A case of early document destruction getting out of hand?

From Reuters, via Yahoo! News -

Fire damages Cheney's ceremonial office

A fire damaged Vice President Dick Cheney's ceremonial office in a building overlooking the White House on Wednesday and forced hundreds of government workers to evacuate.

Fortunately, no one was hurt this time, but perhaps the Vice President and his staff should realize that they are in an old and rather historic building, so next time, they should take care to remember -

Don't burn; shred instead.

Is Jon Kyl getting 'creative' with his press releases?

Blogger ThinkRight has the text of a press release that Kyl's office issued today, lauding the Senate's passage of an SCHIP extension (S2499).

From ThinkRight's post -

Senate Extends Children's Health Care, Averts Medicare Physician Payment Cuts

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Senate today approved legislation that will avert a scheduled 10 percent payment reduction to doctors who provide Medicare services and temporarily extend funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

When I first looked into this, I couldn't find any evidence that the Senate had even considered an SCHIP bill today, much less passed one. The only recorded votes concerned the omnibus appropriations bill and a judicial appointment.

I started salivating at the thought of catching the good Senator in a fib, but continued to research, and found this article in the Hartford Courant that indicated that the measure was approved by unanimous consent.

Still, while Kyl's press release may not have been an outright lie, he was rather creative with it.

First, and I give him (or more likely, whichever staffer was relegated to writing the press release) credit for not saying that Kyl voted for the bill, because no Senator actually did vote for it. "Unanimous consent" simply means that none of them expressed an objection to it.

Second, while the press release sort of implies that Kyl supported the bill, it never comes out and says so.

Which is a good thing, because he has never supported the extension of SCHIP.

To whit:

- when HR1591 was passed by the Senate on March 29, he was one of 47 Senators to vote against it. That bill was later vetoed by President Bush and died when the House failed to override that veto.

- when HR976 was passed by the Senate on September 27, he was one of 29 Senators to vote against it. Again, Bush vetoed the bill and the House failed to override the veto.

- when HR3963 was passed by the Senate on November 1, he was one of 30 Senators to vote against it. The bill was vetoed and is awaiting a January override vote.

So with that kind of consistent track record of opposition to SCHIP, why didn't he derail the unanimous consent on the new SCHIP renewal?

Because it protected Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors and health care corporations.

From the press release -

"This legislation prevents a scheduled cut in physician payments..."

Note: I don't actually have a problem with ensuring that physicians receive reasonable compensation for their services, but I find it rather telling that Kyl opposed health care for poor children until his campaign donors in the health care industry* got something.

This does not speak well for Sen. Kyl's character and humanity.

Of course, he's a United States Senator; his 'character' won't be an issue until his next reelection campaign. In 2012.

After all that, I've come to the conclusion that Sen. Kyl needs to give a raise to whoever wrote the press release - it's not just creative, it's a work of art. While never actually presenting an actual lie, the release nimbly avoids actual truth.

Of course2, the ability to give credit where it's due requires a little character, and it's already obvious what I think of Sen. Kyl's character.

* - According to OpenSecrets.org, Kyl received more than $1.2 million in campaign contributions from the health care industry during the 2005 - 2006 election cycle.

Good night...

Here and there...

A quick roundup of stuff...

Yesterday, the House spent a significant chunk of its day debating one or another aspect of H.R. 2764, the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008 (aka the omnibus appropriations bill), a 3500-page, $516 billion behemoth that funds pretty much all domestic spending for the fiscal year that started October 1.


During most of the debate, the Republicans spent their debate time wagging their fingers and spouting phrases like "pork-laden". "fiscally irresponsible", "where's the Iraq war funding?", "under cover of darkness" (the completed bill was posted on a House website on late Sunday evening/early Monday morning), etc.

What they (the Republicans) seemed to be doing was criticizing Democrats for things that the Republicans had done for years when they controlled Congress and ignoring the fact that it has taken a Democratic majority to actually pass a budget, since the Republicans didn't pass one at all last year.

That was pretty fiscally irresponsible then, and rather hypocritical of them to now criticize the Democrats for performing their duty.

It has been said that "operating without a budget is like steering without a wheel."

So what does newly-converted fiscal conservative George W. Bush have to say on the topic?

From The Hill -

“If the Congress can’t get the job done … then I’ve got a suggestion for them, and just pass a one-year continuing resolution,” he said. “That’s all they’ve got to do. If they can’t get the job done, like I’m hopeful they will, then all they’ve got to do is just take what’s called a continuing resolution, get the people’s business done that way and go on home."

The thing about a lack of a budget is that it brings with it a lack of fiscal control. This may sound cynical of me, but in the sphere of government, that is the kind of environment that allows fraud and misuse of public monies to go undetected or unpunished.

