Scottsdale City Manager keeps his job - for another 3 months, anyway

Tuesday's meeting of the Scottsdale City Council began as most of them do, with a local group of kids (a Brownie troop this week) reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. In honor of Constitution Week, they announced that they would also recite the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution (You know, the one that starts "We the People...)


Which they did an awesome job with, except for the fact that they recited the beginning of the Declaration of Independence. (You know, the one that starts "When in the course of human events...)

Close, but... :)


That should have been the first clue that the original plan for the meeting (basically for the Council to fire City Manager John Little via a 4-3 vote) wasn't going to come off *quite* as planned, but would still be in the ballpark.

What was officially supposed to be a discussion of Little's job performance was more of a kangaroo court. It was made clear by a number of Council members that this evaluation was not about how well Little had met the goals and objectives of his job, because they had never laid out any for him to meet.

The tactics of his detractors on the Council (Borowsky, Mayor Lane, Littlefield, and Nelssen) consisted of harping on the things about Little that they didn't like (his "attitude" and conflicts with the Mayor, mostly). Council member Lisa Borowsky *did* mention that she thought Little is a good guy, before excoriating him for "not getting along" with the majority of the Council.

That was a pattern from the detractors - compliment him on his "charm" and then criticize him for his "insubordination."

There was also a tendency to allude to "other issues" without being specific (Borowsky referred to a rumor that not only was Little not "open" with the Mayor and Council, he wasn't "open" with other charter officers who were "open" with the Mayor and Council.)

That would have to refer to City Clerk Carolyn Jagger, who's pretty much the only charter officer left standing since Jim Lane took over the Mayor's job.

Tony Nelssen even accused Little of taking the City Manager's job just so he could list it on his resume.

In the end, though, it all came down to the contentious relationship between the City Manager and the Mayor.

They want to fire Little because he doesn't genuflect enthusiastically enough when the Mayor enters the room.

Nothing more tangible, or job performance-related, than that.


To be certain, Little had his supporters, too.

Council members Ecton, Klapp, and McCullagh made it clear that they thought Little has done well playing the hand he has been dealt and deserves to keep his job.

Ecton - "He has done an excellent job in a difficult time."

McCullagh - This is "not the easiest council to work with."

Klapp - "Six months is too short a period" to evaluate job performance.

Little also had strong support from the community and from rank-and-file City employees, including former Council member Robert Pettycrew and the Scottsdale Police Officers Association.

Most praised Little's honesty and "uncompromising integrity." Pettycrew, being a former member of the Council, brought some historical perspective to the mix, noting that there has been an "erosion" in the how the Council and City Staff relate to each other.

The end result of it all was a bit of a surprise - Council member Ron McCullagh moved to keep Little in his job and revisit the evaluation in six months. Nelssen said he could support a 90-day period, so McCullagh amended his motion to that time period.

Surprisingly, the amended motion passed by a 4-3 vote (Borowsky, Lane, Littlefield opposed - they want to fire Little immediately), giving Little a three-month reprieve.

So, after more than a couple of hours of contentious discussion, nothing was settled. Come back in December.

AZRepublic coverage here.



...A couple of observations on the events at the meeting.

- If Little has failed as City Manager, the most legitimate reason to fire him (and failure wasn't proven or even charged), then the Council has failed too. They hand-picked him to replace Jan Dolan and voted him in by a 7-0 vote.

- While the Mayor and members of the Council are intelligent and educated, they aren't very bright. There was some talk of Tuesday's story in the Republic about how the City has turned around a gaping budget deficit and now has a $6.6 million surplus, but they ignored the story of the investigation of the Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District by the national college accrediting organization. They're in trouble because of "micromanagement."

There's a lesson there for all at the meeting.

While the Scottsdale City Council doesn't have an accrediting agency to answer to, it does have voters to answer to, and will next year. It also has independent measures like the City's bond rating to help gauge the effectiveness of the City's day-to-day management, and the interference of the Mayor and City Council in the day-to-day affairs of the City does not bode well for the City's bond rating and other measures.

- Little was not the only target in Lane's sights during the meeting. Two of his supporters introduced petitions callng for the resignations of non-Lane clique Council members Klapp and McCullagh because the Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce's political activity last year.

In case anyone who was at the meeting or watching it on TV thinks that I am exaggerating and that the two petitioners were just concerned citizens, know this -

One was Mike Fernandez, who was/is treasurer of the committee "Republicans for a Bright New Day in Scottsdale", a big player behind an anti-Mary Manross and Betty Drake ad blitz last year.

The other was R. Lamar Whitmer, who was Lane's campaign manager last year.

