Scottsdale Mayoral Forum

For those of you who thought the mayor's race in Tempe was the end of campaign season...oh, who am I kidding?  If you're reading this blog, you already know better.  :)

The Community Council of Scottsdale held a forum for the three candidates for mayor in Scottsdale on Thursday evening in the Granite Reef Senior Center.

The candidates are incumbent Jim Lane and challengers Drew Bernhardt and John Washington.

I don't have the time (or the notes) for a full write up, but I do have one major observation about politics in Scottsdale -

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

- All three candidates were asked their positions on the possibility of the construction of a light rail line in Scottsdale.

All three candidates oppose the idea.

All three candidate ignored the fact that the possibility of light rail in Scottsdale was nixed nearly a decade ago.

Edit on 5/18 - Thanks to candidate John Washington to spotting the error in the above statement (see comment below).  One candidate, Jim Lane, did say that the light rail issue has already been decided.  The point is still valid though - light rail in Scottsdale is dead and has been dead for a decade, but it is still being fought over, to the detriment of attention to issues that Scottsdale actually faces.

End edit...

- Also brought up at the forum:  firing the city manager.  It must be an even-numbered year thing.  For the record:  Bernhardt and Washington support the idea, Lane demurred, citing confidentiality concerns or something similar.  The upshot:  Scottsdale will have an opening in it city manager's office within a few months.  Interested applicants should adjust their salary requirements based on the expected brief tenure (in other words, make 'em pay through the nose.  It pains me as a taxpayer to say that, but it's the way it has to be.)

A few pics from the forum -

Candidate John Washington introducing himself to the audience

Current Councilman Ron McCullagh was in attendance

Washington making a point.  Bernhardt is on the left side of the pic.

An audience member asks a question.  On stage, from left to right:  Lane, Bernhardt, Washington.

The audience breaking up after the forum

The three candidates being introduced by Jerry, the head of the Community Council of Scottsdale.

Scottsdale City Council bails out Arizona American Water

After more than 2 hours of presentations and discussions at Tuesday's meeting of the Scottsdale City Council, the Council voted 5 - 2 to enter into a "Treat and Transport" agreement with Arizona American Water (AAW) whereby Scottsdale will treat TCE-contaminated water from wells controlled by AAW and then return it ("transport") back to AAW's system for delivery to its customers.

Previous posts on the matter here and here.

I'll keep this brief because I walked out of the meeting thoroughly ticked off at the selling out of Scottsdale residents by the majority on the Council, and that anger will affect the quality of my writing.

The five members who voted to shoulder AAW's cleanup responsibilities were Mayor Jim Lane, Vice-Mayor Suzanne Klapp, Council member Wayne Ecton, Council member Bob Littlefield, and Council member Marg Nelssen. 

Littlefield and Ecton are up for reelection this year.  Littlefield's support of AAW was no surprise - he's long been a corporate apologist.  Ecton's was a bit of a surprise, and he had a seriously sour look on his face when he cast his vote, but he voted in favor of AAW nonetheless.

The two members who supported condemnation of AAW were Council member Ron McCullagh and Council member Lisa Borowsky. 

McCullagh's support of condemnation was no surprise - he's a customer of AAW and has been the victim of their screw-ups (and AAW's arrogance about those screw-ups) for years.  Borowsky's support of condemnation was weaker and seemed to be rooted in some reservations about the trustworthiness of the AAW figures that she has met with, not in a whole-hearted support for acquiring AAW's Scottsdale operation and folding their customers into the Scottsdale municipal system.


In the interests of keeping this brief, and because the AZ Republic will probably cover the matter in more depth later today, here are some observations from the meeting:

- It was definitely a "strange bedfellows" sort of evening - Lane and Littlefield were on the same side of the issue as the Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce.  Definitely an unusual event.

- More "strange bedfellows" - former (2008) rivals for the R nod for CD5, Laura Knaperek and Susan Bitter Smith, were there to lobby for AAW.  I'm not sure that it means much, but they stayed well away from each other during the meeting.

- They weren't even together during the group hug/backslapping session held outside City Hall by AAW's lobbyists after the hearing.

