The "No S#!t Sherlock" Headline Of The Day

And while I am highlighting something from the Arizona Republic, I'm not criticizing them - some days, I think that it takes complete bluntness to get the message through.

From the Rep -

Valley parents upset by larger class sizes due to budgets

The effects of the state's budget crisis are showing up inside packed classrooms in Scottsdale and Fountain Hills.

As school started Aug. 9, the two districts had larger class sizes in every grade, including kindergarten classes of 27 to 30 children.

Some Scottsdale parents became alarmed the week before school started, meeting with district administrators to express their concerns. In Fountain Hills, a group of parents addressed the governing board at its meeting last week.

OK, I'm going to stereotype a little here, but given that the "upset parents" in the article are from Scottsdale and Fountain Hills, they are likely to be Republicans or Republican-leaning independents*, and have wholly embraced the R ideology of "cut MY taxes no matter what the cost!  Everybody knows that teachers and people on state assistance are just leeches!"

Now that they find out that the "cost" of the tax cuts, the costs that they didn't worry about, actually impacts them, they get upset.

Welcome to the real world. 


You get what you pay for, and if you  pay for crap, you get crap.


*Scottsdale: Rs outnumber Ds by 20 percentage points; Fountain Hills: Rs have a 26 percentage point advantage.  In \both municipalities, Independents outnumber Ds, though Ds and Is combined outnumber Rs. (Source: Maricopa County Recorder's Office)

BTW - I've heard anecdotally that activity fees, even general ones that aren't related to a specific sport or something similar, are way up this year, resulting in a lot of parents with sticker shock.  Unless more Democrats are elected to the legislature and Terry Goddard wins the race for Governor, expect more increases in both direct fees and class sizes.

FEC Reports - Congressional primary races

Some of these are eye-opening...

All info courtesy the website of the Federal Election Commission, reporting period 7/1/2010 thru 8/4/2010 (three weeks before the primary)...

In order of interest to me (call it "blogger's privilege" or something :) ) -

CD5

Schweikert: $225529.45 cash on hand, raised slightly less than $36K during the period, spent over $244K.  Debt of $500K (to himself).

Ward: $172944.21 on hand, raised $28657, spent $264K, $315548.83 in debt.

Bitter Smith: $48454.60 on hand, raised less than $20K, spent slightly less than $83K, $81329.02 debt.

Salvino: $27.6K on hand, raised less than $10K, spent more than $91K, debt of $210958.04.

Spinks: $41.82 cash on hand (not "41.82K" but forty-one dollars and eighty-two cents), raised $170, spent $557, no debt.

Gentry:  I couldn't find a report for the most recent reporting period.

Analysis*: It isn't over per se, but Salvino, Spinks and Gentry are toast, and Bitter Smith is on life support.  Ward has a shot, but Schweikert seems to think he has it wrapped up, and is coasting a little, ticking off supporters of some of the other candidates.

These folks seem to be Republican B-teamers - perennial wannabes looking for one last shot at glory or carpetbaggers looking for a district where they can buy a nomination.  Not talking smack here, one of these folks could move up to A-team status (Bitter Smith and Schweikert have held offices before, and Ward has access to cash), but they've got it to prove.


CD3

Crump: Less than $7300 on hand, raised $11456, spent slightly over $17K.  No debt.

Gorman: Less than $26K on hand, raised $14K, spent $5371.  No debt.

Morris: Slightly more than $40K on hand, raised $16K, spent $74K, $50K debt.

Moak: $121K on hand, raised a little more than $15K, spent more than $577K.  Debt of more than $592K ($300K in this period alone).

Parker: $63K on hand, raised $36K, spent $123K, debt of $26431.60.

Quayle: $429K on hand, raised $218K, spent $473K, $1223 debt.

Waring: $29.5K on hand, raised $17K, spent $81K, debt of $41K.

Winkler: $24.5K on hand, raised $5225, spent $8253, no debt.

I cannot find reports for the other candidates (Branch, Hull).

Analysis*: Based on the money numbers, the race is between Quayle (tapping Daddy's friends for cash) and Moak (placing a big bet on his own candidacy), but Parker, Waring, Gorman, and Morris still have a heartbeat.  In a free-for-all like this one, money for mailers and ad buys may not mean as much as an effective street-level GOTV machine.  Crump, Winkler, Branch, and Hull are done.  Quayle should be just as done after his recent gaffes, but Daddy's money and name may purchase some short memories among GOP primary voters.

Probably the strongest set of candidates that the GOP has fielded this year (3 former legislators, 2 former mayors, 1 son of a former USVP, a well-funded businessman, and Morris, who is moderate, female, intelligent, articulate, attractive, Jewish, and Cuban.  In Florida, they'd have already cancelled the election and administered the oath of office to her, but in AZ she'll be lucky to break out of single digits), but they are slicing each other to ribbons and whittling down the funds that donors will have available in the general election.  Look for lots of independent expenditures from GOP-friendly groups as they try to retain this seat in the general.


CD8

Paton: almost $187K on hand, raised $46K, spent $146K, debt of slightly less than $13K.

Kelly: almost $79K on hand, raised $78K, spent $159K, no debt.

The other candidates have dropped out or haven't filed reports that I can find.

Analysis*:  This race could be the one to watch - Paton is the candidate of the GOP "establishment" and may be the better general election candidate, but Kelly has enough Tea Party support to pull the upset, and enough cash to make a last minute push.


CD7

McClung: $15K on hand, raised slightly less than $11K, spent slightly less than $18K, debt of $2300.

Myers: more than $23K on hand, raised $1820, spent $56K, debt of more than $95K.

I couldn't find reports for the other candidates. 

Analysis*: The top GOP candidates to unseat Raul Grijalva raised less than $13K between them.  Candidates who are toast in other districts were able to raise more.  Any other questions? 