Even though it wasn't listed on the agenda as such, last night's meeting was *all* about Jim Lane's ongoing quest to consolidate his power and marginalize or remove any potential dissenters within the City's elected and senior staff power structures.

During the meeting, former Council member Pettycrew opined that Little should be kept on because "someone has to tell the emperor that he has no clothes."

That statement is more on point than one might think a usually trite aphorism could be -

It's looking more and more like Lane has a lot of tinhorn Napoleon in him.

- Lastly, in what could be a sign of things to come during the Lane administration, they couldn't appoint an interim City Attorney because all of the potential candidates for the job have withdrawn their names from consideration. Apparently word is getting out about Lane and the Council's penchant for using the City's professional staff as pin cushions when they don't parrot the Lane party line.

Later...

Anyone want to guess what the main topic of this meeting will be?

I supposed this was inevitable given yesterday's arrest of County Supervisor Don Stapley.

What had been scheduled as a quiet week (i.e. - no meetings) for the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors now has a special meeting and executive session planned for tomorrow, Wednesday September 23 at 10 a.m.

Now, the special meeting has one item on the agenda - an application for a permit for a fireworks display in Queen Creek.

The executive session agenda doesn't specify a subject, but for some reason I expect that the latest development in Sheriff Joe Arpaio's holy war against the supes will at least rate a mention.

...In other "county level officials under investigation" news, the Arizona Republic has a story of how the organization that accredits colleges is investigating the Governing Board of the Maricopa Community College District for micromanagement.

That didn't sound too serious to me, but it turns out that would violate the rules governing maintenance of accreditation.

From the story -

[College Chancellor] Glasper will then prepare a report on whether the district is violating parts of the Higher Learning Commission's accreditation policy. The commission could dismiss the complaint or recommend sanctions against Maricopa, which serves about 250,000 students at 10 colleges and two skill centers.

Ultimately, Maricopa Community Colleges could be placed on notice or on probation, or could lose accreditation.

Specifically, the violations could be rooted in the fact the governing board, any governing board in fact, is supposed to set policy while the College staff oversees day-to-day operations.

The investigating team will be part of a public meeting with the Board at 4:30 today, and will attend the regular Board meeting at 6:30 tonight.

Unfortunately, I cannot attend those two meetings - tonight is the night that the Scottsdale City Council may fire yet another City Manager. The MCCCD Governing Board meeting has a high potential for being a boring set piece whose outcome is predetermined; the City Council meeting is probably going to be a train wreck.

As morbid as this sounds, train wrecks are far more interesting to write about than set pieces.

Arpaio still using MCSO to go after people he considers to be "enemies"

From the AZ Republic -

Maricopa County Sheriff's deputies arrested County Supervisor Don Stapley Monday morning on 93 new felony counts, which they say relate to campaign fraud, including using campaign funds to pay personal bills.

The Sheriff's Office said Monday afternoon all 93 felony allegations relate to fraudulent schemes involving Stapley's mortgage and loan businesses, campaign account fraud, tax return fraud and campaign fraud. The office alleges that Stapley used campaign money to pay personal bills and to pad his personal accounts. The supervisor is also accused of seven misdemeanors.

Now, I'm not saying that I think that Stapley is innocent here, but the timing of this arrest is rather interesting, since it comes just a few days after Arpaio's first case against Stapley collapsed.

Also interesting is that this was a "probable cause" arrest, not one based on grand jury indictments.

I'm going to over-generalize a bit here, but aren't these the kind of crimes that generally merit a long, patient investigation capped off with grand jury indictments announced at a splashy press conference with the County Attorney and full color charts and somber pronouncements on the decline of the level of integrity of public officials and such?

By all accounts, the County Attorney's office had nothing to do with today's events or the "investigation" that led up to them. Even though the kind of crimes charged today don't usually fall into the bailiwick of a sheriff's office that by the very nature of its work spends more time and resources on street crime, not white collar crime.

This really reeks of arrogant grandstanding, or raw desperation, or both, on Arpaio's part.

Besides all that, it's sloppy police work.

It could endanger any possible legitimate case against Stapley or the other supes (Yes, I assume they are dirty in some way, if not this one). If this ever gets to a jury, the credibility of the MCSO and its investigation, or lack thereof, will undermine the prosecution's case.


I just wonder how much today's circus is going to cost Maricopa County's taxpayers.


Channel 15 coverage here; Phoenix New Times coverage here and here. Commentary by AZRepublic columnist EJ Montini here. EV Tribune coverage here. Commentary from the blog Mesa Issues here.