- Two member of the governing board of the Central Arizona Project were in the Kiva to support AAW, though neither was ID'ed as such.  Both Tim Bray, who spoke, and Bitter Smith are current members of the Board.  Bray is running for reelection; Bitter Smith is not.

- Before the meeting hypocrisy alert (unrelated to the AAW matter) - at the beginning of the meeting, Jim Lane proudly announced that the City had purchased more land for the McDowell Sonoran Preserve, partially with money from the Growing Smarter/Land Conservation Fund.

A fund that Republicans, including Lane, want to dismantle in favor of corporate tax cuts (Proposition 301).


All in all, it was a very frustrating evening, both for me and for most of the residents in the Kiva.  The vast majority of those who weren't there on AAW's dime strongly supported condemnation.

I left the building with one thought - if the issue at hand was a tattoo parlor in north Scottsdale increasing profits by cutting corners on needles, and exposing residents of north Scottsdale to hepatitis, HIV, or something else, the Council would have fallen all over itself to shut down the operation and kick it out of Scottsdale.  However, the people exposed to poison as a result of AAW's shoddy maintenance practices (and that was part of the final report of the investigation looking into the incidents that precipitated Tuesday's agenda item) were all in south Scottsdale.

People noticed that, and many of the folks walking out of the Kiva after the meeting left muttering that they would be supporting whoever runs for Mayor against Lane in 2012.

While Tuesday's meeting was a serious setback for supporters of good governance, from any partisan affiliation (I'm a D, yet both McCullagh and Borowsky are active Rs), something tells me this isn't over.  Tuesday's vote was for approval of guidance to City staff, not on approval of a specific contract.

Later...

Tony Nelssen's widow Marg appointed to finish out his term

...I can't say "the fix was in" (at this point in time, I don't have any evidence that tonight's events were other than above-board and honest) but her public comment before the selection process even took place sounded a lot like a victory speech.

Plus, when her name was not drawn out of the hat by City Clerk Carolyn Jagger (eliminating the candidate whose name was drawn), absolutely no one looked surprised.

It was clear from the outset that the favored candidate among the various residents of who turned out for the meeting was Marg Nelssen - ten people, including Nelssen herself, spoke in support of appointing Nelssen to the Council; none spoke in support of another candidate.

The main argument in favor of Nelssen's appointment seemed to be (I'm paraphrasing here) "Marg is Tony's wife, so she deserves it. Anything else would be disrespectful to the people who voted him into office in the first place."

Certain speakers spent some of their time and rhetoric excoriating three members of the Council (Ecton, Klapp, and McCullagh) for "playing politics." One speaker accused them of "selling their souls."

Of course, all of the speakers ignored the fact that the whole "appoint Marg" theme was a shameless political ploy by the Lane clique to regain a fourth vote, and a majority, on the Council.

In addition to that, Mayor Jim Lane not only expressed his support for Nelssen (something that he has a right to do), he ran the meeting in a way to encourage public pressure on the three Council members who opposed his moved to shoehorn Marg Nelssen onto the Council last week. The normal practice is to ask visitors to not applaud and to gavel it down whenever applause erupts. Tonight, applause was allowed to go on unchecked.

During the meaty part of the proceedings, four people were nominated to fill the vacancy -

Councilwoman Lisa Borowsky nominated Jay Petkunas, a member of the Planning Commission in Scottsdale

Councilwoman Suzanne Klapp nominated Jim Bruner, a former member of the Council and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors

Councilman Wayne Ecton also nominated Bruner

Councilman Bob Littlefield nominated Marg Nelssen

Councilman Ron McCullagh passed, with most observers figuring that he was on board with the Bruner nomination. He was, as votes later in the meeting proved.

Mayor Jim Lane expressed his support for the nomination of Nelssen. However, to maintain the illusion (an illusion that no one in the audience bought into, by the way) that the nomination process wasn't going to end in a 3 - 3 tie with the names of the finalist put into a hat, he nominated one Richard Acton (possible incorrect name and/or spelling there).

After a brief round of votes, the choices came down to Nelssen and Bruner, who each received three votes. Littlefield, Lane, and Borowsky supported Nelssen; Klapp, Ecton, and McCullagh supported Bruner.