CD1

Bowers: A little more than $10K on hand, raised $11K, spent a little less than $15K, no debt.

Gosar: Nearly $41K on hand, raised slightly less than $40K, spent $130K, no debt.

Hay: More than $116K on hand, raised $32K, spent $60K, debt of $100K.

Jensen: Reporting $1195 cash on hand on the summary page, but also reports $1595 raised and $1595 spent.  Hand-written reports, wife or other relative as treasurer.  'Nuff said.

Mehta: Less than $2600 on hand, raised $7300, spent $25K, debt of slight less than $11K.

I could not locate reports for the other candidates.

Analysis*: Hay's got the cash, Gosar seems to have the momentum.  Hay may be holding on to the cash to pay down her debt after the primary.  If the CD5 Rs are B-teamers, these folks are C- and D- teamers.


CD4

Contreras: $2500 on hand, raised $6800, spent $4300, $25K in debt.

Penalosa hasn't filed a report that I could find, but his July report showed numbers in line with Contreras'.

Analysis*: Either one could win the R nomination, though considering that incumbent Ed Pastor has $1.5 million on hand, I'm not sure that qualifies as a good thing for whichever one wins the nod. 


CD2

Black reports $69 (not $69000 or even $6900, but *$69.00* cash on hand in his quest to unseat fellow Republican Franks (cash on hand of $69K).


CD6

Smith reports cash on hand of $5593 in his quest to unseat fellow Republican Flake (almost $800K on hand).

Analysis*: Both Franks and Flake face primary challenges from the right, of all places, but other than the hardcore Tea Party types, no one can say (with a straight face, anyway) that Franks and Flake are "too liberal" to be "good" Republicans.  The lack of financial support for the upstarts indicates that both are safe from serious intra-GOP challenges.

Key:  "Analysis*" equals "opportunity to let loose a little snark."

Note: The candidates who didn't file reports that I could locate are all long shots anyway, so I'm not worrying about them.  If one of them pulls out a primary victory, I'll eat my computer**.

** = Not really.  I will admit to making a mistake, however.  Call it "eating crow instead of a computer."

Note2: I didn't really cover the Democratic races because there aren't any primary races for Congressional seats.

The prison escape and passing the blame

Hat tip to Donna at Democratic Diva for unearthing this nugget...

In the aftermath of the abysmal failure of one of Arizona's privately-run prisons to protect Arizona (and the rest of the country) from violent inmates (and the deafening silence on the subject from Governor Jan Brewer and the private prison lobbyists "advisers" in her cabinet), one of the Republican themes has been to blame former governor and current U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.  The inmate classification system that allowed violent inmates to be placed in a privately-operated prison meant for DUI and low-level drug offenders was originally created while she was governor of Arizona.

There's only one problem with that.

As Donna found, available on the website of the Arizona Department of Corrections, the current classification system was revised and updated on February 25, 2010.

Guess who was Governor on that date, and had been Governor for more than a year at that point? 

Give you a hint - it wasn't Janet Napolitano.


BTW - the push for privatization continues unabated.  The ADC's website still contains a page for the information associated with a "request for proposals" (RFP) for the complete privatization of correctional health services.

BTW2 - The warden of the private prison and a security chief/staffer have resigned in the wake of the escapes.  However, as they work for a private prison company, I don't know if they are out of the prison/corrections field altogether or will be reassigned to another location within the parent corporation's portfolio.

Short Attention Span Musing

Just a few quick hits for a Saturday...

...Just how crazy/bad does a Republican have to be for Russell Pearce not to endorse him?  I don't know, but apparently Jack Harper does.

...Ben Quayle, one of the gaggle of R candidates jockeying for a shot at replacing Congresman John Shadegg in CD3, received a lot of press coverage this week.  And contrary to the popular saw, not all publicity is good publicity.

First, he denied, then admitted, to writing for a "racy" website, TheDirty.com (at the time, it was called "TheDirtyScottsdale.com").

Then he gained notoriety for airing what has to be the most content-free TV spot of the election cycle wherein he labelled Barack Obama as the "worst President in history."  At no point did he ever talk about CD3 or its needs...or why he would be the best one to serve those needs.

Of course, considering that he recently sent out a "awww, isn't he a great family man?!?" mailer showing him with his kids...only he doesn't have kids, this weeks screwups should have been expected.  Still, with his family name recognition and the vast amount of money from out-of-state contributors that he has access to, he may still pull of winning the R nomination in CD3.

No matter which of the many Rs running in CD3, Democrat Jon Hulburd stands firmly in their way.

...The Parraz campaign is touting some poll numbers in the race for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate.  Their numbers show them behind Rodney Glassman by 3 percentage points, which is within the margin of error.  Those numbers are consistent with other polls, so that is not news.  What is interesting is the data that Latino voters are going for Parraz by a 6 or 7 to 1 margin.  And that Latino turnout is up.

Now, campaigns only release internal polling numbers when they show (or can be spun to show) their candidates' strength, so take the release with a grain of salt.

However, if it is true, especially the part about Latino turnout increasing, it shows a possible path out of the electoral woods for AZ Democrats. 

The Republicans' whole-hearted embrace of the nativist ideals of Russell Pearce and Jan Brewer to gain support in primary races could come to backfire on them in November.

Here's hoping....

...Finally, while the last of the three escapees from one of Arizona's privately-operated prisons is still on the loose (maybe in Montana, though by now he and his cousin/fiancee/drug mule for a white supremacist gang could be anywhere) and Terry Goddard, Arizona's Attorney General and a candidate for governor, has called for reviewing and revamping prison security in AZ, Governor Jan Brewer has been out picnicking "campaigning", with nary a word about private prisons, her administration's ties to private prison operators, or even hearings to look into the failure of the private prisons to protect the public from murderers.

Just another Saturday roundup in the desert...

