1:48 - Senate recessed.
1:47 - Passes with 16 votes. Over to the House.
1:46 - Sylvia Allen says that a tax hike was imposed because the state equalization tax was permanently repealed.
1:45 - Cheuvront argues against the "cuts-only" mentality of the Rs in the lege.
1:44 - Gould voting no because agencies can raise fees.
1:42 - States that AZ lost over 13000 jobs from Motorola because of taxes. As a former Motorolan, I can state that is utter BS. For over 15 years, Motorola has been run by people who would rather buy or rent other people's tech R&D and license out the manufacture of their products. Actual development and manufacturing is too "old school" for the MBA types who have supplanted the engineers at the top of MOT.
Which is a big reason why MOT nothing more than a marketing company these days.
Taxes in AZ had nothing to do with it.
Not that I'm still a little ticked off by it all. :)
1:40 - Gray still talking. Criticizing an ASU research project, as well as a U of A project, both funded with stimulus funds.
1:30 - SB1002. Linda Gray explaining her vote. Using time to criticize the federal stimulus.
1:37 - Voting on SB1001. Verschoor explaining his "concerns" over agency fee hikes, but will support the bill. Passes with 16 votes.
1:35 - Gould complaining about ADOT buying cones to block off rest areas. That money would buy a lot of toilet paper.
Verschoor apologizes for not being present Thursday, and more importantly, not letting his colleagues know why.
1:33 - Attendance. 27 present, 1 absent, 2 excused.
1:32 - Session starting. Prayer and pledge time.
1:30 - The mic is open. Burns says they are waiting for Sylvia Allen. Oops.
1:28 - Senate President Bob Burns makes an appearance.
1:27 - There's some activity on the floor of the Senate, activity that even includes actual senators milling around. The meeting should start shortly.
Monday, November 23, 2009
The Arizona State Senate: The cameras are on, but no one is at work
Kind of like "the lights are on, but nobody's home," only applied to an entire caucus instead of just one person.
It's 11:24 a.m. Do you know where your senators are? Cuz they sure ain't working on the budget...
According to one source (info more than an hour old at this point), Bob Burns had been working on Albert Hale to get him to cross over, but given the absences today, odds are the Rs are going to need the support of one Dem.
It's 11:24 a.m. Do you know where your senators are? Cuz they sure ain't working on the budget...
According to one source (info more than an hour old at this point), Bob Burns had been working on Albert Hale to get him to cross over, but given the absences today, odds are the Rs are going to need the support of one Dem.
Blowing sands, blowing smoke - the lege's schedule for today
OK - the tentative schedule for the day at the lege is a Senate floor session starting at 10 a.m. (and given that it is after 10 now and there's no sign of activity, it's probably not going to start on time, if at all.
Then, assuming success of some sort in the Senate (and the standards for "success" are getting pretty loose there), there is a House session scheduled for 1 p.m.
Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion reports that the Senate Rs will be down a couple of more votes as the holiday approaches and senators have other things to attend to that may be more interesting than the never-ending budget mess.
Like, ya know, family and stuff.
More later...
10;22 - There's some activity on the Senate floor, but no Senators yet. Perhaps there will be something definite to report by 10;45...
Then, assuming success of some sort in the Senate (and the standards for "success" are getting pretty loose there), there is a House session scheduled for 1 p.m.
Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion reports that the Senate Rs will be down a couple of more votes as the holiday approaches and senators have other things to attend to that may be more interesting than the never-ending budget mess.
Like, ya know, family and stuff.
More later...
10;22 - There's some activity on the Senate floor, but no Senators yet. Perhaps there will be something definite to report by 10;45...
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Time for a certain classless coward to step up and take responsibility for his action
No, this isn't a political post, unless you consider anonymous violence and utter thuggishness to be valid forms of political expression.
And while I've got a pretty low opinion of the AZGOP (as any regular reader already knows :) ), but even I don't think they are quite this bad.
Last night's football game between U of A and the University of Oregon was an exciting one that took two overtimes to determine a winner.
One fan took umbrage at the Ducks' victory, and instead of heckling a player (you know, one of the people who at least were involved in the outcome) he chose to vent his ire on a random victim, in this case, a cheerleader.
From the Arizona Daily Star -
According to the article, any criminal charges could range from disorderly conduct to aggravated assault, though it would seem likely that if the bottle thrower steps up, it will work in his favor (as would the fact that Ms. Johnson's injuries are minor ones).
Until such time as he *does* step up, however, all of the people of U of A, Tucson, and even the entire state will (deservedly) wear the "classless boors" designation because one person was upset of the outcome of a game.
Boo freakin' hoo. Get over it; it's only a game.
P.S. - while I criticized the thrower for anonymously going after a cheerleader instead of directly confronting one of the players, that would still be wholly inappropriate (and pretty stupid, too).
It would, however, be less cowardly.
And while I've got a pretty low opinion of the AZGOP (as any regular reader already knows :) ), but even I don't think they are quite this bad.
Last night's football game between U of A and the University of Oregon was an exciting one that took two overtimes to determine a winner.
One fan took umbrage at the Ducks' victory, and instead of heckling a player (you know, one of the people who at least were involved in the outcome) he chose to vent his ire on a random victim, in this case, a cheerleader.
From the Arizona Daily Star -
University of Arizona police are still searching for the person who hit a University of Oregon cheerleader in the head with a water bottle at the end of last night's football game.If the person who threw the bottle that hit Ms. Johnson has even a shred of class (and given the events that form the basis of this post, that seems unlikely), he will step forward and accept responsibility for his actions.