However, four votes were needed to win the seat.

As such, the two remaining names were placed in a hat, with the name drawn from the hat being the candidate eliminated from consideration. When that name was announced as Jim Bruner's, the most of those assembled burst out in raucous cheers.

Nelssen will be sworn into office next week.


Nelssen may ultimately turn out to be a fine member of the Council, but I have to ask one question to the "give it to Marg! Tony's wife *should* take his place!" crowd" -

If Bill Clinton had died in office, how many of you would have argued "give it to Hillary! Bill's wife *should* take his place!"?


Later...

Hypocrisy, Double Standards, and Guilt By Association: Jim Lane's Scottsdale

By now, most folks who care know that at Tuesday's meeting of the Scottsdale City Council, the Council voted 4-3 to withdraw from the Partner Council of the Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce. The vote was taken allegedly in response to a ruling that the C of C violated campaign finance laws during last year's elections and would have to pay some fines.

This particular dust-up has been going on since last year's election cycle when the C of C sent out some mailers that looked to endorse the former mayor, Mary Manross, and three candidates for Council, Ron McCullagh, Betty Drake, and Suzanne Klapp. The mailers purported only to discuss the "pro-business" and "pro-Scottsdale" qualifications of the candidates. The C of C claimed that the mailers (and some related TV spots) weren't "political" because they didn't ask anyone to vote for the candidates.

Complaints were filed by some of the non-endorsed candidates, including eventual mayoral victor Jim Lane. Various legal opinions followed that disagreed with the C of C's position, including one in late November from a state administrative law judge.

During the process and since the latest ruling. there have both been calls for the City to withdraw any support it provides to the Chamber as well as sustained withering criticism of then-candidates Klapp and McCullagh for not resigning their positions in the C of C.

None of this should be much of a surprise, because as Greg at Espresso Pundit notes, when the C of C tried to influence the election, they should have made sure that their candidate won.

In politics, retribution is far more frequent than is forgiveness. Lane's vengeance for the Chamber's lack of support for him was fully expected.

Still, the payback theme of the meetings of this year's Council has overwhelmed almost everything else, including common sense, fairness, and ethical consistency.

During the meeting Tuesday night, Mayor Lane pontificated that the City should withdraw from the Chamber because he didn't think that the City should be associated with any organization that breaks the law, in this case, violations of campaign finance laws.

The money quote; the fact that the City and some members of the Council are involved with the C of C "implies that the City itself participated in this."

Hmmm...where could I find "hypocrisy" and "double standards" there, and perhaps an opportunity to apply a little "guilt by association" here?

The sarcastic cynic in me (which I *never* give free rein to...OK, almost never :) ) thinks that this is all merely retribution from Lane because the C of C didn't support him in last year's election and that his moral outrage is of the "faux and one-sided" variety.

However, it is possible that Lane truly respects organizations that follow the law and simply doesn't want the City, the Council, or any of its members associated with an organization that ever breaks laws.

As Mayor, he has to be concerned for the image of the Council and the City, and doesn't want even the appearance of impropriety to sully that image.

The months-long witch hunt against former City Manager John Little notwithstanding.

Which I could accept, except for the fact that the Mayor and at least five of the six members of the Council are Republicans (Lane freely admits that he is one, Borowsky is a member of the Arizona Federation of Republican Women, Klapp, Littlefield, and McCullagh are members of the AZGOP's State Committee representing LD8, and Tony Nelssen is considered to be a Republican's Republican. I'm not sure about Wayne Ecton's registration - based on the few conversationsI think he is an R, but I cannot find independent verification of that right at this moment.)

So, in light of the fact that during the same election cycle, the AZGOP accepted illegal contributions that were earmarked to fund some of the sleaziest ads in recent memory, for the sake of consistency, they've all resigned their positions within the Arizona Republican Party and barred any organs of the AZGOP from using City facilities, so as not to associate the City with illegal activities...in this case, violations of campaign finance laws.

Right?

OK, so I don't expect them to really resign from the GOP, nor do I think that they should, and unless they were directly involved with campaign contribution laundering scheme with Arpaio, Fox, Pullen, and the rest, it shouldn't even be a matter for discussion. As sleazy as the ads and those campaign violations were, they are the responsibility of the people involved, not all Republicans.