Tune in Monday for the next stage in the infighting at Maricopa County

More goings-on in Maricopa County...

From the Arizona Republic -

Maricopa County officials will subpoena records that Sheriff Joe Arpaio has refused to hand over to U.S. Department of Justice lawyers for a civil-rights investigation, according to a county letter.


Cari Gerchick, a county spokeswoman, told The Insider that the move is meant to prevent federal officials from taking away funds from the county. Last year, she said the county received $113 million in federal funds; she could not immediately say how much went to the Sheriff’s Office.

"Certainly we want to try to minimize any exposure we have on either the legal or financial front," Gerchick said. "We believe the Sheriff’s Office should comply with the Department of Justice’s investigation on the basis of the civil rights investigation. We don’t know why they wouldn’t comply. And, our letter to the DOJ is to let them know that Maricopa County will assist the DOJ in its inquiry."

The next broadside in the ongoing battle between the County Supes and the Maricopa County Sheriff will take place on Monday when the supes hold a special meeting to consider to consider but a single item -

1. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF MARICOPA COUNTY REGARDING AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Consider an action, if applicable, to adopt a resolution entitled, “Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County to Issue an Order to Show Cause to Maricopa County Sheriff's Office - Joseph Arpaio to Appear and Show Cause Why the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Should Not be Held in Contempt for Failure to Comply with Board Issued Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated July 29, 2010.” (C-06-11-053-M-00)

 
Earlier on Monday, there will be an "informal" meeting with the normally juicy (in a "get the Kool-Aid drinkers worked up" sort of way) topics of property tax levies, but most of the attention will be on the "special" meeting.
 
Wednesday's "formal" meeting of the supes includes an item to terminate early the lease with Wells Fargo, at Wells Fargo's request, for the MCSO offices in the Wells Fargo building in downtown Phoenix.  They have leased space in the Luhrs Building at Central and Jefferson.
 
And as much fun as watching Wells Fargo throw Arpaio out of his preferred, and rather tony, digs in their building will be, that will be nothing compared to the fireworks at and after the special meeting on Monday.
 
The latest Arpaio antics, courtesy the Phoenix New Times' Valley Fever, here.
 
 

Wednesday's Forum For Scottsdale City Council Candidates.

On Wednesday, August 11, five of the six candidates for Scottsdale City Council gathered in the City Hall Kiva for a forum sponsored by the Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce.

The candidates in attendance were Wayne Ecton (incumbent), Linda Milhaven, Ned O'Hearn, Guy Phillips, and Dennis Robbins.

(pictured from left to right: candidates Ecton (incumbent), Milhaven, O'Hearn, Phillips, and Robbins)

The sixth candidate, incumbent Bob Littlefield, had a statement read before the forum to explain his absence.  A somewhat longer version of that statement was emailed to various members of the community, and it was forwarded to me**.  To quote, in part:

Last week Scottsdale's Channel 11 Programming Commission voted 4-3 to allow the Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce to host a candidate forum on taxpayer-funded Channel 11. Although I am running for re-election in this campaign you did not see me at that forum.

You will see me at all the other forums, such as the Realtors forum and the Arizona Republic forum. You may even have already seen me at forums hosted by the Scottsdale Community Council and Scottsdale Healthcare.

But not this one.

Why? Because my participation would have condoned allowing an organization that is guilty of campaign finance law violations to promote itself at taxpayer expense on Channel 11.

Once his statement was read to the audience, the forum proceeded as these things normally do. 

The sponsoring group, the Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce in this case, asks a series of questions focusing on issues near and dear to that group.

At Wednesday's event, the questions ranged from...

Scottsdale's participation in regional economic partnerships (Ecton, Milhaven, O'Hearn supported, Robbins reminded people that would-be partners are also competitors, and Phillips said that neighboring cities "want to get into our coffers")...

Through the various proposed amendments to Scottsdale's charter (Milhaven, Ecton, and O'Hearn have reservations about some of them, Robbins basically supported them all, and Phillips opposes any changes to the way that the "founding fathers" wanted the city to operate)...

To attracting new businesses to Scottsdale (Phillips - lower taxes...and that's it; everybody else was more vague, but to be fair, it's a subject that lends itself to generalities)...

To transportation issues (Phillips - privatize buses and synchronize traffic lights...and that was it; the others basically spoke about things like bus rapid transit and implementing the 2008 Transportation Master Plan)...

And so on.

Impressions: At least on the questions that the Chamber asked, candidates Ecton, Milhaven, and O'Hearn tended to have similar positions.  Robbins, while polished (as befits his status as a former member of the Council), was closer to the current Council regime (Lane, Littlefield, Nelssen, and Borowsky).  Phillips, well, to be blunt, if the name hadn't already been used, I'd label him as a "Not Ready For Prime Time Player."  His responses ranged from "the Chamber is bad" to boilerplate Republican/Libertarian ideology.  He exhibited no understanding of the issues that face Scottsdale, nor did he show any inclination to learn about those issues.  John Washington, an activist and friend of the blog*, thought that Phillips made some good points, but I respectfully disagreed. 

If anyone should have skipped "protested" the Chamber's sponsorship of the forum, it should have been Phillips, not Littlefield.  Littlefield is someone I will never vote for, but I have to give him his due - he can handle himself in the spotlight and can spout boilerplate ideological orthodoxy without *sounding* like he is spouting boilerplate ideological orthodoxy.

*John and I don't agree on much of anything politically, but we can talk civilly about it.  That's unusual in AZ these days.

** I could respect Littlefield's stand for honest and transparency and a candidate not associating with a group guilty of campaign finance violations. 

I could, if he wasn't still part of the leadership of one such group.  Littlefield is a member of the State Committee of the Arizona Republican Party.

Anybody remember Joel Fox? SCA? The 2008 election?  Profoundly sleazy ads? Huge fines?


The candidates' written responses to Chamber questions can be found here.

