Pssst! Didja hear? There's an election coming up in Scottsdale...

Two of them, actually...but they'll be on the same day...

Earlier today, I spotted two signs for an upcoming bond election in Scottsdale.  Not surprised by this, as I've been vaguely aware this has been on the horizon.

What *was* surprising was the fact that a closer look at the two signs reveal that one wasn't related to the Scottsdale bond questions.  Nope, one is related to a school district override election.

I don't have much information on either issue right now.

Information on the Scottsdale bonds election, from the City of Scottsdale -

The City of Scottsdale, Arizona (the “City”), will hold a Special Election, on Tuesday, November 5, 2013 for the purposes of:

1. Seeking approval of bonds for park improvements/community facilities, public safety, flood control and transportation and street upgrades in the principal amount not to exceed $212,100,000 (the estimated average tax rate for the proposed bond authorization is $0.2174 per $100 of secondary assessed valuation); and
2. Submitting to the voters as Question 5 the proposed potable water utility distribution franchise agreement, deemed beneficial to the City by the Scottsdale City Council in Resolution No. 9405.

Bond Question 1 seeks voter authorization to sell $50,400,000 general obligation bonds for parks, libraries and community facilities.

Bond Question 2 seeks voter authorization to sell $43,700,000 general obligation bonds for public safety.


Bond Question 3 seeks voter authorization to sell $19,000,000 general obligation bonds for neighborhood flood protection and storm sewers.


Bond Question 4 seeks voter authorization to sell $99,000,000 general obligation bonds for transportation, streets and trails.

Ballot Language for Questions 1 through 4

Questions 1 through 4 will be presented to the qualified voters of the City of Scottsdale in an informational pamphlet.  The pamphlet will be mailed to the households of all registered voters prior to the start of early voting.  Bonds issued pursuant to Questions 1 through 4 will result in a property tax increase sufficient to pay annual debt service on the bonds.


Arguments supporting or opposing one or more of the bond questions (Questions 1 through 4) may be submitted for publication in the informational pamphlet.  Each argument cannot exceed 300 words in length and must contain the original, notarized signature of each person sponsoring it.  The residence or post office address and phone number of each signer must be on the argument, but will not be printed in the informational pamphlet.  If an argument is sponsored by an organization, the original, notarized signatures of two executive officers of the organization are required.  If an argument is sponsored by a political committee, the original, notarized signature of the committee’s chair or treasurer is required.  A payment of $100.00, to offset a portion of the cost of paper and printing the argument, must accompany the filing of each argument.


Arguments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, August 7, 2013 at the following location:

Scottsdale City Clerk’s Office,
3939 N. Drinkwater Boulevard, Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

Question 5 asks voters to consider whether a franchise shall be granted to EPCOR Water Arizona Inc. and Chaparral City Water Company to maintain and operate a potable water distribution system in the City of Scottsdale, and future additions thereto, in accordance with the agreement submitted by the Mayor and City Council in Resolution No. 9405.
 

Ballot Language for Question 5

Proposed Franchise Agreement

For more information, please call the Scottsdale City Clerk at (480) 312-2411.

The City of Scottsdale will publish an informational pamphlet with pro and con arguments; when available, it should be on their Elections webpage, linked above.


Information on the school district override election from the Scottsdale Unified School District -

They have a full presentation on the override here, but one of the slides is a perfect illustration of where the lege's attitude toward public education has brought Arizona -

SUSD will host a series of informational sessions on the override -

	September 12 – Coronado Learning Community Coronado High School - from 6-8 p.m. 7501 E. Virginia Ave. Scottsdale 85257		September 30 – Arcadia Learning Community Arcadia High School - from 6-8 p.m. 4703 E. Indian School Road Phoenix 85018

September 17 – Chaparral Learning Community Chaparral High School - from 6-8 p.m. 6935 E. Gold Dust Ave. Scottsdale 85253

Full disclosure time:

Scottsdale election: I don't have a position on any of the bond questions as yet, and am leaning toward a "no" vote on the franchise agreement, out of general cynicism, but will find out more before actually casting my vote on any of the questions.

School district override:  Yes.  Duh.

Committees update

Note: when I write "nothing significant" (or a reasonable facsimile thereof), it's not an insult to the candidate committees that have formed at a particular level.  For the purposes of this post, "significant" mostly means "a candidate that we've heard of before"

Committees of note formed recently...

Federal level -

Martha McSally (R) declared her candidacy for the CD2 seat currently held by Ron Barber.

State level -

No significant new candidate committees that I could find, but the end of the legislative session was marked by a flurry of activity on the referendum front -

- Label GMOs Arizona, 201400138, supporting a initiative petition drive regarding the labeling of genetically modified foods.

- Representative Initiatives, 201400149, supporting an as-yet unidentified initiative or referendum petition drive.

- United Republican Alliance of Principled Conservatives, 201400140, seeking to overturn the lege's recent restoration of Medicaid eligibility levels via a referral to the ballot.

