From Iran: David Duke, former KKK leader and Randy Graf supporter, appeared at a Holocaust denial conference in Tehran.
...and some CD8 Republicans still wonder how Randy Graf was perceived as too extreme for the district.
From Chile: This weekend, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet followed Ken Lay's example on how to avoid facing justice for his crimes.
He died.
We don't have to worry about this fate befalling any of the officials of the current Presidential administration - W can pardon them preemptively. Hell, the pardon papers are probably already printed and filled out.
The only real question is if, under the U.S. Constitution, a President can self-pardon.
From New York: A Manhattan court has sent a firm message that hardcore criminals will not be tolerated. Cindy Sheehan was convicted of trespassing for trying to deliver anti-Iraq war petitions to the U.S. mission to the United Nations.
From Baghdad: 57 people died in car bomb attacks.
And the Bush Admin thinks that *protesting* the war non-violently is a crime, but *fighting* it is OK?
From Cleveland: U.S. Rep Dennis Kucinich announced his candidacy for the 2008 Democratic nomination for the Presidency.
No wiseass comment here; I don't think he has a snowball's chance of winning, but he should make the campaign rhetoric interesting.
From Houston: Keith Turner was sentenced to 90 years in prison (has to serve 30 years before being eligible for parole) for his role in a vicious and brutal racially-motivated attack. His partner in the crime, David Henry Tuck, was previously convicted and sentenced to life in prison for his role in the crime.
Turner is 17; Tuck is 18.
I wrote about the attack in late April; at the time, the victim was not expected to survive.
After a huge number of operations (and, I assume, rehab sessions), he is well enough to testify that he couldn't remember anything about the attack.
The sentences aren't long enough. Not by a long shot.
And finally, the most important news -
In Chattanooga, TN: The Minutemen as scheduled to invade Chattanooga on Friday, December 15.
No, not the group of David Duke-wannabes dedicated to fearlessly protecting our country from poor brown people looking for work.
Nope, the Minutemen I'm talking about are the members of the University of Massachusetts' football team.
They're in the 1-AA championship game, facing the Mountaineers of Appalachian State University (NC).
Have a great night!
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Thursday, December 07, 2006
LD17 rumor
I generally don't do rumors, and this one is an unattributed one (for now) per the request of my source, but the source is very credible.
So, I'm going with it.
Remember the speculation concerning who the Republicans will run against Harry Mitchell for the CD5 seat in 2008?
Turns out that at least one of the candidates mentioned, Laura Knaperek, won't be able to run.
She's moving to California. Apparently, within a few days you should be able to drive by her house in Tempe and see a "for sale" sign on it.
She said more than once during the campaign that the Democratic candidates, Ed Ableser and David Schapira, would move out of the district once they lost.
I suppose that I could be snarky here, but it actually makes sense - her husband has commuted to CA for work for years, she's lost two elections in D17 now, and she doesn't have a snowball's chance in Phoenix (in July!) of winning a CD5 primary against a Scottsdale Republican.
While I am still very happy that she's no longer one of the D17 State Reps, I wish her and her family good fortune in California.
...Of course, now the speculation about who the LD17 Reps are going to run in 2008 will start in earnest. :)
Have a great weekend!
So, I'm going with it.
Remember the speculation concerning who the Republicans will run against Harry Mitchell for the CD5 seat in 2008?
Turns out that at least one of the candidates mentioned, Laura Knaperek, won't be able to run.
She's moving to California. Apparently, within a few days you should be able to drive by her house in Tempe and see a "for sale" sign on it.
She said more than once during the campaign that the Democratic candidates, Ed Ableser and David Schapira, would move out of the district once they lost.
I suppose that I could be snarky here, but it actually makes sense - her husband has commuted to CA for work for years, she's lost two elections in D17 now, and she doesn't have a snowball's chance in Phoenix (in July!) of winning a CD5 primary against a Scottsdale Republican.
While I am still very happy that she's no longer one of the D17 State Reps, I wish her and her family good fortune in California.
...Of course, now the speculation about who the LD17 Reps are going to run in 2008 will start in earnest. :)
Have a great weekend!
Scottsdale sign ordinance open houses/forums
The City of Scottsdale Planning and Development Services Department held open houses at the city's Water Campus (Wednesday, December 6th) and at the Granite Reef Senior Center regarding possible changes to the City's sign ordinance.
The forums were mostly information dissemination/gathering sessions intended to let people know about the current ordinance and to solicit opinions and suggestions for possible changes.
The part of the press release publicizing the event that piqued my interest the most was a reference to possible restrictions on political signs placed on private property.
When I went to the forums (yes, I went to both :) ) I found out that as of right now, there isn't any concrete proposal to restrict placement of political signs on private property; what they do have right now is a proposal to "prohibit temporary signs on public property and public rights-of-ways."
Based on the research that I did for an earlier post, the City is saving themselves a lot of headaches (and saving us a lot of tax money spent on legal fees) by leaving free speech on private property alone.
Scottsdale is already considered the most-regulated city in terms of signs, and that's not going to change, even if a full ban on signs on public property isn't enacted.
One resident suggestion that was posted was to require campaigns to post a 'removal bond' - money to ensure that the campaigns remove their signs after the election, money that would be forfeited if the signs aren't removed in a timely manner.
While I understand the rationale behind that idea, it would probably unfairly impact smaller campaigns. A campaign such as one for Congress or even state lege could probably afford a few hundred dollars for a bond; a JP campaign might not be able to tie up 10% to 50% of their entire campaign budget with no return on it (even if the money is going to *be* returned after the election.)
As of right now (the scheduling is tentative), the Planning Commission should hold a hearing on this on January 10, 2007, with the City Council weighing in on the subject sometime in February 2007.
This is worth keeping an eye on, so I will try to make it to both the Planning Commission meeting and the City Council meeting that address this.
Later!!
The forums were mostly information dissemination/gathering sessions intended to let people know about the current ordinance and to solicit opinions and suggestions for possible changes.
The part of the press release publicizing the event that piqued my interest the most was a reference to possible restrictions on political signs placed on private property.
When I went to the forums (yes, I went to both :) ) I found out that as of right now, there isn't any concrete proposal to restrict placement of political signs on private property; what they do have right now is a proposal to "prohibit temporary signs on public property and public rights-of-ways."
Based on the research that I did for an earlier post, the City is saving themselves a lot of headaches (and saving us a lot of tax money spent on legal fees) by leaving free speech on private property alone.
Scottsdale is already considered the most-regulated city in terms of signs, and that's not going to change, even if a full ban on signs on public property isn't enacted.
One resident suggestion that was posted was to require campaigns to post a 'removal bond' - money to ensure that the campaigns remove their signs after the election, money that would be forfeited if the signs aren't removed in a timely manner.
While I understand the rationale behind that idea, it would probably unfairly impact smaller campaigns. A campaign such as one for Congress or even state lege could probably afford a few hundred dollars for a bond; a JP campaign might not be able to tie up 10% to 50% of their entire campaign budget with no return on it (even if the money is going to *be* returned after the election.)
As of right now (the scheduling is tentative), the Planning Commission should hold a hearing on this on January 10, 2007, with the City Council weighing in on the subject sometime in February 2007.
This is worth keeping an eye on, so I will try to make it to both the Planning Commission meeting and the City Council meeting that address this.
Later!!