A video archive of the forum is here.

The City is soliciting questions from the public to be answered by the candidates with the answers broadcast on CityCable11 during September.  Details here.

The City of Scottsdale's Elections Information page can be found here.  It includes info on the various ballot questions that will be before the City's voters in November.

Upcoming candidate forums:

September 20, 2010, sponsored by the Brown Avenue Merchants Association

September 27, 2010, sponsored by the Arizona Republic

There will be others.  As info becomes available, I'll publish it here.


Later...

Romley squares off against Arpaio and Thomas

From the Arizona Republic -

Interim Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley on Thursday released hundreds of pages of grand-jury testimony and other documents showing failed attempts by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas to obtain criminal charges against county officials.

Grand-jury proceedings are secret, but a Superior Court judge unsealed the records "in the furtherance of justice."

The whole article, as well as the attached documentation, is well worth a read.

As is the article in the Phoenix New Times' Valley Fever.

From that article -

Bombshell stuff at a press conference just completed in downtown Phoenix at the offices of interim Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley.


The biggest news was that a county grand jury last March rejected efforts by one of then-County Attorney Andrew Thomas' special prosecutors to issue major felony indictments against Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe, county manager David Smith, and several other county officials.

"This is outrageous behavior, absolutely outrageous, and this miscarriage of justice stops now," Romley said a few minutes ago.

Let's be clear on one thing - the *timing* of Romley's presser was almost certainly motivated by political considerations, at least in part.

Arpaio has been using his vast campaign war chest to fund anti-Romley and anti-Tom Horne (Andrew Thomas' primary opponent for the R nomination for AZ Attorney General) and Romley's primary is less than two weeks out.  And in what is sure to be a low turnout election, many folks are still undecided (statewide ballpark figures that I've heard on early ballots are that roughly 1/4 have been returned at a point in the cycle when normally closer to 1/2 have been returned).

Today's press conference by Romley, who's running a "professionalism vs. blind ideology" campaign against his opponent, the Arpaio-endorsed former Thomas deputy Bill Montgomery, needed to reach out to some of the undecideds.  This does that.

Having said all that, however, let's be clear on one other thing - the *content* of the press conference is nothing that surprised any seasoned observers of the goings-on in Maricopa County.

Folks have known for months and years that Thomas' and Arpaio's investigations and indictments of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and various county employees and judges were more about intimidation and retribution than about justice and truth.

Folks have known that the outside prosecutors who looked at the cases declined to accept the cases on the grounds that there was no "there" there.

Folks have heard whispers about all of this, but now those whispers are documents.

I think that the ideal situation in government is that officials who are relative equals behave as independent yet respectful colleagues.

Right now in Maricopa County, we are seeing a situation where relative equals are ardent adversaries (the Supes and County Attorney on one side, the Sheriff and former CA on the other).

Still, it beats what we had just a few short months ago - County officials who were less "independent" and more "co-conspirators."  And the co-conspirators were something other than "respectful" toward their other equals.

Andrew Thomas has a press conference of his own scheduled for 1:30 p.m. to respond to Romley's information release today.

Stay tuned...

A great pic...

...and one that I shamelessly stole from the Republican blog, Sonoran Alliance.

The owner of a Cadillac SUV (SRP for 2010 base model: $62,495; compare to a 2008 median US household income of $52.029) is ticked off at Barack Obama?

Works for me....

Legislative Republicans put anti-union measure on the ballot, again

From the AZ Republic -

The Legislature Wednesday squeezed one more measure onto the fall ballot, approving a bill that asks voters whether the right to a secret ballot should be preserved in union elections.

The vote was almost entirely on party lines. Two Yuma Democrats broke with their party and joined Republicans to refer the matter to the Nov. 2 ballot.

The votes were 18 - 11 - 1 absent in the Senate and 36 - 19 - 5 in the House.  The final version passed was SCR1001.

The two Democrats who voted in favor were Sen. Amanda Aguirre and Rep. Lynne Pancrazi, both from Yuma (is there something in the water there?)

Sen. Aguirre received the primary endorsement of the Arizona AFL/CIO earlier this summer.  I don't know if/how today's vote affects that.

It should be noted that neither Aguirre nor Pancrazi is likely to be hurt or helped politically by today's vote  - Aguirre faces only token opposition for her seat (no D opponent, 1 Libertarian, and 1 write-in Republican) and Pancrazi is in a three-way race for the two House seats (1 other D, 1 R, and the R is an incumbent who voted for the measure too).

Silver lining time:  As bad as this lobbyist-written (and -paid for?) measure is for Arizona's working families, there is one good thing to come out of it.

It's not an issue that will turn out the Republican base (witness the lack of supporters chiming in at the legislature).

It is, however, an issue that will turn out a significant part of the Democratic base, a part that may not have been totally energized before this blatant attack by Big Business and their pets, the AZGOP.

For that, we should all thank the AZGOP and their unswerving loyalty to their real constituents, corporate lobbyists and CEOs.

While the Governor, her staff, and the GOP caucus of the lege enthusiastically answered the call when the lobbyists called for a special session on the anti-union amendment to the AZ Constitution, thus far she and they have completely ignored the calls for a special session and hearings to looking into the security issues at Arizona's privately-operated prisons.

Brewer et. al. aren't even making public an already-completed security review (2nd-to-last paragraph of linked article.)

They're probably hoping that the remaining escapee doesn't kill anyone else and that the story goes away. 

I sincerely hope that no one else dies for the Rs never-ending quest to siphon public monies into corporate coffers, but there is no way that they should be allowed to skate on this.

BTW - Terry Goddard, Arizona's Attorney General and a candidate for Governor, issued the following statement on this week's developments -

"Jan Brewer is wasting time and money on a special session that is nothing but a political sideshow. This special session will not produce one Arizona job or do anything to deal with a budget that is $1.7 billion out of balance. It does not fix our prisons. It does not fix our schools.