- Arizonans for Sensible Health Care, 201400167, opposing the proposed ballot measure above.  Fronted by the CEO of the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association.

- We The People AZ Against Common Core, 201400168, seeking to refer to the ballot a part of the state's budget that increased the bonding limit for school districts.  Fronted by Wes Harris, one of the state's more infamous tea party types.

- Equal Marriage Arizona, 201400163, supporting an initiative petition drive for a measure that would recognize same sex marriages.  Fronted by LGBT Republicans.

- Arizona Taxpayers Protection Committee, 201400171, supporting an as-yet unidentified ballot measure.  At least, that's how the AZSOS has them categorized on the SOS' website.  However, a perusal of the group's website shows that their goal is to support primary challengers to Republicans who supported Medicaid restoration.  Fronted by Tom Husband, former chair of the MCGOP and Shane Wikfors, a long-time GOP operative and blogger.

- Protect Your Right To Vote Committee, 201400177, seeking to refer to the ballot and overturn HB2305, the anti-voter measure passed by the Republicans in the waning moments of this year's session of the legislature.  Fronted by Julie Erfle.

- Safer Arizona, 201400153, supporting an initiative petition drive for a potential measure legalizing marijuana.  Fronted by Dennis Bohlke, a computer programmer who has run afoul of narcotics-related laws in the past.

Steve at Arizona Eagletarian has coverage of the ballot questions committees here.


Maricopa County level -

Nothing significant yet.


Municipal level (Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa) -

Nothing in Tempe or Mesa as yet.  There are a couple of filings of interest in Scottsdale, however.

- Michael Auerbach, operator of a personal chef for hire business, member of Scottsdale's Neighborhood Advisory Commission, and a Republican PC in LD23 (north Scottsdale), filed for a run for City Council.

- John Little, a former Scottsdale City Manager, has filed for a run for City Council.

Little was city manager of Scottsdale until he was fired, allegedly because of "conflicts" with the Council.  The interesting part of that firing was the fact that, seemingly, the only people who had a conflict with Little were the four members of the City Council who voted to fire him.  I haven't followed Little's career since the firing, but if he still has the same sort of community support, the race will be tough.

For the other candidates.

John Washington of Scottsdale Trails offers his take on Little's candidacy here.

Fun with campaign signs, part 2

Spotted in Scottsdale on July 28 -

Three of the candidates in Scottsdale; not going to vote for any of them, but those are some sharp looking signs - simple, colorful, and eye-catching.

The signs are two-sided, which isn't unusual, but they have different candidates on the opposite sides of the signs.  Which is very unusual.

A bit of an explanation for the similarity of the signs - all three signs have the same "paid for by" line on them.

Interestingly, the PAC that paid for the signs formed on July 24, filed the paperwork on July 27, and had signs designed, printed, and up by July 28?  Even saying that the committee was OK to operate on the 24th (a point in the law that I couldn't get clarification on today, being a Sunday and all :) ), four days to design the signs, contract with a printer, get the signs printed, accept delivery of the signs, and actually put some up, well, that is incredibly fast.

Either they were paying for some serious OT at the printer (which is OK) or they accepted and expended funds on election-influencing activities before the committee was formed, legally speaking (not so OK).

One of the other campaigns may find this something worth looking into.

Of course, the signs may not last long during the Arizona monsoon season -

 No grommets.  The first strong breeze will cause the wires holding up the signs to slice through the signs.

Later...

Candidate forums tonight and tomorrow

After ranting last night about how too many voters just don't pay attention, it probably would be a good idea to remind folks of upcoming opportunities to get to know some of their candidates.

...Tonight, Wednesday, July 25, from KJZZ.com -

Residents of Arizona’s newly formed 9th Congressional District will have an opportunity to meet the Democratic candidates running for this office during a community forum hosted by KJZZ Managing Editor Al Macias and Politics and Government Reporter Mark Brodie.

Wednesday, July 25 at 6 p.m.
Arizona Historical Society Museum
1300 N. College Ave.
Tempe, AZ 85281
(480) 929-9499

Admittance is free but reservations are required. Please reserve your seats by contacting Claire Kerrigan at (480) 774-8444 or ckerrigan@rioradio.org.

What do you want to know about the candidates? Share your questions in advance.

The three candidates are Andrei Cherny, David Schapira and Kyrsten Sinema.

The newly formed district will serve the Ahwatukee Foothills, west Chandler, west Mesa, Tempe, parts of Paradise Valley, south Scottsdale and north-central Phoenix.

KJZZ will broadcast the open question/answer session with the Democratic candidates on Thu., July 26 at 11 a.m. Audio of the entire forum will be posted on KJZZ.org.

KJZZ hosted a forum with the Republican candidates on June 25. You can listen to the entire forum at KJZZ.org.

...It may be a little late to RSVP to tonight's forum, but there will be another tomorrow on KAET's Horizon, live at 5:30 p.m. on channel 8.  No RSVP required.  In fact, no driving required - just tune in to channel 8 on your TV.