Why am I not surprised that Bush and the Republicans favor continuation of that environment?

I won't be shocked if Bush finds a way to rationalize a veto of the bill.


...In the resolution of her DUI case from earlier this year, State Rep. Trish Groe (R-LD3) pled guilty to a misdemeanor DUI count and was sentenced to 10 days in jail (to be served in Maricopa County) and a nearly $3000 fine.

While I am (happily) ignorant of the sentencing nuances of AZ's DUI laws, that sentence doesn't actually seem to be unreasonable - she didn't hurt anybody, and that *does* make a difference to me.

What I have a problem with, however, is the fact that the special prosecutor in the case, Dennis Wilenchik, is the same one who, while doing contract work for Andrew Thomas' office (Maricopa County Attorney), ordered the arrest of two New Times' publishers/journalists for writing uncomplimentary stories about Thomas and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Why is this clown still allowed to dip into the public trough? More than $220,000 just since the New Times case was dropped? Even if he was just following the orders of Thomas and/or Arpaio, what he did was inexcusable.

At the very least, he and any firm that he is associated with should be permanently barred from ever working for a public entity.

Ever.


...Hmmm. Somebody from the U.S. Department of Justice has been reading my posts (here, here, and here) on the EPA announcement of "incomplete remediation" of contaminated groundwater that was later added to the drinking water supply in Scottsdale. The user's Google search was for the terms "epa superfund nibw arizona press releases".

It's interesting, but what's the motivation for the DOJ's interest? This one has me stumped. Anyone have an idea?


...On Friday, Randy Pullen, chair of the Arizona Republican Party, demanded that Harry Mitchell (D-AZ5) apologize for a comment by the Speaker of the U.S. House, Nancy Pelosi.

Apparently, at her morning news conference, she was quoted as saying that the Republicans "like" the war in Iraq.

This begs two questions -

1. Why is Pullen upset with a true statement?

2. I thought the Republicans billed themselves as the party of 'personal responsibility.' Why should Harry Mitchell apologize for Speaker Pelosi's comments? Hell, not only did he not make the comments himself, he wasn't even present when they were said.

Note: Later that same day, during an interview on PBS' Newshour, Pelosi clarified her earlier comment. From the transcript -

GWEN IFILL: You said this morning at your news conference that Republicans like this war, that this is the Republicans' war.

REP. NANCY PELOSI: Well, when I said "like," I used a poor choice of words. The fact is: They support this war. They support the president's execution of it, even though any objective observer of it would say that a war that we've been in much longer -- more than a year longer -- than we were in World War II, going in on a false pretense without a strategy for success, without a reason to stay, against the wishes of the American people does not deserve the support of the Congress of the United States.

She was fine until she softened it; the war in Iraq really is the Republicans' war.

If anything, her original comment was soft to begin with (courtesy The Moderate Voice) -

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lashed out at Republicans on Thursday, saying they want the Iraq war to drag on and are ignoring the public’s priorities.

“They like this war. They want this war to continue,” Pelosi, D- Calif., told reporters.

"Like" is a gentler way of putting it than I would have chosen.

"Revel in" is a far more accurate way to phrase it.

Anyway, back to the point, Le Templar of the East Valley Trib puts Pullen in his place in Templar's own blog entry when he suggested (writing as Harry Mitchell could have) that if Pullen believes that Mitchell should apologize for Pelosi, then "Pullen can live up to his own standards and apologize for George Bush" for Bush's various crimes and misdeeds.

Later!

Lieberman endorses McCain

Lieberman endorses McCain for President.

So what?

It's not as if any self-respecting Democrat would welcome his endorsement, so what's left for fading politician with fading influence?

Who else would want the endorsement of a deluded former Democratic nominee for VP?

As for the evidence of delusion, from the article linked above -

"I know it's unusual for a Democrat to be endorsing a Republican,'' Lieberman said at an event in New Hampshire today.

Apparently, Sen. Lieberman still thinks that he is a Democrat; that's pretty damn deluded, don't you think?

Harry Mitchell lays some smack on Tedski

I'm sure that Congressman Harry Mitchell had a certain Sonoran blogger (and New England Revs fan) in mind when he agreed to his latest bill cosponsorship in the House.

H. Res. 867 reads -

RESOLUTION

Commending the Houston Dynamo soccer team for winning the 2007 Major League Soccer Cup.

