Is Arpaio engaging in jury retaliation now?

Everyday he seems less like a law enforcement professional and more like some tinhorn would-be jerkwater despot...

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio was interviewed this spring by a writer from The New Yorker magazine. During part of that interview, Arpaio received a rather interesting phone call.

From AZCentral.com -

...[Writer William] Finnegan visited the Valley this spring to research the article. While riding along with the sheriff one day, he writes, "someone named Jim, who sounded like a deputy, called from the courthouse."

Arpaio put the call on speaker phone, Finnegan writes, and Jim "said he was observing jury selection in a case there."

After one prospective juror told the judge that Arpaio was her hero, the caller reportedly said, "So the next lady says, 'Joe is not my hero.' Then she says she's the wife of the mayor of Mesa."

According to the article, Arpaio responded, "I knew it! I never trusted that mayor. He's pro-immigrant. He's never going to fire that chief. We gotta raid Mesa again."

Note: An abstract of the New Yorker article is here; a subscription is required to view the article in its entirety.

The courthouse in question is the federal courthouse in Phoenix. The wife of Mesa's mayor had been called for federal jury duty.

Ignoring, for the moment, the part about retaliating against a juror from Mesa for saying something vaguely critical of Arpaio, I have to ask -

What was an MCSO deputy doing in federal court?

The county sheriff's office provides security in *county* courts, not federal courts.

Was the deputy there spying for Arpaio, and if so, was it on the County dime?

If he was there as part of the case at hand (a human smuggling case, so it's not exactly out of the realm of possibility that one of Arpaio's deputies was there as part of his professional duties), did he violate any rules concerning the dissemination of a juror's personal info to someone who wasn't in the courtroom, especially since the unauthorized recipient threatened retaliation against the juror?


As for the part about jury tampering/intimidation/retaliation, Title 18, Chapter 73, Section 1503 of U.S. Code lists the penalties for such as starting at 10 years in prison. However, a problem with that section of code (for that matter, the problem with most such statutes) is that the language seems to assume that only the alleged "bad guys" (such as defendants) would engage in jury tampering/etc., not the alleged "good guys" (such as sworn law enforcement officers and elected officials).

Still, it would be rather ironic if Arpaio skated on the federal investigations into the way he runs the county's jails only to be brought down by a wiseass comment made to a writer, a comment on an unrelated matter.

Later...

Renzi and his lawyers object...

...to a federal judge ruling that the Constitution doesn't protect criminal conspiracies...

From AP via KTAR.com -

Lawyers for former U.S. Rep. Rick Renzi are objecting to a federal magistrate's denial of their motion to dismiss the public corruption case against him on constitutional grounds.

Renzi's lawyers contend that the government violated the U.S. Constitution's speech and debate clause in wiretapping his conversations with aides concerning a failed land swap deal in which he's been accused of conspiracy.

Yup - Renzi and his lawyers want to exclude recordings of conversations concerning legislation by claiming that those conversations are protected under the "speech and debate" clause of the U.S. Constitution.

That clause is in Article 1, section 6 of the Constitution (emphasis mine) -

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

The most obvious problems with Renzi's arguement?


The "speech" wasn't in the House, and it concerned legislation that was the "quo" in a "quid pro quo" conspiracy that involved Renzi using his office for the personal financial benefit of himself and a business associate.


I *really* wish Renzi's trial was going to be held here in the Valley. It's going to be in Tucson, and that is too far for me to travel for what is certain to be a long (as in more than one day) trial.

Guess I'll just have to settle for John Huppenthal's assault trial (two weeks! July 29, San Tan Justice Court in Chandler...unless they put it off again due to the special session).

Later...

Maybe Visa executives need the money for this year's bonuses?

From AP via AZCentral.com -

MANCHESTER, N.H. - A New Hampshire man says he swiped his debit card at a gas station to buy a pack of cigarettes and was charged over 23 quadrillion dollars.

Josh Muszynski checked his account online a few hours later and saw the 17-digit number - a stunning $23,148,855,308,184,500 (twenty-three quadrillion, one hundred forty-eight trillion, eight hundred fifty-five billion, three hundred eight million, one hundred eighty-four thousand, five hundred dollars).

You know, I poke fun, but this scheme would balance the federal budget ($1 trillion deficit), California's ($26 billion deficit), Arizona's ($2.6 billion deficit remaining), the rest of the state government budgets (as well as county and municipal budgets) and have enough left over to fund health care reform *and* permanently fund the Republicans' Forever Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And make Social Security solvent.