By the same token, unless Lane, his followers on the Council (Borowsky, Littlefield, and Nelssen), and his friends/advisers masquerading as outraged "independent" residents of Scottsdale (Whitmer, Fernandez, et. al.) can show that McCullagh and Klapp were directly involved in the C of C's ad campaign, they should give it a rest, lest the same tactics are applied to them.

I don't expect them to learn that lesson, and neither should any readers -

So far, the scheming, back-biting, and hypocrisy have worked for Lane et. al., and they have no reason to stop until their tactics cease to work.

Laurie Roberts of the Arizona Republic has a pro-Council, anti-C of C view here.

Later...

Scottsdale City Council Fires City Manager John Little

In a meeting that took less than 25 minutes, Mayor Jim Lane and his coterie of supporters on the Council - Lisa Borowsky, Tony Nelssen, and Bob Littlefield - voted to immediately terminate the contract of City Manager John Little.

They did so over the unanimous support for Little from all of the citizens who spoke at the meeting, and over the objections that the meeting was called on short notice and was scheduled at an odd time.

The consensus was that if there had been a little more notice (2 business days, with a weekend between them and the meeting held on the 2nd business day) and if it had been scheduled at the normal time for City Council meetings (5 p.m.), the Kiva would have been filled to capacity with interested residents, most or all there to support Little.

As it was, the Kiva was less than 1/4 full, but seemingly everyone in the audience was there to support Little.

Lane started the meeting with a brief bit, criticizing Little for not living up to a pledge to "abide by and implement" an ordinance change (the hiring of a City Treasurer), engaging in "obstructive and delaying tactics" (unspecified), "working hard to undermine this Council" (also unspecified) with city employees and residents, and for hiring an attorney.

I don't know if that last is illegal per se, but citing the fact that Little has hired legal counsel as a reason to terminate his contract smacks of retaliation and will serve to undermine the City's position when this gets to court, as it likely will.

Lane then moved to fire Little, and the motion was quickly seconded by Bob Littlefield. In his speech supporting his second of the motion, Littlefield cited a quote from Frank Fairbanks, the recently retired long-time City Manager in Phoenix, about sublimating his ideas and preferences to those of the Council. Littlefield then accused Little of "picking and choosing" which ordinances he would implement.

Then the public got to have their say.

James Duchene, a Scottsdale business owner and member of the city's Parks and Recreation Commission, spoke in support of Little, citing the book "Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make The Leap...And Some Don't." One of the tenets of the book is that successful organizations have great leaders and that they bring the right people "on to the bus" and that "Little is one of those great leaders."

He also observed that "a lot of people are watching what happens here" and warned of an outflow of good staff members who are now wondering when the axe will fall on them.

Dick Bowers, a highly-respected former long-time Scottsdale city manager stepped up to support Little, too. He noted that Frank Fairbanks, the model City Manager cited by Littlefield, would have fallen victim to the atmosphere in the Scottsdale City Hall much like Little. He also spoke about his "rage" at what is happening to the direction of Scottsdale, and how he sees the path of the current City government as one of "unrelenting pursuit of mediocrity."

After the public comment period was completed, Tony Nelssen, the Council member who called for today's meeting, spoke of the "toxic environment" that exists in City Hall. He tried to blame the Manross/Dolan era for that, but did so while avoiding mentioning that he and 4 other members of the current Council were part of that era and that environment.

Or that four members of the current council are doing their level bests to exacerbate his "toxic environment."

Council member Wayne Ecton spoke up in support of Little, noting that part of blame for the conflict rests on the Council side with members who are absolutely unwilling to compromise.

Members Ron McCullagh and Suzanne Klapp also supported Little in their comments.

Council member Lisa Borowsky was silent on the matter, but at the previous meeting on this matter, she advocated for the immediate firing of Little, so her vote today was no surprise.

The final tally was four voting in favor of firing Little (Lane, Nelssen, Littlefield, Borowsky) and three opposed (McCullagh, Klapp, Ecton).

By 2:55, the meeting was over, and so was Little's long career with the City of Scottsdale.