Whereas the Houston Dynamo soccer team won the 2007 Major League Soccer Cup, defeating the New England Revolution by a score of 2-1 at RFK Stadium on November 18, 2007;

Whereas as the Houston Dynamo came back from a 1-0 halftime deficit to defeat the Revolution;

Whereas as Dwayne De Rosario, assisted on the tying goal to Joseph Ngwenya, scored the winning goal and was named the game's MVP;

Whereas as the Houston Dynamo were playing without Brian Ching, the MVP of last year's MLS Cup due to injury;

Whereas as the Houston Dynamo has won the Major League Soccer Cup for the second consecutive year;

Whereas as the Houston Dynamo is the first team to win back-to-back MLS Cups in 10 years;

Whereas as the Houston Dynamo have won the MLS Cup in their first 2 years of existence in Houston;

Whereas Houston Dynamo Coach Dominic Kinnear has guided the team to 26 wins, 20 draws, and 16 losses in his first 2 seasons in Houston; and

Whereas Houston Dynamo defender Eddie Robinson and midfielder Dwayne De Rosario were named to the 2007 MLS Best XI all-star team:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) commends the Houston Dynamo soccer team for winning the 2007 MLS Cup; and

(2) congratulates the team for back-to-back MLS Cup wins in their first 2 seasons in Houston.

Tedski can take heart in the fact that while there are 53 other Representatives who attached their names to this bill, including one other Arizonan, his own Congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords, has not signed onto H. Res. 867.

Yet. :))

PSA time - Medicare Enrollment Forums With Harry Mitchell's Office

Edit on 12/16 to add the date of the forums.

Oops. :)

Thanks to Angie C. for noticing.

Congressman Harry Mitchell's office will be holding Medicare enrollment forums in Tempe and Ahwatukee Foothills.

Note: He won't be able to attend due to the unusual pre-Christmas-week session in the House in D.C.

The first forum will be held on Monday, December 17 from 9:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. at the Pyle Center, 655 E. Southern in Tempe (SW corner of Rural and Southern) and from 1:00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m. at the Pecos Community Senior Center, 17010 S. 48th Street , Ahwatukee Foothills.

From a press release -

The open enrollment period, which extends through December 31, is the only time people can enroll or switch Medicare programs, including Medicare Part D prescription drug plans.

"The timing is critical," said Mitchell. "It is important for our folks to know that there are people and resources available to help them make the best decisions about their choice of Medicare plans."

{snip}

...Congressional staff and counselors from the Area Agency on Aging, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, and the Social Security Administration will be on hand to give presentations and answer constituent questions. Computer access will be available at the Ahwatukee location to assist with enrollment.

Later!

Short Attention Span Musing - Burning Questions Edition

...You know, I'm not minimizing the significance of the Mitchell (former U.S. Senator George, not current U.S. Rep. Harry :)) ) report on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball, but in light of the country's ongoing budget deficit, economic decline, war in Iraq and Afghanistan, trashing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and more, why is every politician under the sun jumping in on this?

Congresscritters and elected officials from Maine to California are weighing in, whether it's Reps. Waxman and Davis inviting Bud Selig and Donald Fehr, respectively the MLB commissioner and players' union chief, to appear before a Congressional hearing looking into baseball's steroid use to George Bush's spouting off about the possible effect on "America's young."

- - - Is it too much to ask the people that were elected to lead the country actually focus on their jobs?


...The Senate overwhelmingly passed HR6, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 *after* the Senate Democrats surrendered to a filibuster threat from Senate Republicans and a veto threat from George Bush and stripped out aspects that would have ended some tax breaks for Big Oil and compelled the development and use of renewable energy sources.

- - - I know that the Democratic leadership in both chambers is used to surrendering by now, but maybe they should have realized that this one would have been the perfect opportunity to call the Republicans' bluff?

At a time when gas is over $3.00 per gallon and oil company profits are at record levels, when the northeastern part of the country is digging out from one winter storm with another nor'easter bearing down, all the while dealing with home heating oil prices that have risen more than 250% since George W. Bush took office, pictures of Republican Senators going to the mat, not for insuring sick kids or even funding government operations, but for *oil companies,* would be the perfect cover photos on Christmas cards sent to their constituents.

The Republican senators could consider it a Christmas gift from the DSCC. :))


...Department of Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff thinks that Congressional oversight of his agency has "run amok" and wants less Congressional involvement in operations there.

- - - Does Secretary Chertoff really think that he's going to get more than $40 billion dollars and the authority to peer into the lives of American citizens without someone peering over his shoulder?


...The Associated Press ran a piece today about Democratic presidential contender Bill Richardson, the Governor of New Mexico. The thrust of the piece was a rhetorical question, wondering if Governor Richardson was "too real" to win the nomination and the presidency.

The point of the question is that while Governor Richardson has become a little more polished as the campaign has progressed, he is considered something of an "unmade bed" - an openly, enthusiastically, friendly man who can be described at "the ultimate diplomat who can be incredibly undiplomatic."

