The R candidates for Arizona Corporation Commission would fit in well...at the state legislature

All believe that the ACC is subservient to the lege.

On June 22, 2022, the Republican candidates, Kim Owens, Nick Myers, and Kevin Thompson, for ACC were part of a Clean Election "debate" (debate is in quotes not to disparage it because it wasn't a true debate, but an event where the candidates sat on a stage tossing out ideas/talking points) hosted by Ted Simons of Channel 8.

If you've got an hour to waste, watch the debate, but I wouldn't recommend voting for any of them.  While I *do* believe that one candidate is less bad than the others, "less bad" is still "bad," both for Arizona and for Arizonans.

Some of the "highlights" (the quotes here *are* disparagement; they weren't really highlights by any stretch of the imagination):

At the 8:11 mark, Owens stated that the ACC exceeded its authority by implementing clean energy standards.

At the 47:30 mark, Myers topped that by stating that "Nowhere in the Constitution does it specifically say that we have to abide by climate change problems."

At the 5:34 mark, Ted Simons asked "Do you see the corporation commission as a fourth branch of government?"

To which Myers replied "Not necessarily."

At the 6:45 mark, Simons followed up with "Fourth branch of government?  Is that what the Constitution called for?"

To which Thompson replied "I don't believe so."

That earns Myers and Thompson the "shameless" award, however, Owens gets the "chutzpah" award for the evening -

At the 2:59 mark, she blurted that she's "not using lobbyist dollars to support" her candidacy.

Ummm, from the report she filed on 1/15/2022 -

Not only are Thompson and Myers running as Clean Elections candidates, so are Democrats Lauren Kuby and Sandra Kennedy.

Ballot time in Arizona

...and elsewhere, as well, but since I live in AZ and my ballot covers AZ, that means this post will focus on AZ (or at least my little part of it).

There are races here in Maricopa County and elsewhere in the state that are important and interesting, but this post only covers those that are on my ballot.


President -

This one is easy -

Hillary Clinton is easily one of the two or three most qualified people to ever run for president.

Donald Trump is a buffoon (which is a word I use to describe someone when I don't want to use the more colorful part of my vocabulary).

And I thought this even before Trump's recently unearthed admission of a seduction technique that can best be described as "rape".



US Senate seat representing AZ -

Ann Kirkpatrick is nowhere near liberal enough to suit me, but she genuinely works to represent her constituents.

In addition to supporting Donald Trump until it was no longer "cool" to do so, John McCain has never met a war he didn't monger.

Another easy choice.


US Congressional seat, representing CD9 -

Skipping this race.

There are two Republicans in this race.  Be it in this race or ones where an R is running and is uncontested, I will be skipping the race.  Even in Arizona there are Republicans who are decent human beings and are (or were) honorable public servants.

They can no longer get through primaries here.


LD24 seats in the Arizona Legislature -

They face no challengers, but Sen. Katie Hobbs, Rep. Lela Alston, and Rep. Ken Clark do a great job representing the people of LD24 and merit an expression of our support and thanks.


Arizona Corporation Commission -

This is Arizona's utility regulator, and when the CEO of the largest regulated utility endorses three of the candidates, vote for the other two, and only the other two.

Those are Bill Mundell and Tom Chabin.



Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, District 1 -

Skipping this race.


Maricopa County Assessor -

Skipping this race.


Maricopa County Attorney -

Diego Rodriguez.

County Attorney isn't just a "staff" job, where the person holding the position must have a particular skill set (the lawyer stuff), but must have integrity,

Bill Montgomery is the incumbent.  Ask him on which side of the bars we can find Sean Pearce.


Maricopa County Recorder -

Adrian Fontes.

A county recorder doesn't do much that directly impacts voters, except for RUN ELECTIONS.

The current recorder, Helen Purcell, has held the post for decades (literally!).

It has been decades since an election here went of without a hitch.

It seems that in every cycle, something new goes wrong, but there is one constant - she always blames someone else for the problems.

The height of her chutzpah in this regard may have been when she blamed incredibly long voting lines during the presidential primary on voters actually, you know, "voting".


Maricopa County School Superintendent -

Michelle Robertson.

There are two candidates on the ballot.

Both are teachers.

One hates public education and Common Core (in short, he's Diane Douglas with a Y chromosome...and she is unfit to be state superintendent of public instruction).

The other one is Michelle Robertson.

She's highly intelligent, highly educated, and student-focused, and will make a great leader and advocate for Maricopa County schools.


Maricopa County Sheriff -

Paul Penzone, in another easy choice.

The incumbent, Joe Arpaio, a nationally-renowned nativist and publicity junkie, is facing criminal charges over the way he operates the agency.

Penzone is a decorated career public servant.  Arpaio has been reduced to bald-faced lies.

It should be a walkover for Penzone, but it won't be - too many of Arpaio's supporters know he is a hater, but he hates the same way that they do.


Maricopa County Treasurer -

Joe Downs.

Like Robertson above, he's smart and knows his stuff.

Unlike his opponent, he doesn't believe in using public resources to campaign for public office.



Justice of the Peace, Arcadia Biltmore -

Skipping this race.


Constable, Arcadia Biltmore -

Carolyn Lane.  She's unopposed, but she works her a** off and deserves an expression of thanks and support.


CAWCD (Central Arizona Water Conservation District, aka the governing board of the Central Arizona Project) -

For this race, voters can select five candidates.  However, there are three outstanding ones - Alexandra Arboleda, Ben Graff, and Jim Holway.  Voting for only those three will increase the likelihood of them winning seats.


Maricopa County Community College District governing board, At-Large seat -

Linda Thor.



Scottsdale Unified School District ballot questions -

"Yes" on both.

Just because the legislature hates public education and refuses to adequately fund it, doesn't mean we have go along with them.