...Also tomorrow night (Thursday, July 26), the Coalition of Greater Scottsdale is hosting a forum for mayoral candidates at the Mountain View Community Center, 8526 E. Mountain View (between Pima and Hayden, south of Shea Blvd) from 6:30 p.m until 8 p.m.  All three candidates for mayor of Scottsdale were invited; John Washington and Drew Bernhardt will attend while incumbent Jim Lane won't attend, protesting the political arm of COGS' endorsement of Washington.

John Washington for mayor of Scottsdale

Even before the mayoral candidate forum held on Thursday night, I was leaning toward supporting John Washington for Mayor of Scottsdale. 


Thursday's forum confirmed and strengthened that support.

One candidate, Jim Lane, is the incumbent.  He has a track record of kowtowing to lobbying group the Goldwater Institute to the point of ignoring neighborhood interests and desires in favor of implementing GI's preferred policies.

Another candidate, Drew Bernhardt, seems to be less about substance and more about trying to tap the vein of nostalgia that runs deep in a certain segment of Scottsdale's population.

To be fair, that tactic may have been effective with Thursday's audience, which was skewed heavily toward the Medicare/Social Security-eligible, "why can't Scottsdale be like it was when it had 2000 people, 200 hitching rails and 2 paved roads?" demographic.

However, it was grating to hear him constantly refer to Scottsdale as a "town".

In fact, Scottsdale hasn't been a town in decades.  According to the City's own website, by 1970, the city's population had reached nearly 68,000, the size of a small city, but a city nonetheless.

According to the last federal census, it has more than 217,000 residents.

That's not a small town, that's a small big city.

In short, Bernhardt is a north Scottsdale newbie who is hoping that the voters south of Shea Boulevard will vote for him while ignoring the fact that he offers them nothing beyond nostalgic but empty rhetoric.

On the other hand, John Washington has cut his political teeth by working at the grassroots level for the protection and betterment of Scottsdale's neighborhoods and Scottsdale as a whole.

His love of Scottsdale isn't a revelation timed for campaign season.  I've been writing this blog for more than six years.  I met him at the first community meeting that I covered in 2006, and he was active in the community long before that.

Then as now, he talks *to* (and listens to) and works *with* people, in contrast to many electeds/candidates, who talk *at* and work *around* people.  Even when disagreeing with people, he is civil and genuinely friendly; he doesn't turn disagreement into personal animosity.

Washington (seated), before the forum began Thursday night








Unlike say, the current mayor, who had Washington removed from Scottsdale's Airport Advisory Commission when Washington expressed concerns, and continued expressions of concern even after being told to "sit down and shut up", over the mayor's (and the city council's) repeated approvals of high-density residential projects that encroach upon Scottsdale's airport.

In terms of personal political ideology, he's more of libertarian than anything else (not sure of his actual registration however - he may be Libertarian, Republican, or Independent), but local politics is practical politics.  It's about getting good things done for the city and its residents, something that Lane has forgotten (if he ever knew it in the first place) and that Bernhardt doesn't seem to even care to know.

To be clear, when (OK, *if* :) ) he becomes mayor, many of Washington's positions will drive me nuts (libertarian that he is :) ).

However, while we may disagree on how best to protect and improve Scottsdale, we agree on the ultimate objective.

That alone makes John Washington the best candidate to be the next mayor of Scottsdale.

And when you add in the genuine friendliness and deep affection for Scottsdale? 

Washington becames the best candidate to be the next great mayor of Scottsdale.



If you're interested, information on helping Washington get on the ballot, donating to his campaign, or just contacting him can be found here.

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.

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.

Update: 2012 Campaign Committees+

Not just campaign committees this time around, possible ballot questions too!

...Ginger Rough of the Arizona Republic has coverage of the filing of paperwork for eight possible initiative questions by a heretofore undheard-of organization called Fox Petitions.

The initiative proposals include -

I-05-2012, Smart Prison Population Act, mandating the expansion of the practice of home detention for non-violent prisoners

I-06-2012, Supporting Adoptable Cats and Dogs Act, prohibiting the euthanization of healthy and adoptable cats and dogs in Arizona

I-07-2012, Workers' Rights Act, barring employers from firing employees for behavior outside of the employment relationship, except under specific conditions

I-08-2012, Honest Officials Act, it's too difficult to sum up in one sentence, but I call it the "public officials can't lie to the public" act

I-09-2012, No Criminal Exemptions Act, barring the enforcement of a criminal law against any person if that law exempts a person or class of persons.  The explanation says it specifically targets laws that exempt elected officials and government employees, but it is crafted very broadly

I-10-2012, Victimless Crime Act, barring the prosecution or incarceration of a person for behavior that doesn't harm another person, another person's property, or an animal

I-11-2012, Fair Crime Act, mandating that in the event that one criminal act that may violate multiple sections of law can only be prosecuted under one of those sections, the one with the least severe punishment

I-12-2012. Wrongful Conviction Compensation Act, compensating the victims of wrongful convictions and incarceration at $1000 per day of wrongful incarceration

Some of the proposals are intriguing, and I may sign one or more of the petitions if the opportunity presents itself (I especially like the one that would force public officials to stop lying to the public).