The Oregon cheerleader, Katelynn Johnson, a senior, was taken to an area hospital for minor injuries and was scheduled to be released this morning, Sgt. Juan Alvarez of the UA Police Department said.
According to the article, any criminal charges could range from disorderly conduct to aggravated assault, though it would seem likely that if the bottle thrower steps up, it will work in his favor (as would the fact that Ms. Johnson's injuries are minor ones).
Until such time as he *does* step up, however, all of the people of U of A, Tucson, and even the entire state will (deservedly) wear the "classless boors" designation because one person was upset of the outcome of a game.
Boo freakin' hoo. Get over it; it's only a game.
P.S. - while I criticized the thrower for anonymously going after a cheerleader instead of directly confronting one of the players, that would still be wholly inappropriate (and pretty stupid, too).
It would, however, be less cowardly.
Bob Burns admitting that Democrats actually exist?
And that maybe they matter?
Next, you'll be telling me that Russell Pearce is going to resign his position, convert to Catholicism and become a priest so that he can minister to the poorest of the poor in Mexico. All as penance for the bile that he has spewed and the pain that he has caused in his career as a politician.
So you say that those two things will never come to pass - Russell "National Alliance" Pearce will never change his nativist ways, and Marszałek Senatu Bob Burns (thanks Tedski!) will never move beyond his partisan nature?
Well, you are half right - Pearce isn't changing any time soon...or probably any time ever.
On the other hand, Bob Burns has cracked open the door of bipartisanship.
From AZCentral.com -
My off the cuff guesses:
Targeting - Richard Miranda, Jorge Luis Garcia, Ken Cheuvront, and Albert Hale.
- They targeted Miranda before, Garcia has indicated in the past that he has been interested in dealing, Cheuvront is actually pretty conservative for someone who is a gay Democrat (OK, if he wasn't gay he'd probably be a leader of the Chamber of Commerce wing of the AZGOP, but the AZGOP hates gay people nearly as much as they hate Mexicans), and what Hale wants (see the linked article) isn't going to cost the state anything (the R's are against it because it benefits Native Americans, and for no other reason).
Offering - Not a hell of a lot. Burns has too much political capital invested in his previous plan of passing a budget with only R votes. In addition, too many members of the R caucuses in the House and the Senate have made the same investment, and they will be loathe to sign off on any real compromises.
It'll be interesting to see if enough of the Dems are willing to sell their souls in exchange for the equivalent of meaningless but shiny baubles and trinkets.
If not, and right now I'm betting on "not," it will be even more interesting to see if Burns and Adams can convince enough of their caucuses that a little bipartisanship beats holding a special session meeting on the Friday after Thanksgiving.
Later...
Next, you'll be telling me that Russell Pearce is going to resign his position, convert to Catholicism and become a priest so that he can minister to the poorest of the poor in Mexico. All as penance for the bile that he has spewed and the pain that he has caused in his career as a politician.
So you say that those two things will never come to pass - Russell "National Alliance" Pearce will never change his nativist ways, and Marszałek Senatu Bob Burns (thanks Tedski!) will never move beyond his partisan nature?
Well, you are half right - Pearce isn't changing any time soon...or probably any time ever.
On the other hand, Bob Burns has cracked open the door of bipartisanship.
From AZCentral.com -
Senate President Bob Burns said he was seeking Democratic votes as he tries to wrap up a special legislative session that went into unexpected overtime last week.I have no specific info regarding which Dems Burns is targeting, much less what, if anything, he is offering in return, but I've got a couple of phone calls out.
"We need at least four members of the Democratic caucus," Burns, R-Peoria, said late last week, after discussing the state budget at the annual tax watchdog luncheon of the Arizona Tax Research Association. He said he and other legislative leaders planned to spend the weekend looking for those votes.
My off the cuff guesses:
Targeting - Richard Miranda, Jorge Luis Garcia, Ken Cheuvront, and Albert Hale.
- They targeted Miranda before, Garcia has indicated in the past that he has been interested in dealing, Cheuvront is actually pretty conservative for someone who is a gay Democrat (OK, if he wasn't gay he'd probably be a leader of the Chamber of Commerce wing of the AZGOP, but the AZGOP hates gay people nearly as much as they hate Mexicans), and what Hale wants (see the linked article) isn't going to cost the state anything (the R's are against it because it benefits Native Americans, and for no other reason).
Offering - Not a hell of a lot. Burns has too much political capital invested in his previous plan of passing a budget with only R votes. In addition, too many members of the R caucuses in the House and the Senate have made the same investment, and they will be loathe to sign off on any real compromises.
It'll be interesting to see if enough of the Dems are willing to sell their souls in exchange for the equivalent of meaningless but shiny baubles and trinkets.
If not, and right now I'm betting on "not," it will be even more interesting to see if Burns and Adams can convince enough of their caucuses that a little bipartisanship beats holding a special session meeting on the Friday after Thanksgiving.
Later...
Saturday, November 21, 2009
The coming week...
As usual, all info gathered from the websites of the relevent political bodies/agencies, except where noted, and subject to change without notice...
This week's schedule is pretty sparse due to the holiday on Thursday, though there will be some excitement at the Arizona legislature early in the week.