Mayor of Scottsdale -

Bob Littlefield.

Bob is a die-hard Republican, and when he's mayor, we will disagree on pretty much everything that Democrats and Republicans disagree on.

But he genuinely cares about the city.

On the other hand, Jim Lane (the incumbent) and his accomplices on the City Council seem to mostly care about money from developers, holders of liquor licenses, and others that come before the council.

I may not agree with Littlefield on much, and reserve the right to not vote for him in a future election, but for this one, he meets the basic criteria necessary for all elected officials should meet (but most in AZ fail to meet) -

He gives a damn about the district/city that he is running to represent.


Scottsdale City Council -

Guy Phillips.

He's a tea party type, and one I wouldn't vote for under most circumstances.

However, Lane and his handlers keep running negative campaigns against him, so he gets my vote - much as I don't like his ideology, anybody that Jim Lane dislikes can't be all bad.



Proposition 490 (Scottsdale-specific ballot question) -

It appears to be a harmless cleanup of language in the city charter, but, while I am not familiar with all of the people who submitted an argument, the ones that I am familiar with have never supported a "good government" measure that doesn't directly benefit them.

Oh, and Jim Lane also endorsed this one.

No.


Back of the ballot:

Judges - AZ Supreme Court, AZ Court of Appeals and Maricopa County Superior Court -

Voting to retain all listed, except for Jo Lynn Gentry.

The Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review does a good job of examining their own, and I am going with that.

Next cycle, I may not - Governor Doug Ducey and the majority in the Arizona Legislature are doing their level best to co-opt/corrupt the judicial branch, and they may make enough inroads toward that goal that next time, the Commission may not merit trust.

For now, however, they do.


Arizona ballot questions -

Proposition 205

Passage of this one would legalize the possession of marijuana for recreational use.

This one is controversial, in that many of the people and corporations that profit from the status quo oppose it.  And have expended thousands (OK, millions) of dollars to defeat it.

Given that the vast majority of Arizonans understand that marijuana is not the "great evil" and opponents that profit from pharmaceuticals that are less effective than marijuana or the police state apparatus that has been constructed to wage the "War on Drugs", well, they've had to resort to misleading and false signs, TV spots, and more.

I am voting Yes.


Proposition 206 -

Passing this one would raise the state's minimum wage, in increments, to $12/hour by 2020.  It would also result in employees being able to accrue paid sick leave.

Yes.

Duh.

Is Doug Ducey the governor of Arizona, or Andy Tobin's "goombah"?

...Either that or we should change the name of the office of the governor to that of the protector of Andy Tobin's Employment Security...

From KNXV-TV (Phoenix channel 15) (emphasis added) -

Former Arizona House Speaker Andy Tobin has been appointed to the Arizona Corporation Commission to fill the seat vacated by Susan Bitter Smith.

The appointment by Gov. Doug Ducey was announced Wednesday.

{snip}

Tobin is currently the director of the Arizona Department of Insurance and the interim director of the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions. He will leave both positions when he joins the Commission, said Ducey.

Before that, he was the director of the Arizona Department of Weights and Measures.

Mitch M. at Arizona' Politics observes that Tobin will take a significant cut in pay when he takes the job on the ACC.

However, I will observe, that given the behavior of the ACC and its members, that we need not worry about Tobin.

Only his *official* pay will be cut.

Fun with campaign signs: On the cheap edition

One of the regular occurrences of any campaign season is the sighting of a "write-in" candidate.

They're just like regular candidates, except they aren't on the ballot and (usually) have no money.

Most write-in candidates "campaign" by asking friends to vote for them; a few, however, have some limited financial resources and will try to campaign more traditionally, say, by putting up some signs.

One of the ways that campaigns with limited resources try to save money is to have signs that are only printed on one side.

Another way that campaigns (all campaigns, not just those of write-in candidates) look to save money is by using rebar as sign posts; it's less sturdy than the normally-used fence posts, but it's also less costly.

All of which is fine...until the downsides of one-sided and rebar combine -

Found at the SE corner of Rural and Baseline in Tempe

The other side of the sign -

The candidate on the sign, Joe Hui, is an official write-in candidate for Corporation Commission.


Bonus "Fun with campaign signs":

I live in one of the few Democratic-leaning legislative districts in Maricopa County (LD24), which means that we see the Republican candidates who run on the "Republican?  Who me?" platform -

Found at McDowell and Hayden in Scottsdale

This sign is so effective that if I hadn't already voted for Katie Hobbs and returned my ballot, I would...still vote for her.  I don't have a high opinion of Democrats who triangulate and
run for office as "Republican-lite", but I'm fair about it - I don't have a high opinion of Republicans who run as "Democrat-lite", either.

Plus she is AWESOME. :)


Bonus2:  Dear...well, *everyone* -

Spell check is your friend.   Whether you are a candidate/campaign, or an anti-candidate/anti-campaign, whether it is a website, press release, campaign lit, or street sign, or something else, proof read everything before you send it out.

Including stickers that you attach to a candidate's signs -

Found at McDowell and Hayden in Scottsdale.

Ignoring the "vandalized sign" part of this picture, for now (that's a possible class 2 misdemeanor), there are two stickers now affixed to the sign.  One is easy to see - "communist".  Pretty sure it isn't true, but it isn't as much fun as the other sticker -

I think that they (whoever "they" may be) are trying to accuse Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of being an "atheist" here.

Not sure what an "athiest" is, though.

Bob Stump, chair of the Arizona Corporation Commission, getting his "snippy*" on...

...* = read "snippy", think "dismissive asshole".  However, since I didn't want to use that word** in the title of the post, I went with "snippy".

** = "dismissive", of course.  :)

It's easy to tell when a Republican elected isn't running for office in a particular year - they don't bother even pretending to have any regard for people who dare to disagree with them.