Note to potential candidates for the job (hey, it pays over $180K/year, people *will* be interested):

Invest in Chapstick futures.

Whoever gets the job of working with this Council will have to do so much puckering up to keep the job, they'll be buying the stuff by the pallet load.

Welcome to Scottsdale in the 21st Century...

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...

East Valley Election Results

Well, East Valley, with some statewide and county races included...

Most results still unofficial, but most are still clear. All results courtesy the websites of the AZ Secretary of State, Maricopa County Recorder, and the Scottsdale City Clerk.


In CD5, incumbent Democratic Congressman Harry Mitchell is returning to D.C. with a comfortable margin of victory. With 245 of 248 precincts reporting, Mitchell leads David Schweikert 118,849 to 97,569.

In CD3, Democratic challenger Bob Lord fell short of defeating incumbent Republican John Shadegg (R-Club for Growth), receiving 92,614 votes to Shadegg's 117,439.

While Lord was able to significantly cut into a daunting Republican registration advantage, much like Mitchell did in CD5. However, unlike Mitchell, he's not, well, Harry Mitchell.

In the race for Corporation Commission, Democrats Sandra Kennedy and Paul Newman and Sam George are leading the race with 2219 of 2239 polls reporting. This one is close enough that one of them, Sam George, could be overtaken by Republican Bob Stump as provisional and early ballots are counted and added to the tallies.

In LD8, Republicans Michele Reagan and John Kavanagh were easily returned to the lege over Democratic challenger Stephanie Rimmer, 43,385 and 39,865 votes to 30,189, respectively. State Senator Carolyn Allen was unopposed for reelection.

In LD17, incumbent Democratic State Senator Meg Burton Cahill easily won reelection over Republican Jesse Hernandez, 28,510 to 18,106 while Democratic State Representatives Ed Ableser and David Schapira defeated Republican challengers Mark Thompson and Wes Waddle, with 24,242, 26,469, 19,081, and 15,030 votes respectively.

In LD18, Republican Russell Pearce (R-Nativist) handily won his race for the State Senate over Democrat Judah Nativio 19,510 to 15,250 (100% of precincts reporting) and Republicans Cecil Ash and Steve Court defeated Democrat Tammie Pursley and Independent Joe Brown.

It seems that the residents of west Mesa have to look forward to another two years of not having people in the lege who are there to represent *them*, not an extremist ideology.

In LD20, in a bit of an upset, Democrat Rae Waters will probably be joining Republican John McComish in the Arizona House of Representatives - she's got a small lead over Republican Jeff Dial. On the Senate side, sign-slashing and elderly-woman pushing incumbent Republican John Huppenthal defeated Democratic challenger Ted Maish.

In LD21, Republicans Warde Nichols and Steve Yarbrough stood off the challenge of Democrat Phil Hettmansperger, 45,757 and 37,403 votes to 36,232. Republican State Senator Jay Tibshraeny was unchallenged for reelection.

In LD22, Republicans Andy Biggs and Lauren Hendrix defeated Democrat Glenn Ray, with 48,157, 46,132, and 35,211 votes, respectively. On the senate side, Republican Thayer Verschoor was unchallenged for reelection.


In Maricopa County races...

In the four contested County Supervisor races, all four Republican incumbents were returned to office easily, with none of the Democratic challengers surpassing 46% of the vote inteir race.

Republican County Attorney Andrew Thomas defeated Democratic challenger Tim Nelson 514,820 votes to 440,197.

Republican Sheriff Joe Arpaio defeated Democrat Dan Saban 588,550 votes to 444,551.

Guess this means another four years of invaded libraries, shackled journalists, and unbridled corruption.

In the race for the Maricopa County Special Healthcare District, 3 out of the 5 candidates that were endorsed by the Maricopa County GOP lost, including District 3's Colette Rosati, who was spanked by Sue Gerard 85,369 votes to 43,909.


In the races for Scottsdale Mayor and City Council...

The race for Mayor is tight, but challenger Jim Lane has a nearly-800 vote lead over incumbent Mary Manross, 41,255 votes to 40,663. As for the City Council, it appears that incumbent Ron McCullagh will be returned to the council with newcomers Lisa Borowsky and Suzanne Klapp joining him. Incumbent Betty Drake is in fourth place, less than 900 votes behind Klapp.