Today's meeting on STOs at the State Capitol

The Bipartisan Task Force on Private School Tuition Tax Credits (STO) Program met on Monday for nearly two hours.

They were beginning their research into the background of the STO program. While this meeting was open to the public, no public testimony was solicited today. That will happen at future meetings.

After opening with brief statements from the chair, Rep. David Schapira (D-LD17), and the other members present (Reps. Nancy Young-Wright (D), Rich Crandall (R), Tom Chabin (D), Cloves Campbell (D), and Chad Campbell (D) ).

They started with an overview of the history of the STO tax credits and program, presented by Mark Bogart, Senior Economist with the House Democratic staff. That presentation isn't available online, though its sources can all be found online. The compilation may be posted at a later time (I suggested doing so anyway.) I have the handout from the meeting. Where practicable and relevent, I'll link to the original source.

Later presenters included a representative from the Arizona Department of Revenue (ADOR).

Professor Larry Mohrweis, PhD, an Accounting professor from NAU and volunteer head of a northern AZ STO, spoke at length on the oversight issue. He wrote about it in 2002 and 2005 and was so prescient that Rep. Schapira called him the "Nostradamus of STOs." He doesn't seem to have an axe to grind and he knows his stuff (see list of sources of info below).

I won't try to recap their entire presentations here (when the video of the meeting is posted on the lege's website, you can watch them there).

EV Tribune coverage here.

There were a couple of things to take away from today's meeting -

- One of the biggest problems with the STO program, and this is an observation that cuts across partisan lines, is the lack of oversight and accountability. (The AZ Republic agrees. Witness this story in today's paper.) The closest thing to oversight and penalties for non-compliance that seems to exist is the fact that ADOR can disallow a credit taken by a taxpayer for a donation to a non-compliant STO. There's really nothing that ADOR can do to keep STOs in line. Unless they run afoul of 501c3 rules from the IRS, STOs can continue to siphon tax revenue away from the state and public education without any way to compel them to actually use the funds for the purpose originally intended by the writers of the original tax credit legislation.


- The meeting was informative, cordial, and utterly lacking in partisan posturing. It was unlike any other committee meeting that I've seen at the lege.

In other words, bipartisanship *is* possible.

Wonder if the Republican leadership and their rank-and-file members will remember that when it comes time to balance this year's budget and start working on next year's.


Some of the sources of their info can be found at:

AZ Department of Revenue's Corporate School Tax Credit Reports

ADOR's Private School Contributions and Fees

ADOR's Public School Contributions and Fees

ADOR's list of STOs, with caveats

ADOR's Private and Public School Tax Credit Information Publication

An August 2008 Issue Brief from the Arizona State Senate Research Staff, pertaining the school tax credits

Dr. Mohrweis' 2005 article from the trade journal AZCPA is here. His 2002 article, "Private School Tax Credits: What CPAs Should Know" doesn't seem to be available online. A 2000 piece, written for the Journal of Accountancy, is here.

Later...

STO Task Force to start meeting in a few minutes

In HHR3. The webcast should be available on the lege website, or you might be able to find in on Cox Cable channel 123, AZ Capitol TV.

No live blogging today. I'm at the meeting, but will be trying to pay attention to all of it.

Later...

The coming week...

As usual, all info gathered from the websites of the relevent political bodies/agencies (except where noted) and subject to change without notice.


...Over in the U.S. House of Representatives, they have Monday off (except for a pro forma session at 4 p.m. EDT), The agenda for the rest of the week includes -

- H.R. 3548, Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2009, heard under suspension of the rules (2/3 majority required for passage);

- As-yet-unnumbered, "To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958" under suspension of the rules;

- As-yet-unnumbered, "Fiscal Year 2010 Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act" under suspension of the rules;

- As-yet-unnumbered, "Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2009" under suspension of the rules;

- H.R. 324, "Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area Act". This one is a bill sponsored by AZ's Raul Grijalva (D-CD7) that was heard under suspension of the rules a couple of weeks ago. It gained majority support at that time, but enough Republicans voted against it that it didn't gain the 2/3 support to pass under suspension. This time it will be heard "under a rule," meaning that a simple majority will be required for passage.

- As-yet-unnumbered, "Making Continuing Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2010, and for other purposes." Heard under a rule.

Yippee, a budget CR. Apparently the Democratic leadership in Congress hasn't learned any lessons from 8 years of Republican mismanagement. Just pass a budget already.

...Over in the Senate, they'll continue consideration of Interior appropriations (aka - the budget). On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee will consider Max Baucus' health insurer lobbyist-written "reform" of health insurance in the U.S.