Case in point:  Bob Stump, chair of the Arizona Corporation Commission.

Over the last few weeks, Stump has engaged in some Twitter conversations regarding topics of interest to many Arizonans.

That part, engaging with average people (OK, people who aren't industry lobbyists) is a good thing.

However, the part where he became contemptuous and dismissive of people is most assuredly NOT a good thing.

First up, a conversation with LD26 state representative Andrew Sherwood.  The basic conversation regarded the shrinking solar industry in AZ, shrinking as a result of policies from the Stump-led ACC.

The rest of the conversation, which doesn't exactly put Stump in a positive light -

"Impolitic"?  Nice word,

I think "snippy" is more appropos, but "impolitic" is a pretty good description of Stump's demeanor, too.

On the other hand, it doesn't even come close to describing Stump's attitude toward Nancy LaPlaca, a former staffer at the ACC and an expert on sustainable energy and policies -

Meditation to diminish worries about Arizona's future?  Pretend that the pollution from coal stacks is *incense*?

That attitude, beside being utterly insulting toward LaPlaca, goes a long way toward explaining the actions and policies of the Stump-led ACC.


Note: Stump is term-limited and his seat is up for election in 2016.  If he intends to run for another (higher profile) office in 2016, his outward demeanor will improve; if not, it won't.

Voting *for* a candidate: a guide

During an election cycle, particularly a long one like a presidential cycle, it's easy to lose sight of why we support this candidate or that candidate, losing ourselves in being against the "other".

The reasons why we support candidate "A" become subsumed by the fact that candidate "B" is an arrogant, avaricious plutocrat or the reasons that we support candidate "X" are drowned in the glare of candidate "Y's" bigotry, corruption, etc.

As easy as voting"against" can be, voting "for" is far more satisfying.  I've been voting for a while now.  Not gonna say how long, but the first presidential ticket that received my vote was Mondale/Ferraro.  You do the math. :)

While most of my votes have been "for" a candidate, too many have been for the "less bad" candidate.  The most satisfying votes that I've ever cast were for Harry Mitchell.  While he is nowhere near liberal enough to suit me politically, he based his positions, and his votes in office, on what he thought was in the best interests of his constituents.

Voting for him in 2010 when David Schweikert took advantage of the Republican wave that year to oust an icon was no less satisfying than voting for him in 2006 when Mitchell first won a seat in Congress.

Having said all of that, here's my "positive" take on my votes this year, why I voted "for" particular candidate.  There were lots of  "for" candidates this year -


- Barack Obama for President - I enthusiastically voted for him in 2008, and proudly did so again this year. 

In the face of intractable opposition (to the point that Republicans in Congress voted against bills that they had sponsored themselves if Obama supported them), he led the start of real healthcare reform, started winding down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, fought for tax cuts for the working and middle classes, saved the American auto industry, and oversaw the end for Osama Bin Laden. 

To be sure, there were a few missteps, but even most of those just showed that the man is simply human (stay off the pitcher's mound, Mr. President :) ).

My biggest complaint with him is that he hasn't be liberal enough in his governance.

However, that dovetails with the biggest reason to vote to give him a second term - he has governed.  Not ruled, not dictated, not anything but do his job.

He has worked *for* his constituents, all of them, not just those who agree with him or give him campaign contributions.

You may not agree with everything he's done in office; I like and support him, and even *I* don't agree with everything that the Obama administration has done. 

However, he has done what he has done out of concern for the best interests of his constituents, which should be the motivation behind the positions and actions of *all* elected officials.

As such, he has more than earned a second term in the oval office.

Picture courtesy CNN

I promise that the rest of these will be much shorter.  :)

- Dr. Rich Carmona for U.S. Senate - This may be his first foray into electoral politics, but it's not his first foray into public service.  Not hardly.

In his storied career, he has been an Army medic (in Vietnam), a SWAT team leader, and Surgeon General of the United States.  His life story is the archetypal American success story - born to immigrant parents, worked to obtain an education, lifted himself out of poverty, and has spent his adult life in public service of one sort or another.

In short, he's the sort of person who *should* be in office because he has been where most of us have been.

Carmona talking to a supporter in Tempe, September 15

- Kyrsten Sinema for U.S. Congress (CD9) - *Not* her first foray into electoral politics, but it's hardly her first foray into public service.  Like Carmona above, she bootstrapped her way out of poverty with education and hard work, and like Carmona, she has dedicated her life to serving the public.  In her case, she has been a social worker, attorney, and educator.

And like Carmona, she is the kind of person who should be in office representing us because she has been and is us.

Sinema at a candidate forum in July in Tempe

- Katie Hobbs (Senate) and Lela Alston and Chad Campbell (House) for the Arizona legislature from LD24 - They are each experienced, dedicated, intelligent, hard-working, and caring public servants and have earned another term in office.

(L-R) Hobbs, Alston, and Campbell at the LD24 Clean Elections forum in Phoenix, September 25th

Bonus legislative race:  Ed Ableser (Senate) and Juan Mendez and Andrew Sherwood (House) for the Arizona legislature from LD26 -  While they were not on my ballot (I live in LD24), all three are friends of mine and people who I respect.  They are active members of the community and have and will work for the betterment of the community.

 

 

(Standing L-R) Mendez, Sherwood, and Ableser at the LD26 Chili Cook-Off, April 28

 

- Paul Penzone for Maricopa County Sheriff - Penzone is a career cop who has based his career on *involving* the entire community, not demonizing* part of it for personal and political gain.  When he is elected, he'll bring a level of professionalism and integrity to the MCSO that hasn't been seen there in decades.

Penzone in Tempe, April 28 (same event as in the above pic, only a couple of hours earlier)

- Marcia Busching, Sandra Kennedy, and Paul Newman for the Arizona Corporation Commission - While the members of this trio bring a variety of experiences and backgrounds to the table, but they share a focus on ensuring Arizona's energy future.

