services.
But, for the present, my focus remains on finding solutions to the problems that face the state judicial system today and ways to continue moving our courts “from Good to Great,” even in these challenging times.
Thank you all for your support and your friendship.
AZ Chief Justice McGregor to retire
During and address to a joint session of the legislature today, Chief Justice Ruth McGregor announced to the assembled legislators, staff, and guests that earlier today, she had notified the Governor's office that she would retire from the Arizona Supreme Court at the end of June.
She spoke of her good fortune to have had the wonderful colleagues and staff to work with as they've addressed the challenges facing the Judiciary.
Note: This was a bit of a bombshell (only a bit - her retirement has been rumored for a while) dropped at the end of a regularly scheduled address to the lege on the state of the judiciary. As such, I was there mostly because I've never attended a joint session of the lege before and thought it would be interesting in a "political geek" sort of way.
It's nice to scoop the MSM once in a while. :))
On to the Senate Judiciary hearing on felony warrant service (the start of which is running late, so there was time for this post.)
More later...
She spoke of her good fortune to have had the wonderful colleagues and staff to work with as they've addressed the challenges facing the Judiciary.
Note: This was a bit of a bombshell (only a bit - her retirement has been rumored for a while) dropped at the end of a regularly scheduled address to the lege on the state of the judiciary. As such, I was there mostly because I've never attended a joint session of the lege before and thought it would be interesting in a "political geek" sort of way.
It's nice to scoop the MSM once in a while. :))
On to the Senate Judiciary hearing on felony warrant service (the start of which is running late, so there was time for this post.)
More later...
Edit to add -
Pic of Chief Justice McGregor addressing a slightly more than half-full House chamber (and it was that full only due to the presence of guests on the floor; most legislators were no-shows.)
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Coming up this week...
Note: all agenda info drawn from online sources and subject to change without notice. In fact, expect changes in state legislative committee and floor schedule agendas...
...In the U.S. House (courtesy The Weekly Leader from the office of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) -
Lots of Post Office building namings and the like this week, but there will be a couple of interesting bills up for consideration.
- S. 383, Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program Act of 2009. As can be deduced from the title, the bill that grants the "Special Inspector General (SIG) authority to conduct, supervise, and coordinate an audit or investigation of any action taken with regard to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) that the SIG deems appropriate." (Congressional Research Service summary).
In addition, the bill would give the SIG almost-police-like powers (carrying guns, power to arrest without a warrant, operating without the direct supervision of the AG).
The bill is being brought forward under a suspension of the normal rules of the House, so it will take a 2/3 vote in favor for the bill to pass.
- The House will also be considering Senate amendments to H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. The Senate amendments are here.
This bill will be "subject to a rule," meaning that the House will first pass a motion governing debate and other procedures applied to the measure.
- Also subject to a rule is H.R. 1404, the Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act (FLAME Act). CRS summary here. Lots of money involved here, so expect a lot of Republican showboating, especially from Jeff Flake.
...In the AZ legislature, it's going to be a fairly quiet week on the committee front. That whole "no bills other than budget bills until the budget has been passed" thing has kept bills from moving through the Senate at all and has stalled bills that have passed the House.
However, there are a few signs of life.
On Monday, the House Rules Committee will be considering over 40 bills in HHR4 at 1:45 p.m. or when the House floor session adjourns, whichever is later. There are a number of controversial bills on that agenda, which should make for some colorful floor sessions later in the week.
On Wednesday at 10 a.m., House Health and Human Services will be hearing a presentation from AHCCCS concering Graduate Medical Education (GME) and Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments. Location: HHR4.
Over in the Senate, on Monday...
- The Senate's Natural Resources, Infrastructure, and Public Debt Committee will hear presentations on the Central Arizona Project and Salt River Project. Upon adjournment of the Senate's floor session in SHR 109.
- At roughly the same time, the Senate's Judiciary Committee will hear presentations regarding the service of felony warrants in SHR 1.