- - - In this era of candidates who don't wake up in the morning without convening a focus group to decide if they should have milk or cream in their coffee, isn't it time for a candidate who is just a normal guy with a normal personality?

[OK, OK - a highly intelligent, well educated, vastly experienced, and supremely qualified "normal guy." :)) ]

Maybe America is ready for a candidate who hasn't been prepped, primped, made-up, and blow-dried to within an inch of their human-ness. I know that I am.

The article was actually a pretty good one, with a fair career bio of the Governor. It's worth a read.

A couple of quick notes -

Full disclosure time - I'm a Richardson supporter (like that wasn't obvious :) ).

Also, for a brief period, the AP article was published, in of all places, foxnews.com. Somebody over at Fox must have realized they published an article that was complimentary of a Democrat, though, and took it down, because I can no longer find it on the Fox site.


...Most people (at least, most of the active Democrats that I've spoken to) believe that Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon has his eye on higher office, such as Arizona Attorney General or Governor.

In light of his recent policy change allowing Phoenix police officers to engage in the enforcement of immigration laws (and past things, like endorsing Republican Jim "we don't need no steenkin' Democrats" Weiers for State Rep), the question is this -

- - - Will Gordon be running as a Democrat or a Republican?

Later!

Brief progress report on last month's EPA meeting

Edit on 1/17/2008 to add: For those readers looking for info on the January 2008 incident affecting drinking water in parts of Scottsdale and Paradise Valley, my post on that is here. That post includes links to news reports, the City of Scottsdale's press release on the subject (with a link to a map of the affected area, and a link to Arizona American Water's press release.

End edit...

At a meeting of the Community Involvement Group of the North Indian Bend Wash Superfund site (NIBW) last month, it was announced that one of the groundwater treatment facilities, the Miller Road Treatment Facility (MRTF) had experienced a period of "incomplete remediation" and had pumped water with unacceptably high levels of TCE into Scottsdale's drinking water supply.

Coverage of that meeting and announcement here and here.

Earlier today, I called Jamey Watt, the EPA's Remiedial Project Manager for the NIBW, to follow up.

The results of the phone call -

The investigation into the incident is ongoing; while the participating companies (PCs) have some ideas as to the case of the problem, those ideas have not been verified. The EPA has asked the PCs to conduct a complete engineering assessment of the facility and treatment tower.

There are three treatment facilities in the area beside the one in question - the Central Groundwater Treatment Facility (CGTF), operated by the City of Scottsdale, and the Area 7 and Area 12 facilities, operated by the PCs directly as those two facilities treat source contamination and do not produce drinking water.

Note: Area 7's outflow is reinjected into the ground; Area 12's is discharged to irrigation.

All of the sites regularly sample the results of their cleanup efforts, though Areas 7 and 12 are tested less frequently because they are not involved with drinking water.

Most of the samples are tested at the same lab, Transwest Geochem, though the City of Scottsdale does some of its testing in-house. While equipment problems at the lab led to a delay in testing an MRTF sample in August, leading to a delay in public notification of bad test results (the source of much of the anger at November's meeting), no problems have been reported with the samples from the other facilities, either with testing timeliness or the results themselves.

The test results are not readily available to Scottsdale residents in a timely manner; I suggested creating a website or email listserv to regularly update folks, with all results and not just abnormal ones.

A press release from Congressman Harry Mitchell's office advised that the EPA is requiring the PCs to change the operating procedures of the treatment facilities.

When asked for details on those changes, Watt advised that the EPA was still working on a response to the incident; short-term measures include asking for a complete engineering evaluation (mentioned above) and shutting down the treatment tower involved in the incident ("tower 3") and requiring more frequent sampling.

He closed by saying that the next Community Involvement Group will probably be sooner than the usual one year interval, but he's not sure when that will be because the situation is still being assessed.

Any questions should be directed to Vicki Rosen, Community Involvement Coordinator (rosen.vicki[at]epa.gov) or Jamey Watt, Remedial Project Manager (watt.jamey[at]epa.gov). Both can be reached at 1-800-231-3075.

Be gentle with them if you call though - right now, and probably through the holidays, they are absolutely swamped with the fallout from this. :)

Have a good night!

Is it too late to start a "Draft Obey For President" movement?

He has since been undercut by the House Democratic leadership, but anyone who takes a stand, saying that it's wrong to trade the lives of American servicemen and -women serving overseas for domestic pork projects deserves a promotion.

From David Rogers of the Wall Street Journal on Monday (thanks to David Sirota for spotting this) (emphasis mine) -

A $522 billion omnibus spending bill had been scheduled for a House vote Tuesday, but House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D., Wis.) abruptly announced he won't file it tonight and recommended substantial revisions before a floor vote. Obey said he is prepared to cut billions from domestic programs and eliminating all home-state projects or spending "earmarks" favored by lawmakers in both parties.