In other committee business, on Tuesday, a subcommittee of Senate Judiciary will hold a hearing on "Comprehensive Immigration Reform: How the Current Immigration Law Negatively Impacts America's Agricultural Industry and Food Security." Nativists should bring their own bedsheets and crosses (Reminder: Senate galleries are a "no burn" zone, so you folks should keep your kerosene in your trailers.)

Full list of committee hearings here.

...The Arizona Legislature still hasn't balanced the budget and still isn't in session, but there *is* some activity at the Capitol this week.

- On Monday at 10 a.m., the Bipartisan Task Force on the Private School Tuition Tax Credits program will hold its first meeting in HHR3.

- The Joint Legislative Budget Committee is meeting on Tuesday at 2:30 p.m. in HHR4. Agenda here.

- The Joint Committee on Capital Review is meeting on Tuesday at 1 p.m. in SHR109. Agenda here.

...The Arizona Corporation Commission will hold regularly scheduled open meetings on Tuesday and Wednesday. The agenda is here. The highlight looks to be item #20, "Application for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility (CEC) for the Vail to Valencia 115 kV to138 kV Transmission Line Upgrade Project..."

Complete hearing schedule here.

...The Arizona Board of Regents will be meeting on Thursday and Friday at NAU. Agenda here. Executive session agenda here. That one includes discussion of a project to privatize some University housing at NAU. Committee and other meeting schedule here.

...The Board of Directors of the Maricopa Integrated Health System have two meetings scheduled this week. On Monday, they'll hold a Special meeting at noon. The agenda is vague at this point, with what looks to be a motion to recess into executive session and a legislative report later.

On Wednesday at 1 p.m., they'll meet in a regularly scheduled open meeting. Agenda here.

...On Tuesday, the Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District will meet. An executive session is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. and a regular meeting is scheduled for 6:30. Agenda here. The agenda looks to be pretty non-controversial thus far, but there may be some fireworks over the revelation earlier this month that Board President Colleen Clark was arrested for DUI earlier this summer.

...The Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project will be holding a "strategic planning retreat" in Tucson on Thursday. The schedule of events includes a meeting of the Strategic Plan Task Force to discuss the strategic planning retreat process.

...The Scottsdale City Council has a meeting scheduled for Tuesday. Items include a another shot across the bow discussion of the job performance of the City Manager and the possible appointment of an interim City Attorney, Clifford Mattice. Mayor Jim Lane originally wanted to give the interim appointment to one William Sims, but a majority of the Council balked at having only one candidate to consider (August 25, 2009)

Not scheduled to meet this week: Citizens Clean Elections Commission, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (though a short-notice Executive Session wouldn't exactly be unheard-of with this bunch) and the Tempe City Council.

Later...

What it says/what it should say

The City of Scottsdale has posted its City Attorney opening on its jobs website.

As a courtesy to prospective job seekers (of the lawyer genus), I'm going to translate the job notice from "HR staff-written official-ese" into plain English.

Here goes...

What it says -

Compensation is highly competitive and dependent upon qualifications. Candidate must be a graduate of a school of law accredited by the American Bar Association, a current member of the Arizona State Bar and have eight years of progressively responsible legal and management experience in a complex organization. Candidate must reside within the City of Scottsdale at time of hire.

What it should say -

Candidates for the City Attorney's position should, you know, be *attorneys.* Experience is good. The successful candidate should be prepared to spend a significant part of his/her salary on maintaining a Scottsdale residence, if only for appearance's sake.


What it says -

The City Attorney manages legal issues and the delivery of legal services, oversees the Civil, Prosecution and Victim Services Divisions, and serves as the chief legal advisor to the Mayor, City Council and City Manager. The City Attorney is appointed by a majority vote of the City Council, and serves at the pleasure of the City Council.

What it should say -

Duhhhh! The City Attorney is responsible for doing lawyer stuff. The City Attorney's job security is subject to the whim of the City Council and Mayor, so be prepared to pucker. And if you want good performance reviews, practice feigning enthusiasm while you pucker.


What it says -

The mission of the City Attorney’s Office is to provide legal and advocacy services that assist the organization to enhance the quality of life within Scottsdale and build trust in the integrity of City government. The City Attorney leads a team of 57 full-time employees and has a current year operating budget of $6,384,959. For more information, please visit the following website: http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/departments/City_Attorney.

What it should say -

This office is an exercise in "solid biological waste matter rolls downhill." The Mayor and City Council will roll it onto you, and the successful candidate will have 57 direct reports to roll it on to in turn.