Arizonans are reeling, our unemployment rate has gone straight up since Brewer assumed office. She should be focused on restoring lost jobs, not playing political games.

I call on Jan Brewer to start dealing with the real problems facing Arizona: a dangerous prison system, a horrifying budget deficit, a bottom-of-the pack educational system and a badly broken economy. There is too much serious work to do to be wasting the Legislature's time on this political game."

Later...

And the train kept a rollin'...

Quick update from the special session...

The Republican railroad squeaked a little today, but their drive to put an anti-union amendment to the AZ Constitution on November's ballot is still on track.

Today, they held the Committee of the Whole, or COW, sessions on the matching bills that are before the House and Senate.  COW is where bills can be amended from the floor and actual debate takes place.  During the final vote (aka "Third Read") on a bill, no amendments are allowed and the only "debate" is various members "rising to explain" their votes.

During today's Senate COW session on special session SCR1001, Senator Meg Burton Cahill proposed an amendment to the SCR that would have guaranteed workers the right bring someone with them when an employer tries to "discuss" union activity with the worker.  It would have prevented the one-on-one intimidation by employers that usually takes place during workplace organizing efforts.

When her amendment was voted down (sad to say, but not a surprise there), Sen. Burton Cahill tried to request a roll call vote on the matter.  During COW, a roll call vote is allowed (upon request)* but is not required.  Generally, all matters are decided by a voice vote.

In contrast, all Third Read votes are required by the state constitution to be roll calls.

*Technically, a roll call vote on a COW matter takes place immediately after COW when the legislative body is back in regular session, but I'm trying not to get too technical here. :)

Perhaps recognizing that such a recorded vote could only hurt their members, the Senate's Republican leadership (if it really can be called such) used the time-dishonored tactic of pretending to not see the request.

Even though Sen. Burton Cahill had pushed the call button on her desk, notifying Senate President Bob Burns that she wanted to speak.

Even though the Senate Democrats' attorney was at the dais to make sure that they knew that Sen. Burton Cahill had something to say.

At first, I thought perhaps the Rs' move was intended to hide the fact that they didn't have the necessary 16 votes present needed to pass anything, but a call to the Senate's Rules Attorney confirmed that the 16-vote threshold only exists during Third Read votes.  All other roll call votes require just a majority of the members present.

While not all of the Rs were present (Antenori, Tibshraeny, and Carolyn Allen, and possibly one or two others were out), they still had a majority of members present.  Since no final passage votes were going to take place today, the lack of 16 votes didn't impact anything.

It looks like today's lack of transparency, like yesterday's refusal by House Commerce Chair Rep. Michele Reagan to read the names of those who signed in in support of/opposition to the proposed amendment (and Senate Judiciary chair Sen. Chuck Gray did so in the Senate only after being shamed into by the Democratic members of the committee), was all about minimizing public attention and political damage to the R members of the Senate over their activities on behalf of Big Business and their lobbyists.

Most of the public activity is completed for the day, though there will be a meeting of the Joint Committee on Capital Review at 1:30 p.m. in SHR109.  It is a regular meeting, not associated with the special session.

Edit to add...

Just received a press release from the AZ Senate Democrats.

From the press release -

“In the Senate, we have rules of procedure and these rules should be abided by in order to keep the process fair and diligent,” said Burton Cahill. “By ignoring the light, the Senate President circumvents the stated rules of procedure. I verbally asked to be recognized and was still denied the opportunity to make a motion. If it was a matter of the Senate President overlooking the light, he should have taken corrective action and allowed me to speak. If he saw the light and ignored it, that action is an abuse of our own rules.”

End edit...

Later...

9th Special Session: proceeding according to the script

I thought about doing some live-blogging from the lege today, but that thought was dispelled rather quickly, once I realized that was more effort than this "special" session merits.

Perhaps the highlight of the day was Rep. David Schapira's (D-Tempe) introduction of his and his wife Rosemary's new baby daughter, Elliot (9 lbs 15 oz, 22 inches).  At the pre-session press conference, she commanded the most attention from the reporters in attendance, and on the House floor, at least half of the Representatives stopped by Schapira to meet the state's newest Democrat.  At one point, Rep. Schapira joked that he and Rosemary would name their next baby "Kyrene" and the one after that "Broadway."

If you are familiar with Tempe, you'll understand the references.  Yes, the line was funnier in person than here, and even there it was more "cute" than "funny,"

It was still part of the highlight of the day.

Otherwise, the day was relatively uneventful.


Labor, in the person of Rebekah Friend, Executive Director of the Arizona AFL-CIO, weighed in on the "misplaced priorities" of the Governor and the ultimate ineffectiveness of the measure. 

From an emailed press release -

“As the state faces historic levels of unemployment and crowded classrooms, I find it unbelievable that Governor Brewer would call a special session simply to take a swipe at unions,” said Rebekah Friend, Executive Director of the Arizona AFL-CIO. “The top concern of Arizonans right now is putting food on the table and having a good job, and this special session will do nothing to address those needs. This whole charade shows the truly misplaced priorities of Governor Brewer and Republican leadership.


“This referendum, even with the ‘fix’ proposed, is still clearly superseded by federal law and will have no effect whatsoever. The truth is, this referendum is not about what’s best for the citizens of Arizona. Rather, Governor Brewer is carrying the water of big business groups who want to promote some national political agenda. Unfortunately for Arizona’s taxpayers, this special session and the inevitable court challenge to this unnecessary referendum will only cost the state at a time of limited resources.”

The Democrats, led by House Democratic Whip Chad Campbell, zeroed in on the fact that Governor Jan Brewer called the special session to attack workers and their ability to organize their workplaces, all while ignoring the widening budget deficit, failing schools, rising unemployment rate in Arizona, or the immediate threat to public safety posed by the lax oversite of privately-run prisons.