Both the Mayoral and Council races could change slightly as the final mail-in and provisional ballot totals come in, but it appears that the face of Scottsdale's municipal government has changed.

However, there will still be a huge number of issues decided by a 4-3 margin.

(Wayne Ecton, Klapp and McCullagh on one side, with Lane, Tony Nelssen, and Bob Littlefield on the other. Lisa Borowsky will be the wild card. Expectations seem to be that she will mostly side with the Chamber of Commerce crowd, Ecton, Klapp, and McCullagh. We'll find out for sure starting in January.)

As for the ballot propositions, Prop 100 (barring a sales tax on real estate transfers) passed by a more than 3-to-1 margin; Prop 101 (Health Care Choice, aka 'banning all public health insurance plans') looks to be going down to defeat by a margin of approximately 2000 votes; Prop 102 (constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages) passed by nearly 240,000 votes; Prop 105 (Majority Rules, aka "not voting counts as a 'No' vote) was easily defeated by a nearly 2-1 margin; Prop 200 (Payday Loan reform, aka 'permanent legalization of loan sharking'), was defeated by 400,000 votes; Prop 201 (Homeowners' Bill of Rights) went down to defeat by a more than 3-1 margin; Prop 202 (Stop Illegal Hiring, aka 'Protect Big Business' ability to depress wages and hire cheap labor') was defeated soundly (400K+ votes); and Prop 300 (legislative pay raises from the current salary of $24K to $30K) was also soundly defeated.

More later!

Short Attention Span Musing - Primary Edition

...It's looking more and more like absolutely nothing was settled in Scottsdale on Tuesday. According to the City's results page, challenger Jim Lane leads incumbent Mayor Mary Manross by 217 votes. However, there are 849 ballots where the City races were left blank (undervotes), so it appears that he didn't receive the "50% + 1) vote total necessary to win the election outright. In addition, none of the City Council candidates reached that threshold either.

Hence, it appears that we get to do this all over again in November, with two fewer candidates for Council. Oren Davis and Joel Bramoweth, as the two candidates with the fewest votes, will be dropped off of the general election ballot. The other six candidates - Lisa Borowsky, Betty Drake, Nan Nesvig, Suzanne Klapp, Tom Giller, and Ron McCullagh - will fight it out for the three open seats.

Predictions: none for the Council race, there are too many variables, but as for the mayoral contest, Manross should win reelection. She was hurt by the large Republican turnout for the CD5 primary; in November, she will benefit from the increased Democratic turnout.

BTW - if the mayoral results stand without a run-off, Lane owes John Washington. Washington was a write-in candidate for mayor until he dropped out just before early ballots were sent out. If he had stayed in the race, he would have garnered enough votes to force the race to a run off, or even have given the race outright to Manross.

AZ Republic coverage here.

...Republican bloggers all over the state may be gleeful right now because of the large number of moderate Reps who were defeated in primary races, but that glee may be short-lived. It will be much easier for moderate Democrats like Cheryl Cage and Judah Nativio to defeat their extremist Republican opponents (Al Melvin and Russell Pearce, respectively) than the more moderate Reps who were defeated in the primaries (Pete Hershberger and Kevin Gibbons, respectively.)

No smack talk here (I'm not making any predictions. Yet), just an observation.


...Saving the worst for last, but have the Reps chosen David Duke as their national chair? I mean, whatever veneer of civility they might have had has been rubbed off during the pressure of a tough election cycle.

First, there was the abuse levelled at one of their own in LD6, Tony Bouie.

Then, there was Sarah Palin's VP-nominee acceptance speech where she denigrated community organizers in urban communities, but later praised folks in rural, and presumably paler, communities.

But the topper has to be Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-CSA), as quoted in The Hill -

"Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they're a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they're uppity," Westmoreland said.

And when asked to clarify, Westmoreland confirmed that he indeed meant to use the word 'uppity.'

Yes folks, whether it's Maricopa County Republicans (Arpaio and Thomas) campaigning against Mexicans, or national Republicans campaigning against black people, this is going to be an ugly two months.