...The U.S. House and Senate are in recess this week. I was going to offer a quip about the turkeys having some turkey this week (or something else equally trite), but since the Senate Dems held together long enough to break a Republican filibuster on health care reform, I'll be nice. :)
...The Arizona legislature will meet again on Monday to attempt to pass the latest budget patch. They may get something done, or they may not. I'm not betting on this one. If it doesn't get done this week, a patch may have to wait until the next special session, rumored to be taking place early next month.
It's already looking like the next regular session of the lege (starting in January) will see the ideologues of the Arizona chapter of the Flat Earth Society running roughshod over pragmatism - the first two House bill proposals are already posted on the lege's website. HB2001 would establish the "I didn't pay enough fund" for taxpayers to voluntarily pay more in taxes; HCR2001 would proclaim Arizona's sovereignty from federal laws under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (aka the "we're going to ignore any federal law that we want to" Act).
Those measures are sponsored or cosponsored by 46 and 47 of the most extreme members of the lege GOP caucus.
Of course, given that there are only 53 GOPers in the lege, that should tell you something about how nutty this bunch is.
...The Arizona Corporation Commission doesn't have any full meetings scheduled this week, but they do have an abbreviated hearing schedule (nothing on Thursday, Friday, or next Monday).
...The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has a special meeting on tap for Monday at 1 p.m. The highlight looks to be a settlement/surrender in the case of the lawsuits (here and here) brought by County Treasurer Charles Hoskins. Some background from AZCentral.com here. No word on if the results of the latest audit of the Treasurer's office played a part in the settlement.
...On Monday, the Board of Directors of the Maricopa Integrated Health System has two meetings on tap - an executive session at noon and a regular meeting at 1 p.m. The exec session will focus mostly on employment issues.
...On Tuesday, the Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District will hold a regular meeting. The agenda is light. There is an executive session (contracts and compensation) followed by an open meeting that is almost entirely consent agenda stuff.
In short, they should be adjourned by 7:30 p.m. And given that it is a holiday week and there is another meeting scheduled for early December, they may just make it on this one.
...The Tempe City Council isn't scheduled to meet this week, but their brief Council Calendar is available here.
...The Scottsdale City Council isn't scheduled to meet this week either, but their Community Meeting Notice is here.
Not scheduled to meet this week: Arizona Board of Regents, Citizens Clean Elections Commission, Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project.
This week's schedule is pretty sparse due to the holiday on Thursday, though there will be some excitement at the Arizona legislature early in the week.
...The U.S. House and Senate are in recess this week. I was going to offer a quip about the turkeys having some turkey this week (or something else equally trite), but since the Senate Dems held together long enough to break a Republican filibuster on health care reform, I'll be nice. :)
...The Arizona legislature will meet again on Monday to attempt to pass the latest budget patch. They may get something done, or they may not. I'm not betting on this one. If it doesn't get done this week, a patch may have to wait until the next special session, rumored to be taking place early next month.
It's already looking like the next regular session of the lege (starting in January) will see the ideologues of the Arizona chapter of the Flat Earth Society running roughshod over pragmatism - the first two House bill proposals are already posted on the lege's website. HB2001 would establish the "I didn't pay enough fund" for taxpayers to voluntarily pay more in taxes; HCR2001 would proclaim Arizona's sovereignty from federal laws under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (aka the "we're going to ignore any federal law that we want to" Act).
Those measures are sponsored or cosponsored by 46 and 47 of the most extreme members of the lege GOP caucus.
Of course, given that there are only 53 GOPers in the lege, that should tell you something about how nutty this bunch is.
...The Arizona Corporation Commission doesn't have any full meetings scheduled this week, but they do have an abbreviated hearing schedule (nothing on Thursday, Friday, or next Monday).
...The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has a special meeting on tap for Monday at 1 p.m. The highlight looks to be a settlement/surrender in the case of the lawsuits (here and here) brought by County Treasurer Charles Hoskins. Some background from AZCentral.com here. No word on if the results of the latest audit of the Treasurer's office played a part in the settlement.
...On Monday, the Board of Directors of the Maricopa Integrated Health System has two meetings on tap - an executive session at noon and a regular meeting at 1 p.m. The exec session will focus mostly on employment issues.
...On Tuesday, the Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District will hold a regular meeting. The agenda is light. There is an executive session (contracts and compensation) followed by an open meeting that is almost entirely consent agenda stuff.
In short, they should be adjourned by 7:30 p.m. And given that it is a holiday week and there is another meeting scheduled for early December, they may just make it on this one.
...The Tempe City Council isn't scheduled to meet this week, but their brief Council Calendar is available here.
...The Scottsdale City Council isn't scheduled to meet this week either, but their Community Meeting Notice is here.
Not scheduled to meet this week: Arizona Board of Regents, Citizens Clean Elections Commission, Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project.
Rodney Glassman getting closer to a Senate seat
...A nativist winger knocking off McCain in the Republican primary would immediately make Democrat Rodney Glassman a serious threat to win next year's race for the U.S. Senate, if not the outright favorite.
According to the latest Rasmussen Reports poll -
Rasmussen's toplines are here.
A third candidate, Chris Simcox (founder of the anti-immigrant vigilante group The Minutemen) is polling at 4%. That would seem to help Hayworth, as it is probably safe to presume that in the event he drops out, his supporters would gravitate to Hayworth, but Simcox' 4% is within the margin of error. In other words, he could help Hayworth...or he could have no support at all.