Are all of the above candidates Democrats?  Yup.

But before the above is dismissed as "partisan hackery", one should ask if all of the above candidates are the "best" candidates. 

The answer to that question is a resounding "Yes".

Their primary concern has been (in the case of previous or current officeholders) or will be (in the case of future officeholders) the best interests of the people that they represent.

I don't expect to agree with them on every single issue, but I do expect that every person who "represents" me to hold positions, craft policies, and cast votes based on the best interests of their constituents.

And before anyone begins thinking that I've gone soft, an "against" post will follow this one.  :)

Q & A with Marcia Busching, candidate for the Arizona Corporation Commission

Marcia Busching, a candidate for the Arizona Corporation Commission took time out of her busy schedule to answer a few questions.  Here they are -



Busching at an event in Tempe in September

From her campaign website: Busching with solar panels

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tell us a little about yourself:

I have dedicated myself to improving the lives of others through community activities, legal representation, education, and mentoring. I grew up in the Midwest, the eldest of three siblings, and now have my own law firm that specializes in mediations and arbitrations. Previously I have had experience in the banking, construction, and real estate industries. I also have had public service experience as a Citizens Clean Election Commissioner and member of the Arizona Liquor Control Board. I am also a proud wife and mother of three, Pete, Toffler, and Carrie.

When did you first become interested in politics, and why?

Having served on the Clean Elections Commission there were times that I felt Arizonans didn’t have enough of a choice when completing their ballots. Sometimes there just weren’t enough people interested in a particular position. As I watched and worked on various campaigns, I realized that it was important to set up and take a turn at public service.

Why run for the Corporation Commission, and what in your background will you bring to the table that the other commissioners (whoever they might be) don't have?

As a former bank examiner, attorney, business owner, and mediator I believe I will be a vital asset to the commission. I feel that I have a harmonious mixture of business and public service experience that some of my opponents lack, and that will be handy during long hours of careful deliberation.

What do you hope to accomplish there?

I want to serve and consider the best interests of everyone. It is important to hear all aspects of a matter before coming to a conclusion, and to have decisions be transparent. I want to be a watchdog for Arizonans, not a utility lapdog.

Are there any "nuts and bolts" issues (transparency, etc.) with the ACC that you would seek to address as a commissioner?

I believe that it is altogether too difficult for ordinary citizens to see how the Commissioners have voted on a certain topic. It is absurd that, while we live in an age of information, ordinary citizens must work so hard to uncover the basic facts about where the Commissioners stand on key subjects such as utilities regulation and plant proposals. If the Corporation Commission is to be accountable for its actions, then Arizonans must be able to easily find out what those actions are.

The utilities side of the ACC's activities receives most of the attention from the public and the media.  Most people aren't aware of the ACC's securities regulation activities.  What's your take on that aspect of the ACC's work?

The Corporation Commission helps Arizona residents recover for fraudulent activity against them. We need to make sure the vulnerable have an avenue of relief.

If the proposed trash-burning power generating plant becomes reality, what will you tell people who live in the area of the plant?

I think it would be a tragedy if the trash-burning facility becomes a reality. Not only is it expensive to build, but the pollution it would generate would not be healthy for our West Valley residents.

The ACC is charged with crafting energy policy for AZ.  Are there any policies that you support that are "people-friendly", "business-friendly" and "forward thinking"?

I support rooftop solar for residences and the implementation of solar power by small businesses, community facilities, and schools. My opponents on the other hand, may impose a surcharge to small businesses who wish to utilize solar technology. I also wish to see the business formation process become streamlined, easier to use, and helpful.

Part of a commissioner's duties may involve lobbying the Arizona Legislature, both supporting and opposing proposals.  What in your experience will you draw upon to help you when dealing with the often intransigent and usually hostile legislative branch?

I am hopeful that the legislative branch will be more moderate after the election. We all need to work together to make Arizona an attractive place to live and work. I will use my mediation skills to work with the legislators to implement wise policies for the benefit of all of us.

Why should Arizona's voters choose you for the Corporation Commission?

I truly am passionate about the role that the ACC plays in Arizona’s future. I have experience in both the business and political worlds that will be invaluable to the Corporation Commission. For over thirty years I have considered Arizona my home, and I feel that I can serve the best interests of all of us, our businesses and the environment as a Commissioner on the ACC.

 

 

Thanks go out to Marcia and her busy staff for working with me on this.  I know how busy candidates and their campaign staffs are this close to the election and am appreciative of the effort of their part to make this happen.

ACC: Arizona Corporation Commission, or Arizona "Crony" Commission

Must be nice to be an unethical Republican (that's not redundant - I do know some ethical ones.  Of course, this being the 21st Century, the ethical ones have no chance of winning an R primary, so we don't hear about them).

For the most part, when they get caught doing something dirty, they don't face penalties harsher than a slap on the wrist...with a wet noodle.

To whit:

- Susan Bitter Smith, Bob Burns, and Bob Stump, Republican candidates for the Arizona Corporation Commission all, accepted funding from the Citizens Clean Elections Commission and agreed to follow Clean Elections' rules concerning expenditures.  One of those rules is that candidates cannot use funds that are specified for use during the primary for general election-related activity.

The threesome did so, however, expending primary funds on a mailer that attacked their three general election opponents.

A complaint was filed and an investigation ensued.

This week, they agreed to "give up" $29K in public funding for their campaigns in exchange for making the matter go away and for not having to admit their guilt.

No jail time, no fines, and not even a whisper of a hint of removal from the ballot.  They just won't have as much public money to spend on their own campaigns.