Thanks to Tedski for the heads-up on the Westmoreland quote.

My vote in the Scottsdale election...

I wasn't going to weigh in on the races in Scottsdale, but since it seems that everyone else with an online outlet for their opinions is doing so (Scottsdale Republic endorsements here, Jim McAlister, an AZ Rep blogger, lists his votes here, and the EV Tribune has coverage of a number of different endorsements here), here's how I voted...sort of (more on that later)...

The candidates for Council basically fall into two camps (yup, I know that I'm simplifying their positions, probably far more than any candidate would ever want, but) -

- The continued unfettered growth/"whatever is good for developers is good for Scottsdale" crowd (supported by the Chamber of Commerce) - incumbents Ron McCullagh and Betty Drake, as well as candidate Suzanne Klapp. Candidates Liza Borowsky and Oren Davis seem to fall into this category (to be fair though, with Davis it's hard to tell because he's been dealing with some family medical issues and hasn't been able to focus on campaigning in an effective way. Could be an interesting candidate if he chooses to run again in two years.)

- The No Growth/"we like Scottsdale the way it is and won't let anything change no matter what" crowd - Nan Nesvig and Tom Giller.

As you might be able to tell from the way that I've simplified (perhaps oversimplified), I don't exactly subscribe to either school of thought. Mostly, I think that both schools of thought are shortsighted. The first ignores the needs and desires of most of Scottsdale's residents who just want *homes*, not a cover story in Architectural Digest. The second ignores the fact that change happens whether you want it to or not; trying to totally prevent rather than to control and guide change only leads to uncontrolled change.

Joel Bramoweth, the eighth candidate for council, doesn't really belong to either grouping. Therefore, I voted for him.

OK, not really. I *did* vote for him, but because he has nuanced, well-thought out positions and because he has worked hard for the last couple of years to learn about Scottsdale's government from the boards and commissions on up, not just at City Council meetings.

He does tend to ramble a bit when speaking in public (ok - he rambles a *lot*), but he's an educated, intelligent, and decent human being who will be an asset to the Council and to the City (even if occasionally annoying to listen to :) ).

While I'm sure that we are going to disagree on some positions and votes, I firmly believe that when we differ, his positions will be chosen because he truly believes that those particular positions are the right ones, not because he is in someone's pocket or because he wants to appease some local reactionaries.

In other words, he'll be wrong, but he'll be honest and reasoned about it (God knows when we disagree, it won't happen because *I'm* wrong, right?? LOL).

I did cast votes for Mayor and the other two seats on the Council, but those were all exercises in "trying to find the least bad candidates" rather than "voting for good candidates." I won't name who I voted for but will say that my votes for Council were split between the two camps.

Anyway, have a good week; don't expect any more posts at least until Friday from Denver.

Later!

Odd and Ends

...Courtesy an email from MCDP...

Two new candidates have stepped forward to run for office in the West Valley.

- Out in Sun City, Leigh Strickman, a small business owner and PC, has filed to run for the District 4 County Supervisor seat currently occupied by Max Wilson. She is running as a write-in candidate and will need 600 people to vote for her in September to make it on to the ballot in November. If you want to volunteer, you can reach her campaign at strickman08@gmail.com or call 623-698-8004.

- And in Litchfield Park (also District 4), educator Randolph Lumm is running for the Maricopa County Community College Governing Board. He needs to collect 2500 sigs to qualify for the ballot, so anyone interested in helping him should contact the West Dems office at (623) 249-7407 to volunteer.


...In a sign that perhaps certain Republicans don't really get the whole "politics is about people" thing, as in "real people with real concerns", CD5 candidate David Schweikert is following up his June fundraiser at the Scottsdale Gun Club with a fundraiser in a gated community in north Scottsdale at the end of this month.

By contrast, Harry Mitchell (D-CD5) spent much of the same period either working for or honoring people for whom weapons and protective walls are more than a conspicuous assertion of social status.