On Wednesday at 9 a.m., the Senate's Healthcare and Medical Liability Reform Committee will hear a presentation on Arizona Health-e Connection and hold budget-related discussions on health professional boards.
- At 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday in SHR 3, Senate Finance will hear a staff presentation on urban revenue sharing.
- On Thursday at 11 a.m., the Senate Government Institutions Committee will discuss the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and its transparency requirements and its effects on emergency food and shelter.
Floor session schedules aren't totally available as yet, but there are COW (Committee Of the Whole) agendas available for Tuesday here and here.
...The Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District will be meeting on Tuesday at 5:30 p.m. (executive session) and 6:30 p.m. at the District Support Services Center, 2411 West 14th Street, Tempe. The agenda includes consideration and likely passage of a tuition and fee hike and a presentation on the proposed budget for FY 2009/2010.
Apparently not on this month's agenda? A move to stifle any freedom of the District's campus-based newspapers.
...In Scottsdale, the Scottsdale City Council will be meeting on Tuesday night at 5 p.m. in the City Hall Kiva (3939 N. Drinkwater in Scottsdale).
On the agenda for Tuesday night - liquor licenses, Conditional Use Permits, lawsuit settlements and, perhaps, a little territory marking.
Agenda items 28 and 29 address Mayor Jim Lane's unilateral creation of a new citizen advisory board governing content on Scottsdale's CityCable11 government access cable channel. The items were added to the agenda at the request of Vice-Mayor Ron McCullagh.
It seems that McCullagh has become the leader of the faction on the Council that could best be described as the "opposition."
Arizona Republic coverage here.
Later...
...In the U.S. House (courtesy The Weekly Leader from the office of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) -
Lots of Post Office building namings and the like this week, but there will be a couple of interesting bills up for consideration.
- S. 383, Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program Act of 2009. As can be deduced from the title, the bill that grants the "Special Inspector General (SIG) authority to conduct, supervise, and coordinate an audit or investigation of any action taken with regard to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) that the SIG deems appropriate." (Congressional Research Service summary).
In addition, the bill would give the SIG almost-police-like powers (carrying guns, power to arrest without a warrant, operating without the direct supervision of the AG).
The bill is being brought forward under a suspension of the normal rules of the House, so it will take a 2/3 vote in favor for the bill to pass.
- The House will also be considering Senate amendments to H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. The Senate amendments are here.
This bill will be "subject to a rule," meaning that the House will first pass a motion governing debate and other procedures applied to the measure.
- Also subject to a rule is H.R. 1404, the Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act (FLAME Act). CRS summary here. Lots of money involved here, so expect a lot of Republican showboating, especially from Jeff Flake.
...In the AZ legislature, it's going to be a fairly quiet week on the committee front. That whole "no bills other than budget bills until the budget has been passed" thing has kept bills from moving through the Senate at all and has stalled bills that have passed the House.
However, there are a few signs of life.
On Monday, the House Rules Committee will be considering over 40 bills in HHR4 at 1:45 p.m. or when the House floor session adjourns, whichever is later. There are a number of controversial bills on that agenda, which should make for some colorful floor sessions later in the week.
On Wednesday at 10 a.m., House Health and Human Services will be hearing a presentation from AHCCCS concering Graduate Medical Education (GME) and Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments. Location: HHR4.
Over in the Senate, on Monday...
- The Senate's Natural Resources, Infrastructure, and Public Debt Committee will hear presentations on the Central Arizona Project and Salt River Project. Upon adjournment of the Senate's floor session in SHR 109.
- At roughly the same time, the Senate's Judiciary Committee will hear presentations regarding the service of felony warrants in SHR 1.
On Wednesday at 9 a.m., the Senate's Healthcare and Medical Liability Reform Committee will hear a presentation on Arizona Health-e Connection and hold budget-related discussions on health professional boards.