While the comments on the AZ Republic's website and in the Republican blogosphere are somewhat jubilant at the thought of the nativist Hayworth unseating McCain, they should note -
The poll surveyed likely voters in the Republican primary, not in the general election.
John McCain has proven all but untouchable in general elections thus far (though Tucson City Councilman Glassman could do well enough to make McCain actually work this time around), Hayworth is anything but untouchable in a general election, as Tempe's Harry Mitchell proved in 2006.
To the GOP's "more conservative than thou" types -
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.
Yeah, I know it's a cliche, but it works here. :)
According to the latest Rasmussen Reports poll -
Senator John McCain’s future in the U.S. Senate may be a little less assured than previously thought.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely 2010 Republican Primary voters in Arizona finds the longtime incumbent in a virtual tie with potential challenger J.D. Hayworth. McCain earns 45% of the vote, while Hayworth picks up 43%.
Rasmussen's toplines are here.
A third candidate, Chris Simcox (founder of the anti-immigrant vigilante group The Minutemen) is polling at 4%. That would seem to help Hayworth, as it is probably safe to presume that in the event he drops out, his supporters would gravitate to Hayworth, but Simcox' 4% is within the margin of error. In other words, he could help Hayworth...or he could have no support at all.
While the comments on the AZ Republic's website and in the Republican blogosphere are somewhat jubilant at the thought of the nativist Hayworth unseating McCain, they should note -
The poll surveyed likely voters in the Republican primary, not in the general election.
John McCain has proven all but untouchable in general elections thus far (though Tucson City Councilman Glassman could do well enough to make McCain actually work this time around), Hayworth is anything but untouchable in a general election, as Tempe's Harry Mitchell proved in 2006.
To the GOP's "more conservative than thou" types -
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.
Yeah, I know it's a cliche, but it works here. :)
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Time to negotiate *for* the lege's Republicans
Yup, time to contact some local hospitals and see if we can get a group rate for 53 admissions for "cranio-rectal dislodgement surgery."
And if you can't figure out what that's a euphemism for, you aren't enough of a wiseass to enjoy this blog. :)
From AZCentral.com -
Yay.
In other news, Republican Ron Gould voted against the budget, because he votes against everything, and Chuck Gray voted against it so that he could move to reconsider the vote. He did, the motion was approved, and they'll be back to "try, try again" on Monday.
The House didn't vote on anything on Thursday.
See you all Monday...
And if you can't figure out what that's a euphemism for, you aren't enough of a wiseass to enjoy this blog. :)
From AZCentral.com -
What was expected to be a quick special session to cut $300 million from the state budget collapsed early Thursday afternoon when the Republicans fell one vote short of the needed majority.Verschoor skipped the vote because of language that allows state agencies to raise fees to offset some of the lege's cuts.
The Senate adjourned until Monday, when it is expected there will be enough members present to pass the cuts.
The drama turned on Sen. Thayer Verschoor, R-Gilbert, who was missing as the vote neared on a bill that would cut $300 million from education and health and welfare spending. Verschoor was widely believed to support the cuts, but he objected to other policy shifts the Legislature was making in its special session.
Yay.
In other news, Republican Ron Gould voted against the budget, because he votes against everything, and Chuck Gray voted against it so that he could move to reconsider the vote. He did, the motion was approved, and they'll be back to "try, try again" on Monday.
The House didn't vote on anything on Thursday.
See you all Monday...
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Joint Legislative Budget Committee analysis of 4th Special Session budget bills
Links courtesy the blog of the Arizona State Senate Democratic Caucus.
Bill summaries from the JLBC here; JLBC numbers here (final result: $452 million in cuts and savings measures, but that is before any Republican committee or floor amendments.)
Note: The Joint Committee on Capital Review is scheduled to meet tomorrow at 2 p.m in SHR109.
Bill summaries from the JLBC here; JLBC numbers here (final result: $452 million in cuts and savings measures, but that is before any Republican committee or floor amendments.)
Note: The Joint Committee on Capital Review is scheduled to meet tomorrow at 2 p.m in SHR109.
Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman announces that he isn't running for statewide office anytime soon
Of course, Hugh being Hugh, he didn't say it directly.
From AZCentral.com (emphasis mine) -
Hallman is treading close to apostasy with that last, but before the the AZGOP or the Goldwater Institute dispatches a re-education squad to Tempe, they should rest assured - Hallman has been drinking your Kool-Aid for decades. He is no threat to join Ben Arredondo in the exodus from the GOP (hell, even he had ever considered it, he wouldn't do so after Arredondo did. Hallman despises Arredondo.)
Still, Hallman showed that he has a smidgen of intelligence remaining. As such, he'd never get through a GOP primary. He's going to wait at least two more years.
From AZCentral.com (emphasis mine) -
Four southeast Valley mayors challenged the Legislature on Tuesday to overhaul Arizona's tax system and think more creatively about how to solve the state's monumental budget problems.
In the process, they warned lawmakers not to pass down those problems to cities and towns, which have been largely successful in coping with their own fiscal issues.
{snip}
"Most of us . . . are funded by sales tax to a large degree," said Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman. "And that is a very volatile sector. . . . It's not going to get better, because the cities don't have the opportunity to change that model. It's going to have to be done at the state level."
Hallman said Arizona should rely less on sales taxes and more on property taxes.