The new citizenship test
Last week, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services released a list of 144 questions for a "New Pilot Naturalization Exam."
Most of the questions seemed to be pretty straightforward and not too difficult, but there are a couple of things that I thought were curious -
1. Many of the questions were almost word-for-word repeats of previous questions.
For example, question 27 asks "What decides each state’s number of U.S. Representatives?" while question 28 asks "How is each state’s number of Representatives decided?"
2. While the intent of most of the questions was to establish that the prospective citizens taking the test have a basic level of knowledge of US History and civics, two of them test knowledge so obscure that even highly educated natural-born citizens wouldn't know the answers.
Question 100 asks "Name one of the writers of the Federalist Papers?" and question 101 asks "What group of essays supported passage of the U.S. Constitution?"
I consider myself intelligent and knowledgeable, but there's no way that I can honestly say that I would have known the answers to those particular questions.
Anyway, on to the main purpose of this post - How would you do on the test?
I'm not going to post all 144 questions here; they're available at the link at the beginning of this post.
For the purposes of this post, 30 questions that are representative of the entire list will do. The answers, also from the USCIS website, will be posted in a comment.
2. What is the supreme law of the land?
5. What do we call changes to the Constitution?
8. Name one right or freedom from the First Amendment.
13. What are the three branches or parts of the government?
15. Who is in charge of the executive branch?
16. Who makes federal laws?
22. The House of Representatives has how many voting members?
29. Why do we have three branches of government?
30. Name one example of checks and balances.
33. The President must be born in what country?
39. Who becomes President if both the President and the Vice President can no longer serve?
46. Name two Cabinet-level positions.
50. Who is the Chief Justice of the United States?
53. Name one thing only the federal government can do.
57. What is the capital (or capital city) of your state?
60. What is the majority political party in the House of Representatives now?
82. Name two ways that Americans can participate in their democracy.
83. When is the last day you can send in federal income tax forms?
91. There are 13 original states. Name three.
92. What group of people was taken to America and sold as slaves?
93. Who lived in America before the Europeans arrived?
98. Who is called the “Father of Our Country”?
102. Name one of the major American Indian tribes in the United States.
109. Name one problem that led to the Civil War.
117. What major event happened on September 11, 2001, in the United States?
122. What did Martin Luther King, Jr. do?
125. What is the longest river in the United States?
128. Where is the Grand Canyon? [Any local readers who get this one wrong need to take a hammer to their modems before going outside for a while. :)) ]
130. What country is on the southern border of the United States? [Ditto.]
144. Name two national U.S. holidays.
How do you think you did?
Check the answers in the comment section.
Most of us should get them all correct; certainly, anything less than 25 out of 30 correct is an embarrassment. :)
Later!
Most of the questions seemed to be pretty straightforward and not too difficult, but there are a couple of things that I thought were curious -
1. Many of the questions were almost word-for-word repeats of previous questions.
For example, question 27 asks "What decides each state’s number of U.S. Representatives?" while question 28 asks "How is each state’s number of Representatives decided?"
2. While the intent of most of the questions was to establish that the prospective citizens taking the test have a basic level of knowledge of US History and civics, two of them test knowledge so obscure that even highly educated natural-born citizens wouldn't know the answers.
Question 100 asks "Name one of the writers of the Federalist Papers?" and question 101 asks "What group of essays supported passage of the U.S. Constitution?"
I consider myself intelligent and knowledgeable, but there's no way that I can honestly say that I would have known the answers to those particular questions.
Anyway, on to the main purpose of this post - How would you do on the test?
I'm not going to post all 144 questions here; they're available at the link at the beginning of this post.
For the purposes of this post, 30 questions that are representative of the entire list will do. The answers, also from the USCIS website, will be posted in a comment.
2. What is the supreme law of the land?
5. What do we call changes to the Constitution?
8. Name one right or freedom from the First Amendment.
13. What are the three branches or parts of the government?
15. Who is in charge of the executive branch?
16. Who makes federal laws?
22. The House of Representatives has how many voting members?
29. Why do we have three branches of government?
30. Name one example of checks and balances.
33. The President must be born in what country?
39. Who becomes President if both the President and the Vice President can no longer serve?
46. Name two Cabinet-level positions.
50. Who is the Chief Justice of the United States?
53. Name one thing only the federal government can do.
57. What is the capital (or capital city) of your state?
60. What is the majority political party in the House of Representatives now?
82. Name two ways that Americans can participate in their democracy.
83. When is the last day you can send in federal income tax forms?
91. There are 13 original states. Name three.
92. What group of people was taken to America and sold as slaves?
93. Who lived in America before the Europeans arrived?
98. Who is called the “Father of Our Country”?
102. Name one of the major American Indian tribes in the United States.
109. Name one problem that led to the Civil War.
117. What major event happened on September 11, 2001, in the United States?
122. What did Martin Luther King, Jr. do?
125. What is the longest river in the United States?
128. Where is the Grand Canyon? [Any local readers who get this one wrong need to take a hammer to their modems before going outside for a while. :)) ]
130. What country is on the southern border of the United States? [Ditto.]
144. Name two national U.S. holidays.
How do you think you did?
Check the answers in the comment section.
Most of us should get them all correct; certainly, anything less than 25 out of 30 correct is an embarrassment. :)
Later!
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
JD Hayworth's Farewell Speech
Watched CSPAN for a little bit tonight, and was treated to the sight of JD's farewell speech on the House floor.
Actually, there were a few farewell speeches, as many of the outgoing members of the House Republican Study Group gave their speeches tonight. They saved JD for last, with Mike Pence (R-IN) introducing him as "the Sultan of Swat" and as "the cleanup hitter" of Republican speakers.
Hayworth was in fine form tonight (and I'm not being sarcastic, either :) .)
He started with a little bit of self-deprecating humor; first by agreeing with Rep. Pence's glowing introduction (to a round of laughter from the other members present), then by noting that he while he appreciated the sports reference (Babe Ruth was the "Sultan of Swat"), he no longer had the "Ruthian" girth.
He sounded a little wistful as he spoke about how he "involuntarily retired" from Congress, recounting a quote from a previous Congressman who stated that he left Congress due to health reasons - "The voters got sick of me."
The main part of his talk was mostly made up of praises of the Congress, the Founding Fathers, and the people of America.
His closing included expressions of thanks to his family, colleagues, and the people of Arizona.
During his speech, he said a couple of things that, well, if he had talked like this during the campaign, he might have won over enough Independent voters to have won the election.
The first was when he spoke about the agreements and disagreements in the House; he observed that such agreements and disagreements were part of the package of American democracy. He actually sounded wiser and more reasonable than I've ever heard him sound before.
Too bad for him that the reasonable words weren't turned into reasonable actions, and before the election.
The second thing that he said that indicated to me that he may have learned a little from this election cycle was when he said that "public service isn't always defined by public office."
Of course, it could just mean that he considers hosting a talk show, TV or radio, to be "public service."
Anyway, he really is a fine orator when he wants to be, and he wanted to be one tonight. I'll link to the appropriate part of the Congressional Record when today's proceedings are entered into it.
One other interesting observation: this really was a backslapping party and the praises the speakers heaped on one another were effusive, however, while everyone else was lauded for the "integrity" they brought to the RSC and to the Congress, that word was never used in a description of JD.
Just sayin'. :))
Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), the incoming chair of the House RSC, closed the Republican part of the evening's festivities by saying that "God made only one JD Hayworth."