And maybe even allow us to establish a "rainy day" fund of a measly trillion or two.

Hmmmm...something to think about here...

Time for a new tobacco tax? Make it big enough and we'd only have to sell one or two packs to balance *everything.*

Hmmm....

:))

Open Letter To Congressman Harry Mitchell Regarding Health Care Reform

On Tuesday, the Democrats in the U.S. House introduced a health care reform package. It will be considered and marked up by three committee (Energy and Commerce, Education and Labor, and Ways and Means) before reaching the House floor.

That floor vote is expected to occur before the House's summer break.

The Senate is expected to vote on its package by the summer break also, allowing the two chambers to reconcile their packages and handle final passage sometime early in the fall.

As such, this is an opportune time to contact my representative, Congressman Harry Mitchell.

The letter I wrote, submitted via his contact page -

Dear Congressman Mitchell.

Thank you for the great work you have been doing to represent the people of Scottsdale and Tempe. You may not hear it about it as much as you should, but your constituents appreciate your committment to them.

Tonight I am writing to urge you to support the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.

Lobbyists are spending millions of dollars everyday to convince you and your colleagues that a "public option" should not be part of any health care reform package.

National polls show that more than 2/3 of Americans have a different opinion (http://tcf.org/publications/healthcare/wtprw.healthcare.pdf)

The individual people in your district (and your colleagues' districts) don't have the resources to fund and conduct national TV and print ad campaigns or to flood Representatives' offices with mass-produced post cards and letters.

More importantly, too many of your constituents also don't have the resources to pay for adequate medical care under the current system.


What they do have is you, their elected representative.


To be sure, any bill produced by the legislative process will have aspects you (and I) will be less than enthusiastic about.

Unless one or more of those aspects is *utterly* unacceptable, it would be good to keep in mind something first said by Voltaire and used by Secretary of State (then Senator) Clinton at last year's Democratic Convention in Denver when discussing health care reform -

"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

Again, thank you for everything you have done for the people of the Fifth District.

Regards,

[cpmaz]

The House Energy and Commerce Committee has a good resource page on the proposal here.

CQPolitics' summary is here.

Later...

Brewer's bill dispositions: mostly bad

Updated on 7/14 with dispositions of certain bills, courtesy this AZCentral.com piece

Her dispositions of the last group of bills sent her by the lege consisted mostly of signing bad bills, but there were a few nuggets of good work among the pile of road apples sent to her.

The summary of all of her dispositions (signing, vetoing, transmitting w/o signature) can be found here. It's updated as of 3:30 p.m on Monday.

Among the highlights of the vetoes:

HB2258, relating to consumer fireworks; vetoed for safety reasons

SB1017, relating to the creation of specialty license plates supporting MS research, the Masons, hunger relief and children's cancer research; vetoed because of "flawed" wording

HB2369, which would have allowed the legislature to seize and reappropriate "non-custodial" federal monies (such as block grants)


Among the lowlights (aka - the bad bills) that she signed into law:

HB2101, a bill to force Pinal County to change the size of its Board of Supervisors from three to five members. It was going to happen soon anyway because of Pinal's growth, but there is a Republican former legislator who wants back in an elected office of one sort or another, so the Rep caucus in the lege accelerated the process.

HB2396, compelling ADOT to establish and enter into "public-private partnerships" for the construction of toll roads and other "eligible facilities"

HB2564, adding all sorts of restrictions to abortion access; AZCentral.com coverage here

HB2400, redefining "partial birth abortions" and increasing the criminal penalties for the performance of a partial birth abortion...something that is already illegal under federal law

SB1113, the guns in bars and restaurants bill; AZCentral.com coverage here


Status unclear as of this writing:

HB2103, to allow the state treasurer to bypass the state attorney general and hire outside counsel for legal advice. Also known (by me, anyway :) ) as the "Dean Martin doesn't like Terry Goddard" bill

HB2288, creates a larger tax credit (for insurers) who make donations to school tuition organization and eliminates the sunset date for the existing corporate tax credit for STO contributions

SB1022, usurping local ordinances regarding "tampering" with political signs - Vetoed

SB1123, forcing Tucson to hold non-partisan elections, aka Jonathan Paton's scheme to see more Republicans win office in Tucson's municipal elections

SB1168, the NRA's bill to allow guns in cars on other people's private property

SB1175, prohibiting someone who is not "an osteopathic or allopathic physician" from performing an abortion

SB1243, the NRA's "defensive display" of guns bill


My expectation for the "no info yet" category of bills is that most were signed into law, especially given that most are bad bills. I just haven't found any reports on those yet.