From the House Dems' press release -

“Arizona is at risk, and we want Gov. Brewer to use this special session to call an investigation into how three murderers were able to escape from a private prison in our state, then reportedly kill a couple in New Mexico over the weekend,” said House Democratic Whip Chad Campbell. “These security breakdowns resulted in people dying, and we need to do something now to ensure public safety and that no others are killed because of the irresponsible decisions of the administration.”

Rep. Eric Meyer noted that in all of the walking and knocking he has done this year, none of his constituents have expressed their belief in a pressing need to inhibit the ability of workers to join unions.

That point was proven by the Republicans themselves -

- A "rally" put on by the North Phoenix Tea Party had maybe 20 people in attendance, including 4 or 5 candidates speaking and 2 or 3 more who walked by to see what was going on (like me).  Pic below.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- Before the House Commerce Committee met to rubberstamp HCR2001, Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Russell Pearce with a Noo Yawk accent), looked at the nearly empty gallery in the meeting room and joked sarcastically about the large amount of public interest in the anti-card check amendment.
 
Rep. Chad Campbell kept up his criticism of the special session during the committee meeting, questioning whether all of the energy could go for naught, as federal law will trump anything the state implements.
 
He actually got committee staff and Clint Bolick of the industry front group "non-partisan research and advocacy group" Goldwater Institute to admit that yes, federal law will trump anything that the state enacts, but only after litigation.  In addition, even if they get totally smoked in a court battle (something AZ should be used to by now), the amendment will still impact those who aren't covered by the National Labor Relations Act.
 
Like public sector and agricultural employees.
 
Like cops, teachers, firefighters, and farm workers.
 
The meeting and its counterpart in the Senate (Judiciary) were both marked by one thing in common -
 
The Republicans on both committees proudly proclaimed that they were there to protect business, and the only people there who talked about protecting *people* were the Democratic members.
 
Of course, the Rs could have been pandering to their audience.
 
Prodded by the Democratic members of the committee, Senate Judiciary chair Chuck Gray (R-East Mesa) read the complete list of those who had signed in to the lege's system in support of/opposition to the new language.
 
EVERY single person who signed in in support was a lobbyist representing a large corporation or industry association.
 
And every single person who signed in in opposition was either an individual (like me) or represented a group of working men and women.  And in an unusual development, the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, aka  PLEA, normally as thick as thieves with the likes of nativist Senator Russell Pearce, came out in opposition.  They support the secret ballot part of the language, but have reservations about other parts of the language that may require them to have union organizing elections for every contract cycle, which is every two years.
 
 
Hypocrisy alert:  The aforementioned Russell Pearce pontificated from the dais during the Judiciary meeting that they were simply referring the measure to ballot to let the "people" speak on the matter, and that nothing was more important than the "will of the people."
 
Funny, but he doesn't have much respect for the "will of the people" - when they approve programs that he doesn't approve of himself.
 
 
BTW - Assuming that the new ballot language is, in fact, passed by the Republicans in the lege and placed on the ballot, the Secretary of State's office will accept pro/con arguments on the question from the moment the lege adjourns the special session sine die (expected to be sometime Wednesday) until 5 p.m. Monday.  There is a fee of $100 per argument submitted.  Any arguments submitted for the previous language cannot be transferred to the new language, but can be resubmitted for the new ballot language.  A new fee must be submitted at the same time as the new argument.
 
The SOS' office will not return the fees for those arguments submitted for the previous ballot language, but expressed gratitude for the money.  Ken Bennett's crew - what nice folks.  Really.
 
BTW2 - In case anyone is wondering why appointed SOS Bennett has so enthusiastically held open the ballot for the special session - the absolute, final, no exceptions, drop dead date for ballot question language was supposed to be tomorrow.
 
He needs to repay the largesse of various industry lobbyists and corporations.  Even though he has run as a "Clean" candidate, most of his "seed money" (max: $140/contributor) and many of his qualifying 5s came from lobbyists and CEOs.  (Check out his most recent campaign finance report here)
 
Not exactly in keeping with the Clean Elections goal of candidates having to get out and meet voters.
 
Only in AZ can the Rs find a way to make "Clean" look a little "dirty."
 
 
Anyway, I'll be busy tomorrow, so I will miss the Committee of the Whole "discussion", but I will try to be down at the lege on Wednesday.
 
 
 

Arizona's Prison Escapees Highlighting Brewer's Failures As A Leader

Tracy Province, John McCluskey, the violent escapees from one of Arizona's privately-run prisons, and their accomplice, and Casslyn Welch, are doing their part to prove the theory that the private sector can always do things better than the public sector can.*

*OK, not really.  More the opposite.

Aside from their escape, from a facility intended for prisoners convicted of DUI violations, and jaunt across Arizona, their escape is a testament to family values, evidence of the effectiveness of the rehabilitation efforts in AZ's private prisons, a travelogue of western U.S. tourism, and a primer in international cooperation.

AKA - Three prisoners convicted of murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, and more, escaped, carjacked someone to gain possession of a vehicle for their move across the state, got some assistance from family (resulting in the arrest of one of their mothers), possibly killed an Oklahoma couple visiting New Mexico, are possibly hiding out in Yellowstone National Park and planning to take their escape/crime spree to one of the U.S.'s greatest allies, Canada.

A statement from Terry Goddard, Arizona's Attorney General and a candidate for Governor:

These dangerous inmates should have never been at a facility intended for DUI offenders. Now they are suspected of killing an elderly couple in New Mexico. I fervently hope they are caught soon, before they commit any more crimes. I urge Governor Brewer to take a long, hard look at her corrections priorities. Recent reports show that some of her closest advisers are paid advocates for private prisons. This kind of personal interest must never trump public safety.