Hallman is treading close to apostasy with that last, but before the the AZGOP or the Goldwater Institute dispatches a re-education squad to Tempe, they should rest assured - Hallman has been drinking your Kool-Aid for decades. He is no threat to join Ben Arredondo in the exodus from the GOP (hell, even he had ever considered it, he wouldn't do so after Arredondo did. Hallman despises Arredondo.)
Still, Hallman showed that he has a smidgen of intelligence remaining. As such, he'd never get through a GOP primary. He's going to wait at least two more years.
The coarsening of public discourse in Scottsdale
Tuesday's meeting of the Scottsdale City Council was notable for some of the actual work (appointing David Richert as acting City Manager).
However memorable as that may be, the meeting will be best remembered for the very snarky personal attacks from the floor on Council members and their families.
Michael Fernandez, owner of the Pottery Paradise business in Scottsdale, spoke during the public comment part of the agenda.
He used his three minutes to take continued shots at now-former City Manager John Little (whom he accused of "looting" the City's treasury). And those shots were used, in turn, to criticize the three members of the Council who most often oppose his friend, Mayor Jim Lane.
Now criticisms of public officials are an integral part of our system of governance, and any elected official who feels that they shouldn't have to at least listen to such criticisms shouldn't bother with running for elected office.
However, Fernandez' criticisms went far past the normal bounds of civility.
The snarky and sarcastic tone of his comments (awarding a "John Little Memorial Goldbrick Award"??) meant that they were less "honest criticisms" and more "petty insults".
Still, one must have a pretty thick skin when serving in public office.
Then Fernandez got unforgivably personal with his bestowing of his "Goldbrick Award" on "Wayneroo" (Councilman Wayne Ecton) and "Martha, too" (Councilman Ecton's wife, Martha.)
I've disagreed with each of the members of the Council, as well as elected officials at all levels, and frequently have used snark and sarcasm to do so.
Here.
Not in the Council Kiva, or a legislative hearing room, or any place where official business is conducted.
And I never have used this or any other forum to attack someone's family members simply because they were related to a public official.
Even in a venue as unregulated at the political blogosphere, anyone wishing to maintain their credibility doesn't go there.
When he did so, Mr. Fernandez demonstrated that credibility wasn't and isn't his objective.
Which is something that I wouldn't care about, except that his behavior and the fact that he wasn't called on it right then and there both undermines the credibility of other, more relevent, public speakers, and encourages further personal attacks.
Toward the end of the meeting, Councilman Ecton finally gave voice to his objections to the tone of the earlier comments. He understood that as an elected official, he was subject to criticisms, even unfair ones, but he was offended and outraged at the attack on his wife.
Mayor Lane hemmed and hawed a little bit at that, stating that it was difficult to know what people were going to say before they say it. He then promised to "be more sensitive to that" however.
Mayor Lane's credibility is lacking on this issue, however - he may not have known *exactly* what Fernandez was going to say, but Fernandez was one of his biggest supporters during Lane's mayoral campaign last year, doing a lot of his work through third-party hit pieces targeting then-Mayor Mary Manross and council candidates Ron McCullagh and Suzanne Klapp.
Add in the fact that the targets of Fernandez' invective were Lane critics McCullagh, Klapp, and Ecton (and that Ecton's seat on the Council is up for election next fall), Fernandez' "speech" has all of the hallmarks of a scripted salvo of a smear campaign for next year's elections.
The thing is that Lane and his cronies don't seem to understand is that by undermining the respect that folks have for their elected officials (even if that respect is of the "respect the office, if not the person" variety), they are undermining themselves.
If a "throw all of the bums out!" wave sweeps forth over the Scottsdale electorate next year, it won't be picky about which political careers are drowned.
Video of the meeting can be found on the City's website here. Fernandez' attack starts around the 12:00 mark; Ecton's response can be found at approximately the 3:53:00 point.
Some background on Fernandez' involvement in Lane's campaign here, here, here, here, and here. Info on his post-election ties to Lane here - Fernandez was one of Lane's appointments to the McDowell Corridor/South Scottsdale Economic Development Task Force.
Also, Fernandez' name can be found all over the City of Scottsdale's elections finance reports (start here) - treasurer of No More Manross In 08, treasurer of Republicans For A Bright New Day In Scottsdale, treasurer for No Light Rail For Scottsdale, and others, and financial contributor to those committees and a number of candidates.
Something tells me that this bit of bile won't be the last we hear from Mr. Fernandez and Lane's other surrogates.
It used to be that Mesa was the laughingstock of municipal politics in the Valley; that has changed, partly because Mesa's leaders have improved, and Scottsdale's leaders have degraded.
However memorable as that may be, the meeting will be best remembered for the very snarky personal attacks from the floor on Council members and their families.
Michael Fernandez, owner of the Pottery Paradise business in Scottsdale, spoke during the public comment part of the agenda.
He used his three minutes to take continued shots at now-former City Manager John Little (whom he accused of "looting" the City's treasury). And those shots were used, in turn, to criticize the three members of the Council who most often oppose his friend, Mayor Jim Lane.
Now criticisms of public officials are an integral part of our system of governance, and any elected official who feels that they shouldn't have to at least listen to such criticisms shouldn't bother with running for elected office.
However, Fernandez' criticisms went far past the normal bounds of civility.
The snarky and sarcastic tone of his comments (awarding a "John Little Memorial Goldbrick Award"??) meant that they were less "honest criticisms" and more "petty insults".
Still, one must have a pretty thick skin when serving in public office.