More tomorrow, especially details on the other bills...

Senator Al Franken's statement at today's confirmation hearing

Al Franken, the long-elected but only recently-sworn junior U.S. Senator from Minnesota, has immediately stepped into the center of the fray in D.C. as a member of the Senate's Judiciary Committee.

Today, the confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor's appointment to the Supreme Court opened.

Here is the opening statement, as written, by Senator Franken -

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is an incredible honor to be here. Less than a week into my term as a United States Senator, my first major responsibility is here, at this historic confirmation hearing.

I am truly humbled to join the Judiciary Committee, which has played, and will continue to play, such an important role in overseeing our nation's system of justice. Chairman Leahy, for several years now I have admired your strength and integrity in leading this Committee. I'm grateful for the warm welcome and consideration you have given me, and I am honored to serve alongside you.

Ranking Member Sessions, I want you to know that I plan to follow the example of my good friend and predecessor, Paul Wellstone, who was willing and ready to partner with his colleagues across the aisle to do the work of the American people. I look forward to working over the years with you and my other Republican colleagues in the Senate to improve the lives of all Americans.

To all the members of this committee, I know that I have a lot to learn from each of you. Like so many private citizens, I have watched at least part of each and every Supreme Court confirmation hearing since they have been televised. And I would note that this is the first confirmation hearing that Senator Kennedy has not attended since 1965. We miss his presence.

These televised hearings have taught Americans a lot about our Constitution – and the role that the courts play in upholding and defending it. I look forward to listening to your questions and to the issues that you and your constituents care about.

To Judge Sotomayor, welcome. For the next few days, I expert to learn from you as well. You are the most experienced nominee to the Supreme Court in 100 years. And after meeting with you in my office last week, I know that aside from being a fine jurist, you are also an exceptional individual. Your story is inspiring and one in which all Americans should take pride.

As most of you know, this is my fifth day in office. That may mean that I am the most junior Senator, but it also means that I am the Senator who has most recently taken the oath of office. Last Tuesday, I swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" and to "bear true faith and allegiance" to it. I take this oath very seriously as we consider Judge Sotomayor's nomination.

I may not be a lawyer, but neither are the overwhelming majority of Americans. Yet all of us, regardless of our backgrounds or professions, have a huge stake in who sits on the Supreme Court and are profoundly affected by its decisions.

I hope to use my time over the next few days to raise issues that concern people in Minnesota and around the country. This hearing will help folks sitting in living rooms and offices in Winona or Duluth or the Twin Cities to get a better idea of what the court is, what it does and what it is supposed to do, and most importantly, how its actions affect the everyday lives of all Americans.

Justice Souter, whom you will replace if you're confirmed, once said: "The first lesson, simple as it is, is that whatever court we're in, whatever we are doing, at the end of our task some human being is going to be affected. Some human life is going to be changed by what we do. And so we had better use every power of our minds and our hearts and our beings to get those rulings right." I believe he had it right.

In the past months, I've spent a lot of time thinking about the court's impact on the lives of Americans and reading and consulting with some of Minnesota's top legal minds. And I believe that the rights of Americans, as citizens and voters, are facing challenges on two separate fronts.

First, I believe the position of Congress with respect to the Courts and the Executive is in jeopardy. Even before I aspired to represent the people of Minnesota in the United States Senate, I believed that the Framers made Congress the first branch of government for a reason. It answers most directly to the people and has the legitimacy to speak for the people in crafting laws to be carried out by the executive branch.

I am wary of judicial activism and I believe in judicial restraint. Except under the most exceptional circumstances, the judicial branch is designed to show deep deference to Congress and not make policy by itself.

Yet looking at recent decisions on voting rights, campaign finance reform, and a number of other topics, it appears that appropriate deference may not have been shown in the past few years – and there are ominous signs that judicial activism is on the rise in these areas.

I agree with Senator Feingold and Senator Whitehouse that we hear a lot about judicial activism when politicians talk about what kind of judge they want in the Supreme Court. But it seems that their definition of an activist judge is one who votes differently than they would like. Because during the Rhenquist Court, Justice Clarence Thomas voted to overturn federal laws more than Justices Stevens and Breyer combined.

Second, I am concerned that Americans are facing new barriers to defending their individual rights. The Supreme Court is the last court in the land where an individual is promised a level playing field and can seek to right a wrong:

• It is the last place an employee can go if he or she is discriminated against because of age, gender, or color.