A fact for which somewhere over 50% of his soon-to-be former constituents are very grateful.
Note: While this was his 'farewell' speech, the House has a little work left to do before adjourning for the holidays. He may have the opportunity to speak one more time.
Edit on 10 December to add:
The link to the Congressional Record page covering Hayworth's farewell is here. JD's section starts in the third column.
End edit.
Actually, there were a few farewell speeches, as many of the outgoing members of the House Republican Study Group gave their speeches tonight. They saved JD for last, with Mike Pence (R-IN) introducing him as "the Sultan of Swat" and as "the cleanup hitter" of Republican speakers.
Hayworth was in fine form tonight (and I'm not being sarcastic, either :) .)
He started with a little bit of self-deprecating humor; first by agreeing with Rep. Pence's glowing introduction (to a round of laughter from the other members present), then by noting that he while he appreciated the sports reference (Babe Ruth was the "Sultan of Swat"), he no longer had the "Ruthian" girth.
He sounded a little wistful as he spoke about how he "involuntarily retired" from Congress, recounting a quote from a previous Congressman who stated that he left Congress due to health reasons - "The voters got sick of me."
The main part of his talk was mostly made up of praises of the Congress, the Founding Fathers, and the people of America.
His closing included expressions of thanks to his family, colleagues, and the people of Arizona.
During his speech, he said a couple of things that, well, if he had talked like this during the campaign, he might have won over enough Independent voters to have won the election.
The first was when he spoke about the agreements and disagreements in the House; he observed that such agreements and disagreements were part of the package of American democracy. He actually sounded wiser and more reasonable than I've ever heard him sound before.
Too bad for him that the reasonable words weren't turned into reasonable actions, and before the election.
The second thing that he said that indicated to me that he may have learned a little from this election cycle was when he said that "public service isn't always defined by public office."
Of course, it could just mean that he considers hosting a talk show, TV or radio, to be "public service."
Anyway, he really is a fine orator when he wants to be, and he wanted to be one tonight. I'll link to the appropriate part of the Congressional Record when today's proceedings are entered into it.
One other interesting observation: this really was a backslapping party and the praises the speakers heaped on one another were effusive, however, while everyone else was lauded for the "integrity" they brought to the RSC and to the Congress, that word was never used in a description of JD.
Just sayin'. :))
Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), the incoming chair of the House RSC, closed the Republican part of the evening's festivities by saying that "God made only one JD Hayworth."
A fact for which somewhere over 50% of his soon-to-be former constituents are very grateful.
Note: While this was his 'farewell' speech, the House has a little work left to do before adjourning for the holidays. He may have the opportunity to speak one more time.
Edit on 10 December to add:
The link to the Congressional Record page covering Hayworth's farewell is here. JD's section starts in the third column.
End edit.
Cell phones and driving
[non-political post ahead]
I've got a few posts for tonight (including JD Hayworth's farewell speech to the House!), but I'm going to start with the short one:
As of tonight, count me as one of the people who believes that the use of cell phones while driving should be BANNED except for a verifiable and real emergency.
I was driving back from a forum about proposed changes to Scottsdale's ordinance regarding political signs (more on that later) when, thanks to somebody who was paying more attention to the conversation on his cell phone than to traffic signals, I thought I was going to die.
At the 90th St./Pima Rd. on-ramp to Loop 101 Southbound, somebody on a cell phone ignored his red light and nearly crashed into two lanes of traffic turning left onto the freeway. Traffic that had a green left turn signal.
We all stopped and leaned into our horns.
The idiot didn't even hang up; he just kept on driving and talking; he didn't even acknowlege the event.
While most of the evidence that I have to support a ban is anecdotal (i.e. - witnessing accidents and near-accidents), there's a LOT of that anecdotal evidence.
Enough is enough - Ban using 'em while driving.
Even Tom and Ray of NPR's CarTalk agree.
Later!
I've got a few posts for tonight (including JD Hayworth's farewell speech to the House!), but I'm going to start with the short one:
As of tonight, count me as one of the people who believes that the use of cell phones while driving should be BANNED except for a verifiable and real emergency.
I was driving back from a forum about proposed changes to Scottsdale's ordinance regarding political signs (more on that later) when, thanks to somebody who was paying more attention to the conversation on his cell phone than to traffic signals, I thought I was going to die.
At the 90th St./Pima Rd. on-ramp to Loop 101 Southbound, somebody on a cell phone ignored his red light and nearly crashed into two lanes of traffic turning left onto the freeway. Traffic that had a green left turn signal.
We all stopped and leaned into our horns.
The idiot didn't even hang up; he just kept on driving and talking; he didn't even acknowlege the event.
While most of the evidence that I have to support a ban is anecdotal (i.e. - witnessing accidents and near-accidents), there's a LOT of that anecdotal evidence.
Enough is enough - Ban using 'em while driving.
Even Tom and Ray of NPR's CarTalk agree.
Later!
Monday, December 04, 2006
The Repubs are frothing over a Muslim Congressman-elect
swearing to his oath of office with his hand on a Quran instead of a Bible.
Conservative talkshow host and columnist Dennis Prager wrote last week about his outrage that Congressman-elect Keith Ellison of Minnesota will be taking his oath of office on a Muslim Quran instead of a Christian Bible. (TownHall.com)
The conservative blogosphere picked up on the column almost immediately, and the feeding frenzy ensued.
Laurie Roberts of the AZ Rep mentioned it in her AZCentral.com blog, where it immediately became the most-commented upon entry of the day, pushing aside the ever-popular illegal immigration as the biggest hate-magnet.
A couple of points here -
1. I cannot find any MSM references to any such announcement by Congressman-elect Ellison. I'm not saying that he *isn't* going to have a Quran at his swearing-in, but I'd like a more credible source than Mr. Prager.
2. As noted by Stacy of AZCongressWatch in a comment on Laurie Roberts' blog, members of Congress don't swear their official oaths of office with religious books. They can have them at private swearing-in ceremonies/photo ops. (The Hill)
It seems that Mr. Prager (and a large part of the conservative blogosphere) doesn't let little things like facts, or the lack thereof, get in the way of his bigoted and hypocritical rantings.
Personally, what I'd like to see is all Congressfolk swearing their oaths of office on a printout of the Congressional ethics rules that the outgoing Republican leadership actually enforced for the last 12 years.
It's something that all of them would revere equally, and it would be environmentally-friendly, given all the trees that would be saved.
Later!
Conservative talkshow host and columnist Dennis Prager wrote last week about his outrage that Congressman-elect Keith Ellison of Minnesota will be taking his oath of office on a Muslim Quran instead of a Christian Bible. (TownHall.com)
The conservative blogosphere picked up on the column almost immediately, and the feeding frenzy ensued.
Laurie Roberts of the AZ Rep mentioned it in her AZCentral.com blog, where it immediately became the most-commented upon entry of the day, pushing aside the ever-popular illegal immigration as the biggest hate-magnet.
A couple of points here -
1. I cannot find any MSM references to any such announcement by Congressman-elect Ellison. I'm not saying that he *isn't* going to have a Quran at his swearing-in, but I'd like a more credible source than Mr. Prager.