Then Fernandez got unforgivably personal with his bestowing of his "Goldbrick Award" on "Wayneroo" (Councilman Wayne Ecton) and "Martha, too" (Councilman Ecton's wife, Martha.)
I've disagreed with each of the members of the Council, as well as elected officials at all levels, and frequently have used snark and sarcasm to do so.
Here.
Not in the Council Kiva, or a legislative hearing room, or any place where official business is conducted.
And I never have used this or any other forum to attack someone's family members simply because they were related to a public official.
Even in a venue as unregulated at the political blogosphere, anyone wishing to maintain their credibility doesn't go there.
When he did so, Mr. Fernandez demonstrated that credibility wasn't and isn't his objective.
Which is something that I wouldn't care about, except that his behavior and the fact that he wasn't called on it right then and there both undermines the credibility of other, more relevent, public speakers, and encourages further personal attacks.
Toward the end of the meeting, Councilman Ecton finally gave voice to his objections to the tone of the earlier comments. He understood that as an elected official, he was subject to criticisms, even unfair ones, but he was offended and outraged at the attack on his wife.
Mayor Lane hemmed and hawed a little bit at that, stating that it was difficult to know what people were going to say before they say it. He then promised to "be more sensitive to that" however.
Mayor Lane's credibility is lacking on this issue, however - he may not have known *exactly* what Fernandez was going to say, but Fernandez was one of his biggest supporters during Lane's mayoral campaign last year, doing a lot of his work through third-party hit pieces targeting then-Mayor Mary Manross and council candidates Ron McCullagh and Suzanne Klapp.
Add in the fact that the targets of Fernandez' invective were Lane critics McCullagh, Klapp, and Ecton (and that Ecton's seat on the Council is up for election next fall), Fernandez' "speech" has all of the hallmarks of a scripted salvo of a smear campaign for next year's elections.
The thing is that Lane and his cronies don't seem to understand is that by undermining the respect that folks have for their elected officials (even if that respect is of the "respect the office, if not the person" variety), they are undermining themselves.
If a "throw all of the bums out!" wave sweeps forth over the Scottsdale electorate next year, it won't be picky about which political careers are drowned.
Video of the meeting can be found on the City's website here. Fernandez' attack starts around the 12:00 mark; Ecton's response can be found at approximately the 3:53:00 point.
Some background on Fernandez' involvement in Lane's campaign here, here, here, here, and here. Info on his post-election ties to Lane here - Fernandez was one of Lane's appointments to the McDowell Corridor/South Scottsdale Economic Development Task Force.
Also, Fernandez' name can be found all over the City of Scottsdale's elections finance reports (start here) - treasurer of No More Manross In 08, treasurer of Republicans For A Bright New Day In Scottsdale, treasurer for No Light Rail For Scottsdale, and others, and financial contributor to those committees and a number of candidates.
Something tells me that this bit of bile won't be the last we hear from Mr. Fernandez and Lane's other surrogates.
It used to be that Mesa was the laughingstock of municipal politics in the Valley; that has changed, partly because Mesa's leaders have improved, and Scottsdale's leaders have degraded.
Arpaio defies court. Again.
Some things never change, do they? Even when one of his deputies is caught on video rummaging through an attorney's briefcase, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio doesn't think that the laws that govern the rest of us apply to him or his.
From AZCentral.com -
From AZCentral.com -
A Maricopa County Sheriff's detention officer was found in contempt of court Wednesday for his decision to remove a document from a defense attorney's file during a sentencing hearing last month.
The officer was ordered by a judge to hold a press conference to apologize for his actions - an order that Sheriff Joe Arpaio immediately said would be defied.
“My officer was doing his job and I will not stand by and allow him to be thrown to the wolves by the courts because they feel pressure from the media on this situation,” Arpaio said in a press release. He further said, "I decide who holds press conferences and when they are held regarding this Sheriff’s Office.”
Senate Approps meeting
They're meeting in SHR109. It's available via the lege's live streaming function, which is good, because I didn't visit the Capitol today.
The agenda is here.
Meeting begins at approximately 10:15 a.m.
SB1001, general appropriations - Cuts $144 million from K-12 Ed and $155 million from DES. No public speakers have signed up. Pearce amendment to strip 21st Century Fund funding from the bill (correcting a drafting error - they'll be putting it in SB1003).
Aguirre votes no, criticizing the "cuts only" attitude of the Senate.
Gould votes no, no explanation.
Rios criticizes the emphasis on cutting DES and Education, votes no.
Passes 5-4.
SB1002. K-12 budget reconciliation. Hale offers amendment to allow schools receiving federal "impact aid" to cover cuts from that aid. Hale explains the need, Steve Pierce explains that he supports the intent of the amendment, but will be voting against all amendments...except for those that he votes for, like the amendment of the previous bill. Russell Pearce thinks that it is unfair that the schools that receive the impact aid have money that the other schools in the state don't have. Hale points out that the money is given to districts that don't have the benefits of revenue from property taxes. Gould sounds like he might actually support this one, but I'm not sure. Rios points out that the amendment would have no fiscal impact on Arizona. Harper says that he won't be voting against the amendment out of spite or partisanship, but because he pledged to vote the budget package through without amendments. Even though there will be amendments added by Republican members.
Amendment fails via voice vote.
Shocking, ain't it?
Harper, talking about the underlying bill, gripes about "maintenance of effort" in fed stimulus and the restrictions of "citizens initiatives." Pearce admonishes people that the state is "on the verge of insolvency."