And there is nothing in the agreement that will do anything to minimize the vast amount of money that can and will be spent by industry-funded PACs and Independent Expenditure committees to ensure the election of willfully blind people serve as society's watchdogs.

- - "Cronyism" addendum one to the above story:  The chairman of the ACC, Republican Gary Pierce, is a "marketing consultant" for the company that printed the mailers, Americopy.  Americopy is owned and operated by a big R donor, Alan Heywood.  In other words, even when getting caught doing dirt, the R candidates found a way to funnel public money to campaign contributors.

- - "Cronyism" addendum two to the above story (not directly related to the above story, but highly illustrative of the glad-handing atmosphere that surrounds the current ACC):  The Sierra Club, with the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI) is suing the ACC to stop the construction and operation of a power plant that will generate electricity by burning trash.  The Republicans on the ACC, Gary Pierce, Brenda Burns, and Bob Stump, have declared this to be a "green" initiative, in spite of the massive amount of pollution that it will create as it generates electricity.

Turns out that the company behind the proposed project, Reclamation Power Group, is fronted by one Ron Blendu.

If that name sounds a little familiar, it should.  Ron's brother Bob Blendu is a former state legislator.  Some of Bob's colleagues during his stint in the lege?  Gary Pierce, Brenda Burns, and Bob Stump.

Oh, and another of his colleagues during his time in the legislature?  Bob Burns, a current candidate for the ACC.

The fifth Republican in this brew of "it isn't what you know, it's who you know" is perennial R candidate Susan Bitter Smith.  She's never been a member of the lege so far as I can tell, but if she wins a seat on the ACC, she should fit right in with the other R's - she's a career corporate lobbyist.

An Open Letter From Marcia Busching

An open letter from Marcia Busching, candidate for Arizona Corporation Commission to the three Republican candidates for the ACC...

May 31, 2012

TO: BOB BURNS
SUSAN BITTER SMITH
BOB STUMP

Disappointed.

That is how I feel.

As a candidate for the Arizona Corporation Commission, I have been looking forward to what I hoped would be a stimulating, policy-driven debate throughout the course of the campaign.

Instead, it is only May, and already I can see that what I’m facing is more of the same thing I’ve been seeing from career politicians for decades: A slate of opposing candidates who prefer to mislead their constituents with half-truths, innuendo and outright falsehoods, rather than trust the voters in our state to make a decision based on facts, positions and genuine recitations of belief.

Your newly launched web site includes photographs of me, and several of my fellow candidates, alongside the statement that we are each and all “committed to follow President Obama’s energy policies.”

That may serve as convenient red meat to toss to your supporters in an effort to energize your base.

What it does not serve to do is tell the truth.

I would challenge you, individually or collectively, to provide any evidence that I have ever made any such commitment, publicly or privately. It is, quite simply, untrue.

What is true is that the President’s energy policies do include some components with which I agree, such as a strong pursuit of alternative energy development. The question is: Why don’t the three of you agree with me on that stance? Solar energy production, as an industry, has the potential to transform Arizona, with massive new investments, thousands of new jobs and the possibility of dramatically reduced local energy rates for all Arizonans.

Are the three of you against new jobs, financial investments in our state and lower energy rates?

This is my first candidacy for elected office, but I have many decades of experience in practicing law, professional mediation, running a small business and public service. I knew what to expect when I made the decision to seek this office, and I am fully prepared for you, my opponents, to launch attacks on my character. What I had hoped for was that I would be answering for my genuine stance on issues, policies and practices; not having to dispel myths that have absolutely no basis in reality.

I am ready, willing and extremely eager to engage with each and all of you regarding the issues important to Arizonans: creating and retaining jobs, lowering energy costs, ensuring safely-run utilities and fighting investment fraud. But if we’re going to do so, we should all agree to do so within the confines of fact.

I respectfully ask you to take down or edit the content of your web site to be based in fact, not innuendo. In my opinion, you each owe an apology to the good people of Arizona whose intelligence and decency you’ve insulted with the outright falsehoods you’ve put forth about who I am and what I stand for.

Respectfully,

Marcia Busching

A few Christmas stocking stuffers...

It's that time of year.  Many commentators do something along the lines of a "diamond/lump of coal" theme for their Christmas stocking pieces, I'm going for the practical this year.

This year, the list of Arizonans who deserve a little something special in their stockings includes...

...State Sen. Scott Bundgaard.  In the wake of his "domestic violence incident" (a euphemism for "beating up his girlfriend by the side of a freeway").  After invoking legislative immunity from arrest (for misdemeanors, and only while the lege is actually in session), he is expending massive amounts of effort to keep the Senate Ethics Committee from weighing in on his conduct.  Now he is suing the members of the committee to block any inquiry.

Bundgaard seems to think that he stands a chance in hell of winning reelection next year.

So here's to hoping that on Christmas Day, Bundgaard looks in his stocking and finds a clue.


...Marcia Busching.  She has opened a committee for a run at a seat on the Arizona Corporation Commission.  While the ACC is incredibly important, it's also incredibly low profile.  On top of that, she'll be running against some incredibly well-funded Republicans who aren't shy about taking "contributions" from the industries that they are supposed to regulate.

So here's to hoping that on Christmas Day, Busching looks in her stocking and finds two things - a little good luck and a good communications person for her campaign.  It better be a big stocking... :)

...Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.  After seeing his buddy Russell Pearce go down in flames in November, the deluge just hasn't stopped.  He's been coming under growing criticism for his sacrifice of investigations of rape and child molestation cases while funnelling MCSO resources into his never-ending anti-immigrant raids (which apparently are far more camera-friendly than actual police work).

Now, the US Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division has released the scathing report of its investigation of Arpaio's operation of MCSO, and "scathing" may be something  of an understatement.