2. As noted by Stacy of AZCongressWatch in a comment on Laurie Roberts' blog, members of Congress don't swear their official oaths of office with religious books. They can have them at private swearing-in ceremonies/photo ops. (The Hill)
It seems that Mr. Prager (and a large part of the conservative blogosphere) doesn't let little things like facts, or the lack thereof, get in the way of his bigoted and hypocritical rantings.
Personally, what I'd like to see is all Congressfolk swearing their oaths of office on a printout of the Congressional ethics rules that the outgoing Republican leadership actually enforced for the last 12 years.
It's something that all of them would revere equally, and it would be environmentally-friendly, given all the trees that would be saved.
Later!
Friday, December 01, 2006
Political news roundup for Friday, December 1
First, the national stuff -
2008 Presidential race comings and goings:
...Bill Frist(R) is out. (SitNews.us in Alaska)
...Tom Vilsack(D) is in. (AZ Rep)
...Evan Bayh(D) is almost in. (IndyChannel.com)
...John McCain(R) isn't "officially" in yet, but he's trying to rain on the parade of his biggest rival for the Rep nomination, Mitt Romney, by showing up at the meeting of the Republican Governors Association. (International Herald Tribune)
An organization currently headed up by Governor Romney.
It seems that McCain isn't going for subtlety. :)
...Mitt Romney(R), who isn't officially in yet, is headed to Asia after the RGA meeting. (Boston Globe)
The purpose of the trip is to increase his experience in foreign affairs.
Well, it could also be timed to avoid questions about why the strongly anti-illegal immigration governor of Massachusetts hired illegal immigrants to do his landscaping and lawn care. (Boston Globe)
...Barack Obama(D) brought his tease of the electorate/book tour to the Tonight Show last night. (NCTimes.com - California)
AZ stuff -
...Democratic LD17 Reps-elect David Schapira and Ed Ableser were featured in a great front-page article in the East Valley Trib on Friday.
...On Thursday, State Treasurer David Petersen joined the long list of Arizona office-holders that have left office in disgrace before his term was over. (AZ Star)
Anybody want to start a "Dean Martin Indictment Date Pool"?
Local stuff -
...The EV Trib has finally noticed Scottsdale's plans to ban and/or restrict political signs in an article about next week's open houses. According to the article, City Council member (and LD8 Republican PC and State Committeeman) Ron McCullagh gets the credit/blame for this one.
Have a great weekend!
2008 Presidential race comings and goings:
...Bill Frist(R) is out. (SitNews.us in Alaska)
...Tom Vilsack(D) is in. (AZ Rep)
...Evan Bayh(D) is almost in. (IndyChannel.com)
...John McCain(R) isn't "officially" in yet, but he's trying to rain on the parade of his biggest rival for the Rep nomination, Mitt Romney, by showing up at the meeting of the Republican Governors Association. (International Herald Tribune)
An organization currently headed up by Governor Romney.
It seems that McCain isn't going for subtlety. :)
...Mitt Romney(R), who isn't officially in yet, is headed to Asia after the RGA meeting. (Boston Globe)
The purpose of the trip is to increase his experience in foreign affairs.
Well, it could also be timed to avoid questions about why the strongly anti-illegal immigration governor of Massachusetts hired illegal immigrants to do his landscaping and lawn care. (Boston Globe)
...Barack Obama(D) brought his tease of the electorate/book tour to the Tonight Show last night. (NCTimes.com - California)
AZ stuff -
...Democratic LD17 Reps-elect David Schapira and Ed Ableser were featured in a great front-page article in the East Valley Trib on Friday.
...On Thursday, State Treasurer David Petersen joined the long list of Arizona office-holders that have left office in disgrace before his term was over. (AZ Star)
Anybody want to start a "Dean Martin Indictment Date Pool"?
Local stuff -
...The EV Trib has finally noticed Scottsdale's plans to ban and/or restrict political signs in an article about next week's open houses. According to the article, City Council member (and LD8 Republican PC and State Committeeman) Ron McCullagh gets the credit/blame for this one.
Have a great weekend!
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Let the screaming begin - Scottsdale is updating its sign ordinance
relating to political signs and is holding two open houses on the topic next week.
Quoting from the press release on the City of Scottsdale website (emphasis added):
The current City sign ordinance allows signs in public rights-of-way and doesn't address political signs on private property at all.
The applicable section of the current ordinance:
The tentative schedule for the changes calls for the Planning Commission to address the issue in January, with the changes reaching the City Council in March.
What little research that I've done on this topic indicates that the City is on shaky ground here - they might get away with prohibiting signs on public property, but are very limited as to what they can do to restrict political speech on private property.
In almost every case where such an ordinance has been challenged, the municipality has lost. Usually at great cost to the taxpayers, who end up footing the bill for the plaintiff's legal costs as well as the city's cost for defending the ordinance.
The open houses should be interesting. I fully expect to hear the words "visual pollution" or "aesthetics" as part of the justification for a stricter ordinance; while such considerations may appeal to the tender sensibilities of the Mayor and City Council, those justifications will all but guarantee that at least part of the ordinance will be deemed to be unconstitutional during the inevitable legal challenge.
The open house schedule:
4:30 to 7 p.m. Dec. 6 at the City's Water Campus, 8787 E. Hualapai Drive
4:30 to 7 p.m. Dec. 7 in Room 8 of the Granite Reef Senior Center, 1700 N. Granite Reef Road
Right now, my plan is to attend the December 7th open house; I'll try to attend both, though.
More info on this subject:
FirstAmendmentCenter overview
FirstAmendmentCenter case
Iowa League of Cities info page
Connecticut Association of Municipal Attorneys Municipal Law Highlights - 2004, section I.
Quoting from the press release on the City of Scottsdale website (emphasis added):
At the City Council’s direction, draft amendments to the sign code are being prepared that would prohibit temporary signs, such as political campaign signs, from being placed on public property and in public rights-of-way. The proposed revisions would also restrict the location and size of temporary signs placed on private property.
The current City sign ordinance allows signs in public rights-of-way and doesn't address political signs on private property at all.
The applicable section of the current ordinance:
Sec. 8.607. Political signs.
A. Political signs shall be temporary signs that are limited to a period of one-hundred twenty days. The maximum area of such sign shall be sixteen (16) square feet. If placed behind a dedicated scenic corridor easement, such sign shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet.
B. The maximum height of such sign shall be ten (10) feet.
C. The person, party, or parties responsible for the erection or distribution of any political signs shall submit to the city a map showing all sign locations along with contact information of the party or parties who shall be jointly and severally liable for their removal.
D. No sign permit shall be required for such sign. An encroachment permit shall be required pursuant to Section 8.312.III and Section 47-101 of the Scottsdale Revised Code for political signs placed in the right-of-way.
(Ord. No. 2260, § 2, 7-18-89; Ord. No. 3515, § 1, 6-17-03)
The tentative schedule for the changes calls for the Planning Commission to address the issue in January, with the changes reaching the City Council in March.
What little research that I've done on this topic indicates that the City is on shaky ground here - they might get away with prohibiting signs on public property, but are very limited as to what they can do to restrict political speech on private property.
In almost every case where such an ordinance has been challenged, the municipality has lost. Usually at great cost to the taxpayers, who end up footing the bill for the plaintiff's legal costs as well as the city's cost for defending the ordinance.
The open houses should be interesting. I fully expect to hear the words "visual pollution" or "aesthetics" as part of the justification for a stricter ordinance; while such considerations may appeal to the tender sensibilities of the Mayor and City Council, those justifications will all but guarantee that at least part of the ordinance will be deemed to be unconstitutional during the inevitable legal challenge.