Voting -
Aguirre votes yes, because cuts are necessary though painful. Wants to address revenues.
Sylvia Allen wants to "reform" programs, better known as making the neediest members of society pay for any help they receive. Votes yes.
Rios talks about reining in tuition tax credits to cover cuts. Points to Allen's "reform" call, and recommends reforming STOs. Votes nay.
Passes 6-3.
SB1003, general revenues. Includes fee increase authorization and other stuff. Two amendments. Pearce amendment to add 21st Century Fund money, and to force counties to use all available money to transfer to state's general fund. This one is targeted to protecting the excess funds under the control of Joe Arpaio.
Harper gripes about "cash flow" issues, and suspending employer contributions to state employees' pension funds.
Steve Pierce announces he will vote against both amendments. Even though he supported the amendment stripping the funding from SB1001.
Russell Pearce says that law enforcement supports his county-related amendment.
Steve Pierce now announces that he will support the 21st Century Fund fix.
Gould criticizes the whole process for "opaqueness", calls it a "cocktail napkin plan."
Harper doesn't think that Science Foundation Arizona has the money "coming to them"...even though a judge says that they do.
Gould says that they should fight it, like they've fought funding for ELL.
Sylvia Allen - "It's hell if you do, hell if you don't" and then worries that she might have cursed or something.
Division called on amendment vote, by Gould. Amendment passes 6-2, 3 not voting.
Second Pearce amendment, to protect Arpaio.
Rios questions hypocrisy about the Rs opposing the Hale amendment on the previous bill that didn't affect state funds, but supporting this one, which would.
Pearce pontificates on the need to protect law enforcement. Calls his amendment a "fairness doctrine."
I thought the Rs were opposed to "fairness doctrines"??
Aguirre is backing up Rios.
A rep from Maricopa County is speaking in opposition to the amendment.
They're still blathering on about this...
Pearce gets a note from three unnamed members of the MCBOS, assuring him that they will be fair. Pearce withdraws amendment.
Harper, on the underlying bill, criticizes the "abandoned property" time reduction to three years on traveler's checks. Pearce promises that it will be addressed in the next special session.
SB1003 passes 7-2, Gould opposing, calls fees a tax on business.
SB1004, anti-deficiency statutes.
The realtors and bankers support this one; the homebuilders are hesitant about some of the language (spec sales).
Bill passes 9-0. Meeting adjourns.
On to Senate Rules, which I won't be covering. And probably wouldn't even if I was at the Capitol today - they're usually really boring.
Later...
The agenda is here.
Meeting begins at approximately 10:15 a.m.
SB1001, general appropriations - Cuts $144 million from K-12 Ed and $155 million from DES. No public speakers have signed up. Pearce amendment to strip 21st Century Fund funding from the bill (correcting a drafting error - they'll be putting it in SB1003).
Aguirre votes no, criticizing the "cuts only" attitude of the Senate.
Gould votes no, no explanation.
Rios criticizes the emphasis on cutting DES and Education, votes no.
Passes 5-4.
SB1002. K-12 budget reconciliation. Hale offers amendment to allow schools receiving federal "impact aid" to cover cuts from that aid. Hale explains the need, Steve Pierce explains that he supports the intent of the amendment, but will be voting against all amendments...except for those that he votes for, like the amendment of the previous bill. Russell Pearce thinks that it is unfair that the schools that receive the impact aid have money that the other schools in the state don't have. Hale points out that the money is given to districts that don't have the benefits of revenue from property taxes. Gould sounds like he might actually support this one, but I'm not sure. Rios points out that the amendment would have no fiscal impact on Arizona. Harper says that he won't be voting against the amendment out of spite or partisanship, but because he pledged to vote the budget package through without amendments. Even though there will be amendments added by Republican members.
Amendment fails via voice vote.
Shocking, ain't it?
Harper, talking about the underlying bill, gripes about "maintenance of effort" in fed stimulus and the restrictions of "citizens initiatives." Pearce admonishes people that the state is "on the verge of insolvency."
Voting -
Aguirre votes yes, because cuts are necessary though painful. Wants to address revenues.
Sylvia Allen wants to "reform" programs, better known as making the neediest members of society pay for any help they receive. Votes yes.
Rios talks about reining in tuition tax credits to cover cuts. Points to Allen's "reform" call, and recommends reforming STOs. Votes nay.
Passes 6-3.
SB1003, general revenues. Includes fee increase authorization and other stuff. Two amendments. Pearce amendment to add 21st Century Fund money, and to force counties to use all available money to transfer to state's general fund. This one is targeted to protecting the excess funds under the control of Joe Arpaio.
Harper gripes about "cash flow" issues, and suspending employer contributions to state employees' pension funds.
Steve Pierce announces he will vote against both amendments. Even though he supported the amendment stripping the funding from SB1001.
Russell Pearce says that law enforcement supports his county-related amendment.
Steve Pierce now announces that he will support the 21st Century Fund fix.
Gould criticizes the whole process for "opaqueness", calls it a "cocktail napkin plan."
Harper doesn't think that Science Foundation Arizona has the money "coming to them"...even though a judge says that they do.
Gould says that they should fight it, like they've fought funding for ELL.
Sylvia Allen - "It's hell if you do, hell if you don't" and then worries that she might have cursed or something.
Division called on amendment vote, by Gould. Amendment passes 6-2, 3 not voting.