One other initiative was recently submitted.

I-04-2012, Go Solar In Arizona Economic Development Act, creating a $2.25 per watt personal solar tax credit.  I support the sentiment, but this proposal is problematical.  I don't like tax credits in general, and I don't like the idea of a specific number being protected by the Voter Protection Act (if this makes it to the ballot and actually passes, we're stuck with it, even if it turns out to bust the state's budget).  This one reeks of an attempt to create by ballot initiative another Alt-Fuels scam.

In Maricopa County news, restaurant industry lobbyist Steve Chucri has opened a candidate committee for a run at Don Stapley's seat on the county board of supervisors.  Chucri is challenging Stapley in the R primary in Stapley's heavily Republican district.  Congressman David Schweikert, whose district overlaps Stapley's in Scottsdale, is honorary chair of Chucri's campaign.

In Scottsdale news, Guy Phillips, a 2010 candidate for City Council, is now listed as a 2012 candidate.  However, the link for his 2012 committee statement of organization opens up a copy of the same form for his 2010 campaign.  Scottsdale's election information page is here.  In 2010, he ran as a tea party type with no answers for Scottsdale's problems other than stock tea party dogma.  He lost.  If he actually is running, it will be interesting to see if learned anything from the experience.

In Tempe news, Linda Spears has announced that she is running for mayor, though no campaign paperwork is yet posted on the City of Tempe's website (when I wrote the last one of these posts, she had taken out a candidate packet, but hadn't yet announced what office she had her sights on)

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.

Committees update - local edition

As there haven't been any significant entries into legislative, Congressional, Maricopa County, or statewide races, this post will be limited to developments in Scottsdale and Tempe.  OK, mostly in Tempe. :)

...In Scottsdale, so far only Mayor Jim Lane has formed a 2012 committee, something he did at the beginning of the year.  However, that should change soon - as reported in the Arizona Republic, interested Scottsdale residents can pick up candidate packets for a run at a spot on the city council (three seats up for election) or for the mayor's job.

Details are available from the Scottsdale City Clerk's office and/or on the City's elections homepage.


...Some movement on the candidate front has taken place in Tempe.

Restaurateur Michael Monti has jumped into the race for mayor, joining City Councilman Mark Mitchell in pursuit of the job.  More may yet enter, but those two are expected to be the headliners in the race.

Unless a bigger name gets into the race :) .

In city council candidate news, Dick Foreman, a lobbyist for Southwest Gas, has entered the race for a council spot.

A relatively new, but apparently well-connected, blog named Tempe Thoughts is reporting that Anglia Thornton, Steve May, Linda Spears, and AJ Lafaro have pulled candidate packets for potential runs next year.  They haven't officially formed election committees yet, but the report is accurate, they've taken the first step.

A very brief run down -

I'm not familiar with all the personalities on the Tempe political scene, but "Anglia Thornton" may actually be "Angela Thornton", currently president of East Valley Women's League.  If I'm wrong about that, I'll update this post.

Steve May is a former state legislator and was briefly a candidate for state rep in LD17 last year, until details of his involvement in the scheme to recruit homeless people to run as fake Green Party candidates emerged.

Linda Spears in a former member of the city council and long-time community activist in Tempe.  It remains to be seen if she is looking for another term on the council or is running for mayor this time around.  There is enough respect for her in Tempe that she will be a factor in whichever race she goes for.

AJ Lafaro is the current chair of the LD17 Republican Party and has been active in Tempe politics for a while.  In 2001, he headed the effort to recall then-Tempe Mayor Neil Giuliano (expect that name to pop up in a "committees update" post sometime this cycle), apparently mostly because Giuliano is openly gay.

As both Lafaro and May are active Republicans, they'll probably work together for a while.

As May, like Giuliano, is openly gay, I don't expect that "a while" will encompass the entire election cycle.

Note: Tempe is on a March/May* election schedule;  Scottsdale is on an August/November* schedule.

* = if necessary

More updates as they become available...

Short Attention Span Musing

...Late this week, the state elections director announced that she made a "mistake" in the timetable for forcing a recall election of Russell Pearce in November, meaning that any such election is now delayed until March of next year.

Has anyone else noticed that Amy Bjelland, the state elections director made the "mistake" benefitting Senator Russell Pearce, the current president of the state senate, was formerly the legal counsel for the Republicans in the state senate? 

Before she went to work for her current boss, Ken Bennett, who used to be a former Senate president himself? 

That many coincidences strains credibility.

I know a lot of good people (in other words, not people who support Pearce) who truly believe Bjelland made an honest mistake.  However, and maybe this just means that I'm not a good person, or perhaps just simply too cynical, but I don't believe that.