The open house schedule:
4:30 to 7 p.m. Dec. 6 at the City's Water Campus, 8787 E. Hualapai Drive
4:30 to 7 p.m. Dec. 7 in Room 8 of the Granite Reef Senior Center, 1700 N. Granite Reef Road
Right now, my plan is to attend the December 7th open house; I'll try to attend both, though.
More info on this subject:
FirstAmendmentCenter overview
FirstAmendmentCenter case
Iowa League of Cities info page
Connecticut Association of Municipal Attorneys Municipal Law Highlights - 2004, section I.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Is there something in the LD18 water?
It's official: the LD18 Republicans are loons, or at least their elected representatives in the state house and state senate are.
Let's take a look at the evidence:
For one state rep, they have Mark "raping your spouse shouldn't be a felony" Anderson;
For the other state rep, they have Russell "National Alliance" or maybe "Operation Wetback" Pearce;
and, as the piece de resistance, they elected Karen "OMFG! Mere words cannot describe her brand of lunacy!" Johnson.
Her latest escapade, courtesy Howard Fischer in the AZ Daily Star (via the AZ Rep's Plugged In) :
Sen. Johnson is "accusing President Bush of pushing a behind-the-scenes agenda that will result in the U.S. being merged with Mexico and Canada."
Have to hope that whatever she has isn't contagious, because "Johnson said she shared her concerns with some members of the state's congressional delegation during a recent trip to Washington, D.C. "
[Begin edit -
Update on 12/1 - The op-ed piece that she wrote is online at the Tucson Citizen. Also, Sen. Johnson has caught the eye of the John Birch Society. Ugh.
- End edit.]
BTW - If this isn't scary enough, Sen. Johnson is slated to chair the state senate's K-12 Education Committee.
You know there's a major problem with a group such as this when the sanest one of the bunch is *merely* a Neanderthal when it comes to the issue of how women should be treated by their husbands.
Would it be appropriate, for the sake of the state as a whole and LD18 in particular, if the Democratic organizations of other LDs offered what help they can to the LD18 Dems? Help them to send the fearsome threesome to the political showers in 2 years?
Let's take a look at the evidence:
For one state rep, they have Mark "raping your spouse shouldn't be a felony" Anderson;
For the other state rep, they have Russell "National Alliance" or maybe "Operation Wetback" Pearce;
and, as the piece de resistance, they elected Karen "OMFG! Mere words cannot describe her brand of lunacy!" Johnson.
Her latest escapade, courtesy Howard Fischer in the AZ Daily Star (via the AZ Rep's Plugged In) :
Sen. Johnson is "accusing President Bush of pushing a behind-the-scenes agenda that will result in the U.S. being merged with Mexico and Canada."
Have to hope that whatever she has isn't contagious, because "Johnson said she shared her concerns with some members of the state's congressional delegation during a recent trip to Washington, D.C. "
[Begin edit -
Update on 12/1 - The op-ed piece that she wrote is online at the Tucson Citizen. Also, Sen. Johnson has caught the eye of the John Birch Society. Ugh.
- End edit.]
BTW - If this isn't scary enough, Sen. Johnson is slated to chair the state senate's K-12 Education Committee.
You know there's a major problem with a group such as this when the sanest one of the bunch is *merely* a Neanderthal when it comes to the issue of how women should be treated by their husbands.
Would it be appropriate, for the sake of the state as a whole and LD18 in particular, if the Democratic organizations of other LDs offered what help they can to the LD18 Dems? Help them to send the fearsome threesome to the political showers in 2 years?
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Working at becoming a better blogger
[Non political post ahead]
or maybe a better blogger/journalist.
During my normal surfing tonight, I came across a post publicizing a visit to UMass/Amherst (think: ASU with more beer and less sunblock :) ) by "Columbia University new-media expert Sree Sreenivasan" on December 5th. (Greylocknews)
The event itself isn't important to this post - I have no intention of attending. Early December isn't the best time to visit western Massachusetts; it's the time to leave.
The important part is the links that Greylocknews provided in his post.
The first one is to Mr. Sreenivasan's personal website, SreeTips.com. Lots of useful info and links there.
The other important link provided, and the inspiration for this post, was to PoynterOnline, sort of a continuing ed site for journalists. There is a huge amount of information there, and though it is designed for professional journalists, it's still very useful for enthusiastic amateurs, such as bloggers.
The part of the site that I found most immediately useful was News University, an online training site for journalists.
A FREE online training site. The list of available courses is here.
In light of my decision, made at the end of the midterm election cycle, to focus on local (Scottsdale) issues and to keep an eye on the CAWCD and its newly-elected apparatchiks, the first course that I took (did I mention that it was FREE :)) ) concerned Freedom of Information Act requests, open meeting laws, and the like.
The provider of the lesson, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, provided Open Government guides for all 50 states, including Arizona.
That site is worth bookmarking, even if you don't sign up for an NU course.
Oh, and my education will include varieties other than the "virtual" type - during the spring semester, I'll be taking a Journalism course at SCC, either JRN201 or JRN234. I'd prefer JRN234 (Feature Writing) but I'm not sure if my work schedule will allow that.
Anyway, have a good night!
or maybe a better blogger/journalist.
During my normal surfing tonight, I came across a post publicizing a visit to UMass/Amherst (think: ASU with more beer and less sunblock :) ) by "Columbia University new-media expert Sree Sreenivasan" on December 5th. (Greylocknews)
The event itself isn't important to this post - I have no intention of attending. Early December isn't the best time to visit western Massachusetts; it's the time to leave.
The important part is the links that Greylocknews provided in his post.
The first one is to Mr. Sreenivasan's personal website, SreeTips.com. Lots of useful info and links there.
The other important link provided, and the inspiration for this post, was to PoynterOnline, sort of a continuing ed site for journalists. There is a huge amount of information there, and though it is designed for professional journalists, it's still very useful for enthusiastic amateurs, such as bloggers.
The part of the site that I found most immediately useful was News University, an online training site for journalists.
A FREE online training site. The list of available courses is here.
In light of my decision, made at the end of the midterm election cycle, to focus on local (Scottsdale) issues and to keep an eye on the CAWCD and its newly-elected apparatchiks, the first course that I took (did I mention that it was FREE :)) ) concerned Freedom of Information Act requests, open meeting laws, and the like.
The provider of the lesson, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, provided Open Government guides for all 50 states, including Arizona.
That site is worth bookmarking, even if you don't sign up for an NU course.
Oh, and my education will include varieties other than the "virtual" type - during the spring semester, I'll be taking a Journalism course at SCC, either JRN201 or JRN234. I'd prefer JRN234 (Feature Writing) but I'm not sure if my work schedule will allow that.
Anyway, have a good night!
Either Sen. Joe Biden has the wickedest sense of irony in D.C.
...or he's totally clueless.
During a visit to the Rotary Club in Columbia, SC, he blamed Mexico for illegal immigration.
From Yahoo! News:
Let's see..."erstwhile democracy", great "disparity of wealth", "wealthiest" country in the hemisphere, "corrupt system", etc.
Sen. Biden has never seemed like an economic populist to me (though I have to admit, I've never paid much attention to him) so I have to wonder:
Is he really serious with his statement, or is it the opening salvo of a populist, grassroots-based campaign for the 2008 Democratic nomination for President?