Second Pearce amendment, to protect Arpaio.
Rios questions hypocrisy about the Rs opposing the Hale amendment on the previous bill that didn't affect state funds, but supporting this one, which would.
Pearce pontificates on the need to protect law enforcement. Calls his amendment a "fairness doctrine."
I thought the Rs were opposed to "fairness doctrines"??
Aguirre is backing up Rios.
A rep from Maricopa County is speaking in opposition to the amendment.
They're still blathering on about this...
Pearce gets a note from three unnamed members of the MCBOS, assuring him that they will be fair. Pearce withdraws amendment.
Harper, on the underlying bill, criticizes the "abandoned property" time reduction to three years on traveler's checks. Pearce promises that it will be addressed in the next special session.
SB1003 passes 7-2, Gould opposing, calls fees a tax on business.
SB1004, anti-deficiency statutes.
The realtors and bankers support this one; the homebuilders are hesitant about some of the language (spec sales).
Bill passes 9-0. Meeting adjourns.
On to Senate Rules, which I won't be covering. And probably wouldn't even if I was at the Capitol today - they're usually really boring.
Later...
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Is Shadegg channelling his inner Hayworth?
We'll know for certain if Shadegg announces his retirement from Congress in order to start a career in talk radio (not that Hayworth had any real choice about the timing of his retirement from Congress :)) )...
From the Phoenix New Times -
Video below -
From the Phoenix New Times -
Congressman John Shadegg's theatrics on the floor of the House of Representatives are becoming almost legendary. By legendary, we mean borderline insane.The passage in the Congressional Record can be found here (first column, second complete paragraph).
Just over a week ago, the congressman brought a 7-month-old baby named Maddie to the floor with him to illustrate his outrage over the healthcare bill.
{snip}
While addressing members of Congress about the Justice Department's decision to try suspected 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and his Al Qaeda cronies in New York City, Shadegg had this to say:
"I saw the mayor of New York today. He said 'we're tough; we can do it.' Well mayor, how are you going to feel when it's your daughter that's kidnapped at school by a terrorist? How are you going to feel when it's some clerk -- some innocent clerk of the court -- whose daughter or son is kidnapped? Or the jailer's little brother or little sister?"
Video below -
Special session: summary thus far
They didn't actually do much today, so this recap will be brief -
1. The Governor finally issued the official call for a special session of the legislature. The paperwork authorizing the 3 p.m. opening made it over to the lege a little before 1 p.m.
2. Both chambers then met, recited a prayer, the pledge of allegiance, and then adjourned.
3, The Senate will return to session on Wednesday at 9:30 a.m. There are four bills to be considered - SB1001, SB1002, SB1003, and SB1004. No agenda for a meeting of the Senate's Appropriations Committee has been posted yet, but one is expected for tomorrow.
My guess regarding the ambiguity of the Senate's schedule has to do with gathering enough votes to pass anything - while the House bills all have sponsors like House Approps chair John Kavanagh and cosponsors from the ranks of the Republican leadership in the House, all of the Senate bills were dropped under the name of Bob Burns, the Senate President, and have no cosponsors listed.
The rumor circulating at the lege today was that the Senate did, in fact, have enough votes to pass the bills, but those may not be locked in.
We could be looking at another roller coaster ride type of week...
4. The House will return to session on Thursday at 10 a.m. House Approps will meet at 8 a.m. in HHR1. They will consider HB2001 (General Appropriations); HB2002 (K-12 Education Budget Reconciliation); HB2003 (General Revenues); and HB2004 (Anti-deficiency statutes; property).
Assuming that the Senate vote goes according to the plans of the Republican leadership, the bills should all pass on Thursday.
However, given the events of the past few months, that may be an overly ambitious assumption.
KTVK-TV coverage here; EV Tribune coverage here. I'd link to the AZ Rep's coverage, but it's all of three sentences.
Later...
1. The Governor finally issued the official call for a special session of the legislature. The paperwork authorizing the 3 p.m. opening made it over to the lege a little before 1 p.m.
2. Both chambers then met, recited a prayer, the pledge of allegiance, and then adjourned.
3, The Senate will return to session on Wednesday at 9:30 a.m. There are four bills to be considered - SB1001, SB1002, SB1003, and SB1004. No agenda for a meeting of the Senate's Appropriations Committee has been posted yet, but one is expected for tomorrow.
My guess regarding the ambiguity of the Senate's schedule has to do with gathering enough votes to pass anything - while the House bills all have sponsors like House Approps chair John Kavanagh and cosponsors from the ranks of the Republican leadership in the House, all of the Senate bills were dropped under the name of Bob Burns, the Senate President, and have no cosponsors listed.
The rumor circulating at the lege today was that the Senate did, in fact, have enough votes to pass the bills, but those may not be locked in.
We could be looking at another roller coaster ride type of week...
4. The House will return to session on Thursday at 10 a.m. House Approps will meet at 8 a.m. in HHR1. They will consider HB2001 (General Appropriations); HB2002 (K-12 Education Budget Reconciliation); HB2003 (General Revenues); and HB2004 (Anti-deficiency statutes; property).
Assuming that the Senate vote goes according to the plans of the Republican leadership, the bills should all pass on Thursday.
However, given the events of the past few months, that may be an overly ambitious assumption.
KTVK-TV coverage here; EV Tribune coverage here. I'd link to the AZ Rep's coverage, but it's all of three sentences.
Later...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)