...Now that the latest "rapture" is over, it's time to take stock.  Of the 61 legislative Republicans, most of whom trip over themselves proving their devoutness whenever the opportunity presents itself...in front of TV cameras, anyway...how many are missing?  Surely at least a dozen or so must have been scooped up, right?

...Rumor has it that Sarah Palin is moving to north Scottsdale.  I don't know if it is true, but if it is, David Schweikert, Jeff Flake, and Jan Brewer better watch their backs.  One of them will have a target on it.

...Too funny for any words that I can add to it:  Newt Gingrich, Dancing Queen.


Later...

Update: 2012 candidate committees

Edit on 5/2 to add another candidate who was brought to my attention in a comment at Blog for Arizona.  My apologies to Ms. Baldenegro.  No slight was intended...

Things are still slow on the candidate committee front, as it is still early, and many potential candidates seem to be waiting for redistricting to see exactly what district they will be running in.

However, a few noted candidates have announced or formed committees, as have a few less-noted candidates.  Where a specific district is listed, expect that to change after redistricting.

Note: Some of these have been covered in earlier posts but are included here for comparison's sake.  In addition, only new candidates for an office, or current office holders seeking a move to a different office are included.  Incumbents running for reelection aren't included in this list.

For U.S. Senate -

Right now, the "big dog"  in the race to replace the retiring Jon Kyl is Republican current CD6 Congressman Jeff Flake.  He raised over $1 million in just a few months.  Also in the race is Republican Bryan Hackbarth, a former mayor of Youngtown, AZ.  As of this writing, no Democrats have formed committees this race, though once Congresswoman Gabby Giffords' condition/intentions become clearer, that is expected to change.

For U.S. Congress -

Republican former speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives Kirk Adams announced his intention to run for Congress immediately after becoming a "former" state legislator this past week.  He doesn't have paperwork up on the FEC's website, but he did tweet about it -

No word if Adams' speeches and press releases will be written directly by Jon "not intended to be a factual statement" Kyl, or if Kyl's principles will just be the "guiding light" behind Adams' public statements.

Also running:

Ann Kirkpatrick, a Democratic former Congresswoman, looking for a rematch in CD1 with dentist and current occupant Paul Gosar.

Wenona Benally Baldenegro, an attorney and a 2010 graduate of EmergeArizona, is a candidate for CD1, also.

Russell Jenna, a Republican/tea party type, in CD3 (currently held by Republican Ben Quayle).

Chuck Gray, a Republican former state senator, in CD6 (currently held by Flake).

Matt Salmon, a Republican former Congressman and GOP state chair, in CD6.

Gabriela Saucedo-Mercer, Republican, CD7 (currently held by Democrat Raul Grijalva).


For legislature:

Thomas J. Shope, Jr., Republican, has opened an exploratory committee for LD23 House.  Because he is a "Jr." and I don't know Pinal County all that well, some of this may be for his father, but he seems to have been the press guy for Paul Babeu's campaign for Pinal County Sheriff in 2008 and seems to be the son of the mayor of Coolidge, AZ.  Shope Sr. is the committee chairman.

Bob Blendu, a Republican former state senator, has opened a committee for LD12 House.

Tom Murray, Republican, has opened a committee for LD12 House.  He ran as a Libertarian candidate for Estrella Mountain constable in 2010.  He didn't win.


For Tempe City Council -

Ann Heins, Republican


For City of Scottsdale -

Still quiet.  So far.


For City of Phoenix (2011 elections) -

In full swing, with petitions due in the month starting tomorrow.  Peggy Neely made her entry into the race for mayor official, and a number of candidates have jumped into the race to fill her seat in Phoenix' District 2.  The full list of candidates is here.

More on this election as candidate petitions are filed.


Later...

Medical Marijuana zoning ordinances - next up: Tempe, Thursday night

On Tuesday, the Scottsdale City Council approved a zoning ordinance for medical marijuana dispensaries by a 4 - 3 vote.

Thursday night, the Tempe City Council will consider a proposed ordinance for their city.

There are some similarities between Scottsdale's recently-enacted ordinance and the proposal up for consideration in Tempe at Thursday night's meeting. 

Both require a significant buffer between any dispensary or cultivation site and a multitude of other businesses, buildings and other urban features - other dispensaries, schools, child care centers, churches (of any denomination or faith), parks, public buildings, residences.


Both limit the hours of operation -

- Scottsdale: 6 a.m. until 7 p.m.;

- Tempe: 8 a.m until 6 p.m.


Both place significant hurdles in the way of any medical marijuana dispensary operation -

- Scottsdale: all dispensaries will have to go through the "Conditional Use Permit" process, which means that each dispensary will have to be approved by the City Council before it can begin operation;

- Tempe: the proposed ordinance is designed to isolate the businesses in areas zoned for industrial use.