If, with his statement, he intends to use Mexico as a rhetorical stand-in for the U.S., he's being way too subtle for the American political scene.
During a visit to the Rotary Club in Columbia, SC, he blamed Mexico for illegal immigration.
From Yahoo! News:
Mexico is a country that is an erstwhile democracy where they have the greatest disparity of wealth," Biden said. "It is one of the wealthiest countries in the hemisphere and because of a corrupt system that exists in Mexico, there is the 1 percent of the population at the top, a very small middle class and the rest is abject poverty.
Let's see..."erstwhile democracy", great "disparity of wealth", "wealthiest" country in the hemisphere, "corrupt system", etc.
Sen. Biden has never seemed like an economic populist to me (though I have to admit, I've never paid much attention to him) so I have to wonder:
Is he really serious with his statement, or is it the opening salvo of a populist, grassroots-based campaign for the 2008 Democratic nomination for President?
If, with his statement, he intends to use Mexico as a rhetorical stand-in for the U.S., he's being way too subtle for the American political scene.
Friday, November 24, 2006
It won't last long,
so I don't want to seem like I'm gloating, but the right wing of the Republican Party (and yes, by singling out the 'right' wing, I'm implying that there's a 'moderate' wing of the GOP) is imploding.
The vaunted Christian Coalition splintered in August, with the group's state branches in Alabama and Georgia leaving the main group to form their own organizations.
Locally, we could see the fracturing begin in October (before the election even!) when the AZ Republican Party demanded the resignations of three Republican mayors for daring to openly support Governor Napolitano, a moderate Democrat, for re-election.
After the election, the ideological bloodletting and insanity continued -
...Sometimes at the local level here in AZ, with JD Hayworth blaming fellow Republican Congressmen Jeff Flake and John Shadegg for his defeat at the hands of Harry Mitchell.
...Sometimes at the federal level, with the return of Trent Lott, supporter of ardent racial segregationalist Strom Thurmond, to the Republican leadership in the Senate, as minority whip.
...Sometimes in other local communities, such as Sergeant Bluff, Iowa, where the chair of the Woodbury County Republican Party was kicked out of his post for criticizing the "Christian fascists" in the party for pushing it outside the mainstream of society, causing the downfall of the Republicans in the last election.
Nationally, within the fringes of the party, even the Christian conservatives are turning on each other.
The president-elect of the Christian Coalition, the Reverend Joel Hunter, resigned even before taking office. Apparently he was running into doctrinal conflicts within the upper echelon of the organization.
Not because he supports abortion, because he doesn't.
Not because he supports same-sex marriage, because he doesn't.
Nope, the conflict is rooted in the fact that he's regarded as too liberal - he wanted to focus some of the organization's attention on poverty and the environment. He was told "they're not our issues, that's not our base" by the organization's board.
If the Christian right-wing ever stops to wonder why they are being politically marginalized so quickly, they only need to look at that attitude.
There are other examples (Rumsfeld's resignation doesn't make the list. I think he was gone regardless of the outcome of the midterms) but they're all in the same vein - the electorate called for a move to moderation; the Republican response has been to move farther to the extreme, and to castigate and ostracize any party members that don't drink from that particular pitcher of Kool-Aid.
It won't last forever, though it may last through 2008.
While there are a number of Democratic candidates mulling a run for the presidency, and they all have their ardent supporters, none of the names floated so far totally turns off a major bloc of the party. (Of course, that's subject to change. :) )
On the other hand, the major Republican names that are out there - John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney - all have significant critics within their own party.
[Note: Romney, Governor of Massachusetts, has already started trying to appease the Christian right wing segment of the party by suing the Massachusetts legislature to force them to put a measure banning same-sex marriage on the 2008 ballot.]
Anyway, this could be fun to watch for a while, though I expect the Republicans to smarten up a little - for them, doctrinal purity always takes a backseat to political power, and they want to regain some of the power they lost, and the lucrative perks that go with it, in the next cycle.
Oh, and speaking of drinking "Kool-Aid" - Greg at EspressoPundit has a nice little interview with a candidate for the chair of the LD11 Reps {drumroll, please... :) }...
Fife Symington.
If that's how they're thinking, what's next?
David Petersen for Treasurer of the state party?
Clif Bennett operating the State Senate daycare center?
Evan Mecham for chair of the AZ Republican Diversity Committee?
JD Hayworth running the Reps' LD8 Civility Committee?
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid guys.
The vaunted Christian Coalition splintered in August, with the group's state branches in Alabama and Georgia leaving the main group to form their own organizations.
Locally, we could see the fracturing begin in October (before the election even!) when the AZ Republican Party demanded the resignations of three Republican mayors for daring to openly support Governor Napolitano, a moderate Democrat, for re-election.
After the election, the ideological bloodletting and insanity continued -
...Sometimes at the local level here in AZ, with JD Hayworth blaming fellow Republican Congressmen Jeff Flake and John Shadegg for his defeat at the hands of Harry Mitchell.
...Sometimes at the federal level, with the return of Trent Lott, supporter of ardent racial segregationalist Strom Thurmond, to the Republican leadership in the Senate, as minority whip.
...Sometimes in other local communities, such as Sergeant Bluff, Iowa, where the chair of the Woodbury County Republican Party was kicked out of his post for criticizing the "Christian fascists" in the party for pushing it outside the mainstream of society, causing the downfall of the Republicans in the last election.
Nationally, within the fringes of the party, even the Christian conservatives are turning on each other.
The president-elect of the Christian Coalition, the Reverend Joel Hunter, resigned even before taking office. Apparently he was running into doctrinal conflicts within the upper echelon of the organization.
Not because he supports abortion, because he doesn't.
Not because he supports same-sex marriage, because he doesn't.
Nope, the conflict is rooted in the fact that he's regarded as too liberal - he wanted to focus some of the organization's attention on poverty and the environment. He was told "they're not our issues, that's not our base" by the organization's board.
If the Christian right-wing ever stops to wonder why they are being politically marginalized so quickly, they only need to look at that attitude.
There are other examples (Rumsfeld's resignation doesn't make the list. I think he was gone regardless of the outcome of the midterms) but they're all in the same vein - the electorate called for a move to moderation; the Republican response has been to move farther to the extreme, and to castigate and ostracize any party members that don't drink from that particular pitcher of Kool-Aid.
It won't last forever, though it may last through 2008.
While there are a number of Democratic candidates mulling a run for the presidency, and they all have their ardent supporters, none of the names floated so far totally turns off a major bloc of the party. (Of course, that's subject to change. :) )
On the other hand, the major Republican names that are out there - John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney - all have significant critics within their own party.
[Note: Romney, Governor of Massachusetts, has already started trying to appease the Christian right wing segment of the party by suing the Massachusetts legislature to force them to put a measure banning same-sex marriage on the 2008 ballot.]
Anyway, this could be fun to watch for a while, though I expect the Republicans to smarten up a little - for them, doctrinal purity always takes a backseat to political power, and they want to regain some of the power they lost, and the lucrative perks that go with it, in the next cycle.
Oh, and speaking of drinking "Kool-Aid" - Greg at EspressoPundit has a nice little interview with a candidate for the chair of the LD11 Reps {drumroll, please... :) }...
Fife Symington.
If that's how they're thinking, what's next?
David Petersen for Treasurer of the state party?