• It is the last place a small business owner can go to ensure free and fair competition in the market.

• It is the last place an investor can go to try to recover losses from securities fraud.

• It is the last place a person can go to protect the free flow of information on the internet. • It is the last place a citizen can go to protect his or her vote.

• It is the last place where a woman can go to protect her reproductive health and rights.

Yet from what I see, on each of those fronts, for each of those rights, the past decade has made it a little bit harder for American citizens to defend themselves.

As I said before, Judge, I'm here to learn from you. I want to learn what you think is the proper relationship between Congress and the Courts, between Congress and the Executive. I want to learn how you go about weighing the rights of the individual, the small consumer or business-owner, and more powerful interests. And I want to hear your views on judicial restraint and activism in the context of important issues like voting rights, open access to the Internet, and campaign finance reform.

We're going to have a lot of time together, so I'm going to start listening.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

No, he's not a Senator from AZ, but since the two "official" representatives of Arizona in the U.S. Senate don't actually expend much time or effort representing Arizona, I'm sort of adopting Senator Franken as one of my honorary AZ senators, the other being Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Senator Sanders is officially an Independent, but he still the best Democrat in the Senate.

All of the written statements submitted by the members of the Committee and Judge Sotomayor are available here.

Later....

Diamondbacks release Tony Clark

I understand the "why" here, and how "baseball is a business" and all of that, but it still sucks...

From AZCentral.com -

In another move made in part with an eye on 2010, the Diamondbacks on Sunday released veteran first baseman Tony Clark.

Clark, 37 and in his 15th season in the majors, was hitting just .182 with four home runs in 66 at-bats.

I don't use the word often because so often, it is overused or just used cheaply, but he is truly one of the class acts in all of professional sports. He is well-liked by those who know him, and more importantly, well-respected by his colleagues and the fans.

In addition to his playing skills (this season's struggles notwithstanding, one doesn't have a 15-year career in the majors without some serious skills), he has been heavily involved in community affairs wherever he has played and in the MLB Players Association.

I first met him in 1996 or 1997 before an Arizona Fall League game in Scottsdale. He wasn't there as a player as he was already an established major leaguer by that time. He was visiting AZ in the offseason (he played college basketball at U of A) and spent some time in the Valley, catching up with some of his friends who were playing that year.

Clark handled the steady stream of fans seeking an autograph or a simple 'hello' with a ready signature and a smile.

All the while maintaining a steady conversation with the players warming up on the field.

All of this sounds sort of like a eulogy, and it shouldn't.

Clark's time with the Diamondbacks may be over, but his time in baseball isn't.

He may/should catch on with a team in need of an accomplished 1B/DH/PH with a steady, professional influence in the clubhouse. And after his playing career is over, he will be a great coach or executive in any organization or with the MLBPA. Or in any field he chooses.

Back to politics later...

So *that's* how you ease the pain of watching the lege flush AZ down the tubes

From LiveScience.com -

Swearing Makes Pain More Tolerable

That muttered curse word that reflexively comes out when you stub your toe could actually make it easier to bear the throbbing pain, a new study suggests.

Swearing is a common response to pain, but no previous research has connected the uttering of an expletive to the actual physical experience of pain.

"Swearing has been around for centuries and is an almost universal human linguistic phenomenon," said Richard Stephens of Keele University in England and one of the authors of the new study. "It taps into emotional brain centers and appears to arise in the right brain, whereas most language production occurs in the left cerebral hemisphere of the brain."

This study certainly explains the quantity and creativity of the muttered curses overheard in the galleries of the AZ Senate and House during the waning days of this year's session - the Republican-led lege was being a serious pain in the @$$ and people were talking like they had an untreated hemorrhoid.

Yep - it's all clear now. :)

BTW, my favorite comment from the LiveScience article was the 2nd one -

posted 12 July 2009, 3:24 pm ET

khublai wrote:

Ironically, this is evidence that Rahm Emanuel is probably the most well-adjusted person in the White House (and possibly in the Western World).

I know a few people who are as well-adjusted as Emanuel, though none of them work in the White House. :)

Later...

Even more 2010 campaign committees

These titles are going to get repetitive, but given the nature of the latest committees, that might be appropriate...

Short update, with some former and current legislators looking to continue/regain their positions in elected office -

...Current LD4 State Representative Tom Boone (R) has formed an exploratory committee for a run at the Senate seat in LD4 (filer ID 201000145), setting up a primary fight with former legislator Scott Bundgaard.