What it says -

Goals for the new City Attorney will be to represent the City of Scottsdale in civil, administrative and other court proceedings in defense and support of the mission and broad goals of the City Council. Provide legal advice to City officials and employees in support of their efforts to achieve the mission and broad goals of the City Council. Continue to expand and improve customer services, legal representation and exchange of information through increased use of technology.

Please see the attached brochure for additional information.

What is should say -

The successful candidate will tell the Mayor and City Council what they want to hear, until the Council changes its mind, probably via a 4-3 vote.

The successful candidate should expect to be looking for a new job shortly after the next election and installation of new Council members in January, 2011.

In the event that this posting hasn't been enough to pique your interest, please peruse our nifty four-color brochure. Maybe it will stun you into submission with its Chamber of Commerce imagery and prose.

Or maybe not.

The bottom line is that this Council ran off the previous City Attorney much as her predecessor was run off. In addition, they're butting heads with the current City Manager after running off his predecessor.

Somebody *will* take the position, but they should do so with their eyes open. They'll be going to work for a bunch of people whose report cards in school all read "does not play well with others."

More 2010 campaign committees forming...

At this point, I won't bother trying to cover all candidate committees, just the ones affecting statewide races and those local to me (LD17, and LDs 8 and 18).

Oh, and any others that are interesting to me in some way. Call it "blogger's privilege" or something.

For those who are interested in races other than the ones mentioned here, the AZ Secretary of State's committee search page is here.

On to the substance of the post...


...In the big news, Felecia Rotellini, formerly Arizona Superintendent of Financial Institutions, formed a committee for her candidacy for the Democratic nomination for Attorney General (filer ID 201000232). Phoenix New Times coverage here. As the linked article points out, she a former prosecutor with some serious cred in that sphere.

And if that wasn't enough to get the attention of State Rep. David Lujan, heretofore the only Democratic candidate in the race, her campaign's chair is Sam Coppersmith, former Congressman and long-time player in Democratic circles. He's also an intermittent blogger.

...In LD8 (north Scottsdale/Fountain Hills), one Dennis Robbins has formed a committee to run for the Republican nomination for State Representative. He also has an interesting name (in Scottsdale, anyway) as chair - Paul Messinger. "Messinger Mortuaries" ring a bell anyone? Messinger was also chair of Jim Lane's mayoral committee last year.

As near as I can tell, this Dennis Robbins is a lawyer, though it is such a common name that a Google search generates a LOT of results.

His committee is the fourth formed for the Rep nomination in LD8 thus far, and neither of the incumbents (Michelle Reagan and John Kavanagh) has yet formed a committee. Reagan has an exploratory committee open that doesn't list an office sought, but it is widely expected that she will announce for the LD8 State Senate seat currently held by Carolyn Allen. Allen is termed out after this session of the lege (I think.)

Another strong rumor is that Kavanagh is also eyeing that Senate seat, possibly setting up a donnybrook primary for the Republicans.

Reagan has money, family influence among LD8 Republicans (her mom is a former chair and her dad is an elected JP), and the right last name, by Republican standards anyway. She is an ardent conservative and member of the Chamber of Commerce wing of the AZGOP. She will occasionally work for the best interests of her district and the state.

Kavanagh has the nativists in the district and the support of the Arpaio/Pearce wing of the AZGOP. 'Nuff said there.

Even if they don't face off next year, they will within the next few cycles, either for LD8 State Senate or for the Congressional seat, whatever district they're in after redistricting.

Right now, give the edge to Reagan in a head-to-head matchup. North Scottsdale is bigger than Fountain Hills.

...In LD17 (home!) one Augustus Shaw IV has formed a $500 threshold committee for a run at State Representative. No party is listed, but Shaw is the 1st Vice Chair of the Arizona Republican Party. He's probably not running as an independent. By profession, he's an attorney for HOAs when they sue their homeowners. He's also somewhat colorful.

He is also a "founding member" of the Coalition of Arizona African American Republicans. The address the Coalition lists with the AZSOS is that of Shaw's law office.

Before I looked into his background, I saw the "$500 Threshold" and no party affiliation, and didn't take the candidacy seriously.

That has changed.

Republican leadership going after D17 Rep. Schapira

Apparently, the Republican leadership in the House objects to the work that Rep. David Schapira (D-LD17) has been doing while the lege isn't in session.

Or maybe they just object to looking lazy by comparison.

First, Republican Speaker Kirk Adams announced the formation of his own committee to look into the state's tuition tax credit program and school tuition organizations. The program is rife with abuses, as highlighted by the East Valley Tribune's award-winning "Rigged Privilege" investigative series.