Instead of the usual combination of legalese and bureaucrat-ese that are the usual hallmarks of such things, it reads like it was written by someone who's a combination of Stephen King and Franz Kafka (OK, with a generous smattering of legalese and bureaucrat-ese thrown in.  It *is* DOJ, after all :)  .)

At this point, it looks like he should be less worried about winning reelection next year and more concerned with making an exit from office that doesn't involve an indictment.

However, he has spent the week declaring that it's all politics and that the investigation was a "sneak attack" and other similar utterances that prove that "denial" isn't just a river.  Of course, the list of his misdeeds may be longer than the Nile, but I digress... :)

Anyway, Arpaio is going on and on, even though the investigation has been going on for years and he has been the one who has used his office for politically-motivated investigations.

So here's to hoping that on Christmas Day, Arpaio looks in his stocking and finds a clue (hope Santa has one to spare after giving one to Bundgaard).

This was fun.  Have to do it again, soon.  :)

Corporation Commission meeting this week to gut solar power's future in Arizona

As the calendar moves inexorably to the holidays, most political bodies in the state try to get any work they need to perform done during the early part of the month so that they enjoy those holidays.
One of the side effects of the holiday rush is that the average member of the public isn't really paying attention to political matters during the holiday, both because of the large number of items on agendas and because they have a lot going on in their personal lives.
Many bodies use the chaos of the holidays and the laxity in public oversight to push through some of the less palatable measures before them to help minimize the ability of opponents to organize.
One of those bodies is the Arizona Corporation Commission, particularly since the election of former ALEC president Brenda Burns.  While Gary Pierce, rumored to be mulling a run for Congress, is the chair of the ACC, the addition of Burns in 2010 signaled the change of the ACC from an industry regulatory agency into an industry front group.  Burns replaced the term-limited Kris Mayes

The ACC is meeting Tuesday and Wednesday, and some of the items on its agenda illustrate just this.

Docket numbers E-01345A-11-0264 (APS), E-01933A-11-0269 (Tucson Electric Power) and E-04204A-11-0267 (UNS Electric) relate to approval of those companies' 2012 Renewable Energy Standard implementation plans (enter those docket numbers into the ACC's E-Docket webpage for more info).

Those items sound wonky and more than a little technical, because they are.  However, one of the little gems hidden deep in the provisions of the plans is that they basically end any real incentives for those utility companies to "go solar."

However, while solar incentives are being slashed, tax breaks for coal-fired generating plants remain in place (note: those are controlled by the legislature, not the ACC).  The impetus behind this appears to be a reverence for accounting principles over scientific principles -

The utility corporations have a lot of money tied up in their coal (and nuclear) facilities and want to maximize their profits from those.  Solar power, particularly distributed solar power, is both more sustainable and lower cost than those, and would lead to lower profits.

On top of that, the Rs on the Commission have taken steps to declare that inefficient, high-cost energy generated by *trash burning* plants is "green", or renewable, and deserves as much or more support than solar power.

Apparently, for the three Rs on the ACC, Burn, Pierce, and Bob Stump, and the corporations that they are working for (instead of regulating), "energy efficiency" is more about generating profits in the most efficient way than in generating (and using) energy in a more efficient and sustainable way.

Anyway, people who are interested in weighing in on the renewable energy standard items, or any other items on the agenda, are advised to watch the meeting(s) this week via the ACC's online streaming video page.  ACC meetings tend to run long, so you are better off staying aware of when your item of interest is coming up, and then heading down to the meeting than in trying to sit through the entire session.

The 2012 session of the Arizona Legislature hasn't started yet, but it's easy to see it's going to be a long one

In approximately a month and a half, the 2012 session of the Arizona Legislature will start, and while there will be some major differences from the 2011 session (new Speaker of the House, new President of the Senate, no Russell Pearce!!), some things don't change.

Usually, sitting legislators start "pre-filing" bills starting around two months before the start of a session, and this year is no different.

Sometimes, as with Sen. David Schapira's SB1001 last year (restoring transplant coverage to AHCCCS), the early measures are meant to make a statement about where the priorities of the lege should be, knowing full well that the bill(s) won't pass (and Schapira's SB1001 was never even heard in committee, much less given a floor vote).

Other times, the bills are introduced to give the sponsors an early start on lobbying their colleagues for passage.

The first couple of bills introduced this year, including a proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution, have to do with creating a mechanism for exchanging state trust lands for the purpose of protecting military reservations from encroachment by developments (this summary may be a little oversimplified, but these bills aren't the focus of the post.  If you're interested, the bill is here, the proposed amendment is here).

The amendment is necessary because under the Arizona Constitution, those trust lands can only be sold or transferred for the benefit of the state's education system.

The lege has been trying to crack that restriction for years.  They tried a similar scheme in 2010, only to see the measure go down to defeat, at least in part because a majority of Arizona's voters don't trust the legislature or its intentions.

In addition to those, at around the same time, Rep. Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) filed a different amendment proposal, this one to overturn the prohibitions in the AZ Constitution on damage awards in lawsuits.  They've tried this one before, but limiting or eliminating punitive damage awards is a pet project of corporate lobbyists and their "friends"/tools in Congress and state legislatures across the country.

After that, there were a few innocuous "technical corrections" bills introduced by Rep. Judy "Birther" Burges.  Officially, technical corrections bills are supposed to contain minor, non-controversial fixes to things like typos, misspellings, and bad grammar/legalese to laws, and generally speaking, the bills do just that.  However, they rarely pass the lege as technical corrections bills.  Mostly, they exist to serve as "vehicle" bills that can be changed late in the legislative session by "strike everything" amendments, aka "strikers.". 

Strikers frequently turn previously innocuous bills (like technical corrections bills) into utter bile.  Of course some bills, like 2010's infamous SB1070, are amended only in specific language, not actual intent.  For example, SB1070 started off life as an ugly anti-immigrant bill and was amended into an ugly anti-immigrant bill.