...Former Speaker Pro Tem Bob Robson (R-Chandler) has apparently decided against another run at Corporation Commission (he was defeated in the Republican primary last year) and has formed a candidate committee for a run at returning to the House from LD20 (201000144).

Well, this should reduce the deaths by electrocutions, anyway

From GovExec.com -

One of the Defense Department's largest contractors has failed in its bid for a pair of lucrative task orders for logistical support work in Afghanistan that could be worth up to $15 billion.

The Army announced this week that DynCorp International LLC was awarded a contract for work in southern Afghanistan while Fluor Intercontinental Inc. will handle services for U.S. troops in the northern section of the country.

KBR Inc., the third firm on the massive LOGCAP IV contract, bid on the work but failed to secure a task order for Afghanistan.

A reminder for those who have short memories: KBR is the contractor that likes to build bathrooms, swimming pools and other structures in Iraq that electrocute the users of those structures.

Maybe it's just my cynicism showing, but does anyone really doubt that KBR would have been awarded the entire contract if Dick Cheney was still in office, no matter what their body count was up to?

Later...

The coming week...

As usual, all info gathered from the websites of the relevant political bodies/agencies and subject to change without notice...

...The U.S. House of Representatives will continue its job of cobbling together a federal budget this week. On its agenda: H.R. 3170, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2010 and H.R. [no number assigned yet], the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

That last will be sponsored by AZ's Ed Pastor (D-CD4).

...While those bills will be sure to generate a lot of debate, the highlight of the D.C. week will be over in the Senate.

At 10 a.m. (EDT) on Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold its hearing on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Look for one of AZ's own, Sen. Jon Kyl, to lead the Republican opposition to the first Hispanic woman nominated to the Court.



...In the Arizona legislature, no floor schedule has been posted yet. However, this week's session of the Special Session is expected to be pro forma. That means that the "plan" for both chambers is a prayer, recite the Pledge of Allegiance, utter a few comments, and get the hell out of Dodge the Phoenix heat.

The only sign of movement is in bill introductions - in the Senate, John Huppenthal has introduced 3 vehicle bills and 2 vehicle referendum proposals (aka - "technical correction" proposals); in the House, no new bills have been posted so far.

In other words, there *could* be some progress on dealing with the state's deficit this week, but it doesn't seem likely at this point.

Note: At 9:30 a.m. Monday on the Senate lawn, the AZ Senate Democrats and the Arizona Correctional Peace Officers will hold a press conference and rally to protest plans to privatize Arizona's prisons.



...The Arizona Board of Regents' Capital Committee will hold an executive session meeting on Tuesday at 2 p.m. The guts of that agenda -

It is anticipated that the Board may vote to convene in Executive Session, in accordance with A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3), (4), and (7) for the purposes of discussing and seeking legal advice regarding real property transactions: a) forAlpha Drive properties at the ASU Tempe Campus; b) The Towers on the ASU Tempe Campus; and c) Cholla Housing Facilities on the ASU Tempe Campus.

...The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors will hold a special/executive meeting on Wednesday at 10 a.m. No agenda posted yet, though some of the MCBOS' legal tribulations are sure to be on the docket for the executive session.


...The Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District will hold an RFP Advisory Committee meeting on Monday at 2 p.m.


The highlight (in fact, the only "light") of that agenda -

C. Presentations from the three finalists for RFP # 2906-1 Management Consulting Services for MCCCD to the RFP Committee.

1. Alvarez & Marsal Public Sector Services

2. Huron Consulting

3. MGT of America

...The Arizona Corporation Commission, Citizens Clean Elections Commission, Boards of Directors for the Central Arizona Project and the Maricopa Integrated Health System, and the Tempe and Scottsdale City Councils are not scheduled to meet this week.

Later...

Wonder if the prosecutor on this one will be able to keep a straight face in court?

From the Worcester (MA) Telegram and Gazette (emphasis mine) -

SOUTHBRIDGE — Two neighbors are facing charges after an altercation between them over the dumping of yard waste.

Prince M. Sirleaf, 40, of 17 Oak St., is being charged with assault and battery on a person 60 and older, while Louis A. Latour, 60, is being charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (grass clump).

"ADW-Grass Clump"?!?

Good luck to the prosecutor who's going to have to stand up in front of a jury and try to convince 12 citizens that a clump of grass constitutes a "dangerous weapon".