Clif Bennett operating the State Senate daycare center?
Evan Mecham for chair of the AZ Republican Diversity Committee?
JD Hayworth running the Reps' LD8 Civility Committee?
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid guys.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Scottsdale City Council Meeting for Tuesday, November 21
First, something that's appropriate for Thanksgiving -
Big thanks to Kari Chisolm at LeftyBlogs for finding a fix for the syndication problem with BloggerBeta. While my intent isn't for this blog to be a high traffic site, it's nice to have it out there for interested people to read.
It's great to be back! :))
Anyway, time to return to our regularly scheduled programming....
The City Council meeting was fairly sedate, at least in comparison to the first meeting that I attended in June.
The meeting covered three main topics, and some smaller ones.
One of the big topics was abandonments and easements in North Scottsdale. There were motions pertaining to this subject area on both the Consent and the Regular Agendas. This was probably the most contentious of the night's topics.
For some reason, property owners have a problem with being required to allow public access to their private property without compensation, while paying full taxes, even on the property they don't control.
And they have a problem with being liable for what happens to complete strangers on that property.
What a shock. :)
Anyway, the discussions during these motions became a little arcane to someone who is unitiated in the lingo ("Government Land Office Patent Easements"?? Is there a Government Land Office around here? Near the Post Office maybe?? And whatthehell do "patents" have to do with it? Wouldn't those be covered by the Patent Office? :)) )
Obviously, I need an education in this stuff if I'm going to start covering local issues effectively. As it was, I had trouble focusing on this stuff, though I have to say that it was much more interesting than the discussion of parking spaces and parking space credits that took place during the June meeting that I attended.
Another item from the consent agenda that generated some discussion was the item to approve funding ($60,000) for FY2006-2007 Scottsdale Community Events such as the Parada del Sol, its Rodeo, the Scottsdale Artwalk program, and the New Year's Eve Champagne and Chefs Party ($15K each). The discussion wasn't so much about whether the Council members thought that these events were worthy (they all thought so) but on things like questioning if it was appropriate to fund "touristy" events out of the General Fund instead of funds specifically raised and earmarked for that purpose (i.e. - the bed tax-funded Tourism Development Fund.) They also wanted more economic impact info to help sort the "mostly for Scottsdale residents" community events from the economic development events designed to attract more attendees from outside the city.
In the end, the funding was approved.
The last item that caused a lot of discussion was the item asking for approval of the City's 2007 State Legislative Program.
Most of the program was fully supported by the Council members. They all fully support protecting the City's amount of "state-shared revenues" and fighting against efforts to reduce preempt local control and the like. They also want to protect against legislation that would interfere with the revenue-generating Loop 101 photo radar project.
Part of the discussion over local control (and efforts to undermine it) revolved around condo conversions and how developers had gotten legislation passed that prevents local governments from having any regulatory input on conversions in their cities.
Note: Robert Robb of the AZ Rep was at the meeting (at least I think it was him) and his take on the subject is here. He's full of it on this subject (as with most other subjects :) ) but his writing is coherent and is worth reading. The piece pre-dates the meeting, but still fits.
The one item that generated some heat was the one that called for the support of legislation that would exempt the City from having to pay defendants' attorneys' fees for civil code enforcement actions. Currently, the city has to worry about having to pay the fees for defendants who prevail in civil actions, or bring a criminal action, which is already exempt from the fees rule.
A number of Council members thought that if this proposal was ever enacted, it would be fraught with abuse.
After much discussion, this part of the program was voted on separately from the rest. It passed 4 - 3, with members Jim Lane, Tony Nelssen, and Bob Littlefield voting against.
The meeting ended shortly after that.
Overall impressions:
1. I still have a lot to learn if I'm going to achieve my goal of moving this blog's focus toward a more local one. I've found that when the topic of discussion at hand is one that I am ignorant about, I tend to lose focus and let my attention wander, and that has to change.
It will.
2. I've been to two meetings so far, and at both meetings, the phrase "attorney-client privilege" was used to keep information away from the residents of the city (June: an opinion written by a city staff lawyer about the City Charter was kept out; at this meeting, it came up during the abandonment/easement discussions). Also at both meetings, the Mayor, Council, and City Staff expressed a strong preference that the City not solicit the opinion of the Arizona Attorney General on any matters (came up during the same issues as the "attorney-client privilege" topic.)
This is going to sound like circular reasoning, but I learned a long time ago that when someone is trying to hide something, it's probably because they have something to hide.
This is a situation that merits close scrutiny.
Future meetings:
On Monday, November 27, the council will be holding an executive session to discuss performance reviews of the City Attorney, City Auditor, and City Clerk. Later on in the same exec session meeting, they'll
Big thanks to Kari Chisolm at LeftyBlogs for finding a fix for the syndication problem with BloggerBeta. While my intent isn't for this blog to be a high traffic site, it's nice to have it out there for interested people to read.
It's great to be back! :))
Anyway, time to return to our regularly scheduled programming....
The City Council meeting was fairly sedate, at least in comparison to the first meeting that I attended in June.
The meeting covered three main topics, and some smaller ones.
One of the big topics was abandonments and easements in North Scottsdale. There were motions pertaining to this subject area on both the Consent and the Regular Agendas. This was probably the most contentious of the night's topics.
For some reason, property owners have a problem with being required to allow public access to their private property without compensation, while paying full taxes, even on the property they don't control.
And they have a problem with being liable for what happens to complete strangers on that property.
What a shock. :)
Anyway, the discussions during these motions became a little arcane to someone who is unitiated in the lingo ("Government Land Office Patent Easements"?? Is there a Government Land Office around here? Near the Post Office maybe?? And whatthehell do "patents" have to do with it? Wouldn't those be covered by the Patent Office? :)) )
Obviously, I need an education in this stuff if I'm going to start covering local issues effectively. As it was, I had trouble focusing on this stuff, though I have to say that it was much more interesting than the discussion of parking spaces and parking space credits that took place during the June meeting that I attended.
Another item from the consent agenda that generated some discussion was the item to approve funding ($60,000) for FY2006-2007 Scottsdale Community Events such as the Parada del Sol, its Rodeo, the Scottsdale Artwalk program, and the New Year's Eve Champagne and Chefs Party ($15K each). The discussion wasn't so much about whether the Council members thought that these events were worthy (they all thought so) but on things like questioning if it was appropriate to fund "touristy" events out of the General Fund instead of funds specifically raised and earmarked for that purpose (i.e. - the bed tax-funded Tourism Development Fund.) They also wanted more economic impact info to help sort the "mostly for Scottsdale residents" community events from the economic development events designed to attract more attendees from outside the city.
In the end, the funding was approved.
The last item that caused a lot of discussion was the item asking for approval of the City's 2007 State Legislative Program.
Most of the program was fully supported by the Council members. They all fully support protecting the City's amount of "state-shared revenues" and fighting against efforts to reduce preempt local control and the like. They also want to protect against legislation that would interfere with the revenue-generating Loop 101 photo radar project.
Part of the discussion over local control (and efforts to undermine it) revolved around condo conversions and how developers had gotten legislation passed that prevents local governments from having any regulatory input on conversions in their cities.
Note: Robert Robb of the AZ Rep was at the meeting (at least I think it was him) and his take on the subject is here. He's full of it on this subject (as with most other subjects :) ) but his writing is coherent and is worth reading. The piece pre-dates the meeting, but still fits.