Tempe's proposal is actually stricter than Scottsdale's.  Where Scottsdale will allow cultivation of medical marijuana if the cultivation location, including patient residences, meets certain criteria (not easy, but possible), Tempe's proposal bars cultivation of medical marijuana in the City, even for home-bound patients, if there is a medical marijuana dispensary within 25 miles of the location.

While the agenda can be approved in its entirety by a single motion, but the agenda item for this measure, D4, is marked as a "public discussion" item and can be removed for separate consideration by any member of the public. 

I expect it will be so removed. 

Bring your munchies.  :))

The Tempe City Council meets at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 31 E. 5th St. in Tempe.  Interested folks can send an email to the entire Tempe City Council here.  Note: Communications with the Council are considered public records under Arizona law, and subject to public disclosure.  In other words, keep it civil and on point (of course, since some of the members of the Council are friends of mine, I'd recommend that anyway :) ).

Later...

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.

Scottsdale Mayor Lane discarding expertise of Scottsdale residents...

...if the resident with that expertise is associated with an outgoing member of the City Council...

An email update from the Coalition of Greater Scottsdale (COGS) confirms something I had overheard, that members of City task forces who were appointed by outgoing council members Wayne Ecton and Tony/Marg Nelssen will be removed from their task forces and replaced by appointees of the newest members of the Council, Linda Milhaven and Dennis Robbins.

The email wonders if this is allowed under the rules in Scottsdale (City Charter and/or ordinances).  I'm not sure as the Charter and ordinances are unclear on the status of task forces (a lack of clarity that Lane is almost certainly taking advantage of), but while the City's commissions and boards are specifically covered in both Charter and ordinance language, task forces don't seem to be.

Article 5 of the Scottsdale City Charter gives the Council the authority to "create, change, and abolish boards or commissions" at its discretion, but nothing specifies the appointment procedures.

Section 2-241 of the City Code seems to apply here.

Part (b) specifies

"All members of appointive boards and commissions shall be appointed by and serve without compensation at the pleasure of the council."

Part (d) specifies

"Appointment to a board or commission, except the public safety personnel retirement system board and the personnel board, shall be for a term of three (3) years or until a successor is appointed. "

In short, and in practice, members of boards and commissions are appointed by the Council as a whole and the appointees serve specific terms on those boards and commissions.

However, the only place where task forces and task force members are mentioned is in the clauses of the City's code of ethics that say that the code of ethics applies to members of task forces. 

Otherwise, task forces are more temporary and "ad hoc" than the more formal boards and commissions.

The practice during the Lane administration regarding task forces has been for each member of the Council to directly appoint one member while the Mayor appoints the chair of the task force.

While there is nothing in the City's charter or code that clearly allows that practice, there also isn't anything barring it, either.

Whew.  :)

With all that as background, it seems petty and shortsighted of the Lane regime to discard folks who have been working on a given issue for up to a year or longer simply because of a change in the composition of the Council. 

This seems particularly so given the intent that task forces are temporary.  The time needed for new members to get up to speed can only needlessly lengthen the time that a task force has to spend on its given task, creating inefficiencies in both the use of taxpayer resources and in simple government operations.

Something that a "small government" enthusiast like Lane should find anathema to his professed ideology.

Only he doesn't apparently.

First 2012 Congressional candidate for the Rs?

From the Arizona Republic -

Tim La Sota, chief of staff to Scottsdale Mayor Jim Lane, has resigned to join Scottsdale-based Rose Law Group, he said.

La Sota, an attorney, became Lane's chief of staff when the mayor's term began in January 2009. He will remain with the city through Nov. 26.

LaSota has already been moonlighting for the Rose Law Group, working on its defense of SB1070.  That isn't a big surprise, since he was one of uber-nativist Andrew Thomas' lobbyists/hangers-on during Thomas' tenure as Maricopa County Attorney.
There was also some hubbub recently over certain high-ranking staffers, and LaSota was one, who received lucrative raises when rank-and-file city employees are looking at stagnant or even declining pay and scaled back benefits (or the City passing an increasing portion of the costs of those benefits to the employees).  It's possible that Jim Lane/Lamar Whitmer orchestrated this to help minimize political fallout during the next election cycle.  Lane will be up for reelection then.

Still, this seems to be more a move to set up a possible electoral run in two or four years than political damage control.  In Scottsdale, the only people who care about the average City employee (or resident, for that matter) getting screwed over are the screwees themselves.

As a City employee, however, there would be all sorts of legal, ethical, and practical restrictions on his ability to raise money for and run a campaign for elected office.

Tim LaSota is the son of Jack LaSota, a former AZ attorney general and currently a lawyer and lobbyist.  His dad is an insider's insider, and the apple hasn't fallen far from the tree.. 

The question isn't *if* Tim LaSota is going to run for office, it's "when and where" will LaSota will run.

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...