The scary part is, I grew up in that town, and check in on doings there every so often.

Which is how I found the goofiest charge that I've ever heard of that stemmed from what could have been a very serious situation (which is why both parties are facing charges, but still - "ADW-Grass Clump"???)

Later...

"Yay, we have transparency"

That title is from an email from a friend and regular reader of this blog.

It regards the link, http://it.usaspending.gov/, to the federal government's website to "provides the public with an online window into the details of Federal information technology investments."

The site still needs work (it's a serious pain in the neck to navigate and to understand the info that you are seeing), but it's a good start.

Later...

Day of the long knives in the AZ Senate

Not sure if it will really change the dynamic of the Senate once the Republicans get over their pique at the Governor and return to attacking the people of Arizona instead of each other...

From AZCentral.com's Political Insider -

Senate President Bob Burns made a rare trip to his future caucus room, aka the Senate pressroom, to announce changes among Senate Republicans.

Thayer Verschoor is out as president pro tem, replaced by Sen. Steve Pierce, R-Prescott. Majority Whip Pamela Gorman is off the Rules Committee, replacement TBD.

"This is a team effort," Burns said of leading the Senate. "And I think I can improve that team effort."

Last week, the "team" tanked one in front of its QB/would-be puppeteer when they (Gorman, Verschoor, Chuck Gray) voted against the referral of a sales tax hike to the ballot in the Senate Rules Committee.

A referral that Burns had agreed to with the Governor as part of a budget deal. The vote killed that particular deal and was one of the main reasons that the lege needed a 31-hour day to finish up its business...well, "finish" it until the Governor vetoed the budget package that the lege *did* send to the Governor.

I doubt that it's a coincidence that Steve Pierce was the Senator elevated to "President Pro-Tem" - he was the member who called out a certain unnamed member (OK, it was Russell Pearce :) ) for taking a powder during some pivotal votes during this week's special session.

Gray and Gorman retain their positions as Majority Leader and Whip, respectively, as they were elected to those positions by the entire Republican caucus, not appointed by Burns.

At this point, I expect that after the budget is finally completed (progress has been made, but there is still a gaping maw of a deficit to address), Burns will have to finish cleaning house on Rules (Gray out) and using what rewards he has to offer in order to shore up his own position.

When his entire leadership group turned against him, it opened up the possibility that the Rep caucus will choose to go in a different direction with a different Senate president.

If that happens, the split in the Republican caucus could cause one of the factions to turn to the Democratic caucus for support.

Hmmmm... :))

Scottsdale City Council meeting today to look at firing City Attorney

Edit to update with the results of the meeting, at the end of the post...

From AZCentral.com -

The Scottsdale City Council will meet on Tuesday to discuss City Attorney Deborah Robberson's employment status.

The council is technically on a two-month summer break, but is scheduled to meet in executive session Tuesday before meeting in public to "discuss, consider and take possible action regarding the employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, demotion, dismissal, salaries, disciplining or resignation of the City Attorney."

Yup, the Scottsdale City Council is taking a break from its break to do something that I predicted would take place in the spring - get rid of the City Attorney.

Hey - at least I had the year right. :))

Robberson was/is viewed as former Mayor Mary Manross' City Attorney and she doesn't fit in with the Lane regime.

Look for the Council, led by Lane, to find a reason to terminate Robberson's employment and to install Tim Lasota (currently Lane's chief of staff and formerly a staffer and protege of County Attorney Andrew Thomas) in the job, at least on an "acting" or "interim" basis.

Much like John Little was installed as the "acting" City Manager after former City Manager Jan Dolan was forced out.

The Council agenda for today's meeting is here.

P.S. - It's *really* nice to be writing about something other than the AZ legislature. :))

Edit on 7/7 to update -

Well, after a 2-hour executive session, the Council came back into the City Hall Kiva and voted 6 - 1 (Ecton voting against) to end Robberson's employment with the City. The public session of the meeting lasted less than 3 minutes.

Robberson's last day is Friday; she'll get all of her contracted severance package.

Robberson was something of a lightning rod for criticism, but while she was fired (she'll be shown as having "retired" from the City, but have no doubt - this was a firing), it was less "for cause" and more "for Mayor Lane to hire someone he wants in the job."

Key evidence in that regard - The City's HR head was in the Kiva; if this was termination for cause, she'd have been in the exec session, making sure that the Mayor and Council crossed their 'Ts' and dotted their 'Is'.

AZCentral.com coverage here.

End edit...