On Sunday, July 13, he participated in the unveiling of a "permanent display" that serves as "a visual reminder of the sacrifices members of the military and their families are making." (EV Tribune). He followed that up on Tuesday, July 15 by chairing a hearing of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Veterans Affairs Committee into the Department of Veterans Affairs' outreach efforts for veterans who are at risk for PTSD and/or suicide. (AP via SF Chronicle coverage here.)

A quick perusal of Schweikert's campaign website finds rhetoric that is heavy on Club for Growth/Republican neo-con talking points and light on any concerns for CD5 or the people who live here. In fact, other than pro-forma mentions of Barry Goldwater and "Arizona values," this website would serve for any GOP candidate from Maine to California, and serve with very few changes (mostly on the contact information pages.)

And he's the presumptive Republican front-runner here. The other candidates are worse.


...Over in California, Der Governator is proving that he's a true, dyed-in-the-wool Republican - he's ticked off at the California legislature for its failure to pass a budget (as well he should be!), so does he vent his anger at the legislators who are failing to do their jobs? Of course not - that's not the Republican way.

Nope, instead he is trying to cut the pay of every state employee to the federal minimum wage of $6.55 per hour. (SF Chronicle)

Given that most of the affected employees are covered by contracts (union or personal), don't expect this one to go far. On the other hand, picking on working people, especially people who work for the government, will surely endear Schwarzenegger to the radical corporatist wing of his party.


...On Tuesday, the 11 candidates for municipal office in Scottsdale met in two separate forums sponsored by the East Valley Tribune. Trib coverage of the Mayoral forum here; coverage of the Council forum here.

The forums will be replayed on Scottsdale's City Cable 11 on the next two Sundays from 2:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.

I'm not going to do a full write up of the event (a bit of dozing off during the mayoral portion of the program and a format with a lightning round combine to make that an overly ambitious idea), but I do have a couple of quick observations -

- Lisa Borowsky did better Tuesday than she did at last week's COPP-sponsored forum. She wasn't spectacular by any means, but her voice didn't get drowned out this week, either.

- Joel Bramoweth needs to learn the meaning of the word "succinct." After watching his performance, one sharp-tongued observer opined that if Bramoweth is elected to the Council, the rules that dictate a three-minute time limit for public comments may need to be expanded to Council members, too.

Yes, I was that observer. :))

- Ron McCullagh is running a campaign straight out of the Republican playbook. Right now, he's reading from the page labeled "When in doubt, scare 'em." However, this being Scottsdale, instead of citing the usually boogeymen of illegal immigrants and terrorists to engender fear among the audience members, he went with "payday loan businesses" and "massage parlors."

Hey, it *is* Scottsdale after all. :))

- The biggest disappointment, and this applies to the entire cast of council candidates, was their lack of original ideas on addressing Scottsdale's traffic crunch. When asked about when they thought was the best solution available, they all paid obeisance at the "light rail is dead" altar before advocating for more buses and existing transit options.

While their answers varied a bit in length and vocabulary, they could all be summed up thusly -

"Let's close our eyes and click our heels together three times while saying 'let's do more of the same things that aren't working now and hope that the problem will go away before we have to do something substantial.' "

Given that early ballots go out at the end of next week, time is getting short for any epiphanies on the part of the candidates; don't expect any improvement between now and the election.

Note: I called CityCable11's Dennis Grzelak (the manager). According to him, at this point in time, there are no plans to make the video of the forums available online; if you want to view them, catch one of the Sunday rebroadcasts.


...Sometimes bloggers can make an impact... (thanks to Jobsanger in Texas for the heads-up on this) -

It seems that blogger TxSharon of Bluedaze has been keeping track of the environmental damage caused by energy giant Chesapeake Energy and similar companies. with nice, full-color pictures of some of their pollution.

Chesapeake Energy has responded to her diligence by referring to her as a "radical" and stating that "free speech" is all fine and dandy, but it shouldn't apply to people not directly affected by a given issue. (TxSharon doesn't live in the area of Ft. Worth most directly affected by Chesapeake's actions.)

In other words, they apparently believe that witnesses to a crime shouldn't say anything about it, only direct victims should.

Yeah, right.

Anyway, as near as I can tell, Chesapeake doesn't have much, if any, presence in AZ, but this situation still calls for attention.

It's ok to go viral with this. (hint, hint :) )

Later!