"I'm not in the business of trying to pave the way for $70 billion or $90 billion for Iraq for $10 billion in table scraps," Obey said. "We asked Bush to compromise. He has chosen to go the confrontation route."

"I want no linkage what-so-ever between domestic [spending] and the war. I want the war to be dealt with totally on its own. We shouldn't be trading off domestic priorities for the war."

However, just this morning, the House Democratic leadership surrendered to George Bush, agreeing to give him what he wants.

From The Hill -

Pelosi told the Democratic chairmen of the House Appropriations subcommittees, the so-called appropriations cardinals, that earmarks would stay in the omnibus and that Democratic leaders would accede to cut spending to levels demanded by President Bush in order to save 11 spending bills from a veto, said sources familiar with a meeting that took place in Pelosi’s office early Wednesday morning.

I've got a suggestion for all of the Democrats in Congress (not that I expect that any to read this, much less actually follow it :) ) -

You want to beat the Republicans? You want to maintain a majority in Congress for more than one term?

Then do your jobs. Govern responsibly. Craft and pass good bills. Address the needs of the American people, and help guide the country forward.

Then when Bush and his water-carriers try to derail your efforts (as they always do), they'll look churlish, unprofessional, and irresponsible.

A significant voter registration trend in Arizona, one that is reflected nationwide, is the ever-increasing number of 'independent,' or unaffiliated, voters. Every day, people wonder if there is any real difference between the two major parties.

And the soulless calculations like "let's give Bush 'X' number of dead American soldiers in exchange for 'Y' billions in pork" only adds to the disgust.

Scottsdale City Council and the Master Transportation Plan

Tonight, the Scottsdale City Council is meeting for its last meeting of 2007.

In addition to the normal consent agenda (mostly mundane stuff like licenses and such), the Council will be reviewing the Transportation Master Plan.

There are sure to be many controversial elements of the plan (a reversible center lane on Indian School Road, for instance), but none more so than the High Capacity Transit element, also known as Light Rail.

Opposition to even simple discussion of light rail in Scottsdale has already been loud and emotional, as this story from the AZ Rep demonstrates.

Tonight's meeting is certain to be as contentious as any that I've seen over the last 18 months of meetings (started paying attention in June 2006).

Unfortunately, tonight is also the night of the LD17 Dems' holiday party, and while I would love to attend the City Council meeting, the LD17 Dems are a *lot* more fun than the Scottsdale City Council to hang around with. :))

As such, I won't be able to comment at the meeting, and instead submitted the following public comment concerning agenda item 12, the Transportation Master Plan -

Mayor Manross and members of the Scottsdale City Council -

Tonight, you are considering the study results, elements, and previous recommendations concerning the Transportation Master Plan.

My comment is specific to one possible facet of Scottsdale's transportation future, High Capacity Transit, also known as 'light rail.'

Much of the 'discussion' surrounding the issue has consisted of people loudly proclaiming that light rail is not in keeping with Scottsdale's lifestyle or status as “the West's Most Western City.”

They ignore the fact that Scottsdale's 'lifestyle,' with its many amenities and services, is paid for by an economic core that is driven by a vibrant retail and commercial sector in downtown and north Scottsdale, a core that is moving east, south, and west as other Valley cities modernize while many here simply yearn for a return of Scottsdale's halcyon days as an unpaved, cotton-growing, tourist trap.

They also ignore the fact that the city's “most western city” slogan is just that
these days – a slogan, and nothing more. After all, when was the last time that there was a call out to the City to clean road apples off of one of its streets?* (smiling as that is said)

* = on non-Parada del Sol days

What you, the elected leaders of Scottsdale cannot ignore, is your duty to address
the future needs of Scottsdale.

That duty means that the Council must give an objective and complete evaluation of the HCT options, regardless of the emotional appeal or political convenience of nostalgic calls for a return to yesteryear.

Let me quote a letter to the editor in opposition, written by Clara Beauchamp -

“A lot of people don't seem to realize that Scottsdale is different than most towns and its very difference has been one of its greatest assets.”

If perhaps the name of the author is less recognizable than her sentiments, that might be because the letter was to the editor of the Scottsdale Progress and it was published in the April 19, 1951 edition of that paper.

And Ms. Beauchamp opposed the incorporation of Scottsdale.

That turned out reasonably well, don't you think?

Thank you.

Some things that I learned during the research for this comment/post -

...In 1951, Scottsdale had a population of approximately 2000 residents; now, it has approximately 250, 000, a growth of over 125 times.