All this background brings us to Rep. John Fillmore (R-Apache Junction).  While until now he has been an almost-unknown backbencher, it looks like he wants to make a splash during this coming election year.

Among others, he has proposed bills that...

...would halve the maximurm income level to qualify for coverage under the Arizona Long Term Care System (ALTCS).  ALTCS provides coverage to low-income senior citizens or disabled  who need long-term medical care (i.e. - nursing home, assisted living, or ongoing home health aides)

...would arbitrarily impose a limit on the amount of "respite care" that someone covered by ALTCS could receive in a calendar year at 360 hours.  Respite care is perhaps best characterized as a relief pitcher for long-term caregivers. 

...would grant a teacher the right to kick any student out of class for any reason, and that action would not be reviewable by or appealable to anybody.  Fillmore's proposal is written so broadly that a teacher (say, a follower of Russell Pearce's) could order a student out of class because the student's skin is, shall we say, too tan, and there would be no recourse (though a federal court would probably step in eventually).

...would give school principals the authority to fire any teacher in their schools for any reason, subject to the review and approval of the district's school superintendent.  The measure also includes a clause that bars school district governing boards from entering into collective bargaining agreements that inhibit the ability to exercise that authority, including the establishment of a "due process" process for the teachers.  No AZ Republican wants to appear to be "pro-teacher"...  The measure also takes control of textbook selection from the hands of the governing boards of individual school district and bestows it on the school superintendent of the county in which the school district is located.

...would bar courts from paying for, under any circumstances, court-ordered anger management and domestic violence counseling for defendants.

...would establish a minimum cost to the beneficiaries of state employee health insurance plans of 18 percent of the overall cost.  Currently, there is no minimum or maximum limit in statute.  While this measure would establish a minimum limit, it would not establish a maximum cost to the beneficiaries.

...and in his piece de resistance, Fillmore has proposed an amendment to the AZ Constitution regarding punitive damage awards, like Harper's proposal above.  However, this one has an "Isn't that crazy, quirky, loony Arizona just so precious?" sort of way -

His proposal doesn't eliminate punitive damage awards,  Instead, it would mandate the confiscation of such awards by the state and puts the monies into a fund that would be dedicated to funding K-12 education in Arizona.

If passed, not only would this measure effectively reduce the number of lawsuits with punitive damage awards (if the victims of injuries cannot benefit from such lawsuits, why would they file them?), it would also serve as a smokescreen to cover moves to reduce education funding in AZ (eventually, the lege would base the budget for education on projections of the amount of money available in the fund established in this proposal, and when those funds decreased, they would use it as an excuse to further cut education).

This measure, as with Harper's, could very well be a welcoming gift for next week's conference of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an organization crafted to facilitate corporate influence over state level legislation.  The conference will be held in a Scottsdale resort.

ALEC has long pushed for corporation-protecting limits on lawsuits in general and punitive damage awards in particular (examples here, here and here, courtesy ALECExposed.org).

Fillmore and Harper are among the many members of the R caucus in the AZ lege who are also members of ALEC. but in Arizona, that association isn't limited to the legislature.  Check out this notice from the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) -

Notice of a Joint Appearance of a Quorum of Commissioners


(Not an Official Meeting of the Arizona Corporation Commission)

November 30 - December 2, 2011

Location:
The Westin Kierland Resort & Spa
6902 East Greenway Parkway
Scottsdale, Arizona 85254

This notice is provided as a courtesy to the public that three or more Commissioners may be present at the above location to attend the American Legislative Exchange Council, States and Nation Policy Summit.  The Commissioners attending this meeting will not vote on any issue.

Please note:  The ACC is supposed to *regulate* corporations, not *party* with them.  Of course, current ACC member Brenda Burns is a former president of ALEC, so she (and the other Rs on the ACC) may not make that distinction.

I'd love to be able to tell you that the above measures are likely to be the worst offered up by Republican AZ legislators during the coming session, but it seems likely that they are going to for the "full nutty" this session.  They realize that one of two possibilities exist.

Either a majority of voters will NOT hold them responsible for their shameless disregard for the will of the voter (attacks on the independence of the voter-established independent redistricting process, their brazen contempt for the rule of law (assaulting a woman by the side of a Phoenix freeway, pointing a gun at a reporter in the Senate building), or their sacrifice of the interests of their "official" constituents (no jobs, gutting education) on the altar of corporate profits (corporate tax cuts paid for by gutting education and rest of the social infrastructure in AZ), or this year will be their last best chance to wreak unchecked havoc upon the state, for at least a couple of election cycles.

The upcoming week - Special session (maybe), special meetings, and more

...The biggest meeting of the week is only a rumor at this point, but it is a rather persistent one.  There is a strong rumor going around that Republican Governor Jan Brewer is going to call a special session of the legislature to remove the Independent and Democratic members of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).  One of the rumors going around was that the special session would be on Monday, but that seems to be off of the table.  It may have been R posturing, or it may have been due to an inability to line up enough votes to do the deed on Monday (they need 20 of the 21 Rs in the Senate to be in attendance and on board to pull this off, if they go the special session route.

Details if/when they become available.

...In a perhaps related development, the AIRC has scheduled a business meeting for Monday at 6:20 p.m.  at the Adams House in Phoenix (1100 W. Washington Street).  The one action item on the agenda:

Legal advice, direction to counsel, discussion and possible action regarding actions relating to letter from Governor Brewer concerning Commission conduct. Commission may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and providing direction to counsel (A.R.S. §38-431.03 (A) (3) and (4)).

...The AIRC has a full slate of public hearings scheduled for the week - Phoenix on Tuesday, Cottonwood on Wednesday, Scottsdale on Thursday, Marana on Friday, and Casa Grande and Green Valley on Saturday.