Then later in the day, House Appropriations chair John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) went on JD Hayworth's talk show on KFYI and spent an entire hour bashing Rep. Schapira for talking to an international group of educators yesterday. (No link yet, will provide if one becomes available.)

An entire hour.

Yep, they're officially worried about David. Welcome to the big leagues, Representative Schapira.

Well, on the first item, Adams' committee, as one Capitol observer put it, "it's about time that Adams showed some leadership on this."

As I put it, "it isn't leadership if you're following, not leading."

Schapira and the Democrats were on the burgeoning scandal of STO abuse weeks ago (and David Safier at Blog for Arizona and Jen at Mindless Mumblings of a Martyr Mom were on this months ago); Adams is just trying to steal some thunder and maybe get in the way of any real work.

That's not leadership.

Oh yeah, and neither is stacking the committee membership in such a way as to ensure that they won't find much, if anything, wrong with the tuition tax credit program.

From the EV Trib piece on today's announcement -

Adams has assigned Rep. Rick Murphy, R-Glendale, as chairman of the committee. Other members include: Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert; Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale; Jack Brown, D-St. Johns; and Tom Chabin, D-Flagstaff.

What's wrong with that list?

Let's see -

All of them are members of the House Ways and Means Committee. Not a single one is a member of the Education Committee. An interesting omission for a panel looking at an education-related matter.

There are two Democrats on Adams' panel. However, Rep. Jack Brown, the longest-serving member of the lege and highly respected for his knowledge and wisdom, is also the most conservative Democrat in the House. He won't have any interest in making waves on this panel.

Of course, that is presuming that Brown can even attend to the committee's work. The three Republicans on the panel are all Maricopa County residents and are mere minutes away from the Capitol; the two Democrats live 150 miles (Chabin) and 170 miles (Brown) away. Guess which members will be able to be more involved in the committee?

As for the second item, the relentless bashing by Kavanagh and Hayworth?

Ummm...well, to be rather blunt, these aren't two guys noted for their profound insights on education systems, American or international.

On the other hand, they are known for having insights into who might become a future electoral opponent. And for signalling that insight by issuing a pre-emptive attack.

Later...

Schapira working for education in Arizona

Even though the state legislature isn't in session, State Rep. David Schapira (D-Tempe) is still working diligently for his constituents and all Arizonans.

On Wednesday, he met with an international group of educators at the House to discuss topics in early childhood education, including trends in U.S. policies and research as well as common challenges.

Next Monday, he will be chairing the first meeting of the Bipartisan Task Force on the Private School Tuition Tax Credits. (10 a.m., HHR3, House of Representatives building at the State Capitol)

The Task Force was established to look into questions and possible legal violations related to the STO program, many of which were brought to the fore by investigating reporting from the East Valley Tribune and the Arizona Republic.

Monday's meeting will feature experts on STOs while future meetings will offer the public the opportunity to provide their input.

David Safier at Blog for Arizona has an update on the latest developments relating to charter schools and STOs here.

The U.S. House admonishes Rep. Joe Wilson (R-Sons of Confederate Veterans)

By a vote of 240 - 179, with 5 present and 10 members not voting, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to "disapprove" of Rep. Joe Wilson's behavior during President Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress last week. Reuters coverage here.

In case you have a really short memory, Wilson is the South Carolina Republican who shouted "you lie!" at the President during the speech.

The vote was almost totally along party lines, with only 12 Democrats crossing over to vote against the resolution disapproving of Wilson's breach of House decorum and only 7 Republicans voting to support the resolution.

In a curious twist, 2 of the 19 crossovers came from AZ - Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ8) voted against, and Jeff Flake (R-AZ6) voted for it.

From Giffords' statement on the vote -

It is unfortunate that Congressman Wilson has not apologized to our colleagues for his rude outburst. He should. Heckling the President of the United States while he is addressing a joint session of Congress is totally unacceptable for a member of this body. The American people know this and Congressman Wilson knows this – that is why he apologized to President Obama. We should not waste any more time on this matter. We need to stay focused on health insurance reform and improving our economy.

From Flake's statement on the vote -

Congressman Wilson is a good man, and I have confidence that his apology to President Obama was sincere,” said Flake. “However, his actions violated the rules of decorum of the House of Representatives.

While the tenor of political debate seems to get more disrespectful every year, the floor of the House of Representatives has always provided a welcome respite. Even the fiercest political opponents refer to each other as ‘gentleman’ and afford one another civility and respect. We need to uphold that tradition.

Despite my suspicion that this resolution was driven as much by partisan politics as upholding precedent, I believe that it’s important to maintain the rules of decorum in the House and I supported its passage.