Public comment submitted to the Scottsdale City Council on Arizona American Water agenda item

The following comment was submitted to the Scottsdale City Council regarding item number 22 of Tuesday's agenda, consideration of options regarding the operations and facilities of Arizona American Water (see this earlier post for more info).

The comment -

Mayor Lane and members of the Council,


By now, you are familiar with the history behind item 22 of this week's agenda - the discovery of contaminated groundwater in south Scottsdale, the clean up efforts, and particularly, the failures of Arizona American Water (AAW) to perform its duties in this regard.

Failures that exposed thousands of Scottsdale residents to contaminated drinking water.

On Tuesday, October 19, you will be considering two possible options for dealing with those failures.

One option is to engage in a "Treat and Transport" agreement with Arizona American Water. The City would handle the "treatment" (cleanup) of AAW water before forwarding it to AAW's system so that AAW could then deliver it to their customers.

The second option would be to acquire AAW's assets in the affected area through a condemnation proceeding and to bring those customers into the municipal water delivery system.

The report from City Staff cites low short-term costs and resource consumption as advantages of the "Treat and Transport" option while citing the opposite as among the disadvantages of the "condemnation" option.

City Staff favors the "Treat and Transport" approach (http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/2010/10/15/20101015sr-azwater1016.html), however, I am urging you to give serious consideration to acquiring AAW's Scottsdale assets through condemnation.

To be certain, condemnation of private property is a serious issue and not something to be undertaken on a whim or lark. However, in this case it is wholly appropriate.

With its failures, AAW's operation has become a public health risk, one that merits the removal of AAW from Scottsdale (at a fair price, of course.)

The draft agreement included in the Council Report on this item does include insurance provisions, but those provisions do not cover liability incurred for failure to properly treat contaminated water.

The very reason that this item is before you.

Either option would result in the City assuming that liability. However, the "Treat and Transport" option would cause the City to incur that risk while AAW would retain the profit from the City's efforts to clean the contaminated water.

Much like the federal bailout of Wall Street, that kind of socialization of risk and privatization of profit hurts the public interest far more than it helps it.

Inevitably, a number of lobbyists for AAW will decry any move to condemn AAW's Scottsdale operation as an inappropriate interference with the "free market" and an improper abrogation of "private property rights."

And if the issue at hand concerned a Brown Avenue retailer selling overpriced yet substandard trinkets to tourists, I would agree with them. While sales to tourists are important to Scottsdale's economy, they aren't a matter of life or death.

However, the matter at hand it water, something we all need to survive. "Substandard" isn't good enough.


Those lobbyists will be looking to safeguard AAW's short-term interests, and that is their job.

Your job is to look after the long-term interests of the residents of Scottsdale.


Thank your for your time.


Regards,

[cpmaz]

The above comment is sure to annoy certain people (such as regular reader Thane :) ), but while I would strongly oppose a move to take property from one private owner in order to transfer it to another, more politically-favored, private owner (see Kelo v. New London), this truly is a matter of the public good.

Scottsdale considering condemnation of AZAmWater assets within Scottsdale area

...and a astroturf "grassroots" private property rights group is mobilizing to stop it.

One of the items on Tuesday's agenda for the Scottsdale City Council has to do with "Arizona American Water Company Delivery Service Options." (warning: large .pdf.  It make take a while to download, even with a high speed connection)

Arizona American Water provides water service to a small portion of Scottsdale, but one that is the source of problems out of all proportion to its size. 

The affected area is part of the North Indian Bend Wash Superfund Site.  It covers a section of south Scottsdale where industrial concerns disposed of waste in a way that contaminated the groundwater in the area.

Arizona American Water (AAW) operates one of the facilities built to treat (clean) the contaminated water, the Miller Road Treatment Facility (MRTF).

AAW would treat contaminated water and then mix it with the drinking water that they sell to portions of Scottsdale and Paradise Valley.

in 2007 and 2008, there were incidents at the MRTF that resulted in a significant quantity of un- and undertreated being pumped to residential customers in AAW's service area. (Info on the incidents here, here, here, and here.)

After the second incident, there was a lot of pressure on the Scottsdale City Council to look at acquiring the Scottsdale part of AAW's service area and to fold the customers into the City's water delivery system.

AAW and its parent company, American Waterworks (corporate headquarters in New Jersey), immediately objected and loudly proclaimed that the affected area wasn't for sale.

The Council at the time directed City sfaff to study the matter and to get back to them about it.

That's happening Tuesday, when City staff will present its report, evaluation, and recommendation that the Council choose one of two possible options.

1. Direct staff to bring forward a resolution authorizing a Treat and Transport Agreement with Arizona American Water Company “the Company” whereby the City will receive and treat the Company’s Central Arizona Project raw water allotment and deliver the finished water to the Company’s system at a metered Point of Delivery; OR

2. Direct staff to bring forward a resolution whereby the Council will authorize a condemnation proceeding to acquire all or a portion of Arizona American Water Company assets located within the Paradise Valley Water District and make appropriate findings of public use and necessity.