Upon learning about the escape, Charles Ryan, director of the Department of Corrections and a Brewer appointee, was quick to blame staff for the disaster. Instead of blaming staff, the Brewer administration should carefully examine their management and prisoner classification failures that allowed for these dangerous prisoners to be in a lower-security prison. Even faced with a difficult budget, public safety must never be jeopardized.

From 2005-2009, the Corrections budget increased about $77 million each year. Under Brewer's watch, however, the Corrections budget instead was cut almost $68 million, leaving the agency $145 million dollars behind where it should be.

These violent offenders were not an exception in the privately run Kingman facility. Recent reports indicate that 117 inmates at that facility are serving life sentences, with either first or second degree murder charges.

Last year, Brewer signed into law HB 2010, which privatized most of our correctional system and signed SB 1028, which permitted private vendors to operate one or more of Arizona's state prisons. SB 1028 was to include a 50-year contract and an up-front payment of $100 million. Brewer signed the bill, despite a letter from Corrections Director Ryan pleading with her not to. In the letter he wrote, "Undoubtedly, a private company would pay its employees significantly lower wages and provide them lesser training to realize cost savings. This would lead to higher staff turnover, low morale and place public safety at risk."

Yet Brewer still signed it. The Brewer administration has consistently promoted private over public prisons, in spite of the public safety risk. The escape of these two violent offenders makes it clear how dangerous this policy has been. Governor Brewer's priorities are wrong for Arizona.

One of the intriguing aspects of this mess has been the absence of statements from the "law and order" wing of the AZGOP.

One can't help but think that if the escapees had Hispanic names, the likes of Russell Pearce, Joe Arpaio, Andrew Thomas, and the rest, would be raising a deafening uproar over the threat to decent "Amurricans" from those dastardly brown people.

The only thing that has been deafening has been the silence pouring forth from the pro-SB1070/anti-Mexican crowd.

But it must be OK, because Jan Brewer's closest advisers were/are/will be again? lobbyists for private prison firms.

Apparently, crime is bad, especially if brown people are involved.  And just as apparently, profiting from crime is good, especially if politically-connected Republicans are involved.

See? Democrats and Republicans *can* work together on something...

...Too bad the "something" isn't something truly substantive and meaningful in the day-to-day lives of average Americans. 

On anything "substantive and meaningful," the Republicans are still the "Party of NO!"

From the Washington Post -

The Republican National Committee adopted a new schedule for the 2012 presidential primaries Friday, agreeing to a plan worked out in concert with Democrats and designed to delay the start of the campaign season.


{snip}
 
The new schedule is designed to make it difficult for a candidate to rack up an insurmountable number of delegates early in the process, forcing candidates to campaign across the country.


Under the new schedule, no state would hold a primary or caucus before the first Tuesday in February 2012, in attempt to avoid a repetition of 2008, when the Iowa caucuses were held Jan. 3.

Iowa and New Hampshire would retain their status as the nation's first contests, held in February, joined by South Carolina and Nevada.

 The adoption of the new primary schedule is contingent on the Democratic National Committee also adopting the proposal later this year.

Of course, once the rank-and-file Rs find out that something was worked out in concert with the Ds, look for the members of the RNC who voted for the proposal to be denounced as "RINOs" (Republicans In Name Only) and purged from their party.

Later...

New language for the anti-union ballot question

As everyone who pays attention to such things already knows, the Arizona Legislature will start a special session on Monday, one that is devoted not to balancing the budget (which is *balanced* right now, if you consider wishful thinking to be a proper budgeting practice), backfilling AZ's woeful K-12 education funding, or even doing something to alleviate Arizona's unemployment (infrastructure projects, anyone?), but instead to the campaign contribution magnet of an anti-union amendment to Arizona's Constitution.

The special session is motivated by a court ruling earlier this week that threw a similar question off of November's ballot for violating the "one subject only" rule for amendments to the AZ Constitution.

Originally, many observers, including me, thought that there wouldn't be enough time for such a "special" session, as they take a minimum of three days, and the "drop dead" date for submitting ballot language to the Secretary of State's office is Tuesday. 

However, Republican SOS Ken Bennett came to the rescue of his fellow GOPers, pledging to hold the ballot open long enough to allow for the special session.

On Friday, the proposed new language was posted on the lege's website in the form of HCR 2001.

The new language, from the bill -

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring:

1. Article II, Constitution of Arizona, is proposed to be amended by adding section 36 as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:

36. Right to secret ballot; employee representation

SECTION 36. THE RIGHT TO VOTE BY SECRET BALLOT FOR EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION IS FUNDAMENTAL AND SHALL BE GUARANTEED WHERE LOCAL, STATE OR FEDERAL LAW PERMITS OR REQUIRES ELECTIONS, DESIGNATIONS OR AUTHORIZATIONS FOR EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION.

2. The Secretary of State shall submit this proposition to the voters at the next general election as provided by article XXI, Constitution of Arizona.

HCR2001 is scheduled to be rubberstamped considered in the House Commerce Committee on Monday at 3:15 p.m. in HHR5.

It's likely that the Senate will consider and pass an identical version, and one version will be swapped into the other to expedite matters.

While the language hasn't been posted as yet, a bill numbered SCR1001 will be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday.

I'm not a lawyer, so there are probably legal and constitutional issues with the new language that I don't understand, but I *do* see a tactical issue.

"Card check" hasn't actually passed both chambers of the U.S. Congress and been signed into law.  By passing this now (and for the sake of this post, I am assuming that the lege puts this back on the ballot and it passes the voters), the Arizona lege will allow the people in Congress behind the Card Check bills to adapt their bills to the industry-sponsored language that the lege is putting on the ballot.

Having said all that, my guess is that union lawyers are lurking in the tall grass for this one, and if the language is anything less than perfectly bulletproof, it'll get thrown off of the ballot again.

More as the special session gets closer...