John Shadegg (R-Big Insurance) also has a statement out there, but it's a little less statesman-like than the other two ("stateswoman-like" in Giffords' case) - he blames the Democrats for the outburst, conflating Wilson's direct and personal insult of the President in the House chamber (interrupting and heckling President Obama) with Democratic criticisms of then-President Bush.

Even though Bush wasn't speaking when the criticisms were issued.

Even though there is a big difference between saying "No!" (in response to President Bush's call to "reform" (aka "privatize") Social Security and screaming "You lie!"

Even though none of the Democratic "transgressions" that he cited ever inspired a similar rebuke, despite the fact that they occurred during a period when Shadegg's Republicans controlled the House. If any Democrats had even *looked* over the line between decorous and indecorous behavior, the punishments would have been swift and much harsher than mere "disapproval."

For what it's worth, if I was a member of the House, like Congresswoman Giffords, I'd have voted against the resolution.

Not because I'm a nice guy or a budding statesman (I'm not) and not because I support Wilson's behavior (he's a bigoted thug who should do the world a favor and slither back under whatever rock he was hatched under).

Nope, I'd have voted against the measure so that I could be as uncivil toward Wilson and his ilk as they are toward President Obama and the Democrats.

Toldja I'm not a nice guy. :)

Of course, that thinking probably isn't unique to me, and probably contributed to the passage of the resolution. Most Democratic members of the House are far more mature than I am, and realize what kind of damage that attitude would do to the remaining civility in the House.

However, if such a situation were to come to pass (you know, me in the House voting against a similar resolution), I can promise one thing.

Whenever I called someone a liar (or corrupt, or bigoted, or whatever), I'd have evidence with me and wouldn't, you know, lie when calling someone else a liar. Like Joe Wilson did. See section 246 of H.R. 3200.

Relevant phrase - "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

Tedski's take at R-Cubed here;

Later...

DiCiccio: Operating straight outta Campaign Damage Control 101

One of the first things any candidates learn is that when you don't get an important endorsement, the next best thing is to pretend you didn't even want that endorsement.

Even better, insinuate (or, as in this case, state almost outrightly) that you are morally superior to the people who endorsed your opponent.

To whit, from today's Arizona Republic -

Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio said a coalition of Arizona police unions tried to cut a deal with him over the weekend: withdraw his support for Police Chief Jack Harris in exchange for an endorsement from the Arizona Police Association.

When the District 6 councilman rejected the offer, he said, the association on Monday instead endorsed his challenger in the Nov. 3 run-off election, Dana Marie Kennedy.

The simple fact is that DiCiccio has been clashing with the Phoenix police for months, even years - DiCiccio has jumped on the Joe Arpaio/Andy Thomas nativist gravy train while the Phoenix PD, including their unions, have taken a more professional approach. They understand that there are laws in this country (and in Phoenix) that are just as important (or, dare I say it, *more* important) as the immigration-related ones.

Today's denouncement of the Arizona Police Association's endorsement of Dana Kennedy for the District 6 seat on the Phoenix City Council does indicate one thing - DiCiccio understands that no matter how well he did in the primary (48% of the vote), he doesn't get to bring those votes with him into November.

Right now, he and Dana Kennedy are the only two candidates left for voters to compare and select from. He won't be able to hide behind a gaggle of other candidates and rely on name recognition (he's a former and current appointed member of the Phoenix City Council) to carry the day.

He'll have to beat Dana Kennedy on his own merits, and he's worried.

As he should be.

"Waaaahhhhhh"*

*I was going to title this post "Republican newbies in the Arizona Senate cry about receiving criticism" but decided that was too long.

I think that the new title adequately sums it up, though. :)

As previously observed by Tedski at Rum, Romanism, Rebellion and Donna at Democratic Diva, three Republican state senators - Sylvia Allen (LD5), Steve Pierce (LD1) and Al Melvin (LD26) - had an op/ed piece published in the AZ Republic.

In it, they blamed the state's budget woes on the Democrats and, I think, a reporter (Mary Jo Pitzl) who wrote a couple of pieces that they don't approve of.

OK, they just thought her articles were unfair. Still, their piece was nothing more than an exercise in "it's not our fault, really!!"

They conveniently ignored the fact that for most of the session, they ignored the Democrats in the lege.

In keeping with their "ignoring facts" motif, they also spent a couple of paragraphs sucking up to Senate President Bob Burns, praising his "leadership" during the failed session.

Don't they realize how many trees had to die to publicize their genuflections before their caucus' leader? Doesn't matter - even if they knew, they wouldn't actually care.