However, stay tuned - if the Governor and her associates in the legislature go through with their craven scheme to ignore the will of the voters and blow up the independent redistricting process, that schedule of public hearings on the new lines for Congressional and legislative districts will change to a schedule of court appearances, dates and times TBA.

- Also on Monday, the Joint Republican "Legislative" Committee on Messing With The Redistricting process and Commission is scheduled to meet at 1:30 p.m. in HHR4.


...In other areas of interest...

- The Arizona Corporation Commission's hearing schedule is here.  In addition to the hearings, they are holding two special open meetings for Tuesday/Wednesday and Friday.

- The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors is meeting Monday and Wednesday.

- The Scottsdale City Council is meeting Tuesday, both in a special meeting for appointments to City boards and commissions and a regular meeting.  One item of interest to political geeks: an item to remove John Washington from the City's Airport Advisory Commission.  Recently, the Council has OK the building of well more than 1000 apartments near the Scottsdale Airport, something that Washington thinks is ill-advised and more importantly, a violation of some agreements with the FAA that the Scottsdale airport operates under.  Washington has contacted the FAA directly, and because of that contact, Mayor Jim Lane has agendized a motion to remove Washington from the Commission.  I can't say for certain how the vote will turn out, but whatever happens Tuesday, don't be shocked if Washington runs for Council or Mayor next year.

- The Tempe City Council is meeting Thursday.


Early notice:  On Wednesday, December 7, the Community Involvement Group of the North Indian Bend Wash Superfund Site will meet at 5:30 p.m. in the Scottsdale Center for the Performing Arts.  More details as the date gets closer.

Upcoming meetings...

For what is normally a relatively quiet time of the year in AZ politics, there sure are some interesting meetings coming up...OK, two or three interesting meetings, and interesting mostly if you're a political geek.  :)

...The Ethics Committee of the Arizona Senate will meet Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. in SHR1 to discuss Sen. Scott Bundgaard's situation.

...The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) hasn't officially announced any meetings this week as yet, but they have tentatively scheduled meetings in Casa Grande for Thursday and Friday.

Edit to add:  According to a message from Steve at Arizona Eagletarian, it looks as if the meetings will actually be held at the Wild Horse Pass Resort just south of Chandler.  If you plan on attending one or both meetings, check with the AIRC to confirm the location (though Steve is pretty dialed in on redistricting - if he says "Wild Horse Pass", it's almost certainly going to be Wild Horse Pass).


End edit.

...The Joint Legislative Study Committee on Outcome-Based Education Funding will meet on Friday at 10 a.m. in HHR3.  The co-chairs of the committee are Sen. Sylvia Allen and Rep. Chester Crandell.  Neither is known as a staunch advocate for (or even *of*) education.  This seems like an exercise in legislative Republicans looking for ever more creative ways to justify defunding public education, but perhaps I'm just being cynical. 

...The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) has two special open meeting scheduled for this week.  On Monday, they'll be meeting at 2 p.m. to solicit and accept public comment on proposed amendments to some pipeline safety rules; on Friday, Commissioner Paul Newman will be holding a workshop/information session on trends and developments in solar power.

Both meetings will be held at the ACC's offices in Phoenix.

...The Scottsdale City Council will meet Tuesday at 5 p.m. in the City Hall Kiva.  Scottsdale's Community Meeting notice is here.

...The Tempe City Council will meet Thursday at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers.  Tempe's Council Calendar is here.

Arizona Corporation Commission to hold special meeting on safety at Palo Verde

In the wake of the multiple disasters in Japan - the massive earthquake, the devastating tsunami, and especially the ever more frightening ongoing failure and destruction of a nuclear power plant - people here have raised concerns over the nuclear power plant closest to Phoenix, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.  It is owned by a consortium of companies, including both of Arizona's largest electricity providers APS and SRP.  (NRC info page here)

The Arizona Corporation Commission, an elected body that oversees utilities in Arizona, has been swamped with inquiries from constituents, and as a result, will be holding a special meeting on Tuesday to hear about safety measures at the plant.

From a Phoenix Business Journal article by Patrick O'Grady -

The Arizona Corporation Commission will hold a meeting Tuesday to discuss safety plans for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.

The special meeting, to be held at 1 p.m. in the commission’s hearing room at 1200 W. Washington in Phoenix, is at the request of at least two commissioners, Bob Stump and Paul Newman.

It sounds like the meeting will be more a pep rally than an actual inquiry, but some useful info may come out of it in anyway.

The official public notice for the meeting is here.

The coming week: everybody else edition

All info gathered from the websites of the relevent public bodies/agencies, and is subject to change without notice.

Federal level -

In the House, the agenda for the week is focused on the Republicans' H.R. 2, "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act."  Related: H. Res. 9, "Instructing certain committees to report legislation replacing the job-killing health care law."

The Senate isn't in session this week.


Arizona level -

The Arizona Corporation Commission doesn't have a full meeting scheduled for this week.  It's hearing schedule is here.

The Citizens Clean Elections Commission doesn't have a meeting this week, either.  They are seeking applicants for an open spot on the Commission. Interested folks who aren't registered as Democrats or Republicans and who do NOT reside in Maricopa County can apply (there are other requirements, but those are the big ones).

The Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project is meeting on Thursday to select new officers, hold an orientation for new members on the topic of internal audit, and hold a meeting of the Finance, Audit, and Power Committee.

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has a Special Meeting scheduled for Wednesday at 9 a.m.  The agenda looks quiet, but as is usual for this bunch, there's an executive session planned.

The Tempe City Council doesn't have a meeting scheduled for this week.  The City's City Council Calendar is here.

The Scottsdale City Council doesn't have a meeting scheduled for this week.  The City's Community Meeting Notice is here.