...For an even sharper growth rate, consider this - in 1951, Scottsdale had two physicians; now, it has over 1300, a growth of over 650 times.

[Note - thanks to Roger at the Arizona Medical Board for quickly tracking down that 1951 number for me.]

...It didn't surprise me to find out that no one at the City of Scottsdale or the Arizona Department of Agriculture knew how many horses there are in Scottsdale today, much less in 1951, because that's a rather obscure statistic, but I was surprised by one thing.

It seems that ADOT's Motor Vehicle Division doesn't know how many vehicles are registered to Scottsdale addresses. I was told that they only break down the data "to county level."

Ummm, yeah. Either there's a lie there, or the MVD's computers and software are shamefully out of date.

...I learned that writing a short persuasive piece, such as the comment to the City Council is tougher than a longer expository one. It took me all day to write the comment, and I had put some thought into it over the weekend already. The rest of this post took just a matter of minutes.

Other Scottsdale campaign updates -

Mayor Mary Manross has a campaign website up now (info courtesy an AZ Rep article);

Council candidate Joel Bramoweth's site is here.

I can't find websites for the other announced or rumored candidates as yet, but that will change as we move further into the campaign season.

Later!

In case you missed it...

...On December 6th, Arizona's own Jon Kyl was elected by the Republicans in the Senate to the post of Minority Whip in the U.S. Senate.

According to CSPAN.org, "The Whip is a Senator elected by his/her party to count potential votes and promote unity in voting."

So what did the good Senator do on December 7, just a single day later?

He missed the cloture motion on HR6, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007.

Thanks go out to Senator Kyl for serving that one up. :)

...The Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) joined the senior staff of the state's three universities (including ASU President Michael Crow) in saying 'up yours' to the students of the state when it approved a sharp tuition increase (7% - 14%, depending on which school and other factors) this week.

Umm, from article 11, section 6 of the Arizona State Constitution (emphasis mine) -

The university and all other state educational institutions shall be open to students of both sexes, and the instruction furnished shall be as nearly free as possible.

The tuition hike comes in the same year that Crow was given a 5-year contract extension at $720K per year (a 25% raise) plus hundreds of thousands in bonuses. [ASU State Press story here]

It looks an awful lot like ABOR wants the students of Arizona to pay for their fiscal irresponsibility. When the universities come around with their hands out, the legislature can always decline to budget more for public higher education; students and their families don't have that option.

How about this - freeze the pay of all university presidents and any employees earning over a set amount (say $100K) and eliminate all bonuses for such employees, all for a period of 5 years.

The 5 year period matches up nicely with Crow's contract, doesn't it?

After that, tie pay raises and bonuses for university management and senior staff to increases in state funding, with total of the raises not to exceed the percentage of increased state funding.

(i.e. - If the lege appropriates 10% more to the universities, the raises max out at 10%.)

Furthermore, bar any raises or bonuses in years with any tuition or fee hikes.

In other words, no more soaking the students and their families.

Yeah, I know it'll never happen.

...Congrats to LD17's Representative David Schapira on being recognized by Governor's Celebration of Innovation as one of the "Tech 10," ten legislators demonstrating "a clear understanding of the role technology can and will play inArizona's economic development."

...Another note on Rep. Schapira - in response to the tuition hike, he will sponsor legislation required a 2/3 vote from ABOR to raise tuition more than 5% or fees more than $200. (See that article on this hike)

Nice idea, but far too gentle. The best way to keep these guys out of students' wallets is to hit them in theirs.

...Bad News/Good News Department -

On Friday, a federal judge threw out a lawsuit brought the state's new employer-sanctions (anti-immigration) law. He said that the plaintiffs should not have brought action against the Governor and state attorney general. Instead, they should have targeted the state's county attorneys who will be responsible for enforcing the law.

Also on Friday, another court, this one in Maricopa County, ordered Sheriff Joe Arpaio to restore full visiting hours for attorneys and court personnel at the county jail. Arpaio had ordered limitations on such visits as a cost-cutting move. The affected attorneys objected because the hours that he left open for visits, 6:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., conflicted with their court hours.

...The "Potentially Very Good News Department" -

This coming week, both of the chambers of the New Jersey legislature should vote on a proposal there to abolish the death penalty.

This is great news, but everyone should remember that New Jersey isn't exactly Texas when it comes to applying capital punishment - it hasn't carried out an execution since 1963.

Still, it's a great start.

Have a good weekend...

Press release of the day

I'm starting to get the hang of knowing which press releases are from astroturf groups - just look for the one with the counterintuitive position.

Today's press release is from The 60 Plus Association.

The first paragraph of the press release -

A report documenting that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is understaffed, underfunded and underperforming is all the evidence Congress should need to reject proposed legislation that would add responsibility for tobacco regulation to that overburdened agency.