- At 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday in SHR 3, Senate Finance will hear a staff presentation on urban revenue sharing.
- On Thursday at 11 a.m., the Senate Government Institutions Committee will discuss the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and its transparency requirements and its effects on emergency food and shelter.
Floor session schedules aren't totally available as yet, but there are COW (Committee Of the Whole) agendas available for Tuesday here and here.
...The Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District will be meeting on Tuesday at 5:30 p.m. (executive session) and 6:30 p.m. at the District Support Services Center, 2411 West 14th Street, Tempe. The agenda includes consideration and likely passage of a tuition and fee hike and a presentation on the proposed budget for FY 2009/2010.
Apparently not on this month's agenda? A move to stifle any freedom of the District's campus-based newspapers.
...In Scottsdale, the Scottsdale City Council will be meeting on Tuesday night at 5 p.m. in the City Hall Kiva (3939 N. Drinkwater in Scottsdale).
On the agenda for Tuesday night - liquor licenses, Conditional Use Permits, lawsuit settlements and, perhaps, a little territory marking.
Agenda items 28 and 29 address Mayor Jim Lane's unilateral creation of a new citizen advisory board governing content on Scottsdale's CityCable11 government access cable channel. The items were added to the agenda at the request of Vice-Mayor Ron McCullagh.
It seems that McCullagh has become the leader of the faction on the Council that could best be described as the "opposition."
Arizona Republic coverage here.
Later...
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Union Rally At State Capitol On Monday
Courtesy the website of the Arizona AFL-CIO -
Political junkies should make a it a day at the lege - sometime in the early afternoon, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding adog and pony showhearing on felony warrant service by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (something for which they are criticized for ignoring in favor of conducting anti-immigrant witch-hunts). The first presenter is scheduled to be Paul Chagolla, former spokesman and current deputy chief of the MCSO.
The Committee is scheduled to meet "upon adjournment of the floor" (aka - when the Senate gets done with it normal daily agenda - pledge, prayer, personal privilege, and partisan lectures" in Senate Hearing Room 1.
Phoenix New Times coverage here.
Later...
UNION RALLY AT STATE CAPITOL TO FEATURE STATE EMPLOYEES LIFE-SAVING WORK THREATENED BY BUDGET CUTS
Legislators To Join State Employees Calling on Governor to “Let Us Vote”
State Employees and supporters will rally at the State Capitol and call on the Governor to “Let us Vote” for a formal union with the ability to meet and confer with management to improve the quality of state services, reduce costs, and improve agency efficiencies.
WHAT: A rally on the house lawn of the State Capitol will highlight testimony from state employees and legislators. After the rally state workers with the Arizona State Employee Association – CWA will break into groups and lobby their legislators.
WHEN: 11:00 a.m. – 12 noon, Monday, March 23, 2009
WHERE: State Capitol, 1700 W. Washington
WHO: State Employees affected by budget cuts, furloughs, layoffs and elimination of state childcare. Supportive legislators including Rep Steve Farley and Sen. Linda Gray.
WHY: “Governor Brewer is making broad cuts without knowing the grave consequences” said Stephanie Seigla of the Arizona State Hospital. “As a state employee of 4-years I see ways the state wastes money, and we should have a say in eliminating that waste. It’s time for Governor Brewer to let us vote and for us to meet and confer on these important issues.” Governor Napolitano first granted meet and confer to workers at the Department of Corrections. It was so successful that she extended it to all cabinet-level agencies via executive order, recognizing that those at the front line should be empowered to have a say in decision-making. Now Governor Brewer should honor this executive order and let employees vote whether or not they want a union in their workplace.
Political junkies should make a it a day at the lege - sometime in the early afternoon, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding a
The Committee is scheduled to meet "upon adjournment of the floor" (aka - when the Senate gets done with it normal daily agenda - pledge, prayer, personal privilege, and partisan lectures" in Senate Hearing Room 1.
Phoenix New Times coverage here.
Later...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)