In the interim, an astroturf group (aka - a fake grassroots group) called the ORANGE Coalition (an acronym for "Organized Residents Against Needless Government Encroachment) was established, to fight all government uses of eminent domain and similar acquisitions of property.  The group was formed as a non-profit corporation, effectively shielding its financing from public scrutiny, with its "domestic address" listed with the AZ Corporation Commission as "1025 LAUREL OAK RD., VOORHEES, NJ 08043" (since updated to a mail drop in Scottsdale).

That address is significant because it is the address of American Waterworks' corporate headquarters.  And while the group's address has since been updated, one of the directors of the group, Daniel Kelleher, still lists his address as that of the corporate HQ.  Kelleher is a "retired" executive of American Waterworks who has been retained by the company to fight efforts by local governments to acquire any of its "problem" operations in order to protect the affected residents/customers.

More background on the ORANGE Coalition here and here.

The ORANGE Coalition has put out a few email blasts, exhorting members of the community to come to the defense of AAW and protect it from condemnation proceedings, all in the name of private property rights.

None of their email messages mention AAW's penchant for pumping poison into its customers' homes.

In addition to the efforts of AAW/ORANGE to fill the City Hall Kiva with supporters on Tuesday night, there has been a media push - the Arizona Republic published an unsigned editorial criticizing the "condemnation" option and praise the "treat and transport" option, while KTVK (Channel 3) will be running a report on a "government takeover" of private property in Scottsdale a day or so before the Council meeting (based on a promo during Friday's late newscast).  A more neutral (at least, a less obviously slanted) AZRep article on the matter is here.

Tuesday should be interesting in an "election year gymnastics" sort of way - Council members Wayne Ecton and Bob Littlefield are up for reelection in just a few weeks, and while they probably don't want to tick off their business community supporters by arguing and voting for condemnation, they also don't want to be seen as throwing thousands of Scottsdale residents under the corporate bus in the name of ever-greater profits.

Council member Ron McCullagh was/is one of AAW's customers and was the moving force behind consideration, and I expect that he will support the condemnation option.

Mayor Jim Lane will oppose condemnation, and Council member Lisa Borowsky will follow his lead, as will Council member Marg Nelssen.

That leaves Council member Suzanne Klapp, and I don't have a read on her on this matter.

Prediction time:  A 4-3 or 5-2 vote in favor of the "treat and transport" option - it's got that mix of being seen as "doing something" while "not being too rash." 

The perfect two-step for an election year.

The gloves coming off in Scottsdale...again

Things in Scottsdale got ugly in 2008, and it looks to be getting the same way in 2010.

In case anyone is thinking the nastiness of the state's and country's political discourse this year hasn't trickled down to local races, think again.

From the Arizona Republic -

Two candidates running for Scottsdale City Council have fired back against a recent political advertisement that accused them of raising taxes and increasing spending.

The ad in Thursday's Scottsdale Republic targets candidates Ned O'Hearn, Linda Milhaven and Councilman Wayne Ecton. Ecton did not immediately respond. Paid for by the Keep Scottsdale's Future Bright committee, it is plastered with the headline "Warning!" and discourages readers from voting for the three, which the ad describes as "the tax and spend trio."

The group, Keep Scottsdale's Future Bright, is chaired by Tom Mason and its treasurer is Mike Fernandez.

Mason is a Scottsdale-based real estate agent and a contributor to Mayor Jim Lane's campaign committee.

Fernandez is a long-time activist in Scottsdale politics, acting as chair or treasurer of a number of committees that are "against" something or other.  He has also contributed to the coarsening of Scottsdale's political discourse, utilizing the City Council agenda's "public comment" section to launch personal attacks against certain members of the council and their families, including current target Wayne Ecton.

In the ad in question, they criticize each of three candidates, Linda Milhaven, Ned O'Hearn, and (of course) Wayne Ecton for different votes (Ecton is a current member of the City Council and O'Hearn is a former member of the Council) or activities (Milhaven is a former chair of the Scottsdale Cultural Council).

The best (in a "they really should do their homework" sort of way) was the criticism of Ecton's vote for a retirement-incentive program that encouraged senior City employees to retire early. 

The program came in for criticism from some who thought the program was too generous to exiting City employees (one week's pay for each year of service).  The program was used to rationalize firing John Little, the former Scottsdale City Manager.

The ENTIRE council voted for the program, not just Ecton. 

Yet, Mason, Fernandez, et. al. have targeted their criticisms for only one of the current members running for reelection.  Bob Littlefield, one of the clique favored by Lane, Fernandez, Mason, Lamar Whitmer, et. al., is getting a free pass.  Late council member Tony Nelssen would have been up for reelection, but his untimely passing ended his campaign.  As he was part of the same bloc as Littlefield, I have no doubt he would have received the same free pass.

It will be interesting to see what the Mason/Fernandez group discloses in its campaign filings.  I expect their list of contributors to be a short one.

Later...