Sounds awfully considerate of this group that purports itself to be a "national senior advocacy organization."

Perhaps a little out of its bailiwick, but considerate nonetheless.

Then the release goes on the urge Congress to reject HR1108, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, because, besides adding workload to the already overburdened FDA, it's "unnecessary or already handled by other agencies."

Why would a "senior advocacy" group care about tobacco regulation?

That kind of inspired me to look a little further.

According to Public Citizen's StealthPAC.org, The 60 Plus Association is an astroturf lobbying group, headed up by Jim Martin (a Bush associate for nearly 40 years), funded primarily by the pharmaceutical industry, advocating for Republican candidates and causes.

Besides the electioneering cited in Public Citizen's profile of the group, it also gives out phony, campaign bio-puffing awards (here, too), involves itself in court cases while presenting themselves as a senior advocacy group, while in fact working to protect corporate interests, lobbies for the shutdown of the Legal Services Corporation, and advocates for the release of two would-be murderers with badges.

How does any of that benefit the elderly, other than elderly wealthy Republicans?

Note: CD5's Harry Mitchell is a cosponsor of HR1108. In fact, every AZ Democrat in Congress cosponsored the bill; none of the Republicans has signed on.

It's early, but Pearce is already proposing unconstitutional bills

Maybe it's just an early Christmas gift to "kill 'em and let God sort 'em out wing" of the Republican Party, but state Rep. Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance) has already submitted, with Rep. Warde Nichols (R-LD21), HB2012. The bill may be putrid, but at least it's short.

In its entirety -

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Title 41, Arizona Revised Statutes, is
amended by adding chapter 44, to read:

CHAPTER 44

USING DRIVER LICENSES FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES

ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

41-4401. Out-of-state driver licenses; identification purposes; prohibition

This state and political subdivisions of this state shall not accept as a primary source of identification a driver license issued by another state if the other state does not require that a person be lawfully present in the United States under federal law in order to receive the driver license.

A gentle reminder of the what Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution has to say on the subject -

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

What's next for Pearce? A motion for Arizona to secede from the Union?

Of course, he could just be working to see that Sen. Jack Harper (R-LD4) doesn't repeat as winner of the 'Legislative Loon' award for the 2008 session of the lege. :)

Scottsdale City Council extends non-discrimination protections

...for city employees.

You know, it's nice when some of my predictions actually come true...

First, the box score -

At Tuesday's meeting of the Scottsdale City Council, the Council passed an ordinance that prohibits "discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in City of Scottsdale employment activities."

As predicted in last night's post, the proposal to update the City's employment guidelines passed by a comfortable margin (OK, it was just 4 - 3, but many folks in the audience thought it might have gone 5 - 2; nobody thought it was going to fail) and delayed consideration of similar non-discrimination ordinances that would apply to organizations that the City does business with and to businesses and organizations operating within the City.

Note: the vote broke down with Manross, Ecton, Drake, and Littlefield in favor, and Lane, McCullagh, and Nelssen opposed.

AZ Rep coverage here.

KPHO coverage here; there is a video of their news report on that page, too.


Now for the color commentary -

It was obvious early on that this was going to be a colorful meeting - the meeting kiva was 3/4 full 45 minutes before the meeting even started; by the time the meeting started a little after 5 p.m., it was standing room only at City Hall, with the overflow pouring out into the building foyer.

Also obvious early on was that while the assembled crowd was overwhelmingly is support of the ordinance, the Council was more evenly divided.

Once the Council took up consideration of the ordinance, Councilman Tony Nelssen's first question/opinion was to wonder if the proposal "could be fixing a problem that doesn't exist?"

That sentiment would be repeated by opponents of the measure throughout the meeting.

There were 18 public speakers on the issue; 11 in favor, 7 opposed.

The highlights included a passionate speech from Annie Loyd, independent candidate for Congress in CD3.

Note: She's openly lesbian, but a quick perusal of her campaign website shows that she is *far* from a one-issue candidate. I don't think she has a snowball's chance of winning in CD3, but she's a serious candidate and both Democratic challenger Bob Lord and Republican incumbent John Shadegg should treat her candidacy as a serious one.

The lowlights included a speech from Peter Gentala, general counsel for the Center for Arizona Policy, the far-right wing advocacy group once headed by former candidate for governor Len Munsil.

He recited a litany of right-wing talking points in his speech, including that the measure was "promoting an agenda," that transgender people have nothing more than a medical "disorder," and that the price of elective surgery would make the policy cost prohibitive.

Oh, and like pretty much every opponent of the measure, he was worried about public restrooms.