Tedski's commentary on this op/ed was spot on, and Donna's take was briefer, but made up for its brevity with needle-sharpness.

As such, I won't waste your time with more commentary that will mostly just repeat what others have said. I do have a couple of observations to make though.

1. The Republicans' veteran legislators and staff need to do a better job of educating their rookies.

From the piece (emphasis mine) -

Check your facts. This year was not the first year in history we missed the July 30 budget deadline.

That quote goes a long way toward explaining the problems with this year's lege - the actual budget deadline is June 30, not July 30.

2. Another interesting aspect to this:

As a result of last year's elections, all three credited authors replaced members who would have helped break the logjam in this year's legislative session.

Pierce defeated Tom O'Halleran and Melvin defeated Pete Hershberger in their respective Republican primaries. Both O'Halleran and Hershberger took their professional responsibilities seriously and worked for their constituents, not the would-be Grover Norquists of the AZ legislature. As such, they were denounced as RINOs and targeted in the primary.

Allen replaced the late Sen. Jake Flake, who nobody called a RINO (at least not to his face). However conservative he may have been, though, he found ways to get things done in the lege. He didn't use his ideological leanings as a cop-out for incompetence.

Maybe today's op/ed signals a recognition on their part, publicly admitted or not, that their presence in the Senate contributed greatly to the dysfunction on West Washington.

Or not.

Since they started realizing just how poor the public perception is of their ability to govern (even among their own party), the Republicans in the legislature and the Governor's office have been blaming the Democrats for the failure to pass a balanced budget.

They must have a pretty low opinion of the electorate since they seem to believe that no one will notice that the Republicans control both chambers of the lege and the 9th floor.

Or that the budget was done in by Republican-only infighting.

Or that most of that infighting was over what was the best tool to cut out the heart of Arizona's future - an axe or a meat cleaver.

State Rep. David Lujan named Public Official of the Year

The Arizona Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers has named House Democratic Leader David Lujan as its "Public Official of the Year."

“Rep. Lujan has been a champion for causes that social workers care about,” said Carol Stambaugh, executive director of the Arizona chapter of the National Association of Social Workers. “This year especially, he has helped protect Arizona children and families from destructive budget cuts during tough economic times.”

Lujan has worked to protect children's rights by strengthening incest and polygamy laws. He has also worked to enact laws protecting victims of domestic violence and abuse.

Even more important than writing laws and legislation, Lujan has trained and educated hundreds of attorneys, law enforcement officials, and child protection workers/advocates on laws pertaining to child abuse, domestic violence, juvenile and dependency law.

In addition to his legislative work, Lujan is staff attorney for Defender of Children, an organization dedicated to assisting abused children.

Representative Lujan will accept the honor at NASWAZ's Summit 2009 conference on September 25 at the Franciscan Renewal Center.

Harry Mitchell and continuing the discussion on health care reform

Throughout the month of August, I have had the opportunity to listen to the thoughts and concerns of thousands of constituents across Arizona’s Fifth Congressional District on the topic of health care reform and the proposals going through Congress.

Nearly 30,000 constituents participated in my telephone town halls, my office has received over 20,000 calls, letters and emails and I've met with hundreds of constituents, business leaders, health care providers and students through multiple meetings, forums and community visits. Additionally, more than 6,500 Arizona residents have filled out my online health insurance reform survey. A majority of those I've heard from have shared their personal stories, thoughts and concerns about reforming our health care system.

One thing that has come up in conversation after conversation, in every venue and across the political spectrum is agreement that our current health care system needs reform. There is a real desire from Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to fix what is broken and preserve what works.

I believe we can see meaningful reform if we build upon the fundamental principles
we can agree on. I want to thank all of you who have taken the time to contribute to this critical conversation: discussing concerns, sharing stories, and offering ideas. But while I have heard from many of you, I don’t want the conversation to stop here.

Health care is an intensely emotional and personal issue, and while the rhetoric has sometimes gotten heated, everyone ultimately wants the same outcome. We all want the best, most affordable health care for ourselves and our loved ones. As we continue this discussion, please stay in touch and continue sharing your ideas and input. Your voices, your concerns, and your feedback are helpful as Congress resumes its work on meaningful reform.

Finally, I want to encourage you to continue following the debate by visiting the Health Insurance Reform Resource Page on my website. This resource page will continue to be updated as proposals take form, provides useful resources and links to help separate fact from fiction, and makes available my responses to more than a dozen or so questions I’ve most often heard or have been asked about throughout the debate.

Thank you again for continuing to provide me with your input, for being involved and for your active participation on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Harry

Later...