The one item that generated some heat was the one that called for the support of legislation that would exempt the City from having to pay defendants' attorneys' fees for civil code enforcement actions. Currently, the city has to worry about having to pay the fees for defendants who prevail in civil actions, or bring a criminal action, which is already exempt from the fees rule.
A number of Council members thought that if this proposal was ever enacted, it would be fraught with abuse.
After much discussion, this part of the program was voted on separately from the rest. It passed 4 - 3, with members Jim Lane, Tony Nelssen, and Bob Littlefield voting against.
The meeting ended shortly after that.
Overall impressions:
1. I still have a lot to learn if I'm going to achieve my goal of moving this blog's focus toward a more local one. I've found that when the topic of discussion at hand is one that I am ignorant about, I tend to lose focus and let my attention wander, and that has to change.
It will.
2. I've been to two meetings so far, and at both meetings, the phrase "attorney-client privilege" was used to keep information away from the residents of the city (June: an opinion written by a city staff lawyer about the City Charter was kept out; at this meeting, it came up during the abandonment/easement discussions). Also at both meetings, the Mayor, Council, and City Staff expressed a strong preference that the City not solicit the opinion of the Arizona Attorney General on any matters (came up during the same issues as the "attorney-client privilege" topic.)
This is going to sound like circular reasoning, but I learned a long time ago that when someone is trying to hide something, it's probably because they have something to hide.
This is a situation that merits close scrutiny.
Future meetings:
On Monday, November 27, the council will be holding an executive session to discuss performance reviews of the City Attorney, City Auditor, and City Clerk. Later on in the same exec session meeting, they'll
Discuss or consider employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, demotion, dismissal, salaries, disciplining or resignation of the City Attorney, City Auditor, and City Clerk; including, but not limited to, discussion or consideration of confidential records and information relating to the employment of each officer.
Whatever that means.
On Tuesday, the City Council will hold a Work Study Session at 12:30 p.m. for Budget and Financial Work.
The meetings of December 11th and 12th don't have agendas posted yet, but one of the tentative items for the 12th is to revisit the designation of Scottsdale Rd. as a "high capacity transit corridor."
I'll try to attend both the meeting on November 28th and the one on December 12th, but finals are getting close so I may not have the time.
Anyway, have a good night and a great holiday!
Monday, November 20, 2006
LD17/CD5 Happenings
At tonight's LD17 Democrats reorganization meeting, we elected our officers and state committeepersons.
Congrats to new LD17 Chair Doug Mings, Vice-Chairs Ed Hermes, Angie Crouse, Arthur Brodsky, and Lauren Kuby, Treasurer David Schwarz, and Secretary Letricia Mings on their elections. They're all hard-working and experienced activists who will bring the district to new heights (though, it must be said that with the election of 3 state legislators, 1 U.S. Congressman, a JP and a Constable, we did pretty well this fall. :)) )
I'd list the 21 state committeepersons, but I don't take notes that quickly. Not even close.
The bulk of the meeting time was consumed with the election of officers, though newly-elected State Representatives David Schapira and Ed Ableser gave a brief update on their activities since the election.
Though they have not yet been sworn in (January 8th!), they are preparing legislation so that they can hit the ground running.
Ed is working on measures to increase education access for lower-income students (modeled after Indiana's 21st Century Scholars program), water management issues, and increasing parity for mental health coverage by health insurers.
David is working on a bill that will raise the starting salary of new teachers and another measure that would require health insurers to cover doctor-recommended cancer screenings.
The next meeting is the holiday party on December 7th; if you want details, leave a comment and I'll get the info to you.
The place and time of the January meeting will be firmed up by time of the holiday party.
...In CD5 news, it seems that Harry Mitchell is doing the same thing that Ed and David are - getting ready to start his term at full speed.
From the Washington Post:
...Oh, and it's official, Harry Mitchell defeated JD Hayworth by over 7,000 votes. YES!!!!
When Harry Mitchell's official website goes up, I'll post a link here.
...Tomorrow, Tuesday, November 21, the Scottsdale City Council will be holding a meeting at 3 p.m. to interview and appoint people to various boards and commissions; at their regularly scheduled meeting at 5 p.m. mostly has a bunch of liquor license transfers and approval of the City's proposed 2007 Legislative Program.
I'll be attending tomorrow night, if only to move my focus to the local level now that the midterm elections are over.
Tentative topics for future meetings (all VERY subject to change):
In December: On the 12th, One Scottsdale hits the agenda again, as well as a proposal to consider a route other than Scottsdale Rd. for light rail.
In January: On the 16th, the report on the Loop 101 speeding ticket cameras is due; on the 30th, they're going after the strip clubs again.
Later!
Congrats to new LD17 Chair Doug Mings, Vice-Chairs Ed Hermes, Angie Crouse, Arthur Brodsky, and Lauren Kuby, Treasurer David Schwarz, and Secretary Letricia Mings on their elections. They're all hard-working and experienced activists who will bring the district to new heights (though, it must be said that with the election of 3 state legislators, 1 U.S. Congressman, a JP and a Constable, we did pretty well this fall. :)) )
I'd list the 21 state committeepersons, but I don't take notes that quickly. Not even close.
The bulk of the meeting time was consumed with the election of officers, though newly-elected State Representatives David Schapira and Ed Ableser gave a brief update on their activities since the election.
Though they have not yet been sworn in (January 8th!), they are preparing legislation so that they can hit the ground running.
Ed is working on measures to increase education access for lower-income students (modeled after Indiana's 21st Century Scholars program), water management issues, and increasing parity for mental health coverage by health insurers.
David is working on a bill that will raise the starting salary of new teachers and another measure that would require health insurers to cover doctor-recommended cancer screenings.
The next meeting is the holiday party on December 7th; if you want details, leave a comment and I'll get the info to you.
The place and time of the January meeting will be firmed up by time of the holiday party.
...In CD5 news, it seems that Harry Mitchell is doing the same thing that Ed and David are - getting ready to start his term at full speed.
From the Washington Post:
House leaders plan a major rollout of an ethics reform bill early next year...Democrats will put together an ethics package on the House floor piece by piece, allowing incoming freshmen to take charge of high-profile issues...Amendments aimed at reducing the influence of lobbyists would go to swing-district Democrats who campaigned on ethics themes. One is Mitchell, who unseated Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) in large part by stressing Hayworth's links to Abramoff...Ethics reform? For the guy who beat JD Hayworth, that's a VERY appropriate way to start.
...Oh, and it's official, Harry Mitchell defeated JD Hayworth by over 7,000 votes. YES!!!!
When Harry Mitchell's official website goes up, I'll post a link here.
...Tomorrow, Tuesday, November 21, the Scottsdale City Council will be holding a meeting at 3 p.m. to interview and appoint people to various boards and commissions; at their regularly scheduled meeting at 5 p.m. mostly has a bunch of liquor license transfers and approval of the City's proposed 2007 Legislative Program.
I'll be attending tomorrow night, if only to move my focus to the local level now that the midterm elections are over.
Tentative topics for future meetings (all VERY subject to change):
In December: On the 12th, One Scottsdale hits the agenda again, as well as a proposal to consider a route other than Scottsdale Rd. for light rail.
In January: On the 16th, the report on the Loop 101 speeding ticket cameras is due; on the 30th, they're going after the strip clubs again.
Later!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)