Ummm, one comment here - the Republicans aren't in any position to use the specter of 'people behaving badly in public restrooms' to whip up blind fear of "them," whoever the "them" of the day is.

...Just sayin'... :)


Anyway, a subsequent speaker pointed out the "disingenuousness" of the restroom argument.

That's a term that is far more tactful than the one I would have chosen (think compound word, starting with "bull" :) ).

The statements of the members of the Council often reflected or reinforced what had been said during public testimony.

By the end, it was obvious that Mayor Manross and Councilors Drake, Ecton, and Littlefield (something of a surprise there) supported the measure; Councilors Lane, McCullagh, and Nelssen opposed it.

Consideration of the other measures, extending the non-discrimination language to the City's business partners (vendors, contractors, etc.) and to businesses and organizations operating within the city, were postponed indefinitely dues to concerns about the impact on those businesses and organizations. The Scottsdale Charros were an organization that was mentioned by name.

Other observations -

...That last wasn't a surprise - the campaign season has started, and no one, not even supporters of the measure, wants to tick off the Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce. While they no longer officially run Scottsdale, the Chamber still wields influence in the city that is far out of proportion to its actual number of members.

...Even people who never before paid attention to Scottsdale politics could tell which folks were running for office next year - Mayor Manross openly deferred to the Chamber of Commerce, Councilman (and probable candidate for mayor) Jim Lane gave a 10-minute speech that used a lot of words to say very little other than that he thought that the Council shouldn't do anything without getting input from Scottsdale citizens and every possible interest group. Joel Bramoweth, a declared candidate for the City Council, gave a rambling speech that expressed support for the HR policy change while also deferring to the business community on the other aspects of the issue.

...These folks (the Mayor, Council, and candidates *really* have to learn the meaning of the word "pithy." After a couple of rounds of Council comment, the debate became an exercise in "everything has been said, but I haven't said it."

...I signed my first nominating petition of the season last night. Joel Bramoweth was outside collecting sigs before the meeting. I haven't always agreed with his positions, and have criticized him in the past for giving rambling speeches in the Council chamber, but every time that I attend a meeting of the city council or a city board or commission, he's there, listening and learning.

OK, and sometimes speechifying, too. :)

I haven't seen any of the other candidates at 'grunt work' kind of events like meetings of the Planning or Transportation commissions.

Anyway, I may or may not vote for him next year, but in my opinion, he's earned a spot on the ballot.

...Last night's crowd, while very passionate in their support of the non-discrimination measure, was also very well-behaved (one early round of applause, one round of hissing, both resulting in an admonishment by Mayor Manross.)

Expect next week's crowd for the consideration of the City's Master Transportation Plan to be just as passionate but far less civil.

Later!

Should be a colorful meeting of the Scottsdale City Council on Tuesday

At first glance, the Council's agenda looks like a quiet one - a short consent agenda (just 8 items! Sometimes, the tally reaches into the 30s) and a regular agenda that starts off with two mundane items - an update to the City's sign ordinance relating to commercial signage and a proposed zoning for a dental office.

However, the last item on the agenda, #11, could get interesting -

11. Non-discrimination Relating to City of Scottsdale Employment Activities; Contractors,Suppliers or Lessees Doing Business with the City of Scottsdale; and Businesses and Organizations within Scottsdale.

The ordinance up for approval at the December 4th meeting would "prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in City of Scottsdale employment activities."

Also part of the agenda item is a request to "[d]iscuss and provide direction to staff" regarding a proposal to extend the same non-discrimination language to contractors, suppliers or lessees doing business with the City of Scottsdale and to businesses and organizations within Scottsdale.

I expect that the change to the City's own employment policy will pass by a comfortable margin, with a few grimaces from certain members of the Council; however, the proposed extension of the ordinance to contracts, vendors, and other businesses that do business in or with the City of Scottsdale is a different story.

There will be some screaming over it from the local business community (and probably others), but those components of the change will be put off for as long as the Council can get away with (it *is* an election year, after all. :)) )

Of course, in all of the soon-to-be-hubbub over this, folks may forget that the December 11 Council agenda contains an item that is at once both more boring and controversial - consideration of the City's updated Transportation Master Plan (TMP).

The screaming about the non-discrimination ordinance at the December 4th meeting will be dead silence compared to what will happen the first time that someone mentions 'light rail' at the December 11 meeting.

It should be entertaining...loud...but entertaining. :)

For the record, I support at least the consideration of adding light rail ('high capacity transit' in the TMP) to Scottsdale because it's the 21st century and it's time that Scottsdale moved into it.

Later!


Note: At a meeting in September, the Scottsdale Human Relations Commission voted on these changes (non-discrimination ordinance) and recommended that the City Council approve them. Coverage of that meeting here.