Edit to add the comment I submitted to the lege opposing HCR2001 and SCR1001 -

Of all of the problems that Arizona is facing right now, an anti-union ballot measure is the one that is considered important enough to merit a special session?

Where is the special session to address inadequate education funding, crumbling infrastructure, or even the lax oversight of the operations of private prisons (remember the escaped murderers running free across the state?).


Enough. This was a bad measure in its original form, and it is still bad.


No matter what the industry lobbyists tell you, workers are not the root of all that ails the state or even their businesses.


Vote against this resolution, and focus on actually doing something *for* Arizonans.

End edit...

Harry Mitchell vs. GOPer challengers: Public Service vs. Mudslinging and Politics As Usual

Keeping up with the compare and contrast theme of yesterday's post on the call for a special session of the legislature...

First up, an email from Congressman Harry Mitchell on the boring, but near and dear to the lives of CD5 residents, subject of home foreclosures -

Dear [cpmaz],

Our housing crisis is real; it is widespread; and it has reached deep into our economy, affecting us all. Inaction is not a responsible option.


Last weekend, I hosted my second Home Foreclosure Assistance Workshop in Ahwatukee. Arizona continues to have one of the worst foreclosure rates in the nation. One out of every 189 housing units in Arizona received a foreclosure notice during the month of June. That means that over 14,000 homes in Maricopa County alone went into foreclosure last month and gives us the third-highest foreclosure rate in the country.

Arizona Republic: Homeowners facing mortgage woes seek help at seminar.

I have heard far too many stories from people who are experiencing financial trouble, and their mortgage servicers will not take their calls until they are at least three-months behind on their payments. They feel like they are getting the run around and they want someone to help answer their questions. They feel like there is no one on their side.

That’s why I’ve been working hard with my colleagues in Congress to address foreclosures head-on. At the center of most home foreclosures is a house that has lost a lot of value, so I’ve proposed new tax incentives for homebuyers to help stimulate the housing market here in Arizona and across the country. I’ve also backed legislation that would make it easier for folks to get loan modifications when they are upside-down on their mortgage, or to refinance even if they have little-to-no equity in their home.

Foreclosure Prevention & Survival Resource Center: Online center providing links to housing, financial and consumer protection agencies.

But there’s more to be done. I believe we need more extensive tax cuts to help spur home sales and a plan that will avoid rewarding bad actors.

I will continue to fight, tackling foreclosures and decreasing home values head on. I welcome you to call my office with any questions, concerns and to see if our caseworkers can help. As always, please feel free to contact my office by clicking here or by calling (480) 946-2411.

Sincerely,

Harry

Contrast Congressman Mitchell's efforts on behalf of his constituents with the antics of the various GOP "contenders" for a spot on November's ballot -
 
- Perennial candidate David Schweikert is the subject of yet another FEC complaint, this one over a hit piece that was mailed to CD5 R voters.  It doesn't have enough of a color contrast between the background and the "paid for by" disclaimer for that disclaimer to be readable.
 
- Tea Party-type Chris Salvino has sent out a similar hit piece, this one targeting Schweikert.  While the "paid for by" clause is pretty clear, it has other problems, as Greg Patterson at the Republican blog Espresso Pundit points out in this post.
 
From Patterson's post -

The piece is simple; it contains one fact that leads to one conclusion. Schweikert runs a vulture fund that preys on people, so he's wrong for Arizona. That's it.


There are only two problems with the piece and--unfortunately for Salvino--they are pretty big problems. First, the one fact on the piece is wrong. Schweikert operates a fund that buys properties--from BANKS. Hmm, that's not nearly as ominous. In fact, it ruins the entire point of hit piece. Dude, if you build a hit piece around ONE fact. That fact had better be true.

But that's not the real problem with this piece. The real problem is that Dr. Chris Salivino has no business mentioning investors or housing. That's because he opens the door for Schweikert to point out Salvino's disastrous financial history...bankruptcy, fraud, eviction notices and tax liens.

Court record regarding Salvino's bankruptcy/fraud issues here, and like the link to the hit piece above, courtesy Espresso Pundit.

- Ward himself is also sending out hit pieces, as Patterson pointed out in this post from July (Hey, I'm a registered Democrat.  I don't get the good stuff because I'm not on their mailing lists... :) ).  His piece was an attack on Schweikert in the "let's throw lots of stuff against the wall and see what sticks" school.
 
- Susan Bitter Smith, an industry lobbyist when she isn't moonlighting as a candidate for Congress, is the owner of a "consulting" firm that is working to override the concerns of Scottsdale residents regarding the height and density of buildings in downtown Scottsdale.  Either she has given up on winning the R nomination (a possibility) and doesn't mind alienating voters during an election year, or she figures that the campaign contributions she can wheedle out of developers will outweigh any lost votes.
 
During last month's Republican Congressional candidate forum sponsored by the Arizona Republic, something struck me as odd at the time, but I couldn't put specific words to it at the time, so I didn't write about it then. (The archived broadcast can be found on this page.)
 
Watching the mudslinging and disregard for the needs and opinions of the residents of CD5 emanating from the R candidates brought it into focus.
 
The few times that the candidates spoke about Mitchell directly or about what they had heard voters say about him, they said something in a pitying tone, along the lines of "his heart is in the right place" but he isn't conservative enough. 
 
The idea of a public official being a public servant seemed antithetical to their visions for themselves if they actually went on to win in November.
 
They've got no time or respect for people who view public service as an end in itself, not as a means to pursue an ideological agenda and personal aggrandizement.
 
Compare and contrast that with Mitchell's long career in public service, from nearly three decades as a high school teacher, through his terms on the Tempe City Council and as Mayor of Tempe, on to his four terms of service as the State Senator for Tempe and South Scottsdale, cuminating with his election to Congress in 2006.
 
Any questions on who I